Jump to content

update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009


Recommended Posts

Aren't Wherigo "caches" just big, huge, time-consuming ALR caches in disguise? Are they affected (sorry if this was mentioned already...I didn't have the patience to read every post in this thread) by this new guideline in any way?

No, you're confusing "having to do something to find the cache" (any multi, puzzle, or Wherigo) with "having to do something after finding the cache in order to log it online" (any ALR)

The issue is that Miss Jenn indicated that a Wherigo cache coule have a requirement the finder has completed the cartridge on the Wherigo site before they a can log a find on the Geocaching site. As DanOCan pointed out it is possible to have found the Wherigo cache and sign the physical log, and then have the Wherigo cartridge crash before you get the unlock code for the Wherigo site. In his case the cache owner allowed the find but it sounds like Groundspeak would have also allowed the owner to delete the 'Found It' log. Or suppose I go to look for a Wherigo cache with a friend who has an Oregon. We find the cache together and sign the log. Then for whatever reason my friend doesn't complete the cartridge on the Wherigo site. I assume that if he completes the cartridge and I write in my log 'found it with xxx" that my Found It could stand, but if he doesn't complete the cartridge then I am out of luck.

Link to comment

I think a new Icon for ALR caches is what is needed. Then people could chose to do them or not. I know some people that do not do puzzles at all, they do not even look at them. So why not a ALR type cache and people can decide on their own if they want to do them or not. You always have the option to sort them out on querys and the godd old ignore bookmark.

Link to comment

While I can see both sides of the issue of banning ALR caches, and I have found a number of them that I didn’t mind, or actually enjoyed doing, my feeling is that banning these “?” ALR caches without any warning, and not grandfathering the existing ones, was a very poor way to handle the situation.

 

There are existing challenge caches that are perfectly legal within the new guidelines that have requirements to find certain types or a certain number of puzzle caches. For instance there is one cache that requires you to find several types of caches in each county in the state. Anyone who has completed that puzzle cache by using a “?” ALR cache that has now been converted to a “normal” cache, technically no longer fulfills the requirements for that cache.

 

Anyone who has found a lot of puzzle caches will also find that their number of puzzle finds has taken a hit. I noticed one Colorado cacher that lost about 30 puzzle find because some of the “?” ALR caches that he found (using the Groundspeak rules in effect when he found those caches) have been changed to “normal” caches. I realize that his total number of finds remains the same but that isn’t the point. This is analogous to a baseball park changing the foul line and deciding that Babe Ruth should have X number of home runs subtracted from his total.

 

So while in the overall scheme of things this may not be a biggie, and I’m sure the purpose of the change is for the better, the execution or implementation of the plan sucks. I just wish that Groundspeak could have found a better way to handle this without creating problems for cachers that, through no fault of their own, are adversely affected by this poorly thought out action.

Link to comment

Aren't Wherigo "caches" just big, huge, time-consuming ALR caches in disguise? Are they affected (sorry if this was mentioned already...I didn't have the patience to read every post in this thread) by this new guideline in any way?

No, you're confusing "having to do something to find the cache" (any multi, puzzle, or Wherigo) with "having to do something after finding the cache in order to log it online" (any ALR)

 

Actually, have encountered a WIG with a specific "have to do something after finding the cache in order to log it"...had to email the owner a phrase from the cartridge in order to log it online. And did so.

Link to comment

I wonder how many hypocrites will go out and log ALR caches, just because they can and not have their logs deleted. I suck at puzzles but I wouldnt rejoice them going the same way ALR caches have been watered down. how many people would solve the puzzle if it was optional? how many puzzle cache hiders would keep pushing the envelope with their puzzles if cachers DIDNT HAVE to solve them?

Groundspeak missed the call on this one :blink:

 

inigo4760489.jpg

 

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Link to comment

Aren't Wherigo "caches" just big, huge, time-consuming ALR caches in disguise? Are they affected (sorry if this was mentioned already...I didn't have the patience to read every post in this thread) by this new guideline in any way?

No, you're confusing "having to do something to find the cache" (any multi, puzzle, or Wherigo) with "having to do something after finding the cache in order to log it online" (any ALR)

 

Actually, have encountered a WIG with a specific "have to do something after finding the cache in order to log it"...had to email the owner a phrase from the cartridge in order to log it online. And did so.

In that particular case, there is an ALR on a Wherigo cache but that doesn't describe Wherigo caches in general.

Link to comment

Aren't Wherigo "caches" just big, huge, time-consuming ALR caches in disguise? Are they affected (sorry if this was mentioned already...I didn't have the patience to read every post in this thread) by this new guideline in any way?

No, you're confusing "having to do something to find the cache" (any multi, puzzle, or Wherigo) with "having to do something after finding the cache in order to log it online" (any ALR)

The issue is that Miss Jenn indicated that a Wherigo cache coule have a requirement the finder has completed the cartridge on the Wherigo site before they a can log a find on the Geocaching site. As DanOCan pointed out it is possible to have found the Wherigo cache and sign the physical log, and then have the Wherigo cartridge crash before you get the unlock code for the Wherigo site. In his case the cache owner allowed the find but it sounds like Groundspeak would have also allowed the owner to delete the 'Found It' log. Or suppose I go to look for a Wherigo cache with a friend who has an Oregon. We find the cache together and sign the log. Then for whatever reason my friend doesn't complete the cartridge on the Wherigo site. I assume that if he completes the cartridge and I write in my log 'found it with xxx" that my Found It could stand, but if he doesn't complete the cartridge then I am out of luck.

