Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 23
MissJenn

update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

Recommended Posts

I'd suggest that anything that removes freedom from cachers to be able to specify what is necessary to claim a find diminishes the game.

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

Geocaching does not mean to make people to silly things.

 

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

 

To me and my sons, caching is about having fun. There are memorable caches and there are instantly forgettable caches. We'll seek out the ALRs and do them because it adds to the experience.

 

Evidently from your definition, fun is not an important criterion to you. So ignore the caches with ALRs. Simple.

 

But don't take the right of the owner away to remove the logs of those who refuse to play along.

 

I've not needed to remove any logs from my ALR cache and I've not given cause to any ALR cache owner to consider removing my log. I've advised cachers who have signed my cache logs but forgotten to log online, I've advised cachers who have signed the first stage of a multi and claimed the cache that they have not completed it, but I have not deleted the logs. Why? Because I've had perfectly logs for legitimate finds of traditional caches removed by owners for their personal reasons and I know how aggravating it is.

 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world he finds. The unreasonable man insists on adapting the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

 

What's significant here is the rights of owners over their caches. This is what has been diminished. Progress and innovation have been stifled further. The fundamentalists will be happy.

 

Now I'm out of here. Thee's an ALR cache I want to log before the owner archives it in disgust.

Share this post


Link to post

I am not aware of any GPS that does not create a track log. And there are lots of freeware programs that can read the tracklog from the GPS and save it in a format readable by most programs. There should be no cost involved in providing a track log.

My GPSr (a Geko 201) saves its track logs but doesn't have a lead to connect it to a computer, so I would be unable to upload them. And you would deny me a find on your cache for that reason? This is a great example of why ALRs shouldn't be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow!

I'm kind of bummed now.

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

 

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

 

On the bright side you can change it to a traditional and it will get a lot more visits. Many cachers filter out puzzle/mysterys.

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

I must agree with your points. I tend, for the most part, to only go after extreme geocaches with a Terrain rating of 4.0 or above, and I regularly pass up the vast majority of mainstream/pedestrian caches as too boring. However, some of my favorite caches in the world have been ALRs, and, at times, I have even traveled great distances simply to find and log some truly great ALRs.

 

I am very disappointed at this decision by Groundspeak, and it looks like, at least in this arena, they have sold out to the numbers-hunters, those geocachers who cannot stand the fact that there might exist geocaches where they must put in a little bit (or a lot) of extra effort before being allowed to claim a smiley.

 

Worse, the admins have specifically mentioned that requiring that potential finders must first submit a special code number from the logbook prior to being allowed to log an online -- a practice commonly employed by owners of extreme 5/5 caches to ensure that putative finders really did find the cache and sign the log -- is no longer allowed. In effect, this throws the door wide open to fraudulent find logs by hoax finders. This, to me, is nightmarish, and, as an owner or a number of extreme 5/5 caches which employ such code requirements, it affects me, and every other extreme cache owner who employs similar measures, drastically.

 

Sure, there have been some complaints over the years from a minority about ALR caches, just as there have been complaints about puzzle caches, extreme terrain caches and numerous other types of caches, but to eliminate the category entirely is, to me, asinine and insulting. In fact, ALL of the complaints about ALRs could have been addressed either by ensuring that ALL ALRs were classified as "?" caches, or even better, classified in a separate "ALR" category. However, for some odd reason, the admins chose not to do that, and rather, chose the drastic action of eliminating ALRs.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

I am not aware of any GPS that does not create a track log. And there are lots of freeware programs that can read the tracklog from the GPS and save it in a format readable by most programs. There should be no cost involved in providing a track log.

My GPSr (a Geko 201) saves its track logs but doesn't have a lead to connect it to a computer, so I would be unable to upload them. And you would deny me a find on your cache for that reason? This is a great example of why ALRs shouldn't be allowed.

 

In your case I would happily accept a photo of your Geko screen showing the track log. I am simply trying to prevent cheaters from turning a 15 km multi into a 300 meter traditional.

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

I must agree with your points. I tend, for the most part, to only go after extreme geocaches with a Terrain rating of 4.0 or above, and I regularly pass up the vast majority of mainstream/pedestrian caches as too boring. However, some of my favorite caches in the world have been ALRs, and, at times, I have even traveled great distances simply to find and log some truly great ALRs.

 

I am very disappointed at this decision by Groundspeak, and it looks like, at least in this arena, they have sold out to the numbers-hunters, those geocachers who cannot stand the fact that there might exist geocaches where they must put in a little bit (or a lot) of extra effort before being allowed to claim a smiley.

