The End of Some Good Ideas...

[+Birders]

Having lost one of our micro caches during ground clearance we decided to replace it with a "cache" similar to one we had found abroad. It involved the use of magnetic plastic material with some numbers painted on it which had to be emailed to us to claim the cache. It would have presented a very difficult cache to find.

 

Admittedly, we did not read the guidelines fully and were suprised when our cache idea was rejected. Apparently every cache MUST now have a log book. Obviously there is nothing that can de done about it - "they" have spoken in much the same way as "they" did about locationless caches. We think it's a great shame because some of the very best caches we have done were those without log books - especially the tiny nano-caches which we seen in the UK. They will remain active but you can't lay one any more. We love geocaching and we enjoy swapping and moving TBs around but we also enjoy the occasional really difficult one, for example GCQPCT. Some we did in New Zealand were incredibly ingenious and took a great deal of searching even though they were not even hidden.

 

C'est la vie....

[Nediam]

I've found a couple of caches that have been a magnetic sheets. The way to meet the cache sheet requirement is to put a small cache sheet in a sealable plastic bag and then hide it in-between the magnetic label and the metal

[+Mr'D]

As far as I am aware there is no guideline as to what size of 'logbook' is required. A piece of paper, the size of your smallest fingernail, would presumably suffice?

[+Matrix]

Use the back of the sheet as a logbook but add a needs a permanent marker as a special tool requirement

 

 

mmmm now theres an Idea

[Deceangi]

I've found a couple of caches that have been a magnetic sheets. The way to meet the cache sheet requirement is to put a small cache sheet in a sealable plastic bag and then hide it in-between the magnetic label and the metal

 

It's advisable to use write in the rain water proof paper if you do that

 

As far as I am aware there is no guideline as to what size of 'logbook' is required. A piece of paper, the size of your smallest fingernail, would presumably suffice?

 

Smallest size usable log sheet that I've come across or heard about is about 5mm wide by the length of a A4 piece of paper [strip from a A4 piece of paper run through a shredder ]

 

Sorry Matrix but after discussion between the reviewer community and Groundspeak, writing on the back of the sheet does not constitute a log book/sheet and as such does not meet the requirements for a log book/sheet.

[+The Lavender Hill Mob]

Having lost one of our micro caches during ground clearance we decided to replace it with a "cache" similar to one we had found abroad. It involved the use of magnetic plastic material with some numbers painted on it which had to be emailed to us to claim the cache. It would have presented a very difficult cache to find.

 

Admittedly, we did not read the guidelines fully and were suprised when our cache idea was rejected. Apparently every cache MUST now have a log book.................

 

C'est la vie....

I'm in the middle of planning a puzzle cache which is also a multi. At each multi stage you have to solve a problem or do a task to get the coords of the next stage. To be able to log the final stage you have to solve a riddle which is in the cache, email me the answer and wait for confirmation of the answer before being able to log on the system. I wasn't intending to put a log book in the cache but having read this I suppose I'll have to.

 

So will this still work, although they've found the final cache and logged the find in the log book can I still stop them from logging the find on the web until the riddle is solved?

 

Thanks in advance

 

TLHM

[Deceangi]

Having lost one of our micro caches during ground clearance we decided to replace it with a "cache" similar to one we had found abroad. It involved the use of magnetic plastic material with some numbers painted on it which had to be emailed to us to claim the cache. It would have presented a very difficult cache to find.

 

Admittedly, we did not read the guidelines fully and were suprised when our cache idea was rejected. Apparently every cache MUST now have a log book.................

 

C'est la vie....

I'm in the middle of planning a puzzle cache which is also a multi. At each multi stage you have to solve a problem or do a task to get the coords of the next stage. To be able to log the final stage you have to solve a riddle which is in the cache, email me the answer and wait for confirmation of the answer before being able to log on the system. I wasn't intending to put a log book in the cache but having read this I suppose I'll have to.

 

So will this still work, although they've found the final cache and logged the find in the log book can I still stop them from logging the find on the web until the riddle is solved?

