1 for 1 TB exchange policies

March 16, 2010

(This may very well be a dead horse, but...)

Who here has ever seen a cache that stated in the description, "TB's must be exchanged 1 for 1"

How is this allowed? I propose a guideline be written to prohibit such an act.

It seems some Cache Owners use TB's to add to the appeal of their cache to attract visitors, ensuring there is at least on TB present at all times. Thats not what TB's are for. TB's are set out to Travel. And besides, it's not the cache owner's decision to impose restrictions as to how someone else's TB can move.

It is very unfair to the TB owner.

Moderator, please don't move this topic to the TB forums.. This is not meant to be a thread about TB's but rather a thread regarding TB restrictions written within the cache description

Edited March 16, 2010 by HeliDood

March 16, 2010

The 1 for 1 rule is not something which is defined by the game owner (Groundspeak). I have seen such caches from time to time. As you said, such a rule should increase the attractivity of a cache. You may or may not follow the rule.

2.3k · March 16, 2010

(This may very well be a dead horse, but...)

Who here has ever seen a cache that stated in the description, "TB's must be exchanged 1 for 1"

How is this allowed? I propose a guideline be written to prohibit such an act.

It seems some Cache Owners use TB's to add to the appeal of their cache to attract visitors, ensuring there is at least on TB present at all times. Thats not what TB's are for. TB's are set out to Travel. And besides, it's not the cache owner's decision to impose restrictions as to how someone else's TB can move.

It is very unfair to the TB owner.

Moderator, please don't move this topic to the TB forums.. This is not meant to be a thread about TB's but rather a thread regarding TB restrictions written within the cache description

Feel free to completely ignore 1 to 1 trade rules on travel bugs. They are not swag. They are meant to be moved.

March 16, 2010

I think TB "prisons" are generally frowned upon. I logged a cache last week that claimed to be a TB Hotel, which had a similar restriction, and it had no TB's or geocoins (no wonder).

March 16, 2010

(This may very well be a dead horse, but...)

Who here has ever seen a cache that stated in the description, "TB's must be exchanged 1 for 1"

How is this allowed? I propose a guideline be written to prohibit such an act.

It seems some Cache Owners use TB's to add to the appeal of their cache to attract visitors, ensuring there is at least on TB present at all times. Thats not what TB's are for. TB's are set out to Travel. And besides, it's not the cache owner's decision to impose restrictions as to how someone else's TB can move.

It is very unfair to the TB owner.

I think that this is against the gudelines and am surprised that they would be published that way. I suspect the descriptions are edited after publishing. There is no way for the CO to police this other than deleting logs. So I would ignore it and if I had a log deleted I would then contact GC.com about it.

March 16, 2010

Feel free to completely ignore 1 to 1 trade rules on travel bugs. They are not swag. They are meant to be moved.

I completely agree. But what I'd like to see is something written to PROHIBIT such a rule.

Not unlike an ALR, something that, if discovered by a cache Reviewer at the time of publication, the cache would be rejected.

March 16, 2010

I think that this is against the guidelines and am surprised that they would be published that way.

If it's in the guidelines, can anyone find it and show it to me? I may have overlooked it.

March 16, 2010

I think that this is against the guidelines and am surprised that they would be published that way.

If it's in the guidelines, can anyone find it and show it to me? I may have overlooked it.

Well maybe not in the guidelines, but it goes against the description of trackables not being swag and therefore not being a traditional trade item. I still think a reviewer would ask that the requirement of even trade for a TB be removed before publishing. I have no hides but I have read that it is possible to edit the descriptions after the cache is published without going to the reviewer again....

8.3k · March 16, 2010

I think that this is against the guidelines and am surprised that they would be published that way.

If it's in the guidelines, can anyone find it and show it to me? I may have overlooked it.

Well maybe not in the guidelines, but it goes against the description of trackables not being swag and therefore not being a traditional trade item. I still think a reviewer would ask that the requirement of even trade for a TB be removed before publishing. I have no hides but I have read that it is possible to edit the descriptions after the cache is published without going to the reviewer again....

Yes you can edit your cache page after being edited. As for the restriction, I pay it no heed. And in fact if the cache has that type of restriction I tend to take ALL of the bugs and coins.

1k · March 16, 2010

I am not speaking for other reviewers...

