Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 23
MissJenn

update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

Recommended Posts

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. :P

 

This would work for finders who don't like cache owner rules.

It would also work for finders when they have to deal with owners who are such control freaks that no reasonable person could log without a problem.

It would not work for owners who have rules in place for valid reasons. Like honoring a land owner request so as to discourage certain behaviors by dishonorable finders.

Share this post


Link to post

The first thing that scares me is....

If you are thinking of creating such a cache, please include a note to the reviewer demonstrating either that you have met the challenge yourself, or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.
I can't solve all the puzzle caches around here, nor can I scale a cliff or mountainside to log a cache, there are some former ALR caches that I choose not do because they were too silly,etc. but once you remove the challenge the hobby lacks fun. It won't be long before the powers that be decide a multi-cache is too arduous and will force cache owner's to post the final cache location with an option to find the interim stages. Or a puzzle cache which displays the solution with an suggestion to solve the puzzle. Not everyone has the skill, the desire, the knowledge to find every cache currently listed on Geocaching.com and that is a good thing! Please don't suck the diversity and/or the challenge out of our caches so that everyone can find every cache.

 

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!

 

My caching experience is fairly limited to my immediate locale but I'm quite positive I've never been made to do anything. Would it be okay if a cache owner made you "jump through hoops" before you found the cache? ie a difficult puzzle or an extensive cache find history? Why?

 

Personally I enjoy having the choice of which hoops I jump through and which ones I don't bother with. It just seems to me that someone is deciding to remove the hoops, how boring! :P

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.

 

I can not grasp how standing on your head wearing a pink wig or dancing a hula on a log makes the cache creative. It makes it lame. A creative cache is one where your gizmo points you to a pay phone. You pick up the receiver and your instructed to punch in a code (easily obtained from the cache page or your gizmo) to get it to open so you can sign the log.

 

This thread was dead until someone had to come along and beat the poor dead horse. It deserves to lie here and rot in peace.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
My caching experience is fairly limited to my immediate locale but I'm quite positive I've never been made to do anything.

Hmm... LHollo gets it. It's too bad so many other people still seem to think that ALR owners are "all mighty", "heavy handed", or "power hungry".

Share this post


Link to post
I can not grasp how standing on your head wearing a pink wig or dancing a hula on a log makes the cache creative. It makes it lame.
It's at least as creative as adding a Soduku puzzle to a cache in order to get the coordinates.

Share this post


Link to post

The first thing that scares me is....

If you are thinking of creating such a cache, please include a note to the reviewer demonstrating either that you have met the challenge yourself, or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.
I can't solve all the puzzle caches around here, nor can I scale a cliff or mountainside to log a cache, there are some former ALR caches that I choose not do because they were too silly,etc. but once you remove the challenge the hobby lacks fun. It won't be long before the powers that be decide a multi-cache is too arduous and will force cache owner's to post the final cache location with an option to find the interim stages. Or a puzzle cache which displays the solution with an suggestion to solve the puzzle. Not everyone has the skill, the desire, the knowledge to find every cache currently listed on Geocaching.com and that is a good thing! Please don't suck the diversity and/or the challenge out of our caches so that everyone can find every cache.

 

You really need to take a chill pill. Nothing has changed, except deleting logs if you did not post a picture of yourself wearing a pink wig. The world is fine, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Spend more time worrying about dying of swine flu.

 

Jim

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.

 

And I guess you don't think that the reason for placing this cache here is enough incentive for most cachers to accept your invitation to make the hike up to the falls and enjoy this special location? :P

The only change in the guidelines was the removal of your ability to require them to go up there. Now you just hope that enough of them will. Your maintenance workload is actually lessened by the guideline change.

The physical cache is the same, but you don't have to review each and every log for compliance to your demand.

 

Don't forget to mop up the milk with those spilled cheerios. :(

Share this post


Link to post

The first thing that scares me is....

If you are thinking of creating such a cache, please include a note to the reviewer demonstrating either that you have met the challenge yourself, or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.
I can't solve all the puzzle caches around here, nor can I scale a cliff or mountainside to log a cache, there are some former ALR caches that I choose not do because they were too silly,etc. but once you remove the challenge the hobby lacks fun. It won't be long before the powers that be decide a multi-cache is too arduous and will force cache owner's to post the final cache location with an option to find the interim stages. Or a puzzle cache which displays the solution with an suggestion to solve the puzzle. Not everyone has the skill, the desire, the knowledge to find every cache currently listed on Geocaching.com and that is a good thing! Please don't suck the diversity and/or the challenge out of our caches so that everyone can find every cache.

I suspect TPTB may need to refine the definition of a challenge cache overtime. The reason they asked for people who are hiding them to demonstrate that either they have met the challenge already or that a substantial number of geocachers have met it was to prevent people from creating challenges that are impossible or nearly impossible. If you have a reasonable task that involves finding geocaches, visiting or creating waymarks, or completing Wherigo cartridges you can create a challenge cache and get it approved. It can still be a difficult challenge, it simply needs to shown that it is doable by a substantial number of people. Substantial does not mean everyone or even a majority. It means you can't make a challenge that only an insubstantial number of cachers would ever be able to complete.

 

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!

 

My caching experience is fairly limited to my immediate locale but I'm quite positive I've never been made to do anything. Would it be okay if a cache owner made you "jump through hoops" before you found the cache? ie a difficult puzzle or an extensive cache find history? Why?

