update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

[+Rockin Roddy]

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."

 

Can you show me in this post where it said what you posted then? I can't find it.

[+NortonFord]

It created so much fun and competition last summer. Caches that hadn't been visited in 2 years suddenly were getting visited.

I saw caches requiring climbing gear but they were rated T 4.5 instead of T 5. Asking why I have been told that there was a need of a rare D/T-combination so this cache was intentionally rated wrong.

Very funny...

 

Regardless of the cache rating, you should read the cache description. If it says it needs climbing gear, then you can have that cache rated in your own mind. Now, if your worry is whether people will run off to find it without reading the cache description, A) why WOULD they? and at a rating of 4.5, it should be dangerous enough to warrant a severe check at the description.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

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

I haven't "stumbled" across caches this way but a non-caching couple I know have done so three times so far. They like to hike/explore backcountry desert areas and have found three caches so far, all of them ammo cans. So, it does happen. Rare, yes.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Cache O'Plenty

[+wimseyguy]

Because of this rule change, I have decided to disable all of my caches, until I can decide whether to archive them or change them. I have 8 caches (no big deal). 2 are Earthcaches and 6 are puzzle caches. Five of the puzzle caches are of a historic theme. In order to log them you are required to go to the site, log the book, look around for some answer for the questions supplied. These are not silly requirements like put a=on a funny hat. These answers are the reason I set up the caches. To learn a little about the history of the city I live in. If the cacher no longer needs to answer the questions the reason for the cache is no longer valid.

 

I was informed by a GC representative that I will no longer be allowed to remove the names of loggers who do not answer the questions and I had to make the questions optional. 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.

 

Rather than changing my caches to suit the new rules, I think I will most likely just get out of the cache owning business and become a just a collector.

Or you could edit the caches to use that valuable educational data to solve the coords for the final.

Instead of requiring cachers to email you with answers you already know, make them think about it for a minute and use it. I have one such multi cache, and am working on a second.

 

Example-there are three bronze statues at this location. Find the one with a hat and record the third digit in his death year. That number=B

I provided the location to the final stage with ABC/DEF in place of the last three digits of the latitude and longitude. In order to get that data, you must visit all six locations I want you to visit. You can read as much of the educational text on my cache page as you want, or you can simply gather the digits and zoom off to the find.

 

Or you could just take your ball and go home....

 

PS I have never stumbled upon a geocache while walking in the woods, as I wouldn't be out in the woods if I wasn't looking for one.

But I have stumbled on at least a dozen letterboxes, and a few other stashes of various and sundry items that probably were not listed on any internet service.

Edited April 6, 2009 by wimseyguy

[+tozainamboku]

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."

There are two ways of looking at this.

1) Should any creativity beyond just placing a cache for someone to find be required?

2) Should any creativity beyond just placing a cache for someone to find be banned?

 

The answer to #1 causes a lot of debates in these forums. Generally however it is understood that the guideline should not ask people to provide some level of creativity beyond just placing a cache.

 

It would seem the answer to #2 would be a resounding no. However, TPTB have decided that there should be some limits on creativity. In the early days of geocaching.com, it was pretty open what you could place as geocache. Guidelines however were written as certain types of hides caused problems with land managers and resulted in caches being banned altogether in some place. Thus burying caches - even clever hides where the cache could still be found without digging up the whole park - was banned. Most of the guidelines have restricted creativity is some way. Locationless and virtuals were causing lots of problems taking up reviewers time. There were people who instead of find really interesting places to put out virtuals were just listing any place because it was easier to hide a virtual than a traditional cache. The guidelines first tried to limit virtuals by addind a "Wow" requirement, but this caused even more problems for the reviewers. Certain types of puzzles were targeted next because people were concerned about downloading files to their PCs needed to solve puzzles. The change to ALRs is just another guideline like all the others. TPTB have decided that, for the good of the game, one more option for creativity is closed. While Miss Jenn may a valiant effort in her original post to explain the rationale, it may have missed the point as for various reasons no examples were given of "ALRs which approached and even reached the absurd." Many people have ideas of what some of these are but, as with "wow", "absurd" is in the eye of the beholder. In addition, the large number of people who have cheered the change because they saw any attempt by a cache owner to have their own rules for logging a cache as anathema to the puritan definition that if you sign the log you have found the cache has fueled the speculation that perhaps the decision was made to please these people.

[+WalruZ]

2. When a team finds a nano, the entire sliver of paper will be filled up when every team member signs the log. Is that really desirable?

 

Yes. Nano's are a plague, and we should not minimize the fact that they are a maintenance nightmare. If people are going to put them out, make them suffer.

[+NeverSummer]

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.

You've got me out of context again. I'm not talking about log enforcement. I'm talking about guideline enforcement, in terms of applying limitations to ALR caches.

 

If the ALR was location-based in conjunction with the use of the internet and technology, then it falls in line with Groundspeak's own mission statement. Using the "wetland" example certainly was geocaching related, as we all know that the location is important and adds to the experience. It is a location-based game. By involving the cacher in their surroundings, one can demonstrate the connection between the location and the logging in a logbook in the cache. If there has not been discussion about this angle on geocaching, it avoids the incredible educational and experiential aspect of a location-based game, and instead moves the focus to the task of putting your name in a log and decreasing some reasons caches are placed: the location.

 

I guess, as I'm thinking about it, think about it as a Wherigo cache that doesn't require a Colorado or a cartridge to complete. Instead, the cartridge is outlined in the cache page and the process involved in at or near ground zero. Some ALRs certainly could be morphed into traditional (Unknown/Mystery seems more applicable) caches written like a Wherigo, without all the software. Food for thought...

Edited April 6, 2009 by NeverSummer

[+VirginiaGator]

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.

That's true. What about the owners that don't keep up with it, those who don't delete a double post/find by a cacher, etc. While we were on a caching trip during the holidays, an area reviewer posted a note on the cache page to the owner about them really needing to police the cache. There were lots of people physically in other countries posting finds on this particular cache on the east coast of the US. I'd love to adopt those caches because they are neat! This wasn't the only one. But they were the same owner.

Edited April 6, 2009 by VirginiaGator

[+VirginiaGator]

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."

There are two ways of looking at this.

1) Should any creativity beyond just placing a cache for someone to find be required?

2) Should any creativity beyond just placing a cache for someone to find be banned?

 

The answer to #1 causes a lot of debates in these forums. Generally however it is understood that the guideline should not ask people to provide some level of creativity beyond just placing a cache.

