update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

[+Ambrosia]

Anywho, for VirginiaGator and others bemoaning the imminent demise in creativity now that they can't force finders to perform stunts to their liking, you decide: Perego's Lagoon (aka The Hula Cache). I bet you can guess the ALRequest..."Bonus points for doing the hula at the cache site and posting a picture." A shocking number of finders have complied with this silliness over the past four years, despite it being optional. Some even made the mile-long trek to the cache carrying appropriate regalia.

 

These people are clearly having no fun at all...

 

 

 

Hey, that picture is from my log! Kboy was sooo embarassed. I think it was the grass skirt.

 

Here's a picture that includes me:

 

 

Of course, I was forced to don the hula stuff. It's called peer pressure. (You know who you are....Wander Lost )

 

And yes, I know the three people...now four, including me.

[+Renegade Knight]

We can only assume that Earthcaches will be the next to go.

 

Why would anyone assume that? Earthcaches are specifically exempt from this new change.

 

That merely proves the change was optional to begin with.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I have some ignored caches to un-ignore now... ...

Any ALR cache that I may have in my inventory still has the ALR's intact and unchanging. My rules override the sites rules.

 

Why? Because I am responsible for the cache. The site is responsible for allowing the listing but even then I’m responsible or the listing itself as it's an extension of the cache.

 

No amount of rules and guidelines in the world can change my responsibility, nor override the obligations that I have on my caches.

 

At this moment I don't actually have an ALR though I do have one security measure. That's off the top of my head. I could be wrong. No doubt a reason for an ALR will come up again and I'll require it and that will be that. Comply or have your log deleted.

 

As the guidelines become more restrictive I treat them like I treat my daughters general dislike for most foods. I feed her healthy things and let her worry about her own dislikes. Same with caches. More than a couple of my caches are listed (and ignored by the masses) on another site because even though I gave this site first option to list they denied the cache. There is a difference between a good and viable cache and caches that meet the guidelines. True cachers, or at least the ones who know what a good cache is can tell the difference.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[cezanne]

Some "rules" given by cacheowner have been useful. I'm planning a cache since 3 months. There I wanted a prove, that cacher won't drive through the forest. I wanted to get a track and pictures per email that prove that they were walking or riding bicicles.

 

Can you help me to protect the forest? Without the possibility of a special rule? Thank you - really thank you *growl*.. I think the cache has died now. I have now no new idea to ensure, that the car will be parked somewhere.

 

If the area you're thinking of putting a cache is so sensitive that it can't handle people going there to cache, why are you putting a cache there in the first place? That already violates the guidelines.

 

The goal is to keep people from driving through the forest with motorized vehicles, not to keep them from visiting the area on foot. Many cachers do not care whether their actions are legal and even less about the protection of the environment. What really hurts them is, however, if they cannot earn a found it log for a cache.

 

Also, climbing is caching, because to complete a geocaching task, you have to get to the cache. Basically, Groundspeak is defining Geocaching as finding the container and signing the log. If finding the container involves boating, climbing, rapelling, mountain biking, walking, running, hiking, [insert other activity here], then that's part of the hobby.

 

What you appear to overlook is that a large group of cachers is writing found it logs for such caches without having having accomplished the climbing, boating etc part. They send other cachers to complete the challenging tasks for them. Many of the ALRs are a result of this trend.

 

In my opinion, a climbing cache where it is required to upload a photograph of oneself at the cache location together with the cache is associated with a much more meaningful requirement than requiring that a cacher has already found at least one cache of each terrain/difficulty combination.

 

It appears odd to me that the rule about challenge caches allows caches where one requires that a finder of the cache has previouly found at least five climbing caches where he has uploaded a photograph of

himself at the cache location while climbing aches where the uploading of a photo at the cache location is required are not any longer allowed. (In the latter case the requirement is directly linked with the cache in question and not with some other arbitary caches. This makes the requirement much more natural in my opinion.)

 

 

Cezanne

[+Team GPSaxophone]

There is an alternative...you can ask people to put on the funny hat after finding the cache and if they want to they can. The only thing that has changed is that you can not require them to do so.

 

Not quite what I meant...

I'm wondering if there was a discussion about enforcement instead of a purge. If one of the motivating factors was that requirements were becoming less and less geocaching related, what was discussed about those that were still geocaching related? So I'm not talking about funny wigs, I'm talking about things like historical monument reading or including "how you honor the wetlands like the one near these coordinates..." in the online log.

 

I understand the new guidelines. I'm fine with it. I know we can all still perform optional extras if the cache owner asks us to. I just wonder how the conclusion to ban was achieved if part of the issue was non location-based or geocaching-related listings...surely there was another side to these "nons".

I've seen it posted in the forums many times that the reviewers are not the "log police" so I don't know if a discussion about enforcement was needed.

 

Making someone write an essay about the wetlands in their online log isn't related to geocaching. Even if you make them write an essay about geocaching, the point is more about writing an essay than it is about geocaching.

 

If you want someone to read the historic marker you've brought them to, it is very easy to use the information on that marker to lead them to the next stage of a multicache. No ALR needed since they have to at least read enough to get the answers they need to find the cache.

[+tozainamboku]

...I have some ignored caches to un-ignore now... ...

Any ALR cache that I may have in my inventory still has the ALR's intact and unchanging. My rules override the sites rules.

Man, are you going to be so banninated.

 

Really, I'd like an answer from Groundspeak as to how they are going to enforce the new guideline. What is the punishment for a cache owner like RK who says he would still enforce his ALR?

