Would this be an ALR?

[+KBLAST]

If the tree is THAT hard to climb, I don't think I'd be willing to throw the cache down or sign the log for someone who didn't climb!

 

Which is something that puzzled me.

 

If I worked that hard to climb that tree, then my buddy, and I don't care how close we are, is going to darn well climb it as well. I ain't signing his name and I ain't lowering it to him.

 

Hard work is such a relative term. I have placed some of what I call ETCs (Everyone's Tree Climbers) where just about anyone could do them. The trouble I found with ETCs is the terrain junkies complain it was too low, I should have placed it higher, while the non-tree climbers get there and say, "I can't believe you made me do this!!!"

 

So on my ETCs I consider those like any other cache - one person gets it, everyone else probably could have gotten it, but why waste the time? I put one up in the park where we had the 10 year's celebration. The terrain junkies all took turns. One time, the log was accidentally dropped. Someone who didn't want to climb said, "Hey, give me that real quick!" and they signed the log. Later, a group went to the tree and drew straws, short straw had to climb and sign for everyone. I PERSONALLY don't care about that with my climbs, I LOVE those stories! But the problem is, it creates a sort of "precedent" that it's ok to do that EVERYWHERE. So COs of tougher climbs started putting that they would prefer everyone make the climb to claim the find, which is what bigdog was attempting to do, even if his language looks threatening.

 

Side note: I'm in the process of creating a personal page with pics of tree climbs I've been involved in to help people who are interested understand what a "tree climb" looks like around here. I'm still fairly new to POSTING in the forums, is a link to my page on my personal website an acceptable practice?

[+Quossum]

Okay, I have a couple of questions related to this topic. Yes, I have read the entire thread, all four pages of it.

 

I'm reletively new (just reached 100 finds this weekend, Whoo!) and I want to be an honorable cacher, one who plays by the spirit, not just the letter of the law. Reading this thread makes me wonder if I've done a couple of things I shouldn't have. Let me ask the opinions of those here.

 

I don't think I'd participate in a "wait at the bottom of a hazardous climb and sign the lowered log" party. I perfectly understand why one *can* do such a thing, but to me it seems to fall within the spirit of the game that the climb itself was part of the challenge.

 

However, I did once find a cache that I couldn't reach, because I'm short. GC1Y2G0. For those who don't care to go read the log, it's a 2 / 2 micro in a tree, and I could touch it with my chubby little fingers while standing on my toes, but could not secure it to sign the log. I would NOT have logged a find under these circumstances. However, at my work-related event that day, I told co-workers about my plight, and one of them returned to the cache site with me and retrieved the cache. We both signed, and in fact, he created an account and logged the find online, too. I felt *great* about this triumph!

 

Now, I'm having second thoughts. Since I didn't actually retrieve the cache with my own two hands, do I deserve the find? And since my friend didn't actually locate the cache, does he deserve the find? (Of course, he's a real newbie, and no way would I ask him to delete his log--talk about a bad taste in one's mouth about caching!) If I had brought in a stepstool or something, would that have been okay?

 

Second circumstance. Most of the time, I cache with my husband. For most caches, I don't have a problem with both of use getting credit for the find, no matter which of us actually called out, "Found it!" because it was probably chance. But what about with harder finds? If we're both doing an intimate search of an inanimate object, hunting for that difficulty 4 micro...should only the one of us that actually finds it first get credit? Or should the one who finds it first discreetly step aside and let the other one hunt 'til he / she finds it, otherwise only one can log the find? That just seems...not right. We're in it together. But do the ethics change when it's a group of five? Ten?

 

What about if there's a slight (not extreme, like a dangerous climb into a tree) physical challenge? Just this weekend, at GC10E1J, a terrain 3, my sweetie was the one who stood on the edge of the steep slope and grabbed the cache. I *could have* done it, and I was the first to spot the cache, but he was gallant and did the hard bit for me. So...should we both get credit? Should he have put it back and had me scramble down there, too?

 

So far, I've let my conscience be my guide, and I've had no moral qualms about the above situations. But...am I wrong? Am I a dishonest cacher?

 

What do you guys think?

 

--Q

[+narcissa]

Side note: I'm in the process of creating a personal page with pics of tree climbs I've been involved in to help people who are interested understand what a "tree climb" looks like around here. I'm still fairly new to POSTING in the forums, is a link to my page on my personal website an acceptable practice?

 

As far as I'm aware, as long as you're not linking to a commercial site, it's okay. I've never been hassled about linking to my blog, and there are regular "tell us about your blog" posts that don't incur moderator wrath.

[+narcissa]

Okay, I have a couple of questions related to this topic. Yes, I have read the entire thread, all four pages of it.

 

I'm reletively new (just reached 100 finds this weekend, Whoo!) and I want to be an honorable cacher, one who plays by the spirit, not just the letter of the law. Reading this thread makes me wonder if I've done a couple of things I shouldn't have. Let me ask the opinions of those here.

 

I don't think I'd participate in a "wait at the bottom of a hazardous climb and sign the lowered log" party. I perfectly understand why one *can* do such a thing, but to me it seems to fall within the spirit of the game that the climb itself was part of the challenge.

 

However, I did once find a cache that I couldn't reach, because I'm short. GC1Y2G0. For those who don't care to go read the log, it's a 2 / 2 micro in a tree, and I could touch it with my chubby little fingers while standing on my toes, but could not secure it to sign the log. I would NOT have logged a find under these circumstances. However, at my work-related event that day, I told co-workers about my plight, and one of them returned to the cache site with me and retrieved the cache. We both signed, and in fact, he created an account and logged the find online, too. I felt *great* about this triumph!

 

Now, I'm having second thoughts. Since I didn't actually retrieve the cache with my own two hands, do I deserve the find? And since my friend didn't actually locate the cache, does he deserve the find? (Of course, he's a real newbie, and no way would I ask him to delete his log--talk about a bad taste in one's mouth about caching!) If I had brought in a stepstool or something, would that have been okay?