 

It would seem the answer to #2 would be a resounding no. However, TPTB have decided that there should be some limits on creativity. In the early days of geocaching.com, it was pretty open what you could place as geocache. Guidelines however were written as certain types of hides caused problems with land managers and resulted in caches being banned altogether in some place. Thus burying caches - even clever hides where the cache could still be found without digging up the whole park - was banned. Most of the guidelines have restricted creativity is some way. Locationless and virtuals were causing lots of problems taking up reviewers time. There were people who instead of find really interesting places to put out virtuals were just listing any place because it was easier to hide a virtual than a traditional cache. The guidelines first tried to limit virtuals by addind a "Wow" requirement, but this caused even more problems for the reviewers. Certain types of puzzles were targeted next because people were concerned about downloading files to their PCs needed to solve puzzles. The change to ALRs is just another guideline like all the others. TPTB have decided that, for the good of the game, one more option for creativity is closed. While Miss Jenn may a valiant effort in her original post to explain the rationale, it may have missed the point as for various reasons no examples were given of "ALRs which approached and even reached the absurd." Many people have ideas of what some of these are but, as with "wow", "absurd" is in the eye of the beholder. In addition, the large number of people who have cheered the change because they saw any attempt by a cache owner to have their own rules for logging a cache as anathema to the puritan definition that if you sign the log you have found the cache has fueled the speculation that perhaps the decision was made to please these people.

Thank you for the explanation! Those of us who haven't been around that far back don't get the changes over time that we're reading about. Through this thread I'm thinking...what can be required for a cache that's so bad? I don't see specific examples outside of putting on a hat. If I were to find that cache, I'd pick up the hat or the groucho marx glasses and hold them up for a picture. No way would either be on my head or face. And my log would say...being I work in healthcare and am very much aware of germs on the glasses and who know what on the hat (I always tell my son never wear anyone else's hat,) here's the picture of me holding the item, but I'm not wearing it! So I still don't see what can be such an awful requirement to cause this with the exception of an animal carcass. Why wouldn't that just be denied right off the bat? It's a problem to do that?

 

I would never ever think to go to TPTB if I had a log deleted when I found a cache. I have had one deleted. Maybe I should complain to the higher ups and get it reinstated.

Edited April 6, 2009 by VirginiaGator

[+JerseyGirl & Bruno]

As someone who's "given back to the community" by placing over 185 hides, this bothers me a lot...it means that when someone makes the terrific effort to post "-" as their log I can't delete it & have to accept it...i go through the time and effort (not to mention $$$) of placing a hide and i have to put up with "-" as a log?????this is not an exaggeration, it is what I have been seeing..and then there's the "logged from my trimble navigator" logs...you don't have the time to write a few words??your time is that valuable???well so is mine..i thought i owned my hides and could control what appeared on my pages...if tptb want to dictate what is an acceptable log then they should put out all the hides...this is more than a guideline, it's a rule and i don't agree with it...

 

i know i'm going to get flamed over this and i don't give a darn...i live near disney, so my hides are found by tourists from all over the world...cachers love coming here because there's so many hides for them to hunt...with this new rule it's very possible that there will be over 185 fewer hides available...i deserve...yes, i said deserve...more than a "-" as a log

 

i'd like to see this put to a vote...yes, i said a vote....of all those who are registered on the site...i would actually limit it to those who are premium members since we are the ones who actually pay something towards the site...in fact, what i'd really really like to see is place it to a vote of those who actually own caches...we are the ones who make this sport possible and we should have some say over what appears on our cache pages

 

i'm done...flame away

[+Rockin Roddy]

you may have missed the finding and photoing of dead animals in order to log a find, the attend 100 events, find 100 micros, someone had a list which was likely not completable...if you read back, you might see some of the posted examples!

[+JerseyGirl & Bruno]

p.s. this is an example of the type of hide i'm talking about...i'd love to see someone explain to me why this is such an onerous burden or absurd requirement

T3-04 Bobcat Puzzle Cache

[+hydnsek]

I haven't read every single post in these 9 pages. Has anyone been able to earn the bonus points for picking out three posters on this thread?

Raises hand!!!!

 

Yes, please, the lady with the lavendar avatar, I see your hand is up.

[+Rockin Roddy]

As someone who's "given back to the community" by placing over 185 hides, this bothers me a lot...it means that when someone makes the terrific effort to post "-" as their log I can't delete it & have to accept it...i go through the time and effort (not to mention $$$) of placing a hide and i have to put up with "-" as a log?????this is not an exaggeration, it is what I have been seeing..and then there's the "logged from my trimble navigator" logs...you don't have the time to write a few words??your time is that valuable???well so is mine..i thought i owned my hides and could control what appeared on my pages...if tptb want to dictate what is an acceptable log then they should put out all the hides...this is more than a guideline, it's a rule and i don't agree with it...

 

i know i'm going to get flamed over this and i don't give a darn...i live near disney, so my hides are found by tourists from all over the world...cachers love coming here because there's so many hides for them to hunt...with this new rule it's very possible that there will be over 185 fewer hides available...i deserve...yes, i said deserve...more than a "-" as a log

 

i'd like to see this put to a vote...yes, i said a vote....of all those who are registered on the site...i would actually limit it to those who are premium members since we are the ones who actually pay something towards the site...in fact, what i'd really really like to see is place it to a vote of those who actually own caches...we are the ones who make this sport possible and we should have some say over what appears on our cache pages

 

i'm done...flame away

 

I don't think this change has anything to do with logs like you're using as an example. In fact, I don't think you should EVER delete a log simply because you wanted them to write more. If you're hiding caches solely to be rewarded with long logs, you have already set yourself up for disappointment...sorry!

[+JerseyGirl & Bruno]

BTW, here's an example of the logs on that hide:

 

April 4 by gatorgirlie (835 found)

Was out caching with some family today. The weather was not too hot and not too cold. For most of the day is was great. The cache is in good condition and the log book was not full. I traded no items today. I always look around in these kind of areas for wildlife. I was thinking that maybe I would see a snake or a black bear or even a bob cat. I saw none of those today. Just lizards and spiders. As far as the kind of caches that I like that is very hard. But if I have to choose I really like urban hides for the challenge. A few months ago I did a Wherigo and was all over the woods and springs. In the end I got only one smiley for it. But I was a one of a kind experience for me. Thanks for the puzzle and fyi this is the most I have ever written in a log for one cache so thanks for making me talk about my day. SL TFTC

[view this log]

[+Rockin Roddy]

As someone who's "given back to the community" by placing over 185 hides, this bothers me a lot...it means that when someone makes the terrific effort to post "-" as their log I can't delete it & have to accept it...i go through the time and effort (not to mention $$$) of placing a hide and i have to put up with "-" as a log?????this is not an exaggeration, it is what I have been seeing..and then there's the "logged from my trimble navigator" logs...you don't have the time to write a few words??your time is that valuable???well so is mine..i thought i owned my hides and could control what appeared on my pages...if tptb want to dictate what is an acceptable log then they should put out all the hides...this is more than a guideline, it's a rule and i don't agree with it...

