Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 23
MissJenn

update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

Recommended Posts

Punishing the many due to the actions of a few?

 

Throwing out the baby with the bath water?

 

Catering to the simple and punishing the creative?

 

Appealing to the lowest common denominator?

 

Huh, I was taught as a child how easily to avoid these pitfalls. You'd think any person or business with a modicum of self-respect would try and avoid these easily avoidable mistakes....

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?

 

Me too??

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

I couldn't have said this better myself.

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?

 

Wow, you KNOW there's something wrong with Groundspeak policy when it finds you on the same side of the fence with someone with rampant bigotry in their signature.

 

*shrug*

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, and while on the subject, (and since it's being discussed in another thread right now, & has been the point of many other arguments):

 

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

 

Signed by whom?

 

Asked with all due respect - just one man's opinion but there's so much 'gray area' here I think it's way past time Groundspeak issued or clarified the guidelines in this regard. Some 'black & white', please?

 

Thank you.

~*

 

Interesting. I can this guideline being used by armchair cachers to justify their activity.

Taking that sentence literally once anyone signs the physical log any number of other people can log the cache online as found without restriction. Once a cache has had its physical log signed by anyone then it is free for all for online logs. ;) That makes me question what the point of logging a cache online really is.

Share this post


Link to post

Let's have a show of hands as to who would stoop so low as to log a find when they ignored the ALR? ;)

 

We are solidly in the camp of "if you don't like the cache, don't bother looking for it."

Share this post


Link to post

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

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

 

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

 

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

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.

clap.gifclap.gifclap.gifclap.gifclap.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Two weeks ago, I was teaching a geocaching 101 class that the most fun thing about geocaching is that it has so many different aspects toward it, that it has something for everybody in it. I guess one aspect of geocaching has died and geocaching has become more marginalized. :laughing:

 

ALR's have taken me to every county in Michigan, allowed me to visit interesting towns (you had to find a cache in towns that starts with the letter of the alphabet), made me go after tougher caches I have sometimes ignored, and think in a matter that hadn't been brought to my attention before. This looks to be a move that only helps those who only want the extra number in their profile and don't like being challenged or given a different aspect of caching they might not have realized before.

 

The reasoning behind this move seems flawed, because other types of caches require more than a simple "follow the arrow to the find".

 

Ban offset caches because they don't take you right to the cache.

Ban virtuals and webcams, because why grandfather them and "force" people to follow the owner's rules and not challenge caches?

Ban earthcaches because the logic of having them and having the rule that a cache is a physical container with a log that needs to be signed is flawed.

Ban caches that require special equipment, because not everybody can/won't go after them. Why not put an easier cache at the base of a mountain also, so lazy cachers have the option of going the easy way out?

 

I love doing some of these caches, and I don't for a few others. So I CHOOSE to ignore them. Others love doing them and have the right to do them. Just because I am not a big puzzle fan, means I would applaud GC.com for banning them. It is just another unique aspect of geocaching that is being tossed to the side for those who only like the same thing over and over again!

 

I have been in geocaching for nearly seven years, and I have done most caches out there. If geocaching was the simple physical container and log and move on bit, I probably would've lasted only a couple years. Challenge caches offered me the chance to go out there in this big world and challenge myself to accomplish goals I never thought of trying. Of course, they will now be "suggestions" instead of "requirements", but what is the harm of having them be requirements? Because some idiot hides a dumb ALR cache, the banhammer has been put on the rest that were decent at the least!

 

So now people have the option of finding the cache without having to do anything extra, I guess those who only love their numbers will be happy. Maybe someday, geocaching will be all about the easy find and dash. Because everybody knows that uniqueness and different types of caches only hinder in the ultimate goal of finding twenty caches in two hours.

 

To the reviewers who are rejoicing, I appreciate the time and effort you put in to geocaching that keeps it fun for the rest of us. But how do ALR's make the job more difficult? Virtuals were banned because the "Wow Factor" was too hard to determine. But there were really no subjective parts of the ALR cache that is hard to approve or reject, but maybe I am just seeing it from the outsider's point of view. Maybe the answer isn't simply banning these caches, but coming to a better solution that can be discussed openly first.

 

This is a privately-owned website, and we have to abide by their rules. But does it have to be a dictatorship? Can't things like this be openly discussed and voted on? I always thought of geocaching as more of a community than a land controlled by a few people. :unsure:

 

In the long run, geocaching will go on and this will be put in the afterthought of most cachers, but a unique aspect of geocaching is lost and who knows if it will be the last.

