Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 23
MissJenn

update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

Recommended Posts

puzzles, ARLs, and math caches want you to do something.

Very true. I don't think anyone would argue that. Allow me to touch on the key word in your statement: "Want"

I assume from your language skills that you know the difference between someone wanting something and someone demanding something?

Most puzzle caches I know of would qualify as a "want", since, by its very creation, it can be inferred that the owner would like you to follow their footsteps to get the final coords. The same is true for most multis. There are a few puzzles and multis where the owner dictates specifically that any finders who bypass the puzzle and/or stages will have their logs deleted, however these seem to be the exception, not the rule.

 

"I would like this, please"

 

vs.

 

"Give me that right now"

 

Want vs. demand.

 

Who says there isn't a requirement for many puzzles?

Since Groundspeak is the final arbiter regarding what rules exist in this game and what rules do not, I would say they are the ones who say if there are any "requirements" for finding puzzle caches. Here are the guidelines for mystery caches.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...x#mysterycaches

Can you see anything in them that dictates a puzzle MUST be solved prior to logging a find on a puzzle? I can't.

Share this post


Link to post

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

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

Geocaching does not mean to make people to silly things.

 

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

 

Geocaching does not make people do silly things? You're kidding right? We spend a ton of money on the latest greatest GPS. We go buy the new laptop. How much do we spend on cell phones and air time? Gotta buy gas for the car. Don't forget to get GSAK (I'm a new convert there). All this to go find an ammo can in the woods filled with junk you couldn't give away at a garage sale? Or that 35mm film cannister in the lamp post at the grocery store. You know you hate those, but it's on 11:17 PM, and if you hurry you can beat those other FTF hounds there. Or maybe you're after that nano under the garbage can at the store entrance. Sorry, geocaching is silly. I love it. I do it every chance I get. But I know it's silly and I don't care.

 

As for the rest of the baloney, I'm still on page one reading this thread. I learned early on in the game to just play my own game because no one plays it the same anywhere. We all seem to have fun in this sillyness anyway or we wouldn't be coming back for more.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a cache to go find.

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?

 

Just as hard for you to understand that some owners might consider solving puzzles and finding stages as the requirement for finding the final stage. Some ALRs might allow you to do the requirement first before finding the cache. My point, which you like to ignore or forget, is that everything involved in this discussion is subjective, which shouldn't be generalized into one category that makes them right or wrong. I was talking about some puzzles and multis, which I did make reference to a couple times, so I wasn't talking about every one of them.

 

Just because some ALRs required you to do something while or after signing the log doesn't make them more wrong than something that make you do a requirement before finding the cache. At least they shouldn't be.

Share this post


Link to post

 

...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.

 

Based on what? The fact that the person/team found the cache in a manner that was not intended by the CO does not take away from the fact that they still found the cache. It's unfortunate, but it happens.

Share this post


Link to post

 

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.

 

Why? He solved the puzzle, but not maybe the way you did.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post

 

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.

 

Why? He solved the puzzle, but not maybe the way you did.

 

Jim

 

A good example of why ALRs were taken out...

Share this post


Link to post

I assume from your language skills that you know the difference between someone wanting something and someone demanding something?

Most puzzle caches I know of would qualify as a "want", since, by its very creation, it can be inferred that the owner would like you to follow their footsteps to get the final coords. The same is true for most multis. There are a few puzzles and multis where the owner dictates specifically that any finders who bypass the puzzle and/or stages will have their logs deleted, however these seem to be the exception, not the rule.

 

"I would like this, please"

 

vs.

 

"Give me that right now"

 

Want vs. demand.

 

Since Groundspeak is the final arbiter regarding what rules exist in this game and what rules do not, I would say they are the ones who say if there are any "requirements" for finding puzzle caches. Here are the guidelines for mystery caches.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...x#mysterycaches

Can you see anything in them that dictates a puzzle MUST be solved prior to logging a find on a puzzle? I can't.

 

Because, back when we weren't regulated to death, when these words were written, Groundspeak allowed the owners the freedom to make up their mind how they want to regulate the finds on their multis and puzzles, at least when it comes to people bypassing (or cheating, however you want to word it) what the owner has set.

 

Back then, most people knew that a multi was set out for you to find every stage, not to find creative ways to bypass them. Groundspeak thought it was obvious, and still feel that, to leave it to the discretion of the owner to dictate how they should deal with bypassers. Same used to be said for ALR cache owners. If I owned an ALR cache, I didn't have to delete someone's find if I didn't care if they finished the requirement.

 

And as for demand and want, those are your definitions, but not everybody's. Some owners require you to find all seven traditionals before you find the bonus cache, and some don't care. You put the word "demand" in the ALR category yourself, but really no one is demanding you to do anything. Many did require you to do something before finding the cache, so did virtuals, webcams, challenges, puzzles, and math caches (I separate the two because there are puzzles that don't require math, that's just me doing it though). I don't ever remembering seeing the word "demand" on many caches that required me to do something to find it. That's just your term and anyone who agrees with you.

Share this post


Link to post
puzzles, ARLs, and math caches want you to do something.

Very true. I don't think anyone would argue that. Allow me to touch on the key word in your statement: "Want"

I assume from your language skills that you know the difference between someone wanting something and someone demanding something?

Most puzzle caches I know of would qualify as a "want", since, by its very creation, it can be inferred that the owner would like you to follow their footsteps to get the final coords. The same is true for most multis. There are a few puzzles and multis where the owner dictates specifically that any finders who bypass the puzzle and/or stages will have their logs deleted, however these seem to be the exception, not the rule.

 

"I would like this, please"

 

vs.

 

"Give me that right now"

 

Want vs. demand.

 

 

No one is "required" to do an ALR cache, you have to "want" to.

 

Do you think they are going to take away your geobirthday if you don't find an ALR?

 

They are all "want" to things.

Share this post


Link to post

I assume from your language skills that you know the difference between someone wanting something and someone demanding something?

Most puzzle caches I know of would qualify as a "want", since, by its very creation, it can be inferred that the owner would like you to follow their footsteps to get the final coords. The same is true for most multis. There are a few puzzles and multis where the owner dictates specifically that any finders who bypass the puzzle and/or stages will have their logs deleted, however these seem to be the exception, not the rule.

