Is this a virtual cache or not?

[+BlueDeuce]

Personally I think the OP should remove his latest post from the cache page. It's not the the place to hold such a discussion and it's pretty much moot at this point.

I believe the OP's issue was is with there being a cache at this location, not whether this cache is a back door virtual. Even if virtuals were allowed, if you had cachers walking out to the end of the mole to log the cache they would still likely interfere with the wildlife. Its unfortunate that in his zeal to get the cache archived he came as started a discussion about whether a cache owner offering an alternative logging technique has somehow turned it into a virtual as a way to get around the guidelines.

 

I believe the OP will only be satisfied if the cache is archived or moved to where it won't have cachers interfering with the seals. It's unfortunate that some czche finders are so into getting their smiley they do stupid things even if you tell them not to on the cache page. I believe the cache owner was attempting to lessen the chance of people doing stupid thing by offering a smiley to those who arrive to find the cache site occupied by the protected seals. I thought this was a pretty clever way to handle it.

 

Presumably puritans (who claim they are not so interested in the smiley), would not bother the seals to sign the log. And geocachers who will stop at nothing to get a smiley, would take a picture and not bother the seals. However is seems that someone getting a smiley to stop them from harassing some seals is too much for the puritans. The smiley does seem important to the puritans after all, Why else insist on some unwritten rule that cache owners cannot allow online find log without signing the physical log in some special circumstances?

 

Posting a Note on the cache page should not be the place to notify the cache owner of his next step.

 

Edit: And that's coming from a cache cop and a Puritan.

Edited April 28, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+Walts Hunting]

If I had to guess I would bet that the current wording is what he had originally and he added the "You don't have to sign the log" after approval. Have seen that before.

 

As currently worded it seems to fit guidelines. I would guess that people will generally not log it if they can't get to it (always some exceptions). Stating on the page you can log without signing the log and submitting a picture took it outside guidelines.

 

As I said, over the years I have run across a few that were obviously changed after approval since they current wording would have never been approved. Not a great way to make friends with a reviewer. Had one in Tucson that when you got there and opened it it said you had to get a webcam picture and post it with your log. This was placed long after webcams were no longer allowed and I can't imagine it getting past a reviewer like that.

[+tozainamboku]

Personally I think the OP should remove his latest post from the cache page. It's not the the place to hold such a discussion and it's pretty much moot at this point.

I believe the OP's issue was is with there being a cache at this location, not whether this cache is a back door virtual. Even if virtuals were allowed, if you had cachers walking out to the end of the mole to log the cache they would still likely interfere with the wildlife. Its unfortunate that in his zeal to get the cache archived he came as started a discussion about whether a cache owner offering an alternative logging technique has somehow turned it into a virtual as a way to get around the guidelines.I believe the OP will only be satisfied if the cache is archived or moved to where it won't have cachers interfering with the seals. It's unfortunate that some czche finders are so into getting their smiley they do stupid things even if you tell them not to on the cache page. I believe the cache owner was attempting to lessen the chance of people doing stupid thing by offering a smiley to those who arrive to find the cache site occupied by the protected seals. I thought this was a pretty clever way to handle it. Presumably puritans (who claim they are not so interested in the smiley), would not bother the seals to sign the log. And geocachers who will stop at nothing to get a smiley, would take a picture and not bother the seals. However is seems that someone getting a smiley to stop them from harassing some seals is too much for the puritans. The smiley does seem important to the puritans after all, Why else insist on some unwritten rule that cache owners cannot allow online find log without signing the physical log in some special circumstances?

For someone that always plays the knowledge book expert, it is very odd that you would support the cache turning into a quasi-virtual with the old take a picture ALR attached to it. So you can either go to GZ and get the cache or get semi-close and take a picture like a virtual. I guess your dislike of having to sign a log side, overides your follow the guidelines side. Interesting to know. That is not even mentioning the other problems with the cache that the OP is concerned about.

My stand is consistent. I did indicate in one post that I have seen caches like this archived because the cache owner was trying to get around the fact that virtuals are no no longer listed on GC.com (at least for now). With these cache the alternate logging method was often posted after the cache went missing. And in any case, it was clear that the cache owner didn't intend to maintain a physical cache to be found. In this case, I believe, that the cache owner intended for the physical cache to be found. The alternate method was proposed to prevent someone who may feel the smiley is worth disturbing the wildlife from disturbing the wildlife to get their smiley. I assume the cache owner intends for people to find the cache and sign the log when there are no seals on the mole (or if they can get to the cache without disturbing the seals). I may even expect that the picture should be of seals blocking the way to the cache, just to prove that the cache was not accessible.