 

Personally I enjoy having the choice of which hoops I jump through and which ones I don't bother with. It just seems to me that someone is deciding to remove the hoops, how boring! :P

I personally cringe at the way Rockin Roddy puts his argument. It is makes it sounds like any cache that has you do something he doesn't enjoy should be banned. However, I changed my attitude about this guideline change by looking at his argument with a slightly different perspective. Yes you can avoid doing any cache if it requires you to do something you are not comfortable doing. You can even "find" an ALR cache if you want and simply log it with a note instead of a "Found It" log if you don't want to be "forced" to do the requirement. So why not have ALRs? My take is that it makes the "Found It" log into the goal of geocaching. This is a misguided interpretation of geocaching. The point of geocaching is to find the cache, make a trade if you want, and sign the log. Online logging shouldn't even factor into it. The online log should be for reporting your find to the cache owner and the community and for your own use in keeping track of the caches you have found. Placing obstacles like a puzzle or a physical challenge to reach the cache are part of the game in that these occur as part of the hunt to find the cache. Even a challenge cache can be interpreted as requiring you to meet the challenge before you go to find the challenge cache. Placing a obstacle in the way of logging the cache online is something completely different. This now becomes a test of what a person is willing to do to log the cache online. If I didn't want to do the ALR, I would have found the cache and posted a note saying "I found this cache and I'm logging a find on one of my own caches so my number will be right :( ". However, there were many ALRs which I found were fun to do. I didn't mind posting my log in haiku or a picture of myself at the cache wearing a funny hat. So I wound up actually doing the ALRs on the ones I found. That only supported those cache owners who were deleting logs of people who FOUND their cache and simply wanted to keep track of their find using the method the website provides: logging a find online. An optional request instead of an ALR is something that is a lot more fun - particularly for the cache owner who doesn't have to feel like a meanie taking away someone's smiley. Sure, they might be disappointed that some choose not to do the optional request, but they will be rewarded knowing that the people who did do the request, did so because they found it was fun and enhanced the experience of finding the cache and not because they were unwilling to pass on the smiley.

Share this post


Link to post

Banning ALR's has NOTHING to do with a cache owner's creativity, can anyone please demonstrate how it does? So many get worked up over this and it's all about nothing!

 

You can still suggest people to do something (this would be an ALS), if the people actually consider the suggestion fun, they'll do it!

 

And Toz, I don't get where you want to make it out like it matters whether I like it or not. An ALR is an ALR, regardless of whether I'd do it or not! Personally, I would just skip any I don't want to do, but this isn't about us cachers as much as about those who requested the change...the reviewers, I believe!

Share this post


Link to post

...A creative cache is one where your gizmo points you to a pay phone. You pick up the receiver and your instructed to punch in a code (easily obtained from the cache page or your gizmo) to get it to open so you can sign the log. ...

 

Got it. A cache where your gizmo points you to a digital pay phone where you punch in code and the cache page comes up and you punch in your Cache Name as your log isn't creative. It should be banned as an ALR if the owner doesn't accept a piece of paper in the change recepticle?

 

Creative is creative. ALR has nothing to do with it. The first person who thought up a pink wig was creative. The first person who actually looked good in a pink wig was creative enough to see it. Creative is as creative does.

Share this post


Link to post

Banning ALR's has NOTHING to do with a cache owner's creativity, can anyone please demonstrate how it does? So many get worked up over this and it's all about nothing!...

 

Roddy, your thinking is stuck in a rut, or inside a box if you will on this one. I just used jholly's cool example of a creative cache, added an ALR on how you need to log, it's still cool, still creative, fits the fun factor we all want including ALR haters. By the rules it would need an exception to the rules to be listed because it's an ALR. Heck there isn't even a "Physical log" to sign so really it breaks two rules and yet is everthing a cache should be.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post

...A creative cache is one where your gizmo points you to a pay phone. You pick up the receiver and your instructed to punch in a code (easily obtained from the cache page or your gizmo) to get it to open so you can sign the log. ...

 

Got it. A cache where your gizmo points you to a digital pay phone where you punch in code and the cache page comes up and you punch in your Cache Name as your log isn't creative. It should be banned as an ALR if the owner doesn't accept a piece of paper in the change recepticle?

 

Creative is creative. ALR has nothing to do with it. The first person who thought up a pink wig was creative. The first person who actually looked good in a pink wig was creative enough to see it. Creative is as creative does.

 

Oh brother. Signing the logbook is still a requirement regardless of the ALR ban. As for the pink wig, you can still suggest, if people think it's "creative", they'll still do it even if they aren't being forced to!

Share this post


Link to post

Banning ALR's has NOTHING to do with a cache owner's creativity, can anyone please demonstrate how it does? So many get worked up over this and it's all about nothing!...

 

Roddy, your thinking is stuck in a rut, or inside a box if you will on this one. I just used jholly's cool example of a creative cache, added an ALR on how you need to log, it's still cool, still creative, fits the fun factor we all want including ALR haters. By the rules it would need an exception to the rules to be listed because it's an ALR. Heck there isn't even a "Physical log" to sign so really it breaks two rules and yet is everthing a cache should be.

 

You did read the post you're talking about, right? It mentions having to obtain the proper way to open the cache, this would be a PUZZLE or MYSTERY cache! I also read the container would open so you could sign the logbook....seems like an EXCELLENT cache and a great idea!

Share this post


Link to post

You did read the post you're talking about, right? It mentions having to obtain the proper way to open the cache, this would be a PUZZLE or MYSTERY cache! I also read the container would open so you could sign the logbook....seems like an EXCELLENT cache and a great idea!