 

"I would like this, please"

 

vs.

 

"Give me that right now"

 

Want vs. demand.

 

Since Groundspeak is the final arbiter regarding what rules exist in this game and what rules do not, I would say they are the ones who say if there are any "requirements" for finding puzzle caches. Here are the guidelines for mystery caches.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...x#mysterycaches

Can you see anything in them that dictates a puzzle MUST be solved prior to logging a find on a puzzle? I can't.

 

Because, back when we weren't regulated to death, when these words were written, Groundspeak allowed the owners the freedom to make up their mind how they want to regulate the finds on their multis and puzzles, at least when it comes to people bypassing (or cheating, however you want to word it) what the owner has set.

 

Back then, most people knew that a multi was set out for you to find every stage, not to find creative ways to bypass them. Groundspeak thought it was obvious, and still feel that, to leave it to the discretion of the owner to dictate how they should deal with bypassers. Same used to be said for ALR cache owners. If I owned an ALR cache, I didn't have to delete someone's find if I didn't care if they finished the requirement.

 

And as for demand and want, those are your definitions, but not everybody's. Some owners require you to find all seven traditionals before you find the bonus cache, and some don't care. You put the word "demand" in the ALR category yourself, but really no one is demanding you to do anything. Many did require you to do something before finding the cache, so did virtuals, webcams, challenges, puzzles, and math caches (I separate the two because there are puzzles that don't require math, that's just me doing it though). I don't ever remembering seeing the word "demand" on many caches that required me to do something to find it. That's just your term and anyone who agrees with you.

In that case, this change has even less impact than I thought since, as you pointed out, these additional actions were not required by many ALR owners. For these owners, this new guideline changes their cache in absolutely no way.

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

Why have SOC's if anyone can log them???

Share this post


Link to post

Based on what? The fact that the person/team found the cache in a manner that was not intended by the CO does not take away from the fact that they still found the cache. It's unfortunate, but it happens.

 

If someone accidentally stumbled on my final stage of a multi and signed it, I would welcome him to geocaching and tell him he could log a find. If someone bypasses the stages and goes right to the final stage on purpose, then I would delete it. They didn't find it in the way I wanted them to. That used to be a right, and I never knew that just signing the log was the only thing needed for these caches. Times have changed. But this is all up to the owner, and most people used to respect it. Now, some geocachers feel the only need is to sign the log and move on. Times have indeed changed.

 

Why? He solved the puzzle, but not maybe the way you did.

 

I wouldn't say skipping requirements and finding the final stage is solving the puzzle. Some owners like it and some don't, but that is up to the owner to determine, or at least it used to be. If I wanted the person to use other means of finding the cache, I would've just given the answer and allow the person to find it how they see fit, which is kind of like the ALR situation now!

 

In that case, this change has even less impact than I thought since, as you pointed out, these additional actions were not required by many ALR owners. For these owners, this new guideline changes their cache in absolutely no way.

 

I don't think I said "many", but if I did, I apologize. But youa re right, if won't affect those guys too much, but those who did really require them might feel their rights as cache owners have been limited in some way.

Share this post


Link to post

Based on what? The fact that the person/team found the cache in a manner that was not intended by the CO does not take away from the fact that they still found the cache. It's unfortunate, but it happens.

 

If someone accidentally stumbled on my final stage of a multi and signed it, I would welcome him to geocaching and tell him he could log a find. If someone bypasses the stages and goes right to the final stage on purpose, then I would delete it. They didn't find it in the way I wanted them to. That used to be a right, and I never knew that just signing the log was the only thing needed for these caches. Times have changed. But this is all up to the owner, and most people used to respect it. Now, some geocachers feel the only need is to sign the log and move on. Times have indeed changed.

 

 

This is a geocache, right? Something hidden somewhere that requires only a log book to sign inside a container for someone to find with their GPSr?

 

I think we can agree that someone who skips stages misses out on the CO's intended experience, but it unfortunately does not take away from their find as deleting someone's log as you mention, would infer to the finder (newbie or veteran). I'm not sure I've seen anywhere in the guidelines that a person is required to "find a cache the way the CO wants them to" or be subject to log deletion on a Multi or Mystery cache. Perhaps I'm wrong since I've only been doing this for slightly over a year?

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. :D

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. B)

There's the rub...she doesn't log online anymore...she just caches for the fun of it with her friends...not the online numbers. :)

Share this post


Link to post

This is a geocache, right? Something hidden somewhere that requires only a log book to sign inside a container for someone to find with their GPSr?

 

I think we can agree that someone who skips stages misses out on the CO's intended experience, but it unfortunately does not take away from their find as deleting someone's log as you mention, would infer to the finder (newbie or veteran). I'm not sure I've seen anywhere in the guidelines that a person is required to "find a cache the way the CO wants them to" or be subject to log deletion on a Multi or Mystery cache. Perhaps I'm wrong since I've only been doing this for slightly over a year?

 

In my opinion? No! If these people only wanted you to find a cache, they would've hidden one stinkin' cache! Multis usually weren't hidden for people to find creative ways to bypass them.

 

See, somewhere along the few years I have been away from the Geocaching forum, some finders started believing they had more rights than owners and they had the right to do whatever the heck they wanted to do, as long as they signed a logbook.

 

The reason there aren't rules that YOU HAVE TO FIND EVERY STAGE OF A MULTI is because it is so dang obvious! What idiot needs to have a rule down that states they need to find every stage of a multi to log it as a find. It is an unwritten rule, because there used to be something called "respect for the cache and its owner". I hide caches for the finders, but I also expect them to respect my cache and whatever stuff I have worked on to set it up. Some owner's don't care, but some do! The good thing to do is to act like EVERYBODY cares that you are respecting the owner, the cache, the rules, the unwritten rules, and the spirit of the game!

 

Has geocaching become so numbers hungry that signing the log is the only thing important to everybody???

 

My God, what the heck is happening?

Share this post


Link to post

Just to add, it isn't cut and dry. Some people accidentally find the final stage, some are given permission to skip requirements, and others just don't care if you complete the stuff or not.

 

But isn't the good thing for EVERY cacher is to just do the things set up for the cache in ALL situations?