 

Thanks in advance

 

TLHM

 

It's a Mandatory Additional Logging Requirement which means the cache has to be classified as a Puzzle cache

 

the relevant section of the guidelines

 

Caches with mandatory requirements in addition to signing the logbook should be listed as mystery caches. Examples include sending the cache owner a verification codeword found inside the logbook, performing some task at the cache location and taking a photograph, or writing the online log in a format or with content that satisfies the cache requirements. The mystery cache designation assists finders in identifying that something extra is required in order to log a find.

[markandlynn]

Use the back of the sheet as a logbook but add a needs a permanent marker as a special tool requirement

 

 

mmmm now theres an Idea

 

Thats been done.

 

With the introduction of nano caches with a logbook that are smaller than the end of my thumb a cache with tiny logbook can be hidden almost anywhere.

 

Now hiding an ammo box or something large in plain sight can take some doing.

[+Matrix]

 

Sorry Matrix but after discussion between the reviewer community and Groundspeak, writing on the back of the sheet does not constitute a log book/sheet and as such does not meet the requirements for a log book/sheet.

 

DOH !!!!!!!!

 

 

Smallest size usable log sheet that I've come across or heard about is about 5mm wide by the length of a A4 piece of paper [strip from a A4 piece of paper run through a shredder ]

 

So if I stick a piece of rite in the rain® paper on the back thats OK then

[+Matrix]

 

Now hiding an ammo box or something large in plain sight can take some doing.

 

 

I am just waiting for the wall to be finished see here

 

[+microphonemark]

Smallest size usable log sheet that I've come across or heard about is about 5mm wide by the length of a A4 piece of paper [strip from a A4 piece of paper run through a shredder ]

 

I own one slightly smaller than that, but along the same lines. I advise cachers bring their own, sharp, pencil for it!

 

Regarding log-less caches: I don't believe it detracts from the overall experience, but if there were to be a log 'book', it should be big enough to write on. People don't seem to have trouble writing on mine, but if the log was thumbnail size, it would require a lot of maintenance to ensure it didn't fill up.

 

Of course, the best log books are the large ones in sunny corners (see the New Forest) that I can ramble in!

[+Team Sieni]

GCM4YE Reigate Mini Multi Ramble is a (rather good) multi with a stage that is a cunningly hidden magnetic plate with something written on it. Not a log book in sight (until you get to the final of course ).

[+The Lavender Hill Mob]

 

It's a Mandatory Additional Logging Requirement which means the cache has to be classified as a Puzzle cache

 

the relevant section of the guidelines

 

Caches with mandatory requirements in addition to signing the logbook should be listed as mystery caches. Examples include sending the cache owner a verification codeword found inside the logbook, performing some task at the cache location and taking a photograph, or writing the online log in a format or with content that satisfies the cache requirements. The mystery cache designation assists finders in identifying that something extra is required in order to log a find.

OK, to clarify..........so as long as I put a log book in the final cache, clasify it as a puzzle cache (which I was going to do) I can delete their log on the system if they haven't solved the riddle?

[+Birders]

<<Sorry Matrix but after discussion between the reviewer community and Groundspeak, writing on the back of the sheet does not constitute a log book/sheet and as such does not meet the requirements for a log book/sheet.>>

 

What is the difference between writing on the back of the sheet and writing on the back of a piece of paper which may be "trapped" between a magnetic sheet and a metal object? If these restrictions are the results of discussions between reviewers I doubt the motives of the reviewers.

 

We note with that deceangi - reviewer for the uk - has never found a cache!! We sincerely hope that this person has another name under which they find caches or we seriously question his/her qualifications to carry out the task of reviewer.

[Nediam]

<<Sorry Matrix but after discussion between the reviewer community and Groundspeak, writing on the back of the sheet does not constitute a log book/sheet and as such does not meet the requirements for a log book/sheet.>>

 

What is the difference between writing on the back of the sheet and writing on the back of a piece of paper which may be "trapped" between a magnetic sheet and a metal object? If these restrictions are the results of discussions between reviewers I doubt the motives of the reviewers.

