I PAYED AND I WANT ALRs BACK!

[Radman Forever]

However I suppose we can excpect "Stupid Puzzle requirements that aren't additional caching" to go next.

As I read the new guidelines, you can't delete a log if someone finds your cache without solving a puzzle, either. I'm fine with that, too.

 

Where does the line end, though? Can we now skip to the final stage of a multi cache? Can we find the challenge cache without so much attempting it? Can we even log the cache as a find without ever leaving the house?

 

I can understand not liking ALRs, but banning them because you don't like them stinks for those who like them.

[+Semper Questio]

 

I can understand not liking ALRs, but banning them because you don't like them stinks for those who like them.

 

The same and all the associated arguments and suggestions on how to keep them have been said many times about virtuals too. We all know how that has worked so far.

 

Those of us that liked moving caches, virtuals, and locationless caches were all told to get over it or go elsewhere. Well, I guess it is time for the fans of required ALR's to do the same.

[+Search4Lancer]

I love ALR's

 

YES I DO!

 

I love ALR's

 

HOW ABOUT YOU?

Guess what? You paid, great, but you still have to follow the rules of the people you are paying. Now quit acting like a little child and go find some light post micros.

[+niraD]

Can we now skip to the final stage of a multi cache?

Since "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed", it would seem so.

 

Can we find the challenge cache without so much attempting it?

According to the current guidelines, challenge caches are still allowed, and the requirements of the challenge are enforceable.

 

Can we even log the cache as a find without ever leaving the house?

Only if you can sign the physical log without ever leaving the house.

[+wimseyguy]

Where does the line end, though? Can we now skip to the final stage of a multi cache? Can we find the challenge cache without so much attempting it? Can we even log the cache as a find without ever leaving the house?

 

I can understand not liking ALRs, but banning them because you don't like them stinks for those who like them.

 

If you can figure out where that final stage is and sign the log-yes. And the owner would have to let that log stand. You found the cache and signed the log, congrats.

 

Can you sign the log and claim a find on a challenge cache without finding the prerequisite caches first? I doubt any owner of a legit challenge cache will let that log stand, nor will Groundspeak restore the log.

Defining what is and isn't a legit challenge is tricky though.

 

Can you log finds from the comfort of your armchair? Yes, but again it is up to the cache owner to decide if it is a legit log and if it stays on the webpage. Again, Groundspeak isn't likely to restore those logs either. Why they haven't been more aggressive in stopping accounts that abuse that website feature has me confused.

 

And again I don't see any ALR finds among the 15 "?" listed in your profile either, so what FUN experiences are you basing your opinions on?

[Radman Forever]

Where does the line end, though? Can we now skip to the final stage of a multi cache? Can we find the challenge cache without so much attempting it? Can we even log the cache as a find without ever leaving the house?

 

I can understand not liking ALRs, but banning them because you don't like them stinks for those who like them.

 

If you can figure out where that final stage is and sign the log-yes. And the owner would have to let that log stand. You found the cache and signed the log, congrats.

 

Can you sign the log and claim a find on a challenge cache without finding the prerequisite caches first? I doubt any owner of a legit challenge cache will let that log stand, nor will Groundspeak restore the log.

Defining what is and isn't a legit challenge is tricky though.

 

Can you log finds from the comfort of your armchair? Yes, but again it is up to the cache owner to decide if it is a legit log and if it stays on the webpage. Again, Groundspeak isn't likely to restore those logs either. Why they haven't been more aggressive in stopping accounts that abuse that website feature has me confused.

 

And again I don't see any ALR finds among the 15 "?" listed in your profile either, so what FUN experiences are you basing your opinions on?

 

I sent you my "qualifications", which I hope makes my points valid. But these caches weren't banned because they weren't fun for some people, at least I hope not, because that would mean a lot of LPCs would also be banned too.

 

And those questions I asked earlier were rhetorical, but thanks for showing that signing the logbook is the only thing about geocaching. I always liked to think that it was a little bit more than that, considering all of the different types of caches you could do (especially those great Earthcaches that don't need a physical container to sign).

[+sbell111]

As much as I do not understand WHY an entire cache type is banned ...

ALRs have never been 'an entire cache type'. Cache types are things like virts, LCs, or webcam caches.

Glad to know the usual attendees of these forums had an impact on geocaching. Too bad it was subtracting something from it instead of adding to it.

I think that I can count on one finger then number of regular forum members that advocated the bannination of ALRs (since they were moved to ?-land, that is. Rather I suspect that this decision was primarily made to cut down on the drama for TPTB and reviewers and, of course, as a pretty smart business decision.

Ok I have read through the guidlines and this forum 1 1/2 times but can someone please tell me

 

if these new guidlines affect the placing of say a liar cache, where the finder is given a story to follow

 

when they are posting there log?

 

My understanding is that it would be a ALR and therefore not published.

If lying is an absolute requirement, I would say that it is affected by this guideline.

I just archived my photo cache. And I've submitted a new one without the photo being a requirement. So now they can choose to post one or not. How does that make the cache an Unknown/Mystery cache for those NOT choosing to post a photo?

You realize that ALRs being listed as 'unknown' is a pretty recent development, right? In fact, I'm pretty sure that many old ones still exist as traditional caches. Either way, your example would not make the cache an unknown/mystery for anyone, since it is a traditional cache. Edited April 5, 2009 by sbell111

[greenworldfeather]

I love ALR's

HOW ABOUT YOU?

Nope. Not really. While I often enjoy a cache owner adding a light and fun activity to their cache page, it stops being fun, for me, the moment it becomes a requirement.

Requirement?

 

ALR caches were never "required" for anyone to hunt. All cache hunts are voluntary. Always have been, always will be. You were never being "controlled" by the mere existence of an ALR cache.

 

Those who enjoy ALRs, however, will now no longer have the option to hunt them. That policy change is not optional. It is a "requirement."

 

The fact that certain cachers who never hunted ALRs will see this as an improvement tells me quite a bit about their desires to "control others."

 

Excuse me? Maybe someone should edit that to say,"The fact that certain cachers who never tried to hunt fun ALRs will see this as an improvement." This tells me quite a bit about their desires to "control others."

 

Yes. That sounds MUCH BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks and have a great day, fun confiscators. gwf

[+VirginiaGator]

 

Where does the line end, though? Can we now skip to the final stage of a multi cache? Can we find the challenge cache without so much attempting it? Can we even log the cache as a find without ever leaving the house?

 

I can understand not liking ALRs, but banning them because you don't like them stinks for those who like them.

That sounds GREAT to me!!! I can't stand multis.

[+VirginiaGator]

You realize that ALRs being listed as 'unknown' is a pretty recent development, right? In fact, I'm pretty sure that many old ones still exist as traditional caches. Either way, your example would not make the cache an unknown/mystery for anyone, since it is a traditional cache.

How recent is pretty recent? This cache has been out over a year.