 

No it is a traditional. There is no mystery on how to get it open, just listen to the recorded message on the earpiece and watch the message scrolling on a led screen. The code you need to punch in on the number pad is on your gizmo.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
I did read most of the past logs and I will reiterate...I don't understand the logic behind no longer allowing ALR caches,

Try focusing on the input from TPTB. Those posts explain the logic quite nicely.

Unless you have your eyes shut, index fingers firmly entrenched in your ears, while chanting "I can't hear you!"

 

in my experience, the cache owner has used his creativity to come up with an unique twist on the traditional hide.

And this has changed how? Are you no longer able to utilize creativity?

Perhaps this is localized? Here in Central Florida, Groundspeak has apparently granted a regional exception, allowing us to retain our creativity.

So long as we stay in the guidelines.

 

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.

Well, that's quite telling. Apparently, in your eyes, a physical cache container, such as an ammo can full of high end swag, is detritus?

Wow... :(

 

but once you remove the challenge the hobby lacks fun.

Lemme see if I understand what you're saying. Is it your claim that only caches with ALRs can be fun?

Perhaps another hobby, more closely matched to your preferences might be in order.

As Snoogans once said, if you ain't having fun playing this game, you're doing something wrong.

I hear stamp collecting can be a hoot... :D

 

It won't be long before the powers that be decide a multi-cache is too arduous and will force cache owner's to post the final cache location with an option to find the interim stages. Or a puzzle cache which displays the solution with an suggestion to solve the puzzle.

Really? How much longer will that be? Next week? Next month? Next year?

What evidence do you have to support this entirely spurious claim?

More chicken little? More drama queen? A combination of the two, perhaps?

I'll say it again. The sky is not falling simply because BillyBobNosePicker can't add the "challenge" of having you were a silly hat while finding his 1.5/1.5 park & grab. :P

Edited by Clan Riffster

Share this post


Link to post
I did read most of the past logs and I will reiterate...I don't understand the logic behind no longer allowing ALR caches,

Try focusing on the input from TPTB. Those posts explain the logic quite nicely.

Unless you have your eyes shut, index fingers firmly entrenched in your ears, while chanting "I can't hear you!"

 

in my experience, the cache owner has used his creativity to come up with an unique twist on the traditional hide.

And this has changed how? Are you no longer able to utilize creativity?

Perhaps this is localized? Here in Central Florida, Groundspeak has apparently granted a regional exception, allowing us to retain our creativity.

So long as we stay in the guidelines.

 

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.

Well, that's quite telling. Apparently, in your eyes, a physical cache container, such as an ammo can full of high end swag, is detritus?

Wow... :o

 

but once you remove the challenge the hobby lacks fun.

Lemme see if I understand what you're saying. Is it your claim that only caches with ALRs can be fun?

Perhaps another hobby, more closely matched to your preferences might be in order.

As Snoogans once said, if you ain't having fun playing this game, you're doing something wrong.

I hear stamp collecting can be a hoot... :o

 

It won't be long before the powers that be decide a multi-cache is too arduous and will force cache owner's to post the final cache location with an option to find the interim stages. Or a puzzle cache which displays the solution with an suggestion to solve the puzzle.

Really? How much longer will that be? Next week? Next month? Next year?

What evidence do you have to support this entirely spurious claim?

More chicken little? More drama queen? A combination of the two, perhaps?

I'll say it again. The sky is not falling simply because BillyBobNosePicker can't add the "challenge" of having you were a silly hat while finding his 1.5/1.5 park & grab. :D

 

Well THANKS a lot Clan, I now have beverage dripping off my monitor....SHEESH! :P:(:D

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.

Maybe there is some way to make it a puzzle cache. The listed coordinates are at the falls. Then the finder would need to add or subtract some number to get the cache location coordinates. The number they need to add or subtract would be found at the falls. Something that could be counted at the falls or on the way there. I have a cache like that where there is a sign that I use. The letters on the sign are converted to numbers according to their place in the alphabet. A=1 B=2 C=3 etc. Add the letters up and then add them or subtract them or substitute them into the listed coordinates.

Share this post


Link to post

You really need to take a chill pill. Nothing has changed, except deleting logs if you did not post a picture of yourself wearing a pink wig. The world is fine, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Spend more time worrying about dying of swine flu.

 

Jim

 

Oh please, swine flu? I was merely defending my opinion, surely there is nothing wrong with a healthy debate among friends.

Share this post


Link to post

Banning ALR's has NOTHING to do with a cache owner's creativity, can anyone please demonstrate how it does? So many get worked up over this and it's all about nothing!...

 

Roddy, your thinking is stuck in a rut, or inside a box if you will on this one. I just used jholly's cool example of a creative cache, added an ALR on how you need to log, it's still cool, still creative, fits the fun factor we all want including ALR haters. By the rules it would need an exception to the rules to be listed because it's an ALR. Heck there isn't even a "Physical log" to sign so really it breaks two rules and yet is everthing a cache should be.

 

You did read the post you're talking about, right? It mentions having to obtain the proper way to open the cache, this would be a PUZZLE or MYSTERY cache! I also read the container would open so you could sign the logbook....seems like an EXCELLENT cache and a great idea!

 

Read it. Thought about it. Then realized that if I had a buddy who had access to an actual digital pay phone (you need a LCD screen) that could be programmed to pop up a cache page when a code was plugged in. The "Open to reveal a log" woudln't work. Instead you would have to have the digital log so the phone could function normally the other 99% of the time for real customers. The orginal suggestion would obviouly be a fake phone, or take some custom engineering that would be harder to implement than even the programming idea.