If I see the requirement, it is an ALR, and against the spirit of a trackable. I will ask that it be removed before I publish it. In essence if they threaten to delete your log, or logs on other caches because you took 2-3 trackables without leaving any, it is an ALR.

They may say "Please trade fair" or similar terms, they can't require it.

If someone adds an ALR after I publish it, and I have asked them not to include it, I most likely will archive it immediately.

6k · March 16, 2010

You absolutely to not have to follow that rule. It has been discussed many times and even the froggie agrees. They are called TB Prisons.

21.9k · March 16, 2010

I agree with my esteemed colleague from Utah. Travel bug prisons are ALR's in Ohio and Pennsylvania, too. I won't publish any new ones. If someone brings a complaint to my attention about an old one (like "my log got deleted"), I would ask the owner to remove the impermissible additional logging requirement. If they do not edit the listing within a reasonable time to comply with the guidelines, I would archive the listing.

For reference, here is the "No Additional Logging Requirements" guideline: Logging of All Physical Caches.

March 16, 2010

Exactly how hard is it to simply trade evenly for another TB or GC? I can't even begin to imagine why such a basic request would be so hard to adhere to.

4.8k · March 16, 2010

Exactly how hard is it to simply trade evenly for another TB or GC? I can't even begin to imagine why such a basic request would be so hard to adhere to.

Travel Bugs are NOT trade items. If you want to move one, do so. If you don't then don't.

If you like moving TBs and see ten of them in a cache, move them all if you want to.

22k · March 16, 2010

Exactly how hard is it to simply trade evenly for another TB or GC? I can't even begin to imagine why such a basic request would be so hard to adhere to.

You can trade if you want to but first and foremost should be the goal/mission of the bug. Are you making a reasonable attempt to assist the bug? If so, trade away. If you are taking it off-route just so you can make a 1:1 then you are not helping.

As I've been known to say - Travel bugs are not trade items. You are not required to leave trinkets (swag, trade, mctoys) or another TB in its place, but you can if you like. Just don't leave TBs and take trinkets.

Now when you place a trade restrictions on a cache you are placing additional requirements on cachers to be able to move my bug and in that case you are definitely not helping. You have stranded my bug in your cache until someone else can meet your restriction.

My bug has nothing to do with a cacher who has not found me yet and has to move someone else's bug to your cache first. The only 'requirement' is that people try their best to follow the goal/mission. You have no business adding any restrictions for moving MY bug.

If a travel bug hotel is in a good spot for the quick and easy exchange of travel bugs, then an empty hotel won't stay empty long. People are always looking for a convenient place to drop bugs off. The owner of a well-placed hotel should actually be pleased if the hotel is occasionally empty, since it shows that the hotel is serving its purpose: to get bugs moving quickly. And if a hotel does stay empty for long periods of time without the cache owner continually raiding other caches to re-stock it, then it's not a good place for a travel bug hotel.

Edited March 16, 2010 by BlueDeuce

38.2k · March 16, 2010

Exactly how hard is it to simply trade evenly for another TB or GC? I can't even begin to imagine why such a basic request would be so hard to adhere to.

Because it's an unreasonable request. The cache owner does not own the travelers and has no right to place restrictions on their movement.

2k · March 16, 2010

As for the restriction, I pay it no heed. And in fact if the cache has that type of restriction I tend to take ALL of the bugs and coins.

I'm the same way. I haven't seen any TB Prisons in my area in a couple years, but the last one started with one TB and had a 1 to 1 rule. I was second to find and stated clearly in my log "Took the TB, Left Nothing" just because they said I couldn't.

March 16, 2010

(This may very well be a dead horse, but...)

Who here has ever seen a cache that stated in the description, "TB's must be exchanged 1 for 1"

How is this allowed? I propose a guideline be written to prohibit such an act.

http://www.geocaching.com/track/details.aspx?id=1038967

Ignore such stupid rules. Trackables are meant to travel, only their owners have a right to decide what the mission is.

GermanSailor

10.2k · March 16, 2010

Exactly how hard is it to simply trade evenly for another TB or GC? I can't even begin to imagine why such a basic request would be so hard to adhere to.

Well, that's of course because your very last hide, placed two weeks ago is a travel bug prison You can thank me for that, actually, seeing as it's an MOC, and is going to have all kinds of hits from all over the world now.

With the posts to this thread from the esteemed reviewers from Pa/Ohio and Utah, I don't see how you ever got that thing published here in 2010. Even the cache name with "swap" in the title intimates a TB Prison. Maybe no one knows what you're talking about by a "GC".