 

Worse, the admins have specifically mentioned that requiring that potential finders must first submit a special code number from the logbook prior to being allowed to log an online -- a practice commonly employed by owners of extreme 5/5 caches to ensure that putative finders really did find the cache and sign the log -- is no longer allowed. In effect, this throws the door wide open to fraudulent find logs by hoax finders. This, to me, is nightmarish, and, as an owner or a number of extreme 5/5 caches which employ such code requirements, it affects me, and every other extreme cache owner who employs similar measures, drastically.

 

Sure, there have been some complaints over the years from a minority about ALR caches, just as there have been complaints about puzzle caches, extreme terrain caches and numerous other types of caches, but to eliminate the category entirely is, to me, asinine and insulting. In fact, ALL of the complaints about ALRs could have been addressed either by ensuring that ALL ALRs were classified as "?" caches, or even better, classified in a separate "ALR" category. However, for some odd reason, the admins chose not to do that, and rather, chose the drastic action of eliminating ALRs.

 

.

 

You are in a very unique position to put some meat behind our protest against this change.

 

Archive your tower cache that is being used for the TV show.

Share this post


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

 

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

 

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

 

The change actually adds to the fun. Now the "Like 'em crowd" can still have bundles of fun performing these now optional tasks, while more people can join in on the fun by simply finding the cache.

 

It allows more people to play the game their own way without fear of getting logs deleted. More fun for more people, a win/win. I think it's something that the "play the game your way" crowd would enthusiastically support.

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

Simple solution to those, remake them as a multi where you have to get the answers off the plaque to calculate the final coords. Doesn't matter if the final location is only a few feet from the plaque, the finder doesn't know that until they have done the calculation.

Edited by richary

Share this post


Link to post

My thought, if you don't like the rules (guidelines) GS makes, try to set up your own site and have your own guidelines and you can then dictate what is "fun". People sure seem to get worked up about a change that truly only took the "dictatorship" away from some cache owners who would have you do something absurd to claim the find...they didn't say you couldn't ASK the finders to still do these tasks, just that you can't "force" them upon the finders.

 

I love how soooo many get their panties in a bunch when, truly, isn't fun supposed to be what this is all about? Those who enjoy the ALS (alt logging SUGGESTIONS) caches will still be able to enjoy them (provided the owners don't get all worked up and simply archive them) AND, people who just like to find caches will have that much more to enjoy as well. The owners will get more traffic, more emails and that, to me, means I, as an owner, gets more fun as well!!

 

I thin Skipherr said it quite well a page or so back!

Share this post


Link to post

I am a bit confused about the ALR ruling, I'm not sure if what we have done will now be allowed....

 

We have a series of 7 caches, "Ski a EUP, eh?" each one was a regular hide in a different cross country ski trail in the EUP. In each of those seven caches was a clue that when you had visited all seven you wouldthen have the coordinates to a final bonus cache that you could visit. The final bonus cache was listed as a puzzle/mystery cache.

 

Would this type of cache still be allowed??

 

We really hope so because we wanted to do the same thing but as a "Hike da EUP, eh?" type of thing.

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

GC1NH64 is a good example. You probably cannot read the cache page, so I will translate:

 

"You are only allowed to log if:

 

1. ...you did not find any caches in a week.

2. ...you mailed the solution to the puzzle to geo.antonego@gmail.com.

3. ...you are carrying a confirmation that everything is ok.

4. ...you make a photo of the logging attempt.

5. ...you are dressed up as one of the actors from the movie from which the hiders' nick name derives.

6. ...you have not used a helpline in the last year.

7. ...you have found at least 25 caches.

8. ...you have found at least one cache of type [OFZE].

9. ...you have a cup of coffee in your hand and add a photo of this to the log.

10. ...you can prove you have met all requirements above."

 

I'd say that's pretty extreme, and I for one am glad that the rising tide of idiotic ALR's has been stopped.

 

Hans

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

GC1NH64 is a good example. You probably cannot read the cache page, so I will translate:

 

"You are only allowed to log if:

 

1. ...you did not find any caches in a week.

2. ...you mailed the solution to the puzzle to geo.antonego@gmail.com.

3. ...you are carrying a confirmation that everything is ok.

4. ...you make a photo of the logging attempt.

5. ...you are dressed up as one of the actors from the movie from which the hiders' nick name derives.

6. ...you have not used a helpline in the last year.

7. ...you have found at least 25 caches.

8. ...you have found at least one cache of type [OFZE].

9. ...you have a cup of coffee in your hand and add a photo of this to the log.