 

Perhaps didn't consider the implications of actually doing the cache with a real phone? I like the idea of using a real phone. Should that be banned because it would need an ALR? No. Is anything wrong with the fake phone version? No. Shouldn't it be the choice of the person who's going to do the work which version they do? Yes.

 

ALR is a tool that is (and should be) available for the cache onwer to use as desired or needed when creating a cache. Removing the tools of cache creation even if they normally result in a dreated ALR instead of a cool one, is very clearly, limited the freedom and creativity that a cache owner can use to create a cache.

Share this post


Link to post

You did read the post you're talking about, right? It mentions having to obtain the proper way to open the cache, this would be a PUZZLE or MYSTERY cache! I also read the container would open so you could sign the logbook....seems like an EXCELLENT cache and a great idea!

 

No it is a traditional. There is no mystery on how to get it open, just listen to the recorded message on the earpiece and watch the message scrolling on a led screen. The code you need to punch in on the number pad is on your gizmo.

 

Jim

 

Agreed. What you proposed was a traditional. My tweak made it into an ALR. Both versions would be among the best caches that most people had ever seen.

Share this post


Link to post

...Oh brother. Signing the logbook is still a requirement regardless of the ALR ban. As for the pink wig, you can still suggest, if people think it's "creative", they'll still do it even if they aren't being forced to!

 

I have no problem with a suggested them. When people ask about ALR's I actually suggest that they either make it a suggestion instead of a rule or make the cache into an AWF (additional work to find) for better and happier results.

 

However requiring that what could be an ALR can now only be a suggestion is the issue that limits creativity. Creativity isn't "gee I think your creative". It's the ablity to come up with ideas, solutions, unique caches, or hide one successfuly where others failed. It has nothing to do with a finder (finders apply their own take on creativity when finding...)

Share this post


Link to post

By that logic, wouldn't the demise of ALRs result in even more creativity?

Now folks can't say "You must wear this silly hat" just to satisfy their inner control freak.

Now they have to really screw on that thinking cap to come up with ALR like ideas that will make it past the reviewers.

Share this post


Link to post
Now they have to really screw on that thinking cap to come up with ALR like ideas that will make it past the reviewers be interesting enough that finders will want to do them.

Fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Now they have to really screw on that thinking cap to come up with ALR like ideas that will make it past the reviewers be interesting enough that finders will want to do them.

Fixed.

 

LOL - :):blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Are these changes going to be mass communicated to all cachers? I have had two recent issues with cache owners threatening to delete logs and later deleting them because I chose not to do the ALR. They were unaware of these changes.

Share this post


Link to post

Are these changes going to be mass communicated to all cachers? I have had two recent issues with cache owners threatening to delete logs and later deleting them because I chose not to do the ALR. They were unaware of these changes.

Notification of changes go out in the weekly notification emails.

 

Lots of folks don't read them, or come into this forum, so it takes a while for any change to be communicated virally.

Share this post


Link to post

Are these changes going to be mass communicated to all cachers? I have had two recent issues with cache owners threatening to delete logs and later deleting them because I chose not to do the ALR. They were unaware of these changes.

If the owners have not modified their cache pages yet, and/or have not yet allowed you to re-log your find, then write to your local reviewer. The Groundspeak Volunteer will work with the cache owner to bring the non-compliant cache into good standing.

Share this post


Link to post

By that logic, wouldn't the demise of ALRs result in even more creativity?

Now folks can't say "You must wear this silly hat" just to satisfy their inner control freak.

Now they have to really screw on that thinking cap to come up with ALR like ideas that will make it past the reviewers.

 

Reducing tools never results in more creativity. It's true is may pop out in uintended directions just like wack a mole.

 

Before:

A cache owner could reach into the "caching tool box" and had tools A-Z available.

 

Now:

A cache owner can reach into the same tool box and has tools A-N, nad P-Z available.

No more O's. O sucks, can't be using 0 anymore.

 

Less tools means less ablity to implement creativity in way that works with the vision. You will get odd results.

 

You are right after all the creative won't be happered in being creative, only in their ablity to implement it.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post

Are these changes going to be mass communicated to all cachers? I have had two recent issues with cache owners threatening to delete logs and later deleting them because I chose not to do the ALR. They were unaware of these changes.

Notification of changes go out in the weekly notification emails.

 

Lots of folks don't read them, or come into this forum, so it takes a while for any change to be communicated virally.

Lots of people also don't receive these emails.

Share this post


Link to post
By that logic, wouldn't the demise of ALRs result in even more creativity?

Now folks can't say "You must wear this silly hat" just to satisfy their inner control freak.

Now they have to really screw on that thinking cap to come up with ALR like ideas that will make it past the reviewers.

Reducing tools never results in more creativity. It's true is may pop out in uintended directions just like wack a mole.

 

Before:

A cache owner could reach into the "caching tool box" and had tools A-Z available.

 

Now:

A cache owner can reach into the same tool box and has tools A-N, nad P-Z available.

No more O's. O sucks, can't be using 0 anymore.

 

Less tools means less ablity to implement creativity in way that works with the vision. You will get odd results.

 

You are right after all the creative won't be happered in being creative, only in their ablity to implement enforce it.

Fixed.

 

If the additional task was value added, people will still do it. If it wasn't they won't. I see that as a +1 for the community, even if it is a -1 for those cache owners who enjoy deleting logs.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

...Less tools means less ablity to implement creativity in way that works with the vision. You will get odd results.