You're pretty new. I'm not holding that against you, and I've seen people that have been around for years create TB prisons. But why would you think you can impose trade restrictions on other people's Travel bugs and coins? They're not yours. They are meant to travel, Period. Did you see such restrictions on other caches, or was the trading rule your own idea? Personally, the first time I ever saw caches with TB trade restrictions in 2003, I totally disagreed with it, and didn't understand it at all. And I never even once looked at these forums (where there is almost universal consenus against the trading rules), until about 2005.

Edited March 16, 2010 by TheWhiteUrkel

6.7k · March 16, 2010

Exactly how hard is it to simply trade evenly for another TB or GC? I can't even begin to imagine why such a basic request would be so hard to adhere to.

Because travelers are designed to travel freely, and a trade requirement inhibits that.

So simple even a caveman can understand it!

1.2k · March 16, 2010

Exactly how hard is it to simply trade evenly for another TB or GC? I can't even begin to imagine why such a basic request would be so hard to adhere to.

Because it's an unreasonable request. The cache owner does not own the travelers and has no right to place restrictions on their movement.

Agreed...

Imagine a "real" hotel that only allowed you to leave if and only if someone else checked in...

March 16, 2010

Imagine a "real" hotel that only allowed you to leave if and only if someone else checked in...

Yikes. I probably would still be stuck in Oakley, Kansas since 1/31 if that were the rule.

March 16, 2010

Exactly how hard is it to simply trade evenly for another TB or GC? I can't even begin to imagine why such a basic request would be so hard to adhere to.

Most trackables have the basic request of "please move me from cache to cache". I prefer to follow the trackables' instructions over the cache's instructions.

Edit: Posted by LordEd accidently on anakerose's account.

Edited March 16, 2010 by anakerose

1.7k · March 16, 2010

Exactly how hard is it to simply trade evenly for another TB or GC? I can't even begin to imagine why such a basic request would be so hard to adhere to.

Putting aside the fact that they are not swag so they are not required to be treated as such, not everyone has a bug/coin in their inventory to do it to trade even.

This causes bugs/coins to become stuck hence the name TB PRISON.

Now you have suck items and the CO is out retrieving more to grow the trackable inventory of the cache.

At some point it is no longer just a prison, it becomes a magnet, a Maggot Magnet.

As that inventory gets larger, the pull becomes stronger and you have to hope for the sake of the trackable owners that someone liberates the complete collection spreading them around so that their individual pull is no longer multiplied to the point of irresistibility.

1.7k · March 16, 2010

Exactly how hard is it to simply trade evenly for another TB or GC? I can't even begin to imagine why such a basic request would be so hard to adhere to.

<snip> And I never even once looked at these forums (where there is almost universal consenus against the trading rules), until about 2005.

Guns & Cockpits,

See the bolded part?

Do you understand how rare that is?

You should pose your question in one or both of the Geocaching Hitchhikers forums.

There are a lot of people there that will never bother with any of the General Geocaching Discussions forums.

2.3k · March 16, 2010

Exactly how hard is it to simply trade evenly for another TB or GC? I can't even begin to imagine why such a basic request would be so hard to adhere to.

As several have pointed out, it becomes more of a prison.

Think about it. If you have a cache that requires an even trade or worse, only allows you to remove 1 bug at a time then the more interesting bugs will be the only ones that move.

If someone is faced with deciding which bug to remove based on some imposed limit, then they will likely not choose that homely little bug with no interesting mission.

The less interesting bugs will essentially be trapped in that cache rather than moved along like the other bugs.

8k · March 16, 2010

Exactly how hard is it to simply trade evenly for another TB or GC? I can't even begin to imagine why such a basic request would be so hard to adhere to.

Because it's an unreasonable request. The cache owner does not own the travelers and has no right to place restrictions on their movement.

It's only unreasonable in the eyes of some trackable owners. Some trackable owners have a belief that ownership entitles them to have control over who moves their trackables, how often they move, and where they move to. It is this belief that is unreasonable. You put your trackable in a cache and you no longer control who can take it, how long it sits in a cache, or where it will go once someone does take it. The insistance that the desire of the travel bug owner is somehow superior to the desire or the individual who finds a trackable in a cache, or even to the desire of the owner of the cache where the trackable was found is what is unreasonable.

