Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 23
MissJenn

update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

Recommended Posts

Some cache owners are control freaks. So are some finders.

I see little difference between. "Do my ALR My Way or I'l delete your log" and "I'll do your cache my way so tough nuts to you on any rule you may have on it". ...

I'm thinking that you guys are choosing to ignore the actual reason given for the guideline change. Given that, it's kinda hard to take your argument seriously.

 

I simply don't remember thread after thread regarding cachers demnding to ignore ALRs.

Share this post


Link to post
Simple case.

Bats. They hibernate. An ALR that says "Finds are only allowed during summer and all logs from any other time are deleted" is apt. A anti ALR finder that says "you control freak, you aint' the boss of me" and goes and finds the cache who logs is creating a problem for the bats, the land mangager who allowed the cache who sees the flagrant disrespect. Oh and posting that there are hibernating bats that caused the ALR to be created can be counter productive since some folks would see that as an invication to go see the bats.

Why wouldn't a cache owner simply temporarily disable the cache during the time that the little guys are sleeping? That sure would be easier than forcing an ALR to work. After all, when is summer?

 

If I go find the cache on June 19th, will you delete my log? What about September 24th? I had my convertible out last weekend. It was pretty summery. Would it be OK to look for the cache?

Share this post


Link to post
Simple case.

Bats. They hibernate. An ALR that says "Finds are only allowed during summer and all logs from any other time are deleted" is apt. A anti ALR finder that says "you control freak, you aint' the boss of me" and goes and finds the cache who logs is creating a problem for the bats, the land mangager who allowed the cache who sees the flagrant disrespect. Oh and posting that there are hibernating bats that caused the ALR to be created can be counter productive since some folks would see that as an invication to go see the bats.

Why wouldn't a cache owner simply temporarily disable the cache during the time that the little guys are sleeping? That sure would be easier than forcing an ALR to work. After all, when is summer?

 

If I go find the cache on June 19th, will you delete my log? What about September 24th? I had my convertible out last weekend. It was pretty summery. Would it be OK to look for the cache?

Answering your questions.

1) Tried that since it is the simple solution. They logged anyway.

2) Yes, I woud (and actually did). I gave them a way out but they didn't bite. That said hibernation is a season that varies. You pick the bounds that are conservative so you don't have to babysit the cache on a day by day basis. It's also less work until someone says "Hey, it's 72 degrees today can I find it?" I'm not interested in researching if a 72 degree day in december or april is a magic green day. Easier to use the bounds. Easier to explain bounds to prospective finders as well.

3) You didn't ask but I adopted out the cache so this ALR is actually off my list.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Some cache owners are control freaks. So are some finders.

I see little difference between. "Do my ALR My Way or I'l delete your log" and "I'll do your cache my way so tough nuts to you on any rule you may have on it". ...

I'm thinking that you guys are choosing to ignore the actual reason given for the guideline change. Given that, it's kinda hard to take your argument seriously.

...

Fair enough. I don't take artifical rules creating artificial problems for people as a serious reason for a ban even if it is the real reason. Why make life miserable for a reviewer by creating something like "WOW" in a virtual or whatever the heck the magic X factor was in an ALR. Approve them all and let natural selection sort them out.

 

I think the lunacy of the change is best illistrated that it started with the challenge exception that says ALR's are actually Ok except when they aren't. Nobody actually can pinpoint the line when a challege ends and the evil terrible horrible no good ARL's begin.

 

Oh, and keep in mind I don't generally like ALR caches. I do like having them in my tool box for when needed and then only if I can't figure out how to reverse the ALR to be in front of the find.

Share this post


Link to post
Simple case.

Bats. They hibernate. An ALR that says "Finds are only allowed during summer and all logs from any other time are deleted" is apt. A anti ALR finder that says "you control freak, you aint' the boss of me" and goes and finds the cache who logs is creating a problem for the bats, the land mangager who allowed the cache who sees the flagrant disrespect. Oh and posting that there are hibernating bats that caused the ALR to be created can be counter productive since some folks would see that as an invication to go see the bats.

Why wouldn't a cache owner simply temporarily disable the cache during the time that the little guys are sleeping? That sure would be easier than forcing an ALR to work. After all, when is summer?

 

If I go find the cache on June 19th, will you delete my log? What about September 24th? I had my convertible out last weekend. It was pretty summery. Would it be OK to look for the cache?

Answering your questions.

1) Tried that since it is the simple solution. They logged anyway.

2) Yes, I woud (and actually did). I gave them a way out but they didn't bite. That said hibernation is a season that varies. You pick the bounds that are conservative so you don't have to babysit the cache on a day by day basis. It's also less work until someone says "Hey, it's 72 degrees today can I find it?" I'm not interested in researching if a 72 degree day in december or april is a magic green day. Easier to use the bounds. Easier to explain bounds to prospective finders as well.

3) You didn't ask but I adopted out the cache so this ALR is actually off my list.

Apparently not or you wouldn't still have needed to force the ALR by deleting logs. The easiest thing would be for you to disable the cache when it wasn't available (perhaps even removing the box.)

Share this post


Link to post
Some cache owners are control freaks. So are some finders.

I see little difference between. "Do my ALR My Way or I'l delete your log" and "I'll do your cache my way so tough nuts to you on any rule you may have on it". ...

I'm thinking that you guys are choosing to ignore the actual reason given for the guideline change. Given that, it's kinda hard to take your argument seriously.

...

Fair enough. I don't take artifical rules creating artificial problems for people as a serious reason for a ban even if it is the real reason. Why make life miserable for a reviewer by creating something like "WOW" in a virtual or whatever the heck the magic X factor was in an ALR. Approve them all and let natural selection sort them out. ...

Another way to handle it is to simply make all ALRs optional and remove the ability for onerous ALRs to be enforced.

Share this post


Link to post

And yes, apparently the whining of folks who found ALRs caches but chose not to do the ALR, was a major contributing factor.

This is cleary NOT the reason that the guidelines were changed.

 

The previous change - that which required ALRs to be lists as a mystery cache if you were going to delete logs for not meeting the ALR - solved this problem. People could no longer say that they found the cache but they didn't know there was an ALR that they didn't want to do. They could easily avoid these caches or they could choose to find them and simply not log a 'Found It' for them. Sure they could whine that they were be being denied the chance to get a smiley for finding another 35mm film can in a lamppost, but that would have no more meaning than whining about a cache that required you to scuba dive or rappel down a cliff if you didn't want to do those things.