 

I'm being over-dramatic, but I don't care. This stinks. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Sad day. ;) I have a cache out there based on one we found in Fredericksburg, VA. It requires a picture of something interesting in our area be posted along with your log. The PURPOSE of the cache is to have a "scrapbook" of interesting attractions in our area. There's only a log because a physical log is required...since virtuals are history. :laughing: (We're missing a lot of interesting places without virtuals!) :unsure: This change kills my cache. It will be archived as opposed to changing it. I really wish that what is out there would be grandfathered! They've already been approved, and each cacher has the choice of hunting for them or not.

Share this post


Link to post

I honestly couldn't care less about ALRs like "take a picture of yourself [insert any stupid task here] and post it in your log".

 

But there is another type of logging requirements that demand people not to do certain things in order to protect the cache or to avoid trouble.

For example not to post spoilers in logs or not to not search a cache at night since that could annoy or frighten the locals.

 

The only means of a cache owner to discourage people from doing these things is his ability to delete logs.

If this new guideline means that cache owners are not allowed to delete online logs any more regardless of their contents as long as there is a log in the paper logbook it means they are without defense against people who find it fun to use logs to spoil the game.

 

As a cache owner you have the right to spend time and money placing a cache, you have the duty to maintain it - and that's it?

All power to the cache finders?

Is that how Groundspeak wants it to be?

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!!!

 

Um... there's a feature Groundspeak helpfully provided. It's called the ignore list. If you hate puzzles and ALR's, well, then it's very easy to use that ignore list to filter out any blue ?'s, since those made up the two categories listed under the ?.

 

But no. Evidently that's not good enough for you. Since YOU hate them, they should be taken away from EVERYONE, whether they enjoy them or not.

 

That is the mindset that Groundspeak has unfortunately chosen to cave in to. I appreciate that it makes less work on the reviewers, who have plenty to deal with as it is, but the door has been kicked wide open for the removal of puzzle caches as well. Me, I love puzzle caches... a chance to exercise my mental muscles as well as my physical ones. I don't want to see those taken away.

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.

Reasonable vs. ridiculous? We would be right back to reviewers trying to evaluate the "WOW factor" of virtuals.

 

Letting people make whatever optional tasks they want, seems a better solution to me.

Share this post


Link to post

the most fun thing about geocaching is that it has so many different aspects toward it, that it has something for everybody in it.

(and the entire rest of your posting):

 

I fully agree.

 

MissJenn wrote: "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".

 

Well, of course there are caches with silly ALRs, as there are quite a number of otherwise stupid caches. But I wouldn't say all caches that go beyond the simple traditional cache are part of a DEvolution!

For me it is a great EVOLUTION. The diversity grows, there are caches for everyone. Many still "just" show a great location, others show a great innovative way of hiding a box, some let you solve puzzles and maybe learn new things in order to do so that you would never have heard about without the cache - and some have any kind of log requirement (be it the "silly hat photo", a photo proof for T5 caches or the requirement NOT to post spoilers).

Everybody can choose which caches they want to go after.

 

TBTB could have introduced a new icon (or some new icons) and maybe improved the search features.

 

And to reduce the workload of the reviewers, there are many possibilities in the "new cache form": automatically check the 161 meter distance to other caches/stages, automatically check if the home coordinates have been entered (which seems to be a problem for at least the German reviewers)... but this is a different story.

 

Greetings,

Christian (Owyn)

Share this post


Link to post

Sad day. ;) I have a cache out there based on one we found in Fredericksburg, VA. It requires a picture of something interesting in our area be posted along with your log. The PURPOSE of the cache is to have a "scrapbook" of interesting attractions in our area. There's only a log because a physical log is required...since virtuals are history. :laughing: (We're missing a lot of interesting places without virtuals!) :unsure: This change kills my cache. It will be archived as opposed to changing it. I really wish that what is out there would be grandfathered! They've already been approved, and each cacher has the choice of hunting for them or not.

 

We don't own an ALR cache, but if we did, that is what we would do -- archive it rather than water it down. Sad too, that this is probably the tip of the regulation iceberg. We've seen it coming in Geocaching.com for some time. Less freedom, more and more restriction. Puzzle caches are probably next thing to go and that is when we drop our premium membership. Perhaps geocaching.com is in some serious need of competition from a new, free-spirited website. Hmmm, this would open up a whole new world of cache placements, would it not?

