Additional logging requirements

[+Tree Toad]

Im sure this topic has been covered but util recently I didnt have any reason to check for it. I have been hearing that as of this past April you are nolonger required to fulfill the additional logging equirements to be able to log a cache as "found" other than to sign the log. If this is infact the case then why are new caches being placed that require them "or your log will be deleted"?

[+Lil Devil]

Example?

[+Moose Mob]

Challenges (DeLorme, FizzyChallenge, etc) are still allowed, but the CO can no longer require a picture of yourself with three pigeons on your head.

[jholly]

Im sure this topic has been covered but util recently I didnt have any reason to check for it. I have been hearing that as of this past April you are nolonger required to fulfill the additional logging equirements to be able to log a cache as "found" other than to sign the log. If this is infact the case then why are new caches being placed that require them "or your log will be deleted"?

 

If these caches have been placed since April 2009 then the reviewer is seriously remiss in performing his/her duties. I would bring this to the attention of the frog at contact@geocaching.com.

 

If on the other hand if the cache was placed prior to April 2009 this means the cache owner did not update the cache page as required. The reviewers did not review all existing caches for compliance. If you do one of these caches and don't do the requirement and your log is deleted I would again send an email to contact@geocaching.com and explain the situation. Quite likely your log will be re-instated.

 

Jim

[GOF and Bacall]

There are a few exceptions. So called challenge caches are still allowed. Those are the ones that have requirements related to caching. Things like "find a cache on each of such and such set of maps" or find and log a cache starting with each letter of the alphabet.

 

Another contentious point is spoilers. If you post a spoiler in a log you run the risk of having it deleted. There are those who argue that with the wording of the guidelines as it is the deletion should not stand. I'm not sure if anyone has posted what TPTB feel about this situation.

[+Jeep_Dog]

Challenges (DeLorme, FizzyChallenge, etc) are still allowed, but the CO can no longer require a picture of yourself with three pigeons on your head.

 

Earthcaches still have ALRs as well.

 

Indeed, most earthcaches are an ALR (compared to traditional caches).

[GermanSailor]

If this is infact the case then why are new caches being placed that require them "or your log will be deleted"?

That's basically the same as some stupid TB-Hotel trading rules. Just ignore them. Yes, there are owners who don't get the guidelines, are incapable of selecting the appropriate size and so on. People make mistakes or cheat during the review process. That happens!

 

Just log the geocache, if the owner deletes the log, just because you didn't comply with the ALR, inform a reviewer.

 

GermanSailor

[+wimseyguy]

If these caches have been placed since April 2009 then the reviewer is seriously remiss in performing his/her duties. I would bring this to the attention of the frog at contact@geocaching.com.

 

Or perhaps someone has edited their listing after it got published?

[+baloo&bd]

Examples?

[+DeepButi]

Examples?

On a mistery with three intermediate stages (Translated, not literal but 100% of the meaning):

IMPORTANT: To consider a log valid you must add three pictures of the cacher with the cards of the three partial misteries.

Approved Dec 1st.

The bold IS in the cache page.

 

It looks to me more an ALR than the joke about deleting the post of the most ugly cache in the world.

 

Diferent countries, diferent rules

[+baloo&bd]

Examples?

On a mistery with three intermediate stages (Translated, not literal but 100% of the meaning):

IMPORTANT: To consider a log valid you must add three pictures of the cacher with the cards of the three partial misteries.

Approved Dec 1st.

The bold IS in the cache page.

 

It looks to me more an ALR than the joke about deleting the post of the most ugly cache in the world.

 

Diferent countries, diferent rules

 

Examples = GC #.

 

While I admit the above should be a key (not having seen the page for certain) I think the trigger is something along the lines of "or your log will be deleted".

[GOF and Bacall]

Examples?

On a mistery with three intermediate stages (Translated, not literal but 100% of the meaning):

IMPORTANT: To consider a log valid you must add three pictures of the cacher with the cards of the three partial misteries.

Approved Dec 1st.

The bold IS in the cache page.

 

It looks to me more an ALR than the joke about deleting the post of the most ugly cache in the world.

 

Diferent countries, diferent rules

 

Perhaps actually completing all the stages of the cache was considered an acceptable challenge?

[+DeepButi]

To me it's a reasonable requirement, CO wants all people to go see the three intermediate stages. It's a 4.5T one and going to the final point just because a friend of you tells the coordinates will be (again, IMHO) cheating.

 

It's just an example of how thin can be the line when deciding ALR/not ALR.

 

If I am ever going for this one (still waiting for an FTF) I will for sure go through all the stages, no matter if the text is guidelines compliant or not!

 

Some comonsense must be applied and "normal" requirements could be tolerated (define "normal" ).

 

What will happen if someone logs the final point without pictures? No idea

[+Prime Suspect]

Examples?

On a mistery with three intermediate stages (Translated, not literal but 100% of the meaning):

IMPORTANT: To consider a log valid you must add three pictures of the cacher with the cards of the three partial misteries.

Approved Dec 1st.

The bold IS in the cache page.

 

It looks to me more an ALR than the joke about deleting the post of the most ugly cache in the world.

