Jump to content

update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009


Recommended Posts

 

<snip>

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. :D

 

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

 

Jim

 

:P Whatever.

Link to comment

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

 

Nothing in the guideline changes precludes cache owners from deleting log, unless those logs were deleted for not complying with a now un-enforceable ALR.

 

Jim

Link to comment

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

 

The problem is how do you frame a guideline that allows yours but blocks others. I'm sure I could write a ALR like yours that would result in logs that are, shall we say inappropriate? Sure most would not do it , but some would. There are others that are just plain vindictive, such as saying if any Premium member finds and logs your cache the log will be deleted because the cache owner does not like PMOC? These are only a couple examples. Folks complain that creativity has been lost. Well if we had a you can sort of do this but you can't do that type of guideline there would be a blossoming of creativity and lawyers. Unfortunately ones like your that look to be fun and enjoyable fall victim to ones that cause problems.

 

Jim

Link to comment

 

Nothing in the guideline changes precludes cache owners from deleting log, unless those logs were deleted for not complying with a now un-enforceable ALR.

 

Jim

 

I would suggest that nothing in the guidelines allows a CO to delete a log for a found geocache either, regardless of the manner by which it was found.

 

Perhaps that was what you meant to say? If so, my apologies.

 

EDIT: Foul or abusive langauge in the found log being the exception.

Edited by Dr. House
Link to comment

 

Nothing in the guideline changes precludes cache owners from deleting log, unless those logs were deleted for not complying with a now un-enforceable ALR.

 

Jim

 

I would suggest that nothing in the guidelines allows a CO to delete a log for a found geocache either, regardless of the manner by which it was found.

 

Perhaps that was what you meant to say? If so, my apologies.

 

EDIT: Foul or abusive langauge in the found log being the exception.

 

Well you can delete a log for any reason at all. Now is that right, or will the log be re-instated by a lackey and undeleteable by the CO is another discussion.

 

Jim

Link to comment

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. ...

<snip>

... 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.

 

Real quick clarification, essays are generally well organized longer written works discussing a topic. I was referring to a "Short answer" or "short statement", and would not "force it down" someone's throat.

 

I never forced hunting the cache down someone's throat, just like nobody feels forced to solve puzzles, mulits or whereigos. It is up to the hunter to participate in the hunt, however it is set out in the hide/style.

 

Also, is it so difficult to understand that there may be another way to create a cache that requires a little more effort one way or another? I think we'd agree the answer is no.

 

I don't think that it would even have to be a "do it or it gets deleted" threat, rather, a "this is how the cache is 'solved' and found", especially if it is a location-based endeavor, based in the spirit of Groundspeak's mission statement. Being required by threat, and feeling compelled to complete a task set out in a cache's description are two different things. Are we saying that the cachers that feel "forced" are not willing to put in the efforts to complete other caches such as multis, earthcaches or Wherigo? Are we forced to do the puzzles, stages or cartridges, then? The answer is no, I think. We feel compelled to find the cache as determined by its type, and may then be a reason to consider location-based, guideline adhering, mission-based "ALR" caches as a new type.

 

If the cache is legitimized through clarification, guideline process and mission-based philosophy, it wouldn't seem so crazy to have a cache type that asks one to use the location as part of the cache, and not just simply a cache itself.

Link to comment

 

Nothing in the guideline changes precludes cache owners from deleting log, unless those logs were deleted for not complying with a now un-enforceable ALR.

 

Jim

 

I would suggest that nothing in the guidelines allows a CO to delete a log for a found geocache either, regardless of the manner by which it was found.

 

Perhaps that was what you meant to say? If so, my apologies.

 

EDIT: Foul or abusive langauge in the found log being the exception.

 

Well you can delete a log for any reason at all. Now is that right, or will the log be re-instated by a lackey and undeleteable by the CO is another discussion.

 

Jim

 

Agreed Jim.

Link to comment

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?

Codeword caches have been against the guidelines for years. Allowing a codeword in addition to signing the physical log has only recently been allowed (when Groundspeak put all ALRs into the mystery cache category). With the new guideline, you'll have to go back to checking the logbook every month or two to be sure someone actually accessed the cache correctly.

 

It isn't a bad idea to check logbooks on hard puzzles on a regular basis to prevent bogus finds anyway. It's all part of cache maintenance and a codeword shouldn't absolve you of that responsibility.

Link to comment

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....

 

....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. :D

Did no one see my Exhibit A? Don't make me post those hula pics again.... :P

 

Why on earth would this change affect caching creativity or your cache placement? Be as creative as you want (or request that your finders be). The only change is that you can't FORCE them to dance to your tune (wear a wig, write haiku, do the hula) in order to log the find. As Exhibit A clearly demonstrated, making the hula an optional activity at my cache has in no way impeded the fun factor or the number of people making fools of themselves. Some people even come prepared with appropriate attire. :D

 

Why do so many folks on this thread equate creativity with being forced to do something, or assume nobody will participate if it's not required? I've found just the opposite to be true.

 

Btw, making these activities optional will also reduce your maintenance overhead - that is, the time spent dealing with logs/email from folks who forgot their cameras, were too cold or wet, refused to don the wig due to head-lice potential, etc. Those that want to participate will, with entertaining results (again, see Exhibit A), and the others will miss out on the fun but still log the cache.

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

 

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. :P

 

For the most part, they would be following the same guidelines already in place for other cache types. In addition, they could also include not allowing caches that are derogatory, vindictive or sensationalize the pain or suffering of a living creature. (That would cover the dead animal photo ALR cache mentioned earlier in the thread.) Basically dis- allow caches that could be perceived as mean-spirited. Simple enough? Perhaps. (Reminds me of a "Love and Rockets song lyric- ..."it's a simple thing. Simple as a flower, and that's a complicated thing".)

 

There are some ALRs that may be good or bad, just like any other cache. Does that mean they should be eliminated? No. Maybe some are ridiculous, but then, the cache owner just has to deal with the fact some won't look for that cache. Same could be said for multi's, caches on uphill hikes, etc.

 

Are there some who would be willing to be "specialist cache type" reviewers, who would be willing to focus on the special issues an ALR cache placement might entail? I would be willing to bet there are.

Link to comment

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.

Can I have your EarthCaches? I hate to see them go away.