Share this post


Link to post

 

This bring a question to mind: people DO place caches to be found, right?? Sheesh! :laughing: 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!!!

 

Um... there's a feature Groundspeak helpfully provided. It's called the ignore list. If you hate puzzles and ALR's, well, then it's very easy to use that ignore list to filter out any blue ?'s, since those made up the two categories listed under the ?.

 

But no. Evidently that's not good enough for you. Since YOU hate them, they should be taken away from EVERYONE, whether they enjoy them or not.

 

That is the mindset that Groundspeak has unfortunately chosen to cave in to. I appreciate that it makes less work on the reviewers, who have plenty to deal with as it is, but the door has been kicked wide open for the removal of puzzle caches as well. Me, I love puzzle caches... a chance to exercise my mental muscles as well as my physical ones. I don't want to see those taken away.

I LOVE puzzle caches also. I absolutely HATE multis! ;) Puzzle caches are fun for me with the exception of the devious ones with who knows what code to find the solution. There are some cachers out there who love placing devious caches no matter what type they are. They are all on my ignore list! :unsure:

 

I really think multi caches need to have a REQUIREMENT to tell you how many stages it is on the cache page!!! A lot of them...you have no clue. If it's more than two or three, I'm not interested at all. If it looks like a quick one, I might attempt it. If we would get a smilie for each stage, that might help a bit.

 

Can we get rid of all the devious hides? We have WAY too many in our area.

Share this post


Link to post

I see that the changes that GS is implementing are meant to help make the geocaching experience fun for all, but I also have to commend GS as they have to use a double edged sword trying to make things better for both the cache hunter and cache owner and to keep the balance between both is hard to keep. What might be good in one aspect might not be so good in another. I have only been doing this for just over a yr now (newbie) and learn new aspects of the sport every day. I haven’t really looked at too many (ALR) caches but from what I have been told some are all but impossible to obtain unless you are UN employed or retired and are wealthy to beat (LOL). When I do the multy caches I some/most of the time don’t do them all in one run and break them up into 2 or 3 runs depending on the locations of the legs. Just my 2 cents..

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?

 

.....

 

;)

 

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong (try to keep it under 3,000 responses). As a cache owner, you can delete ANY log for any reason. It may get you into an email battle, or worse, but go ahead. If your morning coffee was too hot, delete the next 3 logs. If it was too cold, delete the next 4. If it was the perfect temperature, pick 2 randomly and delete them. You own the cache, do what you want with it.

 

Flame away...

Share this post


Link to post

Every type of cache has its bad and good examples. That doesn't mean you ban the whole genre. In the first place ALR caches didn't have a "Wow Factor" for reviewers to have a problem with. Maybe I am spoiled in Michigan, but we aren't overwhelmed with bad ALR caches. We are overrun with with other bad types of caches, but not ALR caches.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

I've had one log deleted. That was pretty much when we first started caching. Darling son was in the picture, but I forgot to hand him the GPS. The owner deleted quickly! No chance of going back to get a picture with the GPS. Just...delete! They said having a GPS in a picture is a basic thing so...poof! :laughing: Never mind that my son was in the picture. I think that alone pretty much proves we found it! Great way to be with beginners. ;) With mine I will let them know how much time they have and/or e-mail them to see if they will get a picture posted soon.

Edited by VirginiaGator

Share this post


Link to post

Every type of cache has its bad and good examples. That doesn't mean you ban the whole genre. In the first place ALR caches didn't have a "Wow Factor" for reviewers to have a problem with. Maybe I am spoiled in Michigan, but we aren't overwhelmed with bad ALR caches. We are overrun with with other bad types of caches, but not ALR caches.

Yeah they are called Rural Lamp posts and parking lots with only one lamp post. ;)

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.

 

Actually, there are a number of low-end and older GPSr's that have no connectivity capability at all. The Garmin Geckos come to mind, as do the lower end Magellen Explorists...

Share this post


Link to post
Bah, whatever.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Thanks so much, SkipHerr. That made me laugh quite loudly. ;)

(bold emphasis mine)

Share this post


Link to post

 

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?

Then they also need to ban all "water" caches since not everyone has a boat. :laughing:

Share this post


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

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

 

Thank you, Swamp-Thing.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Wow, you KNOW there's something wrong with Groundspeak policy when it finds you on the same side of the fence with someone with rampant bigotry in their signature.

