Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 23
MissJenn

update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

Recommended Posts

...

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. ;)

 

Guess we better ban BFL caches because someone out there doesn't have a BFL.

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.

 

And just like virts, the actions of a few bad seeds and a few vocal cachers determined its fate as well. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

After reading all of the rhetoric on this conversation, I still think it is sad that the ALR is going away. I also think it is unfair. Some ALR caches are allowed to stay while others are not. Now reviewers will be forced to determine whether or not a "challenge" is really a challenge or just a re-worded ALR. If the rule is to do away with ALRs, all ALRs should be done away with.

 

I think it possible that a particular type of cache in my area may have contributed to the eventual ban. There are (were) several "Play-It-Forward" caches that required one to hide a new cache dedicated to the PIF in order to log a found. Personally, I really like hiding caches for others to find, so this wasn't a problem for me. But some cachers jumped up and down in a big fit and wrote all sorts of nasty notes on the pages stating their refusal to hide a cache in order to log a found. These are the same people who choose to "Take" from the game and never give anything back. They don't want to be responsible for a cache, or invest any time or creativity in participating to the fullest extent. The intent of these caches was to promote the game and get new people hiding caches for all to find. Just like everything else, GS shut this practice down because they felt it promoted poorly thought out cache placement. There are pleanty of poorly thought out caches without having been required as ALRs.

 

I really think that the decision is very dictator-like and did not consider the majority, only the "squeeky wheel"s. Only those who sought vengence to manipulate things in their own way complained enough to get the rules changed. Does it work the other way? If everyone complains enough that the new ruling was not well thought out and rash, will it get changed in some other way? Probably not. That would require someone to admit that they were wrong, even in some small way. Who admits that they're wrong anymore? Few. Very Few.

 

I do appreciate all that the reviewers do, and the fact that they do it on an unpaid basis, all so we can have fun. The job of reviewer is probably thankless and alot less fun that they first thought it might be. I'm sure this will not be an easy transition for them and there will be much strife and stress caused as a result. It would be easier if GS simply put clearer deffinitions for some of the cache types that have evolved instead of completely eliminating them. It seems that the game really is becoming more about the numbers.

 

What can you do? Sit back and decide if you will choose to play the game by the rules that are dictated, or pack up the GPS and quit. Everybody just needs to take a deep breath and sigh, "Oh Well."

Edited by conmar

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get it. Code breaking and geology lessons and trash cleanups are part of the geocaching experience, but making someone put on a silly hat and take a picture is so alien to it that it has to be banned?

 

There are lots of kinds of caches I dislike (front yard caches, caches hidden in high muggle traffic areas, etc.) but I've never had any problem ignoring them. While I never had strong feelings about ALR caches, I like that there are lots of different kinds of caches, and while this change won't affect me personally, I don't like that it made my hobby even just a little less diverse and interesting.

 

Not grandfathering them in seems extreme to me. Even virts were grandfathered in and still exist many years later. So why not these, even for a transitional period? I worry that one day I'll find out a cache type I really like will be suddenly banned. I just spent two days driving around the Everglades to finish a challenge cache that I've been working on since 2006. I have yet to get the final - what if challenge caches were the ones to get banned? Three years of effort down the drain, for nothing. Even if the change was a good idea, the way it was made strikes me as clumsy and a good way to alienate people.

Share this post


Link to post

Some on here have said this is from the "it's all about the numbers" people. I'm not so sure about that.

 

I think it has more to do with the fact that more and more players do not want to take the time to read the cache page.

 

If I read the cache page and see that it has an ALR, then I can go for it, or ignore it. If I got to a cache and it had some sort of ALR that I couldn't do, and didn't know I would have to do, I would not be happy if I couldn't log it. ( But if it had been mentioned in the cache page and I didn't read it, who's fault is that?)

 

I think the other problem is, it really seems to bother some people it there is a cache out there and they can't get it. You do not have to get every cache! You do not have to get every type of cache. You do not have to like every type of cache. Somebody some where will like that cache that you don't, let them get it and you just move on to what you do like.

Share this post


Link to post

Quick question, too...

Are Benchmarks and Earthcaches going to be moved to Waymarking, then? There are not logbooks to sign for either cache type, and Earthcaches require specific alternate logging requirements.

 

I'm not asking to fuel a fire or cause a stir; I'm simply wondering if that is a consideration in process or anything. It almost seems that, as geocaching evolves and Groundspeak branches out, things are becoming more compartmentalized with virtuals going away and Waymarking being created instead. Is the Geocaching division becoming a logbook and container-only activity?

 

Again, I'm just wondering and not trying to start a battle here!

Benchmarks are already separate. Earthcaches were left excempt rather explicitly from the new rule.

 

and

 

Yes - some years ago when virtuals went away - Groundspeak made it clear that a Geocache was a container with a logbook. (again except for the special Earthcaches).

 

Thanks for chiming in. I have clarity on the benchmarks and Earthcaches already. I'm wondering if there is a consideration for the seemingly puritanical enforcement of logging requirements.

 

As benchmarks are currently, they don't count for your geocache count. Yes; got that. However, it seems like Groundspeak is compartmentalizing. Earthcaches are AWESOME (!), but they most certainly don't fit in with the "traditional" geocache definition. If we are going to dissolve ALRs, it almost seems a bit off that Earthcaches are kept as geocaches just because they are great ways to learn about geology or natural history. They really fit Waymarks, and clearly involve ALRs without a cache container. (I LOVE Earthcaches, and am very happy that I get a smiley from them. But it doesn't seem to fit now that ALRs are limited/banned) Some ALRs are right along those lines, and it seems a shame to limit the game when some of us are just trying to spice up the game and involve people in creating and sharing interactive location-based experiences in the real world using a unique combination of technology and the internet. (That is Groundspeak's mission, stated on the home page)

 

Can a mod or lackey provide input on this?

 

If Geocaching is a logbook and container-only activity, as StarBrand clearly reinforced and we all understand, how do we justify including Benchmarks and Earthcaches in the Geocaching compartment of Groundspeak? Just food for thought...