 

Seriously, EarthCaches are exempt from the changes (See the original post).

 

And ... forgive me, but aren't your other caches just a cool even if someone doesn't have to prove to you they read the sign? Your cache pages are interesting, and made me curious about what was there. The average cacher will be curious enough to read the sign once they get that close anyway. Those people will enjoy the cache and benefit from it.

 

The below-average cacher is going to hurry through the whole process, and really won't appreciate what they learn anyway. It really is their loss. Some cachers were going to skip your caches anyway, since they don't do anything other than traditionals--at least this way, the people might read the cache page and see the interesting things are there.

Link to comment

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.

The new guidelines seem to imply that you cannot delete a Found It log if the cacher has signed his name in the log book. There have been a number of questions asked as to situations where a cache owner may believe log deletion is warranted even if the cachers name in in the log. So far, TPTB have not answered. Several people have pointed out that bogus signatures are also possible. Someone could write other cachers names in the log. If those cachers were to log 'Found It', it is obvious that the intention would be that cache owner could delete their logs because the signature is bogus. But there isn't much the cache owner could do to prove this; it would be their word against the logger.

 

I believe the intention of the TPTB is that we ought to trust our fellow cachers to find caches in the manner we as cache owner intended and not start out with requirements that indicate a lack of trust. In the end if a few people cheat, it is only a tiny percentage and, except for a few very rare instances, the cheater doesn't affect the other cachers who find the cache as intended. Unfortunately, the way the guideline was written, the puritans can still mistrust the person who says "I found the cache but the log was too wet to sign" or "I found the cache but forgot a pen". If TPTB were to say you can only delete logs that are obviously bogus and that we should trust all cachers that write a reasonable log I'd feel better. But I suspect the puritans have won this round. Either sign the log so your find won't be deleted, or hope the cache goes missing before the puritan cache owner goes on his next maintenance trip and finds your name isn't in the log. :P

Link to comment

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?

Nope. I found out about the change the same time you did.

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.

The problem in allowing *some* ALRs is that cache reviewers would have the additional work of deciding which ones fit the guidelines and which ones didn't. We all know how well that worked out with virtuals using the infamous "WOW!" factor.

Link to comment

The problem in allowing *some* ALRs is that cache reviewers would have the additional work of deciding which ones fit the guidelines and which ones didn't. We all know how well that worked out with virtuals using the infamous "WOW!" factor.

If the onus is placed on the cache hider, it would certainly make it easier to enforce the cache type. If the cache hider can not clearly demonstrate the connection between location, requirement and cache, it is a simple, "Nope." from the reviewer.

 

I guess I'm thinking of it as a type of cache that takes the best parts of virtuals and the physical caches and smashes them together. History, geology, ecology, etc could be core components of the guidelines of enforcement, and must be based on the location of the physical cache.

Link to comment

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. ...

<snip>

... 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.

 

Real quick clarification, essays are generally well organized longer written works discussing a topic. I was referring to a "Short answer" or "short statement", and would not "force it down" someone's throat.

 

I never forced hunting the cache down someone's throat, just like nobody feels forced to solve puzzles, mulits or whereigos. It is up to the hunter to participate in the hunt, however it is set out in the hide/style.

 

Also, is it so difficult to understand that there may be another way to create a cache that requires a little more effort one way or another? I think we'd agree the answer is no.

 

I don't think that it would even have to be a "do it or it gets deleted" threat, rather, a "this is how the cache is 'solved' and found", especially if it is a location-based endeavor, based in the spirit of Groundspeak's mission statement. Being required by threat, and feeling compelled to complete a task set out in a cache's description are two different things. Are we saying that the cachers that feel "forced" are not willing to put in the efforts to complete other caches such as multis, earthcaches or Wherigo? Are we forced to do the puzzles, stages or cartridges, then? The answer is no, I think. We feel compelled to find the cache as determined by its type, and may then be a reason to consider location-based, guideline adhering, mission-based "ALR" caches as a new type.

 

If the cache is legitimized through clarification, guideline process and mission-based philosophy, it wouldn't seem so crazy to have a cache type that asks one to use the location as part of the cache, and not just simply a cache itself.

Yeah, yeah, no one is forcing you to turn on your computer or visit the website either, right? If you really want to get that technical about it, you're "forcing" seekers to do it your way or not find the cache at all, so in that sense, you are forcing your essay statement writing exercise down their throats.

 

My philosophy is that I should be allowed to find any cache I am physically capable of getting to. I may have to solve a puzzle to get the coordinates, but with enough education in the proper field, I can do that. Groundspeak generally agrees with this philosophy in that this is one of the reasons caches are not allowed on military installations - non-military visitors do not necessarily have access to all areas on a particular base or post. Now, once I find a cache and sign the logbook I should be able to claim it as a find on their website and not have to write an essay a statement about how the wetlands are important to geocaching or some other task that doesn't change the fact that I found the cache I was looking for.

Edited by Team GPSaxophone
Link to comment
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
Could we limit the vote to those who make geocaching possible by volunteering to review thousands of caches?

 

First, let me say that I am not opposed to caches with Additional Logging Requirements, as long as such caches are not listed as Traditional caches. But if it's a choice between keeping the volunteer reviewers and keeping ALRs, then good riddance to ALRs. If reviewing ALR caches (and dealing with the fallout from rejecting abusive ALR caches) is causing volunteer reviewers to complain and quit, then let Additional Logging Requirements become Additional Logging Requests.

 

There are land managers in this area that allow geocaches only if they are listed at geocaching.com. Why? Because they trust the guidelines and the volunteer reviewers here. In some cases, they've asked us to established an additional system of local volunteer monitors, but the hard work is done by the volunteer reviewers. Without the volunteer reviewers, we would lose permission to place geocaches in the parks and other properties these land managers control.

Link to comment

The problem in allowing *some* ALRs is that cache reviewers would have the additional work of deciding which ones fit the guidelines and which ones didn't. We all know how well that worked out with virtuals using the infamous "WOW!" factor.

If the onus is placed on the cache hider, it would certainly make it easier to enforce the cache type. If the cache hider can not clearly demonstrate the connection between location, requirement and cache, it is a simple, "Nope." from the reviewer.

