Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Fish Eagle

Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines

Recommended Posts

The Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines have been updated today.

The update is specifically about "Additional Logging Requirements" (ALRs) and could affect both cache hiders and cache finders.

 

Please visit the General Forums for more info.

 

Feel free to use this thread for discussion or questions regarding the changes.

Edited by Fish Eagle

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Fish Eagle

How does this affect an apparent letterbox cache.

Cache is question is GCYGR6

 

the page states : This is a Letterbox cache with a slight difference - you must stamp (no stickers/calling cards or similar) the log book with an ink stamp and ink pad that clearly states who you are (IE your caching name). So no raiding your children's' toy boxes. If I can't identify you from your stamp alone then your log will be removed.

 

I have found this cache twice, but just logged a note as I have no stanp.

Am i now entitled to log this as a find on the new rules?

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Fish Eagle

How does this affect an apparent letterbox cache.

Cache is question is GCYGR6

 

the page states : This is a Letterbox cache with a slight difference - you must stamp (no stickers/calling cards or similar) the log book with an ink stamp and ink pad that clearly states who you are (IE your caching name). So no raiding your children's' toy boxes. If I can't identify you from your stamp alone then your log will be removed.

 

I have found this cache twice, but just logged a note as I have no stanp.

Am i now entitled to log this as a find on the new rules?

Yes, it's a mandatory additional logging requirement which is no longer valid and will have to be removed, or made optional.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Andy.

 

I was just thinking about our caches, Wolhuter's Hut (mine) and Joao Albasini (yours), at KNP. Will it be necessary to change that now to traditional caches or will it stay the same as it is now?

I'm also thinking about another one at Skukuza which have more or less the same requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
I was just thinking about our caches, Wolhuter's Hut (mine) and Joao Albasini (yours), at KNP. Will it be necessary to change that now to traditional caches or will it stay the same as it is now?

I'm also thinking about another one at Skukuza which have more or less the same requirements.

Greetings from Letaba campsite, KNP - eat your hearts out!! :rolleyes:

 

Yes, we've been snookered with both of our caches which you mentioned. The sad part is that ridiculous ALR's weren't a problem in Africa at all - I only found 18 in the continent which need to be worked on, and they were all reasonable. But, I do agree with the guideline change because it had reached absurd proportions in other parts of the world, with a proliferation of really silly, non-geocaching related ALRs.

 

I've already updated Joao Albasini - I left it as a mystery, but removed the "email the dates" part. It can be done as a multi when exiting the KNP, or as a mystery using internet research if entering the park. All I've lost is the guarantee that cachers entering the park will actually visit the ruins. I've recommend that they do so, but now they don't have to.....

 

Your cache Wolhuter's Hut - items 2 and 3 are mandatory ALRs, and must either be made optional or removed, which sadly messes up your cache quite comprehensively.... You could change it to a traditional, but that defeats the object. I suggest that you make it into either a multi with a virtual clue at the hut, or a multi/mystery like Joao Albasini using a virtual clue one way or internet research the other way. You have some time though - I'll only start pushing you in a few months, so rethink it when you have time and come up with a plan that fits in. You just mustn't delete logs in the meantime which don't conform to your ALR.

 

Skukuza - do you mean the earthcache? If so, that's fine. The guidline change only applies to caches with physical containers and logbooks, not earthcaches, or grandfathered virtuals and webcam caches which still require some form of verification.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Fish Eagle

How does this affect an apparent letterbox cache.

Cache is question is GCYGR6

 

the page states : This is a Letterbox cache with a slight difference - you must stamp (no stickers/calling cards or similar) the log book with an ink stamp and ink pad that clearly states who you are (IE your caching name). So no raiding your children's' toy boxes. If I can't identify you from your stamp alone then your log will be removed.

 

I have found this cache twice, but just logged a note as I have no stanp.

Am i now entitled to log this as a find on the new rules?

Yes, it's a mandatory additional logging requirement which is no longer valid and will have to be removed, or made optional.

 

Thanks Andy!

Chalk up one more cache find for me!!

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Andy. Thats a bummer. I'll think of something however. Letaba? Lucky you. We could only 4 nights in Pretoriuskop. We arrived yesterday. Greetings from the Park.

Share this post


Link to post

I ploughed through more than half the pages in this debate. I did not realise how passionate the Americans are about their caches and their affinity to ALRs, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. There were also the red herrings like cache owners deleting logs if they were not signed by the exact cacher themselves...

 

This brings me to an interesting conundrum: What about a cache like GCR9JR: "Fantasia" which does not contain a log sheet and relies on an ALR. Is this going to forced to be upgraded to a conventional traditional with a real log sheet? Strictly speaking anyone can log it now because by definition the log cannot be deleted if the conditions of the ALR have not been met!

 

Another interesting discussion was the fact that you can no longer have a non member only cache, but members only caches are permissible. What is the difference? Why should the purchase of a premium membership be an ALR determining whether or not you are permitted to log the find?

 

I think that in time this storm in a teacup will be forgotten as people learn to play by the rules as laid out by Groundspeak and as amended by them as the game progresses and evolves.

 

Enjoy the Kruger Park, Andy. It will be my turn in a couple of weeks to be relaxing there!

Share this post


Link to post

ag nee, I logged that cache I have found twice previously, and got the following reply:

 

"I see that you have logged V is for Vows on 4/4/9. Of course that is fine with the new rule changes. However your log seems to suggest that you are effectively logging your earlier visit as a find now that the ALRs are not allowed. I believe that the guidelines are meant to say that finds after the date don't require the ALRs. Could you confirm that you REVISITED the cache and signed the log book on 4th?"

