Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 23
MissJenn

update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

Recommended Posts

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.

I agree. The cache listing is confusing.

 

I read this statement "As with other caches I have recently put out, this cache is reserved for anyone who has yet to claim a FTF. All other entries will be deleted." as if you have ever had a FTF, you cannot log a find on this cache.

 

If that is not the case, the wording needs to be changed.

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.

 

Ok....MORE likely to be a real puzzle cache then ;)

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...:laughing:

Obviously a misunderstanding. No offense taken.

 

This was the post Don mentioned and the one I was referencing (bolding is mine):

 

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), :unsure:, 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

 

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...:laughing:

Obviously a misunderstanding. No offense taken.

 

This was the post Don mentioned and the one I was referencing (bolding is mine):

 

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), :unsure:, 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.

 

Hope I don't bork the quote thingy, but that's a maintenance issue, not an ALR issue.

Share this post


Link to post

I will make my closing arguments (Yay! The idiot is done!) just to say I believe that this doesn't make sense. Reviewers are tired of dealing with deleted logs, but all genres of caches with requirements (and traditionals also) have bossy cache owners deleting logs. Requiring finders to do some task, some silly, happen as challenges, puzzles, math, and earthcaches. Earthcaches, puzzles, and math caches require nongeocaching-related tasks to be completed. Some have overgeneralized that ALR caches distort geocaching's good name (like LPCs don't), that the owners are bullies that unfairly delete people's logs (like that doesn't happen with all caches), and many of the requirements are dumb and/or silly. Of course, this isn't mentioned as only opinion, because that is all that it is.

 

Crazy conspiracy time: I believe this sets up the road for later that all caches that require more than signing a log will ultimately be banned. The logic that banning one type of cache that has requirements and not the others doesn't make much sense. All of those caches are a pain in the butt to review and GC.com's stance has gone back to the basic that caches need to have a log to sign, which was fine until that will become the only requirement that will be allowed. Nothing else.

 

This just doesn't make sense to me, but I guess that is just me, eh?

Share this post


Link to post

 

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! :anicute: 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. :rolleyes: 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.

 

Wow!

 

With that experience, I'd have returned my GPSr to the vendor and given up on the whole idea. I'm glad that you quickly figured out that you chose a butthead CO for your first cache.

Share this post


Link to post
What's significant here is the rights of owners over their caches.

I just checked the Bill of Rights for my country. I don't see anything in there expressing these "rights" you mention.

Got a link?

 

GC1NH64 is a good example.

"You are only allowed to log if:

 

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

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

What a bizarre ALR. How could one "prove" they haven't phoned a friend in a year?

Submit phone records for yourself and every other geocacher you know?

 

I posted the new guidelines on Gernot90's No members please geocache. He can no longer delete the valid logs of premium members who find his cache. :D

:lol::rolleyes::lol::anicute::lol::laughing::lol::laughing:

 

And for the record, ALS is a disease.

Actually, (for the record), ALS is a three letter acronym.

While it certainly stands for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, it also stands for Assistive Listening System, Atlanta Linux Showcase, Allocation de Logement Social, American Littoral Society and, (the important one for this topic), Additional Logging Suggestion.

Edited by Clan Riffster

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.

Is this no longer true? I guess I didn't get the memo.

If you are the type who likes people to wear funny hats at their caches, you can still suggest the finders do so, right?

If you like people rubbing blue mud in their navels, you can suggest that as well, right?

What, exactly, are you no longer allowed to do?

(besides being controlling)

 

I guess one aspect of geocaching has died

Which aspect was that? The, "let's control the behaviors of people we've never met" aspect?

 

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.

Was there something preventing you from doing this anyway?

If a cache owner had made these suggestions, instead of requirements, would you not have done them?

Sounds like you had a blast. Why would you give that up simply because a cache owner no longer wanted to control precisely how you play the game? That seems kinda shallow to me.

 

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

Enter silly argument... Stage right.

Since there are a few dozen, (at least), caches out there which I have located, for which I have not signed the log, (claiming the credit which you believe to be all important), I think it's safe to say I'm not into this game for the numbers. Yet, oddly enough, I agree with Groundspeak's decision to end the stupidity which has become so prevalent among ALRs today. Also, if you'll review my profile, you'll see what kind of caches I hide. To suggest that I don't like a challenge is quite simply preposterous.

Ergo, to claim that the folks supporting this decision fit your criteria is idiotic at best.

 

I'm being over-dramatic

You nailed 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.

:anicute::laughing::laughing:

 

<goes off to submit an Earthcache based on an animal carcass...> :rolleyes:

 

Funny you should mention animal carcass.

 

A cache was submitted that had the ALR requirement of posting a picture of the decaying carcass near the cache hide.

 

It wasn't published thankfully. Yes I could just ignore it but it looks bad for the whole hobby when newbies or other interested people see these kind of things.