 

*shrug*

 

Whatever you say Comrade! ;)

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see this as a new rule. I see it as the removal of hundreds of inconsistent, cache-specific rules. You can still ask for certain additional actions, you just can't require them.

 

It seems to me that certain logs are still deletable, such as those involving damaged property or law-breaking. Maybe that should be explicit in the guidelines, but I don't see "Don't break the law" as being an ALR.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

This is an interesting statement.

 

As one who has been as vocal as anyone against ALRs, I'm neither a numbers-hunter or part of the park-n-grab crowd. I'm probably at the other end.

 

It's also interesting in that the very sub-set of cachers you mention are the very ones that would avoid these caches and are trivially filtered. They, in general, don't need the extra caches this move will produce to further their goal. Also, I have to wonder how a cache which is no longer an ALR is automatically fodder for this sub-set.

 

Quite frankly, I fail to see how that had anything to do with decision. Maybe it's a "hand" or "aliens" or whatever, but I'm just not making the connection.

Share this post


Link to post

....

 

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.
...

 

I didn't think challenge caches had any special logging requirments. You complete the challenge you get the coords you log when you find the cache. It's a type of puzzle. Not a mystery.

 

Now if the challenge cache has the coords out there already and anybody can find it log it but can't log online, well that's the ALR that was just banned and quite frankly should get no special consideration. It would make the reviewers job easier.

Share this post


Link to post

Did anyone consider the effect changing all the previous ALR mystery type to traditional (or other 'normal' types) will have on stats* and challenge caches? As an example, the Baker's Dozen Challenge cache here in WA requires a multi or mystery cache as one of the day's finds. If the only mystery cache of the day was an ALR it now will disqualify that set of finds. I can see where the "Know your local cachers" type challenges may also be affected. (I'm not talking about past finders, but those working on the challenge.)

 

 

 

 

*I can already hear the totally apathy replies from the who-cares-about-stats crowd. But it still affects a portion of our community.

Share this post


Link to post

...

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

....

Simply stated, I could care less if any one cacher signs the log. I would like that any finder (or group) sign the log in the cache, online, or email me and let me know you found it. Skip any that you like but I'd like to see at least one.

 

As for each member of the team having to sign...that would be an ALR.

Share this post


Link to post

.....Wow, you KNOW there's something wrong with Groundspeak policy when it finds you on the same side of the fence with someone with rampant bigotry in their signature....

It appears that you have joined the ranks of people who don't understand the concepts of bigotry and tolerance. They aren't what you think they are. Your bigotry displayed with an intolerant accusation that doesn't fit won't change that.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post

ALR caches don't just let a numbers hound find the cache, log it, and move on. They have to slow down and accomplish something first. Now that they don't have to do the requirements, they can just find the cache and quickly move on to the next one. The ALR cache is nothing more than a traditional cache now, which is the "fodder" for a quick find for those who do not want to do the suggestions. These caches have been made easier for that fact.

 

So yeah, this is a victory for those who hate these caches and/or love to find a hundred caches in a day. Simple as that.

Edited by Radman Forever

Share this post


Link to post

....

 

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.
...

 

I didn't think challenge caches had any special logging requirments. You complete the challenge you get the coords you log when you find the cache. It's a type of puzzle. Not a mystery.

 

Now if the challenge cache has the coords out there already and anybody can find it log it but can't log online, well that's the ALR that was just banned and quite frankly should get no special consideration. It would make the reviewers job easier.

 

Many challenge caches in Michigan already give you the coords in good faith that you will first meet the challenge first before finding it. The differences between challenge caches and ARLs are little. That is what scares me that all caches that need requirements will eventually be banned.

Share this post


Link to post

Did anyone consider the effect changing all the previous ALR mystery type to traditional (or other 'normal' types) will have on stats* and challenge caches? As an example, the Baker's Dozen Challenge cache here in WA requires a multi or mystery cache as one of the day's finds. If the only mystery cache of the day was an ALR it now will disqualify that set of finds. I can see where the "Know your local cachers" type challenges may also be affected. (I'm not talking about past finders, but those working on the challenge.)

 

 

 

 

*I can already hear the totally apathy replies from the who-cares-about-stats crowd. But it still affects a portion of our community.