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

Why have SOC's if anyone can log them???

When I introduced my cousin to geocaching, the very first cache she ever found happened to be a member's only cache. She didn't have her own GPS then so we were just searching for the caches I had stored in my GPSr. There was no way to tell the cache was meant for members only without looking at the cache page. In fact, I didn't realize it until she called me the next day and told me she couldn't pull up the cache page.

 

Groundspeak has a "loophole" for situations like this and have said they will not close it. It is not intended for non-subscribers to use it to seek out caches, but I'm sure that happens from time to time too. This loophole is there, for example, for families with multiple accounts (One for Dad, one for Mom, one for each kid). They aren't going to pay $30 a year for each account, but Groundspeak isn't going to stop them from finding MOC's because of it.

 

edit: added "without" to the first paragraph to make the meaning more clear.

Edited by Team GPSaxophone

Share this post


Link to post

This is a geocache, right? Something hidden somewhere that requires only a log book to sign inside a container for someone to find with their GPSr?

 

I think we can agree that someone who skips stages misses out on the CO's intended experience, but it unfortunately does not take away from their find as deleting someone's log as you mention, would infer to the finder (newbie or veteran). I'm not sure I've seen anywhere in the guidelines that a person is required to "find a cache the way the CO wants them to" or be subject to log deletion on a Multi or Mystery cache. Perhaps I'm wrong since I've only been doing this for slightly over a year?

 

In my opinion? No! If these people only wanted you to find a cache, they would've hidden one stinkin' cache! Multis usually weren't hidden for people to find creative ways to bypass them.

 

See, somewhere along the few years I have been away from the Geocaching forum, some finders started believing they had more rights than owners and they had the right to do whatever the heck they wanted to do, as long as they signed a logbook.

 

The reason there aren't rules that YOU HAVE TO FIND EVERY STAGE OF A MULTI is because it is so dang obvious! What idiot needs to have a rule down that states they need to find every stage of a multi to log it as a find. It is an unwritten rule, because there used to be something called "respect for the cache and its owner". I hide caches for the finders, but I also expect them to respect my cache and whatever stuff I have worked on to set it up. Some owner's don't care, but some do! The good thing to do is to act like EVERYBODY cares that you are respecting the owner, the cache, the rules, the unwritten rules, and the spirit of the game!

 

Has geocaching become so numbers hungry that signing the log is the only thing important to everybody???

 

My God, what the heck is happening?

 

This "idiot" apparently does. This "idiot" is also curious how a CO could possibly confirm whether a cacher did everything they intended, if the found log makes no mention of this, to take such action anyway? The cacher found the cache and signed it. At that point, I think you are outta luck.

 

Again, I will agree that advancing to the final short-changes the cacher (and honestly the CO), but it doesn't mean that they didn't find a CO's intended final cache. You are blurring the lines between caching etiquette and the posted guidelines of finding a cache, IMO.

 

Personally, I enjoyed many ALR's and performed 2 caches with ALR's yesterday and will likely still do the majority of them because it adds to my caching experience. I just don't see where you graft that you have the power to delete a find simply because stages were skipped.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

As the seekers knew beforehand that they would have to fulfill an ALR, it's not true that "the situation changes right about the time the seeker's ink is drying in the logbook". If they know that they don't want to do the ALR, they don't have to go for the cache. Of course this decision is directly influenced by the ALR - but any decision about searching a cache is directly influenced by the cache type, the rating, maybe past logs, previously posted photos and a whole lot of other things!

If he decides to go for the cache anyway, he could just log a "note" instead of a "found" - then he just searched the cache with out the ALR for his own enjoyment and not for a smiley icon you can't buy anything for after all.

 

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.

 

Then it's great that you have not added an ALR to your cache. You don't have to. No cache owner has to or had to, and most won't. There are more than 750 000 active caches in the world - I'm pretty sure an overwhelming majority of them don't have an ALR. I for my part welcome the diversity of all these caches!

 

Of course there are some (or many?) caches I wouldn't do, because they mean no fun to me. Well, I don't have to - and maybe they are great for other cachers - now that's a win-win situation in my book.

 

Cheers,

Christian (Owyn)

Share this post


Link to post

My God, what the heck is happening?

You've got to be kidding. Actually, you're probably not and that is the sad part.

 

Cache Owner = Hide a cache for others to find

 

Cache Finder = Use the information presented to find the cache

 

Going back to the beginning, it's really as simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry. I wasn't referring you or anyone else as an idiot. Your posts wasn't even the source of my frustration.

 

In most situations, no one could ever find out if they bypassed something. Only if they admitted it, which would be dumb or brave, depends on who you admit it to.

 

I am not blurring anything though. When you hide a multi, it used to be safe to assume that the owner wants you to find every stage they hide out. If they didn't, they wouldn't have done that extra work. If you decide to go after a multi or mystery, courtesy used to mean solving the puzzle or finding all of the stages. Bypassing them on purpose used to be considered rude by some owners, but it always depended on the owner.

 

If someone hides a certain cache, it makes sense to complete the stuff they set up for you. If I went on a geocaching forum in the past complaining that someone deleted my find because they found out I deliberately bypassed the guy's rules, I would the one criticized. Owners used to have as much respect as finders, but it seems to have tipped to the finder's scale somewhat or somehow.

 

I USED to have lots of rights as a cache owner, and that used to be respected. I deleted a total of two finds in my lifetime, one because the guy wanted to log my cache as a find after he already found it and another for a reason I can't remember. I'm not delete-happy.

 

Bottom line: There used to be a time that doing the cache as it was set up was the right thing to do and the option to do it or not was silly.

Share this post


Link to post
My God, what the heck is happening?
You've got to be kidding. Actually, you're probably not and that is the sad part.

 

Cache Owner = Hide a cache for others to find

 

Cache Finder = Use the information presented to find the cache

 

Going back to the beginning, it's really as simple as that.

Cache Logger = Log your cache online.

 

It used to be allowed to be creative with all three of these, but no longer. The whiners have won their battle to take away the ALRs from those that enjoyed them. I hope what goes around doesn't come around to them with some aspect of the game they really enjoyed. But I guess we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post

My God, what the heck is happening?