Bolding is mine...I thought Miss Jenn was very clear about this already when she said (in her original post):

 

We have made this change because, over time, the ALRs attached to a rapidly-growing number of caches have devolved to have little or nothing to do with geocaching: the act of finding a unique container/location using latitude and longitude. Many ALRs now only distort the spirit of the game.

Share this post


Link to post

I have a series of caches that involve solving a wooden puzzle to claim a find... Simple idea but a real puzzle cache... do it or ignore it fine but that is the challenge... If the vol. bit about solving the puzzle is enforced then they will all be archived... Why, they were special and fairly unique... well in the Uk at least... Do we just want plastic micros in woods or do we want some caches which are a bit 'out of the box'? As GC keep saying we own the caches and are responsible for them... in that case we decide who gets to log them.....and when. If they wish to take control and responsibility for them fair do's... but they take it all.. responsibility and the lot, and they can keep tabs on who can and cannot claim a find. ;):laughing::unsure::blink:B):):D:P:D:D:D:D M

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get it. Code breaking and geology lessons and trash cleanups are part of the geocaching experience, but making someone put on a silly hat and take a picture is so alien to it that it has to be banned?

 

 

I think the real issue was/is the deleting of logs whether legit or not. Probably GS was getting tired of fielding log deletion squabbles over a deleted log on ALR's. You found the cache, but you didn't post the picture of you wearing the silly hat while hanging upside down on a nearby branch. There could be many reasons why you did not do this. So you get your log deleted, and you write GS complaining. Now the CO can not delete your log and you don't have to hang upside down on the branch to keep your log. I don't see that as a loss to geocaching. Now maybe if Dave Ulmer required a picture of you eating a can of beans by the original stash we might have a precedent set.

 

Jim

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

This WAS your ALR.
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.

That was a silly ALR, in my opinion. I'm a premium member and may or not be on the audit log of any cache that I log. Forcing me to log a cache your way just so you can mandate something that TPTB never meant to be mandated is silly, in my opinion. Luckily, it is no longer an issue.
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. :laughing: That makes me question what the point of logging a cache online really is.

I think that you have stretched that line in the guidelines way past the breaking point.
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."

Now that these are no longer requirements, I would certainly log a cache as found and not do the suggested activity, if it wasn't fun for me.
Sad day. :unsure: 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. :blink: (We're missing a lot of interesting places without virtuals!) B) 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.
Certainly, if people have fun posting these 'interesting pictures' to your cache, then they will still do so. Archiving the cache simply because every logger won't be required to post such a picture is silly, in my opinion, but knock yourself out.
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. ...

You can still delete spoilers.
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.

Why do we care how fast someone logs the cache or whether they stop and smell the roses? Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a thought: What about those of us who don't read cache pages before we go out on a caching run, because our only plans for the day are to drive around aimlessly and find whatever caches we come across? Or, for that matter, you have to go to the next town over for an errand and take your GPSr with you to cache your way there and back? You find a bunch of caches, but didn't know that there were logging requirements, and your log gets deleted.

 

How about those who don't own a digital camera, but still want to enjoy your cache?

 

How about those of us who use the Garmin GPSMap 60CSx which has no ability to store anything but a few bits and pieces of cache information (unless of course you discovered that you can use POIs for it) and do the whole wander around aimlessly thing... I can go on and on, but I won't.

 

There is a Challenge of the Century: Micro cache near here, that you had to have logged finds on 100 micros to log a find on this one. I found it with a buddy back in January. He could log it, I couldn't. I was fine with that. Now I know where the cache is (which is good, because it took us about an hour to find), and I have logged over 100 micros, so one of these days I'll get back out there, find it again, sign it, and log it. Cool. I've accomplished something. There's the same for finding 100 caches in a day. I'm not looking for it anytime soon, because I haven't met that requirement - even with the rule change, I'm not going for it.

 

I'm not a fan of ALRs, simply because I don't know about them. If I see there's a cache in the woods where I'm at, and I hike a half hour to get there, find it, sign in, trade junk, and hike a half hour out, only to get home, log it, and the find log be deleted, I'd be pretty pissed. On the other hand, a month ago or so I went looking for a multi in the woods, not knowing it was a multi. I found the first stage, which had the coords for the second stage written on a printed out log sheet. I signed it, enjoyed the sights, and continued on my merry way. I got home and went to log it, and found that it was a multi. Still thinking that maybe I somehow was that far off that I found the final, completely skipping the first stage, I logged the find. The CO deleted it, with some rather snooty words to go along with it. "Excuse me," I said, "but maybe you shouldn't be using a freaking log sheet in the first stage, and there wouldn't be any confusion." However, all in all it was fine by me - I screwed up, even though the CO was partly to blame with bad judgment. I drove 20 miles or so up there again the next day, got the coords, spent half an hour hiking to the final, an hour looking for it, and half an hour hiking my way out without making the find. Was I pissed? Yeah, but mostly at myself.

 

The point is, most people will still do whatever you wanted them to do in the spirit of the game, but some of us didn't know we were supposed to do anything when we got there other than find the cache and sign the log. If I drive 20 miles one way to find a bunch of caches, and one find gets deleted just because I didn't take a picture of myself because I didn't know I had to, you can pound sand for all I care - I found the cache and that's what matters, and I'm likely not going to go do it again.

Share this post


Link to post

Getting kind of snippy Sbell? I don't care if you think someone else's cache is silly, stupid or whatever, or if it is three hundred feet from your front door. If you don't like it, don't do it! That message has been thrown in the face of those who are against certain micros, but I guess these forums ever got the message.