10. ...you can prove you have met all requirements above."

 

I'd say that's pretty extreme, and I for one am glad that the rising tide of idiotic ALR's has been stopped.

 

Hans

 

This bring a question to mind: people DO place caches to be found, right?? Sheesh! ;) Think this is proof enough for you KBI??

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like Groundspeak using another "sledge hammer to crack a nut" solution. I think changing/tightening the listing requirements (to exclude ridiculous ALRs, but still allow reasonable ones) and making the changes retro-active would have been a better way to fix the problem.

Edited by Graeme.N

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like Groundspeak using another "sledge hammer to crack a nut" solution. I think changing/tightening the listing requirements (to exclude ridiculous ALRs, but still allow reasonable ones) and making the changes retro-active would have been a better way to fix the problem.

 

So, then the reviewers will need to make yet another "judgement call" opening them up to problems with owners who think their ALS is fun and not ridiculous...like they need more work??

 

I think it's a smart decision just like they don't allow agendas!

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

Simple solution to those, remake them as a multi where you have to get the answers off the plaque to calculate the final coords. Doesn't matter if the final location is only a few feet from the plaque, the finder doesn't know that until they have done the calculation.

 

Are you kidding me??? People find out the location of the final and bypass the multi stages. I have a cache where after 6 finds, the location of the final was being passed around. It turned a night only 3 km multi into a 150 metre traditional.

Share this post


Link to post

I am a bit confused about the ALR ruling, I'm not sure if what we have done will now be allowed....

 

We have a series of 7 caches, "Ski a EUP, eh?" each one was a regular hide in a different cross country ski trail in the EUP. In each of those seven caches was a clue that when you had visited all seven you wouldthen have the coordinates to a final bonus cache that you could visit. The final bonus cache was listed as a puzzle/mystery cache.

 

Would this type of cache still be allowed??

 

We really hope so because we wanted to do the same thing but as a "Hike da EUP, eh?" type of thing.

 

That is a multi cache (or qualifies as Puzzle as well) and not an ALR. The difference is the multi stages are stand alone traditional hides, and there is no "requirement" that you retrieve the additional info to find the multi. You will do so if you want to find the multi, but no logs are going to be deleted on that traditional cache if you don't.

 

I own a leg to such a cache. Only issue with it so far is getting the multiple owners of the legs to all keep their caches in good condition where it is reasonable to expect one could find the Multi they reference.

Share this post


Link to post
From a CO aspect, I can understand the frustration if you had an ALR to read a memorial plaque or to answer a question about something clever/interesting/bizarre at the cache site. Those ALR caches will probably become hit-and-run caches and the number cachers won't take the time to appreciate why the cache was placed in that particular spot.
Simple solution to those, remake them as a multi where you have to get the answers off the plaque to calculate the final coords. Doesn't matter if the final location is only a few feet from the plaque, the finder doesn't know that until they have done the calculation.
Are you kidding me??? People find out the location of the final and bypass the multi stages. I have a cache where after 6 finds, the location of the final was being passed around. It turned a night only 3 km multi into a 150 metre traditional.
It happens. Luckily, those that don't choose to obtain those coordinates through other means can still enjoy finding your cache as you intended. Similarly, those cachers who don't wish to place a wig or hat on their head after it's been on the melon of countless other people now don't have to in order to log a find on a cache, but those that do wish to enjoy the head lice experience are still welcome to.

 

These things simply are not worth getting worked up over.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like Groundspeak using another "sledge hammer to crack a nut" solution. I think changing/tightening the listing requirements (to exclude ridiculous ALRs, but still allow reasonable ones) and making the changes retro-active would have been a better way to fix the problem.

So, then the reviewers will need to make yet another "judgement call" opening them up to problems with owners who think their ALS is fun and not ridiculous...like they need more work??

 

I think it's a smart decision just like they don't allow agendas!

One possibility is to have a small list of permissible examples included in the guidelines, and if a requested ALR is not akin with whats on the list, it gets denied.

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?

 

Simple enough.. Put the cache at the top of the pillar. If they can't get up there to find it, they cannot log it as a find.

 

Problem of getting a picture of yourself climbing.. Unless you bring a friend to hold the camera, Most cameras only have a 10-20 second self timer.. Unless you're a monkey, or a cat with a german shepard chasing you, You are not going to climb that pillar in 10-20 seconds! Even a monkey might have problems with the 20 seconds. (Being chased, Maybe...)

 

I think the reason ALR's are being stopped, is because some were getting pretty outrageous.. (like some of the reasons here in this discussion are teetering on the loony!)