 

You are right after all the creative won't be happered in being creative, only in their ablity to implement enforce it.

Fixed.

 

If the additional task was value added, people will still do it. If it wasn't they won't. I see that as a +1 for the community, even if it is a -1 for those cache owners who enjoy deleting logs.

Your correction is actualy unrelated to my entire point. I understand that it's the crux of yours though.

Share this post


Link to post

:rolleyes: I dont like this rule its basically saying i want the point but i dont want to do it.

 

Hello, Geocachers.

 

The Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines have been updated today. Please take a moment and look at them before submitting your next cache. To make it a bit easier to see what has changed, I'll point out the major changes below.

  1. Additional Logging Requirements are no longer be allowed. The following text has been stricken from the Guidelines: Caches with mandatory requirements in addition to signing the logbook should be listed as mystery caches. Examples include sending the cache owner a verification codeword found inside the logbook, performing some task at the cache location and taking a photograph, or writing the online log in a format or with content that satisfies the cache requirements. The mystery cache designation assists finders in identifying that something extra is required in order to log a find.
  2. Also stricken from the guidelines: Caches that require the geocacher to do something beyond finding the container and signing the logbook generally do not qualify as traditional caches.
  3. A section called Logging of All Physical Caches has been added to the guidelines.

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

 

If it is appropriate for your cache location or theme, you may ask the cache seeker to accomplish an optional and simple task, either close to the cache site (normally within 0.1 miles or 161 meters) or when writing their online log. For example, wear the goofy hat inside the cache container and upload a photograph. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish optional tasks. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

This guideline change applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

  • Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.
  • Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into an optional and simple task, or whether it must be removed altogether.
  • Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.

Some explanations about the above:

 

A "simple" task is one that should generally take no more than 10 minutes to accomplish.

 

The wording of a cache page should not suggest that the task is anything other than optional.

 

The optional and simple task should respect other cache listing guidelines. For example, the optional tasks will not invite the seeker to enter a business, trespass on private property or engage in activities which might be perceived as promoting an agenda, etc.

 

Caches with an optional task retain the same type as they would without the optional task. If your cache was listed as "Mystery" solely because of the ALR, then, once you have changed the wording to remove the ALR altogether or change it into an optional simple task, please contact your reviewer to have the cache type changed to its "natural" value.

 

Code word verifications are included in this: they too are an ALR which should not prevent someone who signed the log from claiming that cache as Found.

 

EarthCaches, remaining virtuals and remaining webcam caches are not affected by this guideline change. They do not have a physical container. They will continue to require some form of verification.

 

Also, a Wherigo cache owner can continue to require a completion code.

 

We have made this change because, over time, the ALRs attached to a rapidly-growing number of caches have devolved to have little or nothing to do with geocaching: the act of finding a unique container/location using latitude and longitude. Many ALRs now only distort the spirit of the game. We regret that a few really cool ideas may be lost as a result, and we apologize to the cache owners concerned. Groundspeak has decided that the number of ALRs which approached and even reached the absurd had grown large enough.

 

4. The following section about Challenges has been added to the Mystery/ Puzzle section:

Challenge caches incorporate special logging requirements and are listed as Mystery/Puzzle caches. Typically they require the seeker to have previously met a reasonable geocaching-related qualification (Waymarking and Wherigo qualify too, of course) such as first finding a cache in every county in your state. If you are thinking of creating such a cache, please include a note to the reviewer demonstrating either that you have met the challenge yourself, or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to be aware of these changes.

 

 

(edited to specify a Wherigo detail)

Share this post


Link to post
...Less tools means less ablity to implement creativity in way that works with the vision. You will get odd results.

 

You are right after all the creative won't be happered in being creative, only in their ablity to implement enforce it.

Fixed.

 

If the additional task was value added, people will still do it. If it wasn't they won't. I see that as a +1 for the community, even if it is a -1 for those cache owners who enjoy deleting logs.

Your correction is actualy unrelated to my entire point. I understand that it's the crux of yours though.
My correction speaks to the heart of the disagreement over this issue.

 

Those against the change lament the fact that they may no longer delete logs to enforce the ALR. Those that don't have an issue with the change make the point that if the ALR adds value to the cache, people will perform the action without being mandated to do so.

 

Finally, for those that argue that the ALR is necessary to comply with land manager requirements, I would counter that they are using the wrong tool for the job. For example, imagine a landowner who doesn't want finders after hours. The cache owner adds an ALR mandating that cachers only find the cache during certain hours. A cacher finds the cache at a different time. Forbidding this cacher from logging the cache does not change the fact that he found the cache at an off time, so it wouldn't satisfy the land manager. The ALR does not actually speak to the cache manager's problem. It is the wrong tool for the job.

Share this post


Link to post

....Finally, for those that argue that the ALR is necessary to comply with land manager requirements, I would counter that they are using the wrong tool for the job....

 

It's A tool for the job. When you say "wrong tool" you are really making a personal judgment based on your preference. I actually have the same preference. I don't like ALR's. However I do see the value as a tool for various circumstances.

 

My argument for land managers is simple. It may be needed. It may even suck as a tool, but it may also be better than anyting else. My larger argument is also simple. It's a tool for the job, whatever the job is the cache owner is trying to do with the cache.

 

My view on why folks are jumping up and down clapping over the ban is equilly simple. They didnd't like them. All the other reasons are window dressing and thus far false. Plus they are deluding themselves that they have more noble reasons. They don't.

