Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 23
MissJenn

update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

Recommended Posts

Post #1000...what do I win? B)

 

Blast!! I was hoping to get in for the 1000th! :D I shouldn't have stayed in bed for that extra cuppa tea!

 

Happy Easter everyone.

 

happyeaster.jpg

 

I started out on this thread over a week ago, determined to follow every post, enjoying the ebb and flo of well-reasoned debate, but I must admit that somewhere around post#500 I let it go and have only dropped into it occasionally since then.

 

What can I say now? Surely everything that can be said has been said? At least it's all remained good natured... for the most part.

 

Right... I'm off for breakfast. I'll see if I can grab the 2000th post instead. :laughing:

 

MrsB

Share this post


Link to post

Again I just have this one, it a six stage multi. the state park only will allow two caches in it. Well, my attempt at defeating someone getting the final location and skip the rest was to put in three logbook's threw out the cache, and the seeker needed to sign all three, hence having to visit every stage. It was an attempt at keeping the seeker do to the cache as intended. Which never seemed to bother anyone. I've made it a request for the moment to sign all the log's, and won't punish those who don't. But I've put it on a time frame and will archive it now. I'm holding it open for a few people that want to finish it. Really I didn't know if this was an ALR since if they are hunting the cache, they should come across those book's anyway's.

I've never understood having logbooks in more than just the final cache. If your multi is designed in such a way that you have to resort to this, maybe you should design it a different way.

 

It was an attempt to defeat those who chose to use phone a find, to latch in on the final cords and skip the rest. Which I shouldn't care about. Really those those choose to try that, were only cheating themselves of enjoying the great park and the neat area's that all the piece's of the cache took you to.

 

I know you can't make a hunter look for it "the intended" way, but this way I knew they did. It was a well designed multi/puzzle. Due to the area there wasn't a way to keep going on one trail and put it out in such a manner that the final was the furthest thing out. This took you on quite a number of trail's. Again due to our state park policy we are limited into how many we can have in the park. Or I would have broke some of it up.

 

Thanks for answering the question's and clarifying thing's Team GPSaxophone. :laughing:

 

Congrates on getting that 1000th post.

 

You and your family have a great Easter!!!!

Share this post


Link to post

Post #1000...what do I win? B)

 

Blast!! I was hoping to get in for the 1000th! :D I shouldn't have stayed in bed for that extra cuppa tea!

 

Happy Easter everyone.

 

happyeaster.jpg

 

I started out on this thread over a week ago, determined to follow every post, enjoying the ebb and flo of well-reasoned debate, but I must admit that somewhere around post#500 I let it go and have only dropped into it occasionally since then.

 

What can I say now? Surely everything that can be said has been said? At least it's all remained good natured... for the most part.

 

Right... I'm off for breakfast. I'll see if I can grab the 2000th post instead. :laughing:

 

MrsB

 

Yes, it was a wild and crazy ride! I can't believe it made 1000 though!! :D BUT...2000 posts?? I'll think of a new angle lololol

Share this post


Link to post

Post #1000...what do I win? B)

 

Blast!! I was hoping to get in for the 1000th! :D I shouldn't have stayed in bed for that extra cuppa tea!

 

Happy Easter everyone.

 

happyeaster.jpg

 

I started out on this thread over a week ago, determined to follow every post, enjoying the ebb and flo of well-reasoned debate, but I must admit that somewhere around post#500 I let it go and have only dropped into it occasionally since then.

 

What can I say now? Surely everything that can be said has been said? At least it's all remained good natured... for the most part.

 

Right... I'm off for breakfast. I'll see if I can grab the 2000th post instead. :laughing:

 

MrsB

 

Yes, it was a wild and crazy ride! I can't believe it made 1000 though!! :D BUT...2000 posts?? I'll think of a new angle lololol

How about, "ALR's hurt chinldren and Groundspeak is finally showing they care" :D

Share this post


Link to post
I've never understood having logbooks in more than just the final cache.

One of the first multis we found was actually a series of caches listed on one cache page. Each stage had trinkets and a logbook. We never could log it online because the final went missing.

 

Some reviewers insist on a series of caches that are placed in a too small of an area actually be listed as a multi. Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
I've never understood having logbooks in more than just the final cache.

One of the first multis we found was actually a series of caches listed on one cache page. Each stage had trinkets and a logbook. We never could log it online because the final went missing.

 

Some reviewers insist on a series of caches that are placed in a too small of an area actually be listed as a multi. Go figure.

If you place that many caches so close together, sure, but I've never heard of them requiring a logbook for each stage of the multi.

Share this post


Link to post
I've never understood having logbooks in more than just the final cache.

One of the first multis we found was actually a series of caches listed on one cache page. Each stage had trinkets and a logbook. We never could log it online because the final went missing.

 

Some reviewers insist on a series of caches that are placed in a too small of an area actually be listed as a multi. Go figure.

If we are turning this thread into a discussion of what a multi-cache is:

 

Perhaps the people who have a narrow definition of a multi - where you visit each cache, usually in sequence, till you get to a final cache where you sign the log - are the same people whose narrow definitions prevent them from understanding why some people had ALRs on their caches. There is no reason that a multi cache can't have some creative options and still fit the definition on Geocaching.com. You simple need to visit to or more locations and there must be a physical log in the final location.

 

Perhaps someone wants you to visit several location some of which are within .1 miles of another. These can't be separate cache so they list all the locations as a multicache. Instead of designating which cache is the final they put log books in all the caches. But in order to make sure you visit all the caches they have an ALR. Yes, there are alternatives, such as picking one location to be the final and not posting the coordinates for it. Then the finder has to visit all the other caches to get the coordinates to the final. However, until the recent change to the guidelines the ALR method was an acceptable way to do this.

 

Perhaps the multi involves a finder making descisions along the way so that the finders don't neccessarily follow the same path to final. Maybe there is even more than one final. The cache owner may want an ALR to report a code word in the final to see which path each finder took. This can now only be a request making such a multi a lot less interesting both to the hider and finders who want to know what path others may have taken.