 

I guess I'm thinking of it as a type of cache that takes the best parts of virtuals and the physical caches and smashes them together. History, geology, ecology, etc could be core components of the guidelines of enforcement, and must be based on the location of the physical cache.

Yes, but history, geology, and ecology have nothing to do with the actual game/sport/activity that is geocaching - using GPS to hide things for others to find.

 

I may use a mountain bike, 4x4, car, or boat to get to a cache, but mountain biking, off roading, driving, or boating are not geocaching or required for geocaching to exist. Some caches teach you about history, geology, or ecology, but that doesn't mean that they are an essential part of geocaching either.

Link to comment
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? :P

 

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. :D

My post was serious, but it referred to all (or at least almost all) of the guidelines. Each time TPTB decide to add another guideline restricting what cache owners can do, it limits the creativity of cache owners. Sure they can still be creative in other ways, but expecting that everyone can redirect their creativity, at least instantaneously, is unreasonable. It may be the people who thought the had some clever ideas to make their cache more interesting with an ALR will discover, that an ALS works just as well. Or by changing the cache page or the hide itself may be able to improve the experience in a way that works well for the people would feel that any ALR is an imposition.

 

I always try to look at the guidelines and try to understand the rationale for limiting what a cache owner can do. Often it is easy to see where a cache owners creativity cause concerns to land managers or to law enforcement. Sometimes it is simply an attempt to keep the game simple enough that Groundspeak can explain it to the general public and to new geocachers who want to start finding and hiding caches right away. Locationless and virtuals became hard to fit in with the explanation of finding a container. And in this case, TPTB also had an alternative solution in Waymarking so that people who found virtual a good way to share interesting locations had somewhere where they could still do something like this. My guess is that ALRs were hard to explain once Grounspeak changed the FAQ to indicate you "Write about your find in the cache logbook" and then "Log your experience at www.geocaching.com". It was only a matter of time before they had to agree to the puritan idea that your signature in the logbook was somehow equivalent to the online 'Found It' log. I waiting to see how many people now will cross out the names in the physical log book that haven't written an online log.

 

I have always thought that the online log was just a way for people to record or share their experience at a cache. That each person should be able to decide for themselves if their experience was worthy of using the 'Found It' log. And whether or not you used the 'Found It' log had nothing to do with whether or not you "found" the cache. Obviously bogus entries of course could be deleted by cache owners. They have the effect sometimes of misleading other cachers as to whether or not the cache is actually there. Fortunately, I've seen very few obvious bogus log. I suspect that people who check their log books wills find the same is true. If they are deleting logs it is probably from people who found the log too wet to write on or didn't have a pen or even just honestly forgot to sign the log. I know of one case where I went back to a cache I knew I had found a discovered that I had written a long account of my experience in the log and just forgot to sign it. Perhaps if we all were just to trust our fellow cachers to have fun and not make such a big deal over when they log Found It or not, we'd all be better off.

Link to comment

 

The new guidelines seem to imply that you cannot delete a Found It log if the cacher has signed his name in the log book.

 

The guidelines state:

Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

Now if someone found my cache, signed the log and then wrote a log laced with obscenities the log would be gone in a heartbeat. Or a log that I deem to be offensive to other people it will be gone in a heartbeat. I would ask them to relog without the objectionable material. A simple SL will suffice.

 

Jim

Link to comment

 

The new guidelines seem to imply that you cannot delete a Found It log if the cacher has signed his name in the log book.

 

The guidelines state:

Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

Now if someone found my cache, signed the log and then wrote a log laced with obscenities the log would be gone in a heartbeat. Or a log that I deem to be offensive to other people it will be gone in a heartbeat. I would ask them to relog without the objectionable material. A simple SL will suffice.

 

Jim

 

C'mon dude, if the guy signed the log, he deserves the find! Everyone knows that the find is more important than a person's morals or integrity of the game! :P

 

Sorry, I promise that is my only smart-alec comment for a while! Proceed with the debate!

Link to comment

The problem in allowing *some* ALRs is that cache reviewers would have the additional work of deciding which ones fit the guidelines and which ones didn't. We all know how well that worked out with virtuals using the infamous "WOW!" factor.

If the onus is placed on the cache hider, it would certainly make it easier to enforce the cache type. If the cache hider can not clearly demonstrate the connection between location, requirement and cache, it is a simple, "Nope." from the reviewer.

 

I guess I'm thinking of it as a type of cache that takes the best parts of virtuals and the physical caches and smashes them together. History, geology, ecology, etc could be core components of the guidelines of enforcement, and must be based on the location of the physical cache.

Yes, but history, geology, and ecology have nothing to do with the actual game/sport/activity that is geocaching - using GPS to hide things for others to find.

 

I may use a mountain bike, 4x4, car, or boat to get to a cache, but mountain biking, off roading, driving, or boating are not geocaching or required for geocaching to exist. Some caches teach you about history, geology, or ecology, but that doesn't mean that they are an essential part of geocaching either.

Erm..."location-based".

 

I beg to differ on the comment history, ecology or geology are not essential parts of geocaching. They are certainly part of an interactive process between physical geocaches and the location you are in. Those things have to do with the location.

 

Is suggesting a more in-depth (more effort) caching experience, based on your interactions and observations of your location such a crazy thing? One could argue, based on your statements, that puzzles aren't geocache related, as they have nothing to do with the location (yes, yes, I get the chicken and egg scenario of solve/find or find/extra work). I think that a well-executed version of ALRs would fall in line not only with the mission statement, but with the spirit of involving cachers more with the areas they are in, while still finding a physical cache.

 

If you'd like, lets take our squabble off line. I'd like to hear what positive discourse may occur with the suggestions. There's no need for us to argue back an forth in the forums.

Link to comment

 

The new guidelines seem to imply that you cannot delete a Found It log if the cacher has signed his name in the log book.

 

The guidelines state:

Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

Now if someone found my cache, signed the log and then wrote a log laced with obscenities the log would be gone in a heartbeat. Or a log that I deem to be offensive to other people it will be gone in a heartbeat. I would ask them to relog without the objectionable material. A simple SL will suffice.

 

Jim

I don't doubt that you can ask a logger to remove obscenities or a spoiler on your cache. You may be even be allowed to delete the log so that the offending language is removed from the website ASAP. But in these case you wouldn't necessarily be allowed to prevent them from writing an acceptable replacement log.

