Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 23
MissJenn

update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

Recommended Posts

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 the area you're thinking of putting a cache is so sensitive that it can't handle people going there to cache, why are you putting a cache there in the first place? That already violates the guidelines.

 

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?)

(...)

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

 

By your definition, finding a 5-gallon bucket is not geocaching, because it's bigger than an ammo box. Also, climbing is caching, because to complete a geocaching task, you have to get to the cache. Basically, Groundspeak is defining Geocaching as finding the container and signing the log. If finding the container involves boating, climbing, rapelling, mountain biking, walking, running, hiking, [insert other activity here], then that's part of the hobby.

 

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."

 

I'm confused as to why you can no longer place this cache. There don't seem to be any ALS's (or ALR's) except to stay on the trail. Again, if the area can't handle a cache because it's too sensitive, it may not be a good idea to place one there anyway.

 

My $0.02: I will still go after and log ALS caches that I want to. I will still avoid the ones I don't want to log. I'm happy that the "?" is not as much of a catch-all catergory now. I would have prefered to see ALR's get their own catergory, because I don't always have the time to go searching, cache page by cache page through the "unknown" catergory for the puzzle caches I enjoy seeking.

 

This changes nothing in the way I play the game, and, honestly, if you feel that this change is so horrible, stop geocaching. The only way to affect change in a company is to hit them in the pocket books. So if you don't like the change, do something. Cancel your premium memberships and stop looking for and hiding caches. Archive all your caches. Start your own competing site. Switch to a competitor. An e-mail campaign to Groundspeak might work...but then again, it might not. Try a snail-mail campaign.

 

If this has made it so you no longer enjoy the activity, why keep doing it? I don't know about you, but when I start feeling really "crapped on" I stop doing whatever it is that is making me feel that way. It's not like you're obligated to continue geocaching.

 

My happiness from placing a cache is the knowledge that at least some folks will really enjoy it. If I get a "TFTC SL" log on one of my caches, it's not a big deal to me. Someone at least thought it interesting enough to sign the log. So, I guess I'm mostly on the side of being in favor of this change, or at least indifferent. The folks who want to will still do the ALS, and the folks that won't, won't. If knowing that someone will log your cache without doing the ALS destroys your happiness from placing said cache, then don't place the cache. The choice is yours.

Share this post


Link to post

What does this mean for existing Fizzy like challenge caches? Do we have to remove the requirement of finding all 81 diff/terrain ratings? If so, we might as well archive them.

A Fizzy Challenge meets the description in the new guidelines governing challenge caches. I look forward to finishing that someday myself. It is not affected.

 

A Challenge requiring the finder to take pictures of fifty different zoo animals would fare differently under the new test, at least if I were reviewing it.

 

"It is not affected" is not entirely correct. According to these guidelines, Fizzy challenge caches are most definately affected as follows:

"QUOTE

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

If I read the above correctly, a Fizzy callenge by definition would be not be allowed because of its difficulty, "substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so." (be able to complete the challenge). Also, the cache owner must have, "have met the challenge yourself" (has met the requirements that he has posted). Affected, yes but should be allowed, also yes! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

I just want to say to those who tell people not happy with the guidelines changing to "somewhere else" if we do not like what Groundspeak did. If people didn't give two craps about this site or geocaching, they wouldn't be speaking against something they believe in! Just because they don't share their enthusiasm with the rule changes, doesn't mean they aren't as committed to geocaching as you are. And if anyone has noticed, Geocaching.com IS geocaching. The other sites don't offer a quarter of what GC.com offers, that's why I love this place! :anicute:

 

I objected Groundspeak when they banned virtuals and webcams six years ago, but I am still here. I will continue to be here after ALRs are gone. It would be stupid of me or anyone else to let years of loving a hobby go to the wayside.

 

But these forums are here for a reason. There was also a reason why this update of the guidelines was put in the forums, because this is the place where geocachers can discuss it (playing nice, of course). This is a private website and the owners have a right to make sure everything stays civil, but they also allow people to have an opinion that is different from them and the regulars that come here. Forums are for discussions and debates, and that is what is going on here.

 

Will saying "I don't like the rule change do anything"? Probably not. I said my dislike for getting rid of virtuals, and they are still gone. But that doesn't mean people who object to it can't come here and give their reasons why they think it was a bad idea. Groundspeak is pretty open to its users and many historic discussions have happened here. Maybe talking about it can open the door for concessions later one, you never know!

 

So just because someone doesn't like the rule change, it doesn't mean they are just complainers or that they aren't committed to geocaching or this website. That's not a fair or accurate accusation.

 

Thank you. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

...

I don't always have the time to go searching, cache page by cache page through the "unknown" catergory for the puzzle caches I enjoy seeking.

...

This I don't understand. Don't you have to "go searching, cache page by cache page through the "unknown" catergory" to find and solve the puzzle caches?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure that this is going to create all kinds of controversy.

 

I just want to say that I support the Groundspeak staff in this decision and thank them for doing it.

Share this post


Link to post

...

I don't always have the time to go searching, cache page by cache page through the "unknown" catergory for the puzzle caches I enjoy seeking.

...

This I don't understand. Don't you have to "go searching, cache page by cache page through the "unknown" catergory" to find and solve the puzzle caches?

 

Yes, which is why I don't get to do all that many of them. When I have the time, I will do it. Now, hopefully the "?" cache will be less cluttered, and it will take less time to find the puzzles.

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:

I'm not the one on a rant about control issues. I just found it interesting that you kept bring it up (in more than one post). I was interested to see if you were really upset about control issues or just arguing for arguing sake with over-the-top phrases.

 

How does a ALR "control" anyone more than a puzzle does? You still have to do what the CO wants - solve a puzzle or do something else extra. Unless you are posting the final co-ords on your puzzle caches (and can I email you for all the co-ords the next time I'll be in your area, seeing how you don't care how a finder gets there?), you are still 'controlling' the hunter by making them go thru some hoops (whether it's solving the puzzle or finding someone to give them the co-ords or something else) to find that cache.

 

If you think about it, every cache 'controls' the finder someway or another. If nothing else, you have to go to the co-ords the CO supplies to find it.