 

i know i'm going to get flamed over this and i don't give a darn...i live near disney, so my hides are found by tourists from all over the world...cachers love coming here because there's so many hides for them to hunt...with this new rule it's very possible that there will be over 185 fewer hides available...i deserve...yes, i said deserve...more than a "-" as a log

 

i'd like to see this put to a vote...yes, i said a vote....of all those who are registered on the site...i would actually limit it to those who are premium members since we are the ones who actually pay something towards the site...in fact, what i'd really really like to see is place it to a vote of those who actually own caches...we are the ones who make this sport possible and we should have some say over what appears on our cache pages

 

i'm done...flame away

 

I don't think this change has anything to do with logs like you're using as an example. In fact, I don't think you should EVER delete a log simply because you wanted them to write more. If you're hiding caches solely to be rewarded with long logs, you have already set yourself up for disappointment...sorry!

[+VirginiaGator]

you may have missed the finding and photoing of dead animals in order to log a find, the attend 100 events, find 100 micros, someone had a list which was likely not completable...if you read back, you might see some of the posted examples!

Aha! I haven't seen any like that in areas we've been caching. They do seem excessive. I would skip them for sure. Why would they even be approved like that? There are enough micros in our area alone that have been moved to my ignore list.

Edited April 6, 2009 by VirginiaGator

[+hydnsek]

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

Not true. I know several folks (including myself) who have stumbled across caches (active, archived, or unpublished) in their travels, without any advance knowledge.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Here's an example of some of the logs I get...and none of my caches require you to leave a long log:

 

September 10, 2008 by Barnacle Bear (1975 found)

OnD’Hunt calls it Hayesfest 2008. For me a better title might be Barnacle Bear’s Stint Blow-Out. Unbeknownst to me, OnD’Hunt and Cheech Gang decided it might be fun to field test the efficacy of RCA stints. The chosen location was the pristine hills and glens, (lakes even) and swamps of Hayes State Park in the Irish Hills of Michigan. Thanks to my profitable procedure my heart cutter was off vacationing in the Old Country, all first class. With him gone it was impossible for me to obtain a Lenawee County Cardiac Endorsement. In retrospect I believe that was The Cheechmeister’s intent all along. I now know not to leave home without one.

If poison ivy was a cash (the correct spelling) crop Hayes State Park would be the top producer. Never has man seen a more abundant growth of three-leafed luxuriance. How park personnel can fertilize without disturbing the crop(?) stretches the imagination. The Cheechmeister missed nary a patch on our foray this day. And I almost wore shorts. Fate saved me from a fall and an itchy, but quick, death.

 

Part of this test package was the negotiation of field conditions. The last time that I Slagled this hard I was riding an elephant and was accompanied by bearers and beaters. Most of the time I Slagled alone. Some of the time I could hear OnD’Hunt and Cheech Gang discussing this and that as they wiggled through the undergrowth as if walking the mall. I was not so fortunate.

 

Wasn’t there another hide that involved these God awful steps? At that time they were covered with ice. This turned out to be a demonic variation of a step test. They did not obtain the expected results in the morning so Cheech Gang and OnD’Hunt conspired to force me back, again. No electrodes were attached. Instead at intervals they measured the length of my tongue. It’s good to be able to write this log but the memory of the second test is quite painful.

Follow the Gimping Bear!

[view this log]

 

Or this one, this was a DNF:

 

September 10, 2008 by Barnacle Bear (1975 found)

I don't want to talk about it!

[view this log]

 

The funny thing about the last log, I laughed at this one even more than the previous, and look at the length. The deal is, these were written with feeling, not with a forced hand!

Edited April 6, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+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.

You've got me out of context again. I'm not talking about log enforcement. I'm talking about guideline enforcement, in terms of applying limitations to ALR caches.

 

If the ALR was location-based in conjunction with the use of the internet and technology, then it falls in line with Groundspeak's own mission statement. Using the "wetland" example certainly was geocaching related, as we all know that the location is important and adds to the experience. It is a location-based game. By involving the cacher in their surroundings, one can demonstrate the connection between the location and the logging in a logbook in the cache. If there has not been discussion about this angle on geocaching, it avoids the incredible educational and experiential aspect of a location-based game, and instead moves the focus to the task of putting your name in a log and decreasing some reasons caches are placed: the location.

 

I guess, as I'm thinking about it, think about it as a Wherigo cache that doesn't require a Colorado or a cartridge to complete. Instead, the cartridge is outlined in the cache page and the process involved in at or near ground zero. Some ALRs certainly could be morphed into traditional (Unknown/Mystery seems more applicable) caches written like a Wherigo, without all the software. Food for thought...

While many people are rewarded with a nice view or learning something about the area these should never be required in order to find a cache. If I want to go learn about history as a result of finding a neat cache by a historical marker then that should be left up to me, not forced down my throat by having to write an essay about it in my log.

[+DavidMac]

The deal is, these were written with feeling, not with a forced hand![/color]

No, but what about, um, an occult hand?

 

(Sorry, couldn't resist. We now return to your regularly scheduled topic.)

[+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.

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.

Thank you Team GPSaxophone.

 

But that doesn't really answer my question. Can I still use my three log book's or do I have to give the idea up. Would that be an ARL?

[+NeverSummer]

While many people are rewarded with a nice view or learning something about the area these should never be required in order to find a cache. If I want to go learn about history as a result of finding a neat cache by a historical marker then that should be left up to me, not forced down my throat by having to write an essay about it in my log.

 

Wow...I don't know anywhere in geocaching where something was forced down someone's throat. I'm also not understanding where you get the "essay" thing from.

 

I don't do WhereIGos because I can't. I'd be..."forced", is it?...to own a Colorado.

 

Again, just food for thought. Some ALRs certainly are more about involving someone in their location, just as earthcaches, some multis and whereigos. If a cacher can make it location-based, is that not within the bounds of Groundspeak's mission statement?

 

And I have had only 1 ALR cache that is so new that I doubt that I'll see any changes in visits or logs now that it is worded according to the new guidelines. We've all seen what appreciative and inspired geocachers everywhere are capable of, and often do leave logs stating how great it was to be where they were. I've personally had and left many great logs about the area the cache is in. But in the case of some ALRs I have done or seen, it was more like I was immersed in the surroundings and I did them because it gave me a little more from the experience than just signing a logbook. I appreciated that new spin on the game, and being "forced" to do so was just part of me agreeing to hunt that cache in the first place.

 

Now that it's optional, I KNOW we will continue to see logs discussing how awesome, etc a cache was. I know we'll still have silly hats and dancing jigs. Nothing will stop the creativity of finders, and their excitement in the find. I don't even need to discuss the "creativity" of the hiders, I'm sure. That would be a can of worms I don't care to see any more of in this thread.