You've got to be kidding. Actually, you're probably not and that is the sad part.

 

Cache Owner = Hide a cache for others to find

 

Cache Finder = Use the information presented to find the cache

 

Going back to the beginning, it's really as simple as that.

 

Apart from your rude sarcasm, from which was unnecessary, I was talking about common sense and etiquette. It used to not be simple of hide the cache, find the cache, or at least it was before people felt they had a right to do whatever the heck they wanted to do.

 

Here's my example:

 

Cache Owner = Hide a multi

 

Cache Finder = Find the stages of the multi until final stage is found

 

Not

 

Cache Owner = Hide a multi

 

Cache Finder = Bypass stages to quickly find the cache and move on to the next cache real fast

 

Or another

 

Cache Owner = Set up and hide a mystery cache

 

Cache Finder = Figure out the ACTUAL puzzle or complete the requirements to find mystery cache

 

Not

 

Cache Finder = Ask someone who already found the cache and ask them for the answer, or bypass a few requirements to get to the final stage faster.

 

Will you go to jail for bypassing stages? No, of course not. Might some owners find it rude? Sure might!

 

If the only important thing was to find the cache, then traditional caches would be the only cache out there. Multis, Mysteries, and others were created for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post

My God, what the heck is happening?

You've got to be kidding. Actually, you're probably not and that is the sad part.

 

Cache Owner = Hide a cache for others to find

 

Cache Finder = Use the information presented to find the cache

 

Going back to the beginning, it's really as simple as that.

 

 

Agreed 100%! --------- Plain and simple like that!

 

I always thought that the search for the cache was the fun.

 

At least that is what it used to be (and still is for me and my family and team) -- a (family) fun activity.

 

Hope these new rules will help to get us back to this stage of caching.

Share this post


Link to post

My God, what the heck is happening?

You've got to be kidding. Actually, you're probably not and that is the sad part.

 

Cache Owner = Hide a cache for others to find

 

Cache Finder = Use the information presented to find the cache

 

Going back to the beginning, it's really as simple as that.

 

Apart from your rude sarcasm, from which was unnecessary, I was talking about common sense and etiquette. It used to not be simple of hide the cache, find the cache, or at least it was before people felt they had a right to do whatever the heck they wanted to do.

 

Here's my example:

 

Cache Owner = Hide a multi

 

Cache Finder = Find the stages of the multi until final stage is found

 

Not

 

Cache Owner = Hide a multi

 

Cache Finder = Bypass stages to quickly find the cache and move on to the next cache real fast

 

Or another

 

Cache Owner = Set up and hide a mystery cache

 

Cache Finder = Figure out the ACTUAL puzzle or complete the requirements to find mystery cache

 

Not

 

Cache Finder = Ask someone who already found the cache and ask them for the answer, or bypass a few requirements to get to the final stage faster.

 

Will you go to jail for bypassing stages? No, of course not. Might some owners find it rude? Sure might!

 

If the only important thing was to find the cache, then traditional caches would be the only cache out there. Multis, Mysteries, and others were created for a reason.

 

 

I don't think Allanon is disagreeing with you in that.

 

Multis and Mysteries are definitely part of the fun, I don't think anyone has questioned those. And I agree, bypassing the first stages to find the final based on someone elses notes is not part of the original caching etiquette! But adding some strange requirements to be able to get the signe logbook "approved" is beyond the original spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Back when we weren't regulated to death

One might wonder, if you were dead, how you are still posting? :D

But that would be off topic, and only feeding your already over-dramatic prose. So, let's address your concerns:

 

And as for demand and want, those are your definitions, but not everybody's.

They are also Webster's.

"Want - to have a strong desire for"

"Demand - an act of demanding or asking especially with authority"

"Requirement - that which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory"

 

Are you seriously suggesting that you define "Requirement" as something other than that which is required?

 

If so, perhaps you should look up the definition of "Suggestion". :)

 

You put the word "demand" in the ALR category yourself, but really no one is demanding you to do anything.

Isn't that what "Requirement" means? If you have a different definition, I'd be interested in hearing it.

To me, "Requirement" has always meant something required. An ALR is, by its very nature, a cache with an additional "requirement". As in, "You Must Do This", rather than, "Please do this". The leading words, "You Must" makes it a demand. Something other than a request. Not optional, so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
A more appropriate summation would be"Completion of Additional Logging Requirements are now optional."

Still insufficient. Try "additional logging requirements are null and void, except for the requirement to find a set of other caches for a challenge cache".

 

Note that optional logging suggestions are nothing new and need not be mentioned in a minimal summation. Plenty of caches already had suggestions on what you might do ("enjoy the park").The OP mentioned them as a possible conversion route for ALRs, not as anything new (though she may have thought otherwise).

 

In my reading, The Anti Challenge Challenge mentioned previously is an ALR but not a challenge cache., since it requires you NOT to find certain other caches. However, this just points out the need to define challenge caches better. The new guidelines don't define challenge caches, but attempt to explain them with text starting "typically". Bah. It would make things much clearer to define a challenge cache as one which requires the finder to find a hider-defined set of other caches first.

 

I'm glad Parabola brought up the issue of multis with a log in each stage -- I had thought of that but didn't mention it. Note that another reason some such multi-caches cannot be converted to multiple traditional caches is that the stages are not required to be separated by 1/10 mile. Possibly a hider could handle this by specifying that the log itself is multi-part and that a signature in the multi-log consists of a signature in each individual log. It would be preferable to clarify this in the guidelines.

 

Edward

Share this post


Link to post
Has geocaching become so numbers hungry that signing the log is the only thing important to everybody?

Have you any data to support that claim?

For example, the local I mentioned who enjoys finding puzzles without solving anything. Is he one of your number hungry cachers?

In the 8 or 9 hours he spent searching for the final for one particular cache, he could've went out and located several dozen LPCs.

(Note: The puzzle in question took me all of 10 minutes to crack, and I'm admittedly dumber than a bag of hammers)

He's caching the way he enjoys it, and his challenge is a heck of a lot harder than those who did the puzzle aspect.

A numbers hound? Hardly.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry. I wasn't referring you or anyone else as an idiot. Your posts wasn't even the source of my frustration.