 

This type of ridiculous requirements took the fun of being a volunteer reviewer for one cacher and he quit volunteering.

Share this post


Link to post

:D

Meh. I've always said that this is Groundspeak's sandbox so we have to play by their rules or go away. It's not the first change they've made that I disagreed with, and I'm sure it won't be the last, but it's still going to be a fun game to play.

 

There's only one result of this change that I'm really not looking forward to seeing....

 

Thank you, thank you. When we go caching we just want the hunt, don't want to do puzzles, add up numbers to get coordnates, or do multiples. We spend all week in front of a computer, don't want to read lengthy imaginary stories on the cache page, or try to figure out exactly what the cacher owner wants us to do and then worry that we have wasted our time finding the cache and then learning that what we did was not exactly what was required and having our log deleted. Two particular examples, we found two caches in Texas, when we went to log learned that the cacher owner wanted 4 sentences describing the unique experience. Give me a break, it was a micro stuck in a hole in a stone wall at ground level with a rock in front of it. I could see where the cache would be from 20 feet away. Another example, we went on a power run and found 100 caches that weekend. Unless there was something unusual, I just cut and pasted. One cacher emailed me and said he would delete my log if I didn't describe the unique experience because he went to a lot of trouble hiding the cache. It was a MAGNETIC keyholder on a lightpole. Wonder how long it took him to come up with this unique hide. If I want to read a plaque, then it should be my decision and not forced onto me. Okay, I will get off my soapbox before tomatoes or eggs are thrown on me.

Share this post


Link to post

Sad day. :rolleyes: 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. :anicute: (We're missing a lot of interesting places without virtuals!) :laughing: This change kills my cache.

Why would this kill your cache? Because you can no longer force people to obey your whims? If the requirement were changed to a suggestion, won't those folks who already enjoy doing ALR stuff still abide by your wishes? If not, are you so controlling that you'd be bothered by it? Look at it this way. As an ALR, your cache is currently getting found by x number of folks a year who like doing ALR type stuff. These folks are creating your "scrapbook". Judging by the posts I see here, there will still be plenty of folks in the world who enjoy ALR stuff. These folks will still be finding your cache and adding to your "scrapbook", right? The volume of the type of data you prefer will not change, will it? All that will change is an increase in the overall number of finds, right? Those interested in your "scrapbook" will still have access to the relevant data, right?

Unless, of course, you archive your cache in a fit of pique.

Then, everybody loses.

 

Your call, I reckon.

 

Perhaps geocaching.com is in some serious need of competition from a new, free-spirited website.

The free spirited competition has been in place for years. I don't see Groundspeak shaking in their boots.

 

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.

Exactly! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Now we're getting silly.

To paraphrase, (and slightly misquote), what MissJenn said about the new guideline, you can't have your online log deleted if your signature is in the logbook.

Which Wherigo have you found?

Is your name in the logbookof any Wherigo caches?

If so, you might have a valid complaint. If not, it's just more entitlement silliness.

 

do you remember the days when the official line was that creativity was encouraged?

I don't think that's changed at all. Naturally, those who currently own ALRs would have to "get creative", if they wanted their cache to continue.

 

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?

I think it's been working the other way for years.

Consider the dictator like cache owners seeking vengeance against any finders who didn't jump through whatever hoops they established.

 

Creativity will go out the window.

Creativity will only go out the window if you open the window and toss it out yourself.

You can choose to be creative, or you can choose not to be creative.

What Groundspeak says you can no longer choose, is the ability for you, as a cache owner, to impose your will on the folks finding your cache.

How does this affect your being creative?

 

But what about those who are wheelchair/disabled? How are they to go and do geocaching?

Uh... Just like everybody else?

1 ) Read a cache page.

2 ) Determine if you can get to the cache.

3 ) If the answer to # 2 is "Yes", go find it.

4 ) If the answer to # 2 is "No", don't.

 

Yet, in the world of Geocaching, we have people making up their own rules as they go along

True. In the past, having no guidelines against ALRs allowed folks, (cache owners), to make up whatever rules they wanted.

Now, with the new guideline, that's no longer the case.

Everyone has to play by the same rules.

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.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. While the above quote is an impressive example of wordsmithing, all it really amounts to is calling anyone who dislikes ALR's, for any reason, "Mindless" members of the "Park-and-grab crowd." IMHO, anyone who actually believes this is not as smart as their dexterity with the language would make them appear to be. Calling anyone who disagrees with you "mindless" is not a winning argument, no matter how much you dress it up in flowery language.

