Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 23
MissJenn

update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

Recommended Posts

I dislike ALRs as a rule, because they generally are trying to control the actions of others, through their cache page.

How does an ALR "control the actions of others?"

Share this post


Link to post

:wub: WELL IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE DROPED THE INTAKE HOSE OF THE SUMP PUMP INTO THE FUN BARREL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:

 

If you don't like them don't look for them!

 

ALRs give the hider and the finder numerous was to add fun to the experience.

 

Oh well I guess we can always put 35mm cans under lamp post skirts!

 

I suppose soon to be listed it will have to be an "ammo can with a 1 mile hike" Not less than a mile not more than a mile. Oh and the log book will have to be a rite in the rain note pad measuring BLA X BLA and no pages missing. And don't forget the orange 5 foot bike flag that must be secured securly to the ammo can! BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

WHY WAS THIS DONE? There is no reason to remove the ALRs other than to help the #s people! I have never ran into an ALR cache that projected a negative image of caching. I guess I would like an explanation. Is that too much to ask?

Share this post


Link to post

It must be gettin close to fishin season, cause there be worms crawlin outta every nook and cranny around...

 

Hafta agree that overall, this seems a bit like killin gnats with a howitzer - but, there's been precedent for that, too, here in the sandbox. There are some interesting points made, and interesting questions left to be resolved. The real test of this will be how it is enforced...which is always the key to regulation, or attempts at it. For its there that you see just how much jello squeezes out from between the fingers. For example, what - rather, who - defines "simple"? Is there a consistent standard to evolve amongst reviewers? Other experiences with similar issues suggests perhaps not...but we can always hope so.

 

"Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks." Given the context in which it appears, one would assume, on first blush, that the emphasis would be placed on the word "solely". Again, enforcement will tell the tale, I guess.

 

Definitely some slippery slopes out there.

Share this post


Link to post
BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

No, really. Tell us how you feel. :lol:

 

ALRs are just a great way to spice up a cache.

On occasion, that's exactly what they are. A fun, light hearted activity added to the cache find.

However, on other occasions, the ALRs are neither light hearted or fun.

Hopefully, those cache hiders who enjoy adding fun activities to their cache pages will continue to do so.

Since these will now be optional, rather than controlling, those of us who enjoy a kwick spot of fun can still do them, while those who choose not to participate can log their find and move on, knowing that their logs won't get deleted by someone on a power trip. :wub:

Share this post


Link to post

I placed my very first cache six years ago. It is an ALR. Guess I’ll have to retire it now. Haven’t decided yet – I’ll wait and see how it goes. Soon as someone thumbs their nose at it, however, I’ll probably shut it down.

 

Some people like ALRs, some don't. It’s always been that way. The don't-like-'em crowd has always had the option to avoid ALRs. Avoidance was made even easier, in fact, when ALRs were moved into the Puzzle/Mystery cache type. This new policy doesn't change that at all – they still won’t have to hunt them.

 

The only change is that as of now, the like-'em crowd no longer has any choice, and will no longer be allowed to enjoy them.

 

A wise person once said: "nobody ever got rich while looking into someone else's pocket."

 

One could also say that "nobody ever caused themselves to have more fun by watching someone else's fun being taken away." One could say that, but unfortunately it's not true. As evidenced by all the high-fiving in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow!

I'm kind of bummed now.

My only ALR cache was in a small park dedicated to a fallen LEO. It simply asked that the seeker stop and read the dedication plaque so they would understand why they were standing in a park. I'll now suggest that they do this. The cache and dashers will lose out, but they'll still get their smiley. I guess that is all that is important.

 

It's to bad that some have to stretch things until they break.

 

And I have a cache with a spectacular view. That's the reason for the cache. If you want to do the cache in peasoup fog, that's your prerogative. (And, yes. Several people have.) Guess I'd never contemplated forcing people to admire the view. Oh, well. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

 

I understand what you are saying, and I actually agree with it. Once I hide a cache, I really shouldn't be able to decide what the seekers motivation is when they go out to find it. I just wanted to do something to add to the experience, and every single log indicated that I did just that. The ALR was added for the cacher's benefit, not mine. There used to be a cache in the park and the majority of the people completely overlooked the dedication plaques and there purpose. This is the only reason why I made the ALR.

 

At any rate, the description has been changed, the reviewer was notified and has already change the cache type. It will be in a lot more peoples Saturday morning PQ's, and I'm taking a positive attitude that they will take my "suggestion".

It's GC1J4TG if you are interested.

 

BTW, my original post was meant to indicate that not every ALR was put out there for the purpose of making someone stand on their head, put on a rainbow wig, or "Grocho" glasses, nor were they put out there by hyper-sensitive hiders that want to verify the visit, (I'm talking about an LPC, not a fifteen stage Multi). I was simply trying to add to the experiance.

 

Second BTW, if by chance you had an ALR that brought me to a great view that required me to report something off in the distance, and it was obscured by fog, I'd post a note thanking you for the experience. For me, hiking in fog is a great experience, and I'll trade a great experience for a smiley, any day.

 

Like I said, I'm bummed that I had to change my cache, but I thank you for giving me a perspective that in the long run, I really don't like ALRs in general.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Doesn't really matter - I'm sure you've seen it countless times. It's the old "one climbs the tree & signs for all in the party", or "2 find the cache & sign the log for the 3 others sittin' back in the car a mile away" bit.

~*

 

I think a simple "Honor System" applies here.. You need to be the one signing the log, to log the find online.

The idea of signing a log for everyone in the team, including the ones in the car a mile away, the rest of the team still stuck in work any variable distance away, the one serving in the armed forces clear across the planet, The team member who's an astronaut aboard the space station, etc... You can see how ludicrous this could go..

 

Simple stated.. If it's a team find, EVERYONE in the team MUST sign their OWN signature, if they want to log it online.