 

While it may just be a way to get around the no new virutals I've seen a number of multis that had the coordinates for a physical cache listed and the coordinate for a virtual location listed. (Usually the virtual location was used as the posted coordinates and you had to read the cache page to see the offset for the physical cache). In all these case though either the physical coordinates were given as plain text in the description or could be calculated without visiting the virtual. The cache owner used an ALR to make sure you visited the virtual part of the caches. The purist will say that the calculation of the physical coordinates should have be based on something you found at the virtual location so that you had to visit it to get the coordinates. However, the hider may not have been able to figure out any way to do this. IF there is no plaque or inscription at the virtual site, The ALR may be to take a picture at the virtual site or describe what you found. Of course, if you are clever, you can come up with a way to base the final location on something you must find at the virtual location, but some hiders may not be so clever as to say "If the dead animal is a raccoon the final is at xx xx.xxx yyy yy.yyy. If the dead animal is an opossum the final is at aa aa.aaa bbb bb.bbb." It's lot easier to ask the finder to post the picture of the animal then to expect them to identify the animal from the remains :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
I've never understood having logbooks in more than just the final cache.

One of the first multis we found was actually a series of caches listed on one cache page. Each stage had trinkets and a logbook. We never could log it online because the final went missing.

 

Some reviewers insist on a series of caches that are placed in a too small of an area actually be listed as a multi. Go figure.

If we are turning this thread into a discussion of what a multi-cache is:

 

Perhaps the people who have a narrow definition of a multi - where you visit each cache, usually in sequence, till you get to a final cache where you sign the log - are the same people whose narrow definitions prevent them from understanding why some people had ALRs on their caches. There is no reason that a multi cache can't have some creative options and still fit the definition on Geocaching.com. You simple need to visit to or more locations and there must be a physical log in the final location.

 

Perhaps someone wants you to visit several location some of which are within .1 miles of another. These can't be separate cache so they list all the locations as a multicache. Instead of designating which cache is the final they put log books in all the caches. But in order to make sure you visit all the caches they have an ALR. Yes, there are alternatives, such as picking one location to be the final and not posting the coordinates for it. Then the finder has to visit all the other caches to get the coordinates to the final. However, until the recent change to the guidelines the ALR method was an acceptable way to do this.

 

Perhaps the multi involves a finder making descisions along the way so that the finders don't neccessarily follow the same path to final. Maybe there is even more than one final. The cache owner may want an ALR to report a code word in the final to see which path each finder took. This can now only be a request making such a multi a lot less interesting both to the hider and finders who want to know what path others may have taken.

 

While it may just be a way to get around the no new virutals I've seen a number of multis that had the coordinates for a physical cache listed and the coordinate for a virtual location listed. (Usually the virtual location was used as the posted coordinates and you had to read the cache page to see the offset for the physical cache). In all these case though either the physical coordinates were given as plain text in the description or could be calculated without visiting the virtual. The cache owner used an ALR to make sure you visited the virtual part of the caches. The purist will say that the calculation of the physical coordinates should have be based on something you found at the virtual location so that you had to visit it to get the coordinates. However, the hider may not have been able to figure out any way to do this. IF there is no plaque or inscription at the virtual site, The ALR may be to take a picture at the virtual site or describe what you found. Of course, if you are clever, you can come up with a way to base the final location on something you must find at the virtual location, but some hiders may not be so clever as to say "If the dead animal is a raccoon the final is at xx xx.xxx yyy yy.yyy. If the dead animal is an opossum the final is at aa aa.aaa bbb bb.bbb." It's lot easier to ask the finder to post the picture of the animal then to expect them to identify the animal from the remains :laughing:

 

Very well said Toz!! B)

 

My thought with the extra log book's and no they weren't in every stage. Was at the start is a puzzle that must be done on site. I know alot of people have found it and said forget this. But what I didn't like was the person that thought well, I can't figure it out so look to see who's found it already. Ask for a "hint" which anymore is just code for "give me the final location". The extra book's was an idea to defeat that. I thought I'd try it and see what happens. This was my reasoning for having the extra logbook's. I had to list it as a puzzle anyway's due to the puzzle at the first stage.

 

This is a higher rated "star" wise cache. And my personal opinion if one want's those stars they should earn them by doing the cache as intented.

 

I've found a final by accident on a high rated one as well. I posted a note, cause I couldn't find the second stage. Still can't find that dang thing. I'm sure the owner if I asked would be ok with me logging it as a find but I would prefer to do it the intended way, plus I still have the challenge that I need to find that one last stage.

 

I'm not to upset about having to change thing's. But the one I own I don't want to change. So I'm giving some people a little time that are in the middle of it to finish it, and then going to archive it. That will also open up a permit for the park, so someone else can place another one for people to come out and enjoy the park.

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps the people who have a narrow definition of a multi:

you visit each cache, usually in sequence, till you get to a final cache where you sign the log

Thank you Toz for breaking the shackles and freeing us from the oppression of narrow mindedness.

I've had a few ideas for multis, which I feared might not get listed here, but if we can all broaden our vision, my caches may spring forth:

 

1 ) I want to hide an ammo can multi in the woods, at the posted coords. There will be no fussy intermediate stages to trip folks up.

 

2 ) I want to hide a Lock & Lock multi in the woods, but not at the posted coords. I'll obfuscate the coords with some mentally challenging twist that the seeker would need to figure out.

 

3 ) I want to have a multi cache that has no container whatsoever! Wouldn't that be kewl?

When you got to the posted coords, you'd find something of historical significance instead, like a plaque.

 

4 ) Along those same lines, I want to have another multi with no container. Instead, you'd find a webcam at the posted coords.

 

My gosh! I feel so free!

 

5 ) How about another containerless multi, where you are taken to an area of significant geological import at the posted coords and learn what makes it unique?

 

6 ) Ooh, ooh! I know! I could have a multi that's really just a gathering of geocachers for food, fun & fellowship!

 

Once we break free from the narrow minded vision of what constitutes a multi, imposed upon us by The Illuminati Groundspeak, the sky's the limit! :laughing:

 

Anybody got any ice cream? B)

Share this post


Link to post
Once we break free from the narrow minded vision of what constitutes a multi, imposed upon us by The Illuminati Groundspeak, the sky's the limit!
Not anymore. Too many were complaining about the multi caches where you had to perform some task before you could log a Find online. Now those kinds of multi's are banned.

 

Perhaps folks will complain about puzzle multi's enough and eventually we'll lose those too.

Share this post


Link to post

I have to say I'm bothered by those who are happy that ALR caches have been diminished. Why is anybody happy that GS felt it necessary to narrow the definition of a legitimate hide that didn't involve legality or land owner perceptions??

 

The new guidelines have already caused at least a couple of logs by cachers who couldn't wait to tell the cache owner they don't have to do anything they don't want to do. Beyond that, some ALR caches have been ruined by the new guideline. What is there to rejoice about?