Share this post


Link to post

I will make my closing arguments (Yay! The idiot is done!) just to say I believe that this doesn't make sense. Reviewers are tired of dealing with deleted logs, but all genres of caches with requirements (and traditionals also) have bossy cache owners deleting logs. Requiring finders to do some task, some silly, happen as challenges, puzzles, math, and earthcaches. Earthcaches, puzzles, and math caches require nongeocaching-related tasks to be completed. Some have overgeneralized that ALR caches distort geocaching's good name (like LPCs don't), that the owners are bullies that unfairly delete people's logs (like that doesn't happen with all caches), and many of the requirements are dumb and/or silly. Of course, this isn't mentioned as only opinion, because that is all that it is.

 

Crazy conspiracy time: I believe this sets up the road for later that all caches that require more than signing a log will ultimately be banned. The logic that banning one type of cache that has requirements and not the others doesn't make much sense. All of those caches are a pain in the butt to review and GC.com's stance has gone back to the basic that caches need to have a log to sign, which was fine until that will become the only requirement that will be allowed. Nothing else.

 

This just doesn't make sense to me, but I guess that is just me, eh?

 

No, Radman Forever, it's not just you. Our fear is that this leads to one flavor of ice cream -- vanilla. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

Is this no longer true? I guess I didn't get the memo.

If you are the type who likes people to wear funny hats at their caches, you can still suggest the finders do so, right?

If you like people rubbing blue mud in their navels, you can suggest that as well, right?

What, exactly, are you no longer allowed to do?

(besides being controlling)

 

Which aspect was that? The, "let's control the behaviors of people we've never met" aspect?

 

Was there something preventing you from doing this anyway?

If a cache owner had made these suggestions, instead of requirements, would you not have done them?

Sounds like you had a blast. Why would you give that up simply because a cache owner no longer wanted to control precisely how you play the game? That seems kinda shallow to me.

 

Please disregard what I said this morning, that was when I was under the impression that challenge caches were also being banned. Sorry. Thanks for assuming that I like to be controlling and am shallow! Even though I don't own any cache like this and only like to do caches like them once in a while. Despite the fact that you overgeneralize everyone who owned one of these caches as controllers, which is not true, you are right people still can do these. Guess control freaks like myself can't keep people like you on a leash, eh? :rolleyes:

 

Enter silly argument... Stage right.

Since there are a few dozen, (at least), caches out there which I have located, for which I have not signed the log, (claiming the credit which you believe to be all important), I think it's safe to say I'm not into this game for the numbers. Yet, oddly enough, I agree with Groundspeak's decision to end the stupidity which has become so prevalent among ALRs today. Also, if you'll review my profile, you'll see what kind of caches I hide. To suggest that I don't like a challenge is quite simply preposterous.

Ergo, to claim that the folks supporting this decision fit your criteria is idiotic at best.

 

No one accused you of anything, at least not me. I just disagree that ALRs are stupid in general, but that is your right. Thanks for calling me (or at least my statements) idiotic!

. Edited by Radman Forever

Share this post


Link to post

When you break the tags, your post becomes difficult to read. That doesn't make it idiotic, however.

Share this post


Link to post

When you break the tags, your post becomes difficult to read. That doesn't make it idiotic, however.

 

I have trouble with breaking up the quote. Sorry. But reading red text is not hard to read.

Share this post


Link to post
I guess one aspect of geocaching has died

Which aspect was that? The, "let's control the behaviors of people we've never met" aspect?

The aspect of geocaching that has died was the simple concept that a cache owner decided what constituted a find on their own cache. The fact that Geocaching had always been that way has always been a thorn in the side of the puritans. And that they get to see it begin to erode will no doubt encourage them greatly.

 

Now it has always been the case that cache owners can't just arbitrarily delete logs. TPTB have in the past warned cache owners about arbitrarily deleting logs. The have ability to restore logs that were deleted and to lock the cache page (although this may also mean archiving the cache). However, TPTB did not do this very often. Mostly they encouraged the cache owner and the person whose log was deleted to work it out. Sometimes the told the person whose log was deleted that they could log a find on an archived cache or one of their own caches if they were so concerned about their find count being correct. (That must annoy the puritans :rolleyes: ).

 

However TPTB always allowed cache owners to post additional logging requirements and enforce them. Some cache owners used this as a way to get additional confirmation that the logger actually found the cache. Others added ALRs to make there cache standout from all the other LPCs at Wal*Mart (or whatever your stereotype of a lame cache is). You might be asked to write your log as a haiku or to post a picture of yourself standing on your head. Others had requirements to trade in theme. I used to have an ALR cache that required you to leave junk in the cache. If you didn't have any junky trade items you could leave a rock or twig you found in the area. I seem to recall someone contacting me to ask if they could copy that idea on one of their caches.

 

The change here seems to be made because some reviewers got tired of having to approve ALRs that they thought went beyond being fun, simple tasks. Since the determination of what is fun or what is simple is like the determination of what is "wow", TPTB were forced to take the same approach as they did with virtuals. Only with virtuals, 1) existing ones were grandfathered and 2) the Waymarking site allowed for something that sort of replaced them.