 

Though, I've got a couple of caches, where someone signed the log book, but never logged it online.. Go figure? :lol:

 

As for the multi issue.. I think we're crossing over too far.. I don't think the guideline change is intended to force caches with clues to a final to become a different type.. If a series has a clue for a final, I believe it is saying it can remain separate. Just get out there, and find all of the series, and nail off the final.. I've done quite a few.. 2 finished, some, I've got the clues collected, stored away for when I do get to going after the final.

 

Okay, let's nail this from another view.. Earth Caches.. Some have ALR's, where you need to send a specific info letter to the placer. Does this mean now, Earth Caches, when logged, cannot be deleted? Since there is no physical log book?

 

This could spell the end for Earth Caches, like it did virtual & reverse caches.

 

Shoot, if we find a cache and I'm standing right there I will let the other person write my name. I see no harm in this.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Doesn't really matter - I'm sure you've seen it countless times. It's the old "one climbs the tree & signs for all in the party", or "2 find the cache & sign the log for the 3 others sittin' back in the car a mile away" bit.

~*

 

I think a simple "Honor System" applies here.. You need to be the one signing the log, to log the find online.

The idea of signing a log for everyone in the team, including the ones in the car a mile away, the rest of the team still stuck in work any variable distance away, the one serving in the armed forces clear across the planet, The team member who's an astronaut aboard the space station, etc... You can see how ludicrous this could go..

 

Simple stated.. If it's a team find, EVERYONE in the team MUST sign their OWN signature, if they want to log it online.

 

Though, I've got a couple of caches, where someone signed the log book, but never logged it online.. Go figure? :lol:

 

As for the multi issue.. I think we're crossing over too far.. I don't think the guideline change is intended to force caches with clues to a final to become a different type.. If a series has a clue for a final, I believe it is saying it can remain separate. Just get out there, and find all of the series, and nail off the final.. I've done quite a few.. 2 finished, some, I've got the clues collected, stored away for when I do get to going after the final.

 

Okay, let's nail this from another view.. Earth Caches.. Some have ALR's, where you need to send a specific info letter to the placer. Does this mean now, Earth Caches, when logged, cannot be deleted? Since there is no physical log book?

 

This could spell the end for Earth Caches, like it did virtual & reverse caches.

 

Wow, maybe there should also be a DNA requirement...leave blood so you can prove you were there?? :wub: This IS still a fun activity, right??

Share this post


Link to post

I am not nitpicking. I swear. But, I have a concern about the new requirement that the physical log be signed before the cache may be logged.

 

1. If one finds a cache and the log is too wet to sign or too full to sign, does that mean one cannot log it as having been found? The "too full to sign" problem is particularly acute with some of the nanos. I, myself, have found some nanos where the sliver of paper is so full that all I can do is put a dot onto it. Will that count in the future?

 

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

 

1. when faced with this situation I take a piece of paper out of my notebook, sign it, put in a small baggie and put it in the cache. Works for all but nanos, and on those, well I just make some sort of mark and call it good.

 

2. Yes, it will force the nano owner to give up on that idea.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post

Ok I've got a cache that requires you to climb a pillar in the middle of the river... the cache is all about getting on top of that pillar. In order to avoid people claiming a find that have not climbed the pillar... like getting the log book handed down to them, the only alr is to take a picture of yourself on the pillar. This cache is about conquering a physical challenge.

How do I avoid people claiming a find that have not climbed the pillar?

 

The way I read it, you can't.

Which brings up a second question?

What the reasonable distance that a "logbook" can be moved so that it can be signed? 15' down a pillar, or five miles up a road?

 

What are we searching for here, logbooks, or caches? Although, most of my caches, only cache a logbook, and I personally wouldn't mind cacher "A" handing the logbook down to cacher "B", but, I'm not the hider on the cache described and I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to make these requirements.

Share this post


Link to post

It seems as though they should put these issues to vote on the main page. Especially for those of us that pay for this service.

Edited by ErikaJean

Share this post


Link to post

I applaud this change. While yes, some ALRs are fun, and i have enjoyed them, the point of geocaching is to go out and find a container using your GPS, then log the experience online.

Some ALRs were really getting out of hand and had nothing to do at all with finding a container using a GPS.

'you have to milk a goat, read "War And Peace" and submit a 1000 word essay on it, donate $20 to the red cross, and eat a Durian to post a find. Oh, and by the way, just so you can get a smiley, we put a film can in in this parking lot'. That's really the direction they were heading, similar to 'trash virtuals'.

That's not the point of geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post

Could the purchase of a premium membership be considered an ALR for paid member only caches?

 

I notice that the "if you don't like 'em don't hunt 'em" mantra has been dragged out for this situation. It still doesn't work. The problem with it is a matter of the tools, or rather the lack of tools, to implement it. No way to leave ALRs out without dumping all puzzle/mystery caches. No way to leave out LPCs without dumping all micros and even if you do so many of 'em are listed with a size of "other" or "not listed". What we need is an improvement in the search system. ALRs only needed a way to differentiate themselves from other caches in the search function.

Share this post


Link to post
Some ALRs were really getting out of hand and had nothing to do at all with finding a container using a GPS.

'you have to milk a goat, read "War And Peace" and submit a 1000 word essay on it, donate $20 to the red cross, and eat a Durian to post a find. Oh, and by the way, just so you can get a smiley, we put a film can in in this parking lot'. That's really the direction they were heading, similar to 'trash virtuals'.

That's not the point of geocaching.

Can you provide a link to the extreme ALR you describe?

 

Surely you weren’t simply making up an exaggerated fictitious strawman in order to make your point ....?

 

You DO know that there are all kinds of extreme physical and mental challenges available in geocaching ... and that you are not required to hunt a single one of them, right? That’s another direction things have been heading. Some caches sit at the end of strenuous day-long hikes. Others are concealed behind Mensa-level puzzles. Should these types of hides be banned as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Some ALRs were really getting out of hand and had nothing to do at all with finding a container using a GPS.