 

Prior to the change that required that ALRs be listed as mystery caches, there was no guideline. Cache owners added ALR to caches but there was no official recognition by TPTB and no comment when a cache owner enforce their ALR by deleting logs. Probably only a few cache owners actually deleted logs but the threat that a log could be delete was enough to cause some people to actually do the ALR - and it was also enough to cause some people to skip the cache. I have some ALRs and since I long ago decided that it wasn't any fun to delete someone's log when the change to make these mystery caches came in, I decided to leave my cache pages exactly as I had them. Some have text that say the ALR is optional, other still read as if the task is required (e.g. In order to claim a find, take a fortune and leave a fortune (if you don't have a fortune, write your own fortune on a blank strip of paper). In your log, tell us the fortune that you took.) I think if I changed this to say that the ALR is optional I'd get even fewer participants. The threat of deletion seems to carry some incentive to get people to comply.

 

The change to list ALRs as mystery was supposed to solve the problem of people who find caches without reading the the cache page. They'd go looking for traditional and when the went to log the cache would find it had an ALR that they could or would not do. Sometimes they try to log the find anyhow and if they got an unreasonable cache owner the log would be deleted. So TPTB said "If you are going to enforce the ALR by deleting logs list it as a mystery". That should have been the end of it. I suppose that you might be out caching with friends and they take you to an ALR cache you were ignoring. You signed the log not realizing this and later find out you can't or won't do the ALR. Now of course you have a cache owner who says they will delete logs. They listed their cache as a mystery. I have to believe that this happens rarely enough that nobody is getting cheated. You found the cache. You can post a note and add it to your ignore list. You just can't post a found it log. If your find count is that important to you, add a note to your profile saying you actually found one more cache but that some stupid cache owner is deleting your log because you didn't post a picture of yourself with Groucho glasses.

 

A claim has been made that with the recognition of ALR in the guidelines, that some cache owners are posting ALRs that are no longer fun or have have something to do with the theme of the cache. Instead some cache owners have placed ALRs whose only reason seems to be "What lengths will some cachers go through to get a smiley? I'll post some nearly impossible task or one that is so embarrassing that anyone who does it is surely a numbers whore." Perhaps some cache owners posted ALRs that were so unclear and open to interpretation that they could arbitrarily delete logs. Maybe they let their friend post logs and deleted logs of caches they didn't like. My guess is that a few bad apples left a bad taste in the reviewers mouths. I suspect that guidelines could've be written to let the reviewers deny ALRs that were no longer fun or were unreasonable. My guess is that the fear that this would be another "wow" requirement like virtual caches had, lead the reviewer to prefer that ALRs simply be banned. But instead of banning them, TPTB have decided instead to make all ALRs optional. What has been banned is the deletion of logs by cache owners as way of enforcing an ALR. What hasn't been explained is how this will be enforced.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

...I have some ignored caches to un-ignore now... ...

Any ALR cache that I may have in my inventory still has the ALR's intact and unchanging. My rules override the sites rules.

Man, are you going to be so banninated.

 

Really, I'd like an answer from Groundspeak as to how they are going to enforce the new guideline. What is the punishment for a cache owner like RK who says he would still enforce his ALR?

AFAIK, Groundspeak can restore deleted logs and make them un-deletable by the cache owner. If it becomes a problem with spending enough time restoring logs, they may remove the cache owner's ability to delete them. Of course, if someone logs a cache using profanity or whatever, the CO would then have to contact Groundspeak to have the log removed. I guess it depends on which way would create less work.

 

This is personal speculation - I have no inside knowledge of how they would handle this, regardless of my status as a moderator in the forums.

[Clan Riffster]

What hasn't been explained is how this will be enforced.

All I can do is speculate:

With 764,957 active caches, (as of this writing), I think it's safe to assume that Groundspeak and/or its volunteer reviewers are not going to be revisiting all the existing caches, and instead, will deal with the newly submitted caches, verifying that they don't include non optional ALRs. The rest will be dealt with on a case to case basis. RK may attract some unwanted attention to himself with his post, but he knew that going in. Those gazillions of cache owners who have not read this thread, and are therefor unaware of the new guideline, will be addressed when a finder submits a grievance, or when someone drops a note about a specific cache. I would further guess that Groundspeak's response to a log deletion greivance will be in the form of a polite note to the owner explaining the new guideline, and a restoration of the deleted log.

If a cache owner, after receiving the polite note, opts to intentionally ignore the new guideline as some form of protest, I suspect Groundspeak may take further action, up to and including banning that owner.

 

But this is just a guess. I honestly have no clue.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[+Dr. House]

I think this cache, published Friday, April 3rd is one of the first "suggested ALR" caches published in the world. I, for one, am looking forward to having my picture taken with the funny nose and glasses in the cache. I'm just zany and madcap that way.

 

And it was still fun. And as I look at it, I think everyone states that they've performed the optional activity as requested.

 

Could be that we're just a bunch of crazy canucks though!!

[Radman Forever]

If a cache owner, after receiving the polite note, opts to intentionally ignore the new guideline as some form of protest, I suspect Groundspeak may take further action, up to and including banning that owner.

 

But this is just a guess. I honestly have no clue.

 

Sad enough seeing the reviewers having to go through thousands of caches and making sure they conform to the new changes, I can see geocachers who didn't like ALR caches turning in their neighbors. Groundspeak is a family friendly site and not one that likes banning members for a small infraction, which according to the reviewers, of a rule that suppose to be a small change. More than likely the cache would just be archived.

 

Glad you're not my reviewer.

[+sbell111]

In that case, this change has even less impact than I thought since, as you pointed out, these additional actions were not required by many ALR owners. For these owners, this new guideline changes their cache in absolutely no way.

I don't think I said "many", but if I did, I apologize. But youa re right, if won't affect those guys too much, but those who did really require them might feel their rights as cache owners have been limited in some way.

No has touched anyone's rights. Their authority and power have been curtailed because of abuse.

[+sbell111]

My God, what the heck is happening?

You've got to be kidding. Actually, you're probably not and that is the sad part.

 

Cache Owner = Hide a cache for others to find

 

Cache Finder = Use the information presented to find the cache

 

Going back to the beginning, it's really as simple as that.