 

I can see the idea of asking that ALR always be optional. If they are simple and fun people will do them. If they are not simple and fun, well you can now ask, but if someone wants to find your cache anyway you can't delete their log anymore.

 

My guess is we are going to see a lot of bonus smiley caches, where cache owners will allow cacher to log an extra smiley if they do the ALR. This ticks off the puritans far more that getting their log deleted because they didn't do the ALR. It will be interesting to see if TPTB ban these caches as well.

 

As it stands now, a puritan can delete a log if someone says "Didn't sign the log because it was too wet" or "Didn't sign the log because I forget a pen". To me these are legitimate finds. But TPTB have chosen, so far, to allow puritan cache owners to enforce the "sign the log to log a find" requirement. However, it is not clear if there is any legitimate reason anymore to delete a log of someone who did sign the log. (I won't repeat my list here).

Share this post


Link to post

When you break the tags, your post becomes difficult to read. That doesn't make it idiotic, however.

 

I have trouble with breaking up the quote. Sorry. But reading red text is not hard to read.

 

I'm color blind, what red text?

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post

I'm personally glad to see ALR caches go. I have always argued here in NZ that if you get your name in the logbook - you can log the cache. If you want me to do something additional, then you better weave it in on the way to finding the container and logbook.

 

My only minor concern now is that of changing an ALR from a unknown to a trad once the ALR has been removed. Surely that is unfair on all cache finders that have found the cache as an unknown, as it will be converted back to a trad, when in reality it was more than that when it was found?

 

I'd suggest that the ALR caches be left in their current state, or archived and relisted as a trad. Much as a puzzle that has had the puzzle removed and now just has the final coords listed.

Share this post


Link to post

When you break the tags, your post becomes difficult to read. That doesn't make it idiotic, however.

 

I have trouble with breaking up the quote. Sorry. But reading red text is not hard to read.

 

I'm color blind, what red text?

 

Jim

 

Highlight the text and you can read it.

Share this post


Link to post
you know what dorothy parker said.

I assume you mean "you can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think". My sister-in-law majored in horticulture ...

 

Edward

Share this post


Link to post

I'm personally glad to see ALR caches go. I have always argued here in NZ that if you get your name in the logbook - you can log the cache. If you want me to do something additional, then you better weave it in on the way to finding the container and logbook.

 

My only minor concern now is that of changing an ALR from a unknown to a trad once the ALR has been removed. Surely that is unfair on all cache finders that have found the cache as an unknown, as it will be converted back to a trad, when in reality it was more than that when it was found?

 

I'd suggest that the ALR caches be left in their current state, or archived and relisted as a trad. Much as a puzzle that has had the puzzle removed and now just has the final coords listed.

That's exactly why I archived the original and submitted a new cache. Personally, I love finding Unknown/Mystery caches! I don't want the count to decrease.

Edited by VirginiaGator

Share this post


Link to post

Here's my two cents: First off, I'm a firm believer in "not all caches are meant to be found by all cachers." Otherwise, why even bother with difficulty/terrain ratings? I've found/not been able to find many caches that the owner has requirements for the sole reason of EARNING the stars. I enjoy it when I can find one, and I live with it when I can't. (see my personal experience below)

This is a slippery slope we're heading down. What's going to happen if people start complaining because they can't figure out the coords to puzzles, or climb trees, or go scuba diving, or buy an expensive GPSr for where-i-goes? Will those owners have to change their caches so that anyone can log them?

Anyone can do a good job of hiding a cache in the woods, and I enjoy finding those. But I really like the creativity caching brings out, and the success I feel when I have to WORK to qualify for a cache!

Personal Experience:

I spent 23 months finding caches around my house in an effort to push the "found-it" circle as far away as possible, and last Nov. had it at 6.3 miles without an unfound cache in that circle. Considering there are two HUGE state parks .5 and 3 miles from my home, and another small one with 100+ caches in that circle (it took 8 trips, hiking and biking to find all in the small park) and included dozens of puzzles solved and requirements met, I was quite proud of that accomplishment, and looked forward to new listings (even the tough ones) so I could keep the circle intact.

Then a cache requiring 50 5-star diff, and 50 5-star terr to log it appeared 3.1 miles away in one of the aforementioned parks! I currently have 6 5-star diffs, and 0 5-star terrs.

My reaction? I laughed, shrugged my shoulders, and was content that my "bubble" would have a nice hole in it for a long time. And guess what? I've started looking for caches I can find to MEET THE REQUIREMENT, no matter how long it takes. Why, because that's what the cache owner wants. Since that cache is not a "challenge" cache, should I go find it now, because I have the coords. No way.

I have a few caches with special requirements. One, called "Couples Hike" simply says that it can't be found by one person. You don't have to be a "couple" to find it, but I hid it for cacher's whose significant other isn't in to caching, like my wife, or to inspire people to group-cache on a trail (a rare event in my experience). The few people who have found it (it's more than .5 mile from pavement...) all enjoyed their walks, and I haven't had any problems or complaints. Now I have to change it?