'you have to milk a goat, read "War And Peace" and submit a 1000 word essay on it, donate $20 to the red cross, and eat a Durian to post a find. Oh, and by the way, just so you can get a smiley, we put a film can in in this parking lot'. That's really the direction they were heading, similar to 'trash virtuals'.

That's not the point of geocaching.

Can you provide a link to the extreme ALR you describe?

 

Surely you weren’t simply making up an exaggerated fictitious strawman in order to make your point ....?

 

You DO know that there are all kinds of extreme physical and mental challenges available in geocaching ... and that you are not required to hunt a single one of them, right? That’s another direction things have been heading. Some caches sit at the end of strenuous day-long hikes. Others are concealed behind Mensa-level puzzles. Should these types of hides be banned as well?

 

Seeing as Groundspeak agrees with me that this is the direction (and basically said the same thing I did), i don't think i really need to prove my point to you. :lol:

 

But a less-extreme real world example is a cache i just saw retracted that had an FTF requirement. There's a scavenger hunt event tomorrow in Long Beach, and "anyone FTFing before the event"'s log was to be deleted. The cache was pulled back by the reviewer.

 

That's not in the spirit of the game. First to find is first to find. Did you find the container first and sign it first? You're FTF.

Share this post


Link to post

No way to leave ALRs out without dumping all puzzle/mystery caches. .... ALRs only needed a way to differentiate themselves from other caches in the search function.

 

There's an easy way to pick out the ALR caches from the puzzles... it's called reading the description. :lol:

 

As for LPCs vs. micros, I sometimes wish I knew of a foolproof way to pick them out before visiting the site... google maps can sometimes be useful for this but not always.

 

I've always been in the "if you don't like [ALR/puzzle/whatever] caches, don't find them" camp. I don't like shopping mall parking lot caches. But I know that some number folks do, so I let them play the game the way they want to and I choose to seek other caches. So what if I happen to come across a lame cache or two. I don't have to log them all. There are still plenty out there that I do like.

Edited by DavidMac

Share this post


Link to post

 

Doesn't really matter - I'm sure you've seen it countless times. It's the old "one climbs the tree & signs for all in the party", or "2 find the cache & sign the log for the 3 others sittin' back in the car a mile away" bit.

~*

 

I think a simple "Honor System" applies here.. You need to be the one signing the log, to log the find online.

The idea of signing a log for everyone in the team, including the ones in the car a mile away, the rest of the team still stuck in work any variable distance away, the one serving in the armed forces clear across the planet, The team member who's an astronaut aboard the space station, etc... You can see how ludicrous this could go..

 

Simple stated.. If it's a team find, EVERYONE in the team MUST sign their OWN signature, if they want to log it online.

 

Though, I've got a couple of caches, where someone signed the log book, but never logged it online.. Go figure? :lol:

 

Nor do I, especially, if my walking up there is going to affect the future of a tree. When our group is hiking in the mountains, we will often send up a "scout" to help cut down on the establishment of a "geotrail". If however, it's a well established deer trail to an oak tree, head for the shade boys, (and sometimes girls).

 

As for the multi issue.. I think we're crossing over too far.. I don't think the guideline change is intended to force caches with clues to a final to become a different type.. If a series has a clue for a final, I believe it is saying it can remain separate. Just get out there, and find all of the series, and nail off the final.. I've done quite a few.. 2 finished, some, I've got the clues collected, stored away for when I do get to going after the final.

 

Okay, let's nail this from another view.. Earth Caches.. Some have ALR's, where you need to send a specific info letter to the placer. Does this mean now, Earth Caches, when logged, cannot be deleted? Since there is no physical log book?

 

This could spell the end for Earth Caches, like it did virtual & reverse caches.

 

Shoot, if we find a cache and I'm standing right there I will let the other person write my name. I see no harm in this.

Share this post


Link to post

I applaud this change. While yes, some ALRs are fun, and i have enjoyed them, the point of geocaching is to go out and find a container using your GPS, then log the experience online.

Some ALRs were really getting out of hand and had nothing to do at all with finding a container using a GPS.

'you have to milk a goat, read "War And Peace" and submit a 1000 word essay on it, donate $20 to the red cross, and eat a Durian to post a find. Oh, and by the way, just so you can get a smiley, we put a film can in in this parking lot'. That's really the direction they were heading, similar to 'trash virtuals'.

That's not the point of geocaching.

I don't recall seeing any ALR caches that had you milk a goat and read "War And Peace", but certainly one persons fun requirement could be another person's silly rules. I think that is why TPTB didn't just put guidelines for what a reasonable ALR was. It would have the reviewers deciding on a subjective criteria like the Wow requirement for virtuals again.

 

TeamPerks use to have an ALR cache call the Silly Rules cache. It was listed as a Mystery/Unknown long before there was a requirement to list ALRs as mystery caches. There was a list of 10 silly rules you had to follow to log the cache. Then you were suppose to add a new silly rule for the next person and TeamPerks would take the oldest rule off the list. I had a lot of fun doing that cache. I don't think I did a single item on the silly rules list. Intstead I treated it as a liars cache and wrote in my log about what I did for each rule. I can say this now because under the new guidelines Andy can't delete my log :lol:

 

Could the purchase of a premium membership be considered an ALR for paid member only caches?

If so, does that mean that if a basic member signs the log and uses the backdoor to log the cache, the cache owner can no longer delete the log?

 

I am not nitpicking. I swear. But, I have a concern about the new requirement that the physical log be signed before the cache may be logged.

 

1. If one finds a cache and the log is too wet to sign or too full to sign, does that mean one cannot log it as having been found? The "too full to sign" problem is particularly acute with some of the nanos. I, myself, have found some nanos where the sliver of paper is so full that all I can do is put a dot onto it. Will that count in the future?

 

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

 

1. when faced with this situation I take a piece of paper out of my notebook, sign it, put in a small baggie and put it in the cache. Works for all but nanos, and on those, well I just make some sort of mark and call it good.