Share this post


Link to post

"It is not affected" is not entirely correct. According to these guidelines, Fizzy challenge caches are most definately affected as follows:

"QUOTE

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

If I read the above correctly, a Fizzy callenge by definition would be not be allowed because of its difficulty, "substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so." (be able to complete the challenge). Also, the cache owner must have, "have met the challenge yourself" (has met the requirements that he has posted). Affected, yes but should be allowed, also yes! :rolleyes:

 

I think your putting an and where an or is. See the bold highlight, it is one of two, met it yourself or others can. Now the only question is what is a substantial number. This could be anywhere from 10-12 to 80% of the community. And again there is no time limit for this number to meet the challenge. So I would say the number requirement is pretty open ended and subject to reviewer interpretation. I really don't see or imagine reviewers or GS rejecting a fizzy challenge. Note that challenge caches were pretty much left alone.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post

 

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.

 

To clarify, I was asking about the compartmentalization of geocaching, not ALRs specifically.

 

If there is a cache with an ALR, if the ALR adds to the cache experience (ie, post something in your log about your experience, or the location, or blah blah rather than just a TNLNSLTFTC...) it certainly falls right in with Groundspeak's very own Mission Statement, as found on the Groundspeak homepage:

 

"Groundspeak enables people to create and share interactive location-based experiences in the real world using a unique combination of technology and the internet."

 

Seems creative and interactive to me.

 

Now, having someone put on a wig and photograph it for a log is non-geocaching related, but as is the case with one of my (now former-ALR) caches, I only asked that the geocachers include a statement about how they would protect or honor our important wetland areas in their online log. Seemed reasonable, and in line with similar Earthcache requirements. I was simply trying to encourage the understanding of the wetlands and concepts of preservation and conservation and take away the "park and grab" aspect of it. I'm bummed that I can't call that an "Unknown/Mystery" cache or try to encourage the education of cachers while they get their smiley. To me, deleting a log was not about a power move. I would only have asked the cacher to change their "TFTC" log online to contain some kind of information about how they "honor" wetlands. Pretty simple, and makes the "location-based experience" all the more meaningful, and in line with the spirit of stewardship involved with geocaching...

Share this post


Link to post
The aspect of geocaching that has died was the simple concept that a cache owner decided what constituted a find on their own cache.

That is an excellent one-line summary of the change. :rolleyes:

 

Groundspeak, as the owners of this listing service, ought to be the arbiters of what it takes to be allowed to log a find on their listing service. Up till now, they tried allowing cache owners to define that (using ALRs), and while it works in some cases, it doesn't in others. A business decision was made. Nobody got killed, hurt, fired, or divorced.

 

I'm particularly enjoying (as in, rolling about laughing at) suggestions that Groundspeak has a secret agenda to close down puzzle caches, or any other aspect of the game. They own the freaking site - why would they need a secret agenda? (Some day, I hope to understand why so many people associate Groundspeak with "the Government"...)

 

How does a ALR "control" anyone more than a puzzle does?

Because how you solve the puzzle is up to you. You solve the puzzle, you find the cache, you log it, and you know where you are. Whereas when you have to wear the silly hat and phoon, it's up to the CO if he thinks you're phooning well enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Some ALRs were fun, some were stupid rules. Unfortunately, some of them were starting to get out of hand.

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

 

A couple of examples of how the whole ALR thing is accelerating down the slippery slope....

 

Challenging Challenge Challenge

 

The Anti Challenge Challenge

 

What's next? The Anti Challenging Challenge Anti Anti Challenge? Come on get real.

Share this post


Link to post

It's worth noting that I'm in the "bummed, but life goes on" category. I'm just interested in if this updated "clarification" of the guidelines is in the spirit of Groundspeak's mission.

 

I think in spirit it is, but in practice it isn't. I like creativity and if a cache placer decides to be off-the-charts crazy with ALRs, then I'm sure many people just won't be doing that cache. To me, I think that any creative variation on the existing guidelines makes for a fun and interesting evolution of the game. On the other hand, requiring a log with a photo of a dead animal is a bit...um...off.

 

I think the post about the optional "bonus points" hula pictures was the most uplifiting addition to this conversation so far. That certainly made me smile, and I hold out hope that there are plenty of cachers out there that are looking for the fun, creative and strange ways to have fun with the game, required for smiley or not. I just hope that those passionate folks come find my caches!

 

At any rate...CACHE ON! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

I can understand this. I have a cache with a very difficult logging requirement. So difficult, very few people have been able to claim a find on it. I guess now more people will be able to enjoying solving the puzzle and finding the cache.

 

Problem with forcing people to upload a track log is like forcing them to take a picture. Not everyone owns equipment to do that, and they are blocked from logging a find because they may not be able to afford it.

 

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

 

But the point is moot now.

 

In my case it would be a bit difficult. I have an eTrex H by Garmin, the whole GPS was only $99.00. To buy the cable for the GPS to my USB on my computer is another $50.00+ and it is only availalbe reliably from Garmin. I therefore have been entering everything by button. I can do alot of keystrokes for $50.00!

Edited by Cornishchough

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

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

 

"You are only allowed to log if:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Hans

 

While extreme, I note the difficulty on this cache is 4.5. If you don't want to take the time to rack up a 4.5 difficulty cache, then don't do it. If you eliminate the ALR, as extreme as it might be :rolleyes: , you have downgraded a 4.5 cache to a 1.0-1.5. I think the standard for ALRs and Challenges should be "Is it substantially achievable?" So what now will make a cache a difficulty of 4.0 to 5.0?

Share this post


Link to post
How does a ALR "control" anyone more than a puzzle does?

Because you have to please the cache owner after you've found the cache in order to log it. A puzzle is only an obstacle in front of finding the cache.

 

In all the treasure hunting stories I've ever read or watched which have some sort of adventure in the finding have there ever been any sort of requirement, stipulation, or rule of how you're supposed to tell the world--if one did choose to do so--that the treasure was found. There's almost always some sort of adventure in the finding of the treasure. Not until ALRs came around was there a rule about how you had to make the claim that is was found.

 

That's what the Found It log is supposed to be, your announcement that you've found the treasure. An ALR gets in the way of that. For me it was simple, a no-brainer.

 

That doesn't mean I refuse to talk like a pirate or log in code. It's the requirement that bothered me.