 

The guideline for logging physical caches, as I read it, only prevents a cache owner from requiring an additional logging requirement once the finder has signed the physical log. If the cacher doesn't sign the physical cache log the cache owner may ask for a picture or other verification instead. I am aware your comprehension of the guideline is different.

 

This is the problem with the cache owner's solution for the wildlife problem. Nothing says that a puritan will be any less stupid about what they do in order to get smiley. Since they believe you can only get a smiley by signing a log, they might very well continue onto the mole to find the cache despite seals being there, even though they could have just taken a picture in that case. An intellegent cacher would not be so concerned about a single smiley to disturbed legally protected wildlife when hunting a cache. But clearly not every puritan is an intelligent cacher and the cache owner's solution will do nothing to stop a stupid puritan from bothering the seals.

[+M 5]

Never thought I'd see the day that Toz supported an ALR cache. The TS original cache has several problems

 

1. Environmental issues. Are cachers going to obey the signs or the cache page, or just go for it?

2. Trying to work around the guidelines by making this an ALR virtual. Either get to GZ like a normal traditional or Provide picture proof from a nearby area like an old virtual with the picture ALR

3. Did the reviewer help work around the system in place to turn this into a virtual or semi-virtual with ALR for the alternate logging method might be more accurate. (before the cache page was changed, anyway)

 

I don't like any of the three personally, but focusing on #2. I don't like the workarounds. There are many rules I don't like, or think don't have enought teeth, but think we should follow what is in place, until they get changed. I'll post a scenario that addresses #2.

 

Let's say I'm a fairly new cacher. I submit a cache that is rejected for several reasons by the reviewer. I've gotten on these forums, I know what's up. The appeal process doesn't usually end well. I've read many threads about caching the way you want, Alternate qualifying find methods being supported by many frequent posters. Multiple logging on caches for temp. event or bonus caches that many long time posters support. DING DING DING. I'll just go ahead and hide the PVC pipe cache. I'll probably paint "pipebomb" on it, cause cachers will get a kick out of it. I'll partially bury it on private land with "implied permission". I didn't see any signs the way I walked in. They are there, you just only see the back of them if you go in a certain way. It's right next to a government building, under a highway overpass about 20 feet from an active railroad. It's about 410' from one cache and 380' from another, but who cares, this is a BONUS cache. I'll just put the coords in another cache that I got published with some laminated instructions, giving the BONUS coords and telling the cachers to just log the published cache twice to count the bonus. Cache the way you want. Log the way you want. Guidelines are just guidelines after all. No problem.

 

I still think that many guidelines need to be altered, but while they are in place, I think you should follow them. Especially now, with the explosion of new cachers. I've talked to several who where doing certain things without realizing the whole picture. A large part, because of PTs and urban micros. They started attending meetings and doing some group caching and making friends and started realizing some the extra responsibily they should have been employing as well as some of the general caching community building practices that they weren't doing. I just think too many people on here look at the small picture instead of the big picture and future health of geocaching. I know that each individual incident isn't cataclysmic, but I've noticed many disturbing trends that are becomming more and more commonplace and will eventually become the norm. Sooner rather than later.

 

I'm sure the responses to this one will be awesome.

Edited April 28, 2011 by M 5

[+sbell111]

Never thought I'd see the day that Toz supported an ALR cache. The TS original cache has several problems

 

1. Environmental issues. Are cachers going to obey the signs or the cache page, or just go for it?

2. Trying to work around the guidelines by making this an ALR virtual. Either get to GZ like a normal traditional or Provide picture proof from a nearby area like an old virtual with the picture ALR

3. Did the reviewer help work around the system in place to turn this into a virtual or semi-virtual with ALR for the alternate logging method might be more accurate. (before the cache page was changed, anyway)

 

I don't like any of the three personally, but focusing on #2. I don't like the workarounds. There are many rules I don't like, or think don't have enought teeth, but think we should follow what is in place, until they get changed. I'll post a scenario that addresses #2.

 

Let's say I'm a fairly new cacher. I submit a cache that is rejected for several reasons by the reviewer. I've gotten on these forums, I know what's up. The appeal process doesn't usually end well. I've read many threads about caching the way you want, Alternate qualifying find methods being supported by many frequent posters. Multiple logging on caches for temp. event or bonus caches that many long time posters support. DING DING DING. I'll just go ahead and hide the PVC pipe cache. I'll probably paint "pipebomb" on it, cause cachers will get a kick out of it. I'll partially bury it on private land with "implied permission". I didn't see any signs the way I walked in. They are there, you just only see the back of them if you go in a certain way. It's right next to a government building, under a highway overpass about 20 feet from an active railroad. It's about 410' from one cache and 380' from another, but who cares, this is a BONUS cache. I'll just put the coords in another cache that I got published with some laminated instructions, giving the BONUS coords and telling the cachers to just log the published cache twice to count the bonus. Cache the way you want. Log the way you want. Guidelines are just guidelines after all. No problem.