 

2. Yes, it will force the nano owner to give up on that idea.

The puritans seen to be able to find guidelines that don't exist. The new guideline doesn't change any of the guidelines if the physical log isn't signed. It says that if you sign the log you may log a Found It online. And it says the cache owner cannot delete your log if you don't do the optional tasks. A cacher could still log that the physical log was full or too wet to sign and the cache owner may decide to allow the log to stay. Cache owners can allow found it logs for other reasons too. The puritans misread the new requirement however as an indication that is OK to delete the logs of someone who didn't sign the log. It was already OK to do this because of the guideline to delete bogus or counterfeit logs. Apparently jerks who made ridiculous ALRs are being told they can't enforce these ALRs, but puritans that have a rigid definition of found = signed the log can still be jerks and delete logs where a person honestly indicated in the log why they couldn't sign the physical log. Perhaps Groundspeak ought to just take the capability to police logs away from cache owners altogether.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok I've got a cache that requires you to climb a pillar in the middle of the river... the cache is all about getting on top of that pillar. In order to avoid people claiming a find that have not climbed the pillar... like getting the log book handed down to them, the only alr is to take a picture of yourself on the pillar. This cache is about conquering a physical challenge.

How do I avoid people claiming a find that have not climbed the pillar?

 

Have you considered asking for a new classification for Psyco Caches? Not a traditional, not a ?. You and

Vinnie could be starting a whole new class. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Some ALRs were really getting out of hand and had nothing to do at all with finding a container using a GPS.

'you have to milk a goat, read "War And Peace" and submit a 1000 word essay on it, donate $20 to the red cross, and eat a Durian to post a find. Oh, and by the way, just so you can get a smiley, we put a film can in in this parking lot'. That's really the direction they were heading, similar to 'trash virtuals'.

That's not the point of geocaching.

Can you provide a link to the extreme ALR you describe?

 

Surely you weren’t simply making up an exaggerated fictitious strawman in order to make your point ....?

 

You DO know that there are all kinds of extreme physical and mental challenges available in geocaching ... and that you are not required to hunt a single one of them, right? That’s another direction things have been heading. Some caches sit at the end of strenuous day-long hikes. Others are concealed behind Mensa-level puzzles. Should these types of hides be banned as well?

Seeing as Groundspeak agrees with me that this is the direction (and basically said the same thing I did), i don't think i really need to prove my point to you. :lol:

Seeing as Groundspeak makes the rules, and seeing as you and I have effectively zero choice in these matters: I only hope, for your sake, they never ban something YOU enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post

Some folks don’t like ALRs; some folks do. This new policy change adds nothing of value to the first group; it only removes value from the second. I don’t understand it.

 

Maybe someone could post a few real-world examples of the "absurd" ALR caches referred to by MissJenn in the OP, and also present facts which illustrate how their sheer numbers had "grown large enough?" It sure would make this change easier to understand and accept.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't recall seeing any ALR caches that had you milk a goat and read "War And Peace", but certainly one persons fun requirement could be another person's silly rules. I think that is why TPTB didn't just put guidelines for what a reasonable ALR was. It would have the reviewers deciding on a subjective criteria like the Wow requirement for virtuals again.

 

zactly.

 

Some ALRs were fun, some were stupid rules. Unfortunately, some of them were starting to get out of hand. Rather than create some subjective criteria (which Groundspeak knows from experience, doesn't work) they simply banned them altogether.

 

"No-one is forcing me to find this cache", true.. in the same vein, no-one is forcing Groundspeak to host your cache listing. It's their playground and they make the rules. They choose the game to be about finding a container and signing a book, not fulfilling arbitrary rules in order to 'claim' that find.

Share this post


Link to post
Some ALRs were fun, some were stupid rules. Unfortunately, some of them were starting to get out of hand.

If you could present an existing, real-world example or two of an "out of hand" ALR, your claim might be more persuasive.

Share this post


Link to post

No way to leave ALRs out without dumping all puzzle/mystery caches. .... ALRs only needed a way to differentiate themselves from other caches in the search function.

 

There's an easy way to pick out the ALR caches from the puzzles... it's called reading the description. ;)

 

As for LPCs vs. micros, I sometimes wish I knew of a foolproof way to pick them out before visiting the site... google maps can sometimes be useful for this but not always.

 

I've always been in the "if you don't like [ALR/puzzle/whatever] caches, don't find them" camp. I don't like shopping mall parking lot caches. But I know that some number folks do, so I let them play the game the way they want to and I choose to seek other caches. So what if I happen to come across a lame cache or two. I don't have to log them all. There are still plenty out there that I do like.

 

Takes some of the fun out of it when you have to spend hours reading every cache page to figure out if it is the one you want or the one hundred within one mile that are all the same. And seldom does it say "This is an LPC" on the cache page.

 

The point I was trying to make is that instead of wrecking the fun for any ones game by eliminating whatever the target of the month is TPTB should concentrate on projects that improve our ability to narrow down the list of caches to what it is we do want to hunt. Add to the hobby instead of taking away from it. Seems that so many of the changes are "You can no longer do this or that".

 

If they can expect cache owners to police their cache listings for ALRs then we can also reclassify our caches if they add a cache type for ALRs.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm bummed that ALR caches have been bumped with no grandfathering. I've never found an ALR that I didn't want to find. Some of the examples given are crazy and others off the charts. However, I don't understand why they can't continue with clear instruction and guidelines given to reviewers. I have a simple ALR (that is now edited as "optional"...) that asked cachers to put in their log how they protect or honor wetlands, or suggest a way to be mindful of those important areas. The cache was outside a preserve and it was put out as a simple way to involve the cacher in the surroundings they are geocaching in. It was all part of Groundspeak's enabling of "people to create and share interactive location-based experiences in the real world using a unique combination of technology and the internet." I thought it followed the mission statement of the company quite well.