 

This also brings up and interesting point. The Kitsap County Challenge was *required* to post the final co-ordinates on the log page instead of the past practice of e-mailing the co-ordinates after the challenge was completed. The ALR was if you did not complete the challenge and logged the cache your log would be deleted. I guess with the recent changes now any one can find the cache and log the find with out doing the challenge and the CO can not delete the find. I guess the only recourse at this time is a list of shame along with the list of finders that had seemed to complete the challenge. But perhaps the honesty of the majority of cachers will prevail and all will be fine.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post

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

It's all of that to people who are firmly entrenched inside the box in their thinking.

 

Over time I've seen this activity lose more and more of it's flexablity. A cache (missing person mystery) that I'm working on now breaks several "rules" that have come into existance since I first brainstormed it. It would be a fun cache but without dumbing it down it can no longer be listed here in part because of this rule, in part becaue of several others.

 

Listing rules impact cache owners who this activity and this site have complete and utter dependance on to owrk. Finders pay the bill but they are ultimatly paying to find caches placed by an army of increasingly resricted volunteers. You can only impose more and more rules while owners are a dime a dozen.

 

The more rules, regs, and provisions that you have the more you winnow out some truly great ideas. It's why I champion freedom even for the caches I've leanred that I don't like. To allow the truly great ones to come into being which I will enjoy. TPTB do understand this it's why the rules are guidelines, but they depend on reviewers to screen things out and reviewers don't always know when they have found the exception that's well worth it. I have no doubt they have said no wishing they could say yes, and know the activity is the worse off for it.

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.

 

My GPSr (Garmin 60CSx) doesn't support Wherigo modules. Should a Wherigo cache owner deny me a find for that reason? This is a great example of why WhereIgos shouldn't be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post

ALR caches don't just let a numbers hound find the cache, log it, and move on. They have to slow down and accomplish something first. Now that they don't have to do the requirements, they can just find the cache and quickly move on to the next one. The ALR cache is nothing more than a traditional cache now, which is the "fodder" for a quick find for those who do not want to do the suggestions. These caches have been made easier for that fact.

 

So yeah, this is a victory for those who hate these caches and/or love to find a hundred caches in a day. Simple as that.

 

Yeah, that's exactly what this is ;)

 

So what you are saying is that ALR caches

  • force people to slow down and log less caches
  • force people to avoid certain caches
  • force people to do things they might not want to in order to meet some artibrary condition
  • force people to filter through caches and add them to their 'ignore list'
  • force people to pander to a cache owner's paranoia that some people might cheat

Tell you what, let's slap an "Additional Forum Posting Requirement" on this thread. You cannot log any comments here unless your account has created at least one of each viable cache listing type. If not, your post will be deleted.

 

Doesn't really work... neither did ALR's

 

It sounds like the same thing with Virtuals, they got out of hand to the point where Groundspeak had to make a decision. Now we see the same thing here, and funny... many ALR's were simply a work-around because people couldn't created Virtuals anymore. Groundspeak seems to be pretty consistent when you view it that way.

 

:laughing: BQ

Share this post


Link to post

This also brings up and interesting point. The Kitsap County Challenge was *required* to post the final co-ordinates on the log page instead of the past practice of e-mailing the co-ordinates after the challenge was completed. The ALR was if you did not complete the challenge and logged the cache your log would be deleted. I guess with the recent changes now any one can find the cache and log the find with out doing the challenge and the CO can not delete the find. I guess the only recourse at this time is a list of shame along with the list of finders that had seemed to complete the challenge. But perhaps the honesty of the majority of cachers will prevail and all will be fine.

 

Jim

 

Yes the owner can. It's still a challenge cache.

 

;) BQ

Share this post


Link to post

...[*]force people to do things they might not want to in order to meet some artibrary condition...

Just like the new rule forces owners to fit a new arbitrary rule.

Just like the "you can now log online if you log the cache log" forces finders and owners to follow an arbitrary condition.

 

Before you can agree or disagree with the change you really need to undersand where it fits in the scheme of things. This new rule shifts the playing field from the Owners to the Finders by taking away some owenr freedom and while it doesnt' really give finders new freedoms it does cater to their preferences to a large degree. The debate reminds me of Howard Roark and Ellsworth Toohey with Roark plaing the part of the Cache Owners.

Share this post


Link to post

i think it's a bad move.

 

 

sure, there were stupid ALRs. i know how to use the ignore button.