 

And no, I don't care how fast you sign the log or smell the roses, but the point I was trying to make was, numbers people like quick & easy caches, ALR caches required time to be accomplished, they are now only traditionals (which are easier to find and log, usually), and numbers people don't have to worry about trivial things that get in the way of their numbers. Yay! ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a thought: What about those of us who don't read cache pages before we go out on a caching run, because our only plans for the day are to drive around aimlessly and find whatever caches we come across? Or, for that matter, you have to go to the next town over for an errand and take your GPSr with you to cache your way there and back? You find a bunch of caches, but didn't know that there were logging requirements, and your log gets deleted.

 

How about those who don't own a digital camera, but still want to enjoy your cache?

 

How about those of us who use the Garmin GPSMap 60CSx which has no ability to store anything but a few bits and pieces of cache information (unless of course you discovered that you can use POIs for it) and do the whole wander around aimlessly thing... I can go on and on, but I won't.

 

There is a Challenge of the Century: Micro cache near here, that you had to have logged finds on 100 micros to log a find on this one. I found it with a buddy back in January. He could log it, I couldn't. I was fine with that. Now I know where the cache is (which is good, because it took us about an hour to find), and I have logged over 100 micros, so one of these days I'll get back out there, find it again, sign it, and log it. Cool. I've accomplished something. There's the same for finding 100 caches in a day. I'm not looking for it anytime soon, because I haven't met that requirement - even with the rule change, I'm not going for it.

 

I'm not a fan of ALRs, simply because I don't know about them. If I see there's a cache in the woods where I'm at, and I hike a half hour to get there, find it, sign in, trade junk, and hike a half hour out, only to get home, log it, and the find log be deleted, I'd be pretty pissed. On the other hand, a month ago or so I went looking for a multi in the woods, not knowing it was a multi. I found the first stage, which had the coords for the second stage written on a printed out log sheet. I signed it, enjoyed the sights, and continued on my merry way. I got home and went to log it, and found that it was a multi. Still thinking that maybe I somehow was that far off that I found the final, completely skipping the first stage, I logged the find. The CO deleted it, with some rather snooty words to go along with it. "Excuse me," I said, "but maybe you shouldn't be using a freaking log sheet in the first stage, and there wouldn't be any confusion." However, all in all it was fine by me - I screwed up, even though the CO was partly to blame with bad judgment. I drove 20 miles or so up there again the next day, got the coords, spent half an hour hiking to the final, an hour looking for it, and half an hour hiking my way out without making the find. Was I pissed? Yeah, but mostly at myself.

 

The point is, most people will still do whatever you wanted them to do in the spirit of the game, but some of us didn't know we were supposed to do anything when we got there other than find the cache and sign the log. If I drive 20 miles one way to find a bunch of caches, and one find gets deleted just because I didn't take a picture of myself because I didn't know I had to, you can pound sand for all I care - I found the cache and that's what matters, and I'm likely not going to go do it again.

 

You're responsible for your own actions. Mindlessly downloading waypoints, while not paying attention to details like the cache is a multi, or a puzzle, or a formally allowed ALR cache, is your fault, not others. Geocache hiders shouldn't need to hold geocaches finders hands because they can't be bothered to read cache page details.

 

I know of one local geocacher who writes very comical DNFs on my geocaches. He can't be bothered with reading my descriptions, so he goes hunting, and DNFs frequently. His DNFs are some of my favorite logs.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok I have read through the guidlines and this forum 1 1/2 times but can someone please tell me

 

if these new guidlines affect the placing of say a liar cache, where the finder is given a story to follow

 

when they are posting there log?

 

My understanding is that it would be a ALR and therefore not published.

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

 

{snip}

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.

 

What I had asked was if that was what the person I was replying to was saying... I too had have had ALR caches

 

As for part that I made bold text well that seems easy to answer, but likely isn't. It would work exactly the same way.

 

Case in point would be Amazon Annie's - "Some like it hot" cache which has up until now been listed incorrectly as a Traditional Cache, and even though I could have just logged a find I still chose to participate because it sounded like fun (danger, unpleasant image... eeek!)

 

Doesn't seem that there was ever a problem with the cache, and now those that were too shy or may have has moral reservations concerning the cache can now log it too. Not seeing a loss anywhere in this 'update'. Those that want to participate in the extra can, everyone can laugh, and those that don't can still get a smiley. Again, who is losing here? And I would then ask more importantly, why are they losing?

 

;) BQ

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a thought: What about those of us who don't read cache pages before we go out on a caching run, because our only plans for the day are to drive around aimlessly and find whatever caches we come across? Or, for that matter, you have to go to the next town over for an errand and take your GPSr with you to cache your way there and back? You find a bunch of caches, but didn't know that there were logging requirements, and your log gets deleted.

 

ALR caches are (or "were") labeled as mystery caches. When you cache "aimlessly", I would suggest only taking traditional cache coordinates with you!

 

But even then it's better to read the cache pages in many cases: you get background information about the cache site or the cache, you can read about the opening times of the park the cache is in etc.

 

Greetings,

Christian (Owyn)

Share this post


Link to post

 

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.

I couldn't agree with you more with what's in bold. Creativity will go out the window. What's left? A "creative" cache container? ;) How many fake pine cones can we find in a pine tree before it's also run of the mill?

 

I just archived my photo cache. And I've submitted a new one without the photo being a requirement. So now they can choose to post one or not. How does that make the cache an Unknown/Mystery cache for those NOT choosing to post a photo? :laughing:

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.

~*

I'll toss in with - obviously - the account holder of the geocaching account that actually signed the log.

 

right??

 

Usually that would be so. :unsure: But what about those who are wheelchair/disabled? How are they to go and do geocaching? Are we to exclude them just because they can't do what just about everyone else can? :laughing: I do not believe that this should be so. They can't help the fact that they are that way. Okay, well neither can we. But that doesn't mean that we should make rules that exclude them just because they are limited in what they can and cannot do. I, on my geocaches, put whether I think or whether I know if a certain cache in question(usually the one they are looking at at that time), is wheelchair/disabled accessible or not. If it is questionable, then I put what I like to call my special wheelchair/disabled person(s) rules. B) Below is basically what is on the page if it is questionable.