 

I still think that many guidelines need to be altered, but while they are in place, I think you should follow them. Especially now, with the explosion of new cachers. I've talked to several who where doing certain things without realizing the whole picture. A large part, because of PTs and urban micros. They started attending meetings and doing some group caching and making friends and started realizing some the extra responsibily they should have been employing as well as some of the general caching community building practices that they weren't doing. I just think too many people on here look at the small picture instead of the big picture and future health of geocaching. I know that each individual incident isn't cataclysmic, but I've noticed many disturbing trends that are becomming more and more commonplace and will eventually become the norm. Sooner rather than later.

 

I'm sure the responses to this one will be awesome.

Rather than deal with each bit of that post on an individual basis, let me just mention that since you are a pretty new cacher you probably don't realize that others have expressed the same complaints as you do (perhaps not so often or voraciously) since way before you started playing the game. My point being that the sky hasn't fallen in all this time due to these very minor issues and likely isn't going to in the future.

[+M 5]

What you continually fail to see, is that the problems are going to move forward a lot faster than the old days, with the popularity of smartphones and general growth rate of geocaching. Repeatedly saying it hasn't happend up to now, is along the same lines as when many on here talk about being afraid of change. I like good change, not change for the sake of change. I would also argue that past issues that havent' made the sky fall, have steadily made the game worse at a slower pace, but unchecked and the pace will quicken.

For example, when I started in 06 there were maybe 4 parking lot micros, that got maybe a dozen visits a year (48 total), now there are at least 30, that get at least 40 visits a year (1200 total). The caches themselves are no more/less legal than before, just higher probability of issues due to confrontations or muggle related problems. I would also argue that the general overall awareness of the cachers themselves is lower. I see many bull in a china shop cachers out there that don't even try to hide their activity.

As geocaching grows in numbers and there is much less monetary commitment to geocache (which used to weed out the less serious to an extent), Groundspeak needs to be more careful than they used to be. It is not the same animal as you imply.

[+sbell111]

What you continually fail to see, is that the problems are going to move forward a lot faster than the old days, with the popularity of smartphones and general growth rate of geocaching. Repeatedly saying it hasn't happend up to now, is along the same lines as when many on here talk about being afraid of change. I like good change, not change for the sake of change. I would also argue that past issues that havent' made the sky fall, have steadily made the game worse at a slower pace, but unchecked and the pace will quicken.

For example, when I started in 06 there were maybe 4 parking lot micros, that got maybe a dozen visits a year (48 total), now there are at least 30, that get at least 40 visits a year (1200 total). The caches themselves are no more/less legal than before, just higher probability of issues due to confrontations or muggle related problems. I would also argue that the general overall awareness of the cachers themselves is lower. I see many bull in a china shop cachers out there that don't even try to hide their activity.

As geocaching grows in numbers and there is much less monetary commitment to geocache (which used to weed out the less serious to an extent), Groundspeak needs to be more careful than they used to be. It is not the same animal as you imply.

Many of the things that you see as urgent problems, I don't see as problems. The perfect example is a cache owner developing rules by which he will allow finds on his cache if teh log couldn't be signed. Edited April 29, 2011 by sbell111

[+M 5]

Many of the things that you see as urgent problems, I don't see as problems. The perfect example is a cache owner developing rules by which he will allow finds on his cache if teh log couldn't be signed.

 

Yeah, and the rule was to provide a picture. Which would be an ALR. I've have seen other threads where you rant on and on about ALRs, but you are OK with this one apparently.

Edited April 29, 2011 by M 5

[+tozainamboku]

Never thought I'd see the day that Toz supported an ALR cache.

Once again you have shown you do not understand either the guidelines or what I have said in the past.

 

Let me put it in simple puritan terms:

 

1) If a cacher finds a cache and signs the physical log, he can log a find online. The cache owner cannot delete his because of some additional logging requirements.

 

2) If the cacher didn't sign the log the cacher owner may accept the online find log. Further more the cache owner may ask for some additional proof of the find. This is up to cache owner, so they may say that picture of the area is enough for a find log.

 

Now, things are never as black and white as puritans may wish them to be. There may be instances where a cacher has signed the physical log where a cache owner can still delete the find. And when a cacher has not signed the log there are in fact some limitations on when a cache owner may allow a find (for example "pocket caches" at events or armchair finds).