 

REAL Example:

A cache, where you need to find several caches of various difficulty levels (1 through 5), in consecutive order, before you can log this one cache.
(Meaning the difficulty values MUST be 1 , 2, 3, 4, then 5. )
Otherwise your online log entry will be deleted.

 

Can you honestly tell me you can find all 5, without traveling all over the place (remember, Fuel still isn't cheap!) then go back to this one, and log it? If you do, You're in better financial standing than I am.

And, you've found that one cache that asked that requirement.. It could be clear out into the middle of a dense forrest, with all kinds of tradables... Are you now telling me, Just because I just this one, that now I have to return the tradable item, and erase (or scribble-out) my entry in the log book as well?

 

ALR's like getting a picture with the items in the cache, I would classify as fun.. They're not making you go out of your way to meet outrageous requirements.. (Okay, the logging a cache naked does seem to be pushing the decency limits. Especially if it's middle of winter, and it's 10 below!)

 

I logged one cache, where it had a ALR, the placer wanted you to send them an email with what you could see on a plaque at GZ.. At the time, I wasn't a premium member. and I didn't read the ALR requirement til I got back online.. But, I did post a picture of what else I found there.. (A snake in the stone wall just behind GZ) As far as I know, the log still is on the page, w/the picture.

Share this post


Link to post

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

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

 

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

Vinnie could be starting a whole new class. ;)

 

We should! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
The change actually adds to the fun. Now the "Like 'em crowd" can still have bundles of fun performing these now optional tasks, while more people can join in on the fun by simply finding the cache.

Absolutely. My bet is that the "Like 'em crowd" doesn't do the added logging criteria anymore either. They are still out there, so feel free to lead by example.

Share this post


Link to post

I am a bit confused about the ALR ruling, I'm not sure if what we have done will now be allowed....

 

We have a series of 7 caches, "Ski a EUP, eh?" each one was a regular hide in a different cross country ski trail in the EUP. In each of those seven caches was a clue that when you had visited all seven you wouldthen have the coordinates to a final bonus cache that you could visit. The final bonus cache was listed as a puzzle/mystery cache.

 

Would this type of cache still be allowed??

 

We really hope so because we wanted to do the same thing but as a "Hike da EUP, eh?" type of thing.

 

That is a multi cache (or qualifies as Puzzle as well) and not an ALR. The difference is the multi stages are stand alone traditional hides, and there is no "requirement" that you retrieve the additional info to find the multi. You will do so if you want to find the multi, but no logs are going to be deleted on that traditional cache if you don't.

 

I own a leg to such a cache. Only issue with it so far is getting the multiple owners of the legs to all keep their caches in good condition where it is reasonable to expect one could find the Multi they reference.

 

Thanks for your answer, I was hoping it was like that just wasn't sure.

Share this post


Link to post

I am a bit confused about the ALR ruling, I'm not sure if what we have done will now be allowed....

 

We have a series of 7 caches, "Ski a EUP, eh?" each one was a regular hide in a different cross country ski trail in the EUP. In each of those seven caches was a clue that when you had visited all seven you wouldthen have the coordinates to a final bonus cache that you could visit. The final bonus cache was listed as a puzzle/mystery cache.

 

Would this type of cache still be allowed??

 

We really hope so because we wanted to do the same thing but as a "Hike da EUP, eh?" type of thing.

 

I see nothing in the guideline change that would disallow caches using this format.

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?

 

Simple enough.. Put the cache at the top of the pillar. If they can't get up there to find it, they cannot log it as a find.

 

Problem of getting a picture of yourself climbing.. Unless you bring a friend to hold the camera, Most cameras only have a 10-20 second self timer.. Unless you're a monkey, or a cat with a german shepard chasing you, You are not going to climb that pillar in 10-20 seconds! Even a monkey might have problems with the 20 seconds. (Being chased, Maybe...)

 

I think the reason ALR's are being stopped, is because some were getting pretty outrageous.. (like some of the reasons here in this discussion are teetering on the loony!)

 

REAL Example:

A cache, where you need to find several caches of various difficulty levels (1 through 5), in consecutive order, before you can log this one cache.
(Meaning the difficulty values MUST be 1 , 2, 3, 4, then 5. )
Otherwise your online log entry will be deleted.

 

Can you honestly tell me you can find all 5, without traveling all over the place (remember, Fuel still isn't cheap!) then go back to this one, and log it? If you do, You're in better financial standing than I am.

And, you've found that one cache that asked that requirement.. It could be clear out into the middle of a dense forrest, with all kinds of tradables... Are you now telling me, Just because I just this one, that now I have to return the tradable item, and erase (or scribble-out) my entry in the log book as well?