Share this post


Link to post

I have to say I'm bothered by those who are happy that ALR caches have been diminished. Why is anybody happy that GS felt it necessary to narrow the definition of a legitimate hide that didn't involve legality or land owner perceptions??

 

The new guidelines have already caused at least a couple of logs by cachers who couldn't wait to tell the cache owner they don't have to do anything they don't want to do. Beyond that, some ALR caches have been ruined by the new guideline. What is there to rejoice about?

 

See this question answered in the previous 1012 posts.

Share this post


Link to post

I have to say I'm bothered by those who are happy that ALR caches have been diminished. Why is anybody happy that GS felt it necessary to narrow the definition of a legitimate hide that didn't involve legality or land owner perceptions??

 

The new guidelines have already caused at least a couple of logs by cachers who couldn't wait to tell the cache owner they don't have to do anything they don't want to do. Beyond that, some ALR caches have been ruined by the new guideline. What is there to rejoice about?

 

See this question answered in the previous 1012 posts.

I have read every blessed post and this question hasn't been answered to my satisfaction. But thanks for the input! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

I have to say I'm bothered by those who are happy that ALR caches have been diminished. Why is anybody happy that GS felt it necessary to narrow the definition of a legitimate hide that didn't involve legality or land owner perceptions??

 

The new guidelines have already caused at least a couple of logs by cachers who couldn't wait to tell the cache owner they don't have to do anything they don't want to do. Beyond that, some ALR caches have been ruined by the new guideline. What is there to rejoice about?

 

See this question answered debated in the previous 1012 posts.

 

There...Fixed.

Edited by AngelWolf93

Share this post


Link to post

Why? The game is about finding hidden containers and a "found it" log means "I have found the stash.

Geocaching does not mean to make people to silly things.

 

Do you remove the log entry in the caches logbook if a cacher does not perform the ARL?

.

 

Before this thread gets locked for angsty posts, allow me to offer my humble thanx to Groundspeak, and to everyone there who had a paw in this change.

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

To misquote Steinbeck, it's the difference between "Thou Shalt, Thou Wilst & Thou Mayest"

I much prefer "Mayest". :D

 

.

 

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. :D

 

.

 

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.

 

.

 

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.

 

.

 

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. :laughing:

 

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.

 

.

 

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.

 

.

 

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.

 

<...>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.

 

<...>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, 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. B)

 

EDIT: Okay, the forums were having too many problems with my quote tags, so I had to edit them. All of these comments are ON THE FIRST TWO PAGES of this 20+ page thread.

 

EDIT: Okay, final edit. There are many more of these opinions on the 18 or so pages after the ones on which these quotes were found. I'm not going to collate any more.

Edited by AngelWolf93

Share this post


Link to post
Post #1000...what do I win? :laughing:
A twenty volume set of the Encyclopedia International, a case of Turtle Wax, and a year's supply of Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco Treat. But that's not all...

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps the people who have a narrow definition of a multi:

you visit each cache, usually in sequence, till you get to a final cache where you sign the log

Thank you Toz for breaking the shackles and freeing us from the oppression of narrow mindedness.

I've had a few ideas for multis, which I feared might not get listed here, but if we can all broaden our vision, my caches may spring forth:

Had you read my post you would see that I agreed with the definition this site uses for a multi cache.

A multi-cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations, the final location being a physical container. There are many variations, but most multi-caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has hints to the third, and so on. An offset cache (where you go to a location and get hints to the actual cache) is considered a multi-cache.

My comment was that some people read the last two sentences as:

There are manytwo variations, but most multi-caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has hints to the third, and so on. An offset cache (where you go to a location and get hints to the actual cache) is considered a multi-cache.

 

The definition does not limit you to the traditional multi and to offset caches. I gave three examples. It happens that these alternatives are easier to implement using some kind of ALR, but I also agreed that they could be setup without an ALR.

 

I'm really having trouble understanding why Clan Riffster wants to keep arguing, since I've come around to agree that change to the guidelines was needed. In fact I think I am arguing on the same side now in order to convince people who are unhappy with the change that there is a rationale for it and that most of the time they can accomplish what they want without an ALR or with an optional ALR. Perhaps because I see the rationale for change to be a little different than CR sees it he feels he has to keep attacking. :laughing:

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

Well I mulled it over for a week, and after considering the recent reversal in Groundspeak's earlier allowance for ALR caches I decided to archive my own ALR – my very first hide, six years old, with 153 finds and listed on two local bookmark lists labeled "favorite" and "outstanding."

 

It was called "Roses are Red," and it required the finder to log online using verse – any kind of poem, ode, haiku, Seuss rip-off, anything – even if it was lame. All I asked was an attempt at poetry.

 

It’s been a lot of fun. My wife and I have been thoroughly entertained by the results, enjoying each [GEO]-email as it came in. In six years I deleted just two logs, and only then after repeatedly emailing the finders with polite requests to edit. All in verse, of course. One of the loggers re-logged with a very amusing effort. The other was a newbie who had apparently already dropped out of the game.

 

It was a tough call. I decided to retire my cache rather than allow it to become nothing more than a lame micro stripped of its theme. It was my first-ever hide. I didn’t want to simply copy someone else’s cache. My intent was to do something I had never seen done, to make something fun and different. It has been well received these many years, but now it’s been thrown out with the proverbial bathwater.

 

For those of you who can stand a large dose of dreadful poetry, here is the text of my explanatory archival log:

 

 

This cache is retired

My container’s been removed

Concept is now banned

 

Logging requirements

On cache pages such as this

No longer kosher

 

Cache required a poem

Else a posted online log

Would be deleted

 

Stripped of requirement

My cache would be nothing but

One more lame micro

 

Groundspeak, however,

Says we can no longer make

Such log requisites

 

Constraint now taboo

Must be "suggestion" instead

Delete powers axed

 

ALRs like mine

Evidently had caused grief

Somewhere, to someone

 

Groundspeak knows what’s best

Business decisions are tough

Can’t please everyone

 

Creativity

Was the reason for this hide

Something different

 

Challenges are fun

I wanted finders to have

Pride of fulfillment

 

But the rule has changed

Now I can’t delete logs of

Nonparticipants

 

Take marbles, go home?

Has King Bruce got sour grapes?

What umbrage is this?

 

Why archive the cache?

Why shut down amusing and

Venerable hide?

 

One simple reason:

Challenge without enforcement

Is nothing but air

 

Who would write a poem

Had it been a mere option?

I won’t wait to see

 

One guy writes no verse

Next guy sez: "Eh, why bother?"

Poem logs become rare.