Share this post


Link to post
The aspect of geocaching that has died was the simple concept that a cache owner decided what constituted a find on their own cache.

That is an excellent one-line summary of the change. :rolleyes:

 

Groundspeak, as the owners of this listing service, ought to be the arbiters of what it takes to be allowed to log a find on their listing service. Up till now, they tried allowing cache owners to define that (using ALRs), and while it works in some cases, it doesn't in others.

I am concern about how Groundspeak is going to enforce guidelines about what it takes to log a find on their listing service. I have always felt that the previous guidelines worked well. They required cache owners, as part of the maintenance guidelines to "delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements." There was no further definition of bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements. It was up to the cache owner to determine what this was. Groundspeak would only get involved if there was gross abuse of this owner responsibility. Some cache owners don't police their logs at all. They allow any found log to stay. Some even allow bonus logs to be made to their cache or event page. Other cache owners seem to delete logs for no apparent reason. ALRs were simply cache owners who provide on their cache page a set of requirements to follow if you wanted your log to not be deleted. On the first page of this thread I gave a partial list of times when a cache owner may feel justified in deleting a log and asked if these would still be permitted. No matter what Groundspeak will answer (and I doubt they will say anything), I am sure that as soon as cache owners delete a log for any reason other than the person did not sign the log, you will have people insisting that Groundspeak needs to enforce their new guideline and prevent arbitrary deletions of "legitimate" finds. By defining a "legitimate" find as the log being signed, they are legitimizing visiting parks at off hours, one person retrieving a cache from a challenging position and passing the log to others who stayed in a safe place, damaging the cache or its hiding place to retrieve the log instead of figuring out the proper tool or mechanism to use, etc. And of course it will be used by the puritans to insist that "bogus" now means the log wasn't signed, and then insisting that cache owners who allow logs where the log was to wet or the cacher forgot a pen be punished for not deleting bogus logs. If the change is clearly a guideline to cache owners as to when to delete or not delete logs, then it may be a good thing as it will may reign in the small number of cache owners who went overboard deleting logs. If on the other hand it is an enforceable rule and Groundspeak has the mechanism to punish cache owners who aren't following it then I'm afraid TPTB are no better than the owners of ALRs who have been characterized as control freaks.

Share this post


Link to post

So what now will make a cache a difficulty of 4.0 to 5.0?

 

The same thing that has always made a 4 - 5 difficulty cache. The change to the guidelines did nothing to the difficulty or terrain ratings. The only change was Additional Logging Requirements on Traditional caches are now Additional Logging Suggestions with the note that the cache owner should not delete logs if the Additional Logging Suggestions were not noted in the log. The change is really minuscule and this whole thing is a tempest in a Teapot.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post

I'm kind of hoping MissJenn can answer my question for this.

 

One I wasn't happy to see ARL's go. The reason being is mine where geared toward's getting more of a log, than TFTC. I never did really enforce them though. But most have much more to say on one of mine, so I didn't really care. I've never deleted a log if a person didn't meet the ARL.

 

But here's the question I have and I'm hoping a "higher up" like MissJenn can answer this.

 

I have one puzzle/multi, that has a total of three log book's spread threw out it. I required all those log book's to be signed. they don't have to be signed on the same day. But this was to make sure if the person was told the answer to the puzzle and bypassed it they still where force to do all the stages of the multi.

 

It was my way of making sure no-one would use phone a find, to skip right to the final.

 

Can I still make them sign those extra log book's or do I have to give that up? I'm sure you can see why I would love to keep that. It wasn't so much as to keep people from finding it, but make sure they do it the intended way.

 

Sorry if this is a repeat question, just this is the one that I really don't want to change. The rest I will.

 

Thanks for your time.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I have one puzzle/multi, that has a total of three log book's spread threw out it. I required all those log book's to be signed. they don't have to be signed on the same day. But this was to make sure if the person was told the answer to the puzzle and bypassed it they still where force to do all the stages of the multi.

 

 

As a suggestion, why not convert the stages to traditional caches so each gets it own smiley and spread the answer to the puzzle among the traditionals. Maybe not everyone logging some of the stages will do the final, but at least for those that do they get a couple extra smileys. And the PAF for the final loses you smileys. Seems like a win-win to me.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post

 

I have one puzzle/multi, that has a total of three log book's spread threw out it. I required all those log book's to be signed. they don't have to be signed on the same day. But this was to make sure if the person was told the answer to the puzzle and bypassed it they still where force to do all the stages of the multi.

 

 

As a suggestion, why not convert the stages to traditional caches so each gets it own smiley and spread the answer to the puzzle among the traditionals. Maybe not everyone logging some of the stages will do the final, but at least for those that do they get a couple extra smileys. And the PAF for the final loses you smileys. Seems like a win-win to me.

 

Jim

 

Of course, that could be rejected as forming a power trail, depending on where the stages are located.

Share this post


Link to post

I think I may be a bit daft here. I'm not sure if my geocache series falls into an ALR.

 

One series (GCQR2F) is designed to be done in order. To unlock the next chapter in the story (the next cache) the geocachers must find a password in the logbook in the cache previous. In that way they complete the series one cache/puzzle at a time. They do not have to send me the password. Rather they just type it in on the cache page and a new puzzle on a public page is discovered.

 

Another series GC14V8D is designed so all geocaches stand on their own. But there are clues and items in some geocaches that will help cachers along if they do the caches in order. For instance, there is a multicache at Chapter 3. If the geocachers were at Chapter 2 they can see that if they picked up a pearl with a piece of paper on it, they could sign the paper and drop it in the pearl jar. If they did not visit Chapter 2 and do not have a pearl, they have to go to the logbook an additional half a mile down the trail. So there is a hard way and an easy way to the logbook.

 

I simply did this to encourage people to visit the caches in a certain order so the mystery in the storyline can evolve like a book for those who want to do it that way.

 

I've never had problems handing out passwords in CGQR2F for anyone that wanted to do the series in an afternoon. In fact, I encourage it for people who live out of town or have to travel long distances. I'm actually quite proud of these series of caches. They've won an astonishing amount of praise and have won local geocaching awards. Although I will always comply with the Groundspeak guidelines, it would be a shame to archive them as people really do seem to get involved with the storyline in a MYST kinda way.