 

Is his argument valid? Seems a bit pedantic to me :P

Share this post


Link to post

I ploughed through more than half the pages in this debate. I did not realise how passionate the Americans are about their caches and their affinity to ALRs, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. There were also the red herrings like cache owners deleting logs if they were not signed by the exact cacher themselves...

 

This brings me to an interesting conundrum: What about a cache like GCR9JR: "Fantasia" which does not contain a log sheet and relies on an ALR. Is this going to forced to be upgraded to a conventional traditional with a real log sheet? Strictly speaking anyone can log it now because by definition the log cannot be deleted if the conditions of the ALR have not been met!

 

Another interesting discussion was the fact that you can no longer have a non member only cache, but members only caches are permissible. What is the difference? Why should the purchase of a premium membership be an ALR determining whether or not you are permitted to log the find?

 

I think that in time this storm in a teacup will be forgotten as people learn to play by the rules as laid out by Groundspeak and as amended by them as the game progresses and evolves.

 

Enjoy the Kruger Park, Andy. It will be my turn in a couple of weeks to be relaxing there!

 

ag nee, I logged that cache I have found twice previously, and got the following reply:

 

"I see that you have logged V is for Vows on 4/4/9. Of course that is fine with the new rule changes. However your log seems to suggest that you are effectively logging your earlier visit as a find now that the ALRs are not allowed. I believe that the guidelines are meant to say that finds after the date don't require the ALRs. Could you confirm that you REVISITED the cache and signed the log book on 4th?"

 

Is his argument valid? Seems a bit pedantic to me :)

 

I sometimes shake my head in disbelief when I see how uptight folks can get about this game. The ALR seemed to be big in the states (especially). I think it has to do with cacher and cache density, so everyone is fighting for their space, which brings out the nasty (or aggressive) side of people. I don't get the Member Only, and then as a retort the Non-Member Only story either. But I suppose we all play the game differently.

 

As I understand it Fantasia could be changed to a multi/offset with coords in it directing one to a cache in a secluded area with a logbook. This has been found to work very well in high muggle areas. Alternatively it can be left as is - the ALR is just optional. A change to an offset/multi might only be required if the arrangement gets abused. It might be an interesting experiment to see whether leaving something to a trust system will work. Maybe we will be pleasantly surprised. I recall paying for the the sunday paper in continental Europe by dropping the money in an "honesty box" - it seemed to work there.

Share this post


Link to post

ag nee, I logged that cache I have found twice previously, and got the following reply:

 

"I see that you have logged V is for Vows on 4/4/9. Of course that is fine with the new rule changes. However your log seems to suggest that you are effectively logging your earlier visit as a find now that the ALRs are not allowed. I believe that the guidelines are meant to say that finds after the date don't require the ALRs. Could you confirm that you REVISITED the cache and signed the log book on 4th?"

 

Is his argument valid? Seems a bit pedantic to me :)

Pedantic or not, I guess the cache owner has the final say.

I've heard that finding a cache for the second time is easy, so the third time should really be a breeze!! <_<

Share this post


Link to post
<snip>

What about a cache like GCR9JR: "Fantasia" which does not contain a log sheet and relies on an ALR.

<snip>

Yep, it's an ALR and will need to be amended to conform to the new guidelines.

Being a physical cache, it should have a logbook/logsheet, so the simplest solution is to put a logsheet in the cache container, but there are various other options such as a multi/offset as mentioned earlier.

Share this post


Link to post

ag nee, I logged that cache I have found twice previously, and got the following reply:

 

"I see that you have logged V is for Vows on 4/4/9. Of course that is fine with the new rule changes. However your log seems to suggest that you are effectively logging your earlier visit as a find now that the ALRs are not allowed. I believe that the guidelines are meant to say that finds after the date don't require the ALRs. Could you confirm that you REVISITED the cache and signed the log book on 4th?"

 

Is his argument valid? Seems a bit pedantic to me :blink:

Pedantic or not, I guess the cache owner has the final say.

I've heard that finding a cache for the second time is easy, so the third time should really be a breeze!! :blink:

 

ok thanks!

Finding it wont be an issue, but I don't really see a reason to go out that way again just to have 1 log!

And the really stupid thing is that most of the previous finders never met his requirements and he didn't care, so I could have logged it without issue. Now because I did the honorable thing I am being punished!

Share this post


Link to post

Now what about Earthcahces ? They normally have a ton of ALRs...

The guideline change for ALRs only applies to caches with physical containers and logbooks/logsheets.

Earthcaches, grandfathered virtual caches and grandfathered webcam caches still require some form of verification - ie: no change.

 

The guideline change found here is titled "Logging of all physical caches".

Share this post


Link to post

ag nee, I logged that cache I have found twice previously, and got the following reply:

 

"I see that you have logged V is for Vows on 4/4/9. Of course that is fine with the new rule changes. However your log seems to suggest that you are effectively logging your earlier visit as a find now that the ALRs are not allowed. I believe that the guidelines are meant to say that finds after the date don't require the ALRs. Could you confirm that you REVISITED the cache and signed the log book on 4th?"

 

Is his argument valid? Seems a bit pedantic to me :laughing:

Pedantic or not, I guess the cache owner has the final say.

I've heard that finding a cache for the second time is easy, so the third time should really be a breeze!! :huh:

 

ok thanks!

Finding it wont be an issue, but I don't really see a reason to go out that way again just to have 1 log!

And the really stupid thing is that most of the previous finders never met his requirements and he didn't care, so I could have logged it without issue. Now because I did the honorable thing I am being punished!

 

Some clarification regarding the above - there have been many incidents worldwide similar to this, so Groundspeak have clarified application of the guideline change in this regard -

 

Not having to fulfil the ALR requirement only applies to cache visits from 4th April 2009 onwards.

For cache visits prior to 4th April, ALR requirements are still valid.

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 2

×
×
  • Create New...