 

ALR's like getting a picture with the items in the cache, I would classify as fun.. They're not making you go out of your way to meet outrageous requirements.. (Okay, the logging a cache naked does seem to be pushing the decency limits. Especially if it's middle of winter, and it's 10 below!)

 

I logged one cache, where it had a ALR, the placer wanted you to send them an email with what you could see on a plaque at GZ.. At the time, I wasn't a premium member. and I didn't read the ALR requirement til I got back online.. But, I did post a picture of what else I found there.. (A snake in the stone wall just behind GZ) As far as I know, the log still is on the page, w/the picture.

 

Haha... there is no requirement of taking a picture of yourself climbing.... just of you being on top. A finder already has easily managed that all by himself. Look:

 

7717905f-272b-400e-9448-9ca01773ecab.jpg

 

Tada!

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.

Share this post


Link to post

Some ALRs add to the difficulty level of a cache. How many 1.5/1.5s can a person hide? Having a way to make a cache a 3/3 or even a 5/1 by adding conditions to completion is one way to get variety in your ratings. By making it optional, then those caches are just another 1.5/1.5. How mnay people can scuba dive or climb with ropes? How many people can look through a pile of rocks long enough to not look suspicious to muggles? Now you can get those higher ratings without the work.

 

I think the reviewers should deny unreasonable caches, sure. It's not too hard to figure out what is vindictive or humiliating. I also think reviewers should deny illegal caches, and they don't always now.

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like Groundspeak using another "sledge hammer to crack a nut" solution. I think changing/tightening the listing requirements (to exclude ridiculous ALRs, but still allow reasonable ones) and making the changes retro-active would have been a better way to fix the problem.

So, then the reviewers will need to make yet another "judgement call" opening them up to problems with owners who think their ALS is fun and not ridiculous...like they need more work??

 

I think it's a smart decision just like they don't allow agendas!

One possibility is to have a small list of permissible examples included in the guidelines, and if a requested ALR is not akin with whats on the list, it gets denied.

 

In other words, make more work for the reviewers, more headaches for the reviewers and TPTB...imagine someone demanding their ALS is somewhat akin to the next. No thanks, I appreciate our volunteers far to much to subject them to that kind of abuse!

Share this post


Link to post

Some ALRs add to the difficulty level of a cache. How many 1.5/1.5s can a person hide? Having a way to make a cache a 3/3 or even a 5/1 by adding conditions to completion is one way to get variety in your ratings. By making it optional, then those caches are just another 1.5/1.5. How mnay people can scuba dive or climb with ropes? How many people can look through a pile of rocks long enough to not look suspicious to muggles? Now you can get those higher ratings without the work.

 

I think the reviewers should deny unreasonable caches, sure. It's not too hard to figure out what is vindictive or humiliating. I also think reviewers should deny illegal caches, and they don't always now.

 

Placing a cache in a parking lot and dressing it up with ALS's hardly seems like it adds to the fun of the LPC IMHO. If you can't find a place to actually make the cache more than a 1.5/1,5, you're not looking very hard....in most cases!

Share this post


Link to post

I care because some cache hound (my term for those people that are after the numbers and typically write an online log of "Nice Hide, TFTC" ) gets the same credit as the person who spent the time doing the cache the way it was intended. It cheapens the victory of the purist who did the entire cache.

I'm mostly a lurker on this thread (and plan on staying that way for the most part), but I couldn't resist responding to this particular comment.

 

When I comply with all the requirements of a difficult cache, and later learn that someone else got a smiley by cheating, it does not cheapen my victory. I know that I "did it the hard way," and nothing anyone else might do can take that away from me. I will heartily disapprove of the fact that someone else cheated, but that can't and won't take away my feeling of accomplishment.

 

I've never liked caches with ALRs, and most of them have been immediately added to my Ignore List. Now that complying with ALRs has become optional, I may very well take those caches off my Ignore List, go after them, and even comply with the ALR just for fun. I simply never liked them being shoved down my throat.

 

--Larry

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like Groundspeak using another "sledge hammer to crack a nut" solution. I think changing/tightening the listing requirements (to exclude ridiculous ALRs, but still allow reasonable ones) and making the changes retro-active would have been a better way to fix the problem.

So, then the reviewers will need to make yet another "judgement call" opening them up to problems with owners who think their ALS is fun and not ridiculous...like they need more work??

 

I think it's a smart decision just like they don't allow agendas!