 

We note with that deceangi - reviewer for the uk - has never found a cache!! We sincerely hope that this person has another name under which they find caches or we seriously question his/her qualifications to carry out the task of reviewer.

Writing on the back of the sheet, even in permanent marker, will eventually rub off. Plus, when the back of the sheet is full you will need to replace it with a new one - much easier to change the cache sheet

 

And yes, Deceangi does have another caching profile with many finds under his belt He is more than capable of carrying out his "task" of being a reviewer

 

Edit:- Check out this link for more info on the UK reviewers

Edited November 1, 2007 by Nediam

[markandlynn]

nediam got there first

 

Here is a micro

 

and here is part of the log book

 

Bonus point for anyone who knows the cache page i got these from

[+G Force]

Bonus point for anyone who knows the cache page i got these from

 

I thought it looked familiar!

 

Home to Scottish Rugby

[Alan White]

OK, to clarify..........so as long as I put a log book in the final cache, clasify it as a puzzle cache (which I was going to do) I can delete their log on the system if they haven't solved the riddle?

I do so hate those words . It's fine to put specific requirements on the logging of the cache, but is it really necessary to be so vociferous?

 

I like to log my finds in sequence. I have no idea how long it will take you to respond to my email (some virtual owners never respond) and I'm not going to wait until I get confirmation before logging it.

 

A much better approach is for you to require that the answer be emailed within a certain timeframe of the online log, and question the finder when it doesn't arrive.

[+mongoose39uk]

<<Sorry Matrix but after discussion between the reviewer community and Groundspeak, writing on the back of the sheet does not constitute a log book/sheet and as such does not meet the requirements for a log book/sheet.>>

 

What is the difference between writing on the back of the sheet and writing on the back of a piece of paper which may be "trapped" between a magnetic sheet and a metal object? If these restrictions are the results of discussions between reviewers I doubt the motives of the reviewers.

 

We note with that deceangi - reviewer for the uk - has never found a cache!! We sincerely hope that this person has another name under which they find caches or we seriously question his/her qualifications to carry out the task of reviewer.

 

Chill a little, Mancunian Pyrocacher (Decangi) has found a few caches over the last few years.

[+Birders]

We're relieved to hear that deceangi does caching, albeit under another name - but why the secrecy? I think lots of people are losing sight of the fact that this is a game and should not be taken too seriously with strict rules and "secret" reviewers. All getting a bit Pythonesque we feel.

[+mongoose39uk]

If you read back in the forums you will find mention of all the reviewers caching names.

 

The UK ones are public knowledge if you regularly read the forums. Deci has loads of ways to contact him on his profile.

 

Not all reviewers are open about who they are. Some I believe have had threats made against them so I guess they would prefer to keep a low profile.

[+dino-irl]

There's nothing secret about any of the UK Reviewers (or many of the others either) but it's standard practice to create a new account for Reviewing only.

 

It's pretty common knowledge in this forum who the Reviewers are and what their player accounts are.....in fact there was a thread about it here recently!

 

(Just to point out before someone else does that I'm also a Reviewer covering Ireland under the name Croaghan)

Edited November 1, 2007 by dino-irl

[+dino-irl]

I'm in the middle of planning a puzzle cache which is also a multi. At each multi stage you have to solve a problem or do a task to get the coords of the next stage. To be able to log the final stage you have to solve a riddle which is in the cache, email me the answer and wait for confirmation of the answer before being able to log on the system. I wasn't intending to put a log book in the cache but having read this I suppose I'll have to.

IMO you're creating work for yourself. Why not make it a multi-cache with the penultimate stage with the puzzle? To find the final stage (and sign the logbook) you need to solve the puzzle and calculate something.

 

This will remove the need to maintain emails, police your cache logs and wind people up when you go on holidays or get sick.

 

I personally don't like caches where you have to depend on the owner to email you back as many don't bother

[+dino-irl]

Apparently every cache MUST now have a log book.

It was my impression that all caches would have a logbook from the very beginning and that this isn't a recent move.