 

but i'm really going to miss some of the great ones.

 

there's one in BY that actually has four containers within the accuracy range. the ALR was to use the secret word from the container in your log. the fun in that was that it told the owner and those who'd found out the joke which of the four you'd found.

 

there's one in VT for which every page of the logbook has a perforated tear-off stub with a phrase on it that you have to use in your log. that made for some really excellent and funny logs.

 

here was mine: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...25-28bec0e8f716

 

i'll miss 'em.

 

i certainly think this will move the balance of caching toward the uninteresting and the number whores. do you remember the days when the official line was that creativity was encouraged?

Share this post


Link to post

Did anyone consider the effect changing all the previous ALR mystery type to traditional (or other 'normal' types) will have on stats* and challenge caches? As an example, the Baker's Dozen Challenge cache here in WA requires a multi or mystery cache as one of the day's finds. If the only mystery cache of the day was an ALR it now will disqualify that set of finds. I can see where the "Know your local cachers" type challenges may also be affected. (I'm not talking about past finders, but those working on the challenge.)

 

 

 

 

*I can already hear the totally apathy replies from the who-cares-about-stats crowd. But it still affects a portion of our community.

 

This also brings up and interesting point. The Kitsap County Challenge was *required* to post the final co-ordinates on the log page instead of the past practice of e-mailing the co-ordinates after the challenge was completed. The ALR was if you did not complete the challenge and logged the cache your log would be deleted. I guess with the recent changes now any one can find the cache and log the find with out doing the challenge and the CO can not delete the find. I guess the only recourse at this time is a list of shame along with the list of finders that had seemed to complete the challenge. But perhaps the honesty of the majority of cachers will prevail and all will be fine.

 

Jim

 

As a finder of several Challenge caches and one who is working on several more I can honestly say that if someone logs a find on one of them who hasn't completed the challenge it really doesn't change how much I enjoyed the challenge.

 

In fact I falsely logged the Kansas Delorme in error when I thought a cache was in one grid and it was in the other. When I found out about it I chose to delete my find and go back and complete the challenge before logging the find. I don't know of anyone who lost enjoyment when I logged the fake find and no one came to me after the true find and told me that I had restored their enjoyment of the cache.

 

That being said the Kitsap County Challenge would fall under the Challenge cache guidelines that were added at the same time as the removal of the ALR requirement.

 

I for one will continue playing the game my way. I will find the caches required for a challenge cache, I will do the ALS for a cache that I can do, but I will no longer have to skip a cache because I didn't bring a pink flamingo with me from Kansas City.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, that's exactly what this is ;)

 

So what you are saying is that ALR caches

  • force people to slow down and log less caches Logging less caches isn't a bad thing, when did it become a bad thing?
  • force people to avoid certain caches If you don't like a certain cache, just don't do it. It isn't the worst thing to happen to people.
  • force people to do things they might not want to in order to meet some artibrary condition That same logic makes virtuals, webcams, earth caches and puzzles inconvenient for those too lazy to attempt them. If you don't want to do certain caches, don't do them.
  • force people to filter through caches and add them to their 'ignore list' That does stink, but ALR caches aren't the only types of caches that are on geocacher's filter lists and aren't bad enough to be singled out, IMO.
  • force people to pander to a cache owner's paranoia that some people might cheat That's stereotyping that every person who owns a cache that has requirements is a paranoid jerk that thinks everyone is out to cheat them, which is simply not true.

And to sum this list up, no one is being forced to find these caches. The only thing being forced is this ban.

 

Tell you what, let's slap an "Additional Forum Posting Requirement" on this thread. You cannot log any comments here unless your account has created at least one of each viable cache listing type. If not, your post will be deleted.

 

Doesn't really work... neither did ALR's

 

It sounds like the same thing with Virtuals, they got out of hand to the point where Groundspeak had to make a decision. Now we see the same thing here, and funny... many ALR's were simply a work-around because people couldn't created Virtuals anymore. Groundspeak seems to be pretty consistent when you view it that way.

 

Virtuals weren't evil and they only became expendable after land managers started suggesting virtuals instead of traditionals in their parks. The "wow factor" sucked, but wasn't the sole reason they were banned. Anyone who applauds attempts to make geocaching more limited and banning caches they don't agree with need to realize the slippery path of placing limits on a hobby they love can have big consequences down the road.

 

 

:laughing: BQ

Share this post


Link to post

i think it's a bad move.