 

I gave a list way back on page 1 or 2 of this thread of situations where a cache owner may want to delete a log of someone who signed the physical log. These were cases like cachers who find a cache in a park that is closed, cachers who don't solve puzzles as intended, a cache who retrieves a difficult to retrieve cache for others in the group to sign, etc. Clearly some people see these are unwritten ALRs and therefore the CO can't delete them. My question for TPTB is whether or not the cache owner would be allowed to delete any of these logs.

Link to comment

Yes, but history, geology, and ecology have nothing to do with the actual game/sport/activity that is geocaching - using GPS to hide things for others to find.

 

I may use a mountain bike, 4x4, car, or boat to get to a cache, but mountain biking, off roading, driving, or boating are not geocaching or required for geocaching to exist. Some caches teach you about history, geology, or ecology, but that doesn't mean that they are an essential part of geocaching either.

Erm..."location-based".

 

I beg to differ on the comment history, ecology or geology are not essential parts of geocaching. They are certainly part of an interactive process between physical geocaches and the location you are in. Those things have to do with the location.

I'd prefer an ALR to describe the danger of electrical shock that can occur when exposing the base of a parking lot lamp post. That would certainly have something to do with geocaching (and with the location of the cache as well).

Link to comment

Yes, but history, geology, and ecology have nothing to do with the actual game/sport/activity that is geocaching - using GPS to hide things for others to find.

 

I may use a mountain bike, 4x4, car, or boat to get to a cache, but mountain biking, off roading, driving, or boating are not geocaching or required for geocaching to exist. Some caches teach you about history, geology, or ecology, but that doesn't mean that they are an essential part of geocaching either.

Erm..."location-based".

 

I beg to differ on the comment history, ecology or geology are not essential parts of geocaching. They are certainly part of an interactive process between physical geocaches and the location you are in. Those things have to do with the location.

I'd prefer an ALR to describe the danger of electrical shock that can occur when exposing the base of a parking lot lamp post. That would certainly have something to do with geocaching (and with the location of the cache as well).

There's the control freak - it isn't enough to warn someone of the danger of exposed electrical wires, you're saying you need an ALR to make sure they don't get electrocuted? :)

Link to comment

 

The new guidelines seem to imply that you cannot delete a Found It log if the cacher has signed his name in the log book.

 

The guidelines state:

Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

Now if someone found my cache, signed the log and then wrote a log laced with obscenities the log would be gone in a heartbeat. Or a log that I deem to be offensive to other people it will be gone in a heartbeat. I would ask them to relog without the objectionable material. A simple SL will suffice.

 

Jim

I don't doubt that you can ask a logger to remove obscenities or a spoiler on your cache. You may be even be allowed to delete the log so that the offending language is removed from the website ASAP. But in these case you wouldn't necessarily be allowed to prevent them from writing an acceptable replacement log.

 

I gave a list way back on page 1 or 2 of this thread of situations where a cache owner may want to delete a log of someone who signed the physical log. These were cases like cachers who find a cache in a park that is closed, cachers who don't solve puzzles as intended, a cache who retrieves a difficult to retrieve cache for others in the group to sign, etc. Clearly some people see these are unwritten ALRs and therefore the CO can't delete them. My question for TPTB is whether or not the cache owner would be allowed to delete any of these logs.

 

I didn't say I wanted to prevent them from re-logging a more acceptable log. I believe I said

I would ask them to relog without the objectionable material. A simple SL will suffice.

 

If they have their knickers in a bunch and think they are hurting me with a SL instead of a multi sentence log, well they are wrong. As long as they don't cross the line then I really don't care what is in the long.

 

Your other comments clearly indicate that you have a control problem and are overly worried about things that really don't need to be worried about. You need to relax, this is a game with few rules, leave it that way. I have a six cache series with a final. In order to get the co-ordinates for the final you "should" find all six. But you know if a person is cleaver and only finds the right two they can score the final. People have found the final WITHOUT finding all six. You know what, I really don't care because they had fun finding the ones they did find and that is what it is all about. I'm happy and they are happy.

 

Jim

 

Jim

Link to comment

This is my ALR:

 

Additional Logging Requirement:

You MUST be a subscriber to log or find this cache: Required

 

Subscriber-Only Caches

Some caches are only available to premium members. This has been a request of many geocachers who want to put more energy into designing a cache for dedicated geocachers. As the cache owner, you can make any of your caches "subscriber only," so folks will need a subscription to seek it out.

 

(Note: member only caches may not be any better than public geocaches. Each cache is managed by their cache owner.)

 

An audit log is a list of users who have viewed your premium member-only cache on the web site. Click on the user's name to visit their profile.

 

If your account user name does not appear on the Audit Log, your *find* will be removed. As a failsafe, I will check your profile page prior to removal.

 

If you are a subscriber, and logging this cache the correct way, you WILL be on the cache audit list. If you are NOT a subscriber, and logging this cache an alternative way, you will NOT be on the cache audit list.

 

GC1CDAV

 

Groundspeak will not prevent non-subscribers from logging subscriber-only caches. This gives the scoundrels warning, and has been the most effective method of dealing with them.

 

So are you saying that only I should be able to log a cache that my Wife And I went to ... just because we only have 1 Premium Membership?

Link to comment

The problem in allowing *some* ALRs is that cache reviewers would have the additional work of deciding which ones fit the guidelines and which ones didn't. We all know how well that worked out with virtuals using the infamous "WOW!" factor.

If the onus is placed on the cache hider, it would certainly make it easier to enforce the cache type. If the cache hider can not clearly demonstrate the connection between location, requirement and cache, it is a simple, "Nope." from the reviewer.

 

I guess I'm thinking of it as a type of cache that takes the best parts of virtuals and the physical caches and smashes them together. History, geology, ecology, etc could be core components of the guidelines of enforcement, and must be based on the location of the physical cache.

Yes, but history, geology, and ecology have nothing to do with the actual game/sport/activity that is geocaching - using GPS to hide things for others to find.

 

I may use a mountain bike, 4x4, car, or boat to get to a cache, but mountain biking, off roading, driving, or boating are not geocaching or required for geocaching to exist. Some caches teach you about history, geology, or ecology, but that doesn't mean that they are an essential part of geocaching either.

Erm..."location-based".