 

Second circumstance. Most of the time, I cache with my husband. For most caches, I don't have a problem with both of use getting credit for the find, no matter which of us actually called out, "Found it!" because it was probably chance. But what about with harder finds? If we're both doing an intimate search of an inanimate object, hunting for that difficulty 4 micro...should only the one of us that actually finds it first get credit? Or should the one who finds it first discreetly step aside and let the other one hunt 'til he / she finds it, otherwise only one can log the find? That just seems...not right. We're in it together. But do the ethics change when it's a group of five? Ten?

 

What about if there's a slight (not extreme, like a dangerous climb into a tree) physical challenge? Just this weekend, at GC10E1J, a terrain 3, my sweetie was the one who stood on the edge of the steep slope and grabbed the cache. I *could have* done it, and I was the first to spot the cache, but he was gallant and did the hard bit for me. So...should we both get credit? Should he have put it back and had me scramble down there, too?

 

So far, I've let my conscience be my guide, and I've had no moral qualms about the above situations. But...am I wrong? Am I a dishonest cacher?

 

What do you guys think?

 

--Q

 

I don't think you have anything to worry about. Most geocachers would not have any problems with any of that.

[+thedeadpirate]

is a link to my page on my personal website an acceptable practice?

 

As long as it's not commercial in nature, it should be fine. In fact, you can add the link to your sig line.

[+thedeadpirate]

Now, I'm having second thoughts. Since I didn't actually retrieve the cache with my own two hands, do I deserve the find? And since my friend didn't actually locate the cache, does he deserve the find? (Of course, he's a real newbie, and no way would I ask him to delete his log--talk about a bad taste in one's mouth about caching!) If I had brought in a stepstool or something, would that have been okay?

 

In my opinion, yes to all 3 questions.

 

Second circumstance. Most of the time, I cache with my husband. For most caches, I don't have a problem with both of use getting credit for the find, no matter which of us actually called out, "Found it!" because it was probably chance. But what about with harder finds? If we're both doing an intimate search of an inanimate object, hunting for that difficulty 4 micro...should only the one of us that actually finds it first get credit? Or should the one who finds it first discreetly step aside and let the other one hunt 'til he / she finds it, otherwise only one can log the find? That just seems...not right. We're in it together. But do the ethics change when it's a group of five? Ten?

 

Different groups handle this differently. Some will do the step aside procedure. Others will do the find and share approach. It is really up to the group to decide how they want to handle it.

 

What about if there's a slight (not extreme, like a dangerous climb into a tree) physical challenge? Just this weekend, at GC10E1J, a terrain 3, my sweetie was the one who stood on the edge of the steep slope and grabbed the cache. I *could have* done it, and I was the first to spot the cache, but he was gallant and did the hard bit for me. So...should we both get credit? Should he have put it back and had me scramble down there, too?

 

So far, I've let my conscience be my guide, and I've had no moral qualms about the above situations. But...am I wrong? Am I a dishonest cacher?

 

What do you guys think?

 

Continue to let your conscience be your guide. I think you're doing just fine.

[+KBLAST]

Okay, I have a couple of questions related to this topic. Yes, I have read the entire thread, all four pages of it.

 

I'm reletively new (just reached 100 finds this weekend, Whoo!) and I want to be an honorable cacher, one who plays by the spirit, not just the letter of the law. Reading this thread makes me wonder if I've done a couple of things I shouldn't have. Let me ask the opinions of those here.

 

I don't think I'd participate in a "wait at the bottom of a hazardous climb and sign the lowered log" party. I perfectly understand why one *can* do such a thing, but to me it seems to fall within the spirit of the game that the climb itself was part of the challenge.

 

However, I did once find a cache that I couldn't reach, because I'm short. GC1Y2G0. For those who don't care to go read the log, it's a 2 / 2 micro in a tree, and I could touch it with my chubby little fingers while standing on my toes, but could not secure it to sign the log. I would NOT have logged a find under these circumstances. However, at my work-related event that day, I told co-workers about my plight, and one of them returned to the cache site with me and retrieved the cache. We both signed, and in fact, he created an account and logged the find online, too. I felt *great* about this triumph!

 

Now, I'm having second thoughts. Since I didn't actually retrieve the cache with my own two hands, do I deserve the find? And since my friend didn't actually locate the cache, does he deserve the find? (Of course, he's a real newbie, and no way would I ask him to delete his log--talk about a bad taste in one's mouth about caching!) If I had brought in a stepstool or something, would that have been okay?

 

Second circumstance. Most of the time, I cache with my husband. For most caches, I don't have a problem with both of use getting credit for the find, no matter which of us actually called out, "Found it!" because it was probably chance. But what about with harder finds? If we're both doing an intimate search of an inanimate object, hunting for that difficulty 4 micro...should only the one of us that actually finds it first get credit? Or should the one who finds it first discreetly step aside and let the other one hunt 'til he / she finds it, otherwise only one can log the find? That just seems...not right. We're in it together. But do the ethics change when it's a group of five? Ten?

 

What about if there's a slight (not extreme, like a dangerous climb into a tree) physical challenge? Just this weekend, at GC10E1J, a terrain 3, my sweetie was the one who stood on the edge of the steep slope and grabbed the cache. I *could have* done it, and I was the first to spot the cache, but he was gallant and did the hard bit for me. So...should we both get credit? Should he have put it back and had me scramble down there, too?

 

So far, I've let my conscience be my guide, and I've had no moral qualms about the above situations. But...am I wrong? Am I a dishonest cacher?

 

What do you guys think?

 

--Q

 

I don't think you have anything to worry about. Most geocachers would not have any problems with any of that.

+1 from someone with another viewpoint of the topic at hand. Everything you've described is typical and common in my experience. We cache in groups, one person finds it, we all sign it. We all WISH we'd found it , and typically we give credit in the online log, but as I often say, "sometimes it's just as good to cache with the right people than to be the best finder". And using the tools at hand are perfectly acceptable. And finally, for me PERSONALLY, "I could've done it so I let the person who DID do it sign my name" has become my personal ethical decision.

[+niraD]

However, I did once find a cache that I couldn't reach, because I'm short. GC1Y2G0. For those who don't care to go read the log, it's a 2 / 2 micro in a tree, and I could touch it with my chubby little fingers while standing on my toes, but could not secure it to sign the log. I would NOT have logged a find under these circumstances. However, at my work-related event that day, I told co-workers about my plight, and one of them returned to the cache site with me and retrieved the cache. We both signed, and in fact, he created an account and logged the find online, too. I felt *great* about this triumph!