Apart from your rude sarcasm, from which was unnecessary, I was talking about common sense and etiquette. It used to not be simple of hide the cache, find the cache, or at least it was before people felt they had a right to do whatever the heck they wanted to do.

 

Here's my example:

 

Cache Owner = Hide a multi

 

Cache Finder = Find the stages of the multi until final stage is found

 

Not

 

Cache Owner = Hide a multi

 

Cache Finder = Bypass stages to quickly find the cache and move on to the next cache real fast

 

Or another

 

Cache Owner = Set up and hide a mystery cache

 

Cache Finder = Figure out the ACTUAL puzzle or complete the requirements to find mystery cache

 

...

 

If the only important thing was to find the cache, then traditional caches would be the only cache out there. Multis, Mysteries, and others were created for a reason.

I think that you are rewriting history to suit your argument.

 

Right around the time your started playing this game, one of my multi/puzzle caches was found by a local cacher. In his online log, he mentioned that he was able to make the find without going to all the stages. Truthfully, I was shocked and dismayed for about ten seconds. Then I shrugged and moved on, knowing that I had obviously not constructed my cache in such a way to stop people from taking a shortcut. I never for a moment thought that he was rude for taking the shortcut or mentioning it in his log.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I have some ignored caches to un-ignore now... ...

Any ALR cache that I may have in my inventory still has the ALR's intact and unchanging. My rules override the sites rules.

Man, are you going to be so banninated.

 

Really, I'd like an answer from Groundspeak as to how they are going to enforce the new guideline. What is the punishment for a cache owner like RK who says he would still enforce his ALR?...

 

Corporal punishment is a bit much. We owners make this site possible. Do you really think that Groundspeak places all those caches? They list them and they are very clear that, that is the service they provide. There is a reason that I don't have to pay to list my cache, and there is a reason that I do pay for the convenicne of how they are listed and accessable.

 

Team Sax does make a valid point. This site can take ownership of my cache and decide who can and can't log. Naturally the more they take ownwership the more they are actually responsble for the cache itself. Legally it's really not in their interest to do this. Merely to create a guideline about what they will list.

[+hydnsek]

Am I correct in that all ALR-related caches are now being relegated to the mystery/puzzle cache category? That looks like a simple change.

Are you being silly, or did you not read the OP, which says just the opposite?

 

Additional Logging Requirements are no longer allowed.

(snip)

Caches with an optional task retain the same type as they would without the optional task. If your cache was listed as "Mystery" solely because of the ALR, then, once you have changed the wording to remove the ALR altogether or change it into an optional simple task, please contact your reviewer to have the cache type changed to its "natural" value.

[Radman Forever]

My God, what the heck is happening?

You've got to be kidding. Actually, you're probably not and that is the sad part.

 

Cache Owner = Hide a cache for others to find

 

Cache Finder = Use the information presented to find the cache

 

Going back to the beginning, it's really as simple as that.

Apart from your rude sarcasm, from which was unnecessary, I was talking about common sense and etiquette. It used to not be simple of hide the cache, find the cache, or at least it was before people felt they had a right to do whatever the heck they wanted to do.

 

Here's my example:

 

Cache Owner = Hide a multi

 

Cache Finder = Find the stages of the multi until final stage is found

 

Not

 

Cache Owner = Hide a multi

 

Cache Finder = Bypass stages to quickly find the cache and move on to the next cache real fast

 

Or another

 

Cache Owner = Set up and hide a mystery cache

 

Cache Finder = Figure out the ACTUAL puzzle or complete the requirements to find mystery cache

 

...

 

If the only important thing was to find the cache, then traditional caches would be the only cache out there. Multis, Mysteries, and others were created for a reason.

I think that you are rewriting history to suit your argument.

 

Right around the time your started playing this game, one of my multi/puzzle caches was found by a local cacher. In his online log, he mentioned that he was able to make the find without going to all the stages. Truthfully, I was shocked and dismayed for about ten seconds. Then I shrugged and moved on, knowing that I had obviously not constructed my cache in such a way to stop people from taking a shortcut. I never for a moment thought that he was rude for taking the shortcut or mentioning it in his log.

 

Please don't accuse me of trying to rewrite history. I was only stating what I think is common sense. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought a multi and mystery cache were hidden for more than just signing the logs. When you go after a multi, you find the stages that ultimately lead you to the final stage.

 

And one thing you omit from the quote was the fact that I repeatedly said that it was always at the discretion of the owner to decide if someone broke their rules or they just don't care. When one owner is a little more strict, another is a little more lax. That used to be an owner's right.

[+hydnsek]

I think this cache, published Friday, April 3rd is one of the first "suggested ALR" caches published in the world following this guidelines change. I, for one, am looking forward to having my picture taken with the funny nose and glasses in the cache. I'm just zany and madcap that way.

Fixed.

 

Just in case you missed all those hula pics from the four-year-old cache with the "suggested ALR."

[Radman Forever]

In that case, this change has even less impact than I thought since, as you pointed out, these additional actions were not required by many ALR owners. For these owners, this new guideline changes their cache in absolutely no way.

I don't think I said "many", but if I did, I apologize. But youa re right, if won't affect those guys too much, but those who did really require them might feel their rights as cache owners have been limited in some way.

No has touched anyone's rights. Their authority and power have been curtailed because of abuse.

 

The punishment of all for the abuse of a few, sounds like virtuals all over again. History repeats itself when nothing is learned from it.

[+Tank Hounds]

So all PHOON caches have to have the requirement to upload the picture of the person phooning removed?

[+Renegade Knight]

...Those gazillions of cache owners who have not read this thread, and are therefor unaware of the new guideline, will be addressed when a finder submits a grievance,...

 

Now that's funny. We can have a tribunal where the grievance against a cache owner who is failing to comply with the finders rules is reviwed and a judgment is rendered.

 

You are right about one thing. Cache owners are a dime a dozen and that's why this site can be picky about what caches it wasnts to list.