 

In most situations, no one could ever find out if they bypassed something. Only if they admitted it, which would be dumb or brave, depends on who you admit it to.

 

I am not blurring anything though. When you hide a multi, it used to be safe to assume that the owner wants you to find every stage they hide out. If they didn't, they wouldn't have done that extra work. If you decide to go after a multi or mystery, courtesy used to mean solving the puzzle or finding all of the stages. Bypassing them on purpose used to be considered rude by some owners, but it always depended on the owner.

 

If someone hides a certain cache, it makes sense to complete the stuff they set up for you. If I went on a geocaching forum in the past complaining that someone deleted my find because they found out I deliberately bypassed the guy's rules, I would the one criticized. Owners used to have as much respect as finders, but it seems to have tipped to the finder's scale somewhat or somehow.

 

I USED to have lots of rights as a cache owner, and that used to be respected. I deleted a total of two finds in my lifetime, one because the guy wanted to log my cache as a find after he already found it and another for a reason I can't remember. I'm not delete-happy.

 

Bottom line: There used to be a time that doing the cache as it was set up was the right thing to do and the option to do it or not was silly.

 

It's good to see that we agree in most aspects. We both (perhaps, we ALL?) want people to do all stages/puzzles because it's just plain more game that way. I will just politely agree to disagree with deleting logs for those who admit to not doing all stages, but have actually found the final.

 

I also think that while this kinda thing happens, it is in the minority of occasions. Similarly, I'd also like to think that if we put a silly hat or Groucho Marx sunglasses in a cache and ask people to post a picture if they choose to do so, that only a minority of people would not partake in the sillyness. Cuz it's just supposed to be fun, no matter how you play.

Share this post


Link to post

Cache Owner = Hide a cache for others to find

Cache Finder = Use the information presented to find the cache

 

Going back to the beginning, it's really as simple as that.

 

Not quite. Going back to the beginning there have always been requirements in addition to just finding the cache.

 

Dave Ulmer wrote in his posting "The Great American GPS Stash Hunt !":

"The only rule for stashes is: Get some Stuff, Leave some Stuff!!"

 

In his announcement of the first geocache or "Stash #1" he wrote:

"Take some stuff, leave some stuff! Record it all in the log book."

 

If interpreted strictly this is not "please do so", it is "do so!"...

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Explanations have already been posted to this thread, but they're a bit hard to find among all the other posts.

 

On the second page, look for a post that includes the following:

One of the groups pushing for this guideline change was a substantial majority of the volunteer reviewers. It's not much fun publishing caches where you know that almost nobody - including the cache owner themselves, in many cases - has the slightest hope of ever meeting the ALR. Quite a few of the ALR submissions which we see border on the vindictive.

Share this post


Link to post
Back when we weren't regulated to death

One might wonder, if you were dead, how you are still posting? :D

But that would be off topic, and only feeding your already over-dramatic prose. So, let's address your concerns:

 

And as for demand and want, those are your definitions, but not everybody's.

They are also Webster's.

"Want - to have a strong desire for"

"Demand - an act of demanding or asking especially with authority"

"Requirement - that which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory"

 

Are you seriously suggesting that you define "Requirement" as something other than that which is required?

 

If so, perhaps you should look up the definition of "Suggestion". :)

 

You put the word "demand" in the ALR category yourself, but really no one is demanding you to do anything.

Isn't that what "Requirement" means? If you have a different definition, I'd be interested in hearing it.

To me, "Requirement" has always meant something required. An ALR is, by its very nature, a cache with an additional "requirement". As in, "You Must Do This", rather than, "Please do this". The leading words, "You Must" makes it a demand. Something other than a request. Not optional, so to speak.

 

I have never seen a multi that said "Please do all of the stages" or a puzzle that said "please solve this puzzle". The CO placed the additional stages or the puzzle to be done not as a suggestion. Come on man. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Back when we weren't regulated to death

One might wonder, if you were dead, how you are still posting? :D

But that would be off topic, and only feeding your already over-dramatic prose. So, let's address your concerns:

 

And as for demand and want, those are your definitions, but not everybody's.

They are also Webster's.

"Want - to have a strong desire for"

"Demand - an act of demanding or asking especially with authority"

"Requirement - that which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory"

 

Are you seriously suggesting that you define "Requirement" as something other than that which is required?

 

If so, perhaps you should look up the definition of "Suggestion". :)

 

You put the word "demand" in the ALR category yourself, but really no one is demanding you to do anything.

Isn't that what "Requirement" means? If you have a different definition, I'd be interested in hearing it.

To me, "Requirement" has always meant something required. An ALR is, by its very nature, a cache with an additional "requirement". As in, "You Must Do This", rather than, "Please do this". The leading words, "You Must" makes it a demand. Something other than a request. Not optional, so to speak.

 

If you think I meant literal definitions, you are mistaken. But Merriam-Webster dictionary states requirement as: something required: a: something wanted or needed & essential to the existence or occurrence of something else.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/requirement

 

Regardless, because someone has made a request to do certain things, you either feel that you can't just avoid the cache and the owner must bend to your will because you can't avoid the cache for some reason? Just because someone said "you must" or "you have to" in their page, it doesn't mean you just can't simply go on to the next cache.

 

Now, I seem to have to say "You have to find all stages of this multi" in my multi's. That used to just be common knowledge.

 

And the question I asked that you quoted was rhetorical. I accused you or the other guy of anything, so please don't accuse me of anything either.

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. :D

 

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

What happens if you can't solve a puzzle? I guess you're being denied finding that particular cache, aren't you? It's been fun reading some logs in our area on a few of the puzzle caches. Military folks who have had code breakers get through some of them. And some code breakers who can't figure at least one out. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Are you seriously suggesting that you define "Requirement" as something other than that which is required?
Name one cache that you have done, ALR or otherwise, that you were "required" to do. They've always been an option since the very first one was placed. :)

 

The guideline which stated they needed to be Mystery type was a good move for the folks that refuse to even read the cache pages. And yet they still remained an optional cache for everyone. Nobody was forcing anyone else to try and find them. If you chose to try it, then you agreed to play along with the R. If you chose not to go after it, then you're in the same boat you're in now.