 

Those already here;

Those who rose to meet the dare

Did impressive things

 

Yet now all their logs

Would be mixed in here with those

Who blow off the rule

 

Who would write a poem

Had it been a mere option?

Guess we’ll never know

 

I accept the new;

Doesn’t mean I must like it

But I understand

 

Even with this change

Caching’s still the best pastime

In the whole dang world

 

This was my first hide

Roses Are Red is now closed

Sad to see it go

 

Thanks to everyone

Who impressed us all with their

Remarkable verse

 

Now, as I sign off,

Please allow me to inflict

Some last limericks:

 

------------------------

 

R 'r' R, it required posting verse

But the site rules then turned for the worse

ALRs have been banned

My old cache has been 'canned

The whole concept's been asked to disperse

 

The sudden change struck like a curse

So forgive my eruption so terse

The previous change,

'lowed for these! It's so strange

That they made this one-eighty reverse

 

I’m perturbed! (Or hadn’t you guessed?)

Thanks for letting me unload my chest

I had half a mind

(Mulled o'er, but declined)

A skirtlifter to place in protest

 

"No grandfathering" was the behest

Extant ALRs would NOT be blessed?

The word 'irony' suits

As this change constitutes

A "requirement" and not a "request"

Share this post


Link to post

 

If you had bothered to read this thread from the beginning you would have read the comments by a couple of reviewers on this sunject. It has been said by me and others including the OP that details of bad ALR's that never made to being published would be revealed in the forums.

 

If YOU really need to know drive over to the Lily Pad have a nice visit with Miss Jenn sign the log on a cache (yes it is archived but the owner allows log finds) You may even get to meet the head frog his/herself.

 

I am not going to go back and find the relevant posts my self If you want to know you do the required reading (no it is not suggested!)

I Actually did visit with the head frog.. just a few Days Before this came out. 6 to be exact. Of course, this didn't come up cause we had no knowledge of it.

 

The Steaks

Share this post


Link to post
Why is anybody happy that GS felt it necessary to narrow the definition of a legitimate hide

There will always be folks who are bothered by the mere existence of certain types of hides. (To test this theory, start a thread labeled "I hate P&Gs" and see how many leap upon the bandwagon) Those who harbor such ill will toward ALRs will most likely rejoice when they go away. Having said that, I don't think the sky is falling quite yet. I think the majority of the folks in favor of this decision are those kind hearted souls who are willing to place their own biases beneath the needs of Groundspeak. The common thread in most of the posts by those who support Groundspeak is "There's lots of good ALRs and a few crappy ALRs. If getting rid of them makes the reviewer's lives easier, then I can accept it". I believe the percentage of folks who posted they were adamantly opposed to any ALR is really quite low.

 

I have read every blessed post and this question hasn't been answered to my satisfaction.

Key words highlighted.

I think this is one of the main reasons this thread has gone on so long.

Folks are getting answers, even legitimate answers, but because they don't like them, they keep:

1 ) asking the question repeatedly, hoping for a different outcome.

2 ) pout.

3 ) rant & rave.

 

Perhaps because I see the rationale for change to be a little different than CR sees it he feels he has to keep attacking.

I praise you to the Heavens, and you call it an attack? Sigh...

I just ain't feelin' the love.

BTW, welcome to the dark rational side! :lol:

 

It was called "Roses are Red," and it required the finder to log online using verse

Alas, poor Roses are Red! I knew this cache, Horatio, a micro of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

(Sorry, my Shakespeare was calling)

 

It looked like a fun cache. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

I get it. This was strictly a business decision. GS found managing ALRs too cumbersome. They felt it was a necessary step. It's their site and I don't fault them for the decision.

 

Is the sky falling? As you said, Not QUITE yet but this may not be the last type of cache to go. Because of the recent change to ALRs some other cache type has just become the hardest to manage.

Edited by Trinity's Crew

Share this post


Link to post

While I can understand Groundspeak's decision dis-allow new ALR caches, the choice to NOT "grandfather" the existing ones, is in my opinion, a bad one.

Yes, some ALR's were "lame", stupid, possibly unhealthy, whatever. The fact is that NO type of cache is immune from that. The choice to kill all ALR's sends a message, however unintended, that ANY type of cache can fall out of favor and be done away with. What happens if down the road, someone decideds that mulit's are becoming a pain for the approvers, they have to keep checking all the extra waypoints, and asking the placers to put them in as hidden waypoints on the cache page, it's too much work, so let's kill all multi's.

 

Before anyone thinks I'm "going after" the approvers, believe me, I appreciate all the effort they put in as volunteers to help out the sport. If they are starting to get overloaded, maybe it's time we got some more, start training new approvers before the need becomes critical.

 

I also think that the choice to kill off the existing ALR's will result in some problems. Let's face it, what percentage of cachers use the forums? How many people check the listing guidelines unless ( and even if) they are placing a new cache? I'd bet good money that there have already been cases where someone has posted a find, without completing the posted ALR and had their find deleted by a cache owner who has no clue the rule has changed. End result, more complaints to Groundspeak and the approvers that "so and so deleted my find because I didn't do the ALR, and that's against the rules". It may be time for Groundspeak to set up a method to deliver a mass email to all subscribers when there is a major rule change.

Also, how will TPTB make sure the changes are being made? I'm sure that it would be a major PITA to have the approvers check all the possible ALR caches and email the owners to have the change made, and then check to see that it is done.

 

I also think that it is the responsibility of the individual cacher to check the info for the caches they are planning to look for, and decide for themselves if they want or should look for said cache. The ALR's are on the cache page. As the lawyers say, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". If someone tries to post a cache that is in violation of the guidelines, they can't say "well I didn't know that so you have to approve it", I know of one cacher in my area who had placed an ALR cache before the rule change, but wanted to leave it "inactive" until the 4th for an event. Guess what, it was legal when it was placed, but had to be changed when the new rule came out, result, one upset cacher (I've talked to him myself) and a delayed posting of a cache that had been "approved" before the event. And before anyone asks, I thought the ALR was kin d of neat. You had to post a quote froma book you have read, the cache was at a public library.)

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, one other thing.

I've seen a number of posts that seem to state that ALR's are "Not in keeping with the original intent of the sport". Well, using that logic, we have to get rid of the following types of caches.

1 Multi's Hey, the original was just one stage

2. Events. Sorry, not a container in the woods!

3. Puzzles, Sorry, the original idea is plug in the coords and go find the cache

4. Earthcaches & Virtuals, whoops, no container!

Share this post


Link to post

I saw the same cache MicK. I thought the ALR was silly but harmless. If I do get to that one I'm going to quote an instruction book from some tool or something.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm, Wonder if this qualifies as an ALR.....