[+VirginiaGator]

 

I can understand not liking ALRs, but banning them because you don't like them stinks for those who like them.

 

The same and all the associated arguments and suggestions on how to keep them have been said many times about virtuals too. We all know how that has worked so far.

 

Those of us that liked moving caches, virtuals, and locationless caches were all told to get over it or go elsewhere. Well, I guess it is time for the fans of required ALR's to do the same.

Moving caches are history? They were pretty much before my time I think. When we were planning our trip to DC and Arlington last December, I was reading of a current moving cache in that area. Why would there be an exception?

[+tozainamboku]

 

I can understand not liking ALRs, but banning them because you don't like them stinks for those who like them.

 

The same and all the associated arguments and suggestions on how to keep them have been said many times about virtuals too. We all know how that has worked so far.

 

Those of us that liked moving caches, virtuals, and locationless caches were all told to get over it or go elsewhere. Well, I guess it is time for the fans of required ALR's to do the same.

Moving caches are history? They were pretty much before my time I think. When we were planning our trip to DC and Arlington last December, I was reading of a current moving cache in that area. Why would there be an exception?

They used to grandfather caches when they changed the guidelines. The difference in this case it that change wasn't that you couldn't have ALR caches anymore but rather that you couldn't enforce the ALR by deleting logs. As such it applies to any logs made to these caches from hereon. There is a request by Groundspeak to change the cache page to make the ALR an optional request or remove altogether and to contact a reviewer to change the type to whatever makes the most sense since the previous guideline of listing ALRs as Unknown has been stricken. I suppose they could have said that existing ALR caches could continue to delete logs but realized the angst that would cause. So instead they have applied the new logging rules to existing caches.

Edited April 5, 2009 by tozainamboku

[+sbell111]

You realize that ALRs being listed as 'unknown' is a pretty recent development, right? In fact, I'm pretty sure that many old ones still exist as traditional caches. Either way, your example would not make the cache an unknown/mystery for anyone, since it is a traditional cache.

How recent is pretty recent? This cache has been out over a year.

I think that the change was made in early 2007, but I don't feel like doing a search to find the exact date.

Edited April 5, 2009 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

 

I can understand not liking ALRs, but banning them because you don't like them stinks for those who like them.

 

The same and all the associated arguments and suggestions on how to keep them have been said many times about virtuals too. We all know how that has worked so far.

 

Those of us that liked moving caches, virtuals, and locationless caches were all told to get over it or go elsewhere. Well, I guess it is time for the fans of required ALR's to do the same.

Moving caches are history? They were pretty much before my time I think. When we were planning our trip to DC and Arlington last December, I was reading of a current moving cache in that area. Why would there be an exception?

I assume that the one you are thinking of is an old one that was grandfathered.

[+koneko]

allow me to point something out to the OP and to ask one tiny question...

 

in reference to your thread title:

 

I PAYED AND I WANT ALRs BACK!, If ya want them back post here! If not go find a LPS cache! H

 

I believe you meant to type the word PAID

 

Also, Can you please explain what an 'LPS' cache is? Are those better or worse than ALRs?

 

Thanks!

[Clan Riffster]

I suppose that because I only have 2 hides with only one active, you would say I don't like hiding.

No, but if you had no hides, either active or otherwise, that might suggest you weren't twiterpated with the idea.

[Influence Waterfowl Calls]

I love ALR's

 

YES I DO!

 

I love ALR's

 

HOW ABOUT YOU?

 

Unless your local reviewer stayed up all night editing cache types of the ones you have found, I wonder what you are basing this opinion on? A quick scan of the 13 "?" finds in your profile shows regular old school puzzles and night caches, but no pics of you wearing a clown suit, or pink wig. Nor are there pics of you or your GPS at GZ, or cache logs written in verse, haiku, limerick, or a twisted version of the never ending story.

If ya love them so much, why haven't you logged any?

 

BTW, I didn't mind them, but thought it was a really stupid idea to lump them in with the mystery/puzzle category in the first place.

Well lets see Mr. Knowitall...

 

First of all just because no one around here has placed an ALR doesn't mean I do not see some that others have logged finds on. Like when I look at there gallery and see the funny pictures.

 

Second there is more to it than just finding... Look long and hard and you will never find any part of my profile that will let you look into my head and see what I have been planning to place myself. I have been preparing to place a number of ALRs that I can not place now. Oh sure I could suggest that they do the ALR I had planned but you know as well as I do that most will not do it. I have one ALR that requires a picture to be posted at another cache just so I can get more pictures posted on it. I can guarantee you that and ALS like that will not be done by most. They will just log it as found! I also have a traditional that has had an ALS in it. Do you really think people were really "Messin' with Sasquatch"? I wanted it to stay a traditional so that more people would find it so I made it an ALS not an ALR. Most but not all did the ALS.

 

I am not out to please the #s folks with my ALR caches because I have plenty of other caches placed for them. ALRs just give the hider more ways to put personality into their caches.

 

allow me to point something out to the OP and to ask one tiny question...

 

in reference to your thread title:

 

I PAYED AND I WANT ALRs BACK!, If ya want them back post here! If not go find a LPS cache! H

 

I believe you meant to type the word PAID

 

Also, Can you please explain what an 'LPS' cache is? Are those better or worse than ALRs?

 

Thanks!

Good catch on the payed, my bad!

 

As for the "LPS"...

I thought a little play on the LPC Lamp Post Cache would fit seeing how all ALRs are now ALSs.

 

LPS = Lamp Post Skirt

[+hydnsek]

 

Where does the line end, though? Can we now skip to the final stage of a multi cache? Can we find the challenge cache without so much attempting it? Can we even log the cache as a find without ever leaving the house?

 

I can understand not liking ALRs, but banning them because you don't like them stinks for those who like them.

That sounds GREAT to me!!! I can't stand multis.

Then don't hunt them. I personally appreciate cache owners who place thoughtful multis that take me on an interesting journey through scenery or history. Multis that take me from one side to the other of a parking lot...not so much.

 

More importantly: The stages of a multicache are not ALRs. A multicache is a specific cache type that consists of several stages, each of which should be found in order to locate and log the final. Cache owners still have the right to delete the logs of finders who don't do the intermediate stages.

[+emmett]

.

 

For the life of me, I can't figure out how anyone is really negatively impacted by this new guideline. Cache owners can still ask for finders to do silly things. Cache finders can still be silly if they wish. The only people that should be angstified by this guideline are those that get their fun out of forcing others to do something that they don't find to be fun.

 

Here lies the insanity. No one is being forced to do something they don't think is fun. You don't like the ALR. I don't like the ALR ... WE IGNORE IT!!!!!

 

I don't like puzzles. I can't solve them. Let's ban them too, so I am not forced to do something I don't find fun since I can't solve them.

 

I don't like caches in parking lots, or nano log sheets, can we get rid of them too?

 

Insert primal scream here.

 

Good, I feel better now. I'm going to bed.

 

Is that still allowed?

 

.