 

*Although this is not wheelchair accessible,(or may or may not be wheelchair accessible as it says on some cache pages) I do allow other people to do the cache for wheelchair people and disabled people and still count it as a find for both if both the wheelchair/disabled person(s) and the person(s) doing for them are geocachers. If so, please put both usernames in the log. I like to be fair and find ways to include wheelchair people and disabled people, and I am hoping that by doing this, more people that would not normally be able to find the caches or go on the hikes/trips to go find them may still participate in some way in getting these caches and counting them as a find. I assure you I have felt in some measure, the sadness that you do through personal experience. Now more people can have fun. Thanks and I hope that you like this new way. Please feel free to contact me through my e-mail if you have any questions or comments. If the other person is not a cacher, I would appreciate it if the person who gets the cache for you is the owner of the house or someone that you know and trust not to take or destroy the cache or perform any other form of rude or harsh treatment. Thanks and have a lot more fun from now on, everyone. Thank you. :D

 

I believe that just because they can't do everything we can doesn't mean they should just be shut out of our activities that they can't participate in. ;) They should be able to participate in them. That is why I made those rules. It really is not an ALR because it does not say that you have to do anything else to complete it. It is merely a partial antidote to the problem that they face, thus enabling them to participate in more of the sport, even if it is only the fact that they are accompanying the(sometimes others) cacher(s) to the site and then staying in the vehicle because they can't get up the slope to the cache. :) This is actually helpful when the other person, whether they are the able cacher or not, is a good puzzle solver, :blink: or something like that. :P I hope that this reaches some cachers' hearts and helps to do something about the problem at hand. Meanwhile we will do what we can. I give official permission to any cacher to copy/paste the wheelchair/disabled person(s) rules onto their cache page, or to use them for their caches. If you feel like they need editing then please tell me. If you want to change them ever so slightly for your caches, then feel free to do so. Just please put that you got permission from me(please make sure to include my username when you do so) so if any problems arise I can take care of them as soon as possible. Thank you, and have a great day. gwf :D

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.

:laughing::unsure::blink:

 

<goes off to submit an Earthcache based on an animal carcass...> ;)

Share this post


Link to post

I have a series of caches that involve solving a wooden puzzle to claim a find... Simple idea but a real puzzle cache... do it or ignore it fine but that is the challenge... If the vol. bit about solving the puzzle is enforced then they will all be archived... Why, they were special and fairly unique... well in the Uk at least... Do we just want plastic micros in woods or do we want some caches which are a bit 'out of the box'? As GC keep saying we own the caches and are responsible for them... in that case we decide who gets to log them.....and when. If they wish to take control and responsibility for them fair do's... but they take it all.. responsibility and the lot, and they can keep tabs on who can and cannot claim a find. ;):laughing::unsure::blink:B):):D:P:D:D:D:D M

Share this post


Link to post
I have a series of caches that involve solving a wooden puzzle to claim a find... Simple idea but a real puzzle cache...

If the cache was a traditional and then to claim the find you have to demonstrate your ability to do wooden puzzles, I'd say that's exactly the guideline change is there.

 

On the other hand, if you made the cache into a genuine multi/mystery where the puzzle is at WP1 and you have to solve it to get some info which lets you find the coordinates, that would seem to address all the concerns about creativity and have the additional advantage of not requiring "policing" on your part. Owning an ALR cache, like owning a virtual or an Earthcache, involves all kinds of subjective decisions on the part of the cache owner. There are almost no ALRs where someone can't find a way to "almost" do it, and then, if the two individuals decide to stick to their guns, it can quickly turn into a slanging match.

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...

The reason we have ALR caches in the first place was exactly because Groundspeak choose to give cache owners the capability to delete logs. It was a short matter of time before cache owner began posting additional requirements and deleting logs that didn't meet the requirements. The new guidelines specifically removes the right of cache owners to delete a log of someone who doesn't meet an ALR. I don't know how Grounspeak intends to enforce this. Perhaps they will ban users who delete logs for failing to do an ALR. Perhaps they will be able to reinstate logs when the finder complains and then lock these so the owner can no longer delete them. Once they start enforcing the guideline people will complain that their log was deleted because the owner got up on the wrong side of the bed. Someone at Groundspeak is going to be kept busy, looking at deleted logs to decide if the owner was reasonable in deleting the log. The list of "can I deletes..." was put together to make just this point. A person whose log is deleted for any of those reasons is likely to make the argument that these are ALRs - whether or not the cache owner specifically mentions logs will be deleted. They will appeal the deleted log to Groundspeak and demand the Groundspeak enforces their guidelines. Good luck to the Groundspeak lackey whose job it will be to adjudicated these disputes.

Share this post


Link to post
One of the groups pushing for this guideline change was a substantial majority of the volunteer reviewers.
Thank you for pointing this out.

 

How do I avoid people claiming a find that have not climbed the pillar?
You don't. How much does it cost you if someone does it? If your cache is really awesome, there will be two classes of people who claim a find: the ones who made the climb (and get bragging rights) and those who avoid eye contact and admit that all they did was hold the safety rope, or the phone with 911 pre-dialled and ready to send.
There may also be those who engineer a way to retrieve and replace the cache without climbing the pillar. Just as there are often multiple ways to solve a puzzle, there can be multiple ways to overcome a physical challenge like this.

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 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

force people to slow down and log less cache - Since my caches are all long hikes and often on trails with few caches, I guess I'm forcing the numbers cachers to slow down and log less caches.

 

force people to avoid certain caches - I know some people avoid my caches - they're too far to walk and you can drive the Jeep to them either.

 

force people to do things whey might not want to in order to meet some arbitrary condition - A lot of people don't like my arbitrary decision to hide caches at least 2 miles from a trailhead or to make the puzzles require a bit more effort to solve.

 

force people to filter through caches and add them to their 'ignore list' - I'm pretty sure there are people adding some of my caches to ignore list and other other who filter out any caches with terrain 3 or more.