So now if you just mention someone in your properly completed found it log, your log can be deleted if the other person doesn't perform the required task? It sounds like a great big stretch to trump up examples of how this change is a horrible, unfair burden on caching.

 

You could always start a competing site for puritan_caching.com and call it anarchy_caching.com. Anything goes. Just start posting found it logs to your account. You don't even need to hide caches. Just think up a cache number and coordinates, then post away. It doesn't matter if you found a cache, it doesn't matter if you signed the log, it only matters if you had fun. Oh and it only matters if everyone else only has fun the same way you do, or else they are puritans or Taliban. :blink:

Link to comment

 

There are existing challenge caches that are perfectly legal within the new guidelines that have requirements to find certain types or a certain number of puzzle caches. For instance there is one cache that requires you to find several types of caches in each county in the state. Anyone who has completed that puzzle cache by using a “?” ALR cache that has now been converted to a “normal” cache, technically no longer fulfills the requirements for that cache.

 

This is one reason I've advocated giving ALRs their own category. If the Challenge Cache requirement is to find X puzzle caches, then doing an ALR really doesn't fulfill that requirement anyway. All you've done is find a "Unknown" cache, not a Puzzle cache.

 

Again, let's break that Unknown category down a bit.

Link to comment

Interesting thread. There is a handfull of debatants here. Compare it to the following:

There are 766,722 active caches worldwide. In the last 7 days, there have been 644,703 new logs written by 80,836 account holders.
I think this speaks for it's self.

You debatants means diddly. :blink:

Link to comment

I wonder how many hypocrites will go out and log ALR caches, just because they can and not have their logs deleted. I suck at puzzles but I wouldnt rejoice them going the same way ALR caches have been watered down. how many people would solve the puzzle if it was optional? how many puzzle cache hiders would keep pushing the envelope with their puzzles if cachers DIDNT HAVE to solve them?

Groundspeak missed the call on this one :blink:

 

inigo4760489.jpg

 

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

hyp⋅o⋅crite

   /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hip-uh-krit] Show IPA

–noun

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

 

My opinion is that if you didnt want to do what the cache owner wanted to make the cache fun or interesting when it was manadatory it seems a little hypocritical to do it when its optional but the cache owner still has the same intent. I dont have a lot of experience with ALR caches and havent seen any that had ridiculous requirements but I either would find the cache and log it the way the owner intended or I wouldnt do it at all.

Edited by oldnavy59
Link to comment

 

There are existing challenge caches that are perfectly legal within the new guidelines that have requirements to find certain types or a certain number of puzzle caches. For instance there is one cache that requires you to find several types of caches in each county in the state. Anyone who has completed that puzzle cache by using a “?” ALR cache that has now been converted to a “normal” cache, technically no longer fulfills the requirements for that cache.

 

This is one reason I've advocated giving ALRs their own category. If the Challenge Cache requirement is to find X puzzle caches, then doing an ALR really doesn't fulfill that requirement anyway. All you've done is find a "Unknown" cache, not a Puzzle cache.

 

Again, let's break that Unknown category down a bit.

My point is not whether there should or shouldn't be an ALR class of caches in the future but that an ex post facto ruling wiping out a cacher's legitimate "?" finds is unfair.

Link to comment

Honestly I don't see a purpose of me signing a logbook then taking a photo of myself on a piece of playground equipment in order to claim a smiley has anything to do with Geocaching. Or, why should I have to transcribe a monument nearby in my log. Again, what does that have to do with Geocaching. Absolutely nothing. The ALR's were getting out of hand. Other thing like I said before. I cache paperless. A lot of these additional requirements were embedded in a photograph or at the bottom of a very long cache description and were truncated. So, I found the cache at the posted coordinates and now what do I do? I sign the log book. Should my log be deleted because I couldn't read the ALR in the field? No, that's not in keeping with what Geocaching is about. However, I probably have 10 or so logs deleted because of this. Glad the ALR's are gone.

Link to comment
Since a logging requirement for a Wherigo cartridge is typically the upload of a completion code, it's reasonable that this requirement should extend to a Wherigo cache find.

I think you're getting into the "dangerous paradigm" territory again. If you're going to allow a cache owner force someone to do an additional action then you're leaving the foot in the door--doesn't matter if it's part of a sister site or not.

 

I suggest the standard be uploading the cartridge in order to claim completion of the cartridge--just like any any other cartridge--and signing the physical logbook in order to claim the completion of the cache--again, just like any other physical cache. It shouldn't matter how the logger found the cache--stumble, shortcut, or even a Wherigo cartridge--as long as they put their name in the logbook, it's a find.

Link to comment
My point is not whether there should or shouldn't be an ALR class of caches in the future but that an ex post facto ruling wiping out a cacher's legitimate "?" finds is unfair.

That find is not wiped out. This site now reports the statistics differently, but if you want to have accurate numbers you need to keep them yourself. This has always been the case ever since the first time anyone ever deleted logs for a reason more than the logger didn't find the cache. This has been the case with the D/T numbers. Some caches fluctuate seasonally or is now easier or harder than it was when you found it. Same with sizes--some get larger and some get smaller. Caches even move from spot to spot. We own a cache that has been moved 3 times. Types used to change before it was locked down.