One possibility is to have a small list of permissible examples included in the guidelines, and if a requested ALR is not akin with whats on the list, it gets denied.

 

Good suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post

The cache and dashers will lose out, but they'll still get their smiley. I guess that is all that is important.

 

Isn't this the case with any cache one encounters? Some will stop to smell the roses at a cache and some will stop to smell 'em sometimes and some will not ever. To think otherwise is naive. Rest assured, if you "suggest" it, a lot will follow that suggestion.

 

I've logged a cache where I found the cleverly hidden container AND had to email the owner the number of 'lights' in the parking lot. Geez.

 

Action applauded.

Share this post


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

That's not how I interpret the new change. As I see it, those who enjoy a bit of light hearted fun can still enjoy themselves at a cache, both hider & seeker, so long as the hider isn't so controlling that they'd make the particular activity mandatory.

Bah, whatever.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

The two of you propose that a suggestion is the equivalent of a requirement.

 

Alrighty then, consider this:

 

Suppose Groundspeak’s next target becomes Puzzle Caches. Clan Riffster and SkipHerr: I see that both of you own several puzzle caches. Re-read the OP, think about what they’re talking about, and you’ll realize that a VERY strong case can be also made for the banning of puzzle caches.

 

Puzzle caches are not what conventional Geocaching is all about – finding containers and signing logbook. They are quite unpopular among a substantial fraction of all cachers. Some would actually be happy to see them eliminated. These hides can only be found via coords which are hidden inside the solution to a puzzle. Puzzle caches aren’t really available to all cachers; many of them are extremely challenging and difficult. One might even call some of them "absurd" ... and who could disagree that their numbers are huge? Maybe even "out of hand?"

 

Also, the concept of the bogus posted coords is confusing to newbies, which causes problems.

 

This thread is chock full of strong arguments against puzzle. Just replace "ALR" with "Puzzle." And sometimes you don’t even have to change the wording:

This bring a question to mind: people DO place caches to be found, right?? Sheesh! ;) Think this is proof enough for you KBI??

 

If Groundspeak's leaders are going to be consistent with their policies, then they will now need to consider whether Puzzle Caches are still tolerable. Maybe the puzzle ban, when it comes, will take the same form as this latest one: You can keep your puzzle, Mr. Cache Owner, but you are no longer allowed to withhold the cache’s coordinates from those who cannot (or will not) attempt the challenge; you must now post the solution coordinates on the cache page, and you may now only request that the finder work your puzzle.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, this is a shame. ALR made a nice alternative to virtual caches no longer being published.

But, just like virtuals, I guess cache placers took this to a silly and ridiculous level. Too bad.

 

So, just to clarify this.

 

Post logging requirements (ALR's), such as posting a picture with an object at the cache site are no longer permissible.

 

Pre-logging requirements for DeLorme & Waymark Challenges, Alphabet Caches or Baker's Dozen are OK?

Share this post


Link to post

 

This bring a question to mind: people DO place caches to be found, right?? Sheesh! ;) Think this is proof enough for you KBI??

 

If Groundspeak's leaders are going to be consistent with their policies, then they will now need to consider whether Puzzle Caches are still tolerable. Maybe the puzzle ban, when it comes, will take the same form as this latest one: You can keep your puzzle, Mr. Cache Owner, but you are no longer allowed to withhold the cache’s coordinates from those who cannot (or will not) attempt the challenge; you must now post the solution coordinates on the cache page, and you may now only request that the finder work your puzzle.

 

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

 

If that's directed at me, you'll not get the answer you're hoping for....I HATE puzzles! A few would be fine, but comeon out here to my area and check out the multitude of blue ?....and some are just ridiculous! I say SEEYA to those puzzles as well!!!

Share this post


Link to post
I've logged a cache where I found the cleverly hidden container AND had to email the owner the number of 'lights' in the parking lot. Geez.

Yes. Lame. Agreed. Geez. Seriously. I wouldn't do that one either.

 

Action applauded.

Be careful what you root for.

 

If lameness is the new criteria -- and it seems to be, based on the OP -- then hang on to your knickers, because this is only the leading edge of an earth-shaking purge.

 

One man's lame is another man's fun. The second man gets no say in the matter, however, once the ban-'em-all crown gets their way.

 

You've always had the option to skip ALR's. What, exactly, are you applauding today?

Share this post


Link to post
I've logged a cache where I found the cleverly hidden container AND had to email the owner the number of 'lights' in the parking lot. Geez.

Yes. Lame. Agreed. Geez. Seriously. I wouldn't do that one either.

 

Action applauded.

Be careful what you root for.