Share this post


Link to post
....Finally, for those that argue that the ALR is necessary to comply with land manager requirements, I would counter that they are using the wrong tool for the job....
It's A tool for the job. When you say "wrong tool" you are really making a personal judgment based on your preference. I actually have the same preference. I don't like ALR's. However I do see the value as a tool for various circumstances.

 

My argument for land managers is simple. It may be needed. It may even suck as a tool, but it may also be better than anyting else. My larger argument is also simple. It's a tool for the job, whatever the job is the cache owner is trying to do with the cache.

 

My view on why folks are jumping up and down clapping over the ban is equilly simple. They didnd't like them. All the other reasons are window dressing and thus far false. Plus they are deluding themselves that they have more noble reasons. They don't.

Actually, it's more than just my opinion. As I explained in my post, it's the wrong tool for the job because deleting the log doesn't change the fact that the behavior happened. If deleting the log somehow changed the actual history of whether the person arrived at the cache site during off-hours, it would be the right tool. Until a time machine is built into the log delete button, it will remain the wrong tool.

 

You can hammer a nail with GPSr, but it's not the correct tool for the job.

Share this post


Link to post
....Finally, for those that argue that the ALR is necessary to comply with land manager requirements, I would counter that they are using the wrong tool for the job....
It's A tool for the job. When you say "wrong tool" you are really making a personal judgment based on your preference. I actually have the same preference. I don't like ALR's. However I do see the value as a tool for various circumstances.

 

My argument for land managers is simple. It may be needed. It may even suck as a tool, but it may also be better than anyting else. My larger argument is also simple. It's a tool for the job, whatever the job is the cache owner is trying to do with the cache.

 

My view on why folks are jumping up and down clapping over the ban is equilly simple. They didnd't like them. All the other reasons are window dressing and thus far false. Plus they are deluding themselves that they have more noble reasons. They don't.

Actually, it's more than just my opinion. As I explained in my post, it's the wrong tool for the job because deleting the log doesn't change the fact that the behavior happened. If deleting the log somehow changed the actual history of whether the person arrived at the cache site during off-hours, it would be the right tool. Until a time machine is built into the log delete button, it will remain the wrong tool.

 

You can hammer a nail with GPSr, but it's not the correct tool for the job.

 

In the case of a land owner showing an interest, deleting a log wouldn't be about erasing the past. It would be encouraging one set of behaviors over another. Simple as that. Your example limited itself to erasing the past.

 

As for your hammer anology. Consider. Nails, Staples, Screws, Glue, Rivets, Bolts, and Welding. I may have missed a few. All join materials. Some the same materials. Each has a place in the tool box along with the Hammers, Staplers, Rivet Guns, etc. It's the job that determins the tool. Not the tool that determains the job*. Banning ALR's is removing a tool from the box.

 

*That said, I've had to use a rock on a nail nad wished I had a hammer. Boy I'd hate to need an ALR and not have it.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post

If the additional task was value added, people will still do it. If it wasn't they won't. I see that as a +1 for the community, even if it is a -1 for those cache owners who enjoy deleting logs.

The fallacy you're working with is that the ONLY reason for a ALR is so the CO can delete logs (hence your labelling every ALR owner a "control freak"). Sometimes it was the THREAT of deletion that was used to get people to do the cache the right way. I've remove the threat language from my cache (added only when people weren't reading and following the instructions), and already people are starting to mess it up, but I can't make them straighten it up because they can just say "I've logged it and I'm done with it, go jump." And there's nothing I can do about it now - except archive it, as the whole reason for that cache was for the fun logging. BTW, I never deleted any logs, even the guy who bi*ched loudly in his log about the threat of deletion.

Share this post


Link to post
....Finally, for those that argue that the ALR is necessary to comply with land manager requirements, I would counter that they are using the wrong tool for the job....
It's A tool for the job. When you say "wrong tool" you are really making a personal judgment based on your preference. I actually have the same preference. I don't like ALR's. However I do see the value as a tool for various circumstances.

 

My argument for land managers is simple. It may be needed. It may even suck as a tool, but it may also be better than anyting else. My larger argument is also simple. It's a tool for the job, whatever the job is the cache owner is trying to do with the cache.

 

My view on why folks are jumping up and down clapping over the ban is equilly simple. They didnd't like them. All the other reasons are window dressing and thus far false. Plus they are deluding themselves that they have more noble reasons. They don't.

Actually, it's more than just my opinion. As I explained in my post, it's the wrong tool for the job because deleting the log doesn't change the fact that the behavior happened. If deleting the log somehow changed the actual history of whether the person arrived at the cache site during off-hours, it would be the right tool. Until a time machine is built into the log delete button, it will remain the wrong tool.

 

You can hammer a nail with GPSr, but it's not the correct tool for the job.

In the case of a land owner showing an interest, deleting a log wouldn't be about erasing the past. It would be encouraging one set of behaviors over another. Simple as that. Your example limited itself to erasing the past.

 

As for your hammer anology. Consider. Nails, Staples, Screws, Glue, Rivets, Bolts, and Welding. I may have missed a few. All join materials. Some the same materials. Each has a place in the tool box along with the Hammers, Staplers, Rivet Guns, etc. It's the job that determins the tool. Not the tool that determains the job*. Banning ALR's is removing a tool from the box.

 

*That said, I've had to use a rock on a nail nad wished I had a hammer. Boy I'd hate to need an ALR and not have it.