 

I beg to differ on the comment history, ecology or geology are not essential parts of geocaching. They are certainly part of an interactive process between physical geocaches and the location you are in. Those things have to do with the location.

 

Is suggesting a more in-depth (more effort) caching experience, based on your interactions and observations of your location such a crazy thing? One could argue, based on your statements, that puzzles aren't geocache related, as they have nothing to do with the location (yes, yes, I get the chicken and egg scenario of solve/find or find/extra work). I think that a well-executed version of ALRs would fall in line not only with the mission statement, but with the spirit of involving cachers more with the areas they are in, while still finding a physical cache.

 

 

I agreee with the blue saxophone guy and TPTB on this decision. You even seem to agree with your statement above that suggesting a more in-depth experience is what is being asked for here. Suggestion is the key word. A suggestion is not a requirement.

 

I think this may bring to light whether folks agree with ALR or not. Will your cache get more visitors who agree with the additional logging suggestions or will you get more visitors who ignore them? If you get more people who do the logging suggestions, then that would seem to indicate that folks in your area don't mind performing whatever your specific suggestions are. If more folks ignore such suggestions, then maybe they weren't that great of an idea to suggest anyway, since the voices (or logs in this case) of the masses will let you know how folks feel.

If that's not good enough and people feel they have to require such things to be done, then that indicates they are more interested in controlling people's behaviors than they are in placing caches for people to find.

 

This is a win-win scenario if folks will let it be so. Those who enjoy doing additional things at a cache can still do them. You can make as long a list of suggestions as you want to make and ask that folks do them all. Those that would enjoy doing them will still do so. Those that wouldn't enjoy them don't have to.

They can still enjoy finding the cache by itself.

 

Some have said that this limits creativity. Not at all. There's no reason anyone's cache has to be less creative now. If you can't find a way to make a cache creative without a requirement being placed on the finder, you already have a lack of creativity that no amount of rules or guideline changes will alter.

Link to comment

 

Can I have your EarthCaches? I hate to see them go away.

 

Seriously, EarthCaches are exempt from the changes (See the original post).

My two Earth caches are very special to me. I have not decided what I will do with them. One was created to honour a very good friend of mine. The other is a place where we teach our students.

 

And ... forgive me, but aren't your other caches just a cool even if someone doesn't have to prove to you they read the sign? Your cache pages are interesting, and made me curious about what was there. The average cacher will be curious enough to read the sign once they get that close anyway. Those people will enjoy the cache and benefit from it.

 

The problem is the signs and monuments only contain the cliff notes of the history of my caches. The additional material that I supply contains the whole story. I would like some assurance that the logger has appreciated the effort i put into the cache. The way I can be assured that this happens is for the seeker to email me some answers. I have had a number of people who have not appreciated my effort by supplying me with wrong answers that show that they have not bothered to look at the links. I understand there are people who complain about ALRs and this new rule is GC's way of dealing with that complaint. This is my way of showing my displeasure with both the complainers and GC's new rule.

 

I do not feel that my ALRs are too much to ask. GC disagrees with me and sides with number hunters. I have decided to disagree with GC and the only way to do that is to remove my caches from play.

Link to comment

 

Can I have your EarthCaches? I hate to see them go away.

 

Seriously, EarthCaches are exempt from the changes (See the original post).

My two Earth caches are very special to me. I have not decided what I will do with them. One was created to honour a very good friend of mine. The other is a place where we teach our students.

 

And ... forgive me, but aren't your other caches just a cool even if someone doesn't have to prove to you they read the sign? Your cache pages are interesting, and made me curious about what was there. The average cacher will be curious enough to read the sign once they get that close anyway. Those people will enjoy the cache and benefit from it.

 

The problem is the signs and monuments only contain the cliff notes of the history of my caches. The additional material that I supply contains the whole story. I would like some assurance that the logger has appreciated the effort i put into the cache. The way I can be assured that this happens is for the seeker to email me some answers. I have had a number of people who have not appreciated my effort by supplying me with wrong answers that show that they have not bothered to look at the links. I understand there are people who complain about ALRs and this new rule is GC's way of dealing with that complaint. This is my way of showing my displeasure with both the complainers and GC's new rule.

 

I do not feel that my ALRs are too much to ask. GC disagrees with me and sides with number hunters. I have decided to disagree with GC and the only way to do that is to remove my caches from play.

Here's that "You can lead a horse to water" thing again. You may be interested in the history but it doesn't mean everyone else will be. By requiring people to appreciate it as much as you do, you are pushing an agenda, which is against the guidelines.

Link to comment

I've tried to read all of the posts in all of the threads but even if I read it it didn't sink in.

 

One of the arguments against additional requirements was that it placed the reviewers in the awkward position of deciding what was and wasn't an acceptable ALR. Am I to believe that this change has removed that particular burden? Now a cache owner can REQUEST anything and it will fly? I doubt it.

Link to comment

The problem is the signs and monuments only contain the cliff notes of the history of my caches. The additional material that I supply contains the whole story. I would like some assurance that the logger has appreciated the effort i put into the cache. The way I can be assured that this happens is for the seeker to email me some answers. I have had a number of people who have not appreciated my effort by supplying me with wrong answers that show that they have not bothered to look at the links. I understand there are people who complain about ALRs and this new rule is GC's way of dealing with that complaint. This is my way of showing my displeasure with both the complainers and GC's new rule.

 

I do not feel that my ALRs are too much to ask. GC disagrees with me and sides with number hunters. I have decided to disagree with GC and the only way to do that is to remove my caches from play.

Forcing someone to read your page does not guarantee that they will appreciate it. On the contrary, it probably leaves them resentful. Your post suggests that you teach. If so, I'm sure you know that not every student appreciates what is taught to them.

Link to comment

I've tried to read all of the posts in all of the threads but even if I read it it didn't sink in.

 

One of the arguments against additional requirements was that it placed the reviewers in the awkward position of deciding what was and wasn't an acceptable ALR. Am I to believe that this change has removed that particular burden? Now a cache owner can REQUEST anything and it will fly? I doubt it.

Well, you can't actively condone they break the law, but yeah, the cache owner can request just about anything - the finder can ignore it completely if they want. Reasonable requests will likely be followed, but that decision is made by the finder.