 

 

sure, there were stupid ALRs. i know how to use the ignore button.

 

but i'm really going to miss some of the great ones.

 

there's one in BY that actually has four containers within the accuracy range. the ALR was to use the secret word from the container in your log. the fun in that was that it told the owner and those who'd found out the joke which of the four you'd found.

 

there's one in VT for which every page of the logbook has a perforated tear-off stub with a phrase on it that you have to use in your log. that made for some really excellent and funny logs.

 

here was mine: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...25-28bec0e8f716

 

i'll miss 'em.

 

i certainly think this will move the balance of caching toward the uninteresting and the number whores. do you remember the days when the official line was that creativity was encouraged?

I don't see where either cache would be disallowed today. The one you gave a link for says "Please don’t log this cache unless you intend to participate". It doesn't say your log will be deleted if you don't.

Share this post


Link to post

Did anyone consider the effect changing all the previous ALR mystery type to traditional (or other 'normal' types) will have on stats* and challenge caches? As an example, the Baker's Dozen Challenge cache here in WA requires a multi or mystery cache as one of the day's finds. If the only mystery cache of the day was an ALR it now will disqualify that set of finds. I can see where the "Know your local cachers" type challenges may also be affected. (I'm not talking about past finders, but those working on the challenge.)

 

 

 

 

*I can already hear the totally apathy replies from the who-cares-about-stats crowd. But it still affects a portion of our community.

 

This also brings up and interesting point. The Kitsap County Challenge was *required* to post the final co-ordinates on the log page instead of the past practice of e-mailing the co-ordinates after the challenge was completed. The ALR was if you did not complete the challenge and logged the cache your log would be deleted. I guess with the recent changes now any one can find the cache and log the find with out doing the challenge and the CO can not delete the find. I guess the only recourse at this time is a list of shame along with the list of finders that had seemed to complete the challenge. But perhaps the honesty of the majority of cachers will prevail and all will be fine.

 

Jim

 

jholly - Webscouter is correct. The Kitsap County Challenge cache will not be affected by the change to the Additional logging requirements guideline. The same goes for any other challenge cache.

 

Jester - I don't have the time, or desire, to seek out every ALR cache that has been published in the state and change the cache type. If, however, the cache owner requests a type change I will help them.

Share this post


Link to post

 

jholly - Webscouter is correct. The Kitsap County Challenge cache will not be affected by the change to the Additional logging requirements guideline. The same goes for any other challenge cache.

 

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

Jim

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.

 

My GPSr (Garmin 60CSx) doesn't support Wherigo modules. Should a Wherigo cache owner deny me a find for that reason? This is a great example of why WhereIgos shouldn't be allowed.

 

I don't have a canoe. Should all canoe caches be banned??? Duh!!!!

Share this post


Link to post

...

I don't have a canoe. Should all canoe caches be banned??? Duh!!!!

 

Yes, if you have to paddle back to land AFTER you find the cache. That's an ALR. How you get to the island doen'st matter. Sheesh. Some people. ;)

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post

 

So what you are saying is that ALR caches

  • force people to slow down and log less caches
  • force people to avoid certain caches
  • force people to do things they might not want to in order to meet some arbitrary condition
  • force people to filter through caches and add them to their 'ignore list'
  • force people to pander to a cache owner's paranoia that some people might cheat

 

A person can't be forced to do a cache they don't want to do. If it's not for them, they can skip it. I've never had an interest in Waymarking but does that mean I think it should be scrapped? Heck no, the more options the better! Every cacher out there can choose for themselves what type of cache or kind of caching experience is right for them. Each cache is clearly marked with a cache type, size, difficulty and terrain so that people know what they are getting into. If it's Unknown, Letterbox-Hybrid, Wherigo or Multi they know they need to, at the very least, read the cache page.

 

By keeping ALR's in the realm of Unknowns it allows people the choice to do it or not. It gives people the freedom to be creative and design caches with some amazing experiences. As these avenues of creativity slowly get chipped away it seems like geocaching is heading to a future of traditionals and Waymarking which would be a sad thing as it has great potential to be so much more.

 

I'm not sure how well "dress-up" or "photo" caches would work as traditions either and they are designed to give cachers a really fun experience. Cachers only get what the put into it so it's completely up to the individual cache as to how far they want to take it.

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. ...

Just like virts, the end was foretold through the inclusion of an animal carcass.

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...