 

If these caches do not follow the rules please let me know and I'll either alter them to adhere to the rules or archive them instantly.

 

Thanks -- Scruffster.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I have one puzzle/multi, that has a total of three log book's spread threw out it. I required all those log book's to be signed. they don't have to be signed on the same day. But this was to make sure if the person was told the answer to the puzzle and bypassed it they still where force to do all the stages of the multi.

 

 

As a suggestion, why not convert the stages to traditional caches so each gets it own smiley and spread the answer to the puzzle among the traditionals. Maybe not everyone logging some of the stages will do the final, but at least for those that do they get a couple extra smileys. And the PAF for the final loses you smileys. Seems like a win-win to me.

 

Jim

 

Of course, that could be rejected as forming a power trail, depending on where the stages are located.

 

Of course. In the spirit of the guideline changes I did make it a suggetion :rolleyes:

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Some ALRs were fun, some were stupid rules. Unfortunately, some of them were starting to get out of hand.

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

 

A couple of examples of how the whole ALR thing is accelerating down the slippery slope....

 

Challenging Challenge Challenge

 

The Anti Challenge Challenge

 

What's next? The Anti Challenging Challenge Anti Anti Challenge? Come on get real.

 

Both of those examples would meet the definition of a permissible challenge cache. In the Anti Challenge Challenge the CO would not be able to log the cache since he has found at least one challenge cache (but let's not even get into the debate about the CO logging a find on their own cache :rolleyes: ). However, it would be true that a "substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so." On the Challenging Challenge Challenge there are already five finds and others that have written notes that they are already well underway to completing the challenge. If I were the cache owner, I would certainly argue that a "substantial number of other geocachers" would be able to log a find on the challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
If on the other hand it is an enforceable rule and Groundspeak has the mechanism to punish cache owners who aren't following it then I'm afraid TPTB are no better than the owners of ALRs who have been characterized as control freaks.

Groundspeak is not the legal system and doesn't have to come up with a complete justice system every time a law rule guideline is changed.

 

The game works on good faith and the 99.9% of people who abide by the rules, including the ones that they personally don't think so much of, will continue to ensure that this is so.

 

If a few "ex-ALR" cache owners insist on deleting logs, then I imagine that one of two "weapons" will be used: the ability to make a log undeletable, or archiving the cache. This is of course pending "Frogslap", a new feature to allow Signal to really punish you by having your GPSr deliver a 50,000 volt shock (I believe Jeremy is in discussions with Garmin about adding that to the "West Virginia", the next model in the Colorado/Oregon series).

Share this post


Link to post

:rolleyes::anicute::laughing: hee hee :laughing::lol::lol: glad we bought the Colorado instead of waiting for the "West Virginia"

If on the other hand it is an enforceable rule and Groundspeak has the mechanism to punish cache owners who aren't following it then I'm afraid TPTB are no better than the owners of ALRs who have been characterized as control freaks.

Groundspeak is not the legal system and doesn't have to come up with a complete justice system every time a law rule guideline is changed.

 

The game works on good faith and the 99.9% of people who abide by the rules, including the ones that they personally don't think so much of, will continue to ensure that this is so.

 

If a few "ex-ALR" cache owners insist on deleting logs, then I imagine that one of two "weapons" will be used: the ability to make a log undeletable, or archiving the cache. This is of course pending "Frogslap", a new feature to allow Signal to really punish you by having your GPSr deliver a 50,000 volt shock (I believe Jeremy is in discussions with Garmin about adding that to the "West Virginia", the next model in the Colorado/Oregon series).

Share this post


Link to post

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.

You can't ensure that with an ALR. A tracklog can easily manipulated. A picture can easily manipulated and a cacher can drive to the cache location, leave the car, take the photo you want to see and continue driving.

 

To ensure that no one will go to the cache location by car just chose a place that can't be reached by car.

 

Or ask the reviewer to publish the cache on a specific date and time and tell the local police that they can write lots of tickets at this time. :rolleyes::anicute::laughing:

 

does anyone ask the trees, if they want cachers climbing up?)

For the protection of the trees tree climbing caches may IMHO be banned from geocaching.com.

Edited by radioscout

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.

 

yes and no.

If the ALR is "optional" no one has to full fill it. So an ALR makes no sense. the "R" is not full fillable.

An optional task is not "required" - it stays optional.

 

a person can log the cache without doing, the owner wants. It changes from "requirement" to "wish". And each cacher has to decide, if he wants to do so. TZhe owner has to accept it, because Groundspeak says "optional". If it would be "required" - he can delete a log without any problems, questions. everyone would accept it: doesnt fullfill the requirement - delete it.

No ALRs will be banned, and die owner has to accept the logs, when the cacher has signed the logbook. He has now "right" to say: it's written down - read rule XYZ.

 

@radioscout.. good answer.. thanks... but I can't use such places (not reachable by car) I have mostly fixed places.. I can't chose all what I want.. next days, I write you a PM.

 

I know new tree climbin caches... reviewers can't check all caches.. it's impossible. thats the reason I prefer localized reviewers, that know cachers and locations. You can't expect that e.g. a reviewer from northern germany knows "whats going on in alpine regions"

Share this post


Link to post

 

I have one puzzle/multi, that has a total of three log book's spread threw out it. I required all those log book's to be signed. they don't have to be signed on the same day. But this was to make sure if the person was told the answer to the puzzle and bypassed it they still where force to do all the stages of the multi.

 

 

As a suggestion, why not convert the stages to traditional caches so each gets it own smiley and spread the answer to the puzzle among the traditionals. Maybe not everyone logging some of the stages will do the final, but at least for those that do they get a couple extra smileys. And the PAF for the final loses you smileys. Seems like a win-win to me.

 

Jim

Good Suggestion!!! But the problem is this is located in one of the stage park's, due to it's size and state policy, we are only allowed to have 2 caches in it. In Iowa the most a state park can have is 3.

Share this post


Link to post

I think I may be a bit daft here. I'm not sure if my geocache series falls into an ALR.

 

One series (GCQR2F) is designed to be done in order. To unlock the next chapter in the story (the next cache) the geocachers must find a password in the logbook in the cache previous. In that way they complete the series one cache/puzzle at a time. They do not have to send me the password. Rather they just type it in on the cache page and a new puzzle on a public page is discovered.