Link to comment

I've tried to read all of the posts in all of the threads but even if I read it it didn't sink in.

 

One of the arguments against additional requirements was that it placed the reviewers in the awkward position of deciding what was and wasn't an acceptable ALR. Am I to believe that this change has removed that particular burden? Now a cache owner can REQUEST anything and it will fly? I doubt it.

 

I am among the greatest of admirers of the Groundspeak volunteer reviewers and gratefully acknowledge their tireless dedication to the greatest of all outdoor activities. Many ALR owners are bummed because they are having to change previously approved caches. I don't know if past guideline changes have been this far- reaching in requiring changes like this without regard to grandfathering past caches. Even virts, webcams, and early earthcaches were grandfathered in when the rules changed.

Link to comment

I've tried to read all of the posts in all of the threads but even if I read it it didn't sink in.

 

One of the arguments against additional requirements was that it placed the reviewers in the awkward position of deciding what was and wasn't an acceptable ALR. Am I to believe that this change has removed that particular burden? Now a cache owner can REQUEST anything and it will fly? I doubt it.

 

I am among the greatest of admirers of the Groundspeak volunteer reviewers and gratefully acknowledge their tireless dedication to the greatest of all outdoor activities. Many ALR owners are bummed because they are having to change previously approved caches. I don't know if past guideline changes have been this far- reaching in requiring changes like this without regard to grandfathering past caches. Even virts, webcams, and early earthcaches were grandfathered in when the rules changed.

 

Yes, and my understanding is this grandfathering has almost always led to confusion and more work than good for the reviewers. It leads to the "but that cache is allowed" arguments.

Link to comment

.

 

... if it's a choice between keeping the volunteer reviewers and keeping ALRs, then good riddance to ALRs. If reviewing ALR caches (and dealing with the fallout from rejecting abusive ALR caches) is causing volunteer reviewers to complain and quit, then let Additional Logging Requirements become Additional Logging Requests.

 

That's a good point but it begs the question, why are reviewers not paid for their work?

 

Someone, in either this or a related thread, noted the amount of money collected by GC.com and stated the company won't even blink when I decide to withhold my $30. So I ask again, with all this money flowing, why are reviewers not paid?

 

Certainly the company may set whatever priorities it likes, but the evidence suggests that GC.com has placed a premium on maximizing immediate profits rather than building a high quality brand. Sometimes this type of business strategy leads to less profit down the road, but certainly it drives away people who place a premium on quality, especially if people have someplace else to go.

 

And why is it that cache owners, the very people without whom GC.com would have no profit whatsoever, have virtually no say in how cache placement is governed?

 

These are reasonable questions, but given the way this forum operates, intelligent discussion of these points is not likely to follow. Perhaps I will be surprised by the forthcoming posts, but past experience suggests this discussion will be yet another example that quality is not the top priority.

 

How so? I've noticed that any time a controversial topic is in play, I'd estimate that more than half the people who contribute do so by insulting an earlier poster without ever actually offering some type of thoughtful rebuttal to the point he or she made. This, too, reflects the brand the GC.com is building and it is a sorry sight for sure.

 

I'm in the media and I understand the importance of free speech, but it was never meant to mean, free to be an idiot. Yes, most of us will slip at times and say something ill-advised, but this forum has devolved way beyond occasional slips.

 

.

Link to comment

 

Here's that "You can lead a horse to water" thing again. You may be interested in the history but it doesn't mean everyone else will be. By requiring people to appreciate it as much as you do, you are pushing an agenda, which is against the guidelines.

 

 

 

Forcing someone to read your page does not guarantee that they will appreciate it. On the contrary, it probably leaves them resentful. Your post suggests that you teach. If so, I'm sure you know that not every student appreciates what is taught to them.

 

My caches were designed and approved under the existing rules of the day. I do not force anyone to answer the questions. If they do not want to answer my questions, they do not need to do the cache. Move on to the next park and grab.

 

Much like I am not forced to solve a Sudoku to get a cache. But, if I want to get that cache I MUST solve the Sudoku. Where is the difference? Isn't that really just another ALR? In order for me to log a find, I MUST solve the Sudoku. 99.9 % of the time the puzzle has nothing to do with the cache, the area or the theme of the cache.

Edited by Plasma Boy
Link to comment

.

 

... if it's a choice between keeping the volunteer reviewers and keeping ALRs, then good riddance to ALRs. If reviewing ALR caches (and dealing with the fallout from rejecting abusive ALR caches) is causing volunteer reviewers to complain and quit, then let Additional Logging Requirements become Additional Logging Requests.

 

That's a good point but it begs the question, why are reviewers not paid for their work?

 

Someone, in either this or a related thread, noted the amount of money collected by GC.com and stated the company won't even blink when I decide to withhold my $30. So I ask again, with all this money flowing, why are reviewers not paid?

 

Certainly the company may set whatever priorities it likes, but the evidence suggests that GC.com has placed a premium on maximizing immediate profits rather than building a high quality brand. Sometimes this type of business strategy leads to less profit down the road, but certainly it drives away people who place a premium on quality, especially if people have someplace else to go.

 

And why is it that cache owners, the very people without whom GC.com would have no profit whatsoever, have virtually no say in how cache placement is governed?

 

These are reasonable questions, but given the way this forum operates, intelligent discussion of these points is not likely to follow. Perhaps I will be surprised by the forthcoming posts, but past experience suggests this discussion will be yet another example that quality is not the top priority.

 

How so? I've noticed that any time a controversial topic is in play, I'd estimate that more than half the people who contribute do so by insulting an earlier poster without ever actually offering some type of thoughtful rebuttal to the point he or she made. This, too, reflects the brand the GC.com is building and it is a sorry sight for sure.

 

I'm in the media and I understand the importance of free speech, but it was never meant to mean, free to be an idiot. Yes, most of us will slip at times and say something ill-advised, but this forum has devolved way beyond occasional slips.

 

.

 

This entitlement attitude is disturbing.

First, I don't think it's any of your business how GS handles their volunteers.

Second, if not for this website, you'd have no reason at all to complain, so acting like we cache hiders are the reason GS is able to stay in business is bunk! As I have said before, if you really want to tell GS how to run their business, make a business model that is even close to GS and give them some competition (or in simpler terms, the door is to the left, find another place to play)!