 

Now, I'm having second thoughts. Since I didn't actually retrieve the cache with my own two hands, do I deserve the find?

I don't see a problem with what you did. You could have used a tool (whether a reaching tool or a climbing tool). You could have cooperated with another short geocacher, with one of you giving the other a boost to reach the cache. But working with a taller geocacher who doesn't need a tool or a boost is fine too.

 

Second circumstance. Most of the time, I cache with my husband. For most caches, I don't have a problem with both of use getting credit for the find, no matter which of us actually called out, "Found it!" because it was probably chance. But what about with harder finds? If we're both doing an intimate search of an inanimate object, hunting for that difficulty 4 micro...should only the one of us that actually finds it first get credit? Or should the one who finds it first discreetly step aside and let the other one hunt 'til he / she finds it, otherwise only one can log the find? That just seems...not right. We're in it together. But do the ethics change when it's a group of five? Ten?

Some of the groups that I've geocached with play Three Musketeers style; that is, once one person finds it, then the entire group has found it and everyone signs the log.

 

Some groups that I've geocached with play Huckle Buckle Beanstalk style; that is, each person who finds it quietly steps away from the cache and declares victory, and the hunt continues until everyone has found it independently.

 

Play the game the way you want to play the game. You don't have to play it the same way every time.

 

What about if there's a slight (not extreme, like a dangerous climb into a tree) physical challenge? Just this weekend, at GC10E1J, a terrain 3, my sweetie was the one who stood on the edge of the steep slope and grabbed the cache. I *could have* done it, and I was the first to spot the cache, but he was gallant and did the hard bit for me. So...should we both get credit? Should he have put it back and had me scramble down there, too?

I don't see a problem with what you did. You aren't claiming to have done something that you didn't do.

[+AndrewRJ]

Okay, I have a couple of questions related to this topic. Yes, I have read the entire thread, all four pages of it.

 

I'm reletively new (just reached 100 finds this weekend, Whoo!) and I want to be an honorable cacher, one who plays by the spirit, not just the letter of the law. Reading this thread makes me wonder if I've done a couple of things I shouldn't have. Let me ask the opinions of those here.

 

I don't think I'd participate in a "wait at the bottom of a hazardous climb and sign the lowered log" party. I perfectly understand why one *can* do such a thing, but to me it seems to fall within the spirit of the game that the climb itself was part of the challenge.

 

However, I did once find a cache that I couldn't reach, because I'm short. GC1Y2G0. For those who don't care to go read the log, it's a 2 / 2 micro in a tree, and I could touch it with my chubby little fingers while standing on my toes, but could not secure it to sign the log. I would NOT have logged a find under these circumstances. However, at my work-related event that day, I told co-workers about my plight, and one of them returned to the cache site with me and retrieved the cache. We both signed, and in fact, he created an account and logged the find online, too. I felt *great* about this triumph!

 

Now, I'm having second thoughts. Since I didn't actually retrieve the cache with my own two hands, do I deserve the find? And since my friend didn't actually locate the cache, does he deserve the find? (Of course, he's a real newbie, and no way would I ask him to delete his log--talk about a bad taste in one's mouth about caching!) If I had brought in a stepstool or something, would that have been okay?

 

Second circumstance. Most of the time, I cache with my husband. For most caches, I don't have a problem with both of use getting credit for the find, no matter which of us actually called out, "Found it!" because it was probably chance. But what about with harder finds? If we're both doing an intimate search of an inanimate object, hunting for that difficulty 4 micro...should only the one of us that actually finds it first get credit? Or should the one who finds it first discreetly step aside and let the other one hunt 'til he / she finds it, otherwise only one can log the find? That just seems...not right. We're in it together. But do the ethics change when it's a group of five? Ten?

 

What about if there's a slight (not extreme, like a dangerous climb into a tree) physical challenge? Just this weekend, at GC10E1J, a terrain 3, my sweetie was the one who stood on the edge of the steep slope and grabbed the cache. I *could have* done it, and I was the first to spot the cache, but he was gallant and did the hard bit for me. So...should we both get credit? Should he have put it back and had me scramble down there, too?

 

So far, I've let my conscience be my guide, and I've had no moral qualms about the above situations. But...am I wrong? Am I a dishonest cacher?

 

What do you guys think?

 

--Q

 

I don't think you have anything to worry about. Most geocachers would not have any problems with any of that.

So I have to ask then, what is your view on a cache like Little Known Park Finder 2 One of the few remaining traveling caches? I am honestly curious what the larger caching community thinks.

 

edit for speeling

Edited June 28, 2010 by AndrewRJ

[+KBLAST]

Pictures of tree climbs where I was involved

 

This isn't the quality of page I typically aspire to, but it gives those of you interested an idea.

 

Please don't go off topic and post pics of trees you've done or crazy things you've done that are "way cooler than these!" The purpose of this page is to give a visual representation of why I think it's ok to say someone didn't make it to "ground zero" if they didn't complete the climb (ethically, not by the rules).

[+The Jester]

If my GPS says I'm at the GZ, I'm at the GZ.

I've done enough caches where this statement is plain wrong. Just getting to the co-ords of a cache does not mean you are at GZ. You can stand at the cache co-ords on the roof of a ten story parking garage and be no where close to GZ - it's several floors down.

[+bigdog421]

After much internal and external discussions with others, I have come to a conclusion.

 

I have already stated that log deletion is out of the question, and should be.

 

The way I have stated things on the cache pages (yes, there are others that have this verbiage) is forceful, demanding, and downright out of the scope of such a fun, inviting activity.

 

I will be changing the statements not because it is the rules, not because this cache may or may not be an ALR, not because I am being forced, not because I am backing down. Instead, I am doing so because I see that my attempt to impose my personal ethic on the caching community is wrong.