 

The reason the guidelines were changed is that the number of people submitting ALRs that were not simple fun tasks had created an unacceptable work load for the reviewers and Groundspeak. Groundspeak had decided that there were certain things you couldn't make an ALR. For example, they decided you couldn't require someone to hide a new cache. They felt that would result in caches be hidden by people who wouldn't maintain them and that people would hide the cheapest easiest cache they could come up with to meet the requirement and perhaps there are enough LPCs already. They decided you couldn't require someone to send you money. Pretty obvious. They decide you couldn't reserve the FTF for your friend. It just seemed that was a bit silly, if someone found the cache before your friend did you could delete their online log, but did that really make your friend FTF? TPTB never got around to listing the 'forbidden' ALRs. The reason for this was they couldn't come up with a simple way to describe what was a reasonable task and what wasn't. They couldn't just give a list because cachers would come up with a new ALR that wasn't on the list but that was clearly something TPTB felt shouldn't be allowed. The interesting thing was that many unacceptable ALRs are not so unacceptable if they are optional. The new guideline contain an attempt to define acceptable ALRs, they also make most ALRs optional so that the interpretation can allow for the greatest flexibility and creativity. My guess is if you asked people to optionally send you money your cache might not be approved, but if you ask them to optionally hide a new cache it might be OK. The new guideline is easier for the reviewers to deal with and eventually will be easier for cachers to understand (I think we may see some wording changes in future updates). Perhaps the guideline should provide an exception clause like the commercial guideline: "If you believe you have a good reason for enforcing your ALR by deleting the online 'Found It' log, you must get prior permission from Groundspeak for your cache to be published". I believe that the overwhelming number of ALR caches can exist as optional requests and accomplish the same purpose the hider initially had for the cache. If you ask for the log to be in haiku, you will have people who will log in haiku. Some people will not log in haiku, but my guess is most people will.

Share this post


Link to post

[... Landowners would restrict use...

 

This is actually the part that concerns me. I still don't understand whether or not I can delete a log if it mentions finding it outside of the spot's posted hours. If I still have that power, my case to the landowner is stronger. While I can't guarantee no one will search for it after hours, I can assure the landowner that I have removed the incentive, ie smiley, for them to do so.

 

We've got two caches in the work-up stage and about half-a-dozen more in the back of our minds, but all are in hours-restricted spots. We haven't decided what to do yet....

 

Mrs. Car54

Share this post


Link to post

[... Landowners would restrict use...

 

This is actually the part that concerns me. I still don't understand whether or not I can delete a log if it mentions finding it outside of the spot's posted hours. If I still have that power, my case to the landowner is stronger. While I can't guarantee no one will search for it after hours, I can assure the landowner that I have removed the incentive, ie smiley, for them to do so.

 

We've got two caches in the work-up stage and about half-a-dozen more in the back of our minds, but all are in hours-restricted spots. We haven't decided what to do yet....

 

Mrs. Car54

Send an email to your reviewer to ask specific questions about caches that you are going to submit for review.

Share this post


Link to post

[... Landowners would restrict use...

 

This is actually the part that concerns me. I still don't understand whether or not I can delete a log if it mentions finding it outside of the spot's posted hours. If I still have that power, my case to the landowner is stronger. While I can't guarantee no one will search for it after hours, I can assure the landowner that I have removed the incentive, ie smiley, for them to do so.

 

We've got two caches in the work-up stage and about half-a-dozen more in the back of our minds, but all are in hours-restricted spots. We haven't decided what to do yet....

 

Mrs. Car54

That's not a additional task, so it has nothing to do with the guideline change. If you feel you had the right to delete the logs a month ago, you still have that right. It's not rocket science.

Share this post


Link to post
Simple case.

Bats. They hibernate. An ALR that says "Finds are only allowed during summer and all logs from any other time are deleted" is apt.

Does restricting times qualify as an ALR? It seems that the simplest definition of ALR is: "Tasks required after a find" I don't think the bat cave seasonal limitations would qualify as an ALR any more than a note saying, "Park closed at sunset. Any logs showing the cache was sought after at night will be deleted".

Share this post


Link to post
Simple case.

Bats. They hibernate. An ALR that says "Finds are only allowed during summer and all logs from any other time are deleted" is apt.

Does restricting times qualify as an ALR? It seems that the simplest definition of ALR is: "Tasks required after a find" I don't think the bat cave seasonal limitations would qualify as an ALR any more than a note saying, "Park closed at sunset. Any logs showing the cache was sought after at night will be deleted".

 

I think the restriction used would be the deciding factor. If the time restriction is " you may only log this find online between the hours of noon and 1:15 PM" would be an ALR, " The park is closed from 10PM to 6 AM, any finds during that time will be deleted" is just enforcement of a law........

Of course, we all know there are NO cachers who would EVER even THINK of going after a cache when the park is closed... :):)

Share this post


Link to post
Does restricting times qualify as an ALR? It seems that the simplest definition of ALR is: "Tasks required after a find" I don't think the bat cave seasonal limitations would qualify as an ALR any more than a note saying, "Park closed at sunset. Any logs showing the cache was sought after at night will be deleted".
I think the restriction used would be the deciding factor. If the time restriction is " you may only log this find online between the hours of noon and 1:15 PM" would be an ALR, " The park is closed from 10PM to 6 AM, any finds during that time will be deleted" is just enforcement of a law........

Of course, we all know there are NO cachers who would EVER even THINK of going after a cache when the park is closed... :):)

The question that was being posed is whether cache owners have the authority to delete a log if someone violates an external rule or law. It can be argued either way, that's why I suggested that Car54 ask his/her reviewer.

 

Do you have the right to delete my log if I speed on my way to the cache? What if I didn't drop a quarter in the parking meter? Does it matter if I mentioned it in my log, or not?

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
Does restricting times qualify as an ALR? It seems that the simplest definition of ALR is: "Tasks required after a find" I don't think the bat cave seasonal limitations would qualify as an ALR any more than a note saying, "Park closed at sunset. Any logs showing the cache was sought after at night will be deleted".
I think the restriction used would be the deciding factor. If the time restriction is " you may only log this find online between the hours of noon and 1:15 PM" would be an ALR, " The park is closed from 10PM to 6 AM, any finds during that time will be deleted" is just enforcement of a law........

Of course, we all know there are NO cachers who would EVER even THINK of going after a cache when the park is closed... :):)

The question that was being posed is whether cache owners have the authority to delete a log if someone violates an external rule or law. It can be argued either way, that's why I suggested that Car54 ask his/her reviewer.

 

Do you have the right to delete my log if I speed on my way to the cache? What if I didn't drop a quarter in the parking meter? Does it matter if I mentioned it in my log, or not?

This specific question was brought up in this thread. I doubt TPTB will weigh in on this one, since they didn't in a thread dedicated to the question, but I liked the answer presented by me :D :
I personally think that the OP's concern could be answered when looking at this from a "Cache Permanence" issue. From the guidelines:
When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time.
If you think the land manager/owner will object to your cache being there because of unwanted activity, it is your responsibility to address such activity. The only recourse a CO has, short of archival (which defeats the Permanence guideline), is to delete the logs of the offending cacher.
Edit:I stand corrected, 2 reviewers chimed in with their opinions:
(The) question was quite capably answered by a Volunteer Cache Reviewer in the main announcement thread. I couldn't have said it any better myself, so I'll quote an excerpt from that post.
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".
Edited by Too Tall John

Share this post


Link to post
Simple case.

Bats. They hibernate. An ALR that says "Finds are only allowed during summer and all logs from any other time are deleted" is apt.

Does restricting times qualify as an ALR? It seems that the simplest definition of ALR is: "Tasks required after a find" I don't think the bat cave seasonal limitations would qualify as an ALR any more than a note saying, "Park closed at sunset. Any logs showing the cache was sought after at night will be deleted".