Taken right from the cache page.

 

" ***WARNING LAME CACHE ALERT!***

35 mm film can stuck on a guardrail, bring a pen or pencil.

 

A hide for all of you who have ever found a cache and wondered "What would posess someone to make a lame micro like this?".

 

Then, back at home, sitting down behind the keyboard to log your find, it hits you - "What on Earth am I going to write favorable about that cache"?...

 

Well this is one of those caches! It is not clever, nor interesting. There is no scenery or trade items and there is nothing remotely educational about it, it may be the worst cache you have ever seen! In fact, the idea for the cache is not original, the name has been taken from "Cache Catharsis" by TMAACA (GCQVDG), even the location is not new,it's hidden where "Road To Nowhere" by The White Urkel (GCM5TA) used to be.

 

The point of this hide is to provide a cathartic experience for all those past caches you struggled to find something positive to write about. To get credit for the find, you have to log what a lousy cache this is! Say all the things you have always wanted to say in the past. Go ahead! Make me laugh, make me cry, be clever, be clean - but do not be kind! Any TFTC's or complimentary comments may lead to your log being summarily deleted and you'll be forced to go out and find the lame thing all over again!

Don't say I diddn't warn you this was lame!"

 

Waypoint is GCTBTN if anyone wants to read some of the logs.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm, Wonder if this qualifies as an ALR.....

Taken right from the cache page.

 

" ***WARNING LAME CACHE ALERT!***

35 mm film can stuck on a guardrail, bring a pen or pencil.

 

A hide for all of you who have ever found a cache and wondered "What would posess someone to make a lame micro like this?".

 

Then, back at home, sitting down behind the keyboard to log your find, it hits you - "What on Earth am I going to write favorable about that cache"?...

 

Well this is one of those caches! It is not clever, nor interesting. There is no scenery or trade items and there is nothing remotely educational about it, it may be the worst cache you have ever seen! In fact, the idea for the cache is not original, the name has been taken from "Cache Catharsis" by TMAACA (GCQVDG), even the location is not new,it's hidden where "Road To Nowhere" by The White Urkel (GCM5TA) used to be.

 

The point of this hide is to provide a cathartic experience for all those past caches you struggled to find something positive to write about. To get credit for the find, you have to log what a lousy cache this is! Say all the things you have always wanted to say in the past. Go ahead! Make me laugh, make me cry, be clever, be clean - but do not be kind! Any TFTC's or complimentary comments may lead to your log being summarily deleted and you'll be forced to go out and find the lame thing all over again!

Don't say I diddn't warn you this was lame!"

 

Waypoint is GCTBTN if anyone wants to read some of the logs.

Yes. It's an ALR and I'm sure it won't be too long before someone logs this cache inappropriately with a "friendly" reminder to the owner that he can't delete it. :rolleyes:

Edited by Trinity's Crew

Share this post


Link to post

It most certainly is an ALR. We should all grab our pitchfork and torches and head out to the staging grounds. Let's get this angry mob going.

 

I don't recall. Have you changed the cache type or was listed wrong in the first place? Just curious.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I also think that the choice to kill off the existing ALR's will result in some problems. Let's face it, what percentage of cachers use the forums? How many people check the listing guidelines unless ( and even if) they are placing a new cache? I'd bet good money that there have already been cases where someone has posted a find, without completing the posted ALR and had their find deleted by a cache owner who has no clue the rule has changed. End result, more complaints to Groundspeak and the approvers that "so and so deleted my find because I didn't do the ALR, and that's against the rules". It may be time for Groundspeak to set up a method to deliver a mass email to all subscribers when there is a major rule change.

Also, how will TPTB make sure the changes are being made? I'm sure that it would be a major PITA to have the approvers check all the possible ALR caches and email the owners to have the change made, and then check to see that it is done.

 

I also think that it is the responsibility of the individual cacher to check the info for the caches they are planning to look for, and decide for themselves if they want or should look for said cache. The ALR's are on the cache page. As the lawyers say, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". If someone tries to post a cache that is in violation of the guidelines, they can't say "well I didn't know that so you have to approve it", I know of one cacher in my area who had placed an ALR cache before the rule change, but wanted to leave it "inactive" until the 4th for an event. Guess what, it was legal when it was placed, but had to be changed when the new rule came out, result, one upset cacher (I've talked to him myself) and a delayed posting of a cache that had been "approved" before the event. And before anyone asks, I thought the ALR was kin d of neat. You had to post a quote froma book you have read, the cache was at a public library.)

 

First....if you carry your first argument forward, do you suppose most of the FINDERS know of the change? So, carrying that forward, how many complaints do you really suppose there has been? On top of that, I believe I read that TPTB will not be actively searching out these caches, but will act if there's a complaint. Besides, I get a weekly GS email, I wonder if this MASS MAILING will discuss the change?? No worry about needing to put more work on the PTB! And, obviously the PTB took into account the problems the change will create in the short term, I bet they calculated the change would eventually make the reviewers job easier and worth dealing with the short term whining complaints.

 

As for the second argument...same goes for cache placers. Ignorance of the guidelines will not be an excuse, you'll either know the change was in place when you actually read the guidelines before checking the box, or you'll be educated quickly! And, your cacher/event example holds no water for me, no grandfathering means the same outcome. Guess what, would have had to fix or archive anyways! Would the cacher been any happier had those caches actually been published and then needed changed just a few days later?? I doubt it!

 

Last, it doesn't matter how "neat" they are, they're not allowed just like agendas!

Share this post


Link to post
Well I mulled it over for a week, and after considering the recent reversal in Groundspeak's earlier allowance for ALR caches I decided to archive my own ALR – my very first hide, six years old, with 153 finds and listed on two local bookmark lists labeled "favorite" and "outstanding."

 

It was called "Roses are Red," and it required the finder to log online using verse – any kind of poem, ode, haiku, Seuss rip-off, anything – even if it was lame. All I asked was an attempt at poetry.

 

It’s been a lot of fun. My wife and I have been thoroughly entertained by the results, enjoying each [GEO]-email as it came in. In six years I deleted just two logs, ...

 

It was a tough call. I decided to retire my cache rather than allow it to become nothing more than a lame micro stripped of its theme. ...

 

For those of you who can stand a large dose of dreadful poetry, here is the text of my explanatory archival log:

 

...