 

In the future, I hope we all use the Needs Archived log as a tool for extreme cases. Check out the thread I started on the topic: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=253321 (sorry, I'm not cool enough to know how to code this stuff to make it pretty)

 

My main point with that is as follows. I found a quote on Groundspeak about the needs archived log, and then included my interpretation:

 

"Please use this log only when there are serious problems with the cache or its location. Do not use it if the cache needs repairs, or you didn't find it, or the location made you uncomfortable. Please consider first contacting the owner of the geocache with your concerns. Use the profile link next to the cache owner's name at the top of the cache page to send an email, as well as logging to the cache page about your visit."

 

Needs archived is for if the cache needs to be archived due to lack of maintenance or owner disregarding an issue. A reviewer does not need to be involved in archiving a cache. It is the cache owner's right and choice when and if to do it. If there is an issue where the owner is ignoring a safety issue, not willing to get permission though he/she obviously has none, etc. THAT is when the reviewer needs to be involved an notified. Without establishing any communication first with the cache owner, you are disrespecting their rights as an owner, essentially going above his/her head. I don't think a NRA or SBA is really necessary. Needs Archived is enough because it should be used with care.

 

If a cache owner is obviously not going to reply to an email (no log ins/finds in ages), yes it can be used as the first and only step. It is because the reviewer NEEDS to be involved. If they created a NRA or SBA, it would involve the reviewer far to often, more than necessary. Reviews aren't just reviewers...they have a life outside geocaching too, just like all of us blink.gif I know weird right? The more we can work out for ourselves as geocachers and cache owners, the better off we can all be.

 

---

 

I think if we all took this under consideration, the community would be better off than had we fought.

 

Narcissa, I thank you for bringing up this issue. I hope that in the future you will at least consider what posting a needs archived could mean to someone else. I know someone personally who was so turned off by it, that he stopped geocaching. A needs archived log is NOT just another log (I mean, it even asks if you are sure before you publish it). If it is reasonable to talk with the owner first, please do so. I know I would have been much more receptive (MUCH sooner) than I was after the needs archived posting. I hope that if we learn something from this experience is that we should all think about how we personally would feel if we wrote something, published a certain log, without first getting the whole story from the source.

 

*Steps off soapbox"

 

"The cache owner has spoken!"

[+bigdog421]

* back on soapbox*

 

Really quick I SWEAR I meant to write this in the novel I just wrote above!

 

What we should all take from this is to treat cachers and cache owners with the respect they deserve. Reviewers don't always need to be involved. It IS possible for issues to be worked out and into Groundspeak compliance without their aid and effort.

 

*jumping off box again*

[+narcissa]

Just a note - deleting a "needs archived" doesn't work. The reviewer was still sent a message when the log was created. If you've changed the cache page to bring it into compliance with the guidelines, then you likely won't hear anything from the reviewer. Also, logs are never really deleted, just removed from public view.

 

I avoid communicating privately with cache owners when it comes to guideline issues. In a situation like this, it's best to bring it to the reviewer's attention and have it dealt with swiftly. Using logs leaves a paper trail that reviewers can see.

[+bigdog421]

Just a note - deleting a "needs archived" doesn't work. The reviewer was still sent a message when the log was created. If you've changed the cache page to bring it into compliance with the guidelines, then you likely won't hear anything from the reviewer. Also, logs are never really deleted, just removed from public view.

 

I realize this. In my area, a needs archive, regardless of what was before it, is a sign that a cache is not worth doing as it is probably gone...I realize if they read it, they would see, but that doesn't always happen.

 

I avoid communicating privately with cache owners when it comes to guideline issues. In a situation like this, it's best to bring it to the reviewer's attention and have it dealt with swiftly. Using logs leaves a paper trail that reviewers can see.

 

I just agree to disagree with you on that note. Like I said, many people are turned off by that. My decision would have occured naturally had someone contacted me with their concerns. In fact, the whole thing came into effect on the cache pages because of a private comment. I deleted someone's log because they were not able to sign the log but saw the container. They could have done anything in their power to get the cache down and back up, but chose not to do so. This was obviously something I had to delete, and I sent a private note to explain my issue with the found it log. He agreed, but made the case about "Then how do you feel about group finds?" Recently, many in the area have done so with my tree climbs, and this gave me the final push to action. Yes, it was a violation and I admit that. Reviewers do not need to be involved all the time, like I said, the more we can work out ourselves, the better off we can all be.

[+narcissa]

Like I said, many people are turned off by that.

 

And many people are turned off by cache owners who make up their own rules that violate the guidelines.

 

In cases like this, it's good for there to be a record that reviewers can see. Logs are the most appropriate place to mention cache issues, and when a reviewer's attention is needed, the "needs archived" log is the most efficient way to make that happen.

[+bigdog421]

Like I said, many people are turned off by that.

 

And many people are turned off by cache owners who make up their own rules that violate the guidelines.

 

 

Yes, I can see that, but the cache in question holds absolutely no PERSONAL value to you. That cache, as an owner, holds a very LARGE value to myself. I see it is a disrespect, you obviously don't.

 

In cases like this, it's good for there to be a record that reviewers can see. Logs are the most appropriate place to mention cache issues, and when a reviewer's attention is needed, the "needs archived" log is the most efficient way to make that happen.

 

Yes, notes are great. They do give a background...but you can use something called a note to make a record. One needs archived log WITHOUT any others will not get a reviewers attention. Keystone is good about responding to a needs archived log. If it hasn't happened in 24 hours, he found the log to be 1) bogus 2) unwarranted or 3) not worth his time, something that could be worked out PERSONALLY...obviously if it did not get worked out, he would act.

[+Kit Fox]

 

If the log indicates that they were on the ground, their log will be deleted

 

And that is contrary to the guidelines. Requiring that cachers perform ANY task beyond signing the log is an ALR. That includes climbing the tree.

 

The terrain rating doesn't make your cache special or exempt from the rules.

 

Neither does being 300 pounds overweight, or 80 years old, and standing at ground level while someone else does all the leg work, so you can log a dishonorable find on a high terrain cache.

 

When Groundspeak liberalized the rules pertaining to what constitues a find, I almost quit geocaching. I've been geocaching for six years, and have over 100 hides (many being extreme caches).

Just the idea of "affirmative action" being used to "level the playing field," so "everyone gets a smiley," irks me to no end. The nerve of having someone else do the dirty work, so you can log a find is no different than Groundspeak turning a blind eye to nearly all of the other number padding schemes.