 

Another series GC14V8D is designed so all geocaches stand on their own. But there are clues and items in some geocaches that will help cachers along if they do the caches in order. For instance, there is a multicache at Chapter 3. If the geocachers were at Chapter 2 they can see that if they picked up a pearl with a piece of paper on it, they could sign the paper and drop it in the pearl jar. If they did not visit Chapter 2 and do not have a pearl, they have to go to the logbook an additional half a mile down the trail. So there is a hard way and an easy way to the logbook.

 

I simply did this to encourage people to visit the caches in a certain order so the mystery in the storyline can evolve like a book for those who want to do it that way.

 

I've never had problems handing out passwords in CGQR2F for anyone that wanted to do the series in an afternoon. In fact, I encourage it for people who live out of town or have to travel long distances. I'm actually quite proud of these series of caches. They've won an astonishing amount of praise and have won local geocaching awards. Although I will always comply with the Groundspeak guidelines, it would be a shame to archive them as people really do seem to get involved with the storyline in a MYST kinda way.

 

If these caches do not follow the rules please let me know and I'll either alter them to adhere to the rules or archive them instantly.

 

Thanks -- Scruffster.

 

It is my understanding that these would be completely allowable. They do not require anything additional after finding the cache to log them.

 

But for the definitive answer you should contact the reviewer, which in your case is Mtn-Man

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.

 

.....

 

:rolleyes:

 

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). :anicute::laughing::laughing:

 

I believe the answer to all these questions is actually: No, you shouldn't delete the found logs.

 

At the end of the day, if the person has actually found the cache and signed the log, you would have no reasonable grounds to deny the find in any of these given scenarios, IMO. The fact that the finder broke local laws, caused damage, found a more resourceful/reasonable way to retrieve the cache or was able to up the difficulty by finding a "night cache" during the daylight hours is incidental to the fact that they still found the cache container and signed the logbook.

 

Groundspeak is not here to police those who choose to ignore laws. They provide this service to facilitate our hobby and make every attempt, through their volunteers, to help ensure that caches do not intentionally seek to break any laws.

Share this post


Link to post
... does anyone ask the trees, if they want cachers climbing up? ...

I asked the trees. They said that they prefer that people climb them and that if they don't want an individual to climb them then they will merely fling him/her to the ground.

Share this post


Link to post

...

How does a ALR "control" anyone more than a puzzle does?

Because how you solve the puzzle is up to you. You solve the puzzle, you find the cache, you log it, and you know where you are. Whereas when you have to wear the silly hat and phoon, it's up to the CO if he thinks you're phooning well enough.

The thread of just a little while ago about a "cheating site" seems to dispell that arguement. Many puzzle owners don't want you to cheat on the solution (be given the co-ords), they set up the puzzle to be solved. So they are 'controlling' how you get the co-ords. ALR's were 'controlling' how you got the smiley - flip sides of the same coin.

Share this post


Link to post

To Groundspeak:

 

Hi Folks!

 

I'm sorry, but i can see no sense at all in that new change of the rules (especially the new regulations for logging)......

 

In my opinion, the regulations become closer and closer with every change. Why the heck?

 

Geocaching is a hobbyhorse, to be and bring fun and relaxation to leisure. Nothing else. So why do You do so?

 

Sometimes, the sense of a cache is defined by the additional requirement, sometimes it' just an additional fun. But for me it's a part of the creative freedom of the owner, to require additional tasks, if he decides to do so....

If you keep that change, you become 'better' than the german government: rules over rules, even if they are counterproductive or even dangerous..... Sorry, but it's a Fact.

 

Maybe You probably have a good reason for this change, but i ( and no'ne of my caching friends!) can see it.

How about a good explaination? (if possible in german, too. It's my mothers tongue, and my english is a bit rusty in the meantime...)

 

regards

 

Franz

 

EDIT: If You keep on changing the rules closer and closer, i will start to public my caches on other platforms, which still allow creative freedom... Too bad for These here.

Edited by massafranz

Share this post


Link to post

I placed my very first cache six years ago. It is an ALR. Guess I’ll have to retire it now. Haven’t decided yet – I’ll wait and see how it goes. Soon as someone thumbs their nose at it, however, I’ll probably shut it down.

 

Some people like ALRs, some don't. It’s always been that way. The don't-like-'em crowd has always had the option to avoid ALRs. Avoidance was made even easier, in fact, when ALRs were moved into the Puzzle/Mystery cache type. This new policy doesn't change that at all – they still won’t have to hunt them.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I could not have stated it any better than this. I see this as a selfish move by those who do not enjoy ALRs. Frankly, I'm appalled by this regulatory move, and disheartened that once again, the creativity of cacher hiders has been stifled. This is a sad day.

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.

yes and no.

If the ALR is "optional" no one has to full fill it. So an ALR makes no sense. the "R" is not full fillable.

An optional task is not "required" - it stays optional.

 

a person can log the cache without doing, the owner wants. It changes from "requirement" to "wish". And each cacher has to decide, if he wants to do so. TZhe owner has to accept it, because Groundspeak says "optional". If it would be "required" - he can delete a log without any problems, questions. everyone would accept it: doesnt fullfill the requirement - delete it.

No ALRs will be banned, and die owner has to accept the logs, when the cacher has signed the logbook. He has now "right" to say: it's written down - read rule XYZ.

You did an interesting job of restating the guideline change, but gave no argument for why it shouldn't have been enacted.
@radioscout.. good answer.. thanks... but I can't use such places (not reachable by car) I have mostly fixed places.. I can't chose all what I want.. next days, I write you a PM.

 

I know new tree climbin caches... reviewers can't check all caches.. it's impossible. thats the reason I prefer localized reviewers, that know cachers and locations. You can't expect that e.g. a reviewer from northern germany knows "whats going on in alpine regions"

Don't misinterpret radioscout's post. Caches requiring the climbing of trees are not verboten.

Share this post


Link to post

ALRs must be a regional thing. Owners impossing additional rules & feeling the need to delete logs must be a regional thing. I know different parts of the country play differently. They count what is a "find" differently.