 

So back to my question, for clarification's sake:

Was a limitation, rather than "de-requiring", of Alternative Logging Requirements discussed, so that they could continue to exist under the mission statement of Groundspeak?

 

I can cache without ALRs, just like I can cache without Wherigo. I don't mind that they, or their "spirit" are gone. I only hope to understand the process so I can take part in positive educated discourse, now and in the future.

[+tozainamboku]

you may have missed the finding and photoing of dead animals in order to log a find, the attend 100 events, find 100 micros, someone had a list which was likely not completable...if you read back, you might see some of the posted examples!

Attending 100 events or finding 100 micros seem like challenge caches and therefore may still be allowed under the challenge cache guidelines. I would say neither of these look to absurd or far fetched. My guess is there are substantial numbers of geocachers who could log these challenges. (Maybe even more if you live in an area where people log multiple attended logs on an event ) Your picking them as example of "bad" ALRs only goes to show that it is subjective what is reasonable or not. I looked through my gallery and have posted several pictures of animal carcasses and skeletons. When caching in the woods it is not that uncommon a sight so it could be argued that even this is a reasonable request and is related to geocaching (as proof that you've found a significant number of caches in off the trail areas so that you've taken at least one photo of animal remains you have seen). Granted people putting a list of silly requirements that no one would reasonably be able to prove are likely to be just doing this "because they can", have no real reason to expect that the requirement would add to anyone's experience. But I gave the example of the now archived ALR where each finder added another silly rule to a list and where I just wrote a funny log saying I did everything that the rule asked for. It was actually a lot of fun to put all that into one log. Trying to come up with creative ways to meet an ALR can be a lot of fun.

 

But of course some people only want to find a cache and are unable to accept that anything extra required from them could add to the experience. Feeling forced to do something to earn the smiley is is fact seen by these people as burden. So it is natural to understand they feel happy with this change. However to assume that change was made because Groundspeak has all of sudden come around to their perspective (or finally felt the need to codify that perspective in the guidelines after first trying the compromise position of allowing ALRs but having them listed as mystery caches) is worrisome to me. It tends to encourage people who want to limit or ban certain cache types because they don't enjoy them, to take the attitude that if they complain enough Groundspeak will come around to that conclusion as well. IMO, geocaching is better served by recognizing that different people find different ways to enjoy this game and taking away ways others may be enjoying the game because it doesn't fit with your personal preferences is in the long run bad for geocaching.

[+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.

Thank you Team GPSaxophone.

 

But that doesn't really answer my question. Can I still use my three log book's or do I have to give the idea up. Would that be an ARL?

Multiple logbooks only invite confusion. Once most cachers sign the log, they consider that cache "found" and move on to the next cache. If your multi has multiple logbooks, it is likely some people stop after the first stage and consider it a traditional cache that was incorrectly listed as a multi. There is no way to guarantee cachers will sign all logbooks even if they do stop at each stage. There should only be a logbook in the final cache.

[+Rockin Roddy]

So back to my question, for clarification's sake:

Was a limitation, rather than "de-requiring", of Alternative Logging Requirements discussed, so that they could continue to exist under the mission statement of Groundspeak?

 

I think the Michigan reviewer Rusty said it best in the MiGO forums when he stated:

 

ALR's were removed from the guidelines because people abused them, just like they abused virtuals and code word caches before them. The only difference is that this time all the stupid ones are not being grandfathered in so that reviewers have to answer questions for the next 5 years from newbies asking why their cache isn't allowed when this one is. Geocaching is about geocaching and the cache experience is to go out and find a cache!

Edited April 6, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+Dr. House]

 

Thank you Team GPSaxophone.

 

But that doesn't really answer my question. Can I still use my three log book's or do I have to give the idea up. Would that be an ARL?

 

To me that would either be an ALR or, potentially, 3 separate caches depending on the distance between. In the end, I'm not sure that you could legitimately deny a "find" on the final if a cacher advances to, and finds the final by means other than what you as the CO intended - certainly not based on new guidelines.

[+Rockin Roddy]

you may have missed the finding and photoing of dead animals in order to log a find, the attend 100 events, find 100 micros, someone had a list which was likely not completable...if you read back, you might see some of the posted examples!

Attending 100 events or finding 100 micros seem like challenge caches and therefore may still be allowed under the challenge cache guidelines. I would say neither of these look to absurd or far fetched. My guess is there are substantial numbers of geocachers who could log these challenges. (Maybe even more if you live in an area where people log multiple attended logs on an event ) Your picking them as example of "bad" ALRs only goes to show that it is subjective what is reasonable or not. I looked through my gallery and have posted several pictures of animal carcasses and skeletons. When caching in the woods it is not that uncommon a sight so it could be argued that even this is a reasonable request and is related to geocaching (as proof that you've found a significant number of caches in off the trail areas so that you've taken at least one photo of animal remains you have seen). Granted people putting a list of silly requirements that no one would reasonably be able to prove are likely to be just doing this "because they can", have no real reason to expect that the requirement would add to anyone's experience. But I gave the example of the now archived ALR where each finder added another silly rule to a list and where I just wrote a funny log saying I did everything that the rule asked for. It was actually a lot of fun to put all that into one log. Trying to come up with creative ways to meet an ALR can be a lot of fun.

 

But of course some people only want to find a cache and are unable to accept that anything extra required from them could add to the experience. Feeling forced to do something to earn the smiley is is fact seen by these people as burden. So it is natural to understand they feel happy with this change. However to assume that change was made because Groundspeak has all of sudden come around to their perspective (or finally felt the need to codify that perspective in the guidelines after first trying the compromise position of allowing ALRs but having them listed as mystery caches) is worrisome to me. It tends to encourage people who want to limit or ban certain cache types because they don't enjoy them, to take the attitude that if they complain enough Groundspeak will come around to that conclusion as well. IMO, geocaching is better served by recognizing that different people find different ways to enjoy this game and taking away ways others may be enjoying the game because it doesn't fit with your personal preferences is in the long run bad for geocaching.

 

You're right Toz, it does show how someone might consider an ALR to be absurd....it is subjective. This would be the reason they won't go with the approve as seen fit route. It's just like agendas, one person's idea of appropriate and fun could be someone else's idea of absurd! Making the reviewers decide would only put them up for more trouble than the good a few practical ALRs could bring! Of course, this is MHO!

[+Team GPSaxophone]

While many people are rewarded with a nice view or learning something about the area these should never be required in order to find a cache. If I want to go learn about history as a result of finding a neat cache by a historical marker then that should be left up to me, not forced down my throat by having to write an essay about it in my log.

 

Wow...I don't know anywhere in geocaching where something was forced down someone's throat. I'm also not understanding where you get the "essay" thing from.