 

force people to pander to a cache owner's paranoia that some people might cheat - since I'm not paranoid about this I don't have ALRs to send a code word in any of my caches. But I know of several people with difficult cache who added this. My suspicion is that this is not the type of ALR that caused Groundspeak to change the guideline. It is a shame that people who want to have this small additional verification that a person actual found the cache can no longer make it a requirement.

 

What gets me is are the people who are so happy that ALRs can no longer be enforced. It really seems that people felt that an ALR that was either too difficult to comply with or too silly to want to comply with was interpreted as meaning - Ha ha, I've hidden a cache that YOU can't find. It seems these people are happy know because they can go an log another cache that before they had to ignore because they either couldn't or choose not to comply with the ALR.

 

I am certain there are cachers would who like every cache that I've hidden banned - because the puzzle is too hard or the cache is to far to walk to. So when ever someone post "good riddance" in this thread I cringe a little.

Share this post


Link to post

We'll seek out the ALRs and do them because it adds to the experience.

Cache owners can still suggest a cacher to perform a task. Only compulsory ALR have been removed.

No one is forced to perform a task if he wants to log a cache but he can if he likes to to so.

 

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

Fun is the only reason why I do geocaching.

But doing silly things is no fun for me.

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

Yes, I belive that would be okay, unless they are disabled in some way or if it is by water, or cliffs. BUt if you want to really make it hard, but safe, put on the cache page that such and such container is by cliffs or by water, so they know to be careful.

 

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

 

Yes, unless they had tried several times and had put in an honest effort, and preferrably includes in their log at least two good references, such as other cachers and such.

 

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

 

Only if the park actually has more than a couple signs sprinkled around a several acre property. Example: If the person is not familiar with the area and/or if the area where they came in through doesn't have really any fences that look like they are from the last twenty years(and preferrably look upkept in some places at least), and/or if they came in through the hills on the outskirts of the city/town/park.

 

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

 

Now here is an interesting question. Refer to the last question if you have any problems with this one. Again, IF the person(s) in question are not from the area where the cache is, then it is debatable. If they are not from the area, then they surely can try to observe at least some of the laws there, but how are they to know the smaller less important laws, or the one that only the neighborhood in question has and follows. If it sounds confusing, I know, and I am sorry. But that is how it is sometimes and in some places.

 

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?

 

Again, it is difficult to say about exactly every cache whether or not it is accessible or not without living in the area. Also, it depends on things such as how fit you are, how tall/big around you are, and how much experience you have with such and such, and most of all, whether you are capabole of doing so without damaging stuff at that time. Oh, and you have to take into accountability weather, what season it is and what exactly you are dealing with at that time. There are several other factors included such as age, and energy too. What happens is both the responsibility of the owner of the cache and the owner of the property, but also of the cacher looking for the cache in question at that time.

 

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

 

This matters more if you can climb at all, followed by how well you can climb, whether it be trees or cliffs. That is up to the cache owner, but also to the cacher looking for the cache in question. If they can't climb for some reason that is probably more physical than anything, then what does it really matter if they use a pole to get it as long as they don't damage anything? In my opinion, if they can safely get it down and back up without it getting stolen or attracting a lot of attention, then it shouldn't matter, as long as nobody gets hurt. If it happens to damage property, then that is probably not the best way to get it. If not, well then I say, congratulations, and I would usually leave it alone at that, unless I could see that as being a potential problem. Then I would address it properly so that it didn't cause a lot of trouble with people.

 

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

 

Not really, because this incorporates the same thing as in the last four questions. But if you want a short summary, if the kid is a cacher, or if he/she is just accompanying their parent(s), and especially if the adult(s) in question can't get up there for some reason, then NO, it is not a valid reason to delete a cache log. If the person were to have to specify if the kid is a cacher or not, or the name of the kid, and e-mail or post in the log a reason why that happened that way,(whether or not they post a pic with the person(s) in question) then I see that as being entirely legal. So no you really couldn't go about deleting them just because the person who posted the find did not go up thewmselves to get the cache.

 

.....

 

;)

 

By the way, the stuff in bold are my replies. I did it that way to simplify posting stuff here, for obvious reasons(I hope that they are obvious). :laughing::unsure::blink:

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.

 

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.

Absolutely!

Share this post


Link to post

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

Take a look at GC14TNE and GC150A7. Not in English language but looking at the pictures you can see what tasks had to be performed to get permission to log this "caches".

Share this post


Link to post
One of the groups pushing for this guideline change was a substantial majority of the volunteer reviewers.
Thank you for pointing this out.

 

How do I avoid people claiming a find that have not climbed the pillar?
You don't. How much does it cost you if someone does it? If your cache is really awesome, there will be two classes of people who claim a find: the ones who made the climb (and get bragging rights) and those who avoid eye contact and admit that all they did was hold the safety rope, or the phone with 911 pre-dialled and ready to send.
There may also be those who engineer a way to retrieve and replace the cache without climbing the pillar. Just as there are often multiple ways to solve a puzzle, there can be multiple ways to overcome a physical challenge like this.

The point of this cache is to have the climbing "experience", not to sign the log. I guess it will be the loggers loss if they decide to "cheat". (Note that I wrote "loggers" not "finders")

BTW this container weighs 30+ pounds and is 3 feet tall... it will take a lot of engineering to get this container down from the pillar and back up, without a person on top! You can see the container from a mile away! ;):laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

.

 

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.

 

Let's see, if I don't like the three strikes rule in baseball, can I keep swinging until I get a hit. Won't be fun for me if I can't. Why should anyone tell me I can't. You get to play with three strikes if you like. I get to play with four, five or more. That's more fun for more people, a win/win for sure.

 

Will someone please stop the insanity.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Let's see, if I don't like the three strikes rule in baseball, can I keep swinging until I get a hit. Won't be fun for me if I can't. Why should anyone tell me I can't. You get to play with three strikes if you like. I get to play with four, five or more. That's more fun for more people, a win/win for sure.

 

Will someone please stop the insanity.