 

If lameness is the new criteria -- and it seems to be, based on the OP -- then hang on to your knickers, because this is only the leading edge of an earth-shaking purge.

 

One man's lame is another man's fun. The second man gets no say in the matter, however, once the ban-'em-all crown gets their way.

 

You've always had the option to skip ALR's. What, exactly, are you applauding today?

 

I don't think lameness is the reason, but you can believe that if you wish!

Share this post


Link to post
This bring a question to mind: people DO place caches to be found, right?? Sheesh! ;) Think this is proof enough for you KBI??

 

If Groundspeak's leaders are going to be consistent with their policies, then they will now need to consider whether Puzzle Caches are still tolerable. Maybe the puzzle ban, when it comes, will take the same form as this latest one: You can keep your puzzle, Mr. Cache Owner, but you are no longer allowed to withhold the cache’s coordinates from those who cannot (or will not) attempt the challenge; you must now post the solution coordinates on the cache page, and you may now only request that the finder work your puzzle.

 

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

 

If that's directed at me, you'll not get the answer you're hoping for....I HATE puzzles! A few would be fine, but comeon out here to my area and check out the multitude of blue ?....and some are just ridiculous! I say SEEYA to those puzzles as well!!!

I rest my case.

 

Dang, I'm going to miss all those cool puzzle caches.

 

 

See ya'll later. I'm heading out for a week of Spring Break vacation with the family to a place with no TV, few cars, lotsa cows and chickens, lotsa mountains, very little phone coverage ... and no Internet.

 

It's gonna be niiiiiiice.

 

I'll check back in in a week and see how long this thread lasted before getting locked. I give it another page.

Share this post


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

 

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

 

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

 

The change actually adds to the fun. Now the "Like 'em crowd" can still have bundles of fun performing these now optional tasks, while more people can join in on the fun by simply finding the cache.

 

It allows more people to play the game their own way without fear of getting logs deleted. More fun for more people, a win/win. I think it's something that the "play the game your way" crowd would enthusiastically support.

 

Amen to your logic! Maybe dumb puzzle caches will be next! ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Can I delete logs if someone says they did my night cache in the daytime?

 

Can I delete logs if someone says they didn't solve my puzzle but they got the coordinates from a friend?

 

Can I delete logs if someone says they found the cache after dark and I know the park is closed at dusk?

 

Can I delete logs if I know someone broke local laws when searching for my cache?

 

Can I delete logs if someone damaged property while searching for the cache and I know the cache can be found and retrieve without having to damage property?

 

Can I delete logs if someone didn't climb the tree but got a long poll to reach the cache with?

 

Can I delete logs if someone didn't climb the tree but sent his kid up to retrieve the cache?

 

.....

 

;)

 

It appears that they created Additional Listing Requirements to disinclude only the Additional Logging Requirement caches. They are forcing the owners of ALRs to accept logs from cachers who would normally be forced to perform a ALR, but only if they chose to be forced to do it (by seeking the cache).

 

Overall it is a positive thing, as deleting a log is a rather serious act to most cachers. A log deletion for not doing somthing silly is, well, rather silly. The cache should inspire you to do the ALR and if it does, people will still do it out of fun. However, because it affects the serious ALRs (such as 5/5 code word caches) it is in a way serious....but having the code word is not really proof of the find, just as logging a coin or TB#, does not mean that you actually saw the coin or TB. However, I think they should reinstate it only for the extreme 5/5s, to filter out most fraudulent finds and to keep the integrity of a extreme "find" intact, and so that the COs don't have to go to extremes just to check for sigs...

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe Groundspeak would consider creating a fourth website for ALR caches. We have

 

www.geocaching.com

www.Waymarking.com

www.Wherigo.com

 

Why not www.alr.com

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe Groundspeak would consider creating a fourth website for ALR caches. We have

 

www.geocaching.com

www.Waymarking.com

www.Wherigo.com

 

Why not www.alr.com

 

Why does GS need to make the move, why couldn't you? Or anyone else here who feels the need for these? GS shouldn't have to do the work to make others (who disagree with them) happy, should they?

Share this post


Link to post

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

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

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

That's not the point of geocaching.

 

Ok.. I understand the War And Peace, the 1000 word essay(Though thats a long LOG), but the Donate $20 to ARC.... Thats over the line. I would still do it, but I already pay the $30/year for this Lifestyle... Plus Gas, Time, and energy.