OK, I realize that caching is at least a game, at worst an obsession, and at most a hobby, but for me these new guidelines take a lot of fun out of it.

Share this post


Link to post

 

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!

 

I'm being over-dramatic, but I don't care. This stinks. :rolleyes:

 

You are also incorrect.

 

Challenge caches have not been banned.

Share this post


Link to post

Then a cache requiring 50 5-star diff, and 50 5-star terr to log it appeared 3.1 miles away in one of the aforementioned parks! I currently have 6 5-star diffs, and 0 5-star terrs.

My reaction? I laughed, shrugged my shoulders, and was content that my "bubble" would have a nice hole in it for a long time. And guess what? I've started looking for caches I can find to MEET THE REQUIREMENT, no matter how long it takes. Why, because that's what the cache owner wants. Since that cache is not a "challenge" cache, should I go find it now, because I have the coords. No way.

That sure sounds like a Challenge Cache to me. Good luck with it and keep having fun!

Share this post


Link to post

Then a cache requiring 50 5-star diff, and 50 5-star terr to log it appeared 3.1 miles away in one of the aforementioned parks! I currently have 6 5-star diffs, and 0 5-star terrs.

My reaction? I laughed, shrugged my shoulders, and was content that my "bubble" would have a nice hole in it for a long time. And guess what? I've started looking for caches I can find to MEET THE REQUIREMENT, no matter how long it takes. Why, because that's what the cache owner wants. Since that cache is not a "challenge" cache, should I go find it now, because I have the coords. No way.

That sure sounds like a Challenge Cache to me. Good luck with it and keep having fun!

WOW never move to that part of Cali. I would be drawn to and repulsed by that cache at the same time. ...Shudder...

Share this post


Link to post

 

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!

 

I'm being over-dramatic, but I don't care. This stinks. :rolleyes:

 

You are also incorrect.

 

Challenge caches have not been banned.

 

Please read my more recent comments, I found that out this morning. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I don't think I've found an ALR, and the only ALR on my list was a "pick up ten pieces of trash in the area", and I haven't run into the ridiculous listings discussed, so I really don't have an opinion on whether dropping ALRs is good or bad. I realize that admitting to not having an opinion is grounds for being barred from the forum, so I'll make up some opinions to add.

 

Seems like a lot of people are blaming GS for something that really resulted from abuse by a few cachers.

 

I think the changes could have been much better written. There's a flat-out contradiction between the Challenge guideline and the no-ALR guildeline -- which trumps? The Challenge section seems like an afterthought.

 

I think it would have been a lot easier to say "ALRs are not allowed EXCEPT for requirements to find other caches (waymarks, benchmarks) first". That would both define challenge caches (those with such ALRs) and eliminate the contradictory wording.

 

Edward

Share this post


Link to post

...

(besides being controlling)

...

"let's control the behaviors of people we've never met" aspect?

...

wanted to control precisely how you play the game?

...

Am I to assume that you will be archiving (or converting to trad) all your puzzle caches - so that you are not controlling how people have to find your caches? Your anti-controlling rant can cut both ways. How can you be against a cache owner controlling "how you play the game" with an ALR, but still want to "control how you play the game" by requiring solving a puzzle to get the co-ords? An arguement as "idiotic" as the one you so labeled.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow... :rolleyes: After reading six pages, I'm impressed with all the ways folks found to misread, misinterpret, and complain about the ALR and related guidelines changes, which seem to be a good thing, esp. after reading the context provided on p.2 by reviewer riviouveur and other knowledgeable sources. I reeeeally don't think the sky is gonna fall, or that Unknown caches, challenge caches, or Earthcaches are next on the hit list because of the ALR change (sounds a bit like an NRA scare tactic).

 

To an earlier comment by my local pal, The Jester - Yep, I'm impacted by the potential changes in cache categories as former ALR caches are changed from Unknown to another classification. Just this week I found a ? cache for the Know Your Local Cacher Challenge that was an ALR. I admit, I did it because the ALR was so easy (talk like a pirate when you sign the log). If I need to find another ? by that cacher to complete the challenge, I won't lose any sleep over it (well...I might, his true puzzles caches are pretty tuff).

 

Anywho, for VirginiaGator and others bemoaning the imminent demise in creativity now that they can't force finders to perform stunts to their liking, you decide: Perego's Lagoon (aka The Hula Cache). I bet you can guess the ALRequest..."Bonus points for doing the hula at the cache site and posting a picture." A shocking number of finders have complied with this silliness over the past four years, despite it being optional. Some even made the mile-long trek to the cache carrying appropriate regalia.

 

These people are clearly having no fun at all...