 

I love the "we cache owners are the reason for GS's success arguments....OK!

Link to comment
Can I have your EarthCaches? I hate to see them go away.

 

Seriously, EarthCaches are exempt from the changes (See the original post).

My two Earth caches are very special to me. I have not decided what I will do with them. One was created to honour a very good friend of mine. The other is a place where we teach our students.

 

And ... forgive me, but aren't your other caches just a cool even if someone doesn't have to prove to you they read the sign? Your cache pages are interesting, and made me curious about what was there. The average cacher will be curious enough to read the sign once they get that close anyway. Those people will enjoy the cache and benefit from it.

The problem is the signs and monuments only contain the cliff notes of the history of my caches. The additional material that I supply contains the whole story. I would like some assurance that the logger has appreciated the effort i put into the cache. The way I can be assured that this happens is for the seeker to email me some answers. I have had a number of people who have not appreciated my effort by supplying me with wrong answers that show that they have not bothered to look at the links. I understand there are people who complain about ALRs and this new rule is GC's way of dealing with that complaint. This is my way of showing my displeasure with both the complainers and GC's new rule.

 

I do not feel that my ALRs are too much to ask. GC disagrees with me and sides with number hunters. I have decided to disagree with GC and the only way to do that is to remove my caches from play.

First, by removing your caches from play, you are not really hurting Groundspeak, you are hurting the cachers who may want to hunt your caches.

 

Second, I have to say, I've only looked at one of your caches (GC1C6Q2), but it seems to me that you could easily make your ALRs into real puzzles. Take the cache I looked at as an example:

Your task is to go to the posted coordinates.

 

Take a photo of the sign.

 

Using your GPSr, follow a bearing of 224*T for 19 metres.

 

Locate and sign the log book.

 

Email me the photo and tell me:

1) What is the name of the famous American poet who wrote about Admiral d'Anville's voyage?

2) According to the small plaque ( not the plaque at the published coordinates) located in the park, How many people perished at the encampment?

Turn that into:
Your task is to go to the posted coordinates.

 

1) What is the name of the famous American poet who wrote about Admiral d'Anville's voyage? Give each letter in the last name a numerical value (A=1, B=2...Z=26) and add them together. Add 100 to this number for the bearing you must take.

2) According to the small plaque ( not the plaque at the published coordinates) located in the park, How many people perished at the encampment? Subtract this number from 1000 to give you the number of meters in your distance.

 

Using your GPSr, follow a the bearing and distance you figured above.

 

Locate and sign the log book.

As I don't know the particulars of what is on site at ground zero in this case, the details may need to be adjusted to fit what is available, but something like this keeps the flavor of the waypoint projection in your cache, and assures that the cachers are getting the information you want to be sure they are getting.

 

As others have noted, your Earthcaches are exempt from the new guideline, so no change needs to be made there.

 

I think archiving these caches would be a shame, since one of the aspects I really like of caching is the fact that it brings me to interesting places.

Edited by Too Tall John
Link to comment

 

Here's that "You can lead a horse to water" thing again. You may be interested in the history but it doesn't mean everyone else will be. By requiring people to appreciate it as much as you do, you are pushing an agenda, which is against the guidelines.

 

 

 

Forcing someone to read your page does not guarantee that they will appreciate it. On the contrary, it probably leaves them resentful. Your post suggests that you teach. If so, I'm sure you know that not every student appreciates what is taught to them.

 

My caches were designed and approved under the existing rules of the day. I do not force anyone to answer the questions. If they do not want to answer my questions, they do not need to do the cache. Move on to the next park and grab.

 

Much like I am not forced to solve a Sudoku to get a cache. But, if I want to get that cache I MUST solve the Sudoku. Where is the difference? Isn't that really just another ALR? In order for me to log a find, I MUST solve the Sudoku. 99.9 % of the time the puzzle has nothing to do with the cache, the area or the theme of the cache.

 

This has been explained so many times, but you still act like it's new to you?

Link to comment

 

Here's that "You can lead a horse to water" thing again. You may be interested in the history but it doesn't mean everyone else will be. By requiring people to appreciate it as much as you do, you are pushing an agenda, which is against the guidelines.

 

 

Forcing someone to read your page does not guarantee that they will appreciate it. On the contrary, it probably leaves them resentful. Your post suggests that you teach. If so, I'm sure you know that not every student appreciates what is taught to them.

 

My caches were designed and approved under the existing rules of the day. I do not force anyone to answer the questions. If they do not want to answer my questions, they do not need to do the cache. Move on to the next park and grab.

 

Much like I am not forced to solve a Sudoku to get a cache. But, if I want to get that cache I MUST solve the Sudoku. Where is the difference? Isn't that really just another ALR? In order for me to log a find, I MUST solve the Sudoku. 99.9 % of the time the puzzle has nothing to do with the cache, the area or the theme of the cache.

People keep forgetting the "before" signing the log vs. "after" signing the log issue here...and I don't understand why. It's really not that difficult a concept.

 

Puzzle = solve the puzzle, get the coords, find the cache, sign the log, log online.

ALR = get the coords (may involve a puzzle), sign the log, log online, Owner reviews the ALR and if not satisfied said owner deletes the online log.

 

The change made just removes the blue bolded portion previously being held over the head of the finder.

 

Can the owner of the puzzle delete a log, sure, and so can the owner of the former ALR...but not because of not completing the ALR...it has to be for some other, usually legitimate, reason.

Link to comment

And why is it that cache owners, the very people without whom GC.com would have no profit whatsoever, have virtually no say in how cache placement is governed?

Do you ever really have a say in how a company operates? I mean, you can take your business elsewhere, but unless everyone else follows you out the door does it have any effect?

 

Suppose I get upset at my favorite football team to the point where I don't want to go to any more games. The Denver Broncos have sold out every home game for over 30 years, so I don't think my leaving is going to affect them very much. They'll still fill the seats and I'll be the one looking for something else to do with my time and money.

 

Now, those who know me know that football is the only pro sport I'm really interested in. If I'm going to be happy, I'll just have to accept that Shanahan is gone and that the team is more than just one person.

 

In the same way, I have to accept that changing requirements to requests doesn't really change the root of geocaching - the game is still about using GPS to find containers and write about your experiences. It isn't about being forced to juggle, tapdance, and sing the Catalina Magdalena Lupensteina Wollenbeina song.

