Guidelines Reorganization

[+tozainamboku]

Looks like Groundspeak has reorganized the cache listing guidelines. The guidelines themselves are now in several sections of the Groundspeak knowledge books and the Guidelines page is just and outline summary with links to the knowledge book sections.

 

Someone reading the guidelines without clicking the links may have a hard time understanding the guidelines without the context previous provided. On the other hand there is the possibility that the knowledge book sections will eventually be expanded to provide more details (already there are links to the section on challenge caches and on providing additional waypoints, for example. If you are good at reading hypertext the guidelines may be more useful (click for more information). If you are not, you will undoubtedly miss important information that is hidden on another page.

 

The guidelines have also been organized now into three top level areas:

I. Placement guidelines - guideline affecting where and how a cache can be hidden.

II. Listing guidelines - guideline affecting what you can put on the cache page, maintenance guidelines, and guidelines for listing specific types of caches.

III. Logging guidelines - requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find.

 

I'm not sure I like this breakdown. There are placement issues if you place a multicache for example. I certainly oppose the remark that logging guidelines are the requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a cache. The old logging of physical caches guideline which was put in place to explain that ALR requirements can no longer be used to deny a found log, will be read by certain people [p-word removed] to mean that you must fulfill the requirement of signing the log in order to log a find. I don't believe it was the intent of the reorganization to change the meaning of this guideline, but the references to the the section as "requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find" will undoubtedly be used by those who want to make the case that cache owners must or should delete finds when the physical log is not signed. Hopefully, TPTB will change the text to something more reasonable. Perhaps this section can be expanded, given the current discussion on what are valid reasons for deleting found logsand simply be guidelines for cache owners as to when they can or cannot delete found logs.

[Keystone]

The new guideline format is responsive to feedback that everything be contained in one place (the Knowledge Books), that there be a summary with links to further details, that the language be made clearer and simpler, etc.

 

It is just a reorganization of the format. Some, as in the OP, are likely to speculate otherwise, but the new format is not intended to change the substance of the guidelines nor how the reviewers will be applying the guidelines to your cache submissions.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Looks like Groundspeak has reorganized the cache listing guidelines. The guidelines themselves are now in several sections of the Groundspeak knowledge books and the Guidelines page is just and outline summary with links to the knowledge book sections.

 

Someone reading the guidelines without clicking the links may have a hard time understanding the guidelines without the context previous provided. On the other hand there is the possibility that the knowledge book sections will eventually be expanded to provide more details (already there are links to the section on challenge caches and on providing additional waypoints, for example. If you are good at reading hypertext the guidelines may be more useful (click for more information). If you are not, you will undoubtedly miss important information that is hidden on another page.

 

The guidelines have also been organized now into three top level areas:

I. Placement guidelines - guideline affecting where and how a cache can be hidden.

II. Listing guidelines - guideline affecting what you can put on the cache page, maintenance guidelines, and guidelines for listing specific types of caches.

III. Logging guidelines - requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find.

 

I'm not sure I like this breakdown. There are placement issues if you place a multicache for example. I certainly oppose the remark that logging guidelines are the requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a cache. The old logging of physical caches guideline which was put in place to explain that ALR requirements can no longer be used to deny a found log, will be read by certain people [p-word removed] to mean that you must fulfill the requirement of signing the log in order to log a find. I don't believe it was the intent of the reorganization to change the meaning of this guideline, but the references to the the section as "requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find" will undoubtedly be used by those who want to make the case that cache owners must or should delete finds when the physical log is not signed. Hopefully, TPTB will change the text to something more reasonable. Perhaps this section can be expanded, given the current discussion on what are valid reasons for deleting found logsand simply be guidelines for cache owners as to when they can or cannot delete found logs.

 

Hey Toz, long time no read! Good to see you getting out in front of the bcklash that this might cause, and assuring everyone that what is written is not really what is intended!!!

[+tozainamboku]

It is just a reorganization of the format. Some, as in the OP, are likely to speculate otherwise, but the new format is not intended to change the substance of the guidelines nor how the reviewers will be applying the guidelines to your cache submissions.

I'm not speculating anything different. I appears to me that it is only a reorganization. There are somethings I like about the new organization and somethings I don't. I am "speculating" on whether this new organization might confuse some people and whether some people will infer the new organization someway signals a particular new interpretation of the existing guidelines. Your response that this in not the case at least indicates that a senior reviewer says that we should not be reading any new meaning into the guidelines that wasn't there before.

[+M 5]

It is perfectly clear. Some guidelines are just guidelines. Some guidelines are firm, but can be worked around. While some guidelines are hard and fast rules. Clear as mud.

[+Castle Mischief]

[+M 5]

I'm not sure I like this breakdown.

It's the same ice cream in a new display case. What flavor can I serve you tonight?

 

I hope you have bigger plans than that for your new sock puppet account. Seems a waste.

[+riviouveur]

The guidelines have also been organized now into three top level areas:

I. Placement guidelines - guideline affecting where and how a cache can be hidden.

II. Listing guidelines - guideline affecting what you can put on the cache page, maintenance guidelines, and guidelines for listing specific types of caches.

III. Logging guidelines - requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find.

 

I'm not sure I like this breakdown. There are placement issues if you place a multicache for example. I certainly oppose the remark that logging guidelines are the requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a cache. The old logging of physical caches guideline which was put in place to explain that ALR requirements can no longer be used to deny a found log, will be read by certain people [p-word removed] to mean that you must fulfill the requirement of signing the log in order to log a find. I don't believe it was the intent of the reorganization to change the meaning of this guideline, but the references to the the section as "requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find" will undoubtedly be used by those who want to make the case that cache owners must or should delete finds when the physical log is not signed. Hopefully, TPTB will change the text to something more reasonable. Perhaps this section can be expanded, given the current discussion on what are valid reasons for deleting found logsand simply be guidelines for cache owners as to when they can or cannot delete found logs.