 

bb222650-a2c6-4a02-80fc-d6b45dcc1dd6.jpg

 

2600d79c-ce45-4993-8ac7-315d226e9317.jpg

 

b0285e02-14c8-4cd9-b709-6933eea7e776.jpg

 

7878575b-eded-4ebe-ae04-1b0c5fa3bd4e.jpg

 

f9462730-32b0-4f7a-bf90-2c8a1477acd9.jpg

 

Bonus points if you can pick out three posters on this thread (including the OP) in the photos. :anicute:

 

Levity over. I now return you to the gripefest...

Share this post


Link to post

Stop allowing non-subscribers to log subscriber-only caches!

Here, here, KB!

 

I usually read all the posts in a thread before going back to reply, but this one caught my attention, so sorry if i step on the virtual toes of anyone who has responded between this and my post.

 

My husband and I often seek caches together. While it's nice to support Geocaching.com and all with paid memberships, 60 bucks per household (30 x2 for both of us to have a paid membership) seems a little silly, since only one of us would likely be using the benefits of the paid membership. Likely me, because he's lazy about these things, so I'd run the PQs and such for events, and the 'along a route' things for when we go on road trips. And since I'm often the one printing/writing out the cache details before a caching expedition, only one account is needed to access the information for PMO caches.

 

The problem is this. We both do the work finding the caches. I often mix the PMOs in with the regular ones and forget to check which is which. If you remove the ability for non-paid members to log PMO caches online, then you are denying my husband, who has possilby done all the work and found the thing while I was digging around in that pile of leaves 10 ft away, the ability to claim his find, and force our family to pay twice for only the added benefit that both of us may log our finds on PMO caches.

 

30 bucks only for access to PMOs (essentially). I don't see the value there. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post

This rule change is single handedly the laziest thing I have ever seen. Not to mention a totally missed opportunity to expand the game......

 

Could it really have been that hard to create an additional cache type? :rolleyes:

 

Of course apart from some wording changes on cache descriptions what else will change?

 

There will be those that do the ALR and those that get ignored at the events. :anicute:

Edited by OG Phatazz

Share this post


Link to post

Ha ha I've scanned down this thread and I can't see what ALR cache stands for, please help a newbie and do tell :rolleyes:

 

edit ok spotted it, Additional Log Requirements. But I still don't understand what the big deal is? What was it like before and what has changed that is so bad? Can't someone sum this up in one or two lines? Cheers

 

Merlin

Edited by Merlin1978

Share this post


Link to post

Ha ha I've scanned down this thread and I can't see what ALR cache stands for, please help a newbie and do tell :rolleyes:

 

edit ok spotted it, Additional Log Requirements. But I still don't understand what the big deal is? What was it like before and what has changed that is so bad? Can't someone sum this up in one or two lines? Cheers

 

Merlin

 

An example of what an ALR was: The cache owner puts on their cache page "To log this cache you must post a photograph of yourself wearing the pink frizzy wig and clown spectacles which I've provided in the cache box. Any logs without a photograph will be deleted."

 

This change means that such deletions of logs will no longer be allowed. The owner can suggest that the cache finder does something extra, but can not "enforce it" by deleting logs.

 

MrsB

Share this post


Link to post
Am I to assume that you will be archiving (or converting to trad) all your puzzle caches - so that you are not controlling how people have to find your caches? Your anti-controlling rant can cut both ways. How can you be against a cache owner controlling "how you play the game" with an ALR, but still want to "control how you play the game" by requiring solving a puzzle to get the co-ords? An arguement as "idiotic" as the one you so labeled.

If making silly assumptions is your thing, then go for it. I see from your profile that you are an adult, (or at least pretending to be), and as such, you are free to make whatever silly assumptions you wish, regardless of your utter lack of evidence. If you should ever reach a point in your life where you care about facts, you might be interested to know that my puzzles don't "control" anybody. You are perfectly free to find them in whatever manner you wish. In fact, a search of my past posts will reveal that I've made this very claim numerous times right here in these forums. I don't care how you get to ground zero on any of my caches, be they traditional, multi or puzzle. I hide them for my enjoyment, as well as the enjoyment of others, not to increase my ability to control others.

 

Had you bothered to do even the slightest hint of research before starting your silly rant, you would have known this. :rolleyes:

Edited by Clan Riffster

Share this post


Link to post

Wow... :anicute: After reading six pages, I'm impressed with all the ways folks found to misread, misinterpret, and complain about the ALR and related guidelines changes, which seem to be a good thing, esp. after reading the context provided on p.2 by reviewer riviouveur and other knowledgeable sources. I reeeeally don't think the sky is gonna fall, or that Unknown caches, challenge caches, or Earthcaches are next on the hit list because of the ALR change (sounds a bit like an NRA scare tactic).