 

But, on to other battles, I guess. I only thought that it put a different, yet reasonable spin on the game.

 

And I do now wonder if we cachers should just have our ability to delete logs removed. I know that sounds mighty crazy, but it seems like our ability to manage our own cache listings has been whittled away. No use of company names anymore (not even for fun play on words...), not ALRs... I know there's a corporate interest (Groundspeak) that has to protect itself and not imply patronage of businesses, but to take away words? Take away fun and creative ways to help people experience interactive, location-based experiences? I'm kinda bummed...but I get it.

 

Sigh... ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Quick question, too...

Are Benchmarks and Earthcaches going to be moved to Waymarking, then? There are not logbooks to sign for either cache type, and Earthcaches require specific alternate logging requirements.

 

I'm not asking to fuel a fire or cause a stir; I'm simply wondering if that is a consideration in process or anything. It almost seems that, as geocaching evolves and Groundspeak branches out, things are becoming more compartmentalized with virtuals going away and Waymarking being created instead. Is the Geocaching division becoming a logbook and container-only activity?

 

Again, I'm just wondering and not trying to start a battle here!

Share this post


Link to post

Quick question, too...

Are Benchmarks and Earthcaches going to be moved to Waymarking, then? There are not logbooks to sign for either cache type, and Earthcaches require specific alternate logging requirements.

 

I'm not asking to fuel a fire or cause a stir; I'm simply wondering if that is a consideration in process or anything. It almost seems that, as geocaching evolves and Groundspeak branches out, things are becoming more compartmentalized with virtuals going away and Waymarking being created instead. Is the Geocaching division becoming a logbook and container-only activity?

 

Again, I'm just wondering and not trying to start a battle here!

Benchmarks are already separate. Earthcaches were left excempt rather explicitly from the new rule.

 

and

 

Yes - some years ago when virtuals went away - Groundspeak made it clear that a Geocache was a container with a logbook. (again except for the special Earthcaches).

Share this post


Link to post

It sounds like ALR caches are being banned if they require non-GPS cache finding as a requirement.

 

If I have this right, Challenges which require you to find other caches are still legal. Is that correct? Blackout caches, DeLorme caches, etc are still okay? I am currently working on a Streak challenge which requires me to find at least one cache everyday for a year. I'm telling you all now, this cache is getting me out of bed everyday. I pull myself out of a funk everyday that I get out there and cache. It helps me to forget all the other crap in my life for a few minutes at least. If this type of cache is not allowed, you do more harm to me than you know. Yes, I shouldn't need a challenge cache to keep a streak going, but it is a goal - something to look forward to. Each challenge is a new goal.

 

Don't like ALRs? Don't do them. Don't like skirtlifters, don't do them. Don't like pine trees? Don't do them. Don't take away something that gives other cachers variety and fun. Who says you should be able to clear out every cache?

 

Can't hit a hole-in-one in golf? Should that be banned in golf? Can't hit a home run in baseball? Should home runs be banned? Can't dunk a basketball, those shouldn't count. Groundspeak - let us be challenged!

Share this post


Link to post

Quick question, too...

Are Benchmarks and Earthcaches going to be moved to Waymarking, then? There are not logbooks to sign for either cache type, and Earthcaches require specific alternate logging requirements.

 

I'm not asking to fuel a fire or cause a stir; I'm simply wondering if that is a consideration in process or anything. It almost seems that, as geocaching evolves and Groundspeak branches out, things are becoming more compartmentalized with virtuals going away and Waymarking being created instead. Is the Geocaching division becoming a logbook and container-only activity?

 

Again, I'm just wondering and not trying to start a battle here!

Benchmarks are already separate. Earthcaches were left excempt rather explicitly from the new rule.

 

and

 

Yes - some years ago when virtuals went away - Groundspeak made it clear that a Geocache was a container with a logbook. (again except for the special Earthcaches).

 

Thanks for chiming in. I have clarity on the benchmarks and Earthcaches already. I'm wondering if there is a consideration for the seemingly puritanical enforcement of logging requirements.

 

As benchmarks are currently, they don't count for your geocache count. Yes; got that. However, it seems like Groundspeak is compartmentalizing. Earthcaches are AWESOME (!), but they most certainly don't fit in with the "traditional" geocache definition. If we are going to dissolve ALRs, it almost seems a bit off that Earthcaches are kept as geocaches just because they are great ways to learn about geology or natural history. They really fit Waymarks, and clearly involve ALRs without a cache container. (I LOVE Earthcaches, and am very happy that I get a smiley from them. But it doesn't seem to fit now that ALRs are limited/banned) Some ALRs are right along those lines, and it seems a shame to limit the game when some of us are just trying to spice up the game and involve people in creating and sharing interactive location-based experiences in the real world using a unique combination of technology and the internet. (That is Groundspeak's mission, stated on the home page)

 

Can a mod or lackey provide input on this?

 

If Geocaching is a logbook and container-only activity, as StarBrand clearly reinforced and we all understand, how do we justify including Benchmarks and Earthcaches in the Geocaching compartment of Groundspeak? Just food for thought...

Share this post


Link to post

Bah, whatever.

 

I mean, really, what does it matter? Even if there are "suggested" ALR's we would still do them. It was the intent of the cache placer, and after all, that's what WE want, the total experience.

 

The cache owner feels that it is important to read a marker, look over yonder or wear a silly hat, we'll do it, it's all in good fun and maybe you will learn something. And the hat thing will certainly amuse the rest of the group!

 

Un-knot your shorts and have some fun. Even if now it's not required.

 

It's all about what you take away from a find. If you want to shortcut the find, then oh well, you get the smiley but loose out on the experience.

 

I can respect reasonable ALR's, if I don't gel with the requirements, I simply don't search for them. Otherwise, I'm all in.

Share this post


Link to post

Bah, whatever.