 

Now that nobody is allowed to own an ALR cache on this site anymore, the option of the ALR cache is taken away from those that would have chosen to hide one. Sure, the R is now an S, and someone can suggest additional things be done, but that's about as interesting as suggesting a hard puzzle be solved on a regular cache where the coords are posted. There's no point, and there's no added creativity.

 

However, as I've stated before, this is TPTB's playground so they get to make the rules, and I understand that. I'll still play the game and still have a lot of fun doing it. I'll just have less choices to make in how I have that fun from now on. I hope that trend doesn't continue and someday we're only allowed traditional cache ammo cans under piles of sticks in public parks. Gee, wouldn't THAT be a lot of fun. :D

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 :)

Exactly! :D

Share this post


Link to post

I've been dwelling on this issue because it has directly affected me. <Snip>

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.

 

<snip>

 

Make your cache a multi. Then you can control the route that the cachers take to find your special spot and ensure that the avoid the sensitive areas. If the area around the final is so sensitive that the LM want's visual proof that we're playing nice, it may not be such a good spot for a cache anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
puzzles, ARLs, and math caches want you to do something.

Very true. I don't think anyone would argue that. Allow me to touch on the key word in your statement: "Want"

I assume from your language skills that you know the difference between someone wanting something and someone demanding something?

Most puzzle caches I know of would qualify as a "want", since, by its very creation, it can be inferred that the owner would like you to follow their footsteps to get the final coords. The same is true for most multis. There are a few puzzles and multis where the owner dictates specifically that any finders who bypass the puzzle and/or stages will have their logs deleted, however these seem to be the exception, not the rule.

 

"I would like this, please"

 

vs.

 

"Give me that right now"

 

Want vs. demand.

 

Who says there isn't a requirement for many puzzles?

Since Groundspeak is the final arbiter regarding what rules exist in this game and what rules do not, I would say they are the ones who say if there are any "requirements" for finding puzzle caches. Here are the guidelines for mystery caches.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...x#mysterycaches

Can you see anything in them that dictates a puzzle MUST be solved prior to logging a find on a puzzle? I can't.

Huh? If you don't complete the "required" puzzle, how will you get the coordinates for the cache short of getting them from another cacher?

Share this post


Link to post

We can only assume that Earthcaches will be the next to go.

One can only hope.

Share this post


Link to post

This is a geocache, right? Something hidden somewhere that requires only a log book to sign inside a container for someone to find with their GPSr?

 

I think we can agree that someone who skips stages misses out on the CO's intended experience, but it unfortunately does not take away from their find as deleting someone's log as you mention, would infer to the finder (newbie or veteran). I'm not sure I've seen anywhere in the guidelines that a person is required to "find a cache the way the CO wants them to" or be subject to log deletion on a Multi or Mystery cache. Perhaps I'm wrong since I've only been doing this for slightly over a year?

 

In my opinion? No! If these people only wanted you to find a cache, they would've hidden one stinkin' cache! Multis usually weren't hidden for people to find creative ways to bypass them.

 

See, somewhere along the few years I have been away from the Geocaching forum, some finders started believing they had more rights than owners and they had the right to do whatever the heck they wanted to do, as long as they signed a logbook.

 

The reason there aren't rules that YOU HAVE TO FIND EVERY STAGE OF A MULTI is because it is so dang obvious! What idiot needs to have a rule down that states they need to find every stage of a multi to log it as a find. It is an unwritten rule, because there used to be something called "respect for the cache and its owner". I hide caches for the finders, but I also expect them to respect my cache and whatever stuff I have worked on to set it up. Some owner's don't care, but some do! The good thing to do is to act like EVERYBODY cares that you are respecting the owner, the cache, the rules, the unwritten rules, and the spirit of the game!

 

Has geocaching become so numbers hungry that signing the log is the only thing important to everybody???

 

My God, what the heck is happening?

 

This "idiot" apparently does. This "idiot" is also curious how a CO could possibly confirm whether a cacher did everything they intended, if the found log makes no mention of this, to take such action anyway? The cacher found the cache and signed it. At that point, I think you are outta luck.

 

Again, I will agree that advancing to the final short-changes the cacher (and honestly the CO), but it doesn't mean that they didn't find a CO's intended final cache. You are blurring the lines between caching etiquette and the posted guidelines of finding a cache, IMO.

 

Personally, I enjoyed many ALR's and performed 2 caches with ALR's yesterday and will likely still do the majority of them because it adds to my caching experience. I just don't see where you graft that you have the power to delete a find simply because stages were skipped.

Multis should have the same guidelines as unknown/mystery caches...no deleting of logs! You find the cache and sign the log, that's the point...according to some cachers in our area.

Share this post


Link to post

We can only assume that Earthcaches will be the next to go.

One can only hope.

 

May I ask why? There's lots around me that I haven't done, and may never do. No big deal. :D

 

I rarely post in the forum's but this one is annoying, especially the whining by those who want to force everyone else to do things their way.

 

I'm disappointed about the ALR decision. Just one more disappointment in life. :)

 

So, now that I have to archive my cache (I only have one out of 22 caches that's an ALR), I'm thinking I should delete all the finds on it, then archive the cache. This way we can pretend evil ALR's never existed. As well, all those who couldn't do my ALR cache due to the ALR requirement (all you had to do was state in your "found it" log who your favorite character on Gilligan's island was) will no longer be disadvantaged in the numbers race.

 

After that, it looks like I'll need to trade in my ammo cans for 35 mm film canisters. Looking at all these posts, it seems the greater number of cachers are urban cachers looking for easy drive bys. I guess I can accommodate that easily enough. Pretty boring, but if that's what floats your boat.... :D

Edited by ickster

Share this post


Link to post
Back when we weren't regulated to death

One might wonder, if you were dead, how you are still posting? B)

But that would be off topic, and only feeding your already over-dramatic prose. So, let's address your concerns:

 

And as for demand and want, those are your definitions, but not everybody's.

They are also Webster's.

"Want - to have a strong desire for"

"Demand - an act of demanding or asking especially with authority"

"Requirement - that which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory"

 

Are you seriously suggesting that you define "Requirement" as something other than that which is required?