 

To an earlier comment by my local pal, The Jester - Yep, I'm impacted by the potential changes in cache categories as former ALR caches are changed from Unknown to another classification. Just this week I found a ? cache for the Know Your Local Cacher Challenge that was an ALR. I admit, I did it because the ALR was so easy (talk like a pirate when you sign the log). If I need to find another ? by that cacher to complete the challenge, I won't lose any sleep over it (well...I might, his true puzzles caches are pretty tuff).

 

Anywho, for VirginiaGator and others bemoaning the imminent demise in creativity now that they can't force finders to perform stunts to their liking, you decide: Perego's Lagoon (aka The Hula Cache). I bet you can guess the ALRequest..."Bonus points for doing the hula at the cache site and posting a picture." A shocking number of finders have complied with this silliness over the past four years, despite it being optional. Some even made the mile-long trek to the cache carrying appropriate regalia.

 

These people are clearly having no fun at all...

 

bb222650-a2c6-4a02-80fc-d6b45dcc1dd6.jpg

 

2600d79c-ce45-4993-8ac7-315d226e9317.jpg

 

b0285e02-14c8-4cd9-b709-6933eea7e776.jpg

 

7878575b-eded-4ebe-ae04-1b0c5fa3bd4e.jpg

 

f9462730-32b0-4f7a-bf90-2c8a1477acd9.jpg

 

Bonus points if you can pick out three posters on this thread (including the OP) in the photos. :laughing:

 

Levity over. I now return you to the gripefest...

LOL! Those are great!!! :rolleyes:

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.

 

You may note, I am not pushing for a ban, I am merely opining...is this still OK or will I now be burned at the stake? Some of you seem overly paranoid...the mean old cache patrol is coming to ban my cache...oh my! :rolleyes::anicute:

 

Ask yourself though, if, having to find and post a picture of a dead animal, having to find 100 micros, having to do any number of less-than-imaginative ALS's is fun, why wouldn't someone do them anyway if SUGGESTED? I'd be more inclined to at least attempt to do the suggestion! Oh, it's not all about having fun, but to see if your control can reach out to the finders??? I understand.... :laughing:

 

Truly, if you need to make ridiculous ALS's to spice up your hide, you probably have less creativity than most who place a cache without the ALS. If you can't make a hide fun without adding something non-cache related forced upon the potential (I say potential because some of us would simply ignore these types, as I do) finder, then maybe you shouldn't hide it at all...just saying!

 

By the way, almost ALL my caches are ALR! Additional to finding the cache, on most of my hides, you may be required to be eaten alive by mosquitoes, torn apart by thorns, risk life and limb to poisonous plants and possibly the occassional snake, maybe get wet or at least sweaty and, on some, take long walks only to have to return the same way! You might even have to THINK and use your imagination at times!! But, not many of mine ever have been or ever will be a puzzle or have a blue question mark!

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.

 

You may note, I am not pushing for a ban, I am merely opining...is this still OK or will I now be burned at the stake? Some of you seem overly paranoid...the mean old cache patrol is coming to ban my cache...oh my! :rolleyes::anicute:

 

Ask yourself though, if, having to find and post a picture of a dead animal, having to find 100 micros, having to do any number of less-than-imaginative ALS's is fun, why wouldn't someone do them anyway if SUGGESTED? I'd be more inclined to at least attempt to do the suggestion! Oh, it's not all about having fun, but to see if your control can reach out to the finders??? I understand.... :laughing:

 

Truly, if you need to make ridiculous ALS's to spice up your hide, you probably have less creativity than most who place a cache without the ALS. If you can't make a hide fun without adding something non-cache related forced upon the potential (I say potential because some of us would simply ignore these types, as I do) finder, then maybe you shouldn't hide it at all...just saying!

 

By the way, almost ALL my caches are ALR! Additional to finding the cache, on most of my hides, you may be required to be eaten alive by mosquitoes, torn apart by thorns, risk life and limb to poisonous plants and possibly the occassional snake, maybe get wet or at least sweaty and, on some, take long walks only to have to return the same way! You might even have to THINK and use your imagination at times!! But, not many of mine ever have been or ever will be a puzzle or have a blue question mark!

Why would some of us think that cachers would do the suggested activity? How many people actually take pictures of TBs and post them to their page when it's requested? Not a whole lot. Just sayin'.

 

Now that is not fun to me. :lol: The longer I'm in this, the less appealing the woods are. I've had enough of ticks and snakes.

Share this post


Link to post

After this thread was brought to my attention on another board I stopped by to check it out and now I have only one question.

 

Has all the posting in the world ever changed the mind of TPTB?

Share this post


Link to post

Does this new guideline apply to earth caches? Without a log book ALRs are usually the means to verify a person was actually there- a picture , answers to questions about the site.

 

Making ALRs optional doesn't necessarily not make them fun.