 

A fair point. The additional task is to only come during a certain time, but they would still have to come to the cache regardless.

 

When all is said and done my main objection comes down to one thing. As a cache owner I'm responsible for my cache. Neither Finders, nor Listing sites can remove that responsiblity. Even so, thanks to the listing site rule change, I now have one less tool in my toolbox to use when placing caches.

 

Less tools means less freedom of action to solve issues as an owner.

 

Somewhere along the way I stopped letting the rules get in the way of my responsibilites and obligations as a cache owner. This rule likely won't impact me since I don't like ALR's. However if I do need an ALR to solve a problem, I can and will use one. Maybe it's listed, maybe it's not. It really depends on the reviewers ablity to understand the difference between the guidlines and the spirit and intent as they apply to a good cache.

Share this post


Link to post
Does restricting times qualify as an ALR? It seems that the simplest definition of ALR is: "Tasks required after a find" I don't think the bat cave seasonal limitations would qualify as an ALR any more than a note saying, "Park closed at sunset. Any logs showing the cache was sought after at night will be deleted".
I think the restriction used would be the deciding factor. If the time restriction is " you may only log this find online between the hours of noon and 1:15 PM" would be an ALR, " The park is closed from 10PM to 6 AM, any finds during that time will be deleted" is just enforcement of a law........

Of course, we all know there are NO cachers who would EVER even THINK of going after a cache when the park is closed... :):)

The question that was being posed is whether cache owners have the authority to delete a log if someone violates an external rule or law. It can be argued either way, that's why I suggested that Car54 ask his/her reviewer.

 

Do you have the right to delete my log if I speed on my way to the cache? What if I didn't drop a quarter in the parking meter? Does it matter if I mentioned it in my log, or not?

This specific question was brought up in this thread. I doubt TPTB will weigh in on this one, since they didn't in a thread dedicated to the question, but I liked the answer presented by me :D :
I personally think that the OP's concern could be answered when looking at this from a "Cache Permanence" issue. From the guidelines:
When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time.
If you think the land manager/owner will object to your cache being there because of unwanted activity, it is your responsibility to address such activity. The only recourse a CO has, short of archival (which defeats the Permanence guideline), is to delete the logs of the offending cacher.
Edit:I stand corrected, 2 reviewers chimed in with their opinions:
(The) question was quite capably answered by a Volunteer Cache Reviewer in the main announcement thread. I couldn't have said it any better myself, so I'll quote an excerpt from that post.
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".

Again, the very reason that I suggested that the cacher ask his/her reviewer, is because a direct answer has not been given and is likely not to. No one is ever going to say that a cache owner is able to delete logs solely because a cache finder violated an external rule. I tried to make that point in my last post, but you apparently missed it.

Share this post


Link to post

....Do you have the right to delete my log if I speed on my way to the cache? What if I didn't drop a quarter in the parking meter? Does it matter if I mentioned it in my log, or not?

Let me change the angle.

 

Everone pretty much agrees this stie can list or not list any cache submitted based on the guidelines.

Cache owners used to be able to approve or not approve any log submitted on their cache. ALR's are (or were...) the guidelines on the cache.

 

It really is this simple. The owner decides. Site owner, Cache owner. Same thing insofar as "owners rights".

 

What's changes is that now this site has tweaked their terms and said. "Now you owners will allow logs that we see as fit" and "you won't be allowed to create rules for your finds that we don't see as fit." Right, wrong, or indifferent. That's exactly what's happened. The site tweaked it's guidelines as an owner to bring cache owners in line to what it wants. The pecking order is clear. Alpha Dog has spoken, the Beta Dog either complies or hits the road since obviously they aren't yet ready to knock over the Alpha in this pack.

Share this post


Link to post

ALRs were a way of making a crappy hide and pretending that it is more interesting.

 

That's not always the case certainly, but is in most that I've done.

Share this post


Link to post

....Do you have the right to delete my log if I speed on my way to the cache? What if I didn't drop a quarter in the parking meter? Does it matter if I mentioned it in my log, or not?

Let me change the angle.

 

Everone pretty much agrees this stie can list or not list any cache submitted based on the guidelines.

Cache owners used to be able to approve or not approve any log submitted on their cache. ALR's are (or were...) the guidelines on the cache.

 

It really is this simple. The owner decides. Site owner, Cache owner. Same thing insofar as "owners rights".

 

What's changes is that now this site has tweaked their terms and said. "Now you owners will allow logs that we see as fit" and "you won't be allowed to create rules for your finds that we don't see as fit." Right, wrong, or indifferent. That's exactly what's happened. The site tweaked it's guidelines as an owner to bring cache owners in line to what it wants. The pecking order is clear. Alpha Dog has spoken, the Beta Dog either complies or hits the road since obviously they aren't yet ready to knock over the Alpha in this pack.

That's a pretty fair recap of the OP, but I fail to see what it has to do with my post.

Share this post


Link to post

ALRs were a way of making a crappy hide and pretending that it is more interesting.

 

That's not always the case certainly, but is in most that I've done.

Not true.

 

People also used them as a way to shirk their maintenance responsibilities.

Share this post


Link to post

Being a paying member of this game, and seeing as it's being DUMBED DOWN for the numbers players, I shall take my membership $$ elsewhere. If there isn't an "elsewhere", I MAY CREATE ONE.

 

I joined because I wanted to get outdoors, not just in a parking lot by a lamp-post, but OUT - go see THINGS. Changing ALR to ALS removes the incentive for cache owners - why bother creating a challenging cache if the numbers guys can just drive by and SL? My team just found a neat cache called The Biggest Liar's Cache in Oak Ridge, TN. I was so intrigued with the idea, I was hoping to put out a similar cache here in VA. Never mind now. If no one's going to have to dream up a good lie to get the smiley, then my cache becomes another boring container by the side of the trail. Yes, they'd at least have to walk down the trail to find the cache, but it's not that exciting a trail. (it's the only one in our small town) A liar's cache would've been just the (simple) thing to liven it up. My team talked for days about what to put in our lie.

 

If our idiots in Congress can maintain law and order using the same English Groundspeak has access to, I don't see why a reasonable set of "Acceptable to Publish" rules couldn't be arrived at. Movies and video games have PG/M/E ratings. Caches could have a similar system.

 

And I have never understood why Groundspeak doesn't change their category/search system so the TRUE different types of caches (Lamp Post, Ammo Box, ALR) could be distinguished with a quick search. This is the sort of thing computers are great at.

 

My subscription runs out in October. I doubt seriously I will bother renewing it. I'm not in it for the numbers. The rules keep getting changed and I personally don't think it's for the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Again, the very reason that I suggested that the cacher ask his/her reviewer, is because a direct answer has not been given and is likely not to. No one is ever going to say that a cache owner is able to delete logs solely because a cache finder violated an external rule. I tried to make that point in my last post, but you apparently missed it.
Stop chiding me for not reading your post when it is, in fact, you who hasn't read my entire post.