Just as travel bug owner can request that you move a travel bug whenever you can (and not to treat the travel bug as an item you must trade for), so can a cache owner request that a person taking a trackable from a cache leaves a trackable in its place. In either case,the cacher can choose to comply with the request or not.

Now, I will agree that there is a certain silliness in having a trade a trackable for a trackable rule on a cache. In many cases it seems that the cache owner wants to encourage geocachers to move trackables, and doesn't realize that these rules have the opposite effect by limiting the people who can take a trackable to those who have one to leave in its place. I don't particularly like the term "Travel Bug Prison", but perhaps it helps to educate cache owners whose intention is really to help encourage trackable movement.

Edited March 16, 2010 by tozainamboku

6.5k · March 16, 2010

The 1 for 1 rule is not something which is defined by the game owner (Groundspeak). I have seen such caches from time to time. As you said, such a rule should increase the attractivity of a cache. You may or may not follow the rule.

I would disagree that Groundspeak owns the game. However that's off track from the topic.

1 for 1 TB rules are more like a request from the cache owner. While the cache owner has the ability to delete your log, doing so for not following the TB rules would be like a ALR. Which are of course no longer allowed by Groundspeak.

6.7k · March 16, 2010

Exactly how hard is it to simply trade evenly for another TB or GC? I can't even begin to imagine why such a basic request would be so hard to adhere to.

Because it's an unreasonable request. The cache owner does not own the travelers and has no right to place restrictions on their movement.

It's only unreasonable in the eyes of some trackable owners. Some trackable owners have a belief that ownership entitles them to have control over who moves their trackables, how often they move, and where they move to. It is this belief that is unreasonable. You put your trackable in a cache and you no longer control who can take it, how long it sits in a cache, or where it will go once someone does take it. The insistance that the desire of the travel bug owner is somehow superior to the desire or the individual who finds a trackable in a cache, or even to the desire of the owner of the cache where the trackable was found is what is unreasonable.

Just as travel bug owner can request that you move a travel bug whenever you can (and not to treat the travel bug as an item you must trade for), so can a cache owner request that a person taking a trackable from a cache leaves a trackable in its place. In either case,the cacher can choose to comply with the request or not.

Now, I will agree that there is a certain silliness in having a trade a trackable for a trackable rule on a cache. In many cases it seems that the cache owner wants to encourage geocachers to move trackables, and doesn't realize that these rules have the opposite effect by limiting the people who can take a trackable to those who have one to leave in its place. I don't particularly like the term "Travel Bug Prison", but perhaps it helps to educate cache owners whose intention is really to help encourage trackable movement.

Wrong.

That travelers remain the property of the owner and that they move freely is at the heart of the whole traveler concept.

Travelers have a mission, either stated by the owner or if unstated understood to be to move randomly from cache to cache without restriction.

Groundspeak and the geocaching community overall have many times determined and reinforced that no restrictions shall be placed on travel bug movement.

Put your post in the TB forum and see how thoroughly and quickly it gets trounced!

We have had authoritative sources weigh in on this thread to clearly state that trade requirements for travelers are not allowed.

18.9k · March 16, 2010

As much as I understand that TBs are meant to move and should not be restricted in any way - I still somewhat sympathize with what most of these cache owners are trying to accomplish.

In my experience - such requests had nothing to do with restrictions or 'prisons'. The cache owner was very simply trying to ensure that each and every visitor to the cache had the experience of finding a new bug to move on. A totally innocuous reason for the request. No evil intentions at all.

Looked at in that light - I have much more understanding.

There is just far too much angst over Travel Bugs to suit me well. I try to avoid them for the most part.

Having said that - I move them when I can and I honor the 'sprit' of trackables and ignore any and all trade rules for them.

2.3k · March 16, 2010

In my experience - such requests had nothing to do with restrictions or 'prisons'. The cache owner was very simply trying to ensure that each and every visitor to the cache had the experience of finding a new bug to move on. A totally innocuous reason for the request. No evil intentions at all.

I think it's pretty much always with good intentions that these types of restrictions are put on travel bug "hotels".

That's also why it helps to educate cache owners on the reasons those restrictions are not good for the travelers.

3.3k · March 16, 2010

In my experience - such requests had nothing to do with restrictions or 'prisons'. The cache owner was very simply trying to ensure that each and every visitor to the cache had the experience of finding a new bug to move on. A totally innocuous reason for the request. No evil intentions at all.