[+nikcap]

 

The same and all the associated arguments and suggestions on how to keep them have been said many times about virtuals too. We all know how that has worked so far.

 

Those of us that liked moving caches, virtuals, and locationless caches were all told to get over it or go elsewhere. Well, I guess it is time for the fans of required ALR's to do the same.

Moving caches are history? They were pretty much before my time I think. When we were planning our trip to DC and Arlington last December, I was reading of a current moving cache in that area. Why would there be an exception?

I assume that the one you are thinking of is an old one that was grandfathered.

Except, one significant difference is that ALR are not grandfathered. So that begs the question, why are virts and moving caches still grandfathered?

 

What bugs me most about this change is TPTB inconsistency in rule changes.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I see your point, but this banning wasn't one of practicality or necessity but of morals. These caches were acceptable for a while, but because they were catching on in popularity and annoying for some vocal objectors, they were deemed expendable. IMO, they do not hurt geocaching's good reputation in parks or cemeteries. They just became annoying for some.

 

They weren't banned because they are tough for reviewers to approve or that they are desired by park managers instead of traditionals, but because they were annoying.

 

This scares me that geocaching will be changed in the future based on the vocal few who believe that they speak for the majority of geocachers, when they may not.

 

Another brand of caches that had requirements attached to it has been banned, like virtuals and webcams before it, so it scares me what's in store for challenge and puzzles caches down the road...

 

As was pointed out, many of the "vocal objectors" were reviewers who were tired of having to publish caches with ridiculous logging requirements (RLRs). Seems so many are now being sent to the reviewers, it has made the work for them all that much harder! You seem to have misunderstood.

[Radman Forever]

I see your point, but this banning wasn't one of practicality or necessity but of morals. These caches were acceptable for a while, but because they were catching on in popularity and annoying for some vocal objectors, they were deemed expendable. IMO, they do not hurt geocaching's good reputation in parks or cemeteries. They just became annoying for some.

 

They weren't banned because they are tough for reviewers to approve or that they are desired by park managers instead of traditionals, but because they were annoying.

 

This scares me that geocaching will be changed in the future based on the vocal few who believe that they speak for the majority of geocachers, when they may not.

 

Another brand of caches that had requirements attached to it has been banned, like virtuals and webcams before it, so it scares me what's in store for challenge and puzzles caches down the road...

 

As was pointed out, many of the "vocal objectors" were reviewers who were tired of having to publish caches with ridiculous logging requirements (RLRs). Seems so many are now being sent to the reviewers, it has made the work for them all that much harder! You seem to have misunderstood.

 

I have not misunderstood. What made these any different than challenges, puzzles, or other caches with requirements? All of these sometimes have long and ridiculous requirements. ARL caches weren't any different than these others. The reviewers got tired of dealing with deleted logs, but other caches have deleted logs. These caches seem to have taken all of the blame.

 

Of course, I don't know what happens behind the curtains, so I am making assumptions. But I am not misunderstanding anything.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I see your point, but this banning wasn't one of practicality or necessity but of morals. These caches were acceptable for a while, but because they were catching on in popularity and annoying for some vocal objectors, they were deemed expendable. IMO, they do not hurt geocaching's good reputation in parks or cemeteries. They just became annoying for some.

 

They weren't banned because they are tough for reviewers to approve or that they are desired by park managers instead of traditionals, but because they were annoying.

 

This scares me that geocaching will be changed in the future based on the vocal few who believe that they speak for the majority of geocachers, when they may not.

 

Another brand of caches that had requirements attached to it has been banned, like virtuals and webcams before it, so it scares me what's in store for challenge and puzzles caches down the road...

 

As was pointed out, many of the "vocal objectors" were reviewers who were tired of having to publish caches with ridiculous logging requirements (RLRs). Seems so many are now being sent to the reviewers, it has made the work for them all that much harder! You seem to have misunderstood.

 

I have not misunderstood. What made these any different than challenges, puzzles, or other caches with requirements? All of these sometimes have long and ridiculous requirements. ARL caches weren't any different than these others. The reviewers got tired of dealing with deleted logs, but other caches have deleted logs. These caches seem to have taken all of the blame.

 

Of course, I don't know what happens behind the curtains, so I am making assumptions. But I am not misunderstanding anything.

 

Can you show any of these challenge caches or ANY other still allowed cache with requirements which have nothing to do with caching itself? The difference is, the reviewers seem to have been sent caches with requirements which had nothing to do with caching, some may have been fun, many many more were nonsense and even the reviewers hated to allow them, but had to as the guidelines stood. (this is all my interpretation from posts by Miss Jenn and others in position to know more about this than I, I may have misunderstood and would be happy to have someone poit it out if I am)

 

You mention the reviewers compained about the deletions, maybe that was a part of it as well. Making more work for our already overworked volunteers was likely the main reason fro removing the REQUIREMENT aspect (remember, you can still suggest), maybe getting bombarded with complaints did weigh in on the decision.

 

What I would like to know is, how does this change affect you, personally? How does this affect anyone? So someone can't require a picture at the top of the piller or whatever, if you were really worried someone didn't sign the log personally, check the handwriting (I use this as example since it was one of the very few I could see being adversely affected by the change). I might be able to be swayed if someone can come up with a reasonable example of how this guideline change truly impacted them negatively!

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Ugh...

 

I happen to be dismayed at the fact that ALR's have, in effect, been outlawed at Groundspeak, but I have been refraining up till now from posting on this thread because, while I do agree with, and appreciate, your enthusiasm for ALRs, I find the title and style of your thread title to be very annoying, irritating, offensive and juvenile. Ugh....

 

In short, if you are trying to convince the admins at Groundspeak to reconsider their decision and to perhaps eventually create a new category called "ALR", you are going about it all wrong. First, your thread title is in ALL CAPS -- that is tantamount to shouting. Next, it contains a gross misspelling, wherein you appear to have written "I PAYED....". Lastly, and perhaps most insulting, you seem to entertain the notion that because you have paid a measly and miniscule membership fee of less than three dollars per month to Groundspeak, that you therefore have near-complete and near-dictatorial autocratic control over their policies. Nothing, in reality, could be farther from the truth, but the very fact that you attempt to make this insane claim is not only insulting to me and to my intelligence and commonsense, but I am sure that the admins at Groundspeak likely find it equally as insulting.

 

I betcha that I am not the only person who is pro-ALR but who has been totally grossed out by the factors which I have iterated above about your thread, and so this factor will serve to limit the number of people who will post to your thread to offer their support.

 

So, if it is indeed your intent to try to convince Groundspeak to to reconsider their decision and to perhaps eventually create a new category for ALRs, I feel that your effort so far is grossly counter-productive. I may, as time permits, eventually decide to start a more civil and coherent and polite thread which will invite others who wish to see the return of ALRs (but as a separate category) to briefly state their case and show their support for the cause. However, if I do so, the thread, and its title, will be civil, coherent, sane, sensible, and sincere, and will not contain instances of the gross problems that I have referenced above.