 

A cache might have been found as 3/3 regular multi. A year later it might have been 1/1 micro traditional.

 

This is no different.

Link to comment
those WIGs that have a physical container...a signature on the log, by the prevailing logic, should be all that's necessary to "validate" the find, shouldn't it? The purported necessity to have additional validation (a la earthcaches) would not seem to be necessary - thus, falling into the ALR quagmire.

Comparing this with my two Wherigo caches, one of which is published, and one is still in the building stage.

 

The published one gives you ten natural springs to find in a large state forest. As you enter the "zone" for each spring, you receive an alphanumeric clue, such as A=1. These clues are later turned into the coords for the final, an ammo can. In building this one, I left each zone visible & active. From a seekers perspective, that means you could load the cartridge into the Wherigo emulator and easily figure out where the final was located, then go straight to it. A recent group of cachers did just that, then they went on to visit the springs which appealed to them. Judging by their logs, they enjoyed themselves. As such, this one could, in no way, be interpreted as having an ALR.

 

The one still in the building stage will require user input along the way. As they paddle down a sedate backwater river, they will enter zones, and they'll have to type in answers to questions, if they want to reveal the next zone. As Groundspeak has indicated that an ALR is something done after the cache is found, then this one also could not be interpreted as being an ALR.

 

If they no longer are required to email me answers then the back and forth conversation never happens.

It seems pretty sad that folks will only E-mail you if you force them to. I converse with cachers all the time, discussing my caches, their caches, etc. On a regular basis I congratulate cachers who have survived the harrowing journey to several of my hides. Often, when I see a DNF on one of my hides, I'll write the seeker to try and figure out what went wrong, and if they'd like some hints. This has led to some long term correspondence. Your claim that you can only hold a conversation with people who are forced to talk to you tells me more about you than anything you've posted so far.

 

I won't be inviting friends and people I meet on the trails to join, mostly because I will not be talking about geocaching that much. What's to talk about?

What's not to talk about? So far the only change I've seen is that you will no longer be able to compel someone to do something silly in order to claim a find. That's certainly something you could whine talk about while on the trail with other cachers. Heck, I'm betting you could spew vitriol all day long and never change the subject. You just seem to have a talent for it. Those who wish to listen to your rantings could become your apostles. Those who shake their heads and walk away could become the infidels. You could start your own religion! Wouldn't that be fun?

 

In those cases would the ALR component of the WIG be subject to the recent guidelines changes or would the exception for WIGs countermand that and the ALR be allowed to be enforced?

Good question. I'm still a babe in the woods as far as Wherigos are concerned, so I have no clue which way TPTB will rule on this.

Link to comment
My point is not whether there should or shouldn't be an ALR class of caches in the future but that an ex post facto ruling wiping out a cacher's legitimate "?" finds is unfair.

That find is not wiped out. This site now reports the statistics differently, but if you want to have accurate numbers you need to keep them yourself. This has always been the case ever since the first time anyone ever deleted logs for a reason more than the logger didn't find the cache. This has been the case with the D/T numbers. Some caches fluctuate seasonally or is now easier or harder than it was when you found it. Same with sizes--some get larger and some get smaller. Caches even move from spot to spot. We own a cache that has been moved 3 times. Types used to change before it was locked down.

 

A cache might have been found as 3/3 regular multi. A year later it might have been 1/1 micro traditional.

 

This is no different.

Sorry you misunderstood what I was saying. If you read my previous post I said:

Anyone who has found a lot of puzzle caches will also find that their number of puzzle finds has taken a hit. I noticed one Colorado cacher that lost about 30 puzzle find because some of the “?” ALR caches that he found (using the Groundspeak rules in effect when he found those caches) have been changed to “normal” caches. I realize that his total number of finds remains the same but that isn’t the point.

I never meant to imply that the total number of finds was changed in any way. If you reread the section of my post you quoted above it says:

My point is not whether there should or shouldn't be an ALR class of caches in the future but that an ex post facto ruling wiping out a cacher's legitimate "?" finds is unfair.
I hope that makes it clearer.
Link to comment
Aren't Wherigo "caches" just big, huge, time-consuming ALR caches in disguise? Are they affected (sorry if this was mentioned already...I didn't have the patience to read every post in this thread) by this new guideline in any way?

You only had to read the first post.

Link to comment
The ban on ALRs make caches like this somewhat mute.

And also moot. Hey, Vinnie covered Godwin's Law, now I'm picking on spelling. Double threadicide.

 

I've come to the conclusion that what really upsets me about this change is that it does seem to make a statement that the ability of people to log a find in order to get a smiley is important.

I really don't know why you're so obsessed with this idea. It's been clearly explained over and over that the reason for the change is that ALRs had become a serious problem for the reviewers. Given the critical importance of the reviewers to the game, I don't see why you feel so strongly the need to postulate another reason. See Occam's Razor.

 

I am sorely tempted to stop logging all of my finds online

Hmm, another standard form of threadice?

 

Edward

Link to comment

I don't like this change at all. If you don't want to fulfill the requirements, then don't go after the cache.

If it is made optional (as it already has) then the hider will just say "Why bother doing it in the first place?"

 

Quite frankly, I get sorta tired of just; drive up, get out, search, find, sign, move on. It's nice to have an extra challenge once in awhile, if you don't want such a challenge, don't look for it. Plain and simple.

 

That is why I am not likely to comply with this. It doesn't make sense, and I feel that there is no need for it.