Constraint now taboo

Must be "suggestion" instead

Delete powers axed...

 

Why archive the cache?

Why shut down amusing and

Venerable hide?

 

One simple reason:

Challenge without enforcement

Is nothing but air

 

Who would write a poem

Had it been a mere option?

I won’t wait to see...

Perhaps if you did find the patience to 'wait and see' then you would have found that many people were still willing to submit their finds in verse. After all, other ALSs have had quite a long run of people complying with the owner's wishes without being mandated to do so. Certainly, your ALR wasn't so onerous that people would not have fun complying with it, or perhaps it was. Since you preemptively archived it, we'll never know. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

It most certainly is an ALR. We should all grab our pitchfork and torches and head out to the staging grounds.

I'm thinkin' we should be singing the "Oh Wee Oh" song as sung by the Wicked Witch of the West's guards as we're tromping to the cache. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

I read through some of the comments last week, but didn't chime in, I haven't read much since the first few pages. But, I realized over the weekend that I feel a lot better about complying with ALR caches now that it's optional. I've found a few ALRs that I thought were kind of dumb, or that I wasn't prepared for, finding out about the ALR at the cache site, and then struggled for awhile to come up with something to satisfy the requirement to be able to log the cache that I *did* find. These ALRs irritated me. The demand made it work, and rather drained the fun from the activity instead of than adding to it.

 

I found a cache over the weekend with an ALR (I haven't logged it yet) and decided to play along because it was optional. It made me feel better that it was my own choice to play along with the COs wishes than it being demanded in order to log the find. I'll be happy to perform the ALR if I don't *have* to, but being "required" to put a sour taste in my mouth.

 

In any event, it seems they were removed to make life easier for the reviewers, and if that's the reason, I can't argue with it (even if I liked ALRs). There are plenty of Virtuals I would make if I could, but I am too grateful to our reviewers to dare suggest that virtuals need to be brought back!

Edited by ThirstyMick

Share this post


Link to post

First of all, the issue of grandfathering is somewhat off the mark in this case. The change to the guidelines was more of a change to guidelines given to cache owners for when they can delete a 'Found It' log. And it probably wasn't that big of a change from the situation before the change. Whenever a cache owner deletes a log the person who got their log deleted can

  1. accept that the cache owner deleted their log and do nothing
  2. try to relog their find in a way that satisfies the cache owner
  3. complain to Groundspeak the cache owner is arbitrarily deleting logs and demand that something be done

If they go with the 3rd option, Groundspeak will generally first suggest that the problem is best worked out between the finder and the cache owner. In some rare instances, Groundspeak will contact the cache owner and request that the allow the log to stand. Often being told by the frog to stop deleting legitimate logs is enough to resolve the issue. In very rare instances, Groundspeak will restore the log, archive the cache, and lock the cache page. They might even take the action of suspending some of the cache owners privileges on the web site.

 

Prior to the change that ALR caches had to be listed as unknown type, TPTB could handle some of the more ridiculous ALRs by handling them like any other deletion by the cache owner. If the ALR seemed reasonable, they word encourage the logger to comply with the owner's requests. In other cases, they might side with the logger and try to convince the cache owner to treat the ALR as optional or at least be more lenient in accepting what meets their requirement. After the change was made, however, I'm sure they got push back from cache owners who deleted logs who would say "My ALR was approved so I should get to say what logs fulfill the requirement and what logs don't".

 

The latest change is attempt to rectify this problem. In a way it is the pendulum swinging perhaps too far in the other direction. Now if there is a dispute over deleting of logs, Groundspeak can point to the new guidelines and tell the cache owner that the ALR must be treated as optional. A few cache owners who were creating ALRs just to be able to delete logs ruined it for people who had ALRs to solve specific problems. Groundspeak has decided that in most of these cases there was an alternative to an ALR or an optional ALR would work just as well.

 

Any cache with an ALR still exists with the same ALR. My interpretation is that that you can no longer say "Your log will be deleted if you don't do it" and that if you delete a log for failing to do your ALR, and the logger complains to Groundspeak, you will be told to allow that user's log to stand.

 

Hmmm, Wonder if this qualifies as an ALR.....

Taken right from the cache page.

 

" ***WARNING LAME CACHE ALERT!***

35 mm film can stuck on a guardrail, bring a pen or pencil.

 

A hide for all of you who have ever found a cache and wondered "What would posess someone to make a lame micro like this?".

 

Then, back at home, sitting down behind the keyboard to log your find, it hits you - "What on Earth am I going to write favorable about that cache"?...

 

Well this is one of those caches! It is not clever, nor interesting. There is no scenery or trade items and there is nothing remotely educational about it, it may be the worst cache you have ever seen! In fact, the idea for the cache is not original, the name has been taken from "Cache Catharsis" by TMAACA (GCQVDG), even the location is not new,it's hidden where "Road To Nowhere" by The White Urkel (GCM5TA) used to be.

 

The point of this hide is to provide a cathartic experience for all those past caches you struggled to find something positive to write about. To get credit for the find, you have to log what a lousy cache this is! Say all the things you have always wanted to say in the past. Go ahead! Make me laugh, make me cry, be clever, be clean - but do not be kind! Any TFTC's or complimentary comments may lead to your log being summarily deleted and you'll be forced to go out and find the lame thing all over again!

Don't say I diddn't warn you this was lame!"

 

Waypoint is GCTBTN if anyone wants to read some of the logs.

So if some one were to post that it is lame to require an ALR on this cache would that meet this ALR? My guess if that if someone were to write a long log praising this cache, that the owner would find that humorous and probably let it stand as well. The only question left is whether they could delete a TFTC or TNLNSL log. Many people interpret these to be a polite way to say a cache is lame. Seems to me this can be an optional request and you'd get almost the same results as if this was enforce by deleting log.

Share this post


Link to post

It most certainly is an ALR. We should all grab our pitchfork and torches and head out to the staging grounds.

I'm thinkin' we should be singing the "Oh Wee Oh" song as sung by the Wicked Witch of the West's guards as we're tromping to the cache. :rolleyes:

 

I was think more along the lines of "Young Frankenstein" I want the hump. You can have the mechanical hand.

