Change to the Guidelines

[Deceangi]

Official Announcment by Miss Jenn

 

Link to the Guidelines

 

Deci

[+HazelS]

Interesting...

 

Does this now mean that caches such as Little Quest will have to be archived???

 

Can we have some clarification?

[+keehotee]

Interesting...

 

Does this now mean that caches such as Little Quest will have to be archived???

 

Can we have some clarification?

 

4. The following section about Challenges has been added to the Mystery/ Puzzle section:

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.

[lakeuk]

I wonder if their database is getting over loaded and instead of investing they're looking a ways to reduce the number of active caches listed starting with those less visited

[+Bear and Ragged]

Interesting...

Does this now mean that caches such as Little Quest will have to be archived???

 

Can we have some clarification?

4. The following section about Challenges has been added to the Mystery/ Puzzle section:

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.

My bold.

Multi-Caches

There are many variations to multi-stage caches. The most common is that in which the first container or waypoint contains or provides coordinates to the next location. Another popular variant is a series of multiple waypoints, each of which provide partial coordinates for the final cache position. Please provide the coordinates of all stages of the multi-cache by using the "Additional Waypoints" feature. The posted coordinates are for the first stage. If you don't want the coordinates for the rest of the stages displayed, be sure to mark them as "hidden." Doing this will hide the coordinates from view by anyone except the owner and website volunteers.

 

Offset caches are a variation on multi-caches. They are listed as a multi-cache when selecting a cache type. They are not found by simply going to some coordinates and finding a cache there. With the offset cache the published coordinates could be of an existing historical monument, plaque, or even a benchmark that you would like to have your cache hunter visit. At this spot, the hunter looks for numbers or information already appearing on the marker or on some part of the marker or site (geocachers never deface public or private property). The geocacher is then able to manipulate these numbers or information using instructions posted on the cache page to continue the hunt.

My bold.

 

LQ-final changes to a Multi.

PUP has a bit of work to do, adding all the Additional Waypoints... (and making them "hidden*")

(*or not, they are easily found!)

 

I'm not a reviewer!

 

Would be nice to have Deci's take on the LQ series and this change...

(Asking as an owner of one of the LQ caches required to be found to complete the Quest.)

[+jerryo]

Can I have a yes/no answer to this question, please?

 

Does this mean that if I have a cache that, say, requires taking a photo from a location before logging to prove you've been there, then that task is unenforceable?

[+dino-irl]

Yes

[+HazelS]

 

LQ-final changes to a Multi.

PUP has a bit of work to do, adding all the Additional Waypoints... (and making them "hidden*")

(*or not, they are easily found!)

 

 

That was the point I was trying to make.... LQ will have to change if it is not a multi already (I CBA looking!)....

The other point I thought about was the the line that you would have to show that you've already done it or a significant no would have to be able to do so..... I wonder... lol.....

 

Still be good to have some PROPER reviewer opinion on this... I have an LQ cache!

[+Bambography]

Well if we're worried about LQ, imagine the work going on over the pond on all the various Delorme challenges etc!

[+jerryo]

Yes

Many thanks!!

 

That's me not setting any more then. I had intended planting a couple of caches that required a bit of effort to get to (climbing-related). The only way I could see of doing this was to get permission to have the cache container in one place and then having the arduous part in another, where people are allowed to go, but where a box etc could not be placed. I have been told that climbing-related caching activities are not-allowed in my area and that a cache would not get permission if it were placed at the top of a climb, say. My way round this was to have logging stipulations. Oh well, enjoy your stickoflage, everyone. I'll bow out now.

[+Bear and Ragged]

 

LQ-final changes to a Multi.

PUP has a bit of work to do, adding all the Additional Waypoints... (and making them "hidden*")

(*or not, they are easily found!)

That was the point I was trying to make.... LQ will have to change if it is not a multi already (I CBA looking!)....

The other point I thought about was the the line that you would have to show that you've already done it or a significant no would have to be able to do so..... I wonder... lol.....

 

Still be good to have some PROPER reviewer opinion on this... I have an LQ cache!

 

LQ -Final is a ? (I looked!)

 

The new guidelines say If you are setting a new challenge... You need to show...

LQ has already been set -BUT is not 'Grandfathered' in.

IF the series discontinues, I would still keep the cache in place. (It stands on it's own)

 

My interpretation of the guidelines make LQ-Final a multi. ie Find a set of caches to find part co-ords in those caches... Whats the 'puzzle' to solve it?

 

If the new guidelines mean that ? caches are Puzzle, and need something solving to get the co-ords -either at home, and/or at the location- I'm for the change.