 

If your point is truly that "a direct answer has not been given and is likely not to; no one is ever going to say that a cache owner is able to delete logs solely because a cache finder violated an external rule," you are incorrect. 2 reviewers have answered the question directly. See the quote included in the post you are replying to:

(The) question was quite capably answered by a Volunteer Cache Reviewer in the main announcement thread. I couldn't have said it any better myself, so I'll quote an excerpt from that post.
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".
This is a direct answer to the OP in that thread:
...In the case where one states in a cache description that (e.g.) a park's operating hours are 8am - 6pm, & NOT to violate that 'rule' (for lack of a better word)....

Is the inclusion of that stricture - "Do NOT violate...." in the cache description considered an ALR?

Would NOT including the wording in the cache description affect it being an ALR, and/or influence the cache owner's "right" to delete logs of violators, or must those logs now be allowed?

 

I guess this comes down to:

Does the cache owner even have the right to delete logs of obvious violators of site, not geocaching, rules? ...

Share this post


Link to post

Being a paying member of this game, and seeing as it's being DUMBED DOWN for the numbers players, I shall take my membership $$ elsewhere. If there isn't an "elsewhere", I MAY CREATE ONE.

 

I joined because I wanted to get outdoors, not just in a parking lot by a lamp-post, but OUT - go see THINGS. Changing ALR to ALS removes the incentive for cache owners - why bother creating a challenging cache if the numbers guys can just drive by and SL? My team just found a neat cache called The Biggest Liar's Cache in Oak Ridge, TN. I was so intrigued with the idea, I was hoping to put out a similar cache here in VA. Never mind now. If no one's going to have to dream up a good lie to get the smiley, then my cache becomes another boring container by the side of the trail. Yes, they'd at least have to walk down the trail to find the cache, but it's not that exciting a trail. (it's the only one in our small town) A liar's cache would've been just the (simple) thing to liven it up. My team talked for days about what to put in our lie.

 

If our idiots in Congress can maintain law and order using the same English Groundspeak has access to, I don't see why a reasonable set of "Acceptable to Publish" rules couldn't be arrived at. Movies and video games have PG/M/E ratings. Caches could have a similar system.

 

And I have never understood why Groundspeak doesn't change their category/search system so the TRUE different types of caches (Lamp Post, Ammo Box, ALR) could be distinguished with a quick search. This is the sort of thing computers are great at.

 

My subscription runs out in October. I doubt seriously I will bother renewing it. I'm not in it for the numbers. The rules keep getting changed and I personally don't think it's for the better.

Hey Indy, what can we do to help? I've noticed that our caching area overlaps a bit (we met you and D at Tumblin' Creek a while back). We've become pretty decent at targeting caches to maximize the fun and we'd be glad to recommend some area caches. Based on your note, you may enjoy the Earth Caches and Ammo Box hides around Grayson Highlands and White Top. They're great. (BTW, Earth Caches still have additional logging requirements.)

 

Back on topic, for some reason many of those caches previously known as ALR caches are more intriguing to me now that they are optional. Instead of a dull requirement, I now see it as an extra challenge which gives me more of incentive to carry them out.

Share this post


Link to post

....Do you have the right to delete my log if I speed on my way to the cache? What if I didn't drop a quarter in the parking meter? Does it matter if I mentioned it in my log, or not?

Let me change the angle.

 

Everone pretty much agrees this stie can list or not list any cache submitted based on the guidelines.

Cache owners used to be able to approve or not approve any log submitted on their cache. ALR's are (or were...) the guidelines on the cache.

 

It really is this simple. The owner decides. Site owner, Cache owner. Same thing insofar as "owners rights".

 

What's changes is that now this site has tweaked their terms and said. "Now you owners will allow logs that we see as fit" and "you won't be allowed to create rules for your finds that we don't see as fit." Right, wrong, or indifferent. That's exactly what's happened. The site tweaked it's guidelines as an owner to bring cache owners in line to what it wants. The pecking order is clear. Alpha Dog has spoken, the Beta Dog either complies or hits the road since obviously they aren't yet ready to knock over the Alpha in this pack.

That's a pretty fair recap of the OP, but I fail to see what it has to do with my post.

Both my recent posts cover it indirectly.

I had the right to delete your log for reason of non compliance with the guidelines. Delettion of course means archive the log since they don't really go away.

Now I've lost some of that right, but I haven't lost the obligation because I remain resposnble as the cache owner.

Share this post


Link to post

1. Being a paying member of this game, and seeing as it's being DUMBED DOWN for the numbers players, I shall take my membership $$ elsewhere.

 

2. If there isn't an "elsewhere", I MAY CREATE ONE.

 

3. And I have never understood why Groundspeak doesn't change their category/search system so the TRUE different types of caches........

....... The rules keep getting changed and I personally don't think it's for the better.

 

1. Groundspeak continues to create new things to do with a GPS (Waymarking, Wherigo, etc.), so they are hardly dumbing things down. To the contrary, they are broadening the options available to their users. I don't like the ban on ALRs, but I can understand Groundspeak's viewpoint. ALRs are apparently out of hand in some places, so this move makes things more like geocaching, and less like "I made up my own game involving a geocache".

 

2. Geocaching.Com is the only game in town (in any town) that is really about geocaching as most of us know it.

 

3. Hmmm.......

 

You don't understand why GC doesn't change things, yet you complain because they make changes.

 

I'm sure this is logical to you, but it doesn't seem so to me.

 

Here's the bottom line: Groundspeak has taken an unknown game, given it structure, and made it available worldwide, on a "free if you so choose" basis. This whole arena is about seven years old (give or take), and they've made very few changes in the guidelines over that period of time.

 

The Groundspeak folks know that any change they make, no matter how much sense the change makes, will be met with wailing and gnashing of teeth, so I imagine they don't make any changes that they don't deem to be in the best interest of the hobby.

 

Good luck with wherever you end up.

Edited by WebChimp

Share this post


Link to post

ALRs were a way of making a crappy hide and pretending that it is more interesting.

 

That's not always the case certainly, but is in most that I've done.

Not true.

 

People also used them as a way to shirk their maintenance responsibilities.

They are also a way to help with the ownership responsiblity. It's not hard to think of Viable ALR caches. It's not even hard to have an idea where the only proper way to implement it is ALR. It's only people who's thinking is box oriented who get stuck on a set of rules that has merit in some cases and is utter poppycock in others who would ban some great caches just to avoid some crap.

 

Some ALR's can be made into AWF's (Additional Work to Find). Some can't. Some end up being a mix at best. That's the real world. It's why the guidlines are flexable, but the folks who can't see the reasons behind that flexablity will implement the guidlines like a blunt object.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Being a paying member of this game, and seeing as it's being DUMBED DOWN for the numbers players, I shall take my membership $$ elsewhere. If there isn't an "elsewhere", I MAY CREATE ONE.
I'm pretty sure that there's a thread around here that is right up your alley.
I joined because I wanted to get outdoors, not just in a parking lot by a lamp-post, but OUT - go see THINGS. Changing ALR to ALS removes the incentive for cache owners - why bother creating a challenging cache if the numbers guys can just drive by and SL? My team just found a neat cache called The Biggest Liar's Cache in Oak Ridge, TN. I was so intrigued with the idea, I was hoping to put out a similar cache here in VA. Never mind now. If no one's going to have to dream up a good lie to get the smiley, then my cache becomes another boring container by the side of the trail. Yes, they'd at least have to walk down the trail to find the cache, but it's not that exciting a trail. (it's the only one in our small town) A liar's cache would've been just the (simple) thing to liven it up. My team talked for days about what to put in our lie.
A few quick thoughts:
  • I don't know why you couldn't merely suggest that people lie.
  • You might be saving yourself a bit of trouble by not having a liar's cache, since they occasionally cause an angst storm.
  • Perhaps you can come up with some other way to create a good cache that doesn't involve lying. Lots of people have.
  • Many people have come up with ways to avoid LPCs and similar caches. A search is sure to turn some of these methods up.