 

There have been a host of threads on this forum about people not signing the logbook and looking to claim a find. The general consensus was no log >> no find. How can you log it of there's no logbook?

[markandlynn]

We're relieved to hear that deceangi does caching, albeit under another name - but why the secrecy? I think lots of people are losing sight of the fact that this is a game and should not be taken too seriously with strict rules and "secret" reviewers. All getting a bit Pythonesque we feel.

 

Nowt secret about it.

 

The reviewing account has reviewing tools on it like final location for puzzle caches, unpublished caches in your profile but not listed as available etc.

 

Im sure that when the reviewers go caching locally they dont want the hunt ruined by having all those secret details in the gpx or cache print out.

 

What about the fact that they could be FTF on every UK cache ?

 

Also as reviewers they have rules etc to follow if they have a personal opinion they cant post it under thier reviewer account.

 

Occasionally you will see thier caching accounts post something thier reviewing account never could.

 

A point to note is that they are not rules they are guidelines but can you imagine playing any game without rules of any sort. ?

[+Alibags]

I thought that as long as the cache had some sort of physical log that you could sign, then this was okay? I heard of a cache in the USA (I think) which was very small and you signed it on the back (in pencil) and the next finder had to erase your initials to sign it themself (presumably verifying the previous initials). Is this now banned. Perhaps this example is now a grandfathered cache? If the log now has to be a permanent record, does this mean I should not have chucked out any those soggy micro logs that I replaced, but should have scraped off the mushrooms, dried them out and preserved them for posterity?

 

On the related question, if a cache has a mandatory requirement before logging a find, I would be inclined to log with a note, so I can log in order and when it's fresh in my mind, and then change this to a found later when confirmation comes through. Mind you, I logged a virtual once which said 'please do not log a find until we confirm your answers' so I left a note on the cache page and emailed the owners. They then deleted my note (which did not contain any spoilers or anything) and emailed me to say I could log the cache. I then copied the text of my deleted note into my found it log. "*******!" (rhymes with an item of ships equipment).

[+The Lavender Hill Mob]

IMO you're creating work for yourself. Why not make it a multi-cache with the penultimate stage with the puzzle? To find the final stage (and sign the logbook) you need to solve the puzzle and calculate something.

 

This will remove the need to maintain emails, police your cache logs and wind people up when you go on holidays or get sick.

 

I understand the multi-cache with the final being a puzzle but whatever way I do it the final puzzle requires a riddle to be solved. How do they communicate the answer, email has to be the most simple and the answer has to be correct and that has to be communicated back...........I wonder if there's some way of using the puzzle coord checker!! Hmmm.....let me think about it.

 

I've looked at other caches that require Additional Logging Requirments (ALR) , some require a photo of the logger to be posted holding or doing something if not then the log is deleted.........sorry Alan, I work with computers I know of no other way of saying this But at the end of the day if the ALR is not met in whatever timescale the log has to be removed.....OK, there is another way of saying it

[+dino-irl]

I understand the multi-cache with the final being a puzzle but whatever way I do it the final puzzle requires a riddle to be solved. How do they communicate the answer, email has to be the most simple and the answer has to be correct and that has to be communicated back...........I wonder if there's some way of using the puzzle coord checker!! Hmmm.....let me think about it.

I'm suggesting that the riddle isn't in the final cache but a stage before that. The final is a hidden waypoint. To get it you have to solve the riddle. The answer is then used to determine the final coordinates.

 

I did it another way with an old cache of mine (was adopted and now archived) which can be seen here:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...544e8&log=y

 

The cacher had to find an answer and visit a weblink using the answer as a Password. The UN could be the cache GC ID.The displayed page gave the coordinates for the cache in text only to ease WAP use. I think people enjoyed it and I may use it again.

[+Stuey]

Having lost one of our micro caches during ground clearance we decided to replace it with a "cache" similar to one we had found abroad. It involved the use of magnetic plastic material with some numbers painted on it which had to be emailed to us to claim the cache. It would have presented a very difficult cache to find.

 

Rather than waste your good idea, put part co-ords of a final traditional cache on your magnetic plastic material and change the cache to an offset (multi).