I think yo are correct. However, the intent doesn't change the fact that they end up being a prison. And in the end, we all run into travel bugs if we try or not, so why do these CO have this great desire to have "each and every visitor" find a travle bug. It seems rather miss-guided.

Personaly, I pay no attention to Cache rules for TB. When I find a TB, I look at its mission. If I can help, I grab it. If not I leave it.

8k · March 16, 2010

...snip...

Wrong.

That travelers remain the property of the owner and that they move freely is at the heart of the whole traveler concept.

Travelers have a mission, either stated by the owner or if unstated understood to be to move randomly from cache to cache without restriction.

Groundspeak and the geocaching community overall have many times determined and reinforced that no restrictions shall be placed on travel bug movement.

Put your post in the TB forum and see how thoroughly and quickly it gets trounced!

We have had authoritative sources weigh in on this thread to clearly state that trade requirements for travelers are not allowed.

Travelers may remain the "property" of the owner, that doesn't give the owner supernatural powers to control what happens to their property once they have left it in a cache. Maybe they can get the police in Rome, NY to go arrest the thief who is stealing coins from caches, but I doubt you would get them to go after a cache cache owner for holding property for ransom because he requested that you leave a trackable if you take one.

Maybe trackable owners believe they have special rights because they paid $5 for a trackable tag. Well they do have rights. The $5 dollars entitles them to have a page for their trackable on GC.com and to use it to request nearly anything they want from the people who find/move their trackable. It doesn't give them any rights to go after a cacher who didn't exactly follow their request or to go after a cache owner who may have his own optional requests on the cache that are inconsistent with the trackable owner's request.

I can't control that trackable owners (especially those that post in the trackable forums) have an unreasonable sense of entitlement.

There are certainly reviewers, moderators, and even Groundspeak lackeys that have personal opinions on whether a cache owner request for a trade should be allowed. The simple fact is that it is not mentioned in the guidelines. The guidelines do make it clear that any requests of cache finders must be optional. Over the years there have been plenty of posts that do indicate TPTB see such requests as silly. If a cache owner is really interested in having a travel bug hotel as a way of encouraging people to move travel bugs, these trading rule run counter to this goal. It is 100% reasonable for trackable owners, or anyone else, to point this out and to try to discourage these rules on caches.

22k · March 16, 2010

In my experience - such requests had nothing to do with restrictions or 'prisons'. The cache owner was very simply trying to ensure that each and every visitor to the cache had the experience of finding a new bug to move on. A totally innocuous reason for the request. No evil intentions at all.

Yes, I am aware that this is the intent of cache owners, to provide a helpful service to cachers visiting the cache, but that is not the purpose of a travel bug.

Cachers need to understand that they are to serve my sense of entitlement. By releasing a bug I require them to move it in accordance to my demands. Not sure why I keep having to explain this.

Edited March 16, 2010 by BlueDeuce

March 16, 2010

In my experience - such requests had nothing to do with restrictions or 'prisons'. The cache owner was very simply trying to ensure that each and every visitor to the cache had the experience of finding a new bug to move on. A totally innocuous reason for the request. No evil intentions at all.

However, that would require each and every cache visitor to have a bug already. Otherwise the cache says they aren't allowed to move it. If all caches had this restriction, you would have to buy a bug in order to start moving them.

22k · March 16, 2010

In my experience - such requests had nothing to do with restrictions or 'prisons'. The cache owner was very simply trying to ensure that each and every visitor to the cache had the experience of finding a new bug to move on. A totally innocuous reason for the request. No evil intentions at all.

However, that would require each and every cache visitor to have a bug already. Otherwise the cache says they aren't allowed to move it. If all caches had this restriction, you would have to buy a bug in order to start moving them.

I wonder how many of these owners traded even when they were collecting bugs for their cache.

4.2k · March 16, 2010

Travelers may remain the "property" of the owner, that doesn't give the owner supernatural powers to control what happens to their property once they have left it in a cache.

Nobody is claiming it does.

Maybe they can get the police in Rome, NY to go arrest the thief who is stealing coins from caches, but I doubt you would get them to go after a cache cache owner for holding property for ransom because he requested that you leave a trackable if you take one.

Nobody is suggesting that the authorities are to be contacted. See the plan of action that Keystone outlined in his post above.