The idea of the "breakdown into sections" was a suggestion from the reviewers, and initially concerned the separation of "Placement" and "Listing". The broad-brush idea is that the "Placement" guidelines are what interest land managers (to show them that geocaching is low-impact, for example), while the "Listing" guidelines are more about what you can put on a cache page, which is more about Groundspeak's vision of the online side of the game (family-friendly, no e-mailing for coordinates, minimum GPS usage, etc).

 

There is no perfect separation between those two areas, but I hope that the intention in clear; it would be nice if people would start talking about "the Placement guidelines" or "the Listing guidelines". Should any other cache listing site ever get serious traction , I would expect their "Placement" guidelines to be very similar to Groundspeak's, but their "Listing" guidelines could be very different.

 

Once that separation had been made, it was noticed that a certain number of the guidelines were more about logging, as in, what happens on the page after the cache is published (at which point, the reviewers are mostly out of the picture, at least officially). For example, saying that your cache page can't include an Additional Logging Requirement is just about in the "Listing" category, but telling cache owners that they can't delete logs because there's no photo of the finder doing a handstand at GZ doesn't really fall into that. So the "Logging" category was added to complete the picture, and the various logging-related things which had crept into the monolithic guidelines over the years were put into it.

 

As Keystone said, there is no intention to introduce any changes to the guidelines at this specific point. The reviewers have been working hard to beta-teat this new version and a big part of this has specifically involved spotting phrases where the wording has perhaps been made easier to read, but lost some precision or appeared to change its meaning. Of course, one reason for making this kind of change is to allow for any future guideline changes to be easier, but for the moment, it's more like buying a new set of shelves for your crockery, than changing the colour of the plates.

Edited February 12, 2011 by riviouveur

[+palmetto]

The entire Guidelines text on one page can be seen from the print friendly view

 

Guidelines, print friendly

 

It's a change, and will take some getting used to - no doubt.

 

These Guidelines in the Knowledge Books have been public for some time.

I've been reviewing to them for some time. I've found them somewhat better, in terms of being able to link closely to certain key passages then the old version. And there is some clarified language.

 

The two commonest issues I see are Saturation - cache near an existing cache, and Commercial (cache recommends a restaurant - boy do cachers like to eat).

Both sections are better (my opinion) in this version then in the old. The commercial section now states,not allowed "The name of a business or commercial product is on the cache page". This was implicit in the old guideline, but apparently not all that clear to many.

[+briansnat]

I like the new format. It gives people a quick synopsis of the basics so they don't have to wade through pages of text to find what they need to know.

 

The problem with the old format is that few people actually ever read the guidelines. That is understandable, because clicking on the link and seeing a huge block of text can be overwhelming. How many people here ever actually read the terms when they install new software? The guidelines were treated the same way by many, with people rotely checking the box saying they read the guidelines without actually doing so.

 

The new format give us the don'ts right up front and users can click on each one for an expanded explanation. While people still should read the guideline text in its entirety before placing a cache, the condensed format is more likely to be read by the community. This will reduce the frustration experienced by new hiders as fewer of them will place caches that violate the guidelines and reviewers will like it because no reviewer likes to tell someone his cache can't be published.

[+NeecesandNephews]

The guidelines have also been organized now into three top level areas:

I. Placement guidelines - guideline affecting where and how a cache can be hidden.

II. Listing guidelines - guideline affecting what you can put on the cache page, maintenance guidelines, and guidelines for listing specific types of caches.

III. Logging guidelines - requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find.

 

I'm not sure I like this breakdown. There are placement issues if you place a multicache for example. I certainly oppose the remark that logging guidelines are the requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a cache. The old logging of physical caches guideline which was put in place to explain that ALR requirements can no longer be used to deny a found log, will be read by certain people [p-word removed] to mean that you must fulfill the requirement of signing the log in order to log a find. I don't believe it was the intent of the reorganization to change the meaning of this guideline, but the references to the the section as "requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find" will undoubtedly be used by those who want to make the case that cache owners must or should delete finds when the physical log is not signed. Hopefully, TPTB will change the text to something more reasonable. Perhaps this section can be expanded, given the current discussion on what are valid reasons for deleting found logsand simply be guidelines for cache owners as to when they can or cannot delete found logs.

The idea of the "breakdown into sections" was a suggestion from the reviewers, and initially concerned the separation of "Placement" and "Listing". The broad-brush idea is that the "Placement" guidelines are what interest land managers (to show them that geocaching is low-impact, for example), while the "Listing" guidelines are more about what you can put on a cache page, which is more about Groundspeak's vision of the online side of the game (family-friendly, no e-mailing for coordinates, minimum GPS usage, etc).

 

There is no perfect separation between those two areas, but I hope that the intention in clear; it would be nice if people would start talking about "the Placement guidelines" or "the Listing guidelines". Should any other cache listing site ever get serious traction , I would expect their "Placement" guidelines to be very similar to Groundspeak's, but their "Listing" guidelines could be very different.

 

Once that separation had been made, it was noticed that a certain number of the guidelines were more about logging, as in, what happens on the page after the cache is published (at which point, the reviewers are mostly out of the picture, at least officially). For example, saying that your cache page can't include an Additional Logging Requirement is just about in the "Listing" category, but telling cache owners that they can't delete logs because there's no photo of the finder doing a handstand at GZ doesn't really fall into that. So the "Logging" category was added to complete the picture, and the various logging-related things which had crept into the monolithic guidelines over the years were put into it.

 

As Keystone said, there is no intention to introduce any changes to the guidelines at this specific point. The reviewers have been working hard to beta-teat this new version and a big part of this has specifically involved spotting phrases where the wording has perhaps been made easier to read, but lost some precision or appeared to change its meaning. Of course, one reason for making this kind of change is to allow for any future guideline changes to be easier, but for the moment, it's more like buying a new set of shelves for your crockery, than changing the colour of the plates.

 

Is the bolded and underlined part really Groundspeaks vision for the game?? I note the "online" part of that sentence, but I think that might need some further clarification. If it is... now I completely understand Garmin's actions.

[knowschad]

Hey Toz, long read, no time!

[+briansnat]

The guidelines have also been organized now into three top level areas:

I. Placement guidelines - guideline affecting where and how a cache can be hidden.

II. Listing guidelines - guideline affecting what you can put on the cache page, maintenance guidelines, and guidelines for listing specific types of caches.

III. Logging guidelines - requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find.

 

I'm not sure I like this breakdown. There are placement issues if you place a multicache for example. I certainly oppose the remark that logging guidelines are the requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a cache. The old logging of physical caches guideline which was put in place to explain that ALR requirements can no longer be used to deny a found log, will be read by certain people [p-word removed] to mean that you must fulfill the requirement of signing the log in order to log a find. I don't believe it was the intent of the reorganization to change the meaning of this guideline, but the references to the the section as "requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find" will undoubtedly be used by those who want to make the case that cache owners must or should delete finds when the physical log is not signed. Hopefully, TPTB will change the text to something more reasonable. Perhaps this section can be expanded, given the current discussion on what are valid reasons for deleting found logsand simply be guidelines for cache owners as to when they can or cannot delete found logs.

The idea of the "breakdown into sections" was a suggestion from the reviewers, and initially concerned the separation of "Placement" and "Listing". The broad-brush idea is that the "Placement" guidelines are what interest land managers (to show them that geocaching is low-impact, for example), while the "Listing" guidelines are more about what you can put on a cache page, which is more about Groundspeak's vision of the online side of the game (family-friendly, no e-mailing for coordinates, minimum GPS usage, etc).

 

There is no perfect separation between those two areas, but I hope that the intention in clear; it would be nice if people would start talking about "the Placement guidelines" or "the Listing guidelines". Should any other cache listing site ever get serious traction , I would expect their "Placement" guidelines to be very similar to Groundspeak's, but their "Listing" guidelines could be very different.

 

Once that separation had been made, it was noticed that a certain number of the guidelines were more about logging, as in, what happens on the page after the cache is published (at which point, the reviewers are mostly out of the picture, at least officially). For example, saying that your cache page can't include an Additional Logging Requirement is just about in the "Listing" category, but telling cache owners that they can't delete logs because there's no photo of the finder doing a handstand at GZ doesn't really fall into that. So the "Logging" category was added to complete the picture, and the various logging-related things which had crept into the monolithic guidelines over the years were put into it.

 

As Keystone said, there is no intention to introduce any changes to the guidelines at this specific point. The reviewers have been working hard to beta-teat this new version and a big part of this has specifically involved spotting phrases where the wording has perhaps been made easier to read, but lost some precision or appeared to change its meaning. Of course, one reason for making this kind of change is to allow for any future guideline changes to be easier, but for the moment, it's more like buying a new set of shelves for your crockery, than changing the colour of the plates.

 

Is the bolded and underlined part really Groundspeaks vision for the game?? I note the "online" part of that sentence, but I think that might need some further clarification. If it is... now I completely understand Garmin's actions.

 

Nothing new here. Part of the guidelines has always addressed land manager concerns and another part has always pertained to Groundspeak's vision of the game. For example "no agendas", "no commercial caches", GPS use, the .1 mile saturation guideline and the concept that caches must have log books are all part of Groundspeak's vision of the game. Garmin has their own vision of the game that in some instances coincides with Groundspeak's.

Edited February 12, 2011 by briansnat

[knowschad]

Is the bolded and underlined part really Groundspeaks vision for the game?? I note the "online" part of that sentence, but I think that might need some further clarification. If it is... now I completely understand Garmin's actions.

I suspect, and certainly hope, that the "minimum GPS usage" part was simply a slip-up. Probably meant, "maximum GPS usage", as in, a GPS is essential to the finding of the cache. I await clarification.

[+briansnat]

Is the bolded and underlined part really Groundspeaks vision for the game?? I note the "online" part of that sentence, but I think that might need some further clarification. If it is... now I completely understand Garmin's actions.

I suspect, and certainly hope, that the "minimum GPS usage" part was simply a slip-up. Probably meant, "maximum GPS usage", as in, a GPS is essential to the finding of the cache. I await clarification.

 

I think he meant that at minimum GPS use is required.

[knowschad]

Is the bolded and underlined part really Groundspeaks vision for the game?? I note the "online" part of that sentence, but I think that might need some further clarification. If it is... now I completely understand Garmin's actions.

I suspect, and certainly hope, that the "minimum GPS usage" part was simply a slip-up. Probably meant, "maximum GPS usage", as in, a GPS is essential to the finding of the cache. I await clarification.

 

I think he meant that at minimum GPS use is required.

That makes sense.

[+Castle Mischief]

Overall, I like it. It makes sense- the new organization. I've got some quibbles but not about the organizational changes. I'm afraid I've got no conspiracy theories as to why the changes were made.

 

 

Intersting- this part has changed

 

Geocaches are not placed on school property or military bases.

 

Formally it read that caches placed in a whole list of places may be archived, but now there's just a blanket statement of "we don't do this".

 

I guess that will make some happier than others but is probably for the best in the grand scheme.

 

I see we're still holding on to the tonsils/appendix of the guidelines...

 

Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. The two main goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist, and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider. Groundspeak may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern.

 

EDIT: Although... the logging requirements seem to be less directed solely at the cache owner then they were before. I know some folks are going to have fun with that on the issue of "no sign = no find".

Edited February 12, 2011 by Castle Mischief

[+SaltercreaseRangers]

Although... the logging requirements seem to be less directed solely at the cache owner then they were before. I know some folks are going to have fun with that on the issue of "no sign = no find".

 

Yes, all seems pretty clear now (stands aside to let the trolls get to the thread)

[GOF and Bacall]

Although... the logging requirements seem to be less directed solely at the cache owner then they were before. I know some folks are going to have fun with that on the issue of "no sign = no find".

 

Yes, all seems pretty clear now (stands aside to let the trolls get to the thread)

 

Trolls are those who post to cause trouble. They are not those who don't agree with your points.

[+StarBrand]

I like the changes. Gives a nice summary and plenty of detail for those that need/want it.

 

Makes it more like an online document should be.

[+L0ne.R]

I like the update to the Letterbox definition, it's shorter and clearer.

It now says "must" contain a signature stamp instead of "should" and also clarifies that a letterbox does not have to be a traditional:

 

3. Letterbox Hybrid

 

This cache type pays homage to an

older form of scavenger hunt

. Letterbox hybrids must contain a signature stamp that stays with the box, A letterbox hybrid may have a mystery or puzzle element, but cannot be designed to be found by only using clues. To seek a letterbox hybrid, you will not need your own personal stamp and letterboxing logbook.

 

Old definition:

 

Letterboxing is another form of treasure hunting that uses clues to direct hunters to a hidden container. Each letterbox contains a stamp which is the signature for that box. Most letterboxers have their own personal stamps and personal logbooks. They stamp the letterbox logbook with their personal stamp, and use the stamp contained in the letterbox to "sign" their personal logbook.

 

Letterbox hybrids are a mixture of letterbox and geocache. They

should

contain a signature stamp that stays with the box, and they must conform to the guidelines for geocaches and therefore must contain a logbook and involve GPS use as an integral part of the hunt. A letterbox hybrid cannot be designed to be found using only clues. Whether or not the letterbox hybrid contains trade items is up to the owner. In most cases personal stamp and personal logbook are not necessary to be a seeker of a letterbox hybrid.

[+riviouveur]

I suspect, and certainly hope, that the "minimum GPS usage" part was simply a slip-up. Probably meant, "maximum GPS usage", as in, a GPS is essential to the finding of the cache. I await clarification.

I think he meant that at minimum GPS use is required.

Yes, of course, I meant "some minimum amount of GPS usage for every cache". When I wrote that phrase, I'd just been reviewing (and not publishing) a Letterbox Hybrid submission which was just a crosslisted letterbox, with pretty treasure map, but if you left your GPSr at home, you wouldn't miss it.

[AZcachemeister]

It's beginning to look like a Wikipedia article, with every third word linking to another page with relevant (and sometimes irrelevant)information that must be read to say you have really covered the subject.

 

I was recently stung but the fact that a Challenge Cache may not require ownership of caches...that info is buried in a 'Knowledge Book'. Although I can find that out in the new guidelines, I have to dig down through three layers of links to get to it.

 

Our simple online game has become rather complicated, hasn't it?

[Pup Patrol]

The Knowledge Books are an excellent resource and I'm glad to see the Guidelines finally placed there. One-stop shopping.

 

I'm confused by the term "buried" regarding the Knowledge Books section on Challenge Caches. It seems pretty clear where the information is....

 

4. Review Process: Hiding a Geocache:

4.14. Challenge Caches

[+narcissa]

It's nice to see Groundspeak respond to this issue. Fairly recently, there were some very valid criticisms of the split between the knowledge books and the guidelines. It's nice to see the guidelines organized in a more sensible manner that allows new and old users to find pertinent information. It was unfair and frustrating for cache owners to have caches turned down due to things hidden in the knowledge books with no reference from the guidelines.

[+slukster]

I certainly oppose the remark that logging guidelines are the requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a cache. The old logging of physical caches guideline which was put in place to explain that ALR requirements can no longer be used to deny a found log, will be read by certain people [p-word removed] to mean that you must fulfill the requirement of signing the log in order to log a find. I don't believe it was the intent of the reorganization to change the meaning of this guideline, but the references to the the section as "requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find" will undoubtedly be used by those who want to make the case that cache owners must or should delete finds when the physical log is not signed.

YES!! Wahooooo!! The puritans were right all along!! LOL I don't believe the intent was to CHANGE the meaning of the guideline but rather to CLARIFY the meaning of the guideline. It should never have been in that silly ALR section anyway.

 

**I yam what I yam. - Popeye

Edited February 14, 2011 by slukster

[+slukster]

The new guideline format is responsive to feedback that everything be contained in one place (the Knowledge Books), that there be a summary with links to further details, that the language be made clearer and simpler, etc.

 

It is just a reorganization of the format. Some, as in the OP, are likely to speculate otherwise, but the new format is not intended to change the substance of the guidelines nor how the reviewers will be applying the guidelines to your cache submissions.

They sure cleared up the "...can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed..." guideline by taking it out of the "listing guidelines" and placing it in the "logging guidelines"

 

**For the record, I am not happy about this so that I can use this as an excuse to start deleting logs. I am happy because it gives Toz a break from having to respond to the "puritans" claiming "no log=no find". You needed a break, Toz.

[+Ecylram]

I certainly oppose the remark that logging guidelines are the requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a cache. The old logging of physical caches guideline which was put in place to explain that ALR requirements can no longer be used to deny a found log, will be read by certain people [p-word removed] to mean that you must fulfill the requirement of signing the log in order to log a find. I don't believe it was the intent of the reorganization to change the meaning of this guideline, but the references to the the section as "requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find" will undoubtedly be used by those who want to make the case that cache owners must or should delete finds when the physical log is not signed.

YES!! Wahooooo!! The puritans were right all along!! LOL I don't believe the intent was to CHANGE the meaning of the guideline but rather to CLARIFY the meaning of the guideline. It should never have been in that silly ALR section anyway.

 

**I yam what I yam. - Popeye

 

Awww Man!

 

T's been all respectful and straightforward in his postings on this and you taunt him with the "P" word?

 

That just ain't cool. Trying to drag him down and all that. Daaaannnngg...

Edited February 14, 2011 by Ecylram

[+slukster]

Hey Toz, long time no read! Good to see you getting out in front of the bcklash that this might cause, and assuring everyone that what is written is not really what is intended!!!

 

[+slukster]

I certainly oppose the remark that logging guidelines are the requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a cache. The old logging of physical caches guideline which was put in place to explain that ALR requirements can no longer be used to deny a found log, will be read by certain people [p-word removed] to mean that you must fulfill the requirement of signing the log in order to log a find. I don't believe it was the intent of the reorganization to change the meaning of this guideline, but the references to the the section as "requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find" will undoubtedly be used by those who want to make the case that cache owners must or should delete finds when the physical log is not signed.

YES!! Wahooooo!! The puritans were right all along!! LOL I don't believe the intent was to CHANGE the meaning of the guideline but rather to CLARIFY the meaning of the guideline. It should never have been in that silly ALR section anyway.

 

**I yam what I yam. - Popeye

 

Awww Man!

 

T's been all respectful and straightforward in his postings on this and you taunt him with the "P" word?

 

That just ain't cool. Trying to drag him down and all that. Daaaannnngg...

 

I don't think anyone could ever say that Toz has ever been anything but respectful in any of his postings so it is all in good fun. No offense intended.

Edited February 14, 2011 by slukster

[+slukster]

I found this section talking about log deletion for cache owners. Very well written and addresses many of the issues that have been experienced.

 

Wow, the more I look through the articles the more great stuff I am finding. I don't know if all of this has always been in the knowledge base but I am glad to see this section on containers.

Edited February 14, 2011 by slukster

[+tozainamboku]

I take the word of the several reviewers that have posted that the meanings of the guidelines are not changed by the reorganization.

 

The logging of physical cache guidelines still does not that says you must sign the physical log in order to log a found online. It only says that once you have signed the physical log you can log a find. In otherwords, if you signed the log you may log a find online regardless of any ALR the cache owner may have placed. There is now a exception for Challenge caches that is explicitly called out.

 

Despite the reorganization, I know that the reason this guideline was added was to clarify the meaning of ALRs no longer being enforceable by deleting found logs. There is no other mention of ALRs except in this section. Clearly if this section was meant only as instructions for people logging a cache, then caches with ALRs should be published. The guideline only tells a finder they may ignore an ALR. Perhaps, the reviewers are no longer going to tell cache owners they may not have ALRs, and leave it to some Groundspeak Lackey to handle the complaints of "My log was deleted"?

 

The reorganization is not going to stop me from arguing against the puritans misreading of this guideline as some kind of rule disallowing online find logs unless the physical log is signed. The only effect of the reorganization is that a whole new set of puritans are going to point to this section of the guidelines and misread what it says, and that when I respond to them, my already too long response will be even longer as I will have to explain that the reorganization didn't change the meaning of the anything.

Edited February 14, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+slukster]

The reorganization is not going to stop me from arguing against the puritans misreading of this guideline as some kind of rule disallowing online find logs unless the physical log is signed. The only effect of the reorganization is that a whole new set of puritans are going to point to this section of the guidelines and misread what it says, and that when I respond to them, my already too long response will be even longer as I will have to explain that the reorganization didn't change the meaning of the anything.

Somehow I knew it wouldn't.

 

Despite the reorganization, I know that the reason this guideline was added was to clarify the meaning of ALRs no longer being enforceable by deleting found logs. There is no other mention of ALRs except in this section. Clearly if this section was meant only as instructions for people logging a cache, then caches with ALRs should be published. The guideline only tells a finder they may ignore an ALR. Perhaps, the reviewers are no longer going to tell cache owners they may not have ALRs, and leave it to some Groundspeak Lackey to handle the complaints of "My log was deleted"?

 

From the "logging guidelines":

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the geocache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish such tasks. This is a guideline change that applies to all logs written since April 4, 2009. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

 

Cease deleting logs based on ALRs.

Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into a simple, optional task, or whether it must be removed altogether.

Edit the text of your geocache listing and, if necessary, contact a reviewer to change the cache type.

 

In order to clear up the confusion, I think the highlighted & underlined part should remain in the "logging guidelines" section and the rest taken out since this section is only addressing logging practices. Then, the entire quoted section should be posted in the "listing guidelines" since it all applies to hiders.

[+briansnat]

I take the word of the several reviewers that have posted that the meanings of the guidelines are not changed by the reorganization.

 

The logging of physical cache guidelines still does not that says you must sign the physical log in order to log a found online. It only says that once you have signed the physical log you can log a find. In otherwords, if you signed the log you may log a find online regardless of any ALR the cache owner may have placed. There is now a exception for Challenge caches that is explicitly called out.

 

Despite the reorganization, I know that the reason this guideline was added was to clarify the meaning of ALRs no longer being enforceable by deleting found logs. There is no other mention of ALRs except in this section. Clearly if this section was meant only as instructions for people logging a cache, then caches with ALRs should be published. The guideline only tells a finder they may ignore an ALR. Perhaps, the reviewers are no longer going to tell cache owners they may not have ALRs, and leave it to some Groundspeak Lackey to handle the complaints of "My log was deleted"?

 

The reorganization is not going to stop me from arguing against the puritans misreading of this guideline as some kind of rule disallowing online find logs unless the physical log is signed. The only effect of the reorganization is that a whole new set of puritans are going to point to this section of the guidelines and misread what it says, and that when I respond to them, my already too long response will be even longer as I will have to explain that the reorganization didn't change the meaning of the anything.

 

Nor will it stop the puritans from arguing against the libertines "misreading" of the guideline, because both sides read what they want to read in it.

Edited February 14, 2011 by briansnat

[Keystone]

I take the word of the several reviewers that have posted that the meanings of the guidelines are not changed by the reorganization.

Thanks for taking our word.

Clearly if this section was meant only as instructions for people logging a cache, then caches with ALRs should be published. The guideline only tells a finder they may ignore an ALR. Perhaps, the reviewers are no longer going to tell cache owners they may not have ALRs, and leave it to some Groundspeak Lackey to handle the complaints of "My log was deleted"?

A new submission with an Additional Logging Requirement would be handled the same way today as it was two months ago. A complaint about someone's existing Additional Logging Requirement that hadn't been updated as required would be handled the same way today as it was two months ago.

 

You have my word on it.

[+slukster]

Despite the reorganization, I know that the reason this guideline was added was to clarify the meaning of ALRs no longer being enforceable by deleting found logs. There is no other mention of ALRs except in this section. Clearly if this section was meant only as instructions for people logging a cache, then caches with ALRs should be published. The guideline only tells a finder they may ignore an ALR. Perhaps, the reviewers are no longer going to tell cache owners they may not have ALRs, and leave it to some Groundspeak Lackey to handle the complaints of "My log was deleted"?

It's funny. When this whole "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found"..." and ALR section was only in the "listing guidelines" many threw this up as proof that it only addresses hiders and was not a logging guideline for finders. Now that it is in the logging guidelines, it is being said that it is not only addressing finders who are logging. I am so confused.

 

**I am poking fun at the situation and mean no harm by my comments in this thread or any other thread I comment on here on the internet.**

[+M 5]

I take the word of the several reviewers that have posted that the meanings of the guidelines are not changed by the reorganization.

 

The logging of physical cache guidelines still does not that says you must sign the physical log in order to log a found online. It only says that once you have signed the physical log you can log a find. In otherwords, if you signed the log you may log a find online regardless of any ALR the cache owner may have placed. There is now a exception for Challenge caches that is explicitly called out.

 

Despite the reorganization, I know that the reason this guideline was added was to clarify the meaning of ALRs no longer being enforceable by deleting found logs. There is no other mention of ALRs except in this section. Clearly if this section was meant only as instructions for people logging a cache, then caches with ALRs should be published. The guideline only tells a finder they may ignore an ALR. Perhaps, the reviewers are no longer going to tell cache owners they may not have ALRs, and leave it to some Groundspeak Lackey to handle the complaints of "My log was deleted"?

 

The reorganization is not going to stop me from arguing against the puritans misreading of this guideline as some kind of rule disallowing online find logs unless the physical log is signed. The only effect of the reorganization is that a whole new set of puritans are going to point to this section of the guidelines and misread what it says, and that when I respond to them, my already too long response will be even longer as I will have to explain that the reorganization didn't change the meaning of the anything.

 

"As Keystone said, there is no intention to introduce any changes to the guidelines at this specific point. The reviewers have been working hard to beta-teat this new version and a big part of this has specifically involved spotting phrases where the wording has perhaps been made easier to read, but lost some precision or appeared to change its meaning"

 

Sure sounds like they are clarifying that you've been misreading the guidlelines for a long time. Glad this has been cleared up.

[+tozainamboku]

Personally, I never said that the fact that the logging of physical caches statements was in the the listing guideline meant it wasn't addressed to finders. That was someone else's argument. I've always felt that the statement was addressed to finders, to tell them than they can go ahead and log finds even it the cache page has additional logging requirements. So I am quite comfortable with them being in the a section called logging guidelines.

 

My main objection is the wording on the guidelines page

III. LOGGING Guidelines: Logging Guidelines cover the requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find.

I note that the bolded text does not appear in the Knowledge Books. I also have remarked that the section seems to contain listing requirements (such as not having additional logging requirements in your listing). Groundspeak could have chosen a better description of the this section.

 

The actual guidelines in this section do not indicate requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find. Rather this section seems to be guidelines which limit what these requirements might be.

 

Non-physical caches have their own guideline for providing a logging requirement. EarthCaches are a particular case were the logging requirement demonstrates the finder has learned something [about geology] at the site.

 

Challenge caches can require the finder has completed a reasonable geocaching-, Waymarking- or Wherigo-related qualification. Strangely these are discusses elsewhere in the guidelines, not in the logging guidelines section as would be expected.

 

For physical caches other than challenge caches, the finder can log a find online once the physical log has been signed. This is not a requirement that the physical log be signed in order to log online, but rather instructions to the finder to go ahead with the online log once they have signed the physical log, as the cache owner can not have additional requirements for logging a find online. Ostensibly this wording is to allow cache owners to have physical or mental challenges such as retrieving a cache from a tree or opening a puzzle box to get the log. A perfectly reasonable approach for such caches is to let the cache owner say the log must be signed as proof the challenge has been met.

 

The logging guidelines section would be more properly labeled as "Logging guidelines cover the requirements you as cache owner can have for a person to log your cache as found online." My guess is that in fact this section does belong in the listing requirements as the reviewers no doubt refer to it when reviewing caches.

 

TPTB have decided that not deleting couch potato logs (at least on virtual caches) is reason to archive a listing. But there doesn't seem to be a guideline on this issue. Just the maintenance guideline to delete logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate. (Ooh! They changed "not within stated requirements" to "otherwise inappropriate".)

 

The issue, as always, is the big gap between whatever a couch potato log is and whatever a cache owner who enforces the maximum requirement that the guideline will allow. The overwhelming number of cache owners are very generous is accepting online found logs at face value and not checking on signatures in log books or not punishing people who get the answers on a EarthCache wrong. I seriously doubt that Groundspeak would ever end up with a guideline that would take away this latitude from the cache owner. If anything they are more like to end up telling a strict cache owner to chill and not delete a legitimate log where someone has a good excuse for not signing the physical log. So far they haven't, the the logging section seems to support those caches owners who insist on a signed log. What it clearly doesn't do is make signing a log a requirement to log a find online (unless you have the misfortune of finding a puritan's cache).

Edited February 14, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+MissJenn]

Indeed, the guidelines page has been edited.

I'll repeat what Keystone already said above that our intention here is not changing the guidelines - just re-organizing them.

• Made it easier to read and to understand by re-organizing and shortening.
• The longer explanations are in a while new Knowledge Book which are an extension of the guidelines.
• There is a different KB chapter within the Knowledge Book of Geocaching called the Review Process which is really separate from the actual Guidelines.

We hope ,too, that this change will bring even more eyes to the Knowledge Books. It is full of lots of good information.

 

As palmetto already mentioned above, if you would like to look at a "fully exploded view" of the Guidelines KB, here is what you can do:

http://support.groun...g=kb.book&id=11

Near the bottom, click the Printer Friendly Version.

Voila: http://support.groun....friendly&id=11

 

Don't forget, of course, that the first page is still this same old URL that we have always used:

http://www.geocachin...guidelines.aspx

[+MissJenn]

I am quoting briansnat's text in full to give people a second chance at reading it.

 

I like the new format. It gives people a quick synopsis of the basics so they don't have to wade through pages of text to find what they need to know.

 

The problem with the old format is that few people actually ever read the guidelines. That is understandable, because clicking on the link and seeing a huge block of text can be overwhelming. How many people here ever actually read the terms when they install new software? The guidelines were treated the same way by many, with people rotely checking the box saying they read the guidelines without actually doing so.

 

The new format give us the don'ts right up front and users can click on each one for an expanded explanation. While people still should read the guideline text in its entirety before placing a cache, the condensed format is more likely to be read by the community. This will reduce the frustration experienced by new hiders as fewer of them will place caches that violate the guidelines and reviewers will like it because no reviewer likes to tell someone his cache can't be published.

[+MissJenn]

I like the changes. Gives a nice summary and plenty of detail for those that need/want it.

 

Makes it more like an online document should be.

 

Great! I hope many other poeple feel the way that you do.

[+MissJenn]

I found this section talking about log deletion for cache owners. Very well written and addresses many of the issues that have been experienced.

 

Wow, the more I look through the articles the more great stuff I am finding. I don't know if all of this has always been in the knowledge base but I am glad to see this section on containers.

 

I am happy to hear this. Both of the pages you mentioned have been in the KB for many, many months. It's just that not everyone has found their way there.

[+tozainamboku]

• There is a different KB chapter within the Knowledge Book of Geocaching called the Review Process which is really separate from the actual Guidelines.

 

I notice that the appeals process does not have its own section, and furthermore most of the description on how to appeal a reviewers descision has been removed from the guidelines page.

 

If the reviewer rejects my cache because of a guidelines issue, just what am I supposed to do? Is there still a process that I should follow to appeal a descision, or I am to assume that the decision of my local reviewer is infallible and irrevocable? It certainly seems that an appeal to forums to see if a majority believes a cache should get an exception and have any hope that this might have any influence on Groundspeak or the reviewers is now out of the question.

[+MissJenn]

Toz,

http://www.geocachin...guidelines.aspx

Did you not read the last paragraph of the Introduction?

If you need to make special arrangements for a novel idea, contact Groundspeak before placing and reporting the geocache on Geocaching.com. If you need to appeal the decisions of our reviewers, contact Groundspeak and categorize your message for the Appeals group. We look forward to assisting you.

The email address appeals [at ] geocaching [dot] com still exists as it has in the past. It's just not a great idea to spell out an email address on a webpage like that. We get too much spam by doing that.

[+M 5]

Toz,

http://www.geocachin...guidelines.aspx

Did you not read the last paragraph of the Introduction?

If you need to make special arrangements for a novel idea, contact Groundspeak before placing and reporting the geocache on Geocaching.com. If you need to appeal the decisions of our reviewers, contact Groundspeak and categorize your message for the Appeals group. We look forward to assisting you.

The email address appeals [at ] geocaching [dot] com still exists as it has in the past. It's just not a great idea to spell out an email address on a webpage like that. We get too much spam by doing that.

 

If you bury it in 6 more paragraphs, Toz will find it. It is just way to easy this way.

 

J/K sort of

[+L0ne.R]

I found this section talking about log deletion for cache owners. Very well written and addresses many of the issues that have been experienced.

 

Wow, the more I look through the articles the more great stuff I am finding. I don't know if all of this has always been in the knowledge base but I am glad to see this section on containers.

 

I am happy to hear this. Both of the pages you mentioned have been in the KB for many, many months. It's just that not everyone has found their way there.

 

I just had a look at the containers page. At the bottom there's a Cache container sizes explained link. I don't see anything on the page that gives the sizes (large, regular, small, micro) and dimensions. When I look at the "sizes explained" page I can't find size information.

[+Lil Devil]

I just had a look at the containers page. At the bottom there's a Cache container sizes explained link. I don't see anything on the page that gives the sizes (large, regular, small, micro) and dimensions. When I look at the "sizes explained" page I can't find size information.

It looks like the "containers" page explains all the sizes quite well. My guess is the link at the bottom used to link back to the old guidelines but it's now obsolete and they forgot to remove it.

[+tozainamboku]

Toz,

http://www.geocachin...guidelines.aspx

Did you not read the last paragraph of the Introduction?

If you need to make special arrangements for a novel idea, contact Groundspeak before placing and reporting the geocache on Geocaching.com. If you need to appeal the decisions of our reviewers, contact Groundspeak and categorize your message for the Appeals group. We look forward to assisting you.

The email address appeals [at ] geocaching [dot] com still exists as it has in the past. It's just not a great idea to spell out an email address on a webpage like that. We get too much spam by doing that.

 

If you bury it in 6 more paragraphs, Toz will find it. It is just way to easy this way.

 

J/K sort of

It wasn't that is wasn't buried as much as they really shortened this section. What used to be two full paragraphs explaining the steps from working with your reviewer, to asking for a review by other reviewers, to appealing to the forums, and finally contacting Groundspeak as the email address, is now shortened to just "If you need to appeal the decisions of our reviewers, contact Groundspeak and categorize your message for the Appeals group." I suppose you could make a joke about how I can't say anything with out going on for pages, so if something cache be shortened to one sentence I would probably miss it. I on the other hand feel that if what used take a few paragraphs now is one sentence, it's a sure sign it doesn't say the same thing anymore.

 

It may very well be the TPTB have decided to short circuit the previous review process. I might even wager that leaving out the appeal to forums was intentional, since TPTB have decided what is said in the forums doesn't mean much. (In any case, when someone would appeal to forums it was almost a foregone conclusion what the results would be, so why have a thread that would just end up being locked once Godwin's law was proven).

 

Actually the reason that I brought up the review process was this thread that got hidden in the Hunt section. It's title clearly says that the OP was bringing an appeal on a cache because "the guidelines say to do this..." Since the guidelines no longer say to do this, I assume this is the end of that appeal route. Too bad, because for a change it seems that the majority of the posters agreed that this cache should have a exception. Even beyond this, was a feeling by many that there reviewer was misapplying the guidelines to begin with. I was hoping someone from Groundspeak might notice the appeal and provide and provide a reasonable explaination if in fact the appeal is rejected.

 

The new guidelines probably mean that appeals made directly to Groundspeak can be adjudicated privately and that only the cache owner and possibly the reviewer involved we will know the results. Groundspeak may say this was always the case, but the fact that good number of appeals were brought to the forums first, meant we had a window into some of the issues people had with the guidelines. Often the cache owner would come back and report on the results as well. While the new organization may provide a way for Groundspeak to provide more information and explanation of some of the guidelines, hiding the appeals process leaves us no way to verify if the guidelines are being interpreted and applied fairly.

[+L0ne.R]

I just had a look at the containers page. At the bottom there's a Cache container sizes explained link. I don't see anything on the page that gives the sizes (large, regular, small, micro) and dimensions. When I look at the "sizes explained" page I can't find size information.

It looks like the "containers" page explains all the sizes quite well. My guess is the link at the bottom used to link back to the old guidelines but it's now obsolete and they forgot to remove it.

 

I can't find the dimensions. Here's what it used to look like:

Cache Sizes

These sizes apply to all caches that have a physical container.

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet)

Small (sandwich-sized plastic container or similar – less than approximately 1 quart or 1 L – holds trade items as well as a logbook)

Regular (plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox)

Large (5 gallon/20 L bucket or larger)

[+niraD]

It looks like the "containers" page explains all the sizes quite well.

I disagree. The only reference I can find to the range of container volumes appropriate for each size is buried in a paragraph about Lock N Lock containers, and even then, it doesn't explain where the cutoff between micro and small is.

 

Furthermore, if I search the guidelines, I can't find anything that indicates how to decide which size listing is appropriate for a container.

 

My guess is the link at the bottom used to link back to the old guidelines but it's now obsolete and they forgot to remove it.

Yes, it looks like something that got dropped accidentally as part of the conversion.