Just reading through some of these posts I can see how with a little thinking some of the affected caches can be reworked so that instead of mailing the owner the answer to a question the owner could use that information as a stage to finding the cache. Someone was disappointed that people wouldn't read an interesting plaque the coordinates brought them to. So use that information on that plaque as a clue to the next stage of finding the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Does this new guideline apply to earth caches? Without a log book ALRs are usually the means to verify a person was actually there- a picture , answers to questions about the site.

 

Making ALRs optional doesn't necessarily not make them fun.

Just reading through some of these posts I can see how with a little thinking some of the affected caches can be reworked so that instead of mailing the owner the answer to a question the owner could use that information as a stage to finding the cache. Someone was disappointed that people wouldn't read an interesting plaque the coordinates brought them to. So use that information on that plaque as a clue to the next stage of finding the cache.

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

Share this post


Link to post

I have read many, though not all, posts in this thread and here is my 2 cents:

 

1. Given the split between those favoring ALR and those who favor ALS, it is clear that TPTB have not gone off on a lark.

 

2. Removing the ALR does not mean that cachers won't get the fun of complying with the ALR. Those who want to do the ALS will; those who don't, would not have done the cache in the first place. That someone gets a find by doing less than someone else does not diminish from the fun of those who do the ALS or the CO ... unless their fun is to know someone had to perform some, often lame, requirement. And, if that is the case, good riddance.

 

3. By removing ALR in favor of ALS, it eliminates perceived unfairness in how reviewers react to caches with ALR.

Share this post


Link to post

In germany wie have an idiom : "blind actionism"

Nothing else happened here.

 

Some "rules" given by cacheowner have been useful. I'm planning a cache since 3 months. There I wanted a prove, that cacher won't drive through the forest. I wanted to get a track and pictures per email that prove that they were walking or riding bicicles.

 

Can you help me to protect the forest? Without the possibility of a special rule? Thank you - really thank you *growl*.. I think the cache has died now. I have now no new idea to ensure, that the car will be parked somewhere.

 

If you will redefine geocaching, then I ask you:

why still exist climbing-caches or diving or "use a rubber raft",... caches? Finding a cache means to me: take a walk through a forest, park or city and try to find an ammobox or something smaller. Groundspeak has taken some cachetypes away, that you find on other platforms (eg navicache). But is "climbing" "caching"? (my answer: no - it's another type of sports - does anyone ask the trees, if they want cachers climbing up?)

 

On the other side, there will be enhancements on the geocaching.com-site, that no-one understands. Other things, that are more useful ideas and were ignored since a long time

e.g. it is impossible for Groundspeak to create a new cachetype or icon that identifies "nightcaches" correctly (recommended at night, torch needed aren't very useful)

 

I'm sad about the developement.... :rolleyes:

Edited by widdi

Share this post


Link to post

I've been dwelling on this issue because it has directly affected me. Too bad I can't seem to look at it unbiased but I'm trying.

I have read the blame game on what types of people have brought it about and can only see two.

The I can't clear my map crybabies and the idiot CO. Control freaks on both sides of the argument.

 

It actually saddens me that I have wasted so much time working on a cache that because of this change and nobody is going to experience. In order to get permission to place the cache I had to create several mapped routs to it to reduce damage and require a picture of the cache and its surroundings so the land owner didn't have to check the spot in person. It also when to several off trail locations on public land so I had to make sure the LM knew that they where not sensitive.

 

My predictions? Never mind, I already feel like I've been crapped on and don't want to deal with more because I pointed out potentials as some are want to do and I probably have to deal with in articulate fools who's only retort is "You need a proof reader."

Share this post


Link to post

The longer I'm in this, the less appealing the woods are. I've had enough of ticks and snakes.

The longer I'm in this, the more appealing the woods are. The woods are what attracted me to geocaching in the first place. Bring on the ticks and snakes! :rolleyes:

 

--Larry

Share this post


Link to post
My only minor concern now is that of changing an ALR from a unknown to a trad once the ALR has been removed. Surely that is unfair on all cache finders that have found the cache as an unknown, as it will be converted back to a trad, when in reality it was more than that when it was found?

I would think if the cache owner didn't want it converted back to a traditional they don't have to have it converted back. Any cache can be listed in the Mystery category as it is also known as "Unknown." If you don't want to let the seekers know it's a single or multi stage cache, list is as "unknown." Seems it would work to me.

Share this post


Link to post

yikes!! I don't think half these people actually read the new wording.

 

I can boil the change down to: "Addtional Logging Requirements are now optional on all caches."

 

It isn't the end.

Share this post


Link to post

After this thread was brought to my attention on another board I stopped by to check it out and now I have only one question.

 

Has all the posting in the world ever changed the mind of TPTB?

 

I seriously doubt it.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post

yikes!! I don't think half these people actually read the new wording.

 

I can boil the change down to: "Addtional Logging Requirements are now optional on all caches."

 

It isn't the end.

 

A more appropriate summation would be"

 

Completion of Additional Logging Requirements are now optional.............

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...