 

I guess the new rules don't effect my area of MA too much. If a cache had an ALR and I didn't want to do it, I just would do the cache. But I do understand that those we owner impossed rules & Groundspeak says a find is when you find the cache & sign the logbook. You don't need to do anything else.

 

So, if you want your cache listed here, you need to play by their rules. Simple. You can still list the ALR as an OPTION. You just can't delete someones log because you feel that did to enough to claim a smiley.

Share this post


Link to post
I think the post about the optional "bonus points" hula pictures was the most uplifiting addition to this conversation so far. That certainly made me smile, and I hold out hope that there are plenty of cachers out there that are looking for the fun, creative and strange ways to have fun with the game, required for smiley or not. I just hope that those passionate folks come find my caches!

Gosh, thanks! :anicute: Did I hear you say, "Please, sir, can I have another?"

 

87bbc6d1-b103-4552-a616-3a30a9cc201f.jpg

 

Again, a shocking lack of fun displayed by finders of Perego's Lagoon. Shame on that cache owner, making the hula an optional activity (not that anyone in this particular photo is actually doing the hula - good thing it's optional). The demise of creative geocaching is surely nigh! :rolleyes:

Edited by hydnsek

Share this post


Link to post
How does a ALR "control" anyone more than a puzzle does?

I'll try to clarify this, since it didn't sink in last time:

With an ALR, the finder was required to jump through a specific hoop, as established by the cache owner. No ifs, ands or buts. To claim credit, you had to hop through those hoops, regardless of whether or not your name was in the logbook. That's why the last letter, "R", stands for "Requirement". It's a mandatory action, instilled by the owner. Failure to comply results in your otherwise legitimate log being deleted.

 

With a puzzle, there is no such requirement. For the most part, the seeker would take what steps they deemed necessary to determine the final cache location. Often, this involved solving a particular puzzle provided by the cache owner, however that's not always the case. The last puzzle I found involved obtaining clues from 7 physical, (traditional), caches, a benchmark and a waymark, to work out the final coords. Before I ever left home, I had three of the numbers for the final. After locating 3 of the 7 traditionals, I knew exactly where the final was located. I located the other 4 traditionals because the CO is a friend, not because I had to.

 

On another puzzle find in my profile, I looked at pictures posted by previous finders, deducing precisely where the final would be, simply because I was familiar with the area. I still "solved" the puzzle, but I did so simply because it gave me pleasure, not because it was necessary.

 

Had I skipped the final 4 traditionals in the first example, or bypassed solving the puzzle in the second example, the owner might have deleted my logs. Or, they might not have, depending on how they felt about the matter. I have had several people log finds on some of my puzzles without obtaining the coords as the cache page was set up, and all their finds stand.

 

can I email you for all the co-ords the next time I'll be in your area, seeing how you don't care how a finder gets there?

Absolutely. Which ones would you like? I currently have 7 active puzzle caches. You are more than welcome to the final coords for any or all. If you are OK finding them under those circumstances, I am OK with you logging them as such.

 

If you think about it, every cache 'controls' the finder someway or another. If nothing else, you have to go to the co-ords the CO supplies to find it.

Actually, in this case, the only one controlling the seeker is the seeker. The owner hides a cache and posts the coords. It gathers dust until someone decides to hunt for it. Once that choice is made, the seeker continues to make choices along the way, (which trail to take, bushwhack vs. hiking, how long to search, etc), as dictated by their particular muse. In this, an ALR is exactly the same. It's a cache that someone chooses to hunt. The situation changes right about the time the seeker's ink is drying in the logbook. Now they are faced with another choice. Wear the silly hat or not? Here's where the seeker's actions are being directly controlled by the hider. According to the aforementioned imaginary cache page, the seeker MUST wear the silly hat to claim a find. They know from reading the cache page that, if they opt against wearing the silly hat, their find will go "Poof" and be no more. While it's true that the seeker could choose not to hunt the ALR, his decision is being directly influenced by the existence of the ALR.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Doesn't really matter - I'm sure you've seen it countless times. It's the old "one climbs the tree & signs for all in the party", or "2 find the cache & sign the log for the 3 others sittin' back in the car a mile away" bit.

~*

 

I think a simple "Honor System" applies here.. You need to be the one signing the log, to log the find online.

The idea of signing a log for everyone in the team, including the ones in the car a mile away, the rest of the team still stuck in work any variable distance away, the one serving in the armed forces clear across the planet, The team member who's an astronaut aboard the space station, etc... You can see how ludicrous this could go..

 

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

 

Though, I've got a couple of caches, where someone signed the log book, but never logged it online.. Go figure? :rolleyes:

 

 

Are you serious!? My bff and I ALWAYS cache together and we both have "jobs". She signs the logs while I write the cache name and any notes in our personal logbook. I don't understand why this is wrong...

Share this post


Link to post

To Groundspeak:

 

Hi Folks!

 

I'm sorry, but i can see no sense at all in that new change of the rules (especially the new regulations for logging)......

 

In my opinion, the regulations become closer and closer with every change. Why the heck?

 

Geocaching is a hobbyhorse, to be and bring fun and relaxation to leisure. Nothing else. So why do You do so?

 

Sometimes, the sense of a cache is defined by the additional requirement, sometimes it' just an additional fun. But for me it's a part of the creative freedom of the owner, to require additional tasks, if he decides to do so....

If you keep that change, you become 'better' than the german government: rules over rules, even if they are counterproductive or even dangerous..... Sorry, but it's a Fact.

 

Maybe You probably have a good reason for this change, but i ( and no'ne of my caching friends!) can see it.

How about a good explaination? (if possible in german, too. It's my mothers tongue, and my english is a bit rusty in the meantime...)

 

regards

 

Franz

 

 

I see this as a selfish move by those who do not enjoy ALRs. Frankly, I'm appalled by this regulatory move, and disheartened that once again, the creativity of cacher hiders has been stifled. This is a sad day.

 

Exactly!

Share this post


Link to post
How does a ALR "control" anyone more than a puzzle does?

I'll try to clarify this, since it didn't sink in last time:

With an ALR, the finder was required to jump through a specific hoop, as established by the cache owner. No ifs, ands or buts. To claim credit, you had to hop through those hoops, regardless of whether or not your name was in the logbook. That's why the last letter, "R", stands for "Requirement". It's a mandatory action, instilled by the owner. Failure to comply results in your otherwise legitimate log being deleted.