 

If so, perhaps you should look up the definition of "Suggestion". :)

 

You put the word "demand" in the ALR category yourself, but really no one is demanding you to do anything.

Isn't that what "Requirement" means? If you have a different definition, I'd be interested in hearing it.

To me, "Requirement" has always meant something required. An ALR is, by its very nature, a cache with an additional "requirement". As in, "You Must Do This", rather than, "Please do this". The leading words, "You Must" makes it a demand. Something other than a request. Not optional, so to speak.

 

I have never seen a multi that said "Please do all of the stages" or a puzzle that said "please solve this puzzle". The CO placed the additional stages or the puzzle to be done not as a suggestion. Come on man. :D

Exactly! I'd be really happy if multis go next! :D

Share this post


Link to post
puzzles, ARLs, and math caches want you to do something.

Very true. I don't think anyone would argue that. Allow me to touch on the key word in your statement: "Want"

I assume from your language skills that you know the difference between someone wanting something and someone demanding something?

Most puzzle caches I know of would qualify as a "want", since, by its very creation, it can be inferred that the owner would like you to follow their footsteps to get the final coords. The same is true for most multis. There are a few puzzles and multis where the owner dictates specifically that any finders who bypass the puzzle and/or stages will have their logs deleted, however these seem to be the exception, not the rule.

 

"I would like this, please"

 

vs.

 

"Give me that right now"

 

Want vs. demand.

 

Who says there isn't a requirement for many puzzles?

Since Groundspeak is the final arbiter regarding what rules exist in this game and what rules do not, I would say they are the ones who say if there are any "requirements" for finding puzzle caches. Here are the guidelines for mystery caches.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...x#mysterycaches

Can you see anything in them that dictates a puzzle MUST be solved prior to logging a find on a puzzle? I can't.

Huh? If you don't complete the "required" puzzle, how will you get the coordinates for the cache short of getting them from another cacher?

 

I've found some (and would imagine that some have been found) by:

 

- Following a random geo-trail leading to nowhere in particular

- Looking for places to hide my own caches

- Paying attention to clues inadvertantly posted in finders' logs

- Recognizing areas by photograph and performing a quick search of that area

- Noticing odd piles of sticks/wood where there really shouldn't be any

- Lifing random lampskirts at the nearby Wal-Mart :)

 

To me, that's just being resourceful, cognizant of one's surroundings, and in some cases, lucky. I wouldn't ask to take a "hide" away simply because I stumbled upon a cache that was poorly hidden (or perhaps, not hidden well enough after being found), so I don't see why somebody would have to solve the riddle or risk having a "find" log removed.

 

This debate might best be served in a separate forum post (Performing All Stages vs. Signing Final Cache) and I think I've contributed enough to the conversation veering off topic somewhat. Suffice it to say as mentioned in the OP, ALR's have now gone the way of the dodo, but I will still enjoy them in all their "suggestive" glory whenever possible.

Share this post


Link to post
If you think I meant literal definitions, you are mistaken.

Kewl!... Uh... What other kind of definitions are there?

 

Regardless, because someone has made a request to do certain things, you either feel that you can't just avoid the cache and the owner must bend to your will because you can't avoid the cache for some reason?

Actually, an ALR is not a request. A request would an ALS. (Additional Logging Suggestion)

"Please do this" is a request.

"You must do this" is not a request.

 

But let's pretend, just for the sake of this sentence, that an ALR is a request.

 

For the record, I've never held the belief that I can't avoid a cache. Nor, have I even hinted at such foolishness. Where you dredged that up from, I have no clue.

But let's move on... Again, pretending that an ALR is a request.

 

I've never felt that any actual owner, of any actual cache, should submit to my whim. Nor have I even hinted at such foolishness.

More dredging, I suppose.

 

Just because someone said "you must" or "you have to" in their page, it doesn't mean you just can't simply go on to the next cache.

Very true. Has anyone, at anytime during this thread, suggested otherwise?

If they have, I must've missed it. I'm kinda dense some times, so that's not beyond the realm of possibility.

 

And the question I asked that you quoted was rhetorical. I accused you or the other guy of anything, so please don't accuse me of anything either.

Sorry, you lost me on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
I rarely post in the forum's but this one is annoying, especially the whining by those who want to force everyone else to do things their way.

 

I'm disappointed about the ALR decision.

Isn't that a contradiction?

On one hand you seem to be suggesting that cachers imposing their will upon others is bad.

On the other hand you seem to be expressing disappointment that Groundspeak took steps which prevented cachers from imposing their will upon others.

Maybe I need a nap. :)

Share this post


Link to post

.

 

Huh? If you don't complete the "required" puzzle, how will you get the coordinates for the cache short of getting them from another cacher?

 

You don't need coordinates to find a cache.

 

There is an art form of sorts to finding a cache without having the coordinates or solving the related puzzle. I recently found a cache with only one piece of information to go on - the posted coordinates which were within two miles of the cache. But that was enough to get me to the correct spot. I looked at the two mile circle inside which the cache was hidden and immediately felt I knew exactly where to go. Actually, the cache was a micro and there was a hide hint provided by the CO that was also crucial once I got there.

 

In the same way, I have seen some people, one person in particular, find puzzle caches of mine in ways I never imagined. It's not cheating, it's ingenuity.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
puzzles, ARLs, and math caches want you to do something.

Very true. I don't think anyone would argue that. Allow me to touch on the key word in your statement: "Want"

I assume from your language skills that you know the difference between someone wanting something and someone demanding something?

Most puzzle caches I know of would qualify as a "want", since, by its very creation, it can be inferred that the owner would like you to follow their footsteps to get the final coords. The same is true for most multis. There are a few puzzles and multis where the owner dictates specifically that any finders who bypass the puzzle and/or stages will have their logs deleted, however these seem to be the exception, not the rule.

 

"I would like this, please"

 

vs.

 

"Give me that right now"

 

Want vs. demand.

 

Who says there isn't a requirement for many puzzles?

Since Groundspeak is the final arbiter regarding what rules exist in this game and what rules do not, I would say they are the ones who say if there are any "requirements" for finding puzzle caches. Here are the guidelines for mystery caches.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...x#mysterycaches

Can you see anything in them that dictates a puzzle MUST be solved prior to logging a find on a puzzle? I can't.