 

If you can't physically reach the cache yourself, you shouldn't be logging the cache, unless you lack honor and self respect.

[+baloo&bd]

And many people are turned off by cache owners who make up their own rules that violate the guidelines.

 

In cases like this, it's good for there to be a record that reviewers can see. Logs are the most appropriate place to mention cache issues, and when a reviewer's attention is needed, the "needs archived" log is the most efficient way to make that happen.

 

You do realize you made your point to the extent that the CO has agreed with you he was wrong?

 

You are doing what they call in sales "buying back the house". i.e. keep pushing when the customer already said yes.

 

I have no place to ask for the thread to be closed. Hopefully the OP will make the request.

[+Team Cotati]

Someone blabs about it, it deserves to be deleted.

 

Demonstrably false. Read the guidelines.

 

It has zero to do with guidelines and everything to do with common sense.

[+thedeadpirate]

What we should all take from this is to treat cachers and cache owners with the respect they deserve. Reviewers don't always need to be involved. It IS possible for issues to be worked out and into Groundspeak compliance without their aid and effort.

 

+1

[+brslk]

My personal caching ethics have not and would not allow me to claim a find that I have not found, obtained signed and replaced myself. There have been a few that my wife and I have found together, due to terrain I could only get within about 15 feet of it. I did not let her sign for me.

My personal caching ethics won't allow it.

To me that's no different than getting to GZ and seeing the cache and logging it online without putting my hands on it.

But thats just me and my personal caching ethics.

[+thedeadpirate]

Just a note - deleting a "needs archived" doesn't work. The reviewer was still sent a message when the log was created. If you've changed the cache page to bring it into compliance with the guidelines, then you likely won't hear anything from the reviewer. Also, logs are never really deleted, just removed from public view.

 

I avoid communicating privately with cache owners when it comes to guideline issues. In a situation like this, it's best to bring it to the reviewer's attention and have it dealt with swiftly. Using logs leaves a paper trail that reviewers can see.

 

Narcissa, it is my opinion that the CO has brought this cache into compliance. The listing looks fine now.

 

Can we have a meeting of the minds now? Can we all shake hands and be friends now?

 

I think both bigdog and kblast have both made compelling arguments why they feel the way they do about this. They have both made concessions for the sake of peace.

 

Let's take a toke on the peace pipe and put this baby to bed now.

[+Quossum]

Thank you to those who took the time out of the debate to reassure me. I feel better now.

 

--Q

[+narcissa]

When Groundspeak liberalized the rules pertaining to what constitues a find, I almost quit geocaching. I've been geocaching for six years, and have over 100 hides (many being extreme caches).

Just the idea of "affirmative action" being used to "level the playing field," so "everyone gets a smiley," irks me to no end. The nerve of having someone else do the dirty work, so you can log a find is no different than Groundspeak turning a blind eye to nearly all of the other number padding schemes.

 

As long as the geocache is replaced for the next cacher to find, the manner in which they find and log it has absolutely no impact on others. Each cacher is free to decide for themselves what counts as a find, and what value the find has. Clearly, you're placing a value on smileys that Groundspeak doesn't. That's your choice to make, but it's not Groundspeak's responsibility to cater to your personal caching ethic.

 

Can you please link to the text that you're quoting about affirmative action and level playing fields? I've never seen any communication from Groundspeak that indicated they were attempting such a thing. I'd be interested to read that.

[+bigdog421]

When Groundspeak liberalized the rules pertaining to what constitues a find, I almost quit geocaching. I've been geocaching for six years, and have over 100 hides (many being extreme caches).

Just the idea of "affirmative action" being used to "level the playing field," so "everyone gets a smiley," irks me to no end. The nerve of having someone else do the dirty work, so you can log a find is no different than Groundspeak turning a blind eye to nearly all of the other number padding schemes.

 

As long as the geocache is replaced for the next cacher to find, the manner in which they find and log it has absolutely no impact on others. Each cacher is free to decide for themselves what counts as a find, and what value the find has. Clearly, you're placing a value on smileys that Groundspeak doesn't. That's your choice to make, but it's not Groundspeak's responsibility to cater to your personal caching ethic.

 

Can you please link to the text that you're quoting about affirmative action and level playing fields? I've never seen any communication from Groundspeak that indicated they were attempting such a thing. I'd be interested to read that.

 

Is it really necessary for you to argue against EVERY opinion that you do not share with another person?

Edited June 29, 2010 by bigdog421

[+brslk]

When Groundspeak liberalized the rules pertaining to what constitues a find, I almost quit geocaching. I've been geocaching for six years, and have over 100 hides (many being extreme caches).

Just the idea of "affirmative action" being used to "level the playing field," so "everyone gets a smiley," irks me to no end. The nerve of having someone else do the dirty work, so you can log a find is no different than Groundspeak turning a blind eye to nearly all of the other number padding schemes.

 

As long as the geocache is replaced for the next cacher to find, the manner in which they find and log it has absolutely no impact on others. Each cacher is free to decide for themselves what counts as a find, and what value the find has. Clearly, you're placing a value on smileys that Groundspeak doesn't. That's your choice to make, but it's not Groundspeak's responsibility to cater to your personal caching ethic.

 

Can you please link to the text that you're quoting about affirmative action and level playing fields? I've never seen any communication from Groundspeak that indicated they were attempting such a thing. I'd be interested to read that.

 

Is it really necessary for you to argue against EVERY opinion that you do not share with another person?

 

Nevermind.

Edited June 29, 2010 by brslk

[+narcissa]

 

Is it really necessary for you to argue against EVERY opinion that you do not share with another person?

 

There are quite literally hundreds of comments posted here every day that I don't agree. I happen to be interested in this subject.

 

I am also curious about where that particular user got the quoted information.

[+thedeadpirate]

*Sigh*

[+bigdog421]

 

Is it really necessary for you to argue against EVERY opinion that you do not share with another person?

 

There are quite literally hundreds of comments posted here every day that I don't agree. I happen to be interested in this subject.

 

I am also curious about where that particular user got the quoted information.

 

It's called sarcasm.