Sometimes, removing the 'wrong tool' from the toolbox is the best course of action.

 

Imagine if your wife or child typically grabs the pliers instead of the properly sized combination wrench or socket, thereby damaging whatever she uses it on. Removing this 'wrong tool' from the tool box would force her to choose a better tool, thereby reducing overall harm.

If the additional task was value added, people will still do it. If it wasn't they won't. I see that as a +1 for the community, even if it is a -1 for those cache owners who enjoy deleting logs.
The fallacy you're working with is that the ONLY reason for a ALR is so the CO can delete logs (hence your labelling every ALR owner a "control freak"). Sometimes it was the THREAT of deletion that was used to get people to do the cache the right way. I've remove the threat language from my cache (added only when people weren't reading and following the instructions), and already people are starting to mess it up, but I can't make them straighten it up because they can just say "I've logged it and I'm done with it, go jump." And there's nothing I can do about it now - except archive it, as the whole reason for that cache was for the fun logging. BTW, I never deleted any logs, even the guy who bi*ched loudly in his log about the threat of deletion.
Without knowing exactly what you mean by 'the right way' to 'do' the cache, it's impossible to discuss this properly. It is impossible to tell what 'messing up' is. Is it a 'mess up' if people fail to wear a foppish hat or are you referring to issues such as coming from the wrong direction, skipping intermediate steps, finding the cache at off hours. I suspect that you are using the wrong tool for the job. The fact that you have never actually deleted any logs and that people are made unhappy by the ALR supports this.

 

Further, I submit that it appears that part of the problem is that we have gotten away from the reason to hide caches. Years ago, we hid caches to support the game. Our purpose was to give other cachers good caches to find. As evidenced by your post, we have gotten away from that. Rather than to give to others, we now hide caches for the sole purpose of having our own egos stroked. As you posted, the only reason for the cache was for the fun logs. I submit that if you create a cache that is fun, others will submit fun logs. If you create a cache with onerous ALRs, many will grudgingly complete your task, but fewer finders will actually have fun. Again, the ALR was the wrong tool for the job.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

If the additional task was value added, people will still do it. If it wasn't they won't. I see that as a +1 for the community, even if it is a -1 for those cache owners who enjoy deleting logs.

The fallacy you're working with is that the ONLY reason for a ALR is so the CO can delete logs (hence your labelling every ALR owner a "control freak"). Sometimes it was the THREAT of deletion that was used to get people to do the cache the right way. I've remove the threat language from my cache (added only when people weren't reading and following the instructions), and already people are starting to mess it up, but I can't make them straighten it up because they can just say "I've logged it and I'm done with it, go jump." And there's nothing I can do about it now - except archive it, as the whole reason for that cache was for the fun logging. BTW, I never deleted any logs, even the guy who bi*ched loudly in his log about the threat of deletion.

Holy cow! That's of lot of "control" language, for someone who bristles at the thought of the "control freak" label.

Edited by Prime Suspect

Share this post


Link to post

...It is impossible to tell what 'messing up' is....

 

I'm going to reverse that one. It's impossible to tell what you need to do with a cache you are going to place until you are ready to place it. Meaning here in the forums ALR is theoretical. One I do plan on doing isn't so much, but I have to find the right land owner. When you have a real cache in a real situation you can actually discuss the right tool for the job with some certainty.

 

....Years ago, we hid caches to support the game. Our purpose was to give other cachers good caches to find. ...Rather than to give to others, we now hide caches for the sole purpose of having our own egos stroked....

 

We always hid caches to stroke our ego's. That we hid good ones to gain good logs, just means that we liked good logs. This isn't altruism.

Share this post


Link to post

...Imagine if your wife or child typically grabs the pliers instead of the properly sized combination wrench or socket, thereby damaging whatever she uses it on. Removing this 'wrong tool' from the tool box would force her to choose a better tool, thereby reducing overall harm....

 

Your scenario works right up until the right tool is the pliers and they are missing because somebody took them away and said "pliers are bad, never use pliers, they are never, ever, ever the right tool".

 

Reality is that they may seldom be the right tool, but seldom is not never. There is a reason they say "never say never". Just the other day I used some pliers to open a stuck cap. Worked great. They were the perfect tool for that job at that time.

 

Bottom line. I can and will use ALR's if needed. This site may or may not list the cache. One future cache I am planning, if I can pull things together will likely be an ALR and worth every Aye, Ell and Are.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post
...It is impossible to tell what 'messing up' is....
I'm going to reverse that one. It's impossible to tell what you need to do with a cache you are going to place until you are ready to place it. Meaning here in the forums ALR is theoretical. One I do plan on doing isn't so much, but I have to find the right land owner. When you have a real cache in a real situation you can actually discuss the right tool for the job with some certainty.
...Imagine if your wife or child typically grabs the pliers instead of the properly sized combination wrench or socket, thereby damaging whatever she uses it on. Removing this 'wrong tool' from the tool box would force her to choose a better tool, thereby reducing overall harm....
Your scenario works right up until the right tool is the pliers and they are missing because somebody took them away and said "pliers are bad, never use pliers, they are never, ever, ever the right tool".

 

Reality is that they may seldom be the right tool, but seldom is not never. There is a reason they say "never say never". Just the other day I used some pliers to open a stuck cap. Worked great. They were the perfect tool for that job at that time.

 

Bottom line. I can and will use ALR's if needed. This site may or may not list the cache. One future cache I am planning, if I can pull things together will likely be an ALR and worth every Aye, Ell and Are.