Huh? If you don't complete the "required" puzzle, how will you get the coordinates for the cache short of getting them from another cacher?

 

I've found some (and would imagine that some have been found) by:

 

- Following a random geo-trail leading to nowhere in particular

- Looking for places to hide my own caches

- Paying attention to clues inadvertantly posted in finders' logs

- Recognizing areas by photograph and performing a quick search of that area

- Noticing odd piles of sticks/wood where there really shouldn't be any

- Lifing random lampskirts at the nearby Wal-Mart :D

 

To me, that's just being resourceful, cognizant of one's surroundings, and in some cases, lucky. I wouldn't ask to take a "hide" away simply because I stumbled upon a cache that was poorly hidden (or perhaps, not hidden well enough after being found), so I don't see why somebody would have to solve the riddle or risk having a "find" log removed.

 

This debate might best be served in a separate forum post (Performing All Stages vs. Signing Final Cache) and I think I've contributed enough to the conversation veering off topic somewhat. Suffice it to say as mentioned in the OP, ALR's have now gone the way of the dodo, but I will still enjoy them in all their "suggestive" glory whenever possible.

LOLOL! :) That last one is funny. B) And the others are interesting. I'll have to try them. :D

Share this post


Link to post
I rarely post in the forum's but this one is annoying, especially the whining by those who want to force everyone else to do things their way.

 

I'm disappointed about the ALR decision.

Isn't that a contradiction?

On one hand you seem to be suggesting that cachers imposing their will upon others is bad.

On the other hand you seem to be expressing disappointment that Groundspeak took steps which prevented cachers from imposing their will upon others.

Maybe I need a nap. :)

 

I think what's implied is that the ban by GS is a Global ban. Now no one will be able to look for an ALR, even if they wanted to. On the other hand, if you didn't want to do an ALR, the vast majority (99%?) of other caches weren't ALRs, so there were lots of other options.

 

Ban by GS = No option at all for anyone to undertake this type of fun...and yes, I know, other types of fun exist.

 

ALR = Give it a pass if you want.

 

Some of my favourite caches were ALR's. All of the worst caches I've done are the ones that, from what I'm reading, seem to be the favoured cache types (the ones not being recommended as "banned"). I think you can see by the follow on posts indicating a desire to ban Multi's, Earth caches etc. that, in fact, pretty much everything other than a basic 1.5/1.5 goto annoys a very vocal bunch of cachers. Are these the majority? I don't know.

 

Anyway, enough from me. I've a life to get on with. I'm back to being a occasional lurker and an infrequent poster. (or is than "im"poster :D )

Edited by ickster

Share this post


Link to post

.

 

Huh? If you don't complete the "required" puzzle, how will you get the coordinates for the cache short of getting them from another cacher?

 

You don't need coordinates to find a cache.

 

There is an art form of sorts to finding a cache without having the coordinates or solving the related puzzle. I recently found a cache with only one piece of information to go on - the posted coordinates which were within two miles of the cache. But that was enough to get me to the correct spot. I looked at the two mile circle inside which the cache was hidden and immediately felt I knew exactly where to go. Actually, the cache was a micro and there was a hide hint provided by the CO that was also crucial once I got there.

 

In the same way, I have seen some people, one person in particular, find puzzle caches of mine in ways I never imagined. It's not cheating, it's ingenuity.

 

.

More great info! I'll have to try it! :)

Share this post


Link to post

Multis should have the same guidelines as unknown/mystery caches...no deleting of logs! You find the cache and sign the log, that's the point...according to some cachers in our area.

In fact the new guideline is for all physical caches - traditional, multi, letterbox hybrid, or mystery - irregardless of whether or not their is an additional task suggested:

Logging of All Physical Caches

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

The guideline goes on to say that cache owners must cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements. It does say if the logs can be deleted for other reasons if the the physical log has been signed. It also confusing because of additional guideline for challenge caches which seem to contradict this guideline.

 

Frankly I'm embarrassed by the poor choice of wording in the guidelines and even Miss Jenn's explanation doesn't clarify this. I wonder if they did this on a Friday afternoon when they knew that Groundspeak lackeys wouldn't be around to deal with all the questions this change brings up. I actually can see some of the rationale for the change now thanks to one or two people who have made an attempt to explain the rationale for the change instead of just typing "Good riddance" and sticking their fingers in their ears and going "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah" when the other side explains what they liked or didn't like about ALRs. However until we understand what capability will remain with cache owners to police their logs and get some explanation if there is any reason why a log from someone who signed the physical log could be deleted, I'm going to have to withhold judgment as to whether the new guideline is a good idea. I expect that you could still delete a spoiler so long as you allow the finder to relog the cache without the spoiler - though perhaps you could only request that a finder change the log. (No spoiler logs is an ALR - in someone's opinion at least).

Share this post


Link to post

 

And the question I asked that you quoted was rhetorical. I accused you or the other guy of anything, so please don't accuse me of anything either.

Sorry, you lost me on that one.

 

Here you go dude: "Has geocaching become so numbers hungry that signing the log is the only thing important to everybody???"

 

Your response to my rhetorical question, that wasn't asking anybody in particular:

 

Have you any data to support that claim? For example, the local I mentioned who enjoys finding puzzles without solving anything. Is he one of your number hungry cachers? In the 8 or 9 hours he spent searching for the final for one particular cache, he could've went out and located several dozen LPCs. (Note: The puzzle in question took me all of 10 minutes to crack, and I'm admittedly dumber than a bag of hammers) He's caching the way he enjoys it, and his challenge is a heck of a lot harder than those who did the puzzle aspect. A numbers hound? Hardly.

 

Never called him or you a numbers hound. My question was asked because of the fact that several people here believe that even though multis and mysteries are set up as being more than just a traditional cache, they have a right to treat it as a traditional.

 

On the subject of cache owners making demand vs. requests or if they are the same. I don't really care what you call it. What Groundspeak called it was requirements, which did want you to do something for it. Call it demanding, who cares? I can't believe you got me nitpicking this crap also. I've said what I needed to say, I have have to quit feeding the troll. Heck, I'm a troll for my side too.

 

Been one heck of a conversation this weekend.

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...