[+Simply Paul]

A multi is a self-contained cache. A ? is a 'unknown' or 'puzzle' - a catch-all 'everything else' type, which I believe includes caches which require other loggable caches to be found before logging a find on the 'bonus'. If I'm correct, the LQ Final should be and is a ?

[+dino-irl]

Everyone here is going to have an opinion (myself included*) but this discussion really should be between the reviewer that published the cache (Deci?) and the cache owner

 

* well I would have an opinion if I actually looked at the cache I guess

[+Bear and Ragged]

Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines

Guidelines last updated April 3, 2009.

 

Multi-Caches

There are many variations to multi-stage caches. The most common is that in which the first container or waypoint contains or provides coordinates to the next location. Another popular variant is a series of multiple waypoints, each of which provide partial coordinates for the final cache position.

My bold.

 

Other than what order to do all the caches, there is no 'puzzle' to LQ-Final.

We know what size it is (another reason to make a cache a ?)

[+The Blorenges]

Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines

Guidelines last updated April 3, 2009.

 

Multi-Caches

There are many variations to multi-stage caches. The most common is that in which the first container or waypoint contains or provides coordinates to the next location. Another popular variant is a series of multiple waypoints, each of which provide partial coordinates for the final cache position.

My bold.

 

Other than what order to do all the caches, there is no 'puzzle' to LQ-Final.

We know what size it is (another reason to make a cache a ?)

 

Surely the puzzle part of the LQ Final is that you have to first of all get all the numbers from all the other LQ caches, then add them up correctly to give you the correct co-ords to find the Final? The size of the LQ Final has nothing to do with whether it's a ? cache or not.

 

MrsB

[+Bear and Ragged]

Surely the puzzle part of the LQ Final is that you have to first of all get all the numbers from all the other LQ caches, then add them up correctly to give you the correct co-ords to find the Final?

MrsB

 

So, on that, ALL multi's that require you to gather numbers should be ? caches?

 

Some caches with a disguised cache have (I believe) been marked as 'mystery' so as not to give away the cache disguise. In my book "Cache size Unknown" should cover it.

 

Confounded by the belief that a lot of Nano's are disguised by rating them 'size unknown'. Time for a Nano size rating?

 

I have no problem with, for example, a nano container suitably fixed into a log to disguise it, being classed as Size Unknown. It's the nano hanging in a large ivy tree marked Size Unknown that causes the angst!

 

And time to get rid of the "Catch All" category rating!

A Puzzle cache requires you to find an answer to the question!

 

[+chizu]

Yes

Many thanks!!

 

That's me not setting any more then. I had intended planting a couple of caches that required a bit of effort to get to (climbing-related). The only way I could see of doing this was to get permission to have the cache container in one place and then having the arduous part in another, where people are allowed to go, but where a box etc could not be placed. I have been told that climbing-related caching activities are not-allowed in my area and that a cache would not get permission if it were placed at the top of a climb, say. My way round this was to have logging stipulations. Oh well, enjoy your stickoflage, everyone. I'll bow out now.

 

Why not just make it a multi then? Or a possible Earthcache?

[Deceangi]

I wonder if their database is getting over loaded and instead of investing they're looking a ways to reduce the number of active caches listed starting with those less visited

 

Just to clarify some things,

 

First of this is not a measure to remove currently published caches due to database issues. Geocaching is about Physically finding a Hidden Container and signing the Log Book. Due to the increasing abuse of the ALR, some of which have no relation to geocaching in anyway [and also attempts to use a ALR to bypass the Guidelines] is possibly the main reason why ALR's have been removed and not Grandfathered In [please note this is my own personal view only]

 

Unless Reviewers are instructed otherwise, The LQ cache will remain active as is. It's classified as a Puzzle it indicates that the cache requires external elements to be found to complete it. As opposed to a Multi which is composed of all internal elements [all stages are part of the cache]

 

And just to make it clear, Reviewers will not be conducting a witch hunt over caches with ALR's. It's up to the owner to remove the Requirement to remain in compliance with the Guidelines. Reviewers will if requested, reclassify the edited caches to the correct native cache type.

 

Deci

[+sTeamTraen]

I wonder if their database is getting over loaded and instead of investing they're looking a ways to reduce the number of active caches listed starting with those less visited

Well, if that were the intention, they've chosen a strange way of going about it. There's an explicit request for cache owners to change the text of their caches (= more database activity) to make it clear that people who don't like or want or are unable to meet the ALR, no longer need to steer clear of the ALR cache (= more database activity).

 

If Groundspeak were to decide to archive, say, caches which haven't been visited for a year, then I presume that they would just go ahead and do it, rather than invent some sort of convoluted conspiracy.

 

(FWIW, assuming that something like 98% of caches are visited in any given year, archiving the other 2% would gain about two weeks' worth of database growth.)

Edited April 5, 2009 by sTeamTraen