 

.

[+RobDJr]

I won't miss ALR's much one way or the other. They were never all that much to me anyway. But I do worry that some truly great caches might be lost in the process, especially those that required code words or other proof of the find. To lose those without any possible recourse or way of protecting and keeping them would just be sad.

 

But is there anything to prevent a cache owner from creating a list, on the cache page itself, of 'legitimate' finds (i.e. those that complied with a now optional ALR) versus 'questionable' finds? No deleting of logs, no loss of smilies, just something that would restrict bragging rights? I'll admit that it'd be overkill for most caches, but for those truly difficult or challenging caches, where those who made the find really do take pride in the find and cherish the memory, it might be worth a thought.

[+sTeamTraen]

Now I have to go out and pick everything back up and apologize to to a few people for wasting their time trying to convince them to let me place my cache because the phrase "They will be required to upload a photo of themselves with the cache at it's location." is what finally convinced them to allow it.

Am I the only one here wondering what the land owner/manager's reasoning behind that was? Do all members of the finding party have to have their faces clearly visible and their photo ID in their hand?

[+riviouveur]

Except, one significant difference is that ALR are not grandfathered. So that begs the question, why are virts and moving caches still grandfathered?

Guideline changes are "generally" grandfathered if they are likely to affect an existing situation on the ground. In the case of ALRs, all that has to happen in the short term is that cache owners stop deleting logs. The updates to the cache listings can be done over time. I don't expect the jackbooted GeoStashPolizei to be breaking down anyone's door in the next couple of weeks.

 

As an analogy, think of what happens when the law changes about what equipment an automobile has to have (seat-belts, airbags, etc) versus when the traffic regulations change. In the first case, you generally don't have to take your car in and get seat-belts retrofitted. But when they change the rules about who has to yield at an intersection, the new rules apply to everyone.

 

What bugs me most about this change is TPTB inconsistency in rule changes.

On the basis outlined above, the main "inconsistency" would be that virtuals were grandfathered whereas locationless caches weren't. But I can live with that degree of inconsistency. A couple of weeks ago, I was eating at my favourite restaurant and they offered me a schnapps on the house. They didn't do that before, and they didn't do it yesterday evening. Guess I should complain about their inconsistency too.

[+DanOCan]

Good riddance ALRs.

 

Out of all the changes that have happened to the guidelines over the years, I think this is one of the few I agree with 100% -- both the result and the reasoning.

 

Well done Groundspeak.

 

I'm sure glad ALRs never caught on around here.

[+NeverSummer]

Ugh...

 

I happen to be dismayed at the fact that ALR's have, in effect, been outlawed at Groundspeak, but I have been refraining up till now from posting on this thread because, while I do agree with, and appreciate, your enthusiasm for ALRs, I find the title and style of your thread title to be very annoying, irritating, offensive and juvenile. Ugh....

 

In short, if you are trying to convince the admins at Groundspeak to reconsider their decision and to perhaps eventually create a new category called "ALR", you are going about it all wrong. First, your thread title is in ALL CAPS -- that is tantamount to shouting. Next, it contains a gross misspelling, wherein you appear to have written "I PAYED....". Lastly, and perhaps most insulting, you seem to entertain the notion that because you have paid a measly and miniscule membership fee of less than three dollars per month to Groundspeak, that you therefore have near-complete and near-dictatorial autocratic control over their policies. Nothing, in reality, could be farther from the truth, but the very fact that you attempt to make this insane claim is not only insulting to me and to my intelligence and commonsense, but I am sure that the admins at Groundspeak likely find it equally as insulting.

 

I betcha that I am not the only person who is pro-ALR but who has been totally grossed out by the factors which I have iterated above about your thread, and so this factor will serve to limit the number of people who will post to your thread to offer their support.

 

So, if it is indeed your intent to try to convince Groundspeak to to reconsider their decision and to perhaps eventually create a new category for ALRs, I feel that your effort so far is grossly counter-productive. I may, as time permits, eventually decide to start a more civil and coherent and polite thread which will invite others who wish to see the return of ALRs (but as a separate category) to briefly state their case and show their support for the cause. However, if I do so, the thread, and its title, will be civil, coherent, sane, sensible, and sincere, and will not contain instances of the gross problems that I have referenced above.

 

.

 

Agreed. And name calling will certainly not be tolerated for long by the mods...so perhaps this thread would be better served calm...

[Radman Forever]

 

Can you show any of these challenge caches or ANY other still allowed cache with requirements which have nothing to do with caching itself? The difference is, the reviewers seem to have been sent caches with requirements which had nothing to do with caching, some may have been fun, many many more were nonsense and even the reviewers hated to allow them, but had to as the guidelines stood. (this is all my interpretation from posts by Miss Jenn and others in position to know more about this than I, I may have misunderstood and would be happy to have someone poit it out if I am)

 

You mention the reviewers compained about the deletions, maybe that was a part of it as well. Making more work for our already overworked volunteers was likely the main reason fro removing the REQUIREMENT aspect (remember, you can still suggest), maybe getting bombarded with complaints did weigh in on the decision.

 

What I would like to know is, how does this change affect you, personally? How does this affect anyone? So someone can't require a picture at the top of the piller or whatever, if you were really worried someone didn't sign the log personally, check the handwriting (I use this as example since it was one of the very few I could see being adversely affected by the change). I might be able to be swayed if someone can come up with a reasonable example of how this guideline change truly impacted them negatively!

 

Challenge caches do involve geocaching, which I did not claim otherwise in my previous statement. Puzzles and math caches do not involve equations or other requirements that involve geocaching. That argument can't really be made.

 

Again, just my opinion, but I believe that ALRs were overgeneralized as being bad because a few owners went too far. Of course there are ALRs that went too far, but every type of cache has had overbearing owners and have set a bad example for geocachers.

 

As far as reviewers having trouble reviewing ALRs, they cannot be any more complicated than puzzles or other mystery caches. Usually, the typical ALR cache required a photograph of you doing something or putting something in their find log. Some were more complicated than that, but so are some puzzles and math caches. They were varied, which is the way it should've been.

 

How does this affect me? Not much from where I live. I do not own one of these caches, and I do not have many near me. But I see how this affects cache owners and how some owners of these caches have been lumped up into a category that makes them control freaks and/or jerks. I have dealt with a few bad owners over the years, but I have dealt with bad finders WAY more often. Yet, Groundspeak landed the rulebook in the owner's lap. It sets some limits on them, while the bigger problems that are harder to control are left for geocachers to deal with themselves.

 

In general, this shows that TPTB feel that some owners cannot manage these types of caches responsibility. So they were banned instead of being dealt with. Kind of like a land manager that bans geocaching instead of dealing with it. An issue that is kind of tricky to deal with gets thrown off the cliff and hands are now clean. This has happened time and time again over the years, but at least Virtuals and Webcams were grandfathered and given their own site. The stance here was even more harsh.