 

I mean, really, what does it matter? Even if there are "suggested" ALR's we would still do them. It was the intent of the cache placer, and after all, that's what WE want, the total experience.

 

The cache owner feels that it is important to read a marker, look over yonder or wear a silly hat, we'll do it, it's all in good fun and maybe you will learn something. And the hat thing will certainly amuse the rest of the group!

 

Un-knot your shorts and have some fun. Even if now it's not required.

 

It's all about what you take away from a find. If you want to shortcut the find, then oh well, you get the smiley but loose out on the experience.

 

 

well put.

 

What are the angry people so angry about here? The fact that some folks will be technically "allowed" to find ALR caches without doing the requirement? That seems to conflict with the 'if you don't like it, dont do it' and 'play your own game' philosophy somewhat.

 

ALR's will still be around. They will just be AOLRs. (Additional Optional Logging Requirements)

 

Maybe takes away a little of the fun of an ALR, but not all of it. I guarantee most folks will still complete 'em.

Share this post


Link to post

Many thanks to Groundspeak for making this change.

Skimming through the comments above, there doesn't seem to be much of a case for compulsory ALR's that involve punishment for non-compliance. I've never been convinced that ALR's with log deletion were "fun" or within the spirit of the game.

 

Now we have the ideal setup, whereby ALR's are still perfectly allowable but are officially regarded as an optional extra for the cache seeker.

 

We're back to "find cache, sign log, get smiley". To those moaning that it now ruins their cache: nothing's changed, except you've no right to delete the log of someone who signed the cache logbook but admitted that they found the cache without jumping through the hoops.

Share this post


Link to post
The only change is that as of now, the like-'em crowd no longer has any choice, and will no longer be allowed to enjoy them.

 

Nothing is stopping the cache owner from suggesting fun or inventive things for you to do once you find the cache, and nothing is stopping you from doing those suggested things. I'm not sure that no longer being required to do those tasks has sucked the fun out of the experience.

 

From a CO aspect, I can understand the frustration if you had an ALR to read a memorial plaque or to answer a question about something clever/interesting/bizarre at the cache site. Those ALR caches will probably become hit-and-run caches and the number cachers won't take the time to appreciate why the cache was placed in that particular spot.

 

Bruce

Share this post


Link to post

This is gonna give cache hounds the green light to find out the location of a complex multi's final, go straight to it and ignore all the intermediate stages.

 

I have an 9 stage multi that is 15 km long. The final is only about 2 km. Defeats the whole purpose of putting the cache out.

The guideline change only addresses Additional (now Optional) Logging Requirements, and Challenge Caches. I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that the change affects a regular multicache. :huh:

 

To prevent people from short cutting the multi, I put an ALR requiring the finders to email me a copy of their track log.

 

A couple months back, I created a BFL cache in the east end of Toronto to give local cachers a nearby opportunity to experience night caching. After 6 finders, one of them started emailing the location of the final so that others could find it in the daylight.

 

It was disappointing. And demotivating when it comes to creating complex caches.

 

I don't understand why you really care if someone else wants to deny themselves the full experience of your cache - they're the ones losing out, not you.

Share this post


Link to post

:laughing: WELL IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE DROPED THE INTAKE HOSE OF THE SUMP PUMP INTO THE FUN BARREL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

 

If you don't like them don't look for them!

 

ALRs give the hider and the finder numerous was to add fun to the experience.

 

Oh well I guess we can always put 35mm cans under lamp post skirts!

 

I suppose soon to be listed it will have to be an "ammo can with a 1 mile hike" Not less than a mile not more than a mile. Oh and the log book will have to be a rite in the rain note pad measuring BLA X BLA and no pages missing. And don't forget the orange 5 foot bike flag that must be secured securly to the ammo can! BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

WHY WAS THIS DONE? There is no reason to remove the ALRs other than to help the #s people! I have never ran into an ALR cache that projected a negative image of caching. I guess I would like an explanation. Is that too much to ask?

 

It is all about the numbers

 

No it is not all about numbers. TPTB don't care about your numbers, just people having fun.

 

I will give you one explanation: I know of one reviewer that has quit because he is personally tire of the ALR requirement caches like one he received not that long ago.

 

It required the finder to photo and post the photo of a rotting decomposing animal corpse!!! He did not allow this cache and received emails complaining about it.

 

This is only one example of the reasons behind this new rule. Yes it will regrettably reduce the fun of some caches, but some people ruin the fun for others by their negative actions.

 

ALRs are just a great way to spice up a cache.

 

I agree, but some have made things harder for the reviewers. Maybe the community needs to be harsher on those contemplating some of these absurd caches than they are on TPTB and the reviewers.

 

It seems as though they should put these issues to vote on the main page. Especially for those of us that pay for this service.

 

This works in a business that has stock holders. This one is privately owned. Do you get to vote how your cell phone company works??

 

They do try to listen to their clients/customers.

 

Some folks don’t like ALRs; some folks do. This new policy change adds nothing of value to the first group; it only removes value from the second. I don’t understand it.

 

Maybe someone could post a few real-world examples of the "absurd" ALR caches referred to by MissJenn in the OP, and also present facts which illustrate how their sheer numbers had "grown large enough?" It sure would make this change easier to understand and accept.

 

If you could present an existing, real-world example or two of an "out of hand" ALR, your claim might be more persuasive.

 

Miss Jenn won't reveal some of the "absurd" ALR caches because she is not going to single out cachers that have or may have attempted to do these and embarrass them. You aren't privy to the behind the scene meetings that take place between HQ and the reviewers and they aren't going to embarrass the players in this game.

 

Bah, whatever.

 

I mean, really, what does it matter? Even if there are "suggested" ALR's we would still do them. It was the intent of the cache placer, and after all, that's what WE want, the total experience.

 

The cache owner feels that it is important to read a marker, look over yonder or wear a silly hat, we'll do it, it's all in good fun and maybe you will learn something. And the hat thing will certainly amuse the rest of the group!