If our idiots in Congress can maintain law and order using the same English Groundspeak has access to, I don't see why a reasonable set of "Acceptable to Publish" rules couldn't be arrived at. Movies and video games have PG/M/E ratings. Caches could have a similar system.
A few more thoughts:
  • The off-topic area of the forums is where political ranting belongs.
  • Other threads are perfect places to discuss ratings system. In fact, there's an active one right now.
  • TPTB have established a reasonable set of "acceptable to Publish" 'rules'. They are commonly known as the listing guidelines and can be found here.

And I have never understood why Groundspeak doesn't change their category/search system so the TRUE different types of caches (Lamp Post, Ammo Box, ALR) could be distinguished with a quick search. This is the sort of thing computers are great at.
They sure are. The only problem that I can foresee is the fact that the three items you mentioned aren't cache types.
My subscription runs out in October. I doubt seriously I will bother renewing it. I'm not in it for the numbers. The rules keep getting changed and I personally don't think it's for the better.
Mine runs out in October, also. Well, it would have if I didn't renew it yesterday.
... If your point is truly that "a direct answer has not been given and is likely not to; no one is ever going to say that a cache owner is able to delete logs solely because a cache finder violated an external rule," you are incorrect.
We disagree and I could honestly care less.

 

I'll stand by my previous response: If a person is concerned about whether a proposed cache would violate the guidelines, he/she should shoot an email to his reviewer, who would no doubt be more than happy to answer the question at that time, rather than to have a long, angsty back-and-forth after the cache is submitted.

Share this post


Link to post
....Do you have the right to delete my log if I speed on my way to the cache? What if I didn't drop a quarter in the parking meter? Does it matter if I mentioned it in my log, or not?
Let me change the angle.

 

Everone pretty much agrees this stie can list or not list any cache submitted based on the guidelines.

Cache owners used to be able to approve or not approve any log submitted on their cache. ALR's are (or were...) the guidelines on the cache.

 

It really is this simple. The owner decides. Site owner, Cache owner. Same thing insofar as "owners rights".

 

What's changes is that now this site has tweaked their terms and said. "Now you owners will allow logs that we see as fit" and "you won't be allowed to create rules for your finds that we don't see as fit." Right, wrong, or indifferent. That's exactly what's happened. The site tweaked it's guidelines as an owner to bring cache owners in line to what it wants. The pecking order is clear. Alpha Dog has spoken, the Beta Dog either complies or hits the road since obviously they aren't yet ready to knock over the Alpha in this pack.

That's a pretty fair recap of the OP, but I fail to see what it has to do with my post.
Both my recent posts cover it indirectly.

I had the right to delete your log for reason of non compliance with the guidelines. Delettion of course means archive the log since they don't really go away.

Now I've lost some of that right, but I haven't lost the obligation because I remain resposnble as the cache owner.

Again, that's a fair (if biased) recap, but has little to do with my post. I'm just not sure why you quoted me.

Share this post


Link to post

ALRs were a way of making a crappy hide and pretending that it is more interesting.

 

That's not always the case certainly, but is in most that I've done.

Not true.

 

People also used them as a way to shirk their maintenance responsibilities.

They are also a way to help with the ownership responsiblity. It's not hard to think of Viable ALR caches. It's not even hard to have an idea where the only proper way to implement it is ALR. ...

If it's not so hard, how about giving us an example?

Share this post


Link to post

Changing ALR to ALS removes the incentive for cache owners - why bother creating a challenging cache if the numbers guys can just drive by and SL? My team just found a neat cache called The Biggest Liar's Cache in Oak Ridge, TN. I was so intrigued with the idea, I was hoping to put out a similar cache here in VA. Never mind now. If no one's going to have to dream up a good lie to get the smiley, then my cache becomes another boring container by the side of the trail. Yes, they'd at least have to walk down the trail to find the cache, but it's not that exciting a trail. (it's the only one in our small town) A liar's cache would've been just the (simple) thing to liven it up. My team talked for days about what to put in our lie.

Think about whether it being an ALR vs. and ALS really makes all that difference. Sure you may get some people who will find your cache and post "TNLNSL" instead of trying to come up with an entertaining tall tale about what they found. But you'd also get people who want to play along and they will still write a story. They may even spend more time on this then they would have had they felt they were simply writing a story in order to get a smiley. You may get people who would have ignored your cache before who will now find it and may be very willing to write a log that meets the ALR. The point of an ALR like this is to have fun. What fun is it for a cache owner to have to delete logs? If non-compliant logs bother you, ignore them and enjoy the ones that did take the time to comply that much more.

 

If our idiots in Congress can maintain law and order using the same English Groundspeak has access to, I don't see why a reasonable set of "Acceptable to Publish" rules couldn't be arrived at. Movies and video games have PG/M/E ratings. Caches could have a similar system.
You'd think they could come up with something. But the people at Groundspeak are trying not to look like the idiots in Congress by writing guidelines that no one understands or that people will complain are arbitrarily enforced. It seems like they spent a long time on this one, trying to come up with some wording that the reviewers would find meaningful and that cache owners would know what was expected when they submitted an ALR. In the end they compromised (just like Congress does sometimes). They came up with some concept for challenge caches that they wanted to still be listed, they came up with a broad statement of simple task to avoid the most ridiculous ALRs, and they made these simple tasks optional to allow the most flexibility in what would be allowed. It may be there are some times where the ability to enforce an ALR by deleting logs is reasonable. My feeling is that they should have allowed exceptions but those would be approved by Groundspeak. Most people don't like to deal with anyone beyond their local reviewer so they would have made their ALRs optional. If someone really felt that they had to be able to delete logs they could have take this up with the frog and if they had a convincing argument perhaps could have gotten their enforceable ALR approved.

 

And I have never understood why Groundspeak doesn't change their category/search system so the TRUE different types of caches (Lamp Post, Ammo Box, ALR) could be distinguished with a quick search. This is the sort of thing computers are great at.
The types of caches as they now exists are fine. But I do agree that computers are great at sorting things many different ways. A common approach on many websites it a tagging system. Users can add tags to an item. Other can search for items by tags. Even just allowing the cache owner to add tags like Park N Grab or ALR, would give others something to search on. I could see the problem with letting finders of a cache add tags. They would start putting LPC or UPS (unnatural pile of sticks) tags on caches - essentially posting spoilers that cache owners would then demand the ability to remove.

Share this post


Link to post
The site tweaked it's guidelines as an owner to bring cache owners in line to what it wants.