 

I don't do WhereIGos because I can't. I'd be..."forced", is it?...to own a Colorado.

 

Again, just food for thought. Some ALRs certainly are more about involving someone in their location, just as earthcaches, some multis and whereigos. If a cacher can make it location-based, is that not within the bounds of Groundspeak's mission statement?

 

And I have had only 1 ALR cache that is so new that I doubt that I'll see any changes in visits or logs now that it is worded according to the new guidelines. We've all seen what appreciative and inspired geocachers everywhere are capable of, and often do leave logs stating how great it was to be where they were. I've personally had and left many great logs about the area the cache is in. But in the case of some ALRs I have done or seen, it was more like I was immersed in the surroundings and I did them because it gave me a little more from the experience than just signing a logbook. I appreciated that new spin on the game, and being "forced" to do so was just part of me agreeing to hunt that cache in the first place.

 

Now that it's optional, I KNOW we will continue to see logs discussing how awesome, etc a cache was. I know we'll still have silly hats and dancing jigs. Nothing will stop the creativity of finders, and their excitement in the find. I don't even need to discuss the "creativity" of the hiders, I'm sure. That would be a can of worms I don't care to see any more of in this thread.

 

So back to my question, for clarification's sake:

Was a limitation, rather than "de-requiring", of Alternative Logging Requirements discussed, so that they could continue to exist under the mission statement of Groundspeak?

 

I can cache without ALRs, just like I can cache without Wherigo. I don't mind that they, or their "spirit" are gone. I only hope to understand the process so I can take part in positive educated discourse, now and in the future.

Your earlier comment (snipped from the quoted text) about "how you honor the wetlands..." seemed to be asking for cachers to write an essay in their online log. Wetlands may be important to some caches, but certainly not a majority of them and not enough to be considered part of the basis of the game regardless of how you interpret Geocaching.com's mission statement. Requiring people to write about the wetlands in their log (to show what they've learned, I guess?) is requiring them to write an essay. Maybe the essay doesn't have to be 1000 words or in proper paragraph structure, but it is still an essay. Asking them to write about it is one thing, but requiring them to in order to claim the find is an example of forcing it down their throat.

 

Back to your other question, was a limitation discussed? Well, isn't that what they tried to do with putting ALRs into the puzzle category? Their experiment apparently didn't work out, so they scrapped the idea of ALRs altogether changed it so COs can request certain tasks be done, but not require them. Those that still like additional logging activities can still put them on their cache pages and those who like to do them can still have fun doing them. The only difference is that they can no longer be required in order to log the cache as a find on this website.

[+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.

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.

Thank you Team GPSaxophone.

 

But that doesn't really answer my question. Can I still use my three log book's or do I have to give the idea up. Would that be an ARL?

Multiple logbooks only invite confusion. Once most cachers sign the log, they consider that cache "found" and move on to the next cache. If your multi has multiple logbooks, it is likely some people stop after the first stage and consider it a traditional cache that was incorrectly listed as a multi. There is no way to guarantee cachers will sign all logbooks even if they do stop at each stage. There should only be a logbook in the final cache.

 

I didn't think it added any kind of confusion. It's well stated on the page their are the three log book's, and people know why I did that.

 

It's a "puzzle". At the first stage is a puzzle you have to figure out on site. From there the other five stage's are a straight forward multi.

 

Well, thank you from your time in answering me Team GPSaxophone!!! I do appreciate it.

[+yodadog and corvus 2]

Ok, I’ve been reading all these posts and I am still confused about this new guideline. Forgive me, I’m just a dog with an intelligence somewhere between a cat and a pig so bare with me.

 

Let’s suppose I hide a cache that takes a 2 mile hike to get to. When the cacher arrives at the posted coords the cache can be spotted from 50 yards away. However, the cache is positioned in such a way that some ingenious ingenuity is required to retrieve it, open it and sign the log. As the cache owner I have put a code word on the cache log and have requested the finder to email me this code word before he posts his find in order to prove that he had in fact figured out a way to retrieve the cache. Also, it keeps me from visiting the cache and checking on every “Found It” post. Under these new guidelines, would this cache be approved?

[+Sioneva]

Ok, I’ve been reading all these posts and I am still confused about this new guideline. Forgive me, I’m just a dog with an intelligence somewhere between a cat and a pig so bare with me.

 

Let’s suppose I hide a cache that takes a 2 mile hike to get to. When the cacher arrives at the posted coords the cache can be spotted from 50 yards away. However, the cache is positioned in such a way that some ingenious ingenuity is required to retrieve it, open it and sign the log. As the cache owner I have put a code word on the cache log and have requested the finder to email me this code word before he posts his find in order to prove that he had in fact figured out a way to retrieve the cache. Also, it keeps me from visiting the cache and checking on every “Found It” post. Under these new guidelines, would this cache be approved?

 

Under the new rules, no. It wouldn't be approved. You can ask them to email you, but they can just laugh at you, and you can't do anything about it. You can't require them to.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Sioneva

[+Parabola]

Ok, I’ve been reading all these posts and I am still confused about this new guideline. Forgive me, I’m just a dog with an intelligence somewhere between a cat and a pig so bare with me.

 

Let’s suppose I hide a cache that takes a 2 mile hike to get to. When the cacher arrives at the posted coords the cache can be spotted from 50 yards away. However, the cache is positioned in such a way that some ingenious ingenuity is required to retrieve it, open it and sign the log. As the cache owner I have put a code word on the cache log and have requested the finder to email me this code word before he posts his find in order to prove that he had in fact figured out a way to retrieve the cache. Also, it keeps me from visiting the cache and checking on every “Found It” post. Under these new guidelines, would this cache be approved?

Nope, it would be an ARL.

[+yodadog and corvus 2]

Ok, I’ve been reading all these posts and I am still confused about this new guideline. Forgive me, I’m just a dog with an intelligence somewhere between a cat and a pig so bare with me.

 

Let’s suppose I hide a cache that takes a 2 mile hike to get to. When the cacher arrives at the posted coords the cache can be spotted from 50 yards away. However, the cache is positioned in such a way that some ingenious ingenuity is required to retrieve it, open it and sign the log. As the cache owner I have put a code word on the cache log and have requested the finder to email me this code word before he posts his find in order to prove that he had in fact figured out a way to retrieve the cache. Also, it keeps me from visiting the cache and checking on every “Found It” post. Under these new guidelines, would this cache be approved?

 

Under the new rules, no. It wouldn't be approved. You can ask them to email you, but they can just laugh at you, and you can't do anything about it. You can't require them to.

 

Well then I guess all the complaints about "Lame Roadside Hides" are a mute point. Looks like creative hides are a thing of the past.