Using your example, the American league used to require the pitcher to be "at bat" just like everyone else...then they changed the rules to allow a designated hitter.

 

GC.com changed their rules...whether you like it or not.

Edited by Allanon

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.

If you don't want to have your caches to be found quickly just hide them some 100 meters away from the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Getting kind of snippy Sbell? I don't care if you think someone else's cache is silly, stupid or whatever, or if it is three hundred feet from your front door. If you don't like it, don't do it! That message has been thrown in the face of those who are against certain micros, but I guess these forums ever got the message.
I just reread my post twice (and fixed a typo). I can't find a snippy bit in there. Perhaps it was the fact that I stated that some ALRs were silly. Certainly, I am allowed to my opinion. After all, you gave yours, didn't you?

 

Regarding your "don't like it, don't do it" comment, that has always been my practice. There are plenty of ALRs that I have not bothered looking for. Of course, now that the extraneous activities are not required, I have no doubt that I will go ahead and find some of these.

And no, I don't care how fast you sign the log or smell the roses, but the point I was trying to make was, numbers people like quick & easy caches, ALR caches required time to be accomplished, they are now only traditionals (which are easier to find and log, usually), and numbers people don't have to worry about trivial things that get in the way of their numbers. Yay! ;)
It's certainly true that no one need do your ALS if they do not feel the need, for whatever reason. My point was that I fail to see how my not wanting to wear a lice ridden hat robs anyone else of their fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Getting kind of snippy Sbell? I don't care if you think someone else's cache is silly, stupid or whatever, or if it is three hundred feet from your front door. If you don't like it, don't do it! That message has been thrown in the face of those who are against certain micros, but I guess these forums ever got the message.
I just reread my post twice (and fixed a typo). I can't find a snippy bit in there. Perhaps it was the fact that I stated that some ALRs were silly. Certainly, I am allowed to my opinion. After all, you gave yours, didn't you?

 

Regarding your "don't like it, don't do it" comment, that has always been my practice. There are plenty of ALRs that I have not bothered looking for. Of course, now that the extraneous activities are not required, I have no doubt that I will go ahead and find some of these.

And no, I don't care how fast you sign the log or smell the roses, but the point I was trying to make was, numbers people like quick & easy caches, ALR caches required time to be accomplished, they are now only traditionals (which are easier to find and log, usually), and numbers people don't have to worry about trivial things that get in the way of their numbers. Yay! :laughing:
It's certainly true that no one need do your ALS if they do not feel the need, for whatever reason. My point was that I fail to see how my not wanting to wear a lice ridden hat robs anyone else of their fun.

 

Your opinion is as important as mine! Your pointing out that it WAS an ALR cache was snippy, IMO.

 

So you won't go after caches you don't like, that is your right given to us by the mighty geocaching gods. But I have to ask you, if you had the right to dictate what caches were acceptable or not, would you allow caches you don't like to do? Would you allow open discussions about it, or is your word law? Just askin'.

 

Serious now, since these are banned, most people will not go the extra mile. Why should they? Hasn't the evolution of geocaching proven that smaller, quicker, and easier finds have become the overwhelming norm? More logs have become TNLN TFTC and not much else. Maybe ALRs are an owner's way of making the cache more interactive and gives them a couple extra minutes of enjoying the area around them. Yeah, there are other ways of doing it and you can't force people to enjoy an area. That's just my interpretation of it and only mine.

 

I like diversity, because I come from an area that isn't very diverse. I can't gripe too much about having too many caches I hate, because I only have so many caches around me. The day I want caches banned is the day I finally have a lot of caches round me. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

;) Groundspeak is killing our hobby continuous

Wrong. YOU don't like the rules that THEY are making on THEIR website.

 

YOU are free to go somewhere else or create your own website.

 

MY hobby still works just fine and is in fact better for me.

Share this post


Link to post
I have a series of caches that involve solving a wooden puzzle to claim a find... Simple idea but a real puzzle cache...

If the cache was a traditional and then to claim the find you have to demonstrate your ability to do wooden puzzles, I'd say that's exactly the guideline change is there.

 

On the other hand, if you made the cache into a genuine multi/mystery where the puzzle is at WP1 and you have to solve it to get some info which lets you find the coordinates, that would seem to address all the concerns about creativity and have the additional advantage of not requiring "policing" on your part.

 

Now this is what I meant when I said in my other thread about a 3D puzzle if you want to go read it. It was going to include a 3D puzzle, probably wooden, and it would have numbers for coords on some of the pieces. They when completed, would basically point the person to a series of different spots. Only one of them would have a container revealing the coords to the final. If you want more info, please look at my thread about a 3D puzzle. Thanks. gwf P.S. Hope this isn't off topic.

Share this post


Link to post

.

 

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.

 

Let's see, if I don't like the three strikes rule in baseball, can I keep swinging until I get a hit. Won't be fun for me if I can't. Why should anyone tell me I can't. You get to play with three strikes if you like. I get to play with four, five or more. That's more fun for more people, a win/win for sure.

 

Will someone please stop the insanity.

Using your example, the American league used to require the pitcher to be "at bat" just like everyone else...then they changed the rules to allow a designated hitter.

 

GC.com changed their rules...whether you like it or not.

 

That is not correct. I was not referring to the GC.com rules. The rules in baseball may change from time to time, but at any point in time, everyone is playing by the same rules. You will find no baseball game anywhere where two teams on the field at the same time are playing by different rules. Yet, in the world of Geocaching, we have people making up their own rules as they go along and crying foul when others take exception.

 

But since you bring up GC.com, I'll offer a different example.

 

Imagine baseball deciding that all games must now end after nine innings and be recorded as a tie if need be, then nullifying every prior victory ever earned by a team in extra innings.