[+The Lavender Hill Mob]

I'm suggesting that the riddle isn't in the final cache but a stage before that. The final is a hidden waypoint. To get it you have to solve the riddle. The answer is then used to determine the final coordinates.

 

I did it another way with an old cache of mine (was adopted and now archived) which can be seen here:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...544e8&log=y

 

The cacher had to find an answer and visit a weblink using the answer as a Password. The UN could be the cache GC ID.The displayed page gave the coordinates for the cache in text only to ease WAP use. I think people enjoyed it and I may use it again.

Oh yes I LIKE IT. Thanks

[+dino-irl]

My pleasure

[+Birders]

All comments to us noted with thanks. We rarely come on this forum so that's why we're not au fait with all the peculiarites of the game. Maybe we need to stay in more!!!

[+Happy Humphrey]

Oh yes I LIKE IT. Thanks

So do I. Much nicer than an ALR cache with threats attached.

[Deceangi]

What is the difference between writing on the back of the sheet and writing on the back of a piece of paper which may be "trapped" between a magnetic sheet and a metal object? If these restrictions are the results of discussions between reviewers I doubt the motives of the reviewers.

 

Actually the issue was clarified by Groundspeak and not the Reviewer Community, who voice opinions about such things but the final word comes from the owners of this site Groundspeak.

 

And the Birders are not the only one not to understand or know that many Reviewers have seperate Reviewer/Player accounts. It's something that I personally get queried about on average once a month so much so I have a email template to explain how Reviewers are chosen

 

As to how a Reviewer is chosen, the Reviewer(s) covering the particular area, make a assessment that there is a need for a New Reviewer for that area. This could be due to work/family commitments increasing [you have to remember that Reviewers are unpaid volunteers] or as in my case the No of new caches submitted has increased drastically. They will then review the community members looking for someone who has shown a ability to understand and apply the guidelines, has stepped in to give help and advice to other community members and is someone that they feel not only could they work with [a large amount of consultation about caches goes on between Reviewers] but also members of the geocaching community and Landowners [regarding placement agreements but also to resolve issues that arise. In my case this has also involved working with the Metropolitan Police Service, about caches in sensitive areas in London].

>

> Once such a person is identified, their name is submitted to Groundspeak for their approval which is not guaranteed to be given. The persons name is then submitted to the world wide Reviewer community for their approval, again they might raise issues so there is no guarantee that the person chosen will pass this stage. Only after successfully passing this stage, will Groundspeak give permission for the person to be approached with a request to become a Reviewer, up to this stage the person selected has no idea that they have been chosen as a possible candidate. Even then there is no guarantee that the person asked is going to say yes, several have declined.

 

Reviewers/Moderator Accounts have more restrictions placed on them than Finder Accounts due to the position they have in the community. Something that I believe all of the Reviewer/Moderator community are happy with. Having a seperate player account allows separation, and allows personal views to be expressed

[+Simply Paul]

I've seen 'magnetic paper' used for a cache before now (York Bridge in London) which is basically a thin magnetic sheet with a biro and pencil friendly white face. You can cut it to whatever shape and size, and replace it as easily as a log in a cache. It's a neat solution where a the 'cache IS the logbook' hide is required. I'd assume they'd pass the review process. Emailing the colour of a found nano to be awarded a find has been outlawed for quite some time, but linking the colour to some cords (Green square = ...., Red square =...., Blue square= ...., Green triangle = ...., etc.) would let you make a simple multi based on finding a tiny physical stage first.

[Deceangi]

I've seen 'magnetic paper' used for a cache before now (York Bridge in London) which is basically a thin magnetic sheet with a biro and pencil friendly white face.