[Keystone]

Well then I guess all the complaints about "Lame Roadside Hides" are a mute point. Looks like creative hides are a thing of the past.

Or, you can check your logbook for signatures during your regular maintenance visits to your challenging cache. I look forward to those trips far more so than replacing the logsheet in one of my "tourist micros." I hide my challenging caches in places where I like to return frequently. The loss of a codeword ALR does nothing to my rights to monitor against bogus finds, except for making me get up off my couch.

[+yodadog and corvus 2]

Well then I guess all the complaints about "Lame Roadside Hides" are a mute point. Looks like creative hides are a thing of the past.

Or, you can check your logbook for signatures during your regular maintenance visits to your challenging cache. I look forward to those trips far more so than replacing the logsheet in one of my "tourist micros." I hide my challenging caches in places where I like to return frequently. The loss of a codeword ALR does nothing to my rights to monitor against bogus finds, except for making me get up off my couch.

 

But isn't my understanding that you can not delete "Found It" logs? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[+VirginiaGator]

Ok, I’ve been reading all these posts and I am still confused about this new guideline. Forgive me, I’m just a dog with an intelligence somewhere between a cat and a pig so bare with me.

 

Let’s suppose I hide a cache that takes a 2 mile hike to get to. When the cacher arrives at the posted coords the cache can be spotted from 50 yards away. However, the cache is positioned in such a way that some ingenious ingenuity is required to retrieve it, open it and sign the log. As the cache owner I have put a code word on the cache log and have requested the finder to email me this code word before he posts his find in order to prove that he had in fact figured out a way to retrieve the cache. Also, it keeps me from visiting the cache and checking on every “Found It” post. Under these new guidelines, would this cache be approved?

 

Under the new rules, no. It wouldn't be approved. You can ask them to email you, but they can just laugh at you, and you can't do anything about it. You can't require them to.

Thank you for that! There's been a comment on a cache page of now their previous "requirement" being a "request" at this point. But they also mention that any finders may get an e-mail from them for some reason. My thought was to ignore the e-mail. You're not required to give them any information other than what's posted on the cache page (your log) when you log the find.

Edited April 7, 2009 by VirginiaGator

[+hydnsek]

Ok, I’ve been reading all these posts and I am still confused about this new guideline. Forgive me, I’m just a dog with an intelligence somewhere between a cat and a pig so bare with me.

 

Let’s suppose I hide a cache that takes a 2 mile hike to get to. When the cacher arrives at the posted coords the cache can be spotted from 50 yards away. However, the cache is positioned in such a way that some ingenious ingenuity is required to retrieve it, open it and sign the log. As the cache owner I have put a code word on the cache log and have requested the finder to email me this code word before he posts his find in order to prove that he had in fact figured out a way to retrieve the cache. Also, it keeps me from visiting the cache and checking on every “Found It” post. Under these new guidelines, would this cache be approved?

 

Under the new rules, no. It wouldn't be approved. You can ask them to email you, but they can just laugh at you, and you can't do anything about it. You can't require them to.

 

Well then I guess all the complaints about "Lame Roadside Hides" are a mute point. Looks like creative hides are a thing of the past.

Total disagreement. We have lots of extremely clever hides in my area, where seeing the cache is one thing, figuring out how to retrieve it, open it, and sign the log are quite another. None of the owners requires code words or any other proof beyond the honor system of a signature in the log to claim a find online. Dayspring's fantastic Tubulaire series is one example. Mr. Gadget #2's birdhouses are another. I could cite others.

[+hydnsek]

Well then I guess all the complaints about "Lame Roadside Hides" are a mute point. Looks like creative hides are a thing of the past.

Or, you can check your logbook for signatures during your regular maintenance visits to your challenging cache. I look forward to those trips far more so than replacing the logsheet in one of my "tourist micros." I hide my challenging caches in places where I like to return frequently. The loss of a codeword ALR does nothing to my rights to monitor against bogus finds, except for making me get up off my couch.

 

But isn't my understanding that you can not delete "Found It" logs? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course you can, if you must - say, for a bogus "found it" log where there's no siggie in the logbook.

[+Sioneva]

Ok, I’ve been reading all these posts and I am still confused about this new guideline. Forgive me, I’m just a dog with an intelligence somewhere between a cat and a pig so bare with me.

 

Let’s suppose I hide a cache that takes a 2 mile hike to get to. When the cacher arrives at the posted coords the cache can be spotted from 50 yards away. However, the cache is positioned in such a way that some ingenious ingenuity is required to retrieve it, open it and sign the log. As the cache owner I have put a code word on the cache log and have requested the finder to email me this code word before he posts his find in order to prove that he had in fact figured out a way to retrieve the cache. Also, it keeps me from visiting the cache and checking on every “Found It” post. Under these new guidelines, would this cache be approved?

 

Under the new rules, no. It wouldn't be approved. You can ask them to email you, but they can just laugh at you, and you can't do anything about it. You can't require them to.

Thank you for that! There's been a comment on a cache page of now their previous "requirement" being a "request" at this point. But they also mention that any finders may get an e-mail from them for some reason. My thought was to ignore the e-mail. You're not required to give them any information other than what's posted on the cache page (your log) when you log the find.

 

Don't thank me (if that was directed at me). I don't agree with this decision at all. And no, I don't have any ALR caches, so it doesn't affect any of my caches... but I think TPTB should at least allow codeword ALRs. I'm thinking of Vinny's caches in particular - now every time he has to check for a bogus log, he has to charter a helicopter, for at least one of his caches.

[+wimseyguy]

Well then I guess all the complaints about "Lame Roadside Hides" are a mute point. Looks like creative hides are a thing of the past.

Or, you can check your logbook for signatures during your regular maintenance visits to your challenging cache. I look forward to those trips far more so than replacing the logsheet in one of my "tourist micros." I hide my challenging caches in places where I like to return frequently. The loss of a codeword ALR does nothing to my rights to monitor against bogus finds, except for making me get up off my couch.

 

But isn't my understanding that you can not delete legitimate "Found It" logs? Correct me if I'm wrong.

There, fixed it for ya.

So please continue to hide creative and fun caches. You just have to check the physical log against the online ones yourself if you want that verification satisfaction.

[+yodadog and corvus 2]

Ok, I’ve been reading all these posts and I am still confused about this new guideline. Forgive me, I’m just a dog with an intelligence somewhere between a cat and a pig so bare with me.

 

Let’s suppose I hide a cache that takes a 2 mile hike to get to. When the cacher arrives at the posted coords the cache can be spotted from 50 yards away. However, the cache is positioned in such a way that some ingenious ingenuity is required to retrieve it, open it and sign the log. As the cache owner I have put a code word on the cache log and have requested the finder to email me this code word before he posts his find in order to prove that he had in fact figured out a way to retrieve the cache. Also, it keeps me from visiting the cache and checking on every “Found It” post. Under these new guidelines, would this cache be approved?