[+KBLAST]

I'd like to HOPEFULLY finish my portion of this discussion with the following things:

 

For those who stood up for this cache NOT being an ALR, I appreciate you helping bigdog and me not feel like lone wolves who are the only crazies who feel this way. You stuck your necks out, and I appreciate the support - otherwise I might have given up completely and decided this wasn't worth discussing anymore.

 

For those who saw the other side (like baloo&bd, GeoBain, and narcissa and hubby) I thank you for helping me to see outside of my world/neck of the woods/own biases and remind me that this needs to be a WORLDWIDE game - one where:

1) people don't always see things the same and sometimes I need to be more clear to help people not like me understand where the heck my crazy ideas are coming from;

2) the way we do things "around here" isn't necessarily the right way by others' standards; and

3) when I am listening to others' opinions I need to listen for THEIR local bias so I don't make snap judgments about them and what THEY are saying or doing.

You all are very good at making your points. Whether or not I agree with your method of delivery doesn't matter, I can respect what you do and I hope to be able to contribute more positively to the forums because of you all.

 

Bigdog - it's been good to get to know you a little better. I'm gonna try to make that Cache & Coffee in Westerville just so I can meet you in person. Heh... now I'll have to drive a couple hours west to do this tree climb. I'll make sure I bring someone along who is able to climb up there to sign the log for me.

 

Good-bye and thanks for all the fish!!!

Edited June 29, 2010 by KBLAST

[+dfx]

There's a difference between getting to the cache and retrieving the cache. A group of cachers doing an island cache all need to take the canoe to get to the GZ, but only one person needs to retrieve the cache. A group of cachers doing a tree cache all need to get to the tree, but only one cacher needs to retrieve it.

 

...

 

Again, you're confusing getting to the GZ with retrieving the cache from its hiding spot. ...

 

...

 

It's implied in the very nature of the game that you're supposed to get to the GZ by using the GPS coordinates. ...

that's some interesting distinctions you got there. care to explain where exactly those come from? you like to quote the guidelines a lot, i'm sure you can point me to the part of the guidelines that you deduct all that from?

 

to quote another regular in this forum: this is a 3D game! it's not about getting to some specific GPS coordinates, it's about finding a hidden container, and there is a third value in addition to longitude and latitude involved with that.

 

if you only care about getting to some specific GPS coordinates, maybe you should look more into *cough cough* Waymarking!

[+bigdog421]

Friends, guests, and esteemed acquaintances,

 

I think we can all agree that we all disagree quite well on most things. Personally, I take offense to things much too quickly, and much too often (as seen by my flip-flopping attitude in my postings on this thread). I try to be civil and kind, respectful and understanding. I enjoy hearing these opposing views and see how I can become a better cacher in the global village of geocaching.

 

I've been trying to think of a way to wrap this up into something meaningful, refreshing, new, exciting, dazzling, exquisite. But I think I have determined to settle for this

 

I have never liked forums because I always try to win, to be the best. Others do this as well (boy don't we ALL know that), but in my case, I'd rather be the better person than be the winner of a matter of opinion. I can leave from here, knowing that I have made choices that were wrong, have rectified them, and have come to terms with who I am and how I should not be imposing on others.

 

Have you learned something? Have you taken anything out of this discussion? I hope you all have taken much more than whether this cache or that cache is or is not against the rules. Is this cache an ALR...or are we just friends?

 

Humor is great, but not in a way that is an attack on the characters of others. We've all done it in our lives...but why don't we learn to change? Why not start now, while the getting's good and very attainable? Why not forgive and forget?

 

Let's get on with life, live, and geocache for another tomorrow....for tomorrow really is not too late.

[+dfx]

I think we can all agree that we all disagree quite well on most things.

most of us do, but a certain someone here doesn't.

 

this is the biggest point of the whole exercise, to show people that their opinions are just that, opinions. most people know that, but apparently not everyone. this certain someone has the attitude that her (ah, what a giveaway that was!) opinions are in fact the ultimate truths, and that everyone else's opinions are plain wrong. nope, this is not how it works.

[Keystone]

One needs archived log WITHOUT any others will not get a reviewers attention. Keystone is good about responding to a needs archived log. If it hasn't happened in 24 hours, he found the log to be 1) bogus 2) unwarranted or 3) not worth his time, something that could be worked out PERSONALLY...obviously if it did not get worked out, he would act.

You should not draw any conclusion, one way or another, about the lack of any formal response thus far from me as the local reviewer or from Groundspeak. The matter is under consideration, and I would rather provide a correct answer than a fast answer. I didn't let the issue own my weekend, and I hope you didn't either.

 

I have no place to ask for the thread to be closed. Hopefully the OP will make the request.

Anyone can say that a thread Needs Archived by using the "Report This Post" button. That is no guarantee that the desired result will occur, however.

[+narcissa]

 

that's some interesting distinctions you got there. care to explain where exactly those come from? you like to quote the guidelines a lot, i'm sure you can point me to the part of the guidelines that you deduct all that from?

 

to quote another regular in this forum: this is a 3D game! it's not about getting to some specific GPS coordinates, it's about finding a hidden container, and there is a third value in addition to longitude and latitude involved with that.

 

if you only care about getting to some specific GPS coordinates, maybe you should look more into *cough cough* Waymarking!

 

I'm outlining what the guidelines mean as I've come to understand them by numerous readings, discussions with cachers, and, most importantly, discussions with reviewers.

 

I'm not outlining my own caching practices. I would either climb the tree or not do the cache. Some of my other comments in this thread allude to this, but you don't seem to have read those. Anyway, my caching ethic has nothing to do with the guidelines. The guidelines say that once you've signed the log, you can log the find online.

 

Generally speaking, the guidelines allow the cacher, more than the cache owner, to determine what constitutes a find. The guidelines are mostly aimed at cache owners, and in disputes about logging, the lily pad seems to side with the cacher's right to log over the cache owner's right to delete. This is something that irks a lot of cache owners, and I do have some amount of sympathy for that.

 

I don't know the inner workings down at the lily pad, but I suspect that the guidelines are constructed in this way in part so that cachers can decide on an individual basis what the value and meaning of a find is. If you see the find log as a reward or an achievement, that's your choice (and a common one), but it's not something that's really engendered in the site design or the guidelines. The competitive aspect of caching - find count, matrix, FTF - is something that cachers impose onto the game themselves. Some people still choose to see it in a more neutral fashion - simply a record that they were there.