Link to comment

My caches were designed and approved under the existing rules of the day. I do not force anyone to answer the questions. If they do not want to answer my questions, they do not need to do the cache. Move on to the next park and grab.

 

Much like I am not forced to solve a Sudoku to get a cache. But, if I want to get that cache I MUST solve the Sudoku. Where is the difference? Isn't that really just another ALR? In order for me to log a find, I MUST solve the Sudoku. 99.9 % of the time the puzzle has nothing to do with the cache, the area or the theme of the cache.

So make it a puzzle, where you can't find the cache without reading the historical stuff. It would probably be very simple, it would take some of the workload off of yourself (no checking every log), and you wouldn't even have to change the cache type.

 

A puzzle isn't the same. It's an obstacle to overcome to get the cache, just like a long hike or a lake or a cliff are obstacles to getting the cache. An ALR is an obstacle to logging the cache online. Someone can still find the cache without doing the ALR.

 

Thinking about it, it seems to me that the cache owner is the one who loses out with ALRs. The find history may not be accurate, and you may not know about people finding your cache who just decided not to bother logging it.

 

I understand the frustration over the no-grandfathering thing. But I also understand why they did it.

Link to comment

My caches were designed and approved under the existing rules of the day. I do not force anyone to answer the questions. If they do not want to answer my questions, they do not need to do the cache. Move on to the next park and grab.

 

Much like I am not forced to solve a Sudoku to get a cache. But, if I want to get that cache I MUST solve the Sudoku. Where is the difference? Isn't that really just another ALR? In order for me to log a find, I MUST solve the Sudoku. 99.9 % of the time the puzzle has nothing to do with the cache, the area or the theme of the cache.

In order to find the cache, they must answer the questions...that's forcing them to answer the questions (letting them choose to skip the cache is not a valid argument)

Link to comment

 

Second, I have to say, I've only looked at one of your caches (GC1C6Q2), but it seems to me that you could easily make your ALRs into real puzzles. Take the cache I looked at as an example:

Your task is to go to the posted coordinates.

 

Take a photo of the sign.

 

Using your GPSr, follow a bearing of 224*T for 19 metres.

 

Locate and sign the log book.

 

Email me the photo and tell me:

1) What is the name of the famous American poet who wrote about Admiral d'Anville's voyage?

2) According to the small plaque ( not the plaque at the published coordinates) located in the park, How many people perished at the encampment?

Turn that into:
Your task is to go to the posted coordinates.

 

1) What is the name of the famous American poet who wrote about Admiral d'Anville's voyage? Give each letter in the last name a numerical value (A=1, B=2...Z=26) and add them together. Add 100 to this number for the bearing you must take.

2) According to the small plaque ( not the plaque at the published coordinates) located in the park, How many people perished at the encampment? Subtract this number from 1000 to give you the number of meters in your distance.

 

Using your GPSr, follow a the bearing and distance you figured above.

 

Locate and sign the log book.

As I don't know the particulars of what is on site at ground zero in this case, the details may need to be adjusted to fit what is available, but something like this keeps the flavor of the waypoint projection in your cache, and assures that the cachers are getting the information you want to be sure they are getting.

 

As others have noted, your Earthcaches are exempt from the new guideline, so no change needs to be made there.

 

I think archiving these caches would be a shame, since one of the aspects I really like of caching is the fact that it brings me to interesting places.

 

So, again, what is the difference in the result of the way you propose and the way I did it. Both methods require the seeker to go to the historic data and find the answer. If I make the changes those who complain about ALRs still need to do an ALR to complete the cache. You are just calling it some else. What is the difference?

 

Both methods require you to do something that unless you do it, you can not log a find. In fact my way is less frustrating, because I give the final coords. Your method can lead to errors if you count incorrectly. My method is simpler.

Link to comment

 

In order to find the cache, they must answer the questions...that's forcing them to answer the questions (letting them choose to skip the cache is not a valid argument)

 

In order to log a find on a puzzle cache you must solve the puzzle. Why is me skipping a puzzle cache because I do not want to or can not solve it any more or less valid?

Link to comment
So, again, what is the difference in the result of the way you propose and the way I did it. Both methods require the seeker to go to the historic data and find the answer. If I make the changes those who complain about ALRs still need to do an ALR to complete the cache. You are just calling it some else. What is the difference?

 

Both methods require you to do something that unless you do it, you can not log a find. In fact my way is less frustrating, because I give the final coords. Your method can lead to errors if you count incorrectly. My method is simpler.

It should be noted that I am actually trying to help you find a way to keep your caches. If you yourself see no difference in the results between my method and your method, why not make the changes and keep the caches?

 

The only difference between the 2 writeups is that my method is a puzzle, allowable under current guidelines.

 

Your method may be simpler for the cache hunter, but it is against the guidelines.

 

Your method is also not simpler for you. You need to match emails up against logs and make sure the proper answers are given with your method. With mine, if they find the cache, they have the proper information.

Link to comment

 

In order to find the cache, they must answer the questions...that's forcing them to answer the questions (letting them choose to skip the cache is not a valid argument)

 

In order to log a find on a puzzle cache you must solve the puzzle. Why is me skipping a puzzle cache because I do not want to or can not solve it any more or less valid?

Perspective. It's obvious from your other posts that you just don't have it.

Link to comment
So, again, what is the difference in the result of the way you propose and the way I did it. Both methods require the seeker to go to the historic data and find the answer. If I make the changes those who complain about ALRs still need to do an ALR to complete the cache. You are just calling it some else. What is the difference?

 

Both methods require you to do something that unless you do it, you can not log a find. In fact my way is less frustrating, because I give the final coords. Your method can lead to errors if you count incorrectly. My method is simpler.

It should be noted that I am actually trying to help you find a way to keep your caches. If you yourself see no difference in the results between my method and your method, why not make the changes and keep the caches?

 

The only difference between the 2 writeups is that my method is a puzzle, allowable under current guidelines.

 

Your method may be simpler for the cache hunter, but it is against the guidelines.

 

Your method is also not simpler for you. You need to match emails up against logs and make sure the proper answers are given with your method. With mine, if they find the cache, they have the proper information.

I would add that the puzzle version does not require a camera.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...