Jump to content

Ridiculous Geocaching Rules

ShortyBond

By ShortyBond
in General geocaching topics

Followers 0

Recommended Posts

ShortyBond

+ShortyBond

Posted
Posted (edited)

Has anyone else noticed that Groundspeak is getting ridiculous with their rules?? For example, i just did a six stage multi. I'm having a heck of a time getting it published because the whole POINT of the cache is to move the log to a new cache. (I have six hidden.) Its called "musical caches." They are being ridiculous and petty because that's one of my requirements. I thought the whole point was some originality and fun to the game. Since when did Geocaching become run by Nazi facists?? Oh and all caches are within a couple hundred feet of each other. I guess i should call them stages rather than caches.

Edited by ShortyBond
Link to comment
GOF's Sock Puppet

GOF's Sock Puppet

Posted
Posted

Has anyone else noticed that Groundspeak is getting ridiculous with their rules?? For example, i just did a six stage multi. I'm having a heck of a time getting it published because the whole POINT of the cache is to move the log to a new cache. (I have six hidden.) Its called "musical caches." They are being ridiculous and petty because that's one of my requirements. I thought the whole point was some originality and fun to the game. Since when did Geocaching become run by Nazi facists?? Oh and all caches are within a couple hundred feet of each other. I guess i should call them stages rather than caches.

 

Well, I can't see calling them names as a way to get them to change their minds. Although it is a good way to get a thread locked.

Link to comment
4wheelin_fool

4wheelin_fool

Posted
Posted

Has anyone else noticed that Groundspeak is getting ridiculous with their rules?? For example, i just did a six stage multi. I'm having a heck of a time getting it published because the whole POINT of the cache is to move the log to a new cache. (I have six hidden.) Its called "musical caches." They are being ridiculous and petty because that's one of my requirements. I thought the whole point was some originality and fun to the game. Since when did Geocaching become run by Nazi facists?? Oh and all caches are within a couple hundred feet of each other. I guess i should call them stages rather than caches.

 

In the beginning they allowed plenty of creativity. It is too late for that now, as there is too many people playing. The process is simplified to reduce confusion.

Link to comment
skraeling

+skraeling

Posted
Posted

I've seen variations of a moving cache that were allowed:

 

a cache in an elevator - technically a moving cache, but only the cache elevation changes, coords are otherwise the same.

 

a mystery/puzzle cache where the cache could be under one of several lamp post skirts.

 

Not quite sure how you would work out a moving multi though.

Link to comment
tozainamboku

+tozainamboku

Posted
Posted (edited)

I imagine the OP has an ALR on her cache. Probably something like "In order to log a find you must move the log to a different one of the six possible containers".

 

Now perhaps this is an example of a type of ALR that should get an exception. You are given the coordinates of 6 stages but you don't know which has the log in to sign. And once you find the cache, you move the log to a different one of the containers so the next person won't know for sure where it is. But other than challenge caches, Groundspeak and the reviewers aren't likely to make an exception for an ALR. At that point, reviewers would be faced with having to make decisions about which ALRs are OK and which are "Ridiculous Geocaching Rules". And in this case, wouldn't this unique cache work as well if the requirement to move the log were optional. Perhaps most finders would not move the log to another cache, but enough would so that a finder would never be sure which cache the log is in. Does it really need to be a requirement?

 

Finally a reviewer (and plenty of people on the forums) would be willing to point out why what seems like a clever idea would be hard to implement. Some cacher is going to find a cache with no log. Even if you put a note in each container saying, "If the log is not here, it is in one of the other caches, so find it and sign the log to log a find", you will have someone leave a "replacement log" and claiming the fine. Unless you are willing to do a lot of maintenance removing replacement logs and making sure the real log is in one of the containers, expect this idea to be hard to keep going.

 

Also the OP need to look up Godwin's Law

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
4wheelin_fool

4wheelin_fool

Posted
Posted

I imagine the OP has an ALR on her cache. Probably something like "In order to log a find you must move the log to a different one of the six possible containers".

 

Now perhaps this is an example of a type of ALR that should get an exception. You are given the coordinates of 6 stages but you don't know which has the log in to sign. And once you find the cache, you move the log to a different one of the containers so the next person won't know for sure where it is. But other than challenge caches, Groundspeak and the reviewers aren't likely to make an exception for an ALR. At that point, reviewers would be faced with having to make decisions about which ALRs are OK and which are "Ridiculous Geocaching Rules". And in this case, wouldn't this unique cache work as well if the requirement to move the log were optional. Perhaps most finders would not move the log to another cache, but enough would so that a finder would never be sure which cache the log is in. Does it really need to be a requirement?