 

And if you want me to follow the rules, make the line between Requirements and Guidelines a lot less blurred.

 

I have stated my opinion in the nicest way that I know how. Apologies, if I came across as a jerk.

Link to comment

It seems pretty sad that folks will only E-mail you if you force them to. I converse with cachers all the time, discussing my caches, their caches, etc. On a regular basis I congratulate cachers who have survived the harrowing journey to several of my hides. Often, when I see a DNF on one of my hides, I'll write the seeker to try and figure out what went wrong, and if they'd like some hints. This has led to some long term correspondence. Your claim that you can only hold a conversation with people who are forced to talk to you tells me more about you than anything you've posted so far.

Yea, I know it's sad. My mum had to tie a pork chop around my neck to get the dog to play with me. I would cry myself to sleep.

Link to comment

What's not to talk about? So far the only change I've seen is that you will no longer be able to compel someone to do something silly in order to claim a find. That's certainly something you could whine talk about while on the trail with other cachers. Heck, I'm betting you could spew vitriol all day long and never change the subject. You just seem to have a talent for it. Those who wish to listen to your rantings could become your apostles. Those who shake their heads and walk away could become the infidels. You could start your own religion! Wouldn't that be fun?

I'm rubber and your glue, anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you. See, I can be juvenile also.

Link to comment

I don't like this change at all. If you don't want to fulfill the requirements, then don't go after the cache.

If it is made optional (as it already has) then the hider will just say "Why bother doing it in the first place?"

 

Quite frankly, I get sorta tired of just; drive up, get out, search, find, sign, move on. It's nice to have an extra challenge once in awhile, if you don't want such a challenge, don't look for it. Plain and simple.

 

That is why I am not likely to comply with this. It doesn't make sense, and I feel that there is no need for it.

 

And if you want me to follow the rules, make the line between Requirements and Guidelines a lot less blurred.

 

I have stated my opinion in the nicest way that I know how. Apologies, if I came across as a jerk.

 

:blink::blink:

Link to comment
I hope that makes it clearer.

It couldn't have been any clearer than when I read it the first time. Maybe you're the one not understanding.

 

You're saying that it is unfair that Groundspeak is somehow wiping out finds. They are not. The find still stands. They are only reporting it differently. ( Here I'll point out the important words. )

 

I went on to illustrate how this is similar to other situations like the cache owner changing the difficulty. The cache is still reported found but differently than how one might have found it previously.

 

My point is Groundspeak only reports caches as they are right now, not how they were when you found them. If you want your count to be accurate you have to keep them yourself. This has always been true. In this respect nothing has changed, but, I suppose, some folks are only just now realizing this.

Link to comment

I agree with those that have said that a new cache type/icon should be created for ALR caches. For some hiders, the fun is in seeing the goofy things other cachers do. In my local caching community, it is more than just reading a bunch of logs that say "found it" it's about getting to know the other cachers, and sharing that with out of towners. To take that away does take away from the spirit of caching.

 

And if all you want to do is find logbooks and log "found it" on geocaching.com, then there are plenty of caches for you, too. And if there was a seperate icon for ALRs, then you could just turn them off, but why take away the fun for others, when you don't even want to have anything to do with ALRs?

Link to comment
My point is not whether there should or shouldn't be an ALR class of caches in the future but that an ex post facto ruling wiping out a cacher's legitimate "?" finds is unfair.
I find it strange that there wasn't so much outrage not too long ago when many of these same ALR caches were moved from traditional to "?".
I don't like this change at all. If you don't want to fulfill the requirements, then don't go after the cache.

If it is made optional (as it already has) then the hider will just say "Why bother doing it in the first place?"

I imagine that you are right about those cache seekers who don't find your ALR to be fun. However, if people think that the activity is fun, they'll do it. If you want to own an ALR that gets alot of finder cooperation, make it fun, not onerous.
Quite frankly, I get sorta tired of just; drive up, get out, search, find, sign, move on. It's nice to have an extra challenge once in awhile, if you don't want such a challenge, don't look for it. Plain and simple.
You are free to continue phooning, regardless of whether you are required to.
That is why I am not likely to comply with this. It doesn't make sense, and I feel that there is no need for it.

 

And if you want me to follow the rules, make the line between Requirements and Guidelines a lot less blurred.

It might help you to think of the guidelines as 'rules'. This new one certainly wasn't written or presented as being optional. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
I agree with those that have said that a new cache type/icon should be created for ALR caches. For some hiders, the fun is in seeing the goofy things other cachers do. In my local caching community, it is more than just reading a bunch of logs that say "found it" it's about getting to know the other cachers, and sharing that with out of towners. To take that away does take away from the spirit of caching.

 

And if all you want to do is find logbooks and log "found it" on geocaching.com, then there are plenty of caches for you, too. And if there was a seperate icon for ALRs, then you could just turn them off, but why take away the fun for others, when you don't even want to have anything to do with ALRs?

Go back and take a look at the early posts in this thread. The guideline change wasn't made because a bunch of whiners were complaining that they didn't want to phoon. The change was made largely because the reviewers were having to arbitrate what type of task was or wasn't appropriate for an ALR. Merely creating a new cache type wouldn't solve this. More likely, it would make it worse.
Link to comment

Seeing as I have found it difficult to edit my previous post, I will state most of how I truly feel, and where I'm coming from, here:

 

Most of my caches are on trails and hills, twenty miles from my home, overlooking a beautiful lake in Southern Oregon.