 

This is the type of thing GC.com has done and will continue to do as long as it feels safe as a monopoly enterprise.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

The point of this cache is to have the climbing "experience", not to sign the log. I guess it will be the loggers loss if they decide to "cheat". (Note that I wrote "loggers" not "finders")

BTW this container weighs 30+ pounds and is 3 feet tall... it will take a lot of engineering to get this container down from the pillar and back up, without a person on top! You can see the container from a mile away! :laughing::unsure:

Just today a cacher in our area informed me that "the reason" for a cache is to find the cache. It's apparently not to have any other possible fun associated with a cache. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Agree with the change here... people in other regions were using ALRs to force their own rules (e.g. "you MUST be a Premium Member to log this Premium Member only cache".. no (GS-approved) backdoor for you) and using some ludicrous things as the requirement ("animal carcass picture"). The biggest win for players is the removal of ALR caches from the "puzzle category". Phew. So now I don't have to screen new Puzzle Caches for non-puzzle caches. Now, again, the fact they have that "?" icon means you have to do something before you get to the cache.

 

All the more palatable as I love the fact that Challenge caches (delorme etc) can stay as they are as Puzzle caches.As they should be, you need to complete something BEFORE you get there.

 

If you want people to complete a task at the cache, think of some way to incorporate it as an offset cache, or make it so darn fun everyone will WANT to do it. Win-Win.

Edited by Maingray

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."

 

I plan on doing just that.

The Groucho Marx glasses have been missing from the cache for a quite a while, and the owner doesn't seem to care. Meanwhile, I was supposed to stick them on my face and take a photo. I'd just as soon stick your toothbrush in my mouth. I'm a pretty, (well slightly), tough guy, who doesn't mind a bit of dirt, or even some slime. Heck, I'll even eat food that has been dropped on the ground, (the ten second rule), :laughing:, but I'll be damned if I'll ever stick someone else's glasses on my face or hat on my head.

 

The cache in question is on an overlook above a lake in a popular recreational area. I've pretty much found all of the caches in the area and even added one of my own. I've skipped this one out of respect of the ALR, (which was in force way before the whole puzzle/mystery thing), and the fact that because of my obvious phobia about germs/critters on the head and face, I would never be able to fulfill the requirement.

 

Now that I am allowed to log it, I plan on visiting and then posting a very respectful "Found it" log, along with a maintenance report. It's been over a year since the last find.

Share this post


Link to post
Getting kind of snippy Sbell? I don't care if you think someone else's cache is silly, stupid or whatever, or if it is three hundred feet from your front door. If you don't like it, don't do it! That message has been thrown in the face of those who are against certain micros, but I guess these forums ever got the message.
I just reread my post twice (and fixed a typo). I can't find a snippy bit in there. Perhaps it was the fact that I stated that some ALRs were silly. Certainly, I am allowed to my opinion. After all, you gave yours, didn't you?

 

Regarding your "don't like it, don't do it" comment, that has always been my practice. There are plenty of ALRs that I have not bothered looking for. Of course, now that the extraneous activities are not required, I have no doubt that I will go ahead and find some of these.

And no, I don't care how fast you sign the log or smell the roses, but the point I was trying to make was, numbers people like quick & easy caches, ALR caches required time to be accomplished, they are now only traditionals (which are easier to find and log, usually), and numbers people don't have to worry about trivial things that get in the way of their numbers. Yay! :laughing:
It's certainly true that no one need do your ALS if they do not feel the need, for whatever reason. My point was that I fail to see how my not wanting to wear a lice ridden hat robs anyone else of their fun.
Your opinion is as important as mine! Your pointing out that it WAS an ALR cache was snippy, IMO.
I disagree. It was a statement of fact used as a counterpoint to the assertion that a specific ALR exists.
So you won't go after caches you don't like, that is your right given to us by the mighty geocaching gods. But I have to ask you, if you had the right to dictate what caches were acceptable or not, would you allow caches you don't like to do? Would you allow open discussions about it, or is your word law? Just askin'.
Of course I would. A quick search of my posts will show that I am not an advocate of doing away with those caches that I don't enjoy, such as puzzles. The fact that you are accusing me of advocating that caches that I don't like be banned tells me that you are not familiar with my positions on many oft posted topics.
Serious now, since these are banned, most people will not go the extra mile. Why should they?
I believe that people will continue to do these requested activities if they find them to be fun. Let me ask you this: Are you going to stop performing these actions simply because they are no longer required?
Hasn't the evolution of geocaching proven that smaller, quicker, and easier finds have become the overwhelming norm? More logs have become TNLN TFTC and not much else. Maybe ALRs are an owner's way of making the cache more interactive and gives them a couple extra minutes of enjoying the area around them. Yeah, there are other ways of doing it and you can't force people to enjoy an area. That's just my interpretation of it and only mine.
It's one that I don't agree with.
I like diversity, because I come from an area that isn't very diverse. I can't gripe too much about having too many caches I hate, because I only have so many caches around me. The day I want caches banned is the day I finally have a lot of caches round me. ;)
We are in basic agreement, with the exception that I have plenty of caches around me, but still don't advocate the banning of any. That being said, it doesn't change the fact that ALRequests are still around, while ALRequirements are history. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

 

Now that I am allowed to log it, I plan on visiting and then posting a very respectful "Found it" log, along with a maintenance report. It's been over a year since the last find.

 

Sorry, but I wouldn't consider it "respectful" no matter how polite your log might be. The owner obviously wants you to fulfill the Additional Logging Request. Choosing not to is not respectful.

 

I have one ALR cache (a "liar's cache"). I will mourn its passing. I won't consider any logs which don't fulfill the "request" (if I decide to change it to an Additional Logging "Request" cache) respectful.

Edited by Jumpin' Jack Cache

Share this post


Link to post

 

Now that I am allowed to log it, I plan on visiting and then posting a very respectful "Found it" log, along with a maintenance report. It's been over a year since the last find.

 

Sorry, but I wouldn't consider it "respectful" no matter how polite your log might be. The owner obviously wants you to fulfill the Additional Logging Request. Choosing not to is not respectful.

 

I have one ALR cache (a "liar's cache"). I will mourn its passing. I won't consider any logs which don't fulfill the "request" (if I decide to change it to an Additional Logging "Request" cache) respectful.