 

Finally a reviewer (and plenty of people on the forums) would be willing to point out why what seems like a clever idea would be hard to implement. Some cacher is going to find a cache with no log. Even if you put a note in each container saying, "If the log is not here, it is in one of the other caches, so find it and sign the log to log a find", you will have someone leave a "replacement log" and claiming the fine. Unless you are willing to do a lot of maintenance removing replacement logs and making sure the real log is in one of the containers, expect this idea to be hard to keep going.

 

So the title of the thread should be "Rediculous Geocaching Tasks", and written by another cacher after it was published, I suppose.. :P

Link to comment
tozainamboku

+tozainamboku

Posted
Posted (edited)

Remember, we are to be friendly to new people. Perhaps even helpful.

 

(I have no idea how to do that with the OP's OP)

This is a good point. The OP begins by calling those running Groundspeak Nazi fascists so she probably doesn't deserve help. Yet a few people here are still trying to understand what her idea is and why the reviewer has trouble with it, in order to make suggestions on how she might get it approved. We don't even know if she is coming back. She may have just ranted to feel better and is resigned to her idea not being implemented. It's really a shame because I have seen caches like this (though these were when ALRs were allowed), and I think the idea could be modified to work without an ALR.

 

Let this be a lesson then for those who have what they consider a clever original idea for cache and have it turned down by their reviewer.

  1. Work with your reviewer to see how the idea can be modified to fit within the guidelines.
  2. Appeal to appeals@geoaching.com if you think the reviewer is wrong in denying your cache. Sometimes Groundspeak will make exceptions that reviewers won't make.
  3. If you do come to the forums, come looking for help and suggestions from other cachers. They may like your idea and help it get an exception or they may have ideas how to make it work within the guidelines.
  4. Don't come here to rant; it may make you feel better but it won't get your cache published.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
jholly

jholly

Posted
Posted

Bang! First post and we invoke Godwin's law. Is that a record? I think so. Since we don't have the cache page to look at, I can really imagine that there is an ALR in there some where. Those have been gone for over a year. So are these six caches part of the multi or completely separate caches? If they are part of the multi I'm not sure I understand the point of moving the log around between the caches. Do you list the coordinates of the first and then I'm suppose to follow this trail until I find the log? Seems like a drag to follow the trail of six caches and then have to walk back to the first to drop the log. It also seems like eventually the log will just bounce between stage 1 and 2 and the other four stages will just block other caches. And what about trackables? Where should they be dropped? If you drop a trackable in a multi it is in the final not one of the stages. I don't know, there seems to be a whole lot lacking in your explanation, but I guess that is normal for a rant.

Link to comment
SwineFlew

+SwineFlew

Posted
Posted

I found a cache this weekend that seemed kind of similar. It was labeled unkown (but no puzzle to solve) and was placed in 1997. Very different and kind of fun.

 

Placed 3 years before the birth of geocaching??

 

AWESOME!!

Excuse me, he is talking about letterboxing. :P

Link to comment
roziecakes

+roziecakes

Posted
Posted

I found a cache this weekend that seemed kind of similar. It was labeled unkown (but no puzzle to solve) and was placed in 1997. Very different and kind of fun.

 

Placed 3 years before the birth of geocaching??

 

AWESOME!!

Excuse me, he is talking about letterboxing. :P

 

Was it originally a letterbox? I'm confused. I wish I had time travel abilities like that. Although I suppose that would make it a terrain 5. Time machines are special equipment.

 

Anyway, to the OP: I would love to answer your question, but comparing Groundspeak to an awful group of people who killed 80% of my family doesn't really sit well with me. I know we're supposed to be nice to the new folks, but if they aren't nice first I admit I have a difficult time with that.

 

The guidelines are in place for reasons. They may not be reasons that we agree with, but life isn't fair. Even with the rules in place that I don't like (I for one, like ALRs, but that's the guideline) I still have a great time geocaching.

 

Sometimes we need to be flexible.

Link to comment
Keystone

Keystone

Posted
Posted

If you cannot discuss your questions without invoking Godwin's law in your opening post, don't make an opening post.

 

Please read the forum guidelines and what that document has to say about respectful discussion. There is wisdom in those guidelines, just as with the cache listing guidelines. Someday I'd be happy to have a civil discussion with you about multicaches. But not today.

 

Closing thread.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...