 

Still there is a balance. Finders pay the bills. Cache owners provide the caches that give finders something to be willing to pay the bill for. This site is the great Web 2.0 (before it was even cool let alone named) site that through PQ's and such make forking over a fee worth it.

 

You need all three to make caching a success. Maybe the ALR ban is the greatest thing in helping keep the balance since sliced bread. Odds are it will blow over and cache owners will still be a dime a dozen. But so are finders. If every finder applauding this new guidline quit today. There still would be plenty enough finders to keep my happy placing caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Really, I'd like an answer from Groundspeak as to how they are going to enforce the new guideline. What is the punishment for a cache owner like RK who says he would still enforce his ALR?...

 

Ignoring how this site would deal with it.

Consider. Every finder before had to deal with the ALR. Why should a whiney butt come along later and thumb their nose at the hard work of the others and who I made toe the line and their reward is to what? Have their log stand as a testimony to all that's right and just in the world?

 

Far better that their "grievance" result in the cache being archived on this site than their log be allowed to stand. My sence of fairness tells me that all should be subject to the same rules. Even if they are silly, and contrived.

[+Rockin Roddy]

...I have some ignored caches to un-ignore now... ...

Any ALR cache that I may have in my inventory still has the ALR's intact and unchanging. My rules override the sites rules.

Man, are you going to be so banninated.

 

Really, I'd like an answer from Groundspeak as to how they are going to enforce the new guideline. What is the punishment for a cache owner like RK who says he would still enforce his ALR?...

 

Corporal punishment is a bit much. We owners make this site possible. Do you really think that Groundspeak places all those caches? They list them and they are very clear that, that is the service they provide. There is a reason that I don't have to pay to list my cache, and there is a reason that I do pay for the convenicne of how they are listed and accessable.

 

Team Sax does make a valid point. This site can take ownership of my cache and decide who can and can't log. Naturally the more they take ownwership the more they are actually responsble for the cache itself. Legally it's really not in their interest to do this. Merely to create a guideline about what they will list.

 

I truly hope you don't believe yourself here. One simple push of the button and poof, caches are no longer there to find. You may then leave them as geojunk, but that hardly means GS is responsible...I believe your name is where it states "owner". So, should there ever be a problem with your geojunk, do you think GS will get a knock on the door, or perhaps you? Think about this before you answer, I have seen cache owners held responsible for problems before. And, if you want to answer with something to the extent of "I'll fight it", you may even win, but at what cost??

 

No, you might think about that a bit....

[+VirginiaGator]

I was also advised that two of these caches should be made multis because the container is some metres away from the cache. The reason they are offset is that there is no good hiding location at the monuments or signage where the coords take you.

 

What you're describing is the perfect set up for an offset multicache, rather than an ALR cache. Doing it the off-set way accomplishes exactly what you want, ie, gets the cacher to the monuments/signs and gets them to read them. Coords take cacher to signs, cache page uses the signs and some questions about them to generate a second set of coords for cache.

 

Regardless, both caches have ALRs that I consider essential to the cache. The point of my caches is to learn a little about where you are. I do not see these simple questions and answers as being optional. The history is the reason for the cache.

But I'm being told the only reason for caching is to find a cache and sign a log. It's not for history, it's not for a collection of cool pictures, it's not for a fun time to be had if you want some special requirement attached to it. Find the cache, sign the log, end of the caching experience.

[Clan Riffster]

Glad you're not my reviewer.

Interesting.

Because I say I have no idea what Groundspeak's response would be to a cache owner deliberately violating their guidelines, and I suggest that they may take further action, that makes me unqualified to be a reviewer in your eyes? I'd love for you to elaborate on this.

 

My thinking is that Groundspeak is a company that has non-employee interaction to their web based service. The interaction of one non-employee has the ability to affect the interaction of other non-employees. Recognizing this, the company created some rules for all us non-employees to play by, such as the terms of service and guidelines. Every other company that I know of, that supplies a web based service with non-employee interaction has similar rules in place.

 

If I owned such a company, and someone violated these rules, (guidelines), I would initially assume they did so because they weren't aware of the change, and I, or one of my associates, would sent the offending party a polite note, explaining the change. If the response I received from the offending party was along the lines of, "Go jump in a lake. I don't give two hoots about your guidelines", then I might take further action. I'd have to ask myself if I felt the violated guideline was a good one. And if, after a lengthy mental evaluation, I decided that the guideline was sound policy, and that it is taking my company in the direction I envision, do I really want someone who blatantly ignores those guidelines affecting those non-employees who do abide by the rules?

 

This makes me unfit?

 

History repeats itself when nothing is learned from it.

Yup! With the demise of virts, Groundspeak realized that their volunteer reviewers were a vital asset that should be protected. Forcing them to apply wildly subjective "Wow" factors to newly submitted virts caused them unnecessary stress. By eliminating virts, Groundspeak learned that there are steps they can take to help make their reviewer's jobs easier. Apparently, history can be repeated even when something valuable is learned from it.

 

But I'm being told the only reason for caching is to find a cache and sign a log. It's not for history, it's not for a collection of cool pictures, it's not for a fun time to be had if you want some special requirement attached to it. Find the cache, sign the log, end of the caching experience.

That's one heck of a stretch. Going from, "ALRs have to be changed to ALSs" to what you came up with is a spin worthy of a politician.

[+VirginiaGator]

• Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.

I apologize if I missed it but has the subject of cache/find history been addressed? For those who are concerned about their numbers, especially their number of puzzles, the fact that ALR cache owners are being required to change the cache designation from Unknown to Traditional (or anything else, for that matter) is going to wreak havoc.

 

One Challenge Cache (which, by the guidelines, isn't effected) here comes to mind: To log a find, the cacher must have a certain percentage of their total finds be puzzles. What happens to anyone working on this challenge?

 

I seem to remember discussions about changing a cache from a Traditional to a Multi, and the stock answer had always been "You are changing the cache history if you change they type. Don't do it." This always made sense to me, so to hear otherwise now directly from Groundspeak is dismaying.