 

The caches in question does not, IMO, appear to be a backdoor for getting a virtual approved. If this was the clear intent of the cache owner, I believe the cache would be archived. I have seen other caches archived because they were attempting to get around a guideline.

 

A puritan may not be able to comprehend the nuance between a caches with a container and log that can be found when the protected seals are not blocking the way, and a cache that simply wanted to take you to view some seals and the cache owner doesn't care if you find the cache or not. There are other examples of cache owners who allow alternative methods to claim a find. For example, I've heard of some caches that are dangerous to retrieve where the owner allows find for those who don't want to take the risk. They know that people who do actually sign the log will have enjoyed it for the adventure and not just for the smiley. I did a cache recently that was a tiny container smaller than a typical nano. Removal and, even more so, replacement of the log was very difficult. The cache owner allows finders to email her a description of the cache if they don't want to deal with the difficulty of signing the log. So far all the finders have signed the log, but IMO, the cache owner can certainly provide the option.

 

You certainly will have no trouble coming up with places where cache owners try to stretch or circumvent guidelines. I just don't believe this cache was case of that.

[+sbell111]

Many of the things that you see as urgent problems, I don't see as problems. The perfect example is a cache owner developing rules by which he will allow finds on his cache if teh log couldn't be signed.

 

Yeah, and the rule was to provide a picture. Which would be an ALR. I've have seen other threads where you rant on and on about ALRs, but you are OK with this one apparently.

ALR means Additional Logging Requirement. These are rules in addition to signing the logs that some cache owners were putting on their caches.

 

The referenced cache has no such additional rules beyond signing the log. If the log is signed, any cacher can log the cache online.

 

If logs are not signed, cache owners are free to decide for themselves whether an online find is appropriate. In this case, that cache owner has decided that if someone cannot sign the log, then an online log will be accepted if a photo is provided.

[+M 5]

Many of the things that you see as urgent problems, I don't see as problems. The perfect example is a cache owner developing rules by which he will allow finds on his cache if teh log couldn't be signed.

 

Yeah, and the rule was to provide a picture. Which would be an ALR. I've have seen other threads where you rant on and on about ALRs, but you are OK with this one apparently.

ALR means Additional Logging Requirement. These are rules in addition to signing the logs that some cache owners were putting on their caches.

 

The referenced cache has no such additional rules beyond signing the log. If the log is signed, any cacher can log the cache online.

 

If logs are not signed, cache owners are free to decide for themselves whether an online find is appropriate. In this case, that cache owner has decided that if someone cannot sign the log, then an online log will be accepted if a photo is provided.

When this thread started the CO was requiring a picture if you didn't go to ground zero.

[mresoteric]

When this thread started the CO was requiring a picture if you didn't go to ground zero.

 

No. He was offering the opportunity to log with a picture if you could not sign the log.

 

That would be an Alternate Logging Method. Signing the log being the primary method and nothing else needed if you could sign it.

[+Breaktrack]

Oh, for crying out loud, why do you care????? Go find geocaches!!

 

Mac

 

What do you make of this?

 

A cache is installed that is in an area known for hosting wildlife that is protected by law. The cache owner says that if you can't get to the container and sign the log because of wildlife then that's OK. All you need to do is take a photo to prove you were there and post it to the cache page and you can log the find.

 

I suggested that this made the cache a virtual cache (or perhaps a "part-time" virtual cache ) and therefore it wasn't within the gc.com guidelines.

 

The owner contacts a reviewer who says that it is OK as long as the wording on the page is changed to : "If you still cannot get to the cache because of wildlife then it is permissible to log this cache by placing a photo on the page, on the understanding that you will attempt to re-visit to sign the logbook at a later time".

 

So, you can log the cache as found without finding the container or signing the log as long as you take a photo, post it to the page and make an undertaking to re-visit the cache at some later time.

 

How much later? A day, a week, a year, never?

 

Is this within gc.com guidelines? Or is this a virtual cache pure and simple?

 

I have suggested that an earthcache would be more appropriate in this environmentally sensitive area.

[+TeamElliottFamily]

This debate by U.N.C.L.E is really lame. He caused a fuss about the cache being there in the first place, because people had been 'harming' the wildlife (depsite there being NO evidence of any harm to wildlife - at least two other cachers and myself admitted to saying we "chased off" sealions - however the sealion shambled off while we were still a good 70m away, and not even in it's line of sight!). The cache owner took U.N.C.L.E's concerns seriously, and spoke with the Department of Conservation Ranger responsible for the area, who was more than happy with the cache placement, and thought that the alternative method for logging (which I suggested to satisfy U.N.C.L.E's continued cries for justice for the sealions) was a great idea to protect the wildlife.