 

Under the new rules, no. It wouldn't be approved. You can ask them to email you, but they can just laugh at you, and you can't do anything about it. You can't require them to.

Thank you for that! There's been a comment on a cache page of now their previous "requirement" being a "request" at this point. But they also mention that any finders may get an e-mail from them for some reason. My thought was to ignore the e-mail. You're not required to give them any information other than what's posted on the cache page (your log) when you log the find.

 

Don't thank me (if that was directed at me). I don't agree with this decision at all. And no, I don't have any ALR caches, so it doesn't affect any of my caches... but I think TPTB should at least allow codeword ALRs. I'm thinking of Vinny's caches in particular - now every time he has to check for a bogus log, he has to charter a helicopter, for at least one of his caches.

My point exactly!

[+team moxiepup]

I think disallowing ALR caches is very sad and definitely an over reaction by the powers that be.

 

It has been stated that ALRs have little or nothing to do with geocaching: the act of finding a unique container/location using latitude and longitude, and that many ALRs now only distort the spirit of the game.

If straying from the traditional ideals of geocaching is the concern, then, following that logic, all guard rail and lamp skirt caches should be banned, because caching started out as an activity that involved hiking. (Before I get flamed, I'm not stating that LPS or GR caches get banned, however loathsome they are. I'm just pointing out the discrepancy in the logic.)

 

ALR caches still utilized " the act of finding a unique container/location using latitude and longitude". They just expanded upon it. This hobby has evolved in many ways over the years. Some ways for the good, some ways for the not so good. It seems that eliminating ALR caches does little to bring anything to the hobby, other than encouraging the banal.

 

We need more creative caches out there. There is such an influx of uninspired spew being placed, that the whole concept of getting rid of some of the more creative hides floors me. For every ALR out there, there must be at least a hundred lame, uninspired, "toss it and mark where it lands" caches. We have over 1400 caches and have only found perhaps 5 ALR caches. Perhaps it varies from region to region, but is hard to believe that there could be so many out there that it has become unmanageable.

 

Perhaps a solution would be if ALR caches had their own category and set of reviewers? (Please note- I have the utmost respect for the time and dedication of reviewers, and this suggestion in no way is meant to suggest otherwise.) If ALR caches had their own reviewers- folks ready and willing to delve into the absurd and put up with/sort through any nonsense, then it would take the pressure off the reviewers that don't want to deal with the ALR caches. If enough folks volunteered for this to cover all regions, would it be possible to bring back ALRs?

 

We were in the very process of putting together our very first ALR cache when this all happened. The supplies have been bought, a location scouted out, and the ammo can is half way painted to go with our theme. We're not sure what we are going to do at this point.

[+wimseyguy]

If straying from the traditional ideals of geocaching is the concern, then, following that logic, all guard rail and lamp skirt caches should be banned, because caching started out as an activity that involved hiking.

Sorry pup but that is revisionist history. The first cache placed wasn't much of a hike, and had food in it. And GC30 Mingo, the oldest active listing is right on the side of the road in the middleofnowhere Kansas.

[+team moxiepup]

If straying from the traditional ideals of geocaching is the concern, then, following that logic, all guard rail and lamp skirt caches should be banned, because caching started out as an activity that involved hiking.

Sorry pup but that is revisionist history. The first cache placed wasn't much of a hike, and had food in it. And GC30 Mingo, the oldest active listing is right on the side of the road in the middleofnowhere Kansas.

 

Ok, I stand corrected on that point, but I still stand behind the flavor of the post.

(I'm not even sure what that means... the whole thing is so upsetting!)

[Neos2]

[...]I only asked that the geocachers include a statement about how they would protect or honor our important wetland areas in their online log. Seemed reasonable, and in line with similar Earthcache requirements. I was simply trying to encourage the understanding of the wetlands and concepts of preservation and conservation and take away the "park and grab" aspect of it. I'm bummed that I can't call that an "Unknown/Mystery" cache or try to encourage the education of cachers while they get their smiley. To me, deleting a log was not about a power move. I would only have asked the cacher to change their "TFTC" log online to contain some kind of information about how they "honor" wetlands. Pretty simple, and makes the "location-based experience" all the more meaningful, and in line with the spirit of stewardship involved with geocaching...

I understand what you are saying, and I do have empathy.

 

Have you considered one outcome of having it be an ALR... Decreased attempts to find the cache, even decreased reading of the cache page.

 

With ALRs being lumped in with puzzle caches, many people never even considered doing the cache. Some because they don't like puzzles, others because they dislike ALRs.

 

I'll be frank with you, when I travel, I rarely get a chance to look over the "?" caches in the area. I run my PQ for the traditional caches, and if I have spare time, I look over the unknown caches and multis and add the ones that seem pleasant to my cache list via bookmarks. I rarely have spare time, and usually that means our trip list is focused on the traditional caches (We never do all of them anyway).

 

So I would have missed your lovely cache.

 

On the other hand, if you list it as a traditional, and suggest I add a comment about conservation in my log, your cache may make my hit parade (and the PQ of a lot of other people as well). Even if some of us don't actually add the sentence you want, there is a much greater chance more people will read the request and at least consider the obligation they may have to be good stewards of the Earth.

[+NeverSummer]

Your earlier comment (snipped from the quoted text) about "how you honor the wetlands..." seemed to be asking for cachers to write an essay in their online log. Wetlands may be important to some caches, but certainly not a majority of them and not enough to be considered part of the basis of the game regardless of how you interpret Geocaching.com's mission statement. Requiring people to write about the wetlands in their log (to show what they've learned, I guess?) is requiring them to write an essay. Maybe the essay doesn't have to be 1000 words or in proper paragraph structure, but it is still an essay. Asking them to write about it is one thing, but requiring them to in order to claim the find is an example of forcing it down their throat.

 

Back to your other question, was a limitation discussed? Well, isn't that what they tried to do with putting ALRs into the puzzle category? Their experiment apparently didn't work out, so they scrapped the idea of ALRs altogether changed it so COs can request certain tasks be done, but not require them. Those that still like additional logging activities can still put them on their cache pages and those who like to do them can still have fun doing them. The only difference is that they can no longer be required in order to log the cache as a find on this website.

So, we can assume you were involved in the discussion, then? If so, how do you interpret the mission statement?

 

The mission statement isn't about interpretation on my part. The statement makes it clear: "Groundspeak enables people to create and share interactive location-based experiences in the real world using a unique combination of technology and the internet."

 

ALRs that link location to writing your name on a log book as long as the requirement related the location to the find.