 

Other issues involving other types of caches can come up in the future. And the stance that has currently been taken can happen just as harshly. Reviewers get tired of dealing with complex puzzles and tired of people complaining that they thought they finished a hard challenge cache, only for a jerk owner to delete the log. What's the solution? Ban it and not have to deal with the problem. That's the problem that scares me. Will it happen? Probably not, but the easy way out has been the way to deal with issues the past six years, and I don't see it changing in the future.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Now I have to go out and pick everything back up and apologize to to a few people for wasting their time trying to convince them to let me place my cache because the phrase "They will be required to upload a photo of themselves with the cache at it's location." is what finally convinced them to allow it.

Am I the only one here wondering what the land owner/manager's reasoning behind that was? Do all members of the finding party have to have their faces clearly visible and their photo ID in their hand?

I doubt more than you are wondering why.

The average person can surmise the inclusion of having a person in the picture is to insure that more than the cache is visible in the photo considering most people wont crop the surrounding area out. If you can not figure out (more likely refuse to admit) why they would want to see, then I feel sorry for you.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Now I have to go out and pick everything back up and apologize to to a few people for wasting their time trying to convince them to let me place my cache because the phrase "They will be required to upload a photo of themselves with the cache at it's location." is what finally convinced them to allow it.

Am I the only one here wondering what the land owner/manager's reasoning behind that was? Do all members of the finding party have to have their faces clearly visible and their photo ID in their hand?

I doubt more than you are wondering why.

The average person can surmise the inclusion of having a person in the picture is to insure that more than the cache is visible in the photo considering most people wont crop the surrounding area out. If you can not figure out (more likely refuse to admit) why they would want to see, then I feel sorry for you.

 

Was that a way of explaining it, or being rude? I am another too slow to understand, so instead of pitying me, could you try explaining it?

[+Vater_Araignee]

Now I have to go out and pick everything back up and apologize to to a few people for wasting their time trying to convince them to let me place my cache because the phrase "They will be required to upload a photo of themselves with the cache at it's location." is what finally convinced them to allow it.

Am I the only one here wondering what the land owner/manager's reasoning behind that was? Do all members of the finding party have to have their faces clearly visible and their photo ID in their hand?

I doubt more than you are wondering why.

The average person can surmise the inclusion of having a person in the picture is to insure that more than the cache is visible in the photo considering most people wont crop the surrounding area out. If you can not figure out (more likely refuse to admit) why they would want to see, then I feel sorry for you.

 

Was that a way of explaining it, or being rude? I am another too slow to understand, so instead of pitying me, could you try explaining it?

It was a way of being rude, but then again I viewed the extremism as being rude and having never claimed that rudeness was beneath me, decided to dish it back.

 

Pictures help reduce the need to physically check the location for damage/vandalism.

Edited April 5, 2009 by Vater_Araignee

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

Can you show any of these challenge caches or ANY other still allowed cache with requirements which have nothing to do with caching itself? The difference is, the reviewers seem to have been sent caches with requirements which had nothing to do with caching, some may have been fun, many many more were nonsense and even the reviewers hated to allow them, but had to as the guidelines stood. (this is all my interpretation from posts by Miss Jenn and others in position to know more about this than I, I may have misunderstood and would be happy to have someone poit it out if I am)

 

You mention the reviewers compained about the deletions, maybe that was a part of it as well. Making more work for our already overworked volunteers was likely the main reason fro removing the REQUIREMENT aspect (remember, you can still suggest), maybe getting bombarded with complaints did weigh in on the decision.

 

What I would like to know is, how does this change affect you, personally? How does this affect anyone? So someone can't require a picture at the top of the piller or whatever, if you were really worried someone didn't sign the log personally, check the handwriting (I use this as example since it was one of the very few I could see being adversely affected by the change). I might be able to be swayed if someone can come up with a reasonable example of how this guideline change truly impacted them negatively!

 

Challenge caches do involve geocaching, which I did not claim otherwise in my previous statement. Puzzles and math caches do not involve equations or other requirements that involve geocaching. That argument can't really be made.

 

Again, just my opinion, but I believe that ALRs were overgeneralized as being bad because a few owners went too far. Of course there are ALRs that went too far, but every type of cache has had overbearing owners and have set a bad example for geocachers.

 

As far as reviewers having trouble reviewing ALRs, they cannot be any more complicated than puzzles or other mystery caches. Usually, the typical ALR cache required a photograph of you doing something or putting something in their find log. Some were more complicated than that, but so are some puzzles and math caches. They were varied, which is the way it should've been.

 

How does this affect me? Not much from where I live. I do not own one of these caches, and I do not have many near me. But I see how this affects cache owners and how some owners of these caches have been lumped up into a category that makes them control freaks and/or jerks. I have dealt with a few bad owners over the years, but I have dealt with bad finders WAY more often. Yet, Groundspeak landed the rulebook in the owner's lap. It sets some limits on them, while the bigger problems that are harder to control are left for geocachers to deal with themselves.

 

In general, this shows that TPTB feel that some owners cannot manage these types of caches responsibility. So they were banned instead of being dealt with. Kind of like a land manager that bans geocaching instead of dealing with it. An issue that is kind of tricky to deal with gets thrown off the cliff and hands are now clean. This has happened time and time again over the years, but at least Virtuals and Webcams were grandfathered and given their own site. The stance here was even more harsh.

 

Other issues involving other types of caches can come up in the future. And the stance that has currently been taken can happen just as harshly. Reviewers get tired of dealing with complex puzzles and tired of people complaining that they thought they finished a hard challenge cache, only for a jerk owner to delete the log. What's the solution? Ban it and not have to deal with the problem. That's the problem that scares me. Will it happen? Probably not, but the easy way out has been the way to deal with issues the past six years, and I don't see it changing in the future.

 

My friend, I just don't see the reason to get so worked up over this. It doesn't have any bearing on challenge caches at all (as has been said many times here and by the mods), it doesn't even stop someone from ASKING cachers do something extra (you simply cannot delete a log because they didn't do as asked).

 

Now, if I'm reading correctly that you're upset that this could eventually happen to another type of caache in the future, how can getting worked up now help anything? First, you don't have a target to be concerned about, second, nor do you know it will, third, how will griping about this change the future? In short, you're worried about a possible problem in the future that could or could not ever come up?

[Radman Forever]

Rod, I am upset that something that looked like a small problem was banned without having been dealt with or discussed with the geocaching community first... again. Yeah, I know Groundspeak is a private company. But geocaching more than just Groundspeak. It is also a community.

 

I'm not just a doomsayer worrying about Groundspeak banning geocaching out of existence. I'm not an idiot. What I am worried about is that when a problem happens in geocaching, it is banned and not dealt with, instead of trying other options. It is a problem that has happened before, way before you joined.