 

Cachers are not the only people who visit this area, the Otago dive school often uses it, and for about 6 weeks there were 18 wheeler trucks up and down the mole to make repairs to the sea wall there - if this didn't disturb the wildlife I don't know what would!

 

It appears that U.N.C.L.E has a personal bee in his bonnet and is stopping at nothing to have this cache removed despite every effort from the owners, the reviewer and the Department of Conservation to work together. It was only when they had a workable solution that U.N.C.L.E started citing the gc.com rulebook.

 

The cache owner intends for you to sign the logbook, if you can't because of the wildlife then take a photo to show you were close, how does this upset anyone?

 

I think that U.N.C.L.E just wants it gone because of his personal issues - which include unethical feelings toward seals (quote from GC10A8J)

 

'Hmm, not too sure about Eli thinking this is "easy" Still lots of seals around today but the one that was more or less right at the start of the climb must have been out at sea- phew! But another one further back rose up, showed his teeth and made a low rumbling noise as we went past. I hate them, I hate them, I hate them!!! There's something about seals that makes my skin crawl. And they smell. Be careful if attempting this after rain as the vegetation will be slippery. '

 

Seriously dude, grow up, no animals have been harmed in the making of this cache - if it doesn't fit the rules, and you strongly object boohoo don't do the cache, but why do you take such joy in ruining other peoples fun?

 

*edited spelling errors*

Edited May 25, 2011 by TeamElliottFamily

[mresoteric]

 

I've learnt something from the discussion though.

 

And I just learned that this had nothing to do with your love of wildlife.

 

I guess the real reason you wanted this cache archived was because you hate the seals, not because you want to protect them.

 

WOW. What a revelation!

[+popokiiti]

There have been instances here in Canada when a DNF or note has been posted, explaining the inability of the cacher to get to the cache due to the presence of wildlife. More often than not, the CO has deleted the DNF/note and told the cacher to claim a find.

We were unable to find a cache container, posted our photos with our DNFs showing we were there (and it was an optional part of the logging requirements) and were told to claim a find as the container was missing.

I really feel that this is the CO's prerogative...and the reason they have done so is to protect the wildlife that the United Network Command for Law and Enforcement rightly cares so much about. As do they.

Unfortunately, this seems to have escalated too far and has caused ill-will which is not what any of us are about.

We don't want any Forest Defenders in the Antipodes!

 

I watched The Man From U.N.C.L.E. religiously, many years ago.......

[+sword fern]

What do you make of this?

 

A cache is installed that is in an area known for hosting wildlife that is protected by law. The cache owner says that if you can't get to the container and sign the log because of wildlife then that's OK. All you need to do is take a photo to prove you were there and post it to the cache page and you can log the find.

 

I suggested that this made the cache a virtual cache (or perhaps a "part-time" virtual cache ) and therefore it wasn't within the gc.com guidelines.

 

The owner contacts a reviewer who says that it is OK as long as the wording on the page is changed to : "If you still cannot get to the cache because of wildlife then it is permissible to log this cache by placing a photo on the page, on the understanding that you will attempt to re-visit to sign the logbook at a later time".

 

So, you can log the cache as found without finding the container or signing the log as long as you take a photo, post it to the page and make an undertaking to re-visit the cache at some later time.

 

How much later? A day, a week, a year, never?

 

Is this within gc.com guidelines? Or is this a virtual cache pure and simple?

 

I have suggested that an earthcache would be more appropriate in this environmentally sensitive area.

 

Yes, it is pretty common. Look at this cache and this cache.

[+Doctroid]

I believe in this case the cache owner can make a compelling argument that the intent is to find the container and sign the log. The alternate method seems to be intended only deal with the real possibility that the cache is not available at unpredictable times. Rather than forcing someone to make several trips, they are allowing a find to be logged by those who arrive and find the cache inaccessible.

 

Seems to me the within-the-spirit-of-the-guidelines way to deal with that would be to bump up the difficulty by a half point or so (depending on the likelihood of wildlife and how seriously they impede cache access).

[+dfx]

Yes, it is pretty common. Look at this cache and this cache.

 

Who's gonna be first to hit NA on those?

[+TeamElliottFamily]

Yes, it is pretty common. Look at this cache and this cache.

 

Who's gonna be first to hit NA on those?

 

Hopefully no one! They both look like great caches - the benefit of these is that you can use them to introduce friends to geocaching too without any risk of exposing a container/logbook to being muggled.