I agree, however, I don't see this as a problem, since Groundspeak has been doing this since the inception of guidelines.

They have a particular vision they wish to achieve so that geocaching can be presented in a light most favorable for positive user interaction and company growth.

The guidelines help them achieve those goals.

Share this post


Link to post

Being a paying member of this game, and seeing as it's being DUMBED DOWN for the numbers players

Do tell? When is this change going to occur? Or is this the same silly strawman that's been deliberately and inaccurately interjected into this debate since page two? Never mind. I see I answered my own question. This ridiculous claim has already been made and soundly refuted numerous times throughout this thread. If you had bothered to read the thread prior to your rant, you would've seen that, and it would've saved you a lot of parroting.

 

I shall take my membership $$ elsewhere. If there isn't an "elsewhere", I MAY CREATE ONE.

Kewl! Competition is always a good thing. I hope you'll let us know how your site goes. If it grows as well as you hope, it could benefit everyone. Any idea what the name of your site might be, so I can keep a look out for it?

 

I joined because I wanted to get outdoors, not just in a parking lot by a lamp-post

Kewl! That's what I like too. Can you tell me how this change impacts how often you search in the great outdoors, vs. how many times you end up in parking lots?

I know my hunts haven't changed at all, so I'm curious to discover why your hunts have changed.

I know that I, as a cache owner, have no plans to create P&Gs. Of the other cachers I know who hide rural caches, none of them are planning on creating gobs of P&Gs either.

Do you have any data to support your claim that this change is going to increase P&Gs?

No? That's OK. I didn't really expect you to have any.

 

Changing ALR to ALS removes the incentive for cache owners

Do tell? As I mentioned earlier, I happen to be a cache owner. My incentive hasn't changed at all. Has yours?

My incentive is the end reward of lengthy logs expressing the finder's pleasure, brought about by the creation of challenging and interesting hides.

If your incentive has changed, perhaps you need to read the guideline change again.

From here, you look like someone going off in a huff. Throwing a temper-tantrum, if you will.

Only you can decide what your incentive to hide caches is, not Groundspeak.

 

why bother creating a challenging cache if the numbers guys can just drive by and SL?

Of all my active hides, I can only think of one that you could drive up to. It was created as a parody.

I seriously doubt you could reach the majority of my remaining hides in a Sherman tank.

Have your hides suddenly devolved to a bunch of P&Gs?

 

My subscription runs out in October. I doubt seriously I will bother renewing it.

OK. That's certainly your right as a consumer. Again, let me wish you well in creating your own caching site.

Share this post


Link to post

...If it's not so hard, how about giving us an example?

 

A few Ideas I brainstormed. All viable in the right circumstances and with the right owner.

 

Most ALR’s can be converted to AWL to some extent but valid is valid. Not all of these are approvable. Most should be at least fun.

 

Cave 101: Email me proof of Caving 101 training and your can log my cave cache. No proof. No log.

Ranch Hand: Post a photo of the closed gate as you leave the ranch in your log. Failure to do so will annoy the rancher and will cause your log to be deleted.

 

Sign the log, no not the cache log, the visitors log, the owner wants to track caching traffic as a condition of this cache being here. If you don’t yes, you guessed it I have to zap your log.

 

Red Paperclip: The institute of Red Paperclip trading up studies has published a cache where the goal is to trade up only as part of a doctoral dissertation on the Red Paperclip phenomenon. Logging requires an up-trade, trades must be approved, no approved trade, no log. When the value hits $100 we will use that as a FTF prize on the next cycle along with a brand new red paperclip to kick off the cycle.

 

Cache me if you can: This puzzle/multi cache can be in any of 6 pre approved but tricky locations with a clue at the nexus cache (the cords are the nexus) . You must give a clue to the next finder in your online and nexus log so the next finder can solve the puzzle of “where” on site.

 

Beer with RK ongoing event cache: No Beer with RK. No Log. For Soda, Wine, Smoothies, etc. see the corresponding event caches. The Bonus Drank RK under the table Cache can be logged if you do just that. Coords are in RK’s wallet. Only logs from finders who replace the laminated coordinate card back in RK’s wallet and who resist the temptation to take advantage of the situation will stand.

 

40 Acres and an Antelope: (Cache Size Large)You must find the antelope. You must tame the antelope, or at least catch the antelope. The log is around his neck. For your survival we have bobbed the horns. Proof positive that he’s still among the living must be part of your log.

 

Area 51: (Pick any area that takes work to be in, but which we can be in some cases with the right luck, connections, or whatever) Because of the sensitive nature of this area, your log requires a scan of your ticket/permission/authorization etc or a verification email from the security supervisor.

 

Cache Buddy: The location is beautiful, but treacherous. You absolutely positively must have a cache buddy to meet the land owner regulations. Logs must be in batches showing that at least two cachers were in the party to show compliance. Group logs are not allowed. Yes I know you can cheat but trust me on needing a buddy.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe we need a two tier log deletion system. Delete the log from view on the cache page but leave it on the log owners account. This would allow the log to still count as a find but remove problem logs from the cache page. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

...If it's not so hard, how about giving us an example?

 

A few Ideas I brainstormed. All viable in the right circumstances and with the right owner.

 

Most ALR’s can be converted to AWL to some extent but valid is valid. Not all of these are approvable. Most should be at least fun.

 

Cave 101: Email me proof of Caving 101 training and your can log my cave cache. No proof. No log.

Ranch Hand: Post a photo of the closed gate as you leave the ranch in your log. Failure to do so will annoy the rancher and will cause your log to be deleted.

 

Sign the log, no not the cache log, the visitors log, the owner wants to track caching traffic as a condition of this cache being here. If you don’t yes, you guessed it I have to zap your log.

 

Red Paperclip: The institute of Red Paperclip trading up studies has published a cache where the goal is to trade up only as part of a doctoral dissertation on the Red Paperclip phenomenon. Logging requires an up-trade, trades must be approved, no approved trade, no log. When the value hits $100 we will use that as a FTF prize on the next cycle along with a brand new red paperclip to kick off the cycle.

 

Cache me if you can: This puzzle/multi cache can be in any of 6 pre approved but tricky locations with a clue at the nexus cache (the cords are the nexus) . You must give a clue to the next finder in your online and nexus log so the next finder can solve the puzzle of “where” on site.

 

Beer with RK ongoing event cache: No Beer with RK. No Log. For Soda, Wine, Smoothies, etc. see the corresponding event caches. The Bonus Drank RK under the table Cache can be logged if you do just that. Coords are in RK’s wallet. Only logs from finders who replace the laminated coordinate card back in RK’s wallet and who resist the temptation to take advantage of the situation will stand.

 

40 Acres and an Antelope: (Cache Size Large)You must find the antelope. You must tame the antelope, or at least catch the antelope. The log is around his neck. For your survival we have bobbed the horns. Proof positive that he’s still among the living must be part of your log.

 

Area 51: (Pick any area that takes work to be in, but which we can be in some cases with the right luck, connections, or whatever) Because of the sensitive nature of this area, your log requires a scan of your ticket/permission/authorization etc or a verification email from the security supervisor.