 

I hid them, so that others may enjoy the views of nature, as I have for all 14 years of my life.

 

This game is a treasure hunt, right? You will always have a goal, no matter what. Some do it for the numbers, for others, just getting outdoors or to exercise.

 

I cache for fun, and for entertainment... for the experience.

 

Extra requirements are for the experience.

They make caching fun, and offer a detour from the tiresome "lamp-skirt" hides

 

You make them optional, the population of ALR caches will dwindle. There won't be much of a reason to write them, because there won't be much of a reason for others to complete them.

 

I will oppose this new "Guideline" for as long as it is labelled as such.

The only reason that I am going to rewrite my caches, is that odds are they would be archived, and I would be banned from the site.

Link to comment
... Extra requirements are for the experience.

They make caching fun, and offer a detour from the tiresome "lamp-skirt" hides

 

You make them optional, the population of ALR caches will dwindle. There won't be much of a reason to write them, because there won't be much of a reason for others to complete them. ...

How do you correlate this theory with the hula cache mentioned numerous times in this thread? Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
... Extra requirements are for the experience.

They make caching fun, and offer a detour from the tiresome "lamp-skirt" hides

 

You make them optional, the population of ALR caches will dwindle. There won't be much of a reason to write them, because there won't be much of a reason for others to complete them. ...

How do you correlate this theory with the hula cache mentioned numerous times in this thread?

 

I have no clue how to use a hula hoop, so I can kill two birds with one stone by learning a new hobby and finding a cache.

 

As they say, variety is the spice of life! Diversity is what keeps me interested in geocaching. Geocaching is still diverse, but if owners archive their caches because of this, we love a little bit of that diversity.

Link to comment
... Extra requirements are for the experience.

They make caching fun, and offer a detour from the tiresome "lamp-skirt" hides

 

You make them optional, the population of ALR caches will dwindle. There won't be much of a reason to write them, because there won't be much of a reason for others to complete them. ...

How do you correlate this theory with the hula cache mentioned numerous times in this thread?

 

I have no clue how to use a hula hoop, so I can kill two birds with one stone by learning a new hobby and finding a cache.

 

As they say, variety is the spice of life! Diversity is what keeps me interested in geocaching. Geocaching is still diverse, but if owners archive their caches because of this, we love a little bit of that diversity.

Not that kind of hula.
Link to comment

I agree with those that have said that a new cache type/icon should be created for ALR caches. For some hiders, the fun is in seeing the goofy things other cachers do. In my local caching community, it is more than just reading a bunch of logs that say "found it" it's about getting to know the other cachers, and sharing that with out of towners. To take that away does take away from the spirit of caching.

 

And if all you want to do is find logbooks and log "found it" on geocaching.com, then there are plenty of caches for you, too. And if there was a seperate icon for ALRs, then you could just turn them off, but why take away the fun for others, when you don't even want to have anything to do with ALRs?

 

A n00b with a sensible first post, IMO.

 

I have one ALR(equest) (changed to confirm to new guidelines) cache (not republished yet) and a couple of ALS(uggestion) caches, this being the most found. Count the compliant logs on the latter and compare them to the percentage of compliant logs on the other. Call me a "control freak" if you will but I prefer logs which conform to my "requests" or "requirements". Which method produces a greater percentage of logs which comply? Part of my fun from those caches comes from logs which acknowledge the spirit of those ALRs, whether the R means requirement or request, logs which don't comply kinda bum me out. Doesn't the cache owner's fun figure in somewhere?

 

When I placed both of those caches, I was "doing something new" in this area. I could still "do something new" along those lines but my experience already disinclines me to do so, most logs will be along the lines of TFTC TNLN SL...and I've had it happen on caches which others have praised as "this is what caching is about".

Link to comment

Seeing as I have found it difficult to edit my previous post, I will state most of how I truly feel, and where I'm coming from, here:

 

Most of my caches are on trails and hills, twenty miles from my home, overlooking a beautiful lake in Southern Oregon.

 

I hid them, so that others may enjoy the views of nature, as I have for all 14 years of my life.

 

This game is a treasure hunt, right? You will always have a goal, no matter what. Some do it for the numbers, for others, just getting outdoors or to exercise.

 

I cache for fun, and for entertainment... for the experience.

 

Extra requirements are for the experience.

They make caching fun, and offer a detour from the tiresome "lamp-skirt" hides

 

You make them optional, the population of ALR caches will dwindle. There won't be much of a reason to write them, because there won't be much of a reason for others to complete them.

 

I will oppose this new "Guideline" for as long as it is labelled as such.

The only reason that I am going to rewrite my caches, is that odds are they would be archived, and I would be banned from the site.

 

EpicGuy - I love your hides. Much more than a lot of others down here. Some of them have driven me up the wall a time or two, but the ones out in the woods are my favorites.

 

Dollars to donuts the SO Geocachers will still end up doing the ALR (or ALS as the case may be) even if it's optional. I honestly don't see this guideline change affecting much of anything. I haven't looked at all your hides, I only look at the ones I'm going to go hunt so I don't honestly know how many you have with ALR's, but I mainly skip the ALR caches anyway. I'm not going to go out and log the cache without doing the cache because I now can, I feel that's disrespectful to the CO.

 

The people who like them will still do them, and the people who don't like them (like me) will probably still avoid them. :blink:

Link to comment
... Extra requirements are for the experience.