[+dfx]

Yes, it is pretty common. Look at this cache and this cache.

 

Who's gonna be first to hit NA on those?

 

Hopefully no one! They both look like great caches - the benefit of these is that you can use them to introduce friends to geocaching too without any risk of exposing a container/logbook to being muggled.

 

But they're not caches. Well, at least one of them isn't.

[+tozainamboku]

Yes, it is pretty common. Look at this cache and this cache.

 

Who's gonna be first to hit NA on those?

 

Hopefully no one! They both look like great caches - the benefit of these is that you can use them to introduce friends to geocaching too without any risk of exposing a container/logbook to being muggled.

 

But they're not caches. Well, at least one of them isn't.

I looked at both of them and they appear to be traditional caches. Both have a log to sign (I can't tell if there is a proper container without finding the cache).

 

The one in Oregon(that you posted a needs archive on) appears to be and ALR: "All you need to do to log this cache as a find is post the picture in your online log, and also sign the logbook." I suspect that this wording predates the change to the ALR rules. So long as the cache owner isn't enforcing the requirement to take a picture, it's probably OK; though reviewers mighty ask that the wording be changed to make it clear the photo is optional.

 

The one in Washington is newer and appears to support my point that you can have an alternate logging method. If you sign the log you don't have to take a picture (that would be an ALR) however you may take a picture and then either sign the log or not. It's consistent with my reading of the logging of physical caches guideline: Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed [ regardless of any other requirements the owner has on the page ]

[+sword fern]

Yes, it is pretty common. Look at this cache and this cache.

 

Who's gonna be first to hit NA on those?

 

Hopefully no one! They both look like great caches - the benefit of these is that you can use them to introduce friends to geocaching too without any risk of exposing a container/logbook to being muggled.

 

But they're not caches. Well, at least one of them isn't.

 

Whoa. Why did you post a NA note on the one in oregon? I posted these caches here so I could share experiences, not so that someone could ask for this cache with 10 favorites be removed. THE ONE IN OREGON HAS A PHYSICAL CONTAINER, A MAGNETIC KEYHOLDER. You just didn't look at the hint section which stated

logbook is in a magnetic hide-a-key container under one of the nearby chairs.

 

IN this case you needed to do more research than to jump to conclusions. It IS a traditional, as stating in the hint.

[+sword fern]

Yes, it is pretty common. Look at this cache and this cache.

 

Who's gonna be first to hit NA on those?

 

Hopefully no one! They both look like great caches - the benefit of these is that you can use them to introduce friends to geocaching too without any risk of exposing a container/logbook to being muggled.

 

But they're not caches. Well, at least one of them isn't.

I looked at both of them and they appear to be traditional caches. Both have a log to sign (I can't tell if there is a proper container without finding the cache).

 

The one in Oregon(that you posted a needs archive on) appears to be and ALR: "All you need to do to log this cache as a find is post the picture in your online log, and also sign the logbook." I suspect that this wording predates the change to the ALR rules. So long as the cache owner isn't enforcing the requirement to take a picture, it's probably OK; though reviewers mighty ask that the wording be changed to make it clear the photo is optional.

 

The one in Washington is newer and appears to support my point that you can have an alternate logging method. If you sign the log you don't have to take a picture (that would be an ALR) however you may take a picture and then either sign the log or not. It's consistent with my reading of the logging of physical caches guideline: Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed [ regardless of any other requirements the owner has on the page ]

 

Ive found the one in washington, and it has a container.

As for the one in oregon, the hint said "logbook is in a magnetic hide-a-key container under one of the nearby chairs." so that proves to be a container.

[+dfx]

IN this case you needed to do more research than to jump to conclusions. It IS a traditional, as stating in the hint.

 

The CO added this after I posted my log. Originally the description said "All you need to do to log this cache as a find is post the picture in your online log". There was no mention of a log or a container. And judging from all the find logs, that's what everybody did: just post a picture.

 

Of course now, the cache turned into an ALR cache.

 

Edit: Google still has the original page cached:

Edited May 25, 2011 by dfx

[Mr.Yuck]

Yes, it is pretty common. Look at this cache and this cache.

 

Who's gonna be first to hit NA on those?

 

Hopefully no one! They both look like great caches - the benefit of these is that you can use them to introduce friends to geocaching too without any risk of exposing a container/logbook to being muggled.

 

But they're not caches. Well, at least one of them isn't.

I looked at both of them and they appear to be traditional caches. Both have a log to sign (I can't tell if there is a proper container without finding the cache).