 

Un-knot your shorts and have some fun. Even if now it's not required.

 

It's all about what you take away from a find. If you want to shortcut the find, then oh well, you get the smiley but loose out on the experience.

 

I can respect reasonable ALR's, if I don't gel with the requirements, I simply don't search for them. Otherwise, I'm all in.

 

My sentiments exactly!

 

Meh. I've always said that this is Groundspeak's sandbox so we have to play by their rules or go away. It's not the first change they've made that I disagreed with, and I'm sure it won't be the last, but it's still going to be a fun game to play.

 

I don't always agree with you but I do this time.

 

For those of you that want to say something about this being a sock puppet account, you are right. It is an account that I created just for the one cache it has adopted. There are a small number of cachers that know who I am including Jeremy. I have been caching longer than this account shows.

 

If you are disturbed by my posting under this account then I ask why you don't have an account using your real name and list your real email addy or phone number?? Aren't all geocaching accounts just sock puppets for the REAL you?

 

Swampy

 

[Edited by moderator for one slip into potty language]

Edited by Keystone

Share this post


Link to post

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

All I have to say is that IF a cache Has ALR, It is there for a reason, else the Reviewer would not have approved the cache in the first place.

 

ALSO, Grandfather Clause would have been GREATLY APPRECIATED, and IF there are specific caches that are flagged due to ALR, then a PM from a Reviewer(or lackey) would be in order.

 

Here's a vote to Reverse the change in rules.

 

The Steaks

Share this post


Link to post

Folks, don't get too hung up on the bit about "the physical log has been signed". This guideline change is all about ALRs. Any redundant wording about signing the log is simply to place the ALR changes in context. Please keep the discussion on topic about the ALR issue. Groundspeak and/or the volunteer reviewers are not starting a campaign to force everyone in a group to physically sign the log in person in a verifiable way that will stand up in a court of law. Nor is this an assault on Earthcaches or grandfathered virtuals.

 

Cache owners can, in practice, delete any log they feel like. The main change here, as I see it, is that doing so because a specific task has not been achieved, will no longer be considered "acceptable". For those who like everything in black and white, this may pose some questions at the margin. For what I hope is the majority who just want to go geocaching, it should bring some of the fun back into the game in the longer term.

 

One of the groups pushing for this guideline change was a substantial majority of the volunteer reviewers. It's not much fun publishing caches where you know that almost nobody - including the cache owner themselves, in many cases - has the slightest hope of ever meeting the ALR. Quite a few of the ALR submissions which we see border on the vindictive. This guideline change is a shame for one or two of the cooler ALRs like this one, but it was getting to the stage where the ALRs were totally unrelated to geocaching and just becoming a platform for people to manipulate others. Of course, there could be a guideline saying "Your ALR should not be manipulative", but then people - probably the same people who want to impose the manipulative ALRs ;) - would say "this is giving too much power to the evil, arbitrary, inconsistent reviewers". Guess what? Most reviewers don't like exercising their discretion all that much, partly because we know we are always working with incomplete information, and partly because we get, er, "feedback" when we do it.

 

But introducing challenge caches was not a good idea. Why should one be allowed to log a cache only if one has found some other caches?

Just a clarification: Nothing new is being introduced here, at least not on a global scale. Challenge caches are an existing variant of Mystery cache in North America. The most common is the "Delorme Challenge", where you typically have to find a cache on every page of the Delorme atlas for your state. Up to now these have not appeared in Europe, but perhaps one or two people will make them. One of the hard things about the ALR guideline rewrite was allowing these caches to continue while limiting the non-geocaching related ALRs and also not suggesting that people should e-mail the cache owner for the coordinates before seeking the Challenge cache.

 

How do I avoid people claiming a find that have not climbed the pillar?

You don't. How much does it cost you if someone does it? If your cache is really awesome, there will be two classes of people who claim a find: the ones who made the climb (and get bragging rights) and those who avoid eye contact and admit that all they did was hold the safety rope, or the phone with 911 pre-dialled and ready to send. But hey, the carpenters and Mr. Pitt's PA get a credit at the end of the movie too.

 

In my opinion the total removal of ALRs was unneccesary. One could have simply written requirements describing what is an appropriate ALR. (Funny that there is now a guideline for appropriate optional task is). Reviewers could have been asked to suggest that ALRs be optional.

Quite a lot of proposed solutions for various issues in the game contain statements like "one could have simply written requirements". The problem is that when thousands of cache placers start to push the envelope, with the force of those written requirements behind them, the reviewers end up having to publish large numbers of caches best described as "piles of carp".

 

I have no doubt that a few people will come up with ways to specify an optional requirement which is theoretically within the new wording yet totally unreasonable. But hey, it's optional, so everyone can just ignore it if they want.

 

The last thing we need are new rules saying "if you can find some form of semantics to fit your cache into this wording, then the reviewer has to publish it". The reviewer's equivalent of Godwin's Law is when a cache placer or forum poster resorts to quoting a dictionary definition (with the funny pronunciation symbols and a pompous italic "v." or "adj.") to prove that they're right.

Share this post


Link to post

This guideline change is a shame for one or two of the cooler ALRs like this one,

I don't understand. What difference does it make to this cache? As I understand it, the only change is that the cache owner will not have Groundspeak on his side should he delete a log on the basis that someone didn't comply with the ALR (in this case, didn't prove that they took the Kneipp shower).

 

How do I avoid people claiming a find that have not climbed the pillar?

You don't. How much does it cost you if someone does it? If your cache is really awesome, there will be two classes of people who claim a find: the ones who made the climb (and get bragging rights) and those who avoid eye contact and admit that all they did was hold the safety rope, or the phone with 911 pre-dialled and ready to send.

If you really need people to perform a task in order to find a cache, then surely you make a multicache, or place the cache in a certain position where only performing the task will get them the log book. Don't you?

 

In my opinion the total removal of ALRs was unneccesary.