They make caching fun, and offer a detour from the tiresome "lamp-skirt" hides

 

You make them optional, the population of ALR caches will dwindle. There won't be much of a reason to write them, because there won't be much of a reason for others to complete them. ...

How do you correlate this theory with the hula cache mentioned numerous times in this thread?

 

I have no clue how to use a hula hoop, so I can kill two birds with one stone by learning a new hobby and finding a cache.

 

As they say, variety is the spice of life! Diversity is what keeps me interested in geocaching. Geocaching is still diverse, but if owners archive their caches because of this, we love a little bit of that diversity.

Not that kind of hula.

 

Darnit, there's too many posts in this thread and I missed the hula reference. I made an assumption in the hope that I made the right choice. :blink:

 

My diversity claim still stands.

Link to comment

I don't like this change at all. If you don't want to fulfill the requirements, then don't go after the cache.

If it is made optional (as it already has) then the hider will just say "Why bother doing it in the first place?"

 

Quite frankly, I get sorta tired of just; drive up, get out, search, find, sign, move on. It's nice to have an extra challenge once in awhile, if you don't want such a challenge, don't look for it. Plain and simple.

 

That is why I am not likely to comply with this. It doesn't make sense, and I feel that there is no need for it.

 

And if you want me to follow the rules, make the line between Requirements and Guidelines a lot less blurred.

 

I have stated my opinion in the nicest way that I know how. Apologies, if I came across as a jerk.

 

Maybe you should look for caches that require more than "drive up" like mine:

 

The Bloated Festering Head of My First Victim

 

Edit after checking your profile:

 

You seem to have some good caches. Very good pages. If I was to get far enough south I would do them. Even the suggested ALR because it looks like a "FUN" place to go. I see some are near water too! :blink:

 

I do caches because they are fun, not all traditionals are "FUN".

Edited by Swamp-Thing
Link to comment

As the owner of 60 caches, which I have placed in my limited two years of caching, I do not feel the need to have someone take a picture of themselves up a tree, down the side of a cliff, or writing their name in “don’t eat the yellow snow” method. Some of my caches take folks to places that I would like them to stop for a moment and enjoy something such as a monument, a feature from the past, or a plaque in recognition of someone who has made a difference in the world.

 

If those that seek my caches do not take that time and reward themselves with the extra intention of the cache, then so be it, I don’t really care, for as sure as the sun gets up each morning there are those that are of a like mind and “will” pause for a moment and they will be rewarded in doing so. Those that are only logging the cache for the numbers, are the one’s loosing out, not me, and certainly not those that take the time to pause.

 

My opinion is that an ALR is one placed by a cache owner who wishes to control the seeker, much like a local cacher who insisted I could not share a FTF with a fellow cacher who was present and assisted in the search. Having said that, when I have chosen to seek one of these caches, I have met the requirements for logging. If I thought the requirement was out of line I simply did not seek the cache.

 

Give me a break, is it all that important that someone might log your cache that did not pee into the wind, to meet your requirement, make it optional and move on. I once had a log deleted because it was a micro and involved a long walk, I had dropped my pencil on the way in and could not sign the logbook, when the CO read the logbook from his “micro” and did not see my log, he deleted my online log. I am glad I am not so possessed as to read and compare actual logbooks to online logs, get a life CO.

 

As for the four Earthcaches I own, they will not be affected, and cannot be affected since the logging requirements are not set by Groundspeak but by an entirely separate entity, geocaching.com only hosts the cache page, they do not make the rules for Earthcaches.

 

I have done and would continue to do ALR caches, but to submit our very overworked volunteers to having to make decisions as to what should or should not be allowed is a good way to get them to quit doing all the “unpaid” work they do, let’s appreciate them, and not overload them with extra work and responsibility. I have nothing but praise for my reviewer “Mtn Man” and let him know it whenever I can.

 

This of course is only my humble opinion…

Link to comment

Thumbs down Groundspeak on taking diversity away from the game!

 

thumbs-down.jpg

 

Now ALR's are gone, because some caches with ALR "have little or nothing to do with geocaching: the act of finding a unique container/location using latitude and longitude."

 

So, what next? Dismiss Puzzles alltogether, because some puzzles have little or nothing to do with geocaching? Solving a Vigenere Cipher or learning Japanese letters hardly has more to do with "finding a unique container/location using latitude and longitude" than wearing a pink hat at the location where this container was found. The puzzle bit could just be made optional for those who like to solve them, with the actual cache coords ready for those who don't like the puzzle or are too lazy to solve it.

 

Then what, maybe Multis? Because, collecting clues in a historic old town's center, where hiding a cache might not be possible or appropriate, has nothing to do with finding a unique container. We could just place a Micro outside the town, mentioning that there's an old town nearby for those who aren't too busy collecting up a few hundred more Micros today.

 

And then? We should get rid of all T5 caches etc. because learning how to use climbing or diving gear has nothing to do with finding a container using latitude and longitude... there should just be a simple cache at the base of the tree/rock face or near the beach, stating that those who really want to could climb up or dive down...

 

And in the end, all there's left are 1/1 lamppost micros...

 

All thumbs down on that change of the rules!

 

thumbsdown.jpgist2_2501493_thumbs_down.jpgthumbs%20down%20bu_475x485.shkl.jpg

Thumbs%20down.jpg

Link to comment

I am glad I am not so possessed as to read and compare actual logbooks to online logs, get a life CO.