 

Can I change the future? No. Do I worry that the way I like to cache can be changed by those who would rather get rid of the whole crop so they don't have to deal with a few bad vegetables, yes! Will it happen? I don't know. But I do know that talking about this is way better than just sitting back and pretending like it can't. Just simple discussions like this and on the other thread help to show TPTB that they do get angry and worried when regulations get tighter or get changed. Maybe it could mean more open talks about problems in the future, instead of blindly throwing them off a cliff.

 

If history isn't learned, it tends to repeat itself. It happened with non-physical caches and it can happen again.

[+lennie.BE]

I've got no problem with ALR at all. If you ask me Groundspeak should bother more to get their website up and running right and 24/7 instead of putting effort in making changes to the guidelines nobody's waiting for.

 

Just my 2 cents...

[+HoustonControl]

Luckily, we only had a few ALRs down here in SE Texas and with modest logging requirements. I did a few of them, wore the funny hat, took the picture -- fun stuff. I don't know of any logs that were deleted for FAILURE TO COMPLY, but it always bugged me that the newer ones were listed as puzzle/mystery caches. I tend to filter mystery caches that I haven't solved, assuming that the coords were bogus.

 

I have a feeling this all came to a head over goofy/insane additional requirements and deleted logs. I think I read on another thread here somewhere about a "Non-Premium Member Only" cache. If you were a "Payed" (sic) Premium Member, and you logged the cache, your log would be deleted. Crazy stuff, man....

[+Star*Hopper]

...I might be able to be swayed if someone can come up with a reasonable example of how this guideline change truly impacted them negatively!

Of the 110 caches in my town (when I first started), only 4 of them that I can remember, hold swag. One, the first geocache placed here in fact, is an ammo can, and has some passibly-decent swag. One is a small L&L, placed at a Civil War Battle site, contains basic crapswag, & catches the occasional Trackable. I know of 2 other L&L's, one of which started as cheap Tupperware that's since been replaced with an L&L - both it & the other contain junk that would make McToys look like treasure.

 

EVERY other one is either film cans (prolly 75-80 of them), Bison Tubes (small ones), a few magnetic keyholders (6-8; all guardrails), a couple of pill bottles, and nanos. I didn't see the ammo can until my ~60th find. I thought the smaller containers, by example, was THE way to do it, up until about then. Incidentally, the same ratio/pattern has held true on the few out-of-town excursions I've made.

 

After reading numerous complaints on this & other fora about lack of cache quality, junk or no swag etc, I decided to put out some more attractive hides. Bought & camo'd several L&L type containers, a few ammo cans, & more money spent on swag for them than I really can easily afford. All to help the game.

 

Just before April Fool's day, I submitted a cache - one of the 'Regular' sized L&Ls, camo-painted, packed with swag, nicely prepared log BOOK (not a strip of paper) including laminated instructions for an ALR - basically, it was a Liar's Cache....and the ALRs advised the finders to log it online with 50 words minimum to help with the fun & excitement & to encourage others, and they had to keep 'the secret'. No puzzles to figure out - the cache was at the listed coordinates. Log book included a dedicated page for the FTF, and a Sacagawea Gold US Dollar for FTF prize.

 

I spent considerable time & expense finding a good place to hide the cache, as well as time to prepare & word the description to promote the cache & inspire cachers to give it a try. I had to travel out, make the short hike & place it while raining, in order to beat the deadline. A lot if not all of that work was wasted; I'll now have to travel back to & reclaim the cache, rework the logbook (hence defacing it), and almost completely re-word the cache description into a basic Park & Grab with 5 minute search. Almost zero 'excitement'. THEN travel once more to the cache site & reactivate it. I am honestly considering the public will be better served if I just archive it. Who loses?

 

I also had bought 'stuff' for my next planned cache, named 'Steakout'. It was gonna be placed on the property of a steakhouse restaurant out on the edge of our town (while asking permission, the owner became very interested in learning more about & getting into geocaching, BTW - and the following week we had two new locals sign up - I think he & his wife). This 'Steakout' cache was gonna have a 'Cops & Robbers Dressup' theme. Bought a bunch of props - toy badge, 'SWAT' team armor shield, toy cop-baton, pistol, handcuffs, etc, & 4 different 'Groucho glasses' for the 'Robbers' disguise; a $40 digital camera, spare SD memory chip; another $20, so I wouldn't have to be continually paying film development costs.....I even bought a box of Individual Sanitizing Wipes for use by the squeamish .... and a watertight container big enough to put it all in. In total, about $80-90 worth of stuff, which doesn't include the swag items; & I worked off & on 4 months on it, buying a little at a time. ALR was to dress up & take a picture.

 

Oh, the new rules don't say I can't still do that, eh? I'm sure's heck not gonna put all that out there for the benefit of the number-runners & their "TFTC" or "Found it." logs!! So, now my plans are scrapped - I'm stuck with all this stuff I bought, my efforts wasted, and so yes, I have been 'negatively impacted' - and all because I was just trying to "help the game" & provide more fun than just another film can with soggy pulp for a log.

 

But I wouldn't DREAM of having you reconsider.

(Like you really, for one half split second, would).

 

~*

[+Lil Devil]

A lot if not all of that work was wasted; I'll now have to travel back to & reclaim the cache, rework the logbook (hence defacing it), and almost completely re-word the cache description into a basic Park & Grab with 5 minute search. Almost zero 'excitement'. THEN travel once more to the cache site & reactivate it. I am honestly considering the public will be better served if I just archive it.

Wow talk about over-reaction. All you have to do is change "you must write a 50 word log" to "please write a 50 word log" and "don't give the secret away" to "please don't give the secret away." Then it meets the new guidelines and I'll bet most people will write a 50 word log anyways.

[Clan Riffster]

Of the 110 caches in my town (when I first started), only 4 of them that I can remember, hold swag. EVERY other one is either film cans (prolly 75-80 of them), Bison Tubes (small ones), a few magnetic keyholders (6-8; all guardrails), a couple of pill bottles, and nanos.

Brother, you've just describe Hades.

[+HoustonControl]

...I might be able to be swayed if someone can come up with a reasonable example of how this guideline change truly impacted them negatively!

Of the 110 caches in my town (when I first started), only 4 of them that I can remember, hold swag. One, the first geocache placed here in fact, is an ammo can, and has some passibly-decent swag. One is a small L&L, placed at a Civil War Battle site, contains basic crapswag, & catches the occasional Trackable. I know of 2 other L&L's, one of which started as cheap Tupperware that's since been replaced with an L&L - both it & the other contain junk that would make McToys look like treasure.

 

EVERY other one is either film cans (prolly 75-80 of them), Bison Tubes (small ones), a few magnetic keyholders (6-8; all guardrails), a couple of pill bottles, and nanos. I didn't see the ammo can until my ~60th find. I thought the smaller containers, by example, was THE way to do it, up until about then. Incidentally, the same ratio/pattern has held true on the few out-of-town excursions I've made.