 

Team GPSaxophone, your opinion is clear. I'm hoping to hear more from others involved pre-announcement, and how TPTB interpreted the mission statement. It's about how a company applies their mission statement that can shed some light on how they make decisions "behind the curtain". The discussion related to "bad" or "poor taste" ALRs is clear. If ALRs fall under the mission by creating and sharing interactive, location-based experiences, it might be served somewhere in Groundspeak's jurisdiction. If that is in a separate division (ie Waymarking), perhaps. If ALRs that relate location to the cache experience, they might be served well in another "type" of cache, not unlike Earthcaches or Wherigo, and not as mystery/unknown.

 

Again, just food for thought.

[+NeverSummer]

[...]I only asked that the geocachers include a statement about how they would protect or honor our important wetland areas in their online log. Seemed reasonable, and in line with similar Earthcache requirements. I was simply trying to encourage the understanding of the wetlands and concepts of preservation and conservation and take away the "park and grab" aspect of it. I'm bummed that I can't call that an "Unknown/Mystery" cache or try to encourage the education of cachers while they get their smiley. To me, deleting a log was not about a power move. I would only have asked the cacher to change their "TFTC" log online to contain some kind of information about how they "honor" wetlands. Pretty simple, and makes the "location-based experience" all the more meaningful, and in line with the spirit of stewardship involved with geocaching...

I understand what you are saying, and I do have empathy.

 

Have you considered one outcome of having it be an ALR... Decreased attempts to find the cache, even decreased reading of the cache page.

 

With ALRs being lumped in with puzzle caches, many people never even considered doing the cache. Some because they don't like puzzles, others because they dislike ALRs.

 

I'll be frank with you, when I travel, I rarely get a chance to look over the "?" caches in the area. I run my PQ for the traditional caches, and if I have spare time, I look over the unknown caches and multis and add the ones that seem pleasant to my cache list via bookmarks. I rarely have spare time, and usually that means our trip list is focused on the traditional caches (We never do all of them anyway).

 

So I would have missed your lovely cache.

 

On the other hand, if you list it as a traditional, and suggest I add a comment about conservation in my log, your cache may make my hit parade (and the PQ of a lot of other people as well). Even if some of us don't actually add the sentence you want, there is a much greater chance more people will read the request and at least consider the obligation they may have to be good stewards of the Earth.

 

Exactly. That's why I'm not concerned about my caches, and life goes on. I'm sure my cache's suggestion will be taken with some cachers, and not with others. My next step is to ask my reviewer to change my cache over to a traditional; the rest has already been changed.

 

I'm the same way with my caching. I only have traditionals filling my GPS, but if I'm hunting other types, I download the info (thank goodness for paperless!) and go from there. I research ?s earthcaches and multis before I go out, and don't do much more than know the d/t and cache size for the traditionals. It will be great to see some of the ALRs in my PQ once they are transferred over. I just hope I have all the info I need once I get to the location, so I can enjoy what the hider intended others to see/find/do when we are there.

[Clan Riffster]

The only way to find an undocumented cache is if you are with someone who has the coords.

Not sure what you mean by undocumented. I've found three caches so far, with no prior knowledge of their existence or location.

 

TPTB have decided that there should be some limits on creativity.

Say it ain't so! I was OK with the passing of virts, as I never felt they were caches. I was OK with the passing of ALRs because I felt that their existence, (as opposed to an ALS), was little more than a veiled attempt by cache owners to control cache finders. Now you're saying there's a new change? I guess my browser isn't updating cookies, because when I saw your note that Groundspeak is going to limit creativity, I immediately went to read the new guideline, but I couldn't find it. Even my repeated mashing of my F5 button didn't help.

 

Did the new guideline say why they were going to limit creativity?

 

Edit to add: In proof reading this, I just realized that, contrary to what many have already stated during this thread regarding the fact that the ALR guideline change does not limit any one's creativity in any way, your claim regarding "TPTB limiting creativity" was directed toward that. Please disregard my agitation. I took your post seriously, which was my mistake.

 

i'd love to see someone explain to me why this is such an onerous burden or absurd requirement

Beth, as someone who found that cache, I thought the requirement was neither onerous or tiresome, but you've seen my logs. Typically, I have to delete stuff so they are less than the 4000 character maximum imposed by Groundspeak, or split them into multiple pages. Your cache was a shining gem, amongst all those others out there. You know the ones I mean. The only part I found quirky was you were dictating what I should be talking about. That was kinda weird. Not bad, mind you, just weird. I actually found your ALR limiting, in that, while trying to remember the details you wanted listed, I mentally lost the things I wanted to babble about. I think I was only able to spit out 3900 or so characters. On a side note, had your ALR been an ALS, my log would've been just as verbose, if not longer.

 

Perhaps a solution would be if ALR caches had their own category and set of reviewers? If ALR caches had their own reviewers- folks ready and willing to delve into the absurd and put up with/sort through any nonsense, then it would take the pressure off the reviewers that don't want to deal with the ALR caches.

My concern with this resolution is that those reviewers would find themselves in the unenviable position of deciding which ALRs were good and which were bad. Then they'd have to defend their decisions to everyone whose cache got denied based upon the reviewers bias. I guess Groundspeak could come up with a list detailing what was good and what was bad, but I'm thinking it would be a real long list.

 

Maybe they could pull it off. I just don't know.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[jholly]

Ok, I’ve been reading all these posts and I am still confused about this new guideline. Forgive me, I’m just a dog with an intelligence somewhere between a cat and a pig so bare with me.

 

Let’s suppose I hide a cache that takes a 2 mile hike to get to. When the cacher arrives at the posted coords the cache can be spotted from 50 yards away. However, the cache is positioned in such a way that some ingenious ingenuity is required to retrieve it, open it and sign the log. As the cache owner I have put a code word on the cache log and have requested the finder to email me this code word before he posts his find in order to prove that he had in fact figured out a way to retrieve the cache. Also, it keeps me from visiting the cache and checking on every “Found It” post. Under these new guidelines, would this cache be approved?

 

Under the new rules, no. It wouldn't be approved. You can ask them to email you, but they can just laugh at you, and you can't do anything about it. You can't require them to.

Thank you for that! There's been a comment on a cache page of now their previous "requirement" being a "request" at this point. But they also mention that any finders may get an e-mail from them for some reason. My thought was to ignore the e-mail. You're not required to give them any information other than what's posted on the cache page (your log) when you log the find.

 

Don't thank me (if that was directed at me). I don't agree with this decision at all. And no, I don't have any ALR caches, so it doesn't affect any of my caches... but I think TPTB should at least allow codeword ALRs. I'm thinking of Vinny's caches in particular - now every time he has to check for a bogus log, he has to charter a helicopter, for at least one of his caches.

 

Maybe he should figure out how to use a R/C helicopter.

 

Jim