 

To do this "right," the cache should be archived, then re-listed. The only reason I can see to do it this way is to make it not look like the giant cache purge that it is.

Exactly! And exactly the reason I archived my ALR and submitted the exact same cache as a traditional.

[+VirginiaGator]

Glad you're not my reviewer.

Interesting.

Because I say I have no idea what Groundspeak's response would be to a cache owner deliberately violating their guidelines, and I suggest that they may take further action, that makes me unqualified to be a reviewer in your eyes? I'd love for you to elaborate on this.

 

My thinking is that Groundspeak is a company that has non-employee interaction to their web based service. The interaction of one non-employee has the ability to affect the interaction of other non-employees. Recognizing this, the company created some rules for all us non-employees to play by, such as the terms of service and guidelines. Every other company that I know of, that supplies a web based service with non-employee interaction has similar rules in place.

 

If I owned such a company, and someone violated these rules, (guidelines), I would initially assume they did so because they weren't aware of the change, and I, or one of my associates, would sent the offending party a polite note, explaining the change. If the response I received from the offending party was along the lines of, "Go jump in a lake. I don't give two hoots about your guidelines", then I might take further action. I'd have to ask myself if I felt the violated guideline was a good one. And if, after a lengthy mental evaluation, I decided that the guideline was sound policy, and that it is taking my company in the direction I envision, do I really want someone who blatantly ignores those guidelines affecting those non-employees who do abide by the rules?

 

This makes me unfit?

 

History repeats itself when nothing is learned from it.

Yup! With the demise of virts, Groundspeak realized that their volunteer reviewers were a vital asset that should be protected. Forcing them to apply wildly subjective "Wow" factors to newly submitted virts caused them unnecessary stress. By eliminating virts, Groundspeak learned that there are steps they can take to help make their reviewer's jobs easier. Apparently, history can be repeated even when something valuable is learned from it.

 

But I'm being told the only reason for caching is to find a cache and sign a log. It's not for history, it's not for a collection of cool pictures, it's not for a fun time to be had if you want some special requirement attached to it. Find the cache, sign the log, end of the caching experience.

That's one heck of a stretch. Going from, "ALRs have to be changed to ALSs" to what you came up with is a spin worthy of a politician.

That is what I've been told by a charter member.

[+Rockin Roddy]

That is what I've been told by a charter member.

 

Really? Anyone we know? That sure is a wild tale!

[+MissJenn]

I neglected to clarify a detail about Wherigo caches:

Wherigo cache owners can continue to require a completion code via the Wherigo cartridge.

[+DavidMac]

The change to list ALRs as mystery was supposed to solve the problem of people who find caches without reading the the cache page.

 

I think you've touched on one of the biggest problems facing geocaching these days. There seems to be a growing population of cache finders who want to be able to just plug in a bunch of waypoints and go, without any regard to important information in the description.

 

I'm not necessarily saying that the "no description" crowd is the same thing as the anti-ALR crowd or the numbers crowd, but there often seems to be a strong correlation. Not to tread on a slippery slope, but I'm convinced that many of the recent issues with irresponsible finders seem to stem from a reluctance to actually read the cache page first. Not reading the description can lead to cachers getting upset when their finds get deleted on traditional caches with ALRs (new guidelines or not, the log deletions will still continue, even though the cache owner is no longer right in doing so), cachers getting caught in parks and cemeteries after the hours listed on the cache page, cachers parking in the wrong place and crossing private property to reach a cache, cachers not sticking to trails and creating social paths, cachers compromising the location of a container by hunting at the wrong time of day, cachers unnecessarily putting themselves into dangerous situations- just to name a few examples that I've seen.

[Clan Riffster]

That is what I've been told by a charter member.

Yeah, but you've been playing this game for four years or so. You know better.

While caching, (at least on this website), at its most basic could be described as:

• Hide a cache
  
• Publish a cache
  
• Seek a cache
  
• Find a cache
  
• Log a cache
  

You know that each of us, as unique individuals, bring something different to this game, and take away something different from each cache and/or cacher we encounter. If you allow someone else to limit your thinking to the absolute basics, then this is quite likely all you'll ever get out of the game. I have seen many folks who harbor such beliefs enter this game, but they usually only last long enough to have their delusions dispelled. You've already had at least one Groundspeak Lackey, as well as some volunteer reviewers tell you that you are still free to add whatever silly tasks you want to your cache page, so I'd hope this would carry more weight that the single comment you interpreted from the aforementioned charter member.

[+Parabola]

MissJen, or any other mod.

 

I asked a question about one of mine a few pages ago and I'm sure it was missed. I have one multi cache that has three log book's in it. It's a puzzle to start with then a straight forward multi from there. I put in the three log book's so nobody could just get the final location from someone else. I just would like to know, can I still have and enforce the sig of the three log book's to log a find on the cache or not. It's not required to sign them all in the same day as it may take a few trip's to do the whole cache. Just as log as they sign the three log's in three of the 6 container's.

 

I can't split it up into a bunch of traditional's due to it's in an Iowa state park and they only allow 2 or 3 depending on the park's size.

 

Just wondering if I need to take out the extra log book's or can leave it as so. This was just an attempt at keeping people from sharing the final location. So I think it's an ARL. Even thought it's nothing extra if the cache was worked as intended.

 

Thanks.

[Clan Riffster]

There seems to be a growing population of cache finders who want to be able to just plug in a bunch of waypoints and go, without any regard to important information in the description.