 

I personally think that not climbing the tree - especially when the cache owner clearly finds it important - is lame. I think a lot of things other cachers do - challenge caches, power trails, splitting up and logging ten people's finds under one account - are lame. But "lame" is not the same as being against the guidelines.

[+Kit Fox]

When Groundspeak liberalized the rules pertaining to what constitues a find, I almost quit geocaching. I've been geocaching for six years, and have over 100 hides (many being extreme caches).

Just the idea of "affirmative action" being used to "level the playing field," so "everyone gets a smiley," irks me to no end. The nerve of having someone else do the dirty work, so you can log a find is no different than Groundspeak turning a blind eye to nearly all of the other number padding schemes.

 

As long as the geocache is replaced for the next cacher to find, the manner in which they find and log it has absolutely no impact on others. Each cacher is free to decide for themselves what counts as a find, and what value the find has. Clearly, you're placing a value on smileys that Groundspeak doesn't. That's your choice to make, but it's not Groundspeak's responsibility to cater to your personal caching ethic.

 

Can you please link to the text that you're quoting about affirmative action and level playing fields? I've never seen any communication from Groundspeak that indicated they were attempting such a thing. I'd be interested to read that.

 

When they remained silent on how a geocacher's name ended up on a logbook. They have refused to make a distinction on how a geocacher's name ends up on a log (logged by the actual geocacher by seeking the cache as intended, or handed to them by someone else, who does the actual work to retrieve the cache. It is one thing if a caravan of "park & grabbers" race to a lamppost, and only one retrieves the cache, it is another thing when the cache is a 5 star terrain, and one person retrieves the cache, brings it down to the group and allows everyone to sign the log. The group standing around waiting, didn't earn the 5 star terrain rating on the cache.

[+niraD]

It is one thing if a caravan of "park & grabbers" race to a lamppost, and only one retrieves the cache, it is another thing when the cache is a 5 star terrain, and one person retrieves the cache, brings it down to the group and allows everyone to sign the log.

Why does the terrain rating of the cache change whether a group can decide for itself whether to play by Three Musketeers rules or by Huckle Buckle Beanstalk rules?

 

The group standing around waiting, didn't earn the 5 star terrain rating on the cache.

IMHO, no one earns the 5 star terrain rating on the cache. The terrain rating isn't a prize to be earned by seekers. It is just a way for cache owners to communicate the general nature of the hide to seekers.

[+narcissa]

When they remained silent on how a geocacher's name ended up on a logbook. They have refused to make a distinction on how a geocacher's name ends up on a log (logged by the actual geocacher by seeking the cache as intended, or handed to them by someone else, who does the actual work to retrieve the cache. It is one thing if a caravan of "park & grabbers" race to a lamppost, and only one retrieves the cache, it is another thing when the cache is a 5 star terrain, and one person retrieves the cache, brings it down to the group and allows everyone to sign the log. The group standing around waiting, didn't earn the 5 star terrain rating on the cache.

 

So why did you put the term "affirmative action" in quotation marks?

 

Why is a group finding a terrain 1 cache any different than a group finding a terrain 5 cache? Terrain rating isn't a reward or special status. It's not a rating of the geocacher who finds the cache. It's a rating of the geocache itself. There is nothing to "earn" unless you choose to play the game in a manner that treats things like find count and terrain rating as things of value. There's absolutely nothing wrong with playing the game that way, but assuming that every other geocacher plays the same way is a quick road to frustration.

 

Notice that none of the stats trackers or rankings are hosted by Geocaching.com. The site does not track FTF. It doesn't track your terrain/difficulty rating. It simply gives you a find/hide total, and a breakdown of finds and hides by type.

[+narcissa]

The terrain rating isn't a prize to be earned by seekers. It is just a way for cache owners to communicate the general nature of the hide to seekers.

 

+1

[+Ike 13]

When they remained silent on how a geocacher's name ended up on a logbook. They have refused to make a distinction on how a geocacher's name ends up on a log (logged by the actual geocacher by seeking the cache as intended, or handed to them by someone else, who does the actual work to retrieve the cache. It is one thing if a caravan of "park & grabbers" race to a lamppost, and only one retrieves the cache, it is another thing when the cache is a 5 star terrain, and one person retrieves the cache, brings it down to the group and allows everyone to sign the log. The group standing around waiting, didn't earn the 5 star terrain rating on the cache.

 

I see both sides of this debate. So I'm going to play devil's advocate, how are you (or any CO) going to know that only one cacher in the group did the requirement(s)? How could you know which one did and did not? Outside the group telling on themselves, or the tree being in your front yard with a camera on it you couldn't answer those questions. I believe that GS has remained silent because they don't want CO's to have the ability to subjectively delete logs. They had to define a guideline that prevented this and came to the conclusion that for as long as your name is on the log then it counts.

 

What you say about 5 star terrain could equally be said about a 5 star difficulty. Lets say there's a 5 gallon tub filled with film cans and only one has the log. If I do it by myself it could take forever. Instead I'm caching with 3 other people. We find the cache at least 4 times faster. Now I guess with this type of hide you could throw them all back in and shake it back up, but I think you get the jest.

 

(My personal opinion is I would want to climb the tree, and that it is cheating to work around that part. But those people are cheating themselves. Remember this is just a game, have fun and enjoy what you do. If you worry about how others play then you'll just get frustrated. )

[+Ike 13]

Pictures of tree climbs where I was involved

 

This isn't the quality of page I typically aspire to, but it gives those of you interested an idea.

 

Please don't go off topic and post pics of trees you've done or crazy things you've done that are "way cooler than these!" The purpose of this page is to give a visual representation of why I think it's ok to say someone didn't make it to "ground zero" if they didn't complete the climb (ethically, not by the rules).

 

Really cool pics. I wish we at least had some basic tree climbs around here. I've wanted to hide one for awhile.

[+BulldogBlitz]

So why did you put the term "affirmative action" in quotation marks?