 

After reading numerous complaints on this & other fora about lack of cache quality, junk or no swag etc, I decided to put out some more attractive hides. Bought & camo'd several L&L type containers, a few ammo cans, & more money spent on swag for them than I really can easily afford. All to help the game.

 

Just before April Fool's day, I submitted a cache - one of the 'Regular' sized L&Ls, camo-painted, packed with swag, nicely prepared log BOOK (not a strip of paper) including laminated instructions for an ALR - basically, it was a Liar's Cache....and the ALRs advised the finders to log it online with 50 words minimum to help with the fun & excitement & to encourage others, and they had to keep 'the secret'. No puzzles to figure out - the cache was at the listed coordinates. Log book included a dedicated page for the FTF, and a Sacagawea Gold US Dollar for FTF prize.

 

I spent considerable time & expense finding a good place to hide the cache, as well as time to prepare & word the description to promote the cache & inspire cachers to give it a try. I had to travel out, make the short hike & place it while raining, in order to beat the deadline. A lot if not all of that work was wasted; I'll now have to travel back to & reclaim the cache, rework the logbook (hence defacing it), and almost completely re-word the cache description into a basic Park & Grab with 5 minute search. Almost zero 'excitement'. THEN travel once more to the cache site & reactivate it. I am honestly considering the public will be better served if I just archive it. Who loses?

 

I also had bought 'stuff' for my next planned cache, named 'Steakout'. It was gonna be placed on the property of a steakhouse restaurant out on the edge of our town (while asking permission, the owner became very interested in learning more about & getting into geocaching, BTW - and the following week we had two new locals sign up - I think he & his wife). This 'Steakout' cache was gonna have a 'Cops & Robbers Dressup' theme. Bought a bunch of props - toy badge, 'SWAT' team armor shield, toy cop-baton, pistol, handcuffs, etc, & 4 different 'Groucho glasses' for the 'Robbers' disguise; a $40 digital camera, spare SD memory chip; another $20, so I wouldn't have to be continually paying film development costs.....I even bought a box of Individual Sanitizing Wipes for use by the squeamish .... and a watertight container big enough to put it all in. In total, about $80-90 worth of stuff, which doesn't include the swag items; & I worked off & on 4 months on it, buying a little at a time. ALR was to dress up & take a picture.

 

Oh, the new rules don't say I can't still do that, eh? I'm sure's heck not gonna put all that out there for the benefit of the number-runners & their "TFTC" or "Found it." logs!! So, now my plans are scrapped - I'm stuck with all this stuff I bought, my efforts wasted, and so yes, I have been 'negatively impacted' - and all because I was just trying to "help the game" & provide more fun than just another film can with soggy pulp for a log.

 

But I wouldn't DREAM of having you reconsider.

(Like you really, for one half split second, would).

 

~*

I applaud you for your efforts to put out interesting, thoughfully stocked caches. I really do! I like to think I do the same thing and many of my caches get rave reviews (and there's not an LPC among them). But I put them out for all cachers to find, without retribution if they only log a "TFTC". There's nothing to say that you can't still place your cache and just make the extra activity a suggestion rather than a requirement. Your plans don't have to be "scrapped" just because you can no longer threaten finders with log deletion if their logs don't meet your expectations. Trust me, if the cache is fun and interesting, you'll get fun and interesting logs -- for the most part. You'll have more visits to you cache overall and the linguistically challenged or extrodinarily shy can still get a smiley. And they will probably have enjoyed the cache, even if their log doesn't reflect it.

Edited April 5, 2009 by HoustonControl

[Clan Riffster]

All you have to do is change "you must write a 50 word log" to "please write a 50 word log" and "don't give the secret away" to "please don't give the secret away."

That was my thought. I know if I found it, and there was such a request, I'd honor it. I figure most folks would.

[Influence Waterfowl Calls]

NEWS FLASH!!!!

 

Not everyone who uses all caps is shouting! The start of this thread was to be a fun way to express my opinion that the new guidelines were not to my liking, hence the simple song for the OP.

 

So Vinny, simply put, get over the pity party! I do not jump on here and cry about your endless psychotic rambling that fills so many of the threads here. I understand that you are just having fun. In other words I enjoy you endless psychotic ramblings at times and if I do not feel like it I just go to the next post! No complaining about your post. By the way I do not remember saying there should be an ALR cache type, although I would support the idea! Of all of the people I though might call someone childish your name never crossed my mind.

 

SO TO THE FOLKS IN CHARGE...

 

Who are listening no doubt. This should in no way be taken as hate or a sad attempt to get my money's worth! There is no doubt that this is the best caching site or we would all just pull out and head else where, but I would like may ALRs back.

[LordEd]

I have GC1F6DF as my only ALR cache. I just discovered this rule change and am dissapointed in this change. I listed as a mystery because I wanted to add a pirate theme for a bit of fun to the cache, and to ensure that any log entries were a bit more complicated than 2 word "TFTH etc" log entries. The ALR I wanted to enforce isn't hard by any means and is subjective.

 

I will be altering my cache page in the next few days to reflect the rule change.

 

I don't see any reason for this rule change. The ALR cache is not prevalent in my area (I think mine is the only one in the area listed as a mystery due to ALR reasons.

[+Rockin Roddy]

...I might be able to be swayed if someone can come up with a reasonable example of how this guideline change truly impacted them negatively!

Of the 110 caches in my town (when I first started), only 4 of them that I can remember, hold swag. One, the first geocache placed here in fact, is an ammo can, and has some passibly-decent swag. One is a small L&L, placed at a Civil War Battle site, contains basic crapswag, & catches the occasional Trackable. I know of 2 other L&L's, one of which started as cheap Tupperware that's since been replaced with an L&L - both it & the other contain junk that would make McToys look like treasure.

 

EVERY other one is either film cans (prolly 75-80 of them), Bison Tubes (small ones), a few magnetic keyholders (6-8; all guardrails), a couple of pill bottles, and nanos. I didn't see the ammo can until my ~60th find. I thought the smaller containers, by example, was THE way to do it, up until about then. Incidentally, the same ratio/pattern has held true on the few out-of-town excursions I've made.

 

After reading numerous complaints on this & other fora about lack of cache quality, junk or no swag etc, I decided to put out some more attractive hides. Bought & camo'd several L&L type containers, a few ammo cans, & more money spent on swag for them than I really can easily afford. All to help the game.

 

Just before April Fool's day, I submitted a cache - one of the 'Regular' sized L&Ls, camo-painted, packed with swag, nicely prepared log BOOK (not a strip of paper) including laminated instructions for an ALR - basically, it was a Liar's Cache....and the ALRs advised the finders to log it online with 50 words minimum to help with the fun & excitement & to encourage others, and they had to keep 'the secret'. No puzzles to figure out - the cache was at the listed coordinates. Log book included a dedicated page for the FTF, and a Sacagawea Gold US Dollar for FTF prize.

 

I spent considerable time & expense finding a good place to hide the cache, as well as time to prepare & word the description to promote the cache & inspire cachers to give it a try. I had to travel out, make the short hike & place it while raining, in order to beat the deadline. A lot if not all of that work was wasted; I'll now have to travel back to & reclaim the cache, rework the logbook (hence defacing it), and almost completely re-word the cache description into a basic Park & Grab with 5 minute search. Almost zero 'excitement'. THEN travel once more to the cache site & reactivate it. I am honestly considering the public will be better served if I just archive it. Who loses?

 

I also had bought 'stuff' for my next planned cache, named 'Steakout'. It was gonna be placed on the property of a steakhouse restaurant out on the edge of our town (while asking permission, the owner became very interested in learning more about & getting into geocaching, BTW - and the following week we had two new locals sign up - I think he & his wife). This 'Steakout' cache was gonna have a 'Cops & Robbers Dressup' theme. Bought a bunch of props - toy badge, 'SWAT' team armor shield, toy cop-baton, pistol, handcuffs, etc, & 4 different 'Groucho glasses' for the 'Robbers' disguise; a $40 digital camera, spare SD memory chip; another $20, so I wouldn't have to be continually paying film development costs.....I even bought a box of Individual Sanitizing Wipes for use by the squeamish .... and a watertight container big enough to put it all in. In total, about $80-90 worth of stuff, which doesn't include the swag items; & I worked off & on 4 months on it, buying a little at a time. ALR was to dress up & take a picture.

 

Oh, the new rules don't say I can't still do that, eh? I'm sure's heck not gonna put all that out there for the benefit of the number-runners & their "TFTC" or "Found it." logs!! So, now my plans are scrapped - I'm stuck with all this stuff I bought, my efforts wasted, and so yes, I have been 'negatively impacted' - and all because I was just trying to "help the game" & provide more fun than just another film can with soggy pulp for a log.

 

But I wouldn't DREAM of having you reconsider.

(Like you really, for one half split second, would).

 

~*

 

Couple questions...deadline? What deadline was there? You make it sound like you were inconvenienced to make a trip in the rain at the deadline in order to place this...I don't get this for a second. Also, how is it any different if you request (not require mind you) people to keep it a secret? If people enjoyed being lied to, they might even enjoy lying to others...maybe? Too muc to do about nothing on first example.

 

Second example...if people think it's fun to dress up, they'll dress up and have a BLAST (that do sound fun after all)...if you request them to do so. Now, not everyone will, but guess what, you'll still get those who want to AND , you'll even get more visitors to your cache...a win/win!

 

See, you wish to control people and make them write a good log (in your last exmple at least), I'm just glad to get visitors who have fun (which is why I hide my caches. I won't tell them how to have their fun if they don't try to tell me how to have mine...it's all good!

 

btw, neither example came close to showing how the change ruined either cache, I'm not swayed!

[+Rockin Roddy]

Rod, I am upset that something that looked like a small problem was banned without having been dealt with or discussed with the geocaching community first... again. Yeah, I know Groundspeak is a private company. But geocaching more than just Groundspeak. It is also a community.

 

I'm not just a doomsayer worrying about Groundspeak banning geocaching out of existence. I'm not an idiot. What I am worried about is that when a problem happens in geocaching, it is banned and not dealt with, instead of trying other options. It is a problem that has happened before, way before you joined.

 

Can I change the future? No. Do I worry that the way I like to cache can be changed by those who would rather get rid of the whole crop so they don't have to deal with a few bad vegetables, yes! Will it happen? I don't know. But I do know that talking about this is way better than just sitting back and pretending like it can't. Just simple discussions like this and on the other thread help to show TPTB that they do get angry and worried when regulations get tighter or get changed. Maybe it could mean more open talks about problems in the future, instead of blindly throwing them off a cliff.

 

If history isn't learned, it tends to repeat itself. It happened with non-physical caches and it can happen again.

 

I'm not calling you an idiot, I hve respect for your opinion, don't get me wrong!! We obviously just see things differently, it happens! I appreciate your concern, I just can't find the reason to get worked up about it. And, as I pointed out, this minor change has very little bearing on caching in whole...it's not even close to them wiping out virts (IMHO). Could there have been a change, maybe, but would the change have been good for everyone in the long run...not in my opinion, and apparently not in the opinion of TPTB.

 

Can't wait to get up there and defend our title, we'll chat then!!

[+webscouter.]

I have GC1F6DF as my only ALR cache. I just discovered this rule change and am dissapointed in this change. I listed as a mystery because I wanted to add a pirate theme for a bit of fun to the cache, and to ensure that any log entries were a bit more complicated than 2 word "TFTH etc" log entries. The ALR I wanted to enforce isn't hard by any means and is subjective.

 

I will be altering my cache page in the next few days to reflect the rule change.

 

I don't see any reason for this rule change. The ALR cache is not prevalent in my area (I think mine is the only one in the area listed as a mystery due to ALR reasons.

 

Here you go, all fixed

 

Avast me Mateys. This cache be at the given coordinate. Be warned that ye should read the code of the cache if ye wish to keep your smiley.

 

In order to find my booty, please, in addition to signing the log, record your entry here as spoken like a true pirate (Talk like a pirate). Ye may also embellish your exploits as ye wish.

 

Those who break the code shall be mocked by all manner of true sailors.

 

If ye have a ship and a crew, ye may approach the treasure island. Set sail with care, for shipwreck cove may claim your vessel if ye not take heed of the warning.

 

If ye be strong enough to swim, ye may. The map be marked with your starting coordinate (public access). The rocks be slippery and the water be deeper than the tallest pirate, so be warned.

 

Ye may be able to cross the icy distance in winter, but be sure it may hold your weight.

 

Once ye reach the island, the treasure be guarded by spiders. Reach with care.

[Clan Riffster]

Aaarghh! I be liken' the cut of yer' jib!

[+briansnat]

I've got no problem with ALR at all. If you ask me Groundspeak should bother more to get their website up and running right and 24/7 instead of putting effort in making changes to the guidelines nobody's waiting for.

 

Just my 2 cents...

 

Groundspeak has techies who worry about the website and staffers whose responsibilities in part include addressing things like the guidelines. I'm not certain of Miss Jenn's background, but I don't believe she has the technical skills to help out the tech staff. Surely you don't want Miss Jenn to start writing code, because despite the fact that she is bright and good at what shes does, I think she might make a mess of things if she were to delve into the development side.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Rather than outright ban ALR's why not institute guidelines for them? I have to agree with Tequila's post on another thread. I helped him set out his 9 stage multi that required one to submit their GPS log so you could prove you visited all stages rather than head straight to the final if you got the co-ords from a previous finder. The entire multi requires a 15+ km hike - to go straight to the final is only about 2 km and defeats the purpose of completing a very challenging multi.

Sounds like he really didn't think his multi through very well. If you're trying to get someone to hike a certain distance, then the final should be the furthest thing from a trailhead. That way if someone can skip stages it won't matter - they still have to hike a particular distance to get to the final.