You are not required to be possessed, but according to the Maintenance Guidelines, you have to delete bogus/counterfeit logs...

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.
Link to comment
... Extra requirements are for the experience.

They make caching fun, and offer a detour from the tiresome "lamp-skirt" hides

 

You make them optional, the population of ALR caches will dwindle. There won't be much of a reason to write them, because there won't be much of a reason for others to complete them. ...

How do you correlate this theory with the hula cache mentioned numerous times in this thread?

 

I have no clue how to use a hula hoop, so I can kill two birds with one stone by learning a new hobby and finding a cache.

 

As they say, variety is the spice of life! Diversity is what keeps me interested in geocaching. Geocaching is still diverse, but if owners archive their caches because of this, we love a little bit of that diversity.

Not that kind of hula.

 

Darnit, there's too many posts in this thread and I missed the hula reference. I made an assumption in the hope that I made the right choice. :blink:

 

My diversity claim still stands.

He's referring to this post, and some subsequent mentions. I'm shocked - shocked I say - that you missed these amazing hula cache photos, which demonstrated that you can be silly and/or creative with a cache without requiring folks to do stuff, and that despite a task being optional, a surprising number of people will still do it.

 

In this case, the (Hawaiian) hula dance is an optional part of the referenced cache, yet most people do it and post the evidence. Some even hike the mile to the cache carrying appropriate attire (so, it's not exactly a quick grab, either). They clearly have no fun at all doing this optional task.

 

Imho, this example disproves a lot of the griping on this thread that folks won't do a task if it's not required, caches will now be boring numbers grabs, blah blah ad nauseum.

 

From the looks of it, EpicGuy, Plasma Boy, rjb43nh, and luzian should check out this post, as well.

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

As the owner of 60 caches, which I have placed in my limited two years of caching, I do not feel the need to have someone take a picture of themselves up a tree, down the side of a cliff, or writing their name in “don’t eat the yellow snow” method. Some of my caches take folks to places that I would like them to stop for a moment and enjoy something such as a monument, a feature from the past, or a plaque in recognition of someone who has made a difference in the world.

 

If those that seek my caches do not take that time and reward themselves with the extra intention of the cache, then so be it, I don’t really care, for as sure as the sun gets up each morning there are those that are of a like mind and “will” pause for a moment and they will be rewarded in doing so. Those that are only logging the cache for the numbers, are the one’s loosing out, not me, and certainly not those that take the time to pause.

 

My opinion is that an ALR is one placed by a cache owner who wishes to control the seeker, much like a local cacher who insisted I could not share a FTF with a fellow cacher who was present and assisted in the search. Having said that, when I have chosen to seek one of these caches, I have met the requirements for logging. If I thought the requirement was out of line I simply did not seek the cache.

 

Give me a break, is it all that important that someone might log your cache that did not pee into the wind, to meet your requirement, make it optional and move on. I once had a log deleted because it was a micro and involved a long walk, I had dropped my pencil on the way in and could not sign the logbook, when the CO read the logbook from his “micro” and did not see my log, he deleted my online log. I am glad I am not so possessed as to read and compare actual logbooks to online logs, get a life CO.

 

As for the four Earthcaches I own, they will not be affected, and cannot be affected since the logging requirements are not set by Groundspeak but by an entirely separate entity, geocaching.com only hosts the cache page, they do not make the rules for Earthcaches.

 

I have done and would continue to do ALR caches, but to submit our very overworked volunteers to having to make decisions as to what should or should not be allowed is a good way to get them to quit doing all the “unpaid” work they do, let’s appreciate them, and not overload them with extra work and responsibility. I have nothing but praise for my reviewer “Mtn Man” and let him know it whenever I can.

 

This of course is only my humble opinion…

:blink::blink:

Link to comment

Aren't Wherigo "caches" just big, huge, time-consuming ALR caches in disguise? Are they affected (sorry if this was mentioned already...I didn't have the patience to read every post in this thread) by this new guideline in any way?

No, you're confusing "having to do something to find the cache" (any multi, puzzle, or Wherigo) with "having to do something after finding the cache in order to log it online" (any ALR)

The issue is that Miss Jenn indicated that a Wherigo cache coule have a requirement the finder has completed the cartridge on the Wherigo site before they a can log a find on the Geocaching site. As DanOCan pointed out it is possible to have found the Wherigo cache and sign the physical log, and then have the Wherigo cartridge crash before you get the unlock code for the Wherigo site. In his case the cache owner allowed the find but it sounds like Groundspeak would have also allowed the owner to delete the 'Found It' log. Or suppose I go to look for a Wherigo cache with a friend who has an Oregon. We find the cache together and sign the log. Then for whatever reason my friend doesn't complete the cartridge on the Wherigo site. I assume that if he completes the cartridge and I write in my log 'found it with xxx" that my Found It could stand, but if he doesn't complete the cartridge then I am out of luck.

The more I think about the more I've decided that Wherigo caches are challenge caches.

Challenge caches incorporate special logging requirements and are listed as Mystery/Puzzle caches. Typically they require the seeker to have previously met a reasonable geocaching-related qualification (Waymarking and Wherigo qualify too, of course) such as first finding a cache in every county in your state.
A Wherigo cache that requires that you've completed a particular Wherigo cartridge is just a challenge cache. It may require you to show that the Wherigo cartridge can be completed, but once you've done that your covered by the challenge cache guideline.
Link to comment

I am glad I am not so possessed as to read and compare actual logbooks to online logs, get a life CO.