Share this post


Link to post

First of all, the issue of grandfathering is somewhat off the mark in this case. The change to the guidelines was more of a change to guidelines given to cache owners for when they can delete a 'Found It' log. And it probably wasn't that big of a change from the situation before the change. Whenever a cache owner deletes a log the person who got their log deleted can

  1. accept that the cache owner deleted their log and do nothing
  2. try to relog their find in a way that satisfies the cache owner
  3. complain to Groundspeak the cache owner is arbitrarily deleting logs and demand that something be done

If they go with the 3rd option, Groundspeak will generally first suggest that the problem is best worked out between the finder and the cache owner. In some rare instances, Groundspeak will contact the cache owner and request that the allow the log to stand. Often being told by the frog to stop deleting legitimate logs is enough to resolve the issue. In very rare instances, Groundspeak will restore the log, archive the cache, and lock the cache page. They might even take the action of suspending some of the cache owners privileges on the web site.

 

Prior to the change that ALR caches had to be listed as unknown type, TPTB could handle some of the more ridiculous ALRs by handling them like any other deletion by the cache owner. If the ALR seemed reasonable, they word encourage the logger to comply with the owner's requests. In other cases, they might side with the logger and try to convince the cache owner to treat the ALR as optional or at least be more lenient in accepting what meets their requirement. After the change was made, however, I'm sure they got push back from cache owners who deleted logs who would say "My ALR was approved so I should get to say what logs fulfill the requirement and what logs don't".

 

The latest change is attempt to rectify this problem. In a way it is the pendulum swinging perhaps too far in the other direction. Now if there is a dispute over deleting of logs, Groundspeak can point to the new guidelines and tell the cache owner that the ALR must be treated as optional. A few cache owners who were creating ALRs just to be able to delete logs ruined it for people who had ALRs to solve specific problems. Groundspeak has decided that in most of these cases there was an alternative to an ALR or an optional ALR would work just as well.

 

Any cache with an ALR still exists with the same ALR. My interpretation is that that you can no longer say "Your log will be deleted if you don't do it" and that if you delete a log for failing to do your ALR, and the logger complains to Groundspeak, you will be told to allow that user's log to stand.

 

I believe a few of us have been saying this since the first page...could be wrong though! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

How soon until these forums start seeing waves of "I didn't follow the optional logging suggestion and my find was deleted!" threads? I don't see how this will solve the problem of anal cache owners "arbitrarily" deleting logs that they don't "like". The angst will continue.

 

I think something more diplomatic could have been done to reign in the use of ALRs on caches but IMO this new guideline goes way too far, especially the part about existing caches no longer being grandfathered.

 

I don't like angst. Angst is bad.

 

I'm having trouble grasping that you can't have an additional logging requirement, but you can have the finder perform a minor task.

 

What is the difference? I have a cache that required the finder to drop me an email. Is that now an ALR, or a minor task?

 

I agree with David, though it's a moot agreement, since the string has already been pulled by TPTB.

Share this post


Link to post

First of all, the issue of grandfathering is somewhat off the mark in this case. The change to the guidelines was more of a change to guidelines given to cache owners for when they can delete a 'Found It' log. And it probably wasn't that big of a change from the situation before the change. Whenever a cache owner deletes a log the person who got their log deleted can

  1. accept that the cache owner deleted their log and do nothing
  2. try to relog their find in a way that satisfies the cache owner
  3. complain to Groundspeak the cache owner is arbitrarily deleting logs and demand that something be done

If they go with the 3rd option, Groundspeak will generally first suggest that the problem is best worked out between the finder and the cache owner. In some rare instances, Groundspeak will contact the cache owner and request that the allow the log to stand. Often being told by the frog to stop deleting legitimate logs is enough to resolve the issue. In very rare instances, Groundspeak will restore the log, archive the cache, and lock the cache page. They might even take the action of suspending some of the cache owners privileges on the web site.

 

Prior to the change that ALR caches had to be listed as unknown type, TPTB could handle some of the more ridiculous ALRs by handling them like any other deletion by the cache owner. If the ALR seemed reasonable, they word encourage the logger to comply with the owner's requests. In other cases, they might side with the logger and try to convince the cache owner to treat the ALR as optional or at least be more lenient in accepting what meets their requirement. After the change was made, however, I'm sure they got push back from cache owners who deleted logs who would say "My ALR was approved so I shuld get to say what logs fulfill the requirement and what logs don't".

 

The latest change is attempt to rectify this problem. In a way it is the pendulum swinging perhaps too far in the other direction. Now if there is a dispute over deleting of logs, Groundspeak can point to the new guidelines and tell the cache owner that the ALR must be treated as optional. A few cache owners who were creating ALRs just to be able to delete logs ruined it for people who had ALRs to solve specific problems. Groundspeak has decided that in most of these cases there was an alternative to an ALR or an optional ALR would work just as well.

 

Any cache with an ALR still exists with the same ALR. My interpretation is that that you can no longer say "Your log will be deleted if you don't do it" and that if you delete a log for failing to do your ALR, and the logger complains to Groundspeak, you will be told to allow that user's log to stand.

 

I believe a few of us have been saying this since the first page...could be wrong though! :rolleyes:

On the other hand, others of us took all of last week to mull over the arguments and change our position. Frankly, while the explanation by Miss Jenn in the original post it quite good in hindsight, it left a lot of questions unanswered. Some of the comments by reviewers, like the ones from riviouveur, help explain the process that went into making the decision. But none of this was helped by the people who posted "Good riddance, ALRs should have been banned a long time ago" or by those who argued that Groundspeak shouldn't listen to people who said that some ALRs have merit and should have been kept.

 

Every time I was about to change my mind, I would see a post that got me mad that someone didn't feel that taking away options from geocachers is a drastic decision. Perhaps the most damage was when some of these posts were by the same reviewers, now posting under their user accounts.

 

What really had me upset was not that ALRs now have to be optional but that way the guideline was worded seemed to make the ability to log a 'Found It' online be tied only to whether or not you signed the physical log. My preference would be something that got both sides less concerned with "the numbers". As I stated before, what finally convinced me was the argument that asking someone to complete a task in order to sign the physical log is different from asking someone to complete a task in order to keep an online 'Found It' log from being deleted. Mostly, the people who made this argument didn't take the time to state it correctly. What I finally realized that if the find count doesn't matter, that applies as much to cache owner who used the threat of log deletion as it applies to finders who get upset that their log is being deleted for something they feel has nothing to do with finding the cache. While I could protest ALRs by not logging a find on them to demonstrate the smiley is not worth as much as that cache owner thinks, it meant that I would have to do this on all ALRs even those I was willing to do because they added something extra beyond just finding the cache. Protesting just some ALRs might be taken as accepting that smiley was worth the extra item I was doing just for fun. The guideline change now means, I can do ALRs with a clear conscious that I am doing it because it is fun or adds to my experience in a positive way and not because I want to earn the smiley.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

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

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

 

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

 

Truly no real change depending on how you read the guidelines because iit has stated for a long long time:

A container with no logbook and just an object or codeword for verification generally does not qualify as a traditional cache.