Maybe trackable owners believe they have special rights because they paid $5 for a trackable tag. Well they do have rights. The $5 dollars entitles them to have a page for their trackable on GC.com and to use it to request nearly anything they want from the people who find/move their trackable. It doesn't give them any rights to go after a cacher who didn't exactly follow their request...

Nobody has suggested that any TB owners "go after" any cachers.

...or to go after a cache owner who may have his own optional requests on the cache that are inconsistent with the trackable owner's request.

Again- Keystone's post. If that's "going after", then so be it. It's clearly been stated that such requirements are (at least in two states) an ALR and fall under the guidelines for cache placement. What, do you think that posting a cache page gives the CO some sort of super natural bla bla bla...?

I can't control that trackable owners (especially those that post in the trackable forums) have an unreasonable sense of entitlement.

...that apparently at least one reviewer supports.

There are certainly reviewers, moderators, and even Groundspeak lackeys that have personal opinions on whether a cache owner request for a trade should be allowed. The simple fact is that it is not mentioned in the guidelines. The guidelines do make it clear that any requests of cache finders must be optional. Over the years there have been plenty of posts that do indicate TPTB see such requests as silly. If a cache owner is really interested in having a travel bug hotel as a way of encouraging people to move travel bugs, these trading rule run counter to this goal. It is 100% reasonable for trackable owners, or anyone else, to point this out and to try to discourage these rules on caches.

...and apparently that you support too. Huh?

6.7k · March 16, 2010

...snip...

Wrong.

That travelers remain the property of the owner and that they move freely is at the heart of the whole traveler concept.

Travelers have a mission, either stated by the owner or if unstated understood to be to move randomly from cache to cache without restriction.

Groundspeak and the geocaching community overall have many times determined and reinforced that no restrictions shall be placed on travel bug movement.

Put your post in the TB forum and see how thoroughly and quickly it gets trounced!

We have had authoritative sources weigh in on this thread to clearly state that trade requirements for travelers are not allowed.

Travelers may remain the "property" of the owner, that doesn't give the owner supernatural powers to control what happens to their property once they have left it in a cache. Maybe they can get the police in Rome, NY to go arrest the thief who is stealing coins from caches, but I doubt you would get them to go after a cache cache owner for holding property for ransom because he requested that you leave a trackable if you take one.

Maybe trackable owners believe they have special rights because they paid $5 for a trackable tag. Well they do have rights. The $5 dollars entitles them to have a page for their trackable on GC.com and to use it to request nearly anything they want from the people who find/move their trackable. It doesn't give them any rights to go after a cacher who didn't exactly follow their request or to go after a cache owner who may have his own optional requests on the cache that are inconsistent with the trackable owner's request.

I can't control that trackable owners (especially those that post in the trackable forums) have an unreasonable sense of entitlement.

There are certainly reviewers, moderators, and even Groundspeak lackeys that have personal opinions on whether a cache owner request for a trade should be allowed. The simple fact is that it is not mentioned in the guidelines. The guidelines do make it clear that any requests of cache finders must be optional. Over the years there have been plenty of posts that do indicate TPTB see such requests as silly. If a cache owner is really interested in having a travel bug hotel as a way of encouraging people to move travel bugs, these trading rule run counter to this goal. It is 100% reasonable for trackable owners, or anyone else, to point this out and to try to discourage these rules on caches.

As much as people want to debate who has what rights when it comes to trackables it is really a moot point as it relates to this thread. A trade restriction is an ALR and unenforceable under the current guidelines.

2.4k · March 16, 2010

As much as people want to debate who has what rights when it comes to trackables it is really a moot point as it relates to this thread. A trade restriction is an ALR and unenforceable under the current guidelines.

I thought ALRs were restrictions on logging caches... do they apply to logging TBs at all?

Just asking.

Doug

6.7k · March 16, 2010

As much as people want to debate who has what rights when it comes to trackables it is really a moot point as it relates to this thread. A trade restriction is an ALR and unenforceable under the current guidelines.

I thought ALRs were restrictions on logging caches... do they apply to logging TBs at all?

Just asking.

Doug

Evidently!

6.7k · March 16, 2010

As much as people want to debate who has what rights when it comes to trackables it is really a moot point as it relates to this thread. A trade restriction is an ALR and unenforceable under the current guidelines.

I thought ALRs were restrictions on logging caches... do they apply to logging TBs at all?

Just asking.