 

Why is a group finding a terrain 1 cache any different than a group finding a terrain 5 cache? Terrain rating isn't a reward or special status. It's not a rating of the geocacher who finds the cache. It's a rating of the geocache itself. There is nothing to "earn" unless you choose to play the game in a manner that treats things like find count and terrain rating as things of value. There's absolutely nothing wrong with playing the game that way, but assuming that every other geocacher plays the same way is a quick road to frustration.

 

seems as though there's not much of a leap to "well i was there last year before the cache was there, so i can take it as a "find""...

 

or...

 

"i didn't sign the log in stockholm, but i'll grab that as a find too." or even the closer, " awe hell, that's on my way to work, so i pass it everyday, i can claim that as a find as i am at GZ for that cache 2 times a day monday through friday".

 

that's two more ways to "play".

 

as long as the cache owner never runs right out and verifies the logs immediately following a "find".... playa can play.

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

So I have to ask then, what is your view on a cache like Little Known Park Finder 2 One of the few remaining traveling caches? I am honestly curious what the larger caching community thinks.

 

 

I thought traveling caches were banned? And all that garbage about logs being deleted if you don't find it in just the right way, that's an ALR for sure. I don't understand how it wasn't archived long ago.

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

So why did you put the term "affirmative action" in quotation marks?

 

 

Scare Quotes

 

Scare quotes is a term for a particular use of quotation marks. In this application, quotation marks are placed around a single word or phrase to indicate that the word or phrase does not signify its literal or conventional meaning. In contrast to the nominal typographic purpose of quotation marks, the enclosed word(s) are not necessarily quoted from another source.

[+wimseyguy]

 

Yeah, now we're getting into the ALR vs. Challenge cache question. I believe that it was ruled that challenges were exempt from the ban right from the get go. They need to be geocaching related though. No silly hat, no blue mud.

 

 

Challenge caches are exempt from the ALR guideline.

 

that's a flawed decision on GC's part, either you allow them or you don't...why the double standard?

 

climbing a tree is very geocaching related, if its up in a tree you need to go up and get it

 

Your mixing things up badly here. Climbing a tree to get a cache is not an ALR. If after finding the cache and singing the logbook you have to climb the tree to see what is stamped on a metal plate that you have to email the CO so he won't delete your log is an ALR.

 

The Delorme/counties/jasmer/Thomas type caches are pretty uniform in the general requirements. You need to find a cache on the maps or placed date. That, to me seems to be very geocaching related, taking and posting a picture of me wearing a silly hat is not.

 

+1 very clear and concise description of the differences.

 

I still stand by the fact that I think it's silly that you can log a find without completing the terrain, tree or no tree. So I don't own a kayak - I send my buddy out into the lake and tell him to sign my name. I can't imagine finding that ethical or proper in any way. Same with the Psycho Urban Caches. "Here - put on this radiation suit and climb down there... oh, and while your at it, sign my name!" I'm not arguing with anyone about what the rules are, I just personally think it's silly.

 

As far as challenge caches go, GC1MBNP is a pretty good example of one, and another reason I dislike this whole concept of getting someone else to do the work for you. Someone could get his friends to sign all of the 100 logs and go complete an amazing, elite, exclusive challenge. I guess they succeeded in one challenging thing - they convinced their friends to do crazy terrain stuff while they sat back and watched.

 

Yes you could. And then you would still have to face yourself in the mirror the next morning. But if that made you feel better about yourself, there isn't much to stop you from this silly behavior. If your name is in the log book, if you can demonstrate that you have met the requirements for a challenge cache, you can have that smiley.

Is that such a difficult concept to grasp for a game that is largely based on the honor system?

Are you that affected by the behavior of others that it ruins your FUN?

[+narcissa]

So why did you put the term "affirmative action" in quotation marks?

 

Why is a group finding a terrain 1 cache any different than a group finding a terrain 5 cache? Terrain rating isn't a reward or special status. It's not a rating of the geocacher who finds the cache. It's a rating of the geocache itself. There is nothing to "earn" unless you choose to play the game in a manner that treats things like find count and terrain rating as things of value. There's absolutely nothing wrong with playing the game that way, but assuming that every other geocacher plays the same way is a quick road to frustration.

 

seems as though there's not much of a leap to "well i was there last year before the cache was there, so i can take it as a "find""...

 

or...

 

"i didn't sign the log in stockholm, but i'll grab that as a find too." or even the closer, " awe hell, that's on my way to work, so i pass it everyday, i can claim that as a find as i am at GZ for that cache 2 times a day monday through friday".

 

that's two more ways to "play".

 

as long as the cache owner never runs right out and verifies the logs immediately following a "find".... playa can play.

 

Deletions of such logs would be within the guidelines.

[+Team Cotati]

 

So why did you put the term "affirmative action" in quotation marks?

 

 

Scare Quotes

 

Scare quotes is a term for a particular use of quotation marks. In this application, quotation marks are placed around a single word or phrase to indicate that the word or phrase does not signify its literal or conventional meaning. In contrast to the nominal typographic purpose of quotation marks, the enclosed word(s) are not necessarily quoted from another source.

 

It's called 'being in your face'. Some folk can't resist every opportunity, real or manufactured.

 

I have observed that self-impressed Christians are particularly so afflicted. Sadly, it is a sickness with no known cure.

[+BulldogBlitz]

 

Deletions of such logs would be within the guidelines.

 

nope, sorry. you can make a claim that the person didn't sign the log... but if you don't have a pristine log sitting in front of you with all names completely legible.... you have no proof to make the deletion.

 

i've signed several logs that were one step above pulp. i've seen pictures of some of those logs in subsequent posts and i'd have a hard time picking my signature out.

[+narcissa]

 

Deletions of such logs would be within the guidelines.

 

nope, sorry. you can make a claim that the person didn't sign the log... but if you don't have a pristine log sitting in front of you with all names completely legible.... you have no proof to make the deletion.

 

i've signed several logs that were one step above pulp. i've seen pictures of some of those logs in subsequent posts and i'd have a hard time picking my signature out.

 

If someone states in the log that they didn't find the cache, the deletion would be within the guidelines.

 

Beyond that, if the log is ruined and there's nothing mentioned in the online log, how would the cache owner know about the bogus find? Obviously, cache owners can only act when they know about a problem.

Edited June 29, 2010 by narcissa