 

So now you simply have to verify the logbook as the codeword really was never truly a cache requirement in the last say.. 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see how my cache requiring you to find 25 caches hidden on, at or near Ohio's Historic Covered Bridges can be such a problem.

Not only does it highlight the Covered Bridges, but it also brings more attention to their existence and the fact that many are in bad need of restoration, even the ones that aren't hightlighted by a geocache, all of which I've tracked down and located using other websites.

Many are enjoying the challenge and even going beyond the requirements to find and see many of the other covered bridges.

 

Also, there are more and more cachers who really like the higher terrain caches, so I created a challenge for that.

 

I don't get it, this is only a game and ALR's only bring an additional bit of fun and challenge to the game.

If you aren't willing or physically able to get to a cache, solve the puzzle or complete certain requirements and sign the log, then why worry about it?

Edited by 5BizzyBs

Share this post


Link to post

Because people are here to find geocaches, not learn about covered bridges.

 

Are covered bridges interesting? To some people, yes. I think they're pretty cool, partly because we don't have any out west (at least, not any I've seen). There are lots of interesting things out there but it should be up to the individual whether they want to find out more about them.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see how my cache requiring you to find 25 caches hidden on, at or near Ohio's Historic Covered Bridges.

Not only does it highlight the Covered Bridges, but it also brings more attention to their existence, even the ones that aren't hightlighted by a geocache, all of which I've tracked down and located using other websites.

Many are enjoying the challenge and even going beyond the requirements to find and see many of the other covered bridges.

 

Also, there are more and more cachers who really like the higher terrain caches, so I created a challenge for that.

 

I don't get it, this is only a game and ALR's only bring an additional bit of fun and challenge to the game.

If you aren't willing or physically able to get to a cache, solve the puzzle or complete certain requirements and sign the log, then why worry about it?

Yours sounds like a challenge cache since the requirement is to find geocaches. Therefore, it wouldn't be affected by the guidelines change. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

The one thing that surprises me is that the weekly Groundspeak mailing did not contain any mention of this change. I'm sure most cachers (or at least a good portion) get the mailing; wouldn't that have been the best method for communicating this change? I know of many people who don't read the forums. As this is a complete removal of ALRs, it may take a bit for those people to realize that the change took place, and may involve more than a bit of wrangling between TPTB/reviewers, cache owners, and finders on some of these caches.

Share this post


Link to post

The Under Cover Ohio Challenge is a challenge cache and falls under that little added paragraph under Mystery and Puzzle Caches section in the guidlines.

If one lives in the Dayton, Ohio vicinity, and only found traditional caches, they would have an endless number of puzzle icons on their radar.

At last count there were about 220 mystery/puzzle caches within a 25 mile radius of my home coordinates in the Dayton area, so what's one more to add that list?

That's not including the huge cluster in Mason, Ohio near Cincinnati.

Edited by 5BizzyBs

Share this post


Link to post

I started out to say something profound. I had intended to talk about the whole nature of the game and how that related to ALRs and ALSs. However, I so confused myself that I gave up.

 

Instead I'll simply say that I can't think of any legitimate ALR that won't work equally well as an ALS. True, some people won't do the ALS, but then it is their loss. Such people are no better or worse off than if they ignored the cache in the first place. Remember, this is not a game where there is a winner or a loser and that logging a find only gives one a smiley, not points toward a final score.

 

As far as arguments that letting someone log a find without doing the ALR/ALS somehow cheepens the find for those who do, I think that is spurious. This is not a competition where the winner gets a prize and the loser doesn't. The reward is in the journey...in the enjoyment of finding the cache and performing ALRs or ALSs. One who finds a cache and performs the ALR/ALS does not feel cheated by someone who ignores the same cache, so why should he or she feel cheated by someone who claims a find without performing the ALR/ALS?

 

The same goes for those who hide the cache. When I hide a cache, I do it so that others can have fun looking for it. I get a good feeling by knowing that I am enabling others to have fun. And, however they want to have fun is good with me. If someone thinks well of me for having hidden a good cache, all the better.

 

In terms of hiding caches, if someone does not do the ALR but logs the find, I am no better or worse than if they ignored the cache entirely -- unless, I get enjoyment out of making someone miserable or do something stupid. And, if that is the case, then I am being selfish.

 

An ALS is satisfactory.

Share this post


Link to post

Here is something I have not yet seen referenced:

 

When I find a cache that has an ALS, I will only log it as a find if I perform the ALS.

 

Now, for those who are upset that ALRs have been eliminated, go on record as promising to perform all ALSs before you log a find. You can then pretend they are ALRs.

Edited by HH242

Share this post


Link to post

...If we are turning this thread into a discussion of what a multi-cache is:

 

Perhaps the people who have a narrow definition of a multi - where you visit each cache, usually in sequence, till you get to a final cache where you sign the log - are the same people whose narrow definitions prevent them from understanding why some people had ALRs on their caches. There is no reason that a multi cache can't have some creative options and still fit the definition on Geocaching.com....

 

Nice.

Share this post


Link to post

There is always that "Ignore Listing" option....

 

Heck, that's now redundant. Just lobby until the caches you don't like are banned. Then you don't even have to click "Ignore". To think that people used to do such drudge work as excercising discression.

Share this post


Link to post

Because people are here to find geocaches,...

 

We are all here to find caches, except of course the ones who's fun is in placing caches. For the sake of argument lets look at the finding of caches and assume it's all there is. It's considered bad form to find your own. That leaves you needing other people to place them for you to find. Why do others place? Does it really matter? Not to you as a finder. You just have to accept that whatever their motivation is it get gets caches palced. That way you don't have to place your own and then whack your head with a hammer to forget where you hid them. If their motivation to place something YOU need (they don't need it after all they are not finding) is a tour of the bridges in Madison County, the only polite thing to do is deal with it, or go find someone elses cache which may have been inspired by a desire to own the first LPC in a certain parking lot.

 

If my cache isn't your kind of fun, take a pass. There are plenty more to choose from. On the other hand when you demand that my fun placing cowtows to your own view of 'fun' funding, don't demand that I cater to your needs. I'd love it if I could just take a pass on any finder who won't have fun on my cache. Since I don't have that option I'd be perfectly happy if they at least let me have my fun placing. Right down to ALR's.

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...