That hasn't happened, has it? ALR's are still alive and kicking and work within the guidelines. All that's changed is that they're officially optional.

Share this post


Link to post

This is gonna give cache hounds the green light to find out the location of a complex multi's final, go straight to it and ignore all the intermediate stages.

 

I have an 9 stage multi that is 15 km long. The final is only about 2 km. Defeats the whole purpose of putting the cache out.

The guideline change only addresses Additional (now Optional) Logging Requirements, and Challenge Caches. I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that the change affects a regular multicache. ;)

 

To prevent people from short cutting the multi, I put an ALR requiring the finders to email me a copy of their track log.

 

A couple months back, I created a BFL cache in the east end of Toronto to give local cachers a nearby opportunity to experience night caching. After 6 finders, one of them started emailing the location of the final so that others could find it in the daylight.

 

It was disappointing. And demotivating when it comes to creating complex caches.

 

I don't understand why you really care if someone else wants to deny themselves the full experience of your cache - they're the ones losing out, not you.

 

I care because I take pride in my cache hides and people who currently find them take pride in finding them.

 

I care because some cache hound (my term for those people that are after the numbers and typically write an online log of "Nice Hide, TFTC" ) gets the same credit as the person who spent the time doing the cache the way it was intended. It cheapens the victory of the purist who did the entire cache. It also says to the CO that you wasted your time putting out the experience. Might as well have created another LPC.

 

Why waste your time creating a challenging cache if, after one hide, the rest can find the location of the final and turn a 5/5 into a 1/1. I know that is an exaggeration but it does illustrate the point. All the "out and back" multis suddenly become 1 stage traditionals.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not against this change But a cache owner should be able to have extra requirements, and if you don't like it move on to the next cache. Sorry! you don't want to wear the wig and take a picture...or what ever. Next you want me to give out the final coords to my puzzle caches to cachers who couldn't be bothered to solve the puzzle. There have been cachers that havn't solved my puzzles but have tagged only with someone who has and I do not delete their log. And if a had a cache with a wig requirement and they failled to do the extra step, I would probable not delete their log either and now I just can't. These few cachers that will not do this extra task shouldn't dictate geocaching.

 

About the downloading your log track to prove you did all stages..... would be hard with my gps, but if my words is no go to you then you have trust issues. And if you need to download something in log a cache, I believe that its against the guidelines, even freeware.... I tried to mave a cache that needed you to use Google Maps and it was a no go.

Share this post


Link to post

Heck, all I wanted was ALRs separated from puzzles/mystery caches. I didn't need them to be eliminated. It's my choice what kind of experience I want to go for.

 

This change really just means a redefinition of what a Traditional cache really is.

 

The "Unknown" catetory was getting just too full, too much of a catchall. If the cache is at the coordinates, then it is a Traditional. If you find it and sign the log, it counts (but only as a Traditional). If you have to do something special while there, then it's not a Traditional. It's a different type, but not a puzzle.

 

I have no problem with ALRs as they were, just categorize them separate from Puzzle/Mystery (and Traditional). I'll search for them and I'll do the extra. Or I'll chose not to do the extra. My choice.

Share this post


Link to post

Others are concealed behind Mensa-level puzzles. Should these types of hides be banned as well?

Absolutely :laughing:;)

Share this post


Link to post

O Great Powers that be, hear my plea!

Protect me from things that might upset me, like the dreaded cemetery cache.

Let nothing stand between me and my smiley.

Smooth the hills, dam the waters, and dadgum (???) any other obstacles.

Let nothing stand between me and my smiley.

Forget not our mentally challenged brethren.

Do not make me think too hard.

Make every cacher equal.

Let nothing stand between me and my smiley.

Let not the hiders be too devious or too clever.

Alloweth not that which might challenge me in any way.

Make all geocaches doable by all.

Let nothing stand between me and my smiley.

Alloweth none to be branded with dadgumnation.

Let there be no controversy lest feelings be hurt.

Remember that political correctness balms all. Amen.

 

Numbers: First

Edited by Barnacle Bear

Share this post


Link to post

Well, think this is a good change. Some caches with ALR were far out from geocaching. So, well done.

 

I do believe that the "no grandfathering" issue maybe will raise some problems. Example: Owners that "refuse" to change, geocachers submitting SBA, etc. Hope everything works out fine.

 

Nice job, GSP. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
The only change is that as of now, the like-'em crowd no longer has any choice, and will no longer be allowed to enjoy them.

That's not how I interpret the new change. As I see it, those who enjoy a bit of light hearted fun can still enjoy themselves at a cache, both hider & seeker, so long as the hider isn't so controlling that they'd make the particular activity mandatory. Prior to this change, the deciding factor in my attempting an ALR cache was, "Does the ALR sound like fun to me?" If it did, I'd do it and enjoy myself. If it did not, I would simply pass on logging what was otherwise a legitimate find.

 

Of all the ALR owners I've talked with, one fairly common denominator has been their belief that their particular ALR was "fun".

I think many cachers would agree that caching is supposed to be "fun", and as such, they have no qualms about doing something that they believe adds to that fun. I'm no exception to that. If you suggest that, once I find the cache, I don the silly hat from the cache and take a picture of myself, I'll be happy to. Sounds like fun! However, if you change that from optional to mandatory, some of the fun goes away for me.

 

I don't think the sky will fall simply because Groundspeak changed ALR to ALS.

(Additional Logging Suggestion)

 

As with the passing of virts, some folks will get their knickers wadded up. They'll huff and puff generally throw tantrums on every thread that pops up, regardless of the relevance. Others will accept the change and move on with life. I think I'll put myself into the second group. If Groundspeak ever creates a rule I can't live with, I'll move on to other cache listing services.

Share this post


Link to post

How do I avoid people claiming a find that have not climbed the pillar?

You can't. Every photo can be manipulated using software like GIMP.

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 23

×
×
  • Create New...