 

With a puzzle, there is no such requirement. For the most part, the seeker would take what steps they deemed necessary to determine the final cache location. Often, this involved solving a particular puzzle provided by the cache owner, however that's not always the case. The last puzzle I found involved obtaining clues from 7 physical, (traditional), caches, a benchmark and a waymark, to work out the final coords. Before I ever left home, I had three of the numbers for the final. After locating 3 of the 7 traditionals, I knew exactly where the final was located. I located the other 4 traditionals because the CO is a friend, not because I had to.

 

On another puzzle find in my profile, I looked at pictures posted by previous finders, deducing precisely where the final would be, simply because I was familiar with the area. I still "solved" the puzzle, but I did so simply because it gave me pleasure, not because it was necessary.

 

Had I skipped the final 4 traditionals in the first example, or bypassed solving the puzzle in the second example, the owner might have deleted my logs. Or, they might not have, depending on how they felt about the matter. I have had several people log finds on some of my puzzles without obtaining the coords as the cache page was set up, and all their finds stand.

 

can I email you for all the co-ords the next time I'll be in your area, seeing how you don't care how a finder gets there?

Absolutely. Which ones would you like? I currently have 7 active puzzle caches. You are more than welcome to the final coords for any or all. If you are OK finding them under those circumstances, I am OK with you logging them as such.

 

If you think about it, every cache 'controls' the finder someway or another. If nothing else, you have to go to the co-ords the CO supplies to find it.

Actually, in this case, the only one controlling the seeker is the seeker. The owner hides a cache and posts the coords. It gathers dust until someone decides to hunt for it. Once that choice is made, the seeker continues to make choices along the way, (which trail to take, bushwhack vs. hiking, how long to search, etc), as dictated by their particular muse. In this, an ALR is exactly the same. It's a cache that someone chooses to hunt. The situation changes right about the time the seeker's ink is drying in the logbook. Now they are faced with another choice. Wear the silly hat or not? Here's where the seeker's actions are being directly controlled by the hider. According to the aforementioned imaginary cache page, the seeker MUST wear the silly hat to claim a find. They know from reading the cache page that, if they opt against wearing the silly hat, their find will go "Poof" and be no more. While it's true that the seeker could choose not to hunt the ALR, his decision is being directly influenced by the existence of the ALR.

 

To find a puzzle cache you are "Required" to solve the puzzle. So you deducted where one was to get around the puzzle... Well use photo shop to put the silly hat on and you get around the ALR. Sounds the same to me. :rolleyes:

 

Come to think of it you are, for the most part, "required" to visit geocaching.com to find any cache listed there. :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post
I think the post about the optional "bonus points" hula pictures was the most uplifiting addition to this conversation so far. That certainly made me smile, and I hold out hope that there are plenty of cachers out there that are looking for the fun, creative and strange ways to have fun with the game, required for smiley or not. I just hope that those passionate folks come find my caches!

Gosh, thanks! B) Did I hear you say, "Please, sir, can I have another?"

 

87bbc6d1-b103-4552-a616-3a30a9cc201f.jpg

 

Again, a shocking lack of fun displayed by finders of Perego's Lagoon. Shame on that cache owner, making the hula an optional activity (not that anyone in this particular photo is actually doing the hula - good thing it's optional). The demise of creative geocaching is surely nigh! :D

 

:D Love it!

 

I hardly think creative caching meets its demise due to this guideline change. I'm hoping there can be good, positive discourse between lackeys, volunteers, and general cachers so that future updates won't come as such a surprise to so many. A shame, to be sure, that some great ALR caches are lumped with the "required photo of a dead animal" cache. But, creative and fun caches are certainly still out there to be found, and I'm sure we'll be seeing some new wave of "alternative" variations within the guidelines Groundspeak has created and updated.

 

As I'm reading through this thread (who said it would be shut down after 3 pages? :) ) I see how I could apply the guideline change to another of my caches. "Cedar Tree Fishing Hole" is a cache located in Oregon's Tillamook State Forest along an ORV (Off Road Vehicle, aka 4-wheeler and/or "Jeep") trail. Many cachers can get to it by using an ORV. Others drive as close as they can and hike in. Now, if I "required" that cachers find the cache with an ORV, I'd miss out on all of the great logs from cachers who hiked or drove the trail. I'm glad that some have chosen to drive in (a fun way to be able to drive under a huge fallen old-growth cedar tree deep in the woods), but would hate to limit folks to a smiley because they didn't follow some "requirement" I made for logging the cache.

 

Anywhoo...back to a sunny Sunday afternoon...

Share this post


Link to post
Third, your recurring argument that Groundspeak made this decision in a vacuum is untrue. This decision was clearly discussed with the reviewers. Those that mistakenly think of reviewers as employees of Groundspeak will not see this as obtaining outside opinion. The rest of us realize that reviewers are actually active, experienced geocachers who have a better feel for the health of the game than any of the rest of us. Obtaining the input of this group gives them a good feel of the real impact of a guideline change.

 

Actually, in this case, the only one controlling the seeker is the seeker. The owner hides a cache and posts the coords. It gathers dust until someone decides to hunt for it. Once that choice is made, the seeker continues to make choices along the way, (which trail to take, bushwhack vs. hiking, how long to search, etc), as dictated by their particular muse. In this, an ALR is exactly the same. It's a cache that someone chooses to hunt. The situation changes right about the time the seeker's ink is drying in the logbook. Now they are faced with another choice. Wear the silly hat or not? Here's where the seeker's actions are being directly controlled by the hider. According to the aforementioned imaginary cache page, the seeker MUST wear the silly hat to claim a find. They know from reading the cache page that, if they opt against wearing the silly hat, their find will go "Poof" and be no more. While it's true that the seeker could choose not to hunt the ALR, his decision is being directly influenced by the existence of the ALR.