While the overall number of cachers who play that way will increase over time, I'm betting that the overall percentage of players who do this will diminish. While I have no data to support my claim, this seems logical to me. When I started playing, there were very few options available for going paperless, and the options that were available required someone a lot brighter than me to figure them out. Our original caching kit consisted of a big binder, stuffed full of cache page print outs. We'd find ourselves near a cache, and have to dig through dang near 500 sheets of paper, looking for the appropriate page. This became a pain in the backside, and was the single driving force in getting us to go paperless. I started with a PDA, which worked great, till the batteries died. Then it was back to caching blind. Then I learned how to add cache type, size and D/T, as well as some of the hint, to the screen on my 60CSx. This helped quite a bit, but since getting the cache page details into my 60 still eluded me, we were still often hunting blind when the PDA died. Now I cache with an Oregon 300, and my wife uses a Colorado 400I, and everything we need is at the tips of our fingers.

 

Going paperless has been an evolutionary process, that keeps getting easier.

[+sbell111]

In my reading, The Anti Challenge Challenge mentioned previously is an ALR but not a challenge cache., since it requires you NOT to find certain other caches. ...

The requirement is still geocaching-related, so it fits as a 'challenge', not an ALR.

So, now that I have to archive my cache (I only have one out of 22 caches that's an ALR), I'm thinking I should delete all the finds on it, then archive the cache. This way we can pretend evil ALR's never existed.

First, you need not archive anything. You may need to merely make a small change to the verbiage showing that the requested action is 'requested', not 'required'.

 

Also, it should be noted that deleting all the finds on the cache would merely force TPTB to reinstate them and lock out your ability to delete them. Why put yourself through that kind of drama?

I think what's implied is that the ban by GS is a Global ban. Now no one will be able to look for an ALR, even if they wanted to.

That is not the case, at all. Any one who wants to perform these requested activities are free to do so. No one's fun need be curtailed.

Here you go dude: "Has geocaching become so numbers hungry that signing the log is the only thing important to everybody???"

Here's the answer: No.

What would be the current call on an ALR cache that was a challenge to find 100 events before logging?

That's a challenge cache and still would be allowed.

I stand corrected.

 

But still, someone has to pay the ALR for a non member to log. So, it is still an ALR.

Actually, not. If you were walking in the woods and stumbled across an ammo can, you could come to the site and log the find without ever having met a premium member.

 

That used to be an owner's right.

That was a power afforded to the owners, but it hasn't been an absolute 'right' in several years.

So all PHOON caches have to have the requirement to upload the picture of the person phooning removed?

No, they would mostly only need to remove the word 'requirement'. Edited April 7, 2009 by sbell111

[+VirginiaGator]

...I have some ignored caches to un-ignore now... ...

Any ALR cache that I may have in my inventory still has the ALR's intact and unchanging. My rules override the sites rules.

Man, are you going to be so banninated.

 

Really, I'd like an answer from Groundspeak as to how they are going to enforce the new guideline. What is the punishment for a cache owner like RK who says he would still enforce his ALR?

AFAIK, Groundspeak can restore deleted logs and make them un-deletable by the cache owner. If it becomes a problem with spending enough time restoring logs, they may remove the cache owner's ability to delete them. Of course, if someone logs a cache using profanity or whatever, the CO would then have to contact Groundspeak to have the log removed. I guess it depends on which way would create less work.

 

This is personal speculation - I have no inside knowledge of how they would handle this, regardless of my status as a moderator in the forums.

You would think that this would be the easiest way to deal with the entire issue. No one can delete any logs.

[Clan Riffster]

You would think that this would be the easiest way to deal with the entire issue. No one can delete any logs.

I'm sure they could write a script for that, but would doing so benefit the company or those who play the game?

As it stands now, Groundspeak tasks me with deleting bogus logs from my caches.

If that ability went away, folks could log finds for every cache on the planet, even if they never left their La-Z-Boy.

That probably wouldn't be in the company's best interest.

[+Dr. House]

I neglected to clarify a detail about Wherigo caches:

Wherigo cache owners can continue to require a completion code via the Wherigo cartridge.

 

Good to hear. I haven't done many, but several people in this area work hard to put out quality WiG's (Tequila, for one) so it would be a shame for that work to have been rendered moot.

 

Perhaps one lost opportunity is another's gain?

[+sbell111]

... You are right about one thing. Cache owners are a dime a dozen and that's why this site can be picky about what caches it wasnts to list.

 

Still there is a balance. Finders pay the bills. Cache owners provide the caches that give finders something to be willing to pay the bill for. This site is the great Web 2.0 (before it was even cool let alone named) site that through PQ's and such make forking over a fee worth it.

 

You need all three to make caching a success. Maybe the ALR ban is the greatest thing in helping keep the balance since sliced bread. Odds are it will blow over and cache owners will still be a dime a dozen. But so are finders. If every finder applauding this new guidline quit today. There still would be plenty enough finders to keep my happy placing caches.

I guess that I am missing your point. The guideline change serves to retain as many cache hiders as possible, not anger cache seekers, and allow cache reviewers to be happier in their service. Your plan doesn't apparently do this.

Ignoring how this site would deal with it.

Consider. Every finder before had to deal with the ALR. Why should a whiney butt come along later and thumb their nose at the hard work of the others and who I made toe the line and their reward is to what? Have their log stand as a testimony to all that's right and just in the world?

 

Far better that their "grievance" result in the cache being archived on this site than their log be allowed to stand. My sence of fairness tells me that all should be subject to the same rules. Even if they are silly, and contrived.

My sense of fairness tells me that those caches that violate the guidelines and are not grandfathered should be archived. Further, that same sense of fairness tells me that the archival should be made by the cache owner rather than to pettily force the company to archive the offending cache.

AFAIK, Groundspeak can restore deleted logs and make them un-deletable by the cache owner. If it becomes a problem with spending enough time restoring logs, they may remove the cache owner's ability to delete them. Of course, if someone logs a cache using profanity or whatever, the CO would then have to contact Groundspeak to have the log removed. I guess it depends on which way would create less work.

 

This is personal speculation - I have no inside knowledge of how they would handle this, regardless of my status as a moderator in the forums.

You would think that this would be the easiest way to deal with the entire issue. No one can delete any logs.