In that case, since the ALR "device" is no longer in the cache, you don't advocate not logging without the ALR, and the owner won't do maintenance to replace the ALR "device", the only other option is to archive the cache.

 

How is that better?

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree. It was a statement of fact used as a counterpoint to the assertion that a specific ALR exists.

 

One that wasn't necessary

 

Of course I would. A quick search of my posts will show that I am not an advocate of doing away with those caches that I don't enjoy, such as puzzles. The fact that you are accusing me of advocating that caches that I don't like be banned tells me that you are not familiar with my positions on many oft posted topics.

 

I'm not here as often as I used to, I am going off your posts of today.

 

I believe that people will continue to do these requested activities if they find them to be fun. Let me ask you this: Are you going to stop performing these actions simply because they are no longer required?

 

Of course I will, and I will continue to ignore caches I don't like. I have a webcam cache nearby that has a load of requirements that I have yet to do, but I have done challenges that require me to find a cache in every county in Michigan and a city that starts with every letter in the alphabet. To each their own.

 

I will also always have the opinion that banning caches is never the answer and it only limits the diversity that geocaching currently enjoys. We still have a lot of different caches to enjoy, but for how long... ;) I love being the conspiracy nut!

Edited by Radman Forever

Share this post


Link to post

.

 

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.

 

Let's see, if I don't like the three strikes rule in baseball, can I keep swinging until I get a hit. Won't be fun for me if I can't. Why should anyone tell me I can't. You get to play with three strikes if you like. I get to play with four, five or more. That's more fun for more people, a win/win for sure.

 

Will someone please stop the insanity.

Using your example, the American league used to require the pitcher to be "at bat" just like everyone else...then they changed the rules to allow a designated hitter.

 

GC.com changed their rules...whether you like it or not.

 

That is not correct. I was not referring to the GC.com rules. The rules in baseball may change from time to time, but at any point in time, everyone is playing by the same rules. You will find no baseball game anywhere where two teams on the field at the same time are playing by different rules. Yet, in the world of Geocaching, we have people making up their own rules as they go along and crying foul when others take exception.

That's exactly why I'm glad ALRs are gone! An ALR cache is a cache where the hider made up their own rule. Every ALR cache had a different set of rules. Now, everyone plays by the same rules. If this is about everyone playing the same way, I would think you'd be glad for the change.

 

But since you bring up GC.com, I'll offer a different example.

 

Imagine baseball deciding that all games must now end after nine innings and be recorded as a tie if need be, then nullifying every prior victory ever earned by a team in extra innings.

 

This is the type of thing GC.com has done and will continue to do as long as it feels safe as a monopoly enterprise.

What past victories does this change nullify?

Edited by Dinoprophet

Share this post


Link to post

This is all very nannyish in design. How unfortunate that Groundspeak has to take this step, due to a few challenged cache owners. I'll stop using the term cache owner now, and use the term cache hider.

 

All of the "but what if I don't bother to read those cache listings first" complainers should simply be prepared to suffer the consequences of blindly following their mystery machine to a cache that they know nothing about. I'll read the cache page first.

 

Thankfully, some of the chronically needy and easily inconvenienced folks won't have to make the decision for themselves whether they should hunt for a specific cache with an additional requirement; how safe and neat for them.

 

I hope that this change brings about the peace and contentment that it was designed to do for the reviewers that will now have to sift through a fun pile of "they deleted my log because I didn't <insert requirement here>," complaints, and , "It's an illegal ALR!"

Share this post


Link to post

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Now, again, the fact they have that "?" icon means you have to do something before you get to the cache.
Not true.

Share this post


Link to post

I quit reading these forums some time ago because I got tired of all of the whining.

 

This thread has reminded me why I don't come here much anymore.

 

Groundspeak owns this Website. If you don't like their rules, go somewhere else. There are other places to list caches. This Website is not a democracy - it's a business. If you don't like the way they do business, then take your business elsewhere.

 

If there are caches you think are lame, annoying, or stupid, then ignore them.

 

If people would quit trying to circumvent the guidelines by creating objectionable caches in the loopholes, then Groundspeak wouldn't have to keep closing the loopholes.

 

STOP WHINING!

 

And people wonder why I chose to no longer be a reviewer...

Edited by Web-ling

Share this post


Link to post

 

Now that I am allowed to log it, I plan on visiting and then posting a very respectful "Found it" log, along with a maintenance report. It's been over a year since the last find.

 

Sorry, but I wouldn't consider it "respectful" no matter how polite your log might be. The owner obviously wants you to fulfill the Additional Logging Request. Choosing not to is not respectful.

 

I have one ALR cache (a "liar's cache"). I will mourn its passing. I won't consider any logs which don't fulfill the "request" (if I decide to change it to an Additional Logging "Request" cache) respectful.

In that case, since the ALR "device" is no longer in the cache, you don't advocate not logging without the ALR, and the owner won't do maintenance to replace the ALR "device", the only other option is to archive the cache.

 

How is that better?

 

Gotta admit, ya lost me somewhere there in the "nots" (and not being snarky or adversarial).

 

My referenced cache "requires" that the finder make up a lie about the "fabulous" swag and travails required to find the cache. Ratings are true to the real effort involved.

 

The only "device" required is to write a bit more than "TFTC SL". The only extra maintenance required from me is to gently suggest that anyone who doesn't fulfill that "requirement" edit their log. I can handle that.

 

"Suggesting" doesn't work, I have tried it.

 

Archiving is better than the other option because I think that folks willing to go to the little bit of extra effort are doing more than just checking one off the list and they should be rewarded because I appreciate it. I will admit to going for numbers and checking off lists myself but I also have enough respect for COs to ignore some caches and not bitch about it and do accept the fact that there are caches on my "nearest" list that I'm not ever gonna find.

 

Edited to take out a comma that had no business being there...;)

Edited by Jumpin' Jack Cache

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...