 

I THOUGHT I was going to stay quiet, But Who Reviewed that Cache?(reguards to ARC)

 

The Steaks

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe Groundspeak would consider creating a fourth website for ALR caches. We have

 

www.geocaching.com

www.Waymarking.com

www.Wherigo.com

 

Why not www.alr.com

 

Why does GS need to make the move, why couldn't you? Or anyone else here who feels the need for these? GS shouldn't have to do the work to make others (who disagree with them) happy, should they?

 

Your first question doesn't warrant a response. If you took the time to read my post you would notice it was a request not a demand. Are requests now outlawed as well?

 

 

I guess we can always do ALR's at www.terracaching.com but it would be nicer if Groundspeak would consider it.

Edited by Tequila

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe Groundspeak would consider creating a fourth website for ALR caches. We have

 

www.geocaching.com

www.Waymarking.com

www.Wherigo.com

 

Why not www.alr.com

 

Why does GS need to make the move, why couldn't you? Or anyone else here who feels the need for these? GS shouldn't have to do the work to make others (who disagree with them) happy, should they?

 

Your first question doesn't warrant a response. If you took the time to read my post you would notice it was a request not a demand. Are requests now outlawed as well?

 

 

I guess we can always do ALR's at www.terracaching.com but it would be nicer if Groundspeak would consider it.

 

It doesn't?? Why?

 

Do you think they need to make new catagories to please everyone? Instead of making a request, why not make the move on your own and not "request" someone else do it for you? Also, you seem to have answered your own "request"...

 

Requests are no more "outlawed" (was that for effect???) than ALS's are, you can request all you wish, just don't require a reaction!!! Seems people forget this.

 

btw, I gave you a suggestion, not a requirement! ;) Perhaps you would also consider this and leave the workload off the backs of GS?

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

This is my ALR:

 

Additional Logging Requirement:

You MUST be a subscriber to log or find this cache: Required

 

Subscriber-Only Caches

Some caches are only available to premium members. This has been a request of many geocachers who want to put more energy into designing a cache for dedicated geocachers. As the cache owner, you can make any of your caches "subscriber only," so folks will need a subscription to seek it out.

 

(Note: member only caches may not be any better than public geocaches. Each cache is managed by their cache owner.)

 

An audit log is a list of users who have viewed your premium member-only cache on the web site. Click on the user's name to visit their profile.

 

If your account user name does not appear on the Audit Log, your *find* will be removed. As a failsafe, I will check your profile page prior to removal.

 

If you are a subscriber, and logging this cache the correct way, you WILL be on the cache audit list. If you are NOT a subscriber, and logging this cache an alternative way, you will NOT be on the cache audit list.

 

GC1CDAV

 

Groundspeak will not prevent non-subscribers from logging subscriber-only caches. This gives the scoundrels warning, and has been the most effective method of dealing with them.

Share this post


Link to post
I've logged a cache where I found the cleverly hidden container AND had to email the owner the number of 'lights' in the parking lot. Geez.

Yes. Lame. Agreed. Geez. Seriously. I wouldn't do that one either.

 

Action applauded.

Be careful what you root for.

 

If lameness is the new criteria -- and it seems to be, based on the OP -- then hang on to your knickers, because this is only the leading edge of an earth-shaking purge.

 

One man's lame is another man's fun. The second man gets no say in the matter, however, once the ban-'em-all crown gets their way.

 

You've always had the option to skip ALR's. What, exactly, are you applauding today?

Sadly, I must agree with your points. It looks like the new operational imperative at Groundspeak is to pander to the demands of the lowest common denominator, that is the mindless agenda of the numbers-hunters and the park-and-grab crowd. Sad.

Share this post


Link to post

Sadly, I must agree with your points. It looks like the new operational imperative at Groundspeak is to pander to the demands of the lowest common denominator, that is the mindless agenda of the numbers-hunters and the park-and-grab crowd. Sad.

 

Vinny,

 

Can I use your post as my new signature line?

Share this post


Link to post

 

It doesn't?? Why?

 

Do you think they need to make new catagories to please everyone? Instead of making a request, why not make the move on your own and not "request" someone else do it for you? Also, you seem to have answered your own "request"...

 

Requests are no more "outlawed" (was that for effect???) than ALS's are, you can request all you wish, just don't require a reaction!!! Seems people forget this.

 

btw, I gave you a suggestion, not a requirement! ;) Perhaps you would also consider this and leave the workload off the backs of GS?

 

Again, I don't think they "need" to do anything. I simply suggested they might "consider" it.

 

For one individual to attempt to set up a parallel operation is neither technically, logically or financially feasible.

 

And for the record, ALS is a disease. We are discussing ALR. Or was that a Freudian slip on you part?

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...