Cache owners should still be able to delete logs for a number of valid reasons. Forcing them to go through TPTB to make these necessary deletions is unnecessarily burdensome, in my opinion. Edited April 6, 2009 by sbell111

[+Parabola]

You would think that this would be the easiest way to deal with the entire issue. No one can delete any logs.

I really don't think that is a good idea. When you submit a cache, you are agreeing to delete any bogus, offensive, or off-topic, log's. This would take any form of control away from the cache owner.

 

Hey, I do police my log book's. No sig=no But I don't go overboard with it. I'll e-mail off the offender and ask if there was a reason why. So far I've only had two that where bogus.

 

Funny pull this off, but still allow someone to log extra find's on caches for temp's. I don't fully understand it. I guess every ARL I've come across was just to add a little something something to the cache for fun. If I didn't like it, than I ignored it. Not a problem.

 

There had to be some sort of breaking point and I'm sure this was a hard decision to make.

[+VirginiaGator]

That is what I've been told by a charter member.

 

Really? Anyone we know? That sure is a wild tale!

Posted on a discussion board by a charter member...

 

"But this is geocaching, not scrapbooking. The intention should always be to find

some sort of geocache."

[+VirginiaGator]

So all PHOON caches have to have the requirement to upload the picture of the person phooning removed?

Unfortunately, yes. It should now be a suggestion/request as opposed to a requirement.

[+Plasma Boy]

sorry

Edited April 6, 2009 by Plasma Boy

[+tozainamboku]

So all PHOON caches have to have the requirement to upload the picture of the person phooning removed?

PHOON caches are allow but there requirement to upload a picture of the person phooning must now be a request to upload a picture of the person phooning. The assumption (though not yet proven) is that most people would be happy to post a funny picture (or is it a phunny picture?) of themselves and will honor the request. If someone simply does not want to upload a picture they can still find the cache an log a found it. That is the only (intended) change.

 

...Really, I'd like an answer from Groundspeak as to how they are going to enforce the new guideline. What is the punishment for a cache owner like RK who says he would still enforce his ALR?...

 

Ignoring how this site would deal with it.

Consider. Every finder before had to deal with the ALR. Why should a whiney butt come along later and thumb their nose at the hard work of the others and who I made toe the line and their reward is to what? Have their log stand as a testimony to all that's right and just in the world?

 

Far better that their "grievance" result in the cache being archived on this site than their log be allowed to stand. My sence of fairness tells me that all should be subject to the same rules. Even if they are silly, and contrived.

I think the people who are happy to see the change are asking for just that. There are people would would like a simple straight forward guideline for when you can use the Found It log. Most of these people are willing to use the signed the log = now you can post a Found It log. They don't consider that the majority of people realize that this is a fun activity, and not a competition to get log more Found It logs than the next people. Even the so called "numbers" cachers who rack up large numbers of find and will sometime boast of this to anyone who will listen, are aware that various cachers (and cache owners) have different definitions of when to post a 'Found It' log. They have always gone by the rule that whatever the cache owner allow and they are comfortable doing is when to log 'Found It'. Sometimes the cache owners seem arbitrary or even vindictive deleting logs. Usually when this happens the logger can work out with the cache owner what they need to do to let there log stay. In rare instances, logger have complained to Groundspeak about a vindictive cache owner. Most of the time, Groundspeak has sided with the cache owner and told the logger that if they are so concerned with their find count being right they can log a find on one of their own caches to account for what they consider a wrongfully deleted log. In a few rare instances, Groundspeak has restore a delete log and told the cache owner to stop deleting that log. And if the cache owner has refuse, Groundspeak has archived and lock the cache page. I'm not sure, but they may have also used bans or suspension to correct the action of a cache owner who has a hot finger on the delete button.

 

My concern with the change is not that Groundspeak feels the game would be better of if Additional Logging Requirements became Additional Logging Suggestions, but rather the wording of the instruction for logging a physical cache. It can be read as a change in Groundspeak policy to now favor the logger whose Found It log was deleted instead of the cache owner. This results in a big shot in the arm for those that insist that the Found It log is some kind of legal statement that you actually signed the physical log book. Those who take a broader stance on when they post 'Found It' are already ridiculed by the puritans and I don't think this will happen more because of the change. However, IMO, the idea the Found It log should mean anything more than the person felt comfortable using this log type and the cache owner did not object, detracts from the point of the activity which is to go out an have fun. It now becomes an ALR that you must meet the puritan definition of a find in order to use the Found It log. Any additional instructions from the cache owner to do more is not allowed and any cache owner that allows less is likely to be in the target of the puritans for the next change.

[+Plasma Boy]

I stand corrected.

 

But still, someone has to pay the ALR for a non member to log. So, it is still an ALR.

 

Actually, not. If you were walking in teh woods and stumbled across an ammo can, you could come to the saite and log the find without ever having met a premium member.

 

 

I have been caching for a number of years now and I have been walking in the woods all my life. I have never stumbled across a cache.

 

How many times have you stumbled across a cache you were not looking for. The only way to find an undocumented cache is if you are with someone who has the coords. In this case that person would need to have paid for a premium Membership

Edited April 6, 2009 by Plasma Boy

[+Team GPSaxophone]

MissJen, or any other mod.

 

I asked a question about one of mine a few pages ago and I'm sure it was missed. I have one multi cache that has three log book's in it. It's a puzzle to start with then a straight forward multi from there. I put in the three log book's so nobody could just get the final location from someone else. I just would like to know, can I still have and enforce the sig of the three log book's to log a find on the cache or not. It's not required to sign them all in the same day as it may take a few trip's to do the whole cache. Just as log as they sign the three log's in three of the 6 container's.

 

I can't split it up into a bunch of traditional's due to it's in an Iowa state park and they only allow 2 or 3 depending on the park's size.