 

Cache Buddy: The location is beautiful, but treacherous. You absolutely positively must have a cache buddy to meet the land owner regulations. Logs must be in batches showing that at least two cachers were in the party to show compliance. Group logs are not allowed. Yes I know you can cheat but trust me on needing a buddy.

 

And prior to this guideline change, I see only 2 that Would not have been approved... the Antelope one. Could be considered a Moving cache, and the Beer with RK ongoing event cache(Family Friendly). Plus, you don't want a drunk 7 yr old actually killing the antelope. Or do you?

 

The Steaks

Share this post


Link to post
... If your point is truly that "a direct answer has not been given and is likely not to; no one is ever going to say that a cache owner is able to delete logs solely because a cache finder violated an external rule," you are incorrect.
We disagree and I could honestly care less.
You disagree that 2 reviewers have weighed in on this question, one literally echoing the other?

 

You amaze me... :D

I'll stand by my previous response: If a person is concerned about whether a proposed cache would violate the guidelines, he/she should shoot an email to his reviewer, who would no doubt be more than happy to answer the question at that time, rather than to have a long, angsty back-and-forth after the cache is submitted.
True enough, you could email your local reviewer. You would likely get an answer that would look oddly familiar to anyone who actually bothered to read my post. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

Now that it's been found, let me ask: is this an example of an ALR published since the guideline change? Personally, I have no problem with this cache, just wondering how others feel about it.

Not necessarily. We would need to know when on the 3rd OReviewer published the cache. If it was before 4:00PM PDT, then the change to the rules had not yet been published.

 

Another option is that even if it was published after the change, the cache owner could have edited the cache page after it was published.

 

It's not something I'd be looking for, but for those that are closer and may care, either put a note on the cache page pointing out the new rules or email/message the reviewer. I'm sure the requirement will go away one way or the other.

 

First off, I'm confused about what the the cache owner is requesting. Is it that as I have claimed a previous FTF, I can NEVER claim a find on his cache, or simply that I can not claim a FTF on his cache. After reading CCCA's note, I'm guessing the later.

 

Second, it seems like this is a whole other topic. The owner is not requesting "Additional Logging Requirements" on his cache. On the contrary, he's imposing, (temporary), restrictions. While I have no problem with what the CO is trying to accomplish, (which seems to open up the FTF playing field to more players), whenever I read "Will be Deleted" in a cache description, my brain goes on Red Alert. It then it forces my hand to move the mouse cursor to the "Ignore" link.

 

BTW, if this "hold off on the FTF" thing was requested, as opposed to demanded, I would gladly honor the request and look forward to reading the First Time FTF cacher's log, even if the cache was walking distance away.

 

The way I read "As with other caches I have recently put out, this cache is reserved for anyone who has yet to claim a FTF. All other entries will be deleted." is that I am forever stopped from logging his caches since I have over 100 FTFs to my name. It is a Trad Cache - one I would mindlessly download and then only look at the cache page when I got to close to the cache (if I happen to get into the area).

 

I went back to his last cache - where the page has been (likely) modified to say:

"This cache is reserved for anyone who has yet to claim a FTF. Congrats to CeltsFan! All others are now welcome to claim this cache and sign the log. A small trackable coin has been placed to reward FTF."

 

So I'm guessing he is just trying to spread FTFs around, which is just fine. But you sure can read it another way as I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Maybe we need a two tier log deletion system. Delete the log from view on the cache page but leave it on the log owners account. This would allow the log to still count as a find but remove problem logs from the cache page. <_<

Been saying something like that for years. You only need an additional check in the log record indicating a need to show the log text on the cache page. Completely removing the log is another good way to go. I never really understood the reasoning of the huge step between having to leave the complete log and deleting the complete log. Leave the log and hide the text. The CO could later allow the text to show.

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?

 

That's easy, just create a "Slacker Section" on the cache page for those cachers that don't include a photo of themselves on top of the pillar. That's what we did for our cache that required a photo taken on top of Snow Mtn Snow Mtn. Challenge.

 

We also didn't want the team mega-finds of geocaching to be able to log our cache if all the members did not climb the mountain.

 

If you can't make them, shame them! :sad:

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

The Sherpas don't get credit for climbing the mountain, only the climbers who make it to the top.

Edited by Arse&Hemi

Share this post


Link to post

I just learned about this one and am archiving the one ALR that I have. It was designed to get people to a nearby waterfall that is on land where a physical cache is not permitted. Without the ALR, it would be a drive up -- and not something I am interested in maintaining. Its too bad. Most people would not know about the area and I cannot think of any other way to do the cahe.

Share this post


Link to post

I really don't understand the logic behind no longer allowing ALR caches, nor do I see why Fizzy Challenges would be exempt, are they not an ALR cache supreme? What's next, no more puzzle caches? I thought it unfortunate to see Virtual caches removed, what could be better than not having to sign in on a moldy, wet piece of paper left inside some cracked Glad container and yet learn some little tidbit of history or visit some interesting site? It is sad to see the turn of Geocaching into nothing more than randomly placed film canisters in the local WalMart parking lot.

Share this post


Link to post
It is sad to see the turn of Geocaching into nothing more than randomly placed film canisters in the local WalMart parking lot.

Not sure if this qualifies as a drama queen post or a chicken little post. :D

Had you bothered to read even a tenth of this thread, you would realize that this move does not, in any way, hinder you from hiding an ammo can in a scenic location. You would've also learned why Fizzy challenges are not ALRs. One question though: Because you are no longer able to post the coords to your favorite fast food joint and call it a virtual, (on this site), does that really mean, in your eyes, that your only remaining option is to hide a cracked Gladware with a moldy log? Or were you just being obtuse?

Share this post


Link to post
It is sad to see the turn of Geocaching into nothing more than randomly placed film canisters in the local WalMart parking lot.

Not sure if this qualifies as a drama queen post or a chicken little post. :P

Had you bothered to read even a tenth of this thread, you would realize that this move does not, in any way, hinder you from hiding an ammo can in a scenic location. You would've also learned why Fizzy challenges are not ALRs. One question though: Because you are no longer able to post the coords to your favorite fast food joint and call it a virtual, (on this site), does that really mean, in your eyes, that your only remaining option is to hide a cracked Gladware with a moldy log? Or were you just being obtuse?

 

Ouch, I think we should be able to comment on topics without fear of personal insults. I did read most of the past logs and I will reiterate...I don't understand the logic behind no longer allowing ALR caches, in my experience, the cache owner has used his creativity to come up with an unique twist on the traditional hide. I also take offense when you suggest that I would want to hide a virtual cache at my favorite fast food joint. First, I do not patronize "fast food joints" and therefore don't have a favorite. Second, why is it be okay to place a magnetic key holder under a lamppost skirt at the same "local fast food joint"? Perhaps you meant to say "Because one is no longer able to post....."

I would much rather visit an interesting or historical site via a Virtual Cache, than arrive at said location where someone has left a geocaching container to sully up the enviroment.