You are not required to be possessed, but according to the Maintenance Guidelines, you have to delete bogus/counterfeit logs...

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

Indeed I would delete an obvious 'bogus' log, however I will not be spending my caching time comparing logbooks to online logs. I have one cache that has been logged 165 times in less than two years, if someone has logged it that did not actually find it, Oh well!

Those folks are cheaters, but they are not cheating me, they will live their lives that way, and my deleting a log will not change that fact.

Link to comment
... Extra requirements are for the experience.

They make caching fun, and offer a detour from the tiresome "lamp-skirt" hides

 

You make them optional, the population of ALR caches will dwindle. There won't be much of a reason to write them, because there won't be much of a reason for others to complete them. ...

How do you correlate this theory with the hula cache mentioned numerous times in this thread?
Time to put the "Hula Theory" to bed.

 

For the cache in question, there are 194 found it logs, but there are only a total of 100 images in the gallery. Of those pics, there are only 36 that depict someone Hula-ing (or at least standing in a way that wasn't obviously not hula-ing). A good number of those pictures were taken of the same groups of people.

 

You are trying to use this cache to disprove the idea that "there won't be much of a reason for others to complete" ALR caches? Just over 1 in 6 people (and that's being generous!) could be bothered to complete this fun ALS!

 

Hardly proof that would stand up to any kind of real test. :blink:

Edited by Too Tall John
Link to comment
... Extra requirements are for the experience.

They make caching fun, and offer a detour from the tiresome "lamp-skirt" hides

 

You make them optional, the population of ALR caches will dwindle. There won't be much of a reason to write them, because there won't be much of a reason for others to complete them. ...

How do you correlate this theory with the hula cache mentioned numerous times in this thread?
Time to put the "Hula Theory" to bed.

 

For the cache in question, there are 194 found it logs, but there are only a total of 100 images in the gallery. Of those pics, there are only 36 that depict someone Hula-ing. A good number of those pictures were taken of the same groups of people.

 

You are trying to use this cache to disprove the idea that "there won't be much of a reason for others to complete" ALR caches? Just over 1 in 6 people (and that's being generous!) could be bothered to complete this fun ALS!

 

Hardly proof that would stand up to any kind of real test. :blink:

That may be, but it's still more than "nobody," which is what those decrying the loss of ALRs are claiming. It also disproves the argument that creativity and fun go out the window with the loss of ALRs. Btw, the hula suggestion for this cache started out as a casual in-joke and wasn't part of the name at first, but people started participating, and it evolved. So, even without an ALR (requirement or request), people are having fun doing this "bonus point" activity.

 

Note that some who did the (optional) hula planned ahead and brought their leis and grass skirts to make it more fun. Just because. Also keep in mind that most had to drive 2+ hours to reach the location (on Whidbey Island), and they had to hike a minimum of a mile each way to reach the cache (most do it as part of a 3.5-mile loop). Not exactly a drive-by. Yet they did it.

 

So I think the angst over the ALR change is a tempest in a teapot.

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment
... Extra requirements are for the experience.

They make caching fun, and offer a detour from the tiresome "lamp-skirt" hides

 

You make them optional, the population of ALR caches will dwindle. There won't be much of a reason to write them, because there won't be much of a reason for others to complete them. ...

How do you correlate this theory with the hula cache mentioned numerous times in this thread?

 

I have no clue how to use a hula hoop, so I can kill two birds with one stone by learning a new hobby and finding a cache.

 

As they say, variety is the spice of life! Diversity is what keeps me interested in geocaching. Geocaching is still diverse, but if owners archive their caches because of this, we love a little bit of that diversity.

Not that kind of hula.

 

Darnit, there's too many posts in this thread and I missed the hula reference. I made an assumption in the hope that I made the right choice. :blink:

 

My diversity claim still stands.

He's referring to this post, and some subsequent mentions. I'm shocked - shocked I say - that you missed these amazing hula cache photos, which demonstrated that you can be silly and/or creative with a cache without requiring folks to do stuff, and that despite a task being optional, a surprising number of people will still do it.

 

In this case, the (Hawaiian) hula dance is an optional part of the referenced cache, yet most people do it and post the evidence. Some even hike the mile to the cache carrying appropriate attire (so, it's not exactly a quick grab, either). They clearly have no fun at all doing this optional task.

 

Imho, this example disproves a lot of the griping on this thread that folks won't do a task if it's not required, caches will now be boring numbers grabs, blah blah ad nauseum.

 

From the looks of it, EpicGuy, Plasma Boy, rjb43nh, and luzian should check out this post, as well.

 

I like the hula and the fact that most finders enjoy the fun but...

 

I've done "optional" rather than "required" because ALR caches were required to be listed as ? caches at the time & ? caches get less finds, even in this part of the country (sunshine is hauled in on coal trucks on the return trip, caches are few and goats are nervous)... "Optional" gets more "noncompliant" logs than compliant. Some of my fun as an owner comes from logs which meet my requests...is your smiley as a finder more important than my smile as an owner? I have plenty of caches which you can get your find fix on without any extra effort. Is it gonna kill you to do a bit extra or just skip those caches which ask for a bit more?

Edited by Jumpin' Jack Cache
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...