 

Just wondering if I need to take out the extra log book's or can leave it as so. This was just an attempt at keeping people from sharing the final location. So I think it's an ARL. Even thought it's nothing extra if the cache was worked as intended.

 

Thanks.

I touched on multicaches in another post, but I'll restate it. The guidelines don't really address "cheaters" (people handing out coordinates to the final stage of a multi or puzzle). If your multicache is intended to have people hike a certain distance, then the final needs to be the furthest stage from the trailhead/parking area. This way, even if someone skips the intermediate stages, they still have to hike the distance you want them to in order to find the cache. There is no way to guarantee that cachers will visit each stage, but I think most cachers are honest enough to do your cache the way you intended.

[+JohnE5]

So could I place a puzzle cache with a placement date of 1 April 2009 and ask finders to log their find date only as 1 April?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

So could I place a puzzle cache with a placement date of 1 April 2009 and ask finders to log their find date only as 1 April?

Nope...that would be an ALR and those are not allowed, regardless of the date the cache was published (existing ALRs were not grandfathered)

[+ShowStop]

So could I place a puzzle cache with a placement date of 1 April 2009 and ask finders to log their find date only as 1 April?

Only as an optional request.

[+VirginiaGator]

That is what I've been told by a charter member.

Yeah, but you've been playing this game for four years or so. You know better.

While caching, (at least on this website), at its most basic could be described as:

• Hide a cache
  
• Publish a cache
  
• Seek a cache
  
• Find a cache
  
• Log a cache
  

You know that each of us, as unique individuals, bring something different to this game, and take away something different from each cache and/or cacher we encounter. If you allow someone else to limit your thinking to the absolute basics, then this is quite likely all you'll ever get out of the game. I have seen many folks who harbor such beliefs enter this game, but they usually only last long enough to have their delusions dispelled. You've already had at least one Groundspeak Lackey, as well as some volunteer reviewers tell you that you are still free to add whatever silly tasks you want to your cache page, so I'd hope this would carry more weight that the single comment you interpreted from the aforementioned charter member.

Yup, and all the little quircks, nuances, requirements have been the fun part of the game. If all I can do is look for a container and sign a log, it's going to get boring quickly. But I can still do whatever suggestion if I want. And I can skip those I don't want to do.

 

When do they get rid of caches that "require" a boat to get to them?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

That is what I've been told by a charter member.

Yeah, but you've been playing this game for four years or so. You know better.

While caching, (at least on this website), at its most basic could be described as:

• Hide a cache
  
• Publish a cache
  
• Seek a cache
  
• Find a cache
  
• Log a cache
  

You know that each of us, as unique individuals, bring something different to this game, and take away something different from each cache and/or cacher we encounter. If you allow someone else to limit your thinking to the absolute basics, then this is quite likely all you'll ever get out of the game. I have seen many folks who harbor such beliefs enter this game, but they usually only last long enough to have their delusions dispelled. You've already had at least one Groundspeak Lackey, as well as some volunteer reviewers tell you that you are still free to add whatever silly tasks you want to your cache page, so I'd hope this would carry more weight that the single comment you interpreted from the aforementioned charter member.

Yup, and all the little quircks, nuances, requirements have been the fun part of the game. If all I can do is look for a container and sign a log, it's going to get boring quickly. But I can still do whatever suggestion if I want. And I can skip those I don't want to do.

 

When do they get rid of caches that "require" a boat to get to them?

Special equipment required (5 star) caches require that equipment to reach the cache. That's much different than requiring you to obtain a boat or something after reaching the cache and signing the logbook.

[+jtbrady01]

The change to list ALRs as mystery was supposed to solve the problem of people who find caches without reading the the cache page.

 

... Not to tread on a slippery slope, but I'm convinced that many of the recent issues with irresponsible finders seem to stem from a reluctance to actually read the cache page first. Not reading the description can lead to cachers getting upset when their finds get deleted on traditional caches with ALRs (new guidelines or not, the log deletions will still continue, even though the cache owner is no longer right in doing so), cachers getting caught in parks and cemeteries after the hours listed on the cache page, cachers parking in the wrong place and crossing private property to reach a cache, cachers not sticking to trails and creating social paths, cachers compromising the location of a container by hunting at the wrong time of day, cachers unnecessarily putting themselves into dangerous situations- just to name a few examples that I've seen.

 

Here's one issue I tend to have on this point. I do read the cache page on my Colorado. However, for those hiders who do a cache page totally as a picture or are get so caught up in writing a book and you waited until the very end to include the ALR half the time it was truncated from the Colorado. So, I would wind up logging my cache and later getting it deleted. Why? I found it. And based on my Colorado's cache page I read all I could and satisfied the requirements. I'm happy of this change. No more deleted finds.

[+VirginiaGator]

There seems to be a growing population of cache finders who want to be able to just plug in a bunch of waypoints and go, without any regard to important information in the description.

While the overall number of cachers who play that way will increase over time, I'm betting that the overall percentage of players who do this will diminish. While I have no data to support my claim, this seems logical to me. When I started playing, there were very few options available for going paperless, and the options that were available required someone a lot brighter than me to figure them out. Our original caching kit consisted of a big binder, stuffed full of cache page print outs. We'd find ourselves near a cache, and have to dig through dang near 500 sheets of paper, looking for the appropriate page. This became a pain in the backside, and was the single driving force in getting us to go paperless. I started with a PDA, which worked great, till the batteries died. Then it was back to caching blind. Then I learned how to add cache type, size and D/T, as well as some of the hint, to the screen on my 60CSx. This helped quite a bit, but since getting the cache page details into my 60 still eluded me, we were still often hunting blind when the PDA died. Now I cache with an Oregon 300, and my wife uses a Colorado 400I, and everything we need is at the tips of our fingers.

 

Going paperless has been an evolutionary process, that keeps getting easier.

Thanks for the laugh! I still cache with paper although I don't have a binder full of them. I pay enough for internet access at home. I don't need to pay an equal amount for the service on my phone.