 

 

You can reword it to the way that fits to your argument. But nitpicking their slight differences doesn't dispel the fact that puzzles, ARLs, and math caches want you to do something. The owner of any of those types of caches can choose to delete logs in the finder doesn't do everything they would like to do. If I owned a puzzle cache and I found out someone bypassed the puzzle and logged the cache as found, I would have the right to delete the find or not, well, at least I used to. I can reword that you had to "jump through hoops" to have to solve a puzzle or answer a math question to find the cache, if I threatened to delete your log if you did not do the requirements. The requirements of a puzzle or math caches are usually as evil or nice as an ARL cache, generally.

 

With a puzzle, there is no such requirement. For the most part, the seeker would take what steps they deemed necessary to determine the final cache location. Often, this involved solving a particular puzzle provided by the cache owner, however that's not always the case. The last puzzle I found involved obtaining clues from 7 physical, (traditional), caches, a benchmark and a waymark, to work out the final coords. Before I ever left home, I had three of the numbers for the final. After locating 3 of the 7 traditionals, I knew exactly where the final was located. I located the other 4 traditionals because the CO is a friend, not because I had to.

 

On another puzzle find in my profile, I looked at pictures posted by previous finders, deducing precisely where the final would be, simply because I was familiar with the area. I still "solved" the puzzle, but I did so simply because it gave me pleasure, not because it was necessary.

 

Had I skipped the final 4 traditionals in the first example, or bypassed solving the puzzle in the second example, the owner might have deleted my logs. Or, they might not have, depending on how they felt about the matter. I have had several people log finds on some of my puzzles without obtaining the coords as the cache page was set up, and all their finds stand.

 

Who says there isn't a requirement for many puzzles? Not every puzzle can be figured out on a computer before you set out on the trail. I had a mystery cache where you had to answer history questions with each answer being either a false stage or a stage that will take you to the next level. No one cheated, but if they did, I would feel that they broke the rules I set for the cache and could possibly delete it. On the other hand, maybe ALR owners put that it was required to take a picture of yourself at the cache, but never deleted any finds that didn't. It always depends on the owners, but all ALR cache owners got punished for a few bad seeds and regulators that got rid of the problem, instead of dealing with it.

 

I would be careful about bypassing people's requirements on puzzles or math caches. Some owners may delete your logs if they found out you bypassed what they asked you to do. It always depends on the owner, whether it have been a puzzle or ALR cache owner.

Share this post


Link to post
To find a puzzle cache you are "Required" to solve the puzzle.

Do tell? Which guideline makes such a requirement?

There's a local, (Central Florida), cacher who has become so skilled at finding puzzles and multis without going through the steps developed by the cache owner that his nickname has become synonymous with the activity. It has become a badge of honor to have him locate your cache using his unique skills. I've tried it myself, and I've occasionally succeeded, but I don't have his mad skills.

Share this post


Link to post

Come to think of it you are, for the most part, "required" to visit geocaching.com to find any cache listed there. :)

Not really. I cache with someone that hasn't been here in years, but still is able to cache because those of us that do visit here take her to the area...she can still find the caches.

Share this post


Link to post
To find a puzzle cache you are "Required" to solve the puzzle.

Do tell? Which guideline makes such a requirement?

There's a local, (Central Florida), cacher who has become so skilled at finding puzzles and multis without going through the steps developed by the cache owner that his nickname has become synonymous with the activity. It has become a badge of honor to have him locate your cache using his unique skills. I've tried it myself, and I've occasionally succeeded, but I don't have his mad skills.

 

The point is that if you can find a way around a puzzle you can find your way around an ALR and that if you follow the desires of the CO you will have to solve the puzzle. I would bet that if you wanted you could just list a multi as a traditional if you wanted too. Sure sooner or later some one would turn it in but sooner or later someone will delete your log if you by pass the puzzle. Forget about the fact that you will be labeled a cheater because you bypass puzzles just to get the prized smiley. :)

Share this post


Link to post

...nitpicking their slight differences doesn't dispel the fact that puzzles, ARLs, and math caches want you to do something.

And what some people, including you, seem to be missing or ignoring is this:

 

Puzzles: Solve before finding the cache and signing the log book.

Math caches: Solve before finding the cache and signing the log book. (how this differs from a puzzle I don't know, but I'm going with it).

ALR: Even if you find the cache and sign the log book you are still then required to do something else.

 

Therefore...

 

Before = OK

After = Not OK

 

How hard is that to understand?

Share this post


Link to post

Come to think of it you are, for the most part, "required" to visit geocaching.com to find any cache listed there. :)

Not really. I cache with someone that hasn't been here in years, but still is able to cache because those of us that do visit here take her to the area...she can still find the caches.

 

Precisely! You went to the site so the requirement was fulfilled.

 

How about an explanation on how one can log their find on the site with out fulfilling the "requirement" to use gc.com. :D See there are more requirements to get a smiley than signing the log. :D

Share this post


Link to post
To find a puzzle cache you are "Required" to solve the puzzle.

Do tell? Which guideline makes such a requirement?

There's a local, (Central Florida), cacher who has become so skilled at finding puzzles and multis without going through the steps developed by the cache owner that his nickname has become synonymous with the activity. It has become a badge of honor to have him locate your cache using his unique skills. I've tried it myself, and I've occasionally succeeded, but I don't have his mad skills.

 

Skipping stages and puzzles is an artform now? Funny, in Michigan in my first few years of geocaching, it was called cheating and low. Some people call that skill, others call it cheap, but it always depends on the individual geocacher. This crap is so subjective, I can't believe the top brass and others here generalize ALRs into one bad category.

 

If I found out that him or you skipped the stages I hid on my mystery and multi-caches, I would've deleted the logs. There used to be respect for cache owners for taking the time to make puzzles and hiding stages, but I guess now they are only villains for hiding "obstacles" and slowing finders down from their precious smilies.

Share this post


Link to post

...nitpicking their slight differences doesn't dispel the fact that puzzles, ARLs, and math caches want you to do something.

And what some people, including you, seem to be missing or ignoring is this:

 

Puzzles: Solve before finding the cache and signing the log book.

Math caches: Solve before finding the cache and signing the log book. (how this differs from a puzzle I don't know, but I'm going with it).

ALR: Even if you find the cache and sign the log book you are still then required to do something else.

 

Therefore...

 

Before = OK

After = Not OK

 

How hard is that to understand?

 

Take the picture before you sign the log... now = OK :)

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...