 

The one in Oregon(that you posted a needs archive on) appears to be and ALR: "All you need to do to log this cache as a find is post the picture in your online log, and also sign the logbook." I suspect that this wording predates the change to the ALR rules. So long as the cache owner isn't enforcing the requirement to take a picture, it's probably OK; though reviewers mighty ask that the wording be changed to make it clear the photo is optional.

 

The one in Washington is newer and appears to support my point that you can have an alternate logging method. If you sign the log you don't have to take a picture (that would be an ALR) however you may take a picture and then either sign the log or not. It's consistent with my reading of the logging of physical caches guideline: Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed [ regardless of any other requirements the owner has on the page ]

 

Ive found the one in washington, and it has a container.

As for the one in oregon, the hint said "logbook is in a magnetic hide-a-key container under one of the nearby chairs." so that proves to be a container.

 

I disagree with the long distance NA (a long distance email to the reviewer would have bothered me much less). But you can't have a traditional cache that says "easy peasy, all you have to do is post a picture to log a find". This is not disputable. There are things that slip through the cracks, and people try to pull the wool over the eyes of the reviewers all the time. This does not mean this is "pretty common" as you stated.

 

I don't have proof, but from going back to the very first logs in 2004, I'll bet you dollars to donuts this was submitted as a virtual (virtuals were still accepted in 2004, but most were rejected), they were forced to change to traditional and add a container. Then shortly after publication (maybe even the minute they got a "listing published on Geocaching.com" email), they put their text back in "all you have to do is post a picture to log a find". They just got away with it for 7+ years in this case.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

[+tozainamboku]

But you can't have a traditional cache that says "easy peasy, all you have to do is post a picture to log a find". This is not disputable.

I'm going to dispute this. (Perhaps you already knew that)

 

If the cache has a container and log and the cacher owner allows a find for anyone who finds the container and signs the log, there is quite a bit of leeway in what the cache owner can accept find logs for. I understand that it is not absolute. Cache owners cannot hide a cache and then say "Anyone who wants to write a couch potato found log can do so." They can't bring a log sheet to an event and pass it around for people to sign and let them log a find on the cache for that. Jeremy has stated that he reserves the right to take action if he feels the online logs are being abused. However, except for a few extreme cases like 'pocket caches' at events, he has generally allowed cache owners to let people log finds when they didn't sign the log if they can meet some alternate logging method.

 

For whatever reason, there are some people who want to use geocaching to share an interesting location. The geocache they hide is secondary to getting someone to visit the location and see an interesting sculpture, read an historic plaque, or note some natural wonder. These cache owners would like to make sure that visitors see the real reason they were brought to the place and not focus so much on finding a hidden container. So they offer an additional logging method to encourage people to experience the location that way. Some may even end up creating a cache page that looks more like a virtual cache than a physical cache. However, IMO, so long as there is a cache to find and a log that can be signed, the cache meets the guidelines to be listed on Geocaching.com

 

There is a place for sharing interesting locations that doesn't need a geocache for someone to find. It's called Waymarking.com. And if someone just wanted you to visit an interesting sculpture or view the wildlife, there are Waymarking categories for these places. But, unfortunately, many geocachers have rejected Waymarking as a separate activity. They believe that if they place a micro near enough to the site they want to share, they can use the Geocaching.com website to list their waymark. So yes, I share the frustration that people are using Geocaching.com to do something other than geocaching. However, if there is a cache to find, it doesn't bother me that a cache owner has asked me to notice the sculpture or historic marker or wildlife and to post a photo with my log. Nor does it bother me that he will allow someone who posts a photo to log a find even if they didn't sign the log. That is a privilege that they get for being a cache owner.

[+dfx]

I disagree with the long distance NA (a long distance email to the reviewer would have bothered me much less).

 

I'm the other way around. I would be very upset if somebody privately emailed my local reviewer and would get one of my caches archived that way. I don't like being a snitch. If you have a problem with one of my caches, at least be honest about it.

Edited May 25, 2011 by dfx

[+dfx]

If the cache has a container and log and the cacher owner allows a find for anyone who finds the container and signs the log, there is quite a bit of leeway in what the cache owner can accept find logs for.

 

This is a completely different issue. A listing saying "all you need to do to claim a find is post a picture" implies that there is no container. This wording has "virtual" written all over it.

[+tozainamboku]

If the cache has a container and log and the cacher owner allows a find for anyone who finds the container and signs the log, there is quite a bit of leeway in what the cache owner can accept find logs for.

 

This is a completely different issue. A listing saying "all you need to do to claim a find is post a picture" implies that there is no container. This wording has "virtual" written all over it.