Doug

This thread isn't about logging TBs and coins. It is about the restrictions that some cache owners try to impose on moving them in and out of their cache.

10.2k · March 17, 2010

In my experience - such requests had nothing to do with restrictions or 'prisons'. The cache owner was very simply trying to ensure that each and every visitor to the cache had the experience of finding a new bug to move on. A totally innocuous reason for the request. No evil intentions at all.

I think it's pretty much always with good intentions that these types of restrictions are put on travel bug "hotels".

That's also why it helps to educate cache owners on the reasons those restrictions are not good for the travelers.

Some good points by Starbrand and Geobain. I seriously doubt any TB prison wardens have ill intent, and are looking to insure that every visitor has a TB to move.

I don't know though man. I mentioned earlier in the thread that the first time I saw such restrictions back when I was a newb, I said to myself "self, that is totally whacked". And I've gone on to see that most people agree with me, including the guy in the Emerald City, who once called it a "stupid rule".

8k · March 17, 2010

...snip...

As much as people want to debate who has what rights when it comes to trackables it is really a moot point as it relates to this thread. A trade restriction is an ALR and unenforceable under the current guidelines.

I think we have a debate here. Some want to interpret Keystone's post as indicating that a cache owner cannot request a trade of trackable items on his cache. I did not read it that way. If a cache owner has an ALR that you must leave a trackable if you take one, in order to log a find, then that would violate the ALR guidelines. Keystone said he would ask the owner to remove the impermissible additional logging requirement and if the cache owner did not edit the listing within a reasonable time to comply with the guideline, he would archive it. I do think we have a fuzzy line where some reviewers are distinguishing a request from a requirement. That has been discussed in other threads. But if someone were to say "If you take a travel bug from the caches, you may optionally leave a travel bug" nobody would complain. I would hate to see optional requests forced into such wishy-washy formulations. I can read a request to leave a trackable if you take a trackable as a request and decide on my own if I want to comply. A cache should not be archived for making an optional request.

I am almost certain that the trackable owners protective league will be making its case that an explicit guideline be made against even requesting trading trackables, if only to stop me from making the point each time that travel bug owners don't have half the powers they believe they have. They have done such a good job convincing some reviewers and even some Groundspeak lackeys that I don't doubt those who write guidelines won't be far behind. The truth is I won't be bothered that much, because as I've said, a 1 for 1 trackable trading request is silly. But many optional requests that cache owners make are silly, and I prefer guidelines that give cache owners the right to make silly requests instead of having patronizing guidelines for cachers and cache owners who aren't able to think for themselves.

2.3k · March 17, 2010

If you plan to enforce a 1:1 trade ratio with log deletion, there's a problem.

If you ask that folks try to drop off a bug if they are taking one, I can still choose to honor it or not and I don't think it falls under the ALR restrictions.

March 17, 2010

Exactly how hard is it to simply trade evenly for another TB or GC? I can't even begin to imagine why such a basic request would be so hard to adhere to.

It's no wonder he feels so strongly.... He just happens to own a "TB Prison".

And not only is it a TB Prison, it's one that is available to Premium members only, even further restricting who can move a TB.

LOOK -->http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...8d-129800dd5de0

Edited March 17, 2010 by HeliDood

6.7k · March 17, 2010

...snip...

As much as people want to debate who has what rights when it comes to trackables it is really a moot point as it relates to this thread. A trade restriction is an ALR and unenforceable under the current guidelines.

I think we have a debate here. Some want to interpret Keystone's post as indicating that a cache owner cannot request a trade of trackable items on his cache. I did not read it that way. If a cache owner has an ALR that you must leave a trackable if you take one, in order to log a find, then that would violate the ALR guidelines. Keystone said he would ask the owner to remove the impermissible additional logging requirement and if the cache owner did not edit the listing within a reasonable time to comply with the guideline, he would archive it. I do think we have a fuzzy line where some reviewers are distinguishing a request from a requirement. That has been discussed in other threads. But if someone were to say "If you take a travel bug from the caches, you may optionally leave a travel bug" nobody would complain. I would hate to see optional requests forced into such wishy-washy formulations. I can read a request to leave a trackable if you take a trackable as a request and decide on my own if I want to comply. A cache should not be archived for making an optional request.