 

Diferent countries, diferent rules

If that was published this December, it was either done so in error, or the CO added that to the cache page post-publish. Either way, it's an ALR, and can be freely ignored, and the CO can't delete logs because of it.

[+WHO-DEY]

simply so I understand. Are these two caches legit when considering the revised ALR rules? I know there were some differences noted or mentioned in other threads about "challenges" .vs others.

 

GC22028

 

GC22029

 

ALso, where can I locate the ALR bit in the guidelines? Thanks all.

[Keystone]

simply so I understand. Are these two caches legit when considering the revised ALR rules? I know there were some differences noted or mentioned in other threads about "challenges" .vs others.

 

GC22028

 

GC22029

Those are "Challenge Caches," not Additional Logging Requirements.

 

ALso, where can I locate the ALR bit in the guidelines? Thanks all.

Logging of All Physical Caches

[+Touchstone]

Keystone is correct, of course, but I'll add for the sake of clarification, the link to the portion of the Guidelines that discusses Challenge Caches which are allowed:

 

Mystery or Puzzle Caches

 

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.

[+WHO-DEY]

Keystone is correct, of course, but I'll add for the sake of clarification, the link to the portion of the Guidelines that discusses Challenge Caches which are allowed:

 

Mystery or Puzzle Caches

 

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.

 

Thank you. I apreciate it. I was just curious. Never really comes up around here. I will likely be unable to do 12 consecutive months of either 25 or 50 caches in order to log a smiley on these. Happily I am a husband and a father of two...not enough time in 12 consecutive months to find 350 or 600 with that much regularity. se la vi

[AZcachemeister]

My interpretation is:

 

Challenge Cache: Do something Geocaching-related BEFORE finding the container in order to be eligible to log a valid find for the cache (where you (of course) also signed the log).

 

ALR (Additional Logging Requirement) Cache: After finding the cache and signing the log, do something not necessarily Geocaching related to avoid having you otherwise valid log deleted.

 

In the above example, the owner is requiring the Geocaching related challenge of visiting the three preceeding stages and providing proof thereof.

 

Not an ALR...it's a Challenge.

[+WHO-DEY]

I assumed they were fine, and that was not really the point. I just wanted to understand the whole ALR thing as I recalled there being some stiffer limits on what qualified. Who knows, someday I may get em..

[+Lil Devil]

Happily I am a husband and a father of two...not enough time in 12 consecutive months to find 350 or 600 with that much regularity. se la vi

Sounds like you are not spending enough quality time out finding caches with your family

[+WHO-DEY]

Happily I am a husband and a father of two...not enough time in 12 consecutive months to find 350 or 600 with that much regularity. se la vi

Sounds like you are not spending enough quality time out finding caches with your family

 

it is all releative....

[+Harry Dolphin]

My interpretation is:

 

Challenge Cache: Do something Geocaching-related BEFORE finding the container in order to be eligible to log a valid find for the cache (where you (of course) also signed the log).

 

ALR (Additional Logging Requirement) Cache: After finding the cache and signing the log, do something not necessarily Geocaching related to avoid having you otherwise valid log deleted.

 

In the above example, the owner is requiring the Geocaching related challenge of visiting the three preceeding stages and providing proof thereof.

 

Not an ALR...it's a Challenge.

 

Beg to differ. A Challenge Cache requires finding other caches (or geocaching related things such as waymarks) in order to qualify for the smiley. The signature in the log book is that proof. Requiring a photo is an ALR. The cache in question is not a challenge cache, but a multi-stage mystery cache.

[+sbell111]

... Another contentious point is spoilers. If you post a spoiler in a log you run the risk of having it deleted. There are those who argue that with the wording of the guidelines as it is the deletion should not stand. I'm not sure if anyone has posted what TPTB feel about this situation.

I'm pretty sure that TPTB weighed in that these deletions are acceptable if the cache owner allows the relog without the offending verbiage.

 

To me it's a reasonable requirement, ...

it may be reasonable, to you, but it's still against the guidelines.

[+gvsu4msu]

I assumed they were fine, and that was not really the point. I just wanted to understand the whole ALR thing as I recalled there being some stiffer limits on what qualified. Who knows, someday I may get em..

 

Here is an example of a cache that HAD an ALR. GC189CP It required you to post a vanity plate (either real or fictional) when posting your online log.

 

Now it is just a three stage multi. You can post your vanity plate if you want to or not. For the spirit of the cache, most do.

 

Anyone want to guess where stage one might be in front of?

[+Lil Devil]

The prison?

[+Touchstone]

I assumed they were fine, and that was not really the point. I just wanted to understand the whole ALR thing as I recalled there being some stiffer limits on what qualified. Who knows, someday I may get em..

 

Here is an example of a cache that HAD an ALR. GC189CP It required you to post a vanity plate (either real or fictional) when posting your online log.

 

Now it is just a three stage multi. You can post your vanity plate if you want to or not. For the spirit of the cache, most do.

 

Anyone want to guess where stage one might be in front of?

 

Hmmm.....wild guess here:

 

Hudsonville DMV?

[+gvsu4msu]

The prison?

 

Maybe that is where Vanity Plates II could be?