The puritans insist that you don't need to say "All you need to do to claim a find is sign the log" because that is implied for every physical cache. Since the cache is listed as traditional cache, one can assume that all you need to do is sign the log to claim a find no matter what the cache owner says.

 

This is different from where the container has gone missing and the cache owner has written "This cache is now a virtual cache. In order to log a find you must post a picture." You might be justified in playing cache cop and logging a long distance Needs Archive in those cases (though you would likely still face a lot of criticism).

[+dfx]

The puritans insist that you don't need to say "All you need to do to claim a find is sign the log" because that is implied for every physical cache. Since the cache is listed as traditional cache, one can assume that all you need to do is sign the log to claim a find no matter what the cache owner says.

You can assume, but if the CO does say something different (and in this case he did), that assumption is kinda invalidated. The fact that every single person logging the listing had complied with the logging requirement for many months underlines this fact.

 

But since the P-word is out now, so am I.

[Mr.Yuck]

I disagree with the long distance NA (a long distance email to the reviewer would have bothered me much less).

 

I'm the other way around. I would be very upset if somebody privately emailed my local reviewer and would get one of my caches archived that way. I don't like being a snitch. If you have a problem with one of my caches, at least be honest about it.

 

I can see your point there. As far as having a problem with one of your caches, let me check. Oh, just kidding.

[Mr.Yuck]

But you can't have a traditional cache that says "easy peasy, all you have to do is post a picture to log a find". This is not disputable.

I'm going to dispute this. (Perhaps you already knew that)

 

If the cache has a container and log and the cacher owner allows a find for anyone who finds the container and signs the log, there is quite a bit of leeway in what the cache owner can accept find logs for. I understand that it is not absolute. Cache owners cannot hide a cache and then say "Anyone who wants to write a couch potato found log can do so." They can't bring a log sheet to an event and pass it around for people to sign and let them log a find on the cache for that. Jeremy has stated that he reserves the right to take action if he feels the online logs are being abused. However, except for a few extreme cases like 'pocket caches' at events, he has generally allowed cache owners to let people log finds when they didn't sign the log if they can meet some alternate logging method.

 

For whatever reason, there are some people who want to use geocaching to share an interesting location. The geocache they hide is secondary to getting someone to visit the location and see an interesting sculpture, read an historic plaque, or note some natural wonder. These cache owners would like to make sure that visitors see the real reason they were brought to the place and not focus so much on finding a hidden container. So they offer an additional logging method to encourage people to experience the location that way. Some may even end up creating a cache page that looks more like a virtual cache than a physical cache. However, IMO, so long as there is a cache to find and a log that can be signed, the cache meets the guidelines to be listed on Geocaching.com

 

There is a place for sharing interesting locations that doesn't need a geocache for someone to find. It's called Waymarking.com. And if someone just wanted you to visit an interesting sculpture or view the wildlife, there are Waymarking categories for these places. But, unfortunately, many geocachers have rejected Waymarking as a separate activity. They believe that if they place a micro near enough to the site they want to share, they can use the Geocaching.com website to list their waymark. So yes, I share the frustration that people are using Geocaching.com to do something other than geocaching. However, if there is a cache to find, it doesn't bother me that a cache owner has asked me to notice the sculpture or historic marker or wildlife and to post a photo with my log. Nor does it bother me that he will allow someone who posts a photo to log a find even if they didn't sign the log. That is a privilege that they get for being a cache owner.

 

I knew you were going to dispute that? Naw. But are you really disputing it? I mean you're almost saying it should be a Waymark in the world of GPS gaming according to Groundspeak. And sure it doesn't bother you that that cache owner was allowing people to post a photo to claim a find. You think that bothers me? I couldn't care less. But what I see there, until someone could prove otherwise, is a 7 year excercise in pulling a fast one on the reviewer for a rejected virtual. And don't think I care about that either, I've placed many a virtual on the other Geocaching websites that still allow them. Last one about 6 months ago.

 

A traditional cache that had the wording "all you have to do to claim a find is post a picture"? And only mentioned a physical cache being there in the hint? That's not even an ALR. It's just something no one reported in 7 years, and tells you how many people actually go around reporting caches.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

[+sword fern]

IN this case you needed to do more research than to jump to conclusions. It IS a traditional, as stating in the hint.

 

The CO added this after I posted my log. Originally the description said "All you need to do to log this cache as a find is post the picture in your online log". There was no mention of a log or a container. And judging from all the find logs, that's what everybody did: just post a picture.

 

Of course now, the cache turned into an ALR cache.

 

Edit: Google still has the original page cached:

 

Okay.