Share this post


Link to post
I really don't understand the logic behind no longer allowing ALR caches, nor do I see why Fizzy Challenges would be exempt, are they not an ALR cache supreme? What's next, no more puzzle caches? I thought it unfortunate to see Virtual caches removed, what could be better than not having to sign in on a moldy, wet piece of paper left inside some cracked Glad container and yet learn some little tidbit of history or visit some interesting site? It is sad to see the turn of Geocaching into nothing more than randomly placed film canisters in the local WalMart parking lot.

We recently did a cache with an ALR where the owner "required" you go to to a cemetery, sign the log, answer some questions and email him the answers and take a picture at a certain spot.

 

With the rules change, we had the total right not to do that, but we did the extra steps because we were curious about the questions being asked and wanted to learn some history about an area very close to us, and it's always fun to take a picture at an interesting spot.

 

If it had been a traditional cache, it would have been a quick park and grab at a cool spot, but having people look up extra info turned an okay cache into one that we will remember for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
It is sad to see the turn of Geocaching into nothing more than randomly placed film canisters in the local WalMart parking lot.

Not sure if this qualifies as a drama queen post or a chicken little post. :P

Had you bothered to read even a tenth of this thread, you would realize that this move does not, in any way, hinder you from hiding an ammo can in a scenic location. You would've also learned why Fizzy challenges are not ALRs. One question though: Because you are no longer able to post the coords to your favorite fast food joint and call it a virtual, (on this site), does that really mean, in your eyes, that your only remaining option is to hide a cracked Gladware with a moldy log? Or were you just being obtuse?

 

Ouch, I think we should be able to comment on topics without fear of personal insults. I did read most of the past logs and I will reiterate...I don't understand the logic behind no longer allowing ALR caches, in my experience, the cache owner has used his creativity to come up with an unique twist on the traditional hide. I also take offense when you suggest that I would want to hide a virtual cache at my favorite fast food joint. First, I do not patronize "fast food joints" and therefore don't have a favorite. Second, why is it be okay to place a magnetic key holder under a lamppost skirt at the same "local fast food joint"? Perhaps you meant to say "Because one is no longer able to post....."

I would much rather visit an interesting or historical site via a Virtual Cache, than arrive at said location where someone has left a geocaching container to sully up the enviroment.

 

Let me put it to you differently...how does the end of allowing owners to act as if they are all mighty stop anyone from hiding creative caches? The only thing this change does is stop the heavy handed ownes from making you jump through hoops after you made the find. A find is a find, making someone wear a pink hat, stand on your head or answer a question AFTER you've made the find is detrimental to the game, to finders' fun and it was getting out of hand!

Share this post


Link to post

Ouch, I think we should be able to comment on topics without fear of personal insults. I did read most of the past logs and I will reiterate...I don't understand the logic behind no longer allowing ALR caches, in my experience, the cache owner has used his creativity to come up with an unique twist on the traditional hide. I also take offense when you suggest that I would want to hide a virtual cache at my favorite fast food joint. First, I do not patronize "fast food joints" and therefore don't have a favorite. Second, why is it be okay to place a magnetic key holder under a lamppost skirt at the same "local fast food joint"? Perhaps you meant to say "Because one is no longer able to post....."

I would much rather visit an interesting or historical site via a Virtual Cache, than arrive at said location where someone has left a geocaching container to sully up the enviroment.

Not sure anyone was insulting you. There has been a lot of discussion in this thread over whether this guideline change means the end of geocaching or if it in anyway interferes with cache owners ability to to hide interesting and creative caches. You make a claim that it (along with the demise of new virtual caches) is going to turn geocaching "into nothing more than randomly placed film canisters in the local WalMart parking lot". I don't think you will find a lot of support for that assumption.

 

ALRs provide one way for geocache owners to add a bit of interest to an otherwise dull hide. It came at a cost. While most people had a requirement that was a simple task that most people would not have any problem doing, we were starting to see requirements that seemed be there only so the cache owner could delete some log. In addition there were some requirements that TPTB decided were not in the best interest of the game - such as requiring the finder to hide a new cache or reserving FTF for a specific individual. Any attempt to write a simple guideline that clearly delimited an acceptable ALR from one which was not had the same problem as the "Wow" requirement for virtual caches. The reviewers simply did not want to be put in the position of enforcing such a subjective guideline. Instead, after much discussion it was decided that most ALRs work quite well as optional requests - even some of the unacceptable ALRs seem OK so long as they are optional.

 

CR probably didn't intend to imply that you would hide something at your favorite fast food joint. The point he was making is that the "wowness" of a virtual location was subjective. People submitted virtual caches at fast food joints. I doubt many were approved. Whether or not there are virtual caches, people hide caches that you might consider lame. However there are certainly ways to take a person to an interesting location or historic site in the course of them finding a traditional or a multi-cache. TPTB have decided that this game is about finding hidden containers. The concept of sharing neat location that a person can visit (possibly using a GPS to get to the coordinates) has been move to Waymarking.com. see link

 

Finally, your attitude that a geocahing container sullies up the environment at a nice historic site where you would have done a virtual cache, is part of the problem we have with some land managers banning physical caches. Granted there are some places where it is inappropriate to place a physical cache. Not every location needs a geocache and geocaches should not be used purely to share a location. But if there is an appropriate place to hide a geocache nearby then it doesn't sully up anything and only adds to the experience. The geocacher can visit the historic site and can even optionally answer questions or take a picture to show that he did. And then he gets to find a geocache. Granted that by making the ALR optional you will get some people who will find the cache and ignore the monument that is the real point of visiting the site. But you can just write them off as people who are missing out on the real fun of geocaching because their pursuit of numbers has blinded them from seeing what is around when they are caching. You might be surprised to find there are still plenty of people who would really appreciate that you hide a cache someplace other than a fast food joint.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

[... Landowners would restrict use...

 

This is actually the part that concerns me. I still don't understand whether or not I can delete a log if it mentions finding it outside of the spot's posted hours. If I still have that power, my case to the landowner is stronger. While I can't guarantee no one will search for it after hours, I can assure the landowner that I have removed the incentive, ie smiley, for them to do so....

 

I can't say this enough. Because this is your cache, and you are responsible, and it's the land owners land, this site and no finder ever gets to trump your relationship with that land owner. If you have told them that you will delete any find that indicates that they have broken park rules. That's what you do. This site and your reviewer should be willing to back you up. If not, well it's not their relatioship on the line. It's yours. You do the right thing by the land owner.

Share this post


Link to post

......how does the end of allowing owners to act as if they are all mighty stop anyone from hiding creative caches? The only thing this change does is stop the heavy handed ownes from making you jump through hoops after you made the find. A find is a find, making someone wear a pink hat, stand on your head or answer a question AFTER you've made the find is detrimental to the game, to finders' fun and it was getting out of hand!

 

Let me take the spin out of your question.

 

"How does the end of ALR's stop anyone from hiding creative caches?"

 

Quite simply it has removed any and all variations of ALR's from the table. If you accept that ALR's have as much ablity to be creative as all the other variations of caches, their loss by itself limits creativity to a smaller box that we all have to work within.

 

There is a different between our dislike of ALR's and their creativiness. That we don't like them doesn't change that they can be creative, and that some would actualy be fun for us to do were they allowed.

Edited by Renegade Knight

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...