Your posts make it quite clear that you aren't trying to find a tool to solve your problem. You are trying to find a problem to use your banned tool on. I suspect that your reviewers are wise enough to take this fact into account when reviewing your cache. A cache designed specifically to violate this site's listing guidelines should never be listed.

 

I wish you luck and I am nearly certain that those cachers who see it on whatever site you list it on (and choose to jump through your hoops) will probably enjoy it.

....Years ago, we hid caches to support the game. Our purpose was to give other cachers good caches to find. ...Rather than to give to others, we now hide caches for the sole purpose of having our own egos stroked....
We always hid caches to stroke our ego's. That we hid good ones to gain good logs, just means that we liked good logs. This isn't altruism.
I stand corrected. You have always hidden caches to stroke your ego. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

1)...You are trying to find a problem to use your banned tool on

2)..... You have always hidden caches to stroke your ego.

 

On 1. If you think that, you have not yet at all understood what I'm saying regardless of agreeing or not. Becasue of that we really can't have a debate.

 

Try this. A tool can sit in the tool box unused until it's needed. But if it's not there when you do, it does nobody any good. That's as simple as I can say it. Since I can brainstorm valid cache ideas where a ALR would make sense it's not hard to speculate that a real cache can come along that would need one.

 

Right now, I don't have any caches that need an ALR. I dislike ALR's (you keep forgetting that). I have one idea that may need one if I ever find the right location and land owner. May means possible, not guranteed. It's going to depend on a conversation with a land owner that I've not even met yet. You tell me that the ALR I can forsee as one option is not an option. I find that interesting, but rather meaningless in that the cache is between me and the land owner. This site comes second, the opinions of future finders a distant 3rd. You would enjoy the cache though. At least I think you would.

 

On 2. I think Mother Teresa did great things. I also think she did those things because she enjoyed them. Same reason cachers place caches. So by my definitions Yes, we all place caches to stroke our egos. I believe that you came up with the term and I merely borrowed it.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post
1)...You are trying to find a problem to use your banned tool on

2)..... You have always hidden caches to stroke your ego.

On 1. If you think that, you have not yet at all understood what I'm saying regardless of agreeing or not. Becasue of that we really can't have a debate.

 

Try this. A tool can sit in the tool box unused until it's needed. But if it's not there when you do, it does nobody any good. That's as simple as I can say it. Since I can brainstorm valid cache ideas where a ALR would make sense it's not hard to speculate that a real cache can come along that would need one.

 

Right now, I don't have any caches that need an ALR. I dislike ALR's (you keep forgetting that). I have one idea that may need one if I ever find the right location and land owner. May means possible, not guranteed. It's going to depend on a conversation with a land owner that I've not even met yet. You tell me that the ALR I can forsee as one option is not an option. I find that interesting, but rather meaningless in that the cache is between me and the land owner. This site comes second, the opinions of future finders a distant 3rd. You would enjoy the cache though. At least I think you would.

Give a read to the two posts of yours that I referenced and then tell me how I could come up with any other conclusion than that you are trying to come up with a scenario to use an ALR on, even though they are banned.
On 2. I think Mother Teresa did great things. I also think she did those things because she enjoyed them. Same reason cachers place caches. So by my definitions Yes, we all place caches to stroke our egos. I believe that you came up with the term and I merely borrowed it.
What term did I come up with, again? I haven't invented any words in this thread. I stated that we used to hide caches for others but now many hide them to have their egos stroked. You stated that you have always hidden them for this purpose. I conceded that you must be correct, in that.

Share this post


Link to post

I must admit that I do not get it at all. And I have actually followed all this "rules" issues far longer than I have an active account. Why does anybody even bother do do such a change in the rules? Is it really necesary to have everything laid out exactly, just because we sometimes go outside and look for some funny boxes around?

 

People, this was supposed to be fun, wasn't it? I agree with someone who wrote here before that this is Groundspeak's game and so they get to make the rules - after all, there would be no fun if there were no servers and stuff, so definitely we are all gratefull to you, guys! - but still I think that the great idea at the beginning is being continually ruined by having more and more rules. I would preffer everything a little more "funky", if you know what I mean.

 

PS: sorry for introducing this opinion in a thread on a specific issue, but I think that this issue ilustrates the point extremely well.

Share this post


Link to post

I must admit that I do not get it at all. And I have actually followed all this "rules" issues far longer than I have an active account. Why does anybody even bother do do such a change in the rules? Is it really necesary to have everything laid out exactly, just because we sometimes go outside and look for some funny boxes around?

 

People, this was supposed to be fun, wasn't it? I agree with someone who wrote here before that this is Groundspeak's game and so they get to make the rules - after all, there would be no fun if there were no servers and stuff, so definitely we are all gratefull to you, guys! - but still I think that the great idea at the beginning is being continually ruined by having more and more rules. I would preffer everything a little more "funky", if you know what I mean.

 

PS: sorry for introducing this opinion in a thread on a specific issue, but I think that this issue ilustrates the point extremely well.

If I understand your post correctly, you are against rules because they cause people to not have fun. You are certainly against Groudspeak making it a rule that people can't delete logs if an ALR isn't completed. Do you also disagree with cache owners who make a rule that someone must wear a chicken hat in order to get credit for finding a cache? How about when teh cache owner enforces that rule and causes the finder to not have fun.

Share this post


Link to post
People, this was supposed to be fun, wasn't it?

For most of us, it still is. For those still nurturing their inner control freak, it might be less fun. :laughing:

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...