 

Sorry Paul but that's now considered Grandfathered In, as stated Groundspeaks ruling is that there has to be a seperate container to the log book/sheet.

the 'cache IS the logbook'

are no longer accepted for publication

[+Mr'D]

And the Birders are not the only one not to understand or know that many Reviewers have seperate Reviewer/Player accounts. It's something that I personally get queried about on average once a month so much so I have a email template to explain how Reviewers are chosen

I recall it was a few months after I started geocaching that I realised all reviewers have their own separate caching identity. I suppose it's kinda cool that there's a semi-secrecy about who's who but, on the other hand, I feel it would be easy to avoid these sort of misunderstandings by reviewers signing their postings (in the forums) with an 'AKA' ...with disclaimer if necessary.

Then we would all know to whom we are talking and where we stand.

Credit to Dec for his email template though

Sorry I digress and now OT

[Lactodorum]

Just in case anyone's in any doubt, Lactodorum caches under the name of The Hornet

[+Mr'D]

Just in case anyone's in any doubt, Lactodorum caches under the name of The Hornet

Ahh... but who's that fat bloke with the penchant for beer then????

[+Eckington]

Just in case anyone's in any doubt, Lactodorum caches under the name of The Hornet

Ahh... but who's that fat bloke with the penchant for beer then????

 

...............definitely a dodgydaved sort of a geezer

[+Haggis Hunter]

Having lost one of our micro caches during ground clearance we decided to replace it with a "cache" similar to one we had found abroad. It involved the use of magnetic plastic material with some numbers painted on it which had to be emailed to us to claim the cache. It would have presented a very difficult cache to find.

 

Admittedly, we did not read the guidelines fully and were suprised when our cache idea was rejected. Apparently every cache MUST now have a log book. Obviously there is nothing that can de done about it - "they" have spoken in much the same way as "they" did about locationless caches. We think it's a great shame because some of the very best caches we have done were those without log books - especially the tiny nano-caches which we seen in the UK. They will remain active but you can't lay one any more. We love geocaching and we enjoy swapping and moving TBs around but we also enjoy the occasional really difficult one, for example GCQPCT. Some we did in New Zealand were incredibly ingenious and took a great deal of searching even though they were not even hidden.

 

C'est la vie....

This isn't a new rule in fact when I first submitted this cache it was in a container that was so small I wanted people to send me the information just like you have said above. It was refused for the very same reasons as you have said. So not new, in fact probably a rule that has been around longer than you have been a member?

 

Bonus point for anyone who knows the cache page i got these from

 

I thought it looked familiar!

 

Home to Scottish Rugby

Bet me to it, recognised the sheet immediately. Sadly got archived last month, was probably the first nano in the UK?

[+The Book Of Shadows]

:D:D

[+Pengy&Tigger]

Home to Scottish Rugby

 

Bet me to it, recognised the sheet immediately. Sadly got archived last month, was probably the first nano in the UK?

 

Nah, we had one out a couple of months before that one here

and I'm pretty sure even that wasn't the first.

[+Haggis Hunter]

:D:D

Something I said??

 

Home to Scottish Rugby

 

Bet me to it, recognised the sheet immediately. Sadly got archived last month, was probably the first nano in the UK?

 

Nah, we had one out a couple of months before that one here

and I'm pretty sure even that wasn't the first.

Stand corrected. I was only going by someone saying well over a year ago that theirs was the first and it wasn't contested on here. I never said anything then, but mine had been out for a few weeks longer.

[+dino-irl]

Home to Scottish Rugby

 

Bet me to it, recognised the sheet immediately. Sadly got archived last month, was probably the first nano in the UK?

 

Nah, we had one out a couple of months before that one here

and I'm pretty sure even that wasn't the first.

Stand corrected. I was only going by someone saying well over a year ago that theirs was the first and it wasn't contested on here. I never said anything then, but mine had been out for a few weeks longer.

Don't see what's to be proud of anyway.....only thing worse than a Micro is........

 

[+Pengy&Tigger]

 

Don't see what's to be proud of anyway.....only thing worse than a Micro is........

 

 

Haha, in hindsight it wasn't very wise at the time. It was the second cache we put out, the same day as an ammo box which is still going strong. We got ripped to shreds at the time for putting out a nano.

[+Haggis Hunter]

 

Don't see what's to be proud of anyway.....only thing worse than a Micro is........

 

I think we both asked for that