I am almost certain that the trackable owners protective league will be making its case that an explicit guideline be made against even requesting trading trackables, if only to stop me from making the point each time that travel bug owners don't have half the powers they believe they have. They have done such a good job convincing some reviewers and even some Groundspeak lackeys that I don't doubt those who write guidelines won't be far behind. The truth is I won't be bothered that much, because as I've said, a 1 for 1 trackable trading request is silly. But many optional requests that cache owners make are silly, and I prefer guidelines that give cache owners the right to make silly requests instead of having patronizing guidelines for cachers and cache owners who aren't able to think for themselves.

Yes, that nit is ripe for picking. If it is an OPTIONAL request with no enforcement threat it doesn't violate the ALR prohibition. But if I come along and take a couple of trackables without leaving any I certainly don't want to listen to the CO whine. Not that there is much a CO can do to me.

1.7k · March 17, 2010

...snip...

As much as people want to debate who has what rights when it comes to trackables it is really a moot point as it relates to this thread. A trade restriction is an ALR and unenforceable under the current guidelines.

I think we have a debate here. Some want to interpret Keystone's post as indicating that a cache owner cannot request a trade of trackable items on his cache. I did not read it that way. If a cache owner has an ALR that you must leave a trackable if you take one, in order to log a find, then that would violate the ALR guidelines. Keystone said he would ask the owner to remove the impermissible additional logging requirement and if the cache owner did not edit the listing within a reasonable time to comply with the guideline, he would archive it. I do think we have a fuzzy line where some reviewers are distinguishing a request from a requirement. That has been discussed in other threads. But if someone were to say "If you take a travel bug from the caches, you may optionally leave a travel bug" nobody would complain. I would hate to see optional requests forced into such wishy-washy formulations. I can read a request to leave a trackable if you take a trackable as a request and decide on my own if I want to comply. A cache should not be archived for making an optional request.

I am almost certain that the trackable owners protective league will be making its case that an explicit guideline be made against even requesting trading trackables, if only to stop me from making the point each time that travel bug owners don't have half the powers they believe they have. They have done such a good job convincing some reviewers and even some Groundspeak lackeys that I don't doubt those who write guidelines won't be far behind. The truth is I won't be bothered that much, because as I've said, a 1 for 1 trackable trading request is silly. But many optional requests that cache owners make are silly, and I prefer guidelines that give cache owners the right to make silly requests instead of having patronizing guidelines for cachers and cache owners who aren't able to think for themselves.

Yes, that nit is ripe for picking. If it is an OPTIONAL request with no enforcement threat it doesn't violate the ALR prohibition. But if I come along and take a couple of trackables without leaving any I certainly don't want to listen to the CO whine. Not that there is much a CO can do to me.

I have a solution to prevent the whiny CO.

Don't log the trackables, then spread them to appropriately popular caches.

It runs the potential of a slight mileage screw up if a person doesn't log it as grab it from somewhere else, but a TO runs that risk from the moment they drop it.

March 17, 2010

Exactly how hard is it to simply trade evenly for another TB or GC? I can't even begin to imagine why such a basic request would be so hard to adhere to.

It's no wonder he feels so strongly.... He just happens to own a "TB Prison".

And not only is it a TB Prison, it's one that is available to Premium members only, even further restricting who can move a TB.

LOOK -->http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...8d-129800dd5de0

I'm sorry, but I think you've misconstrued the intent of my question. Feels so strongly? I asked a question. Overreact much?

My cache has a request on it. Logs that don't follow that request don't get deleted. No nasty emails sent. I simply put another GC in there. No biggie. The fact that it's Premium Members Only simply helps ensure that the cachers that find my cache are those of the quality variety. Too many people not willing to support the Groundspeak sites lose TBs, and/or get caches muggled in my area.

However, you're welcome to think as you like. Quite honestly, I don't care. Too many rules, regulations, and big headed opinions will make geocaching not fun for a lot of people, and I have no intention of being a part of that problem.

1.7k · March 17, 2010

The fact that it's Premium Members Only simply helps ensure that the cachers that find my cache are those of the quality variety.

Just a heads up. There are PMs (Premium Members) and there are PMs (Paying Maggots).

March 17, 2010

However, you're welcome to think as you like. Quite honestly, I don't care. Too many rules, regulations, and big headed opinions will make geocaching not fun for a lot of people, and I have no intention of being a part of that problem.

Be setting trade-rules for your own geocache you are a big part of the problem.

What right do you have to make rules concerning somebody else's property?

GermanSailor

1 for 1 TB exchange policies

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment