Multi-cache, or ALR?

[AZcachemeister]

I think the title pretty-much spells it out.

I can see where the CO might wish to stop co-ordinate sharing, or PAF finds.

 

Shouldn't each stage have been listed as a separate cache, with the 'final' being a bonus 'mystery'?

 

The CO seems to be in some sort of competition to make the 'most impossible to find' cache in Arizona, but is this the way to do that?

 

I AM going to ignore it and move on, but should something be said to the reviewer?

[AZcachemeister]

I suppose A LINK would be helpful.

[+Team Taran]

It looks like an ALR to me. Finding a multi has always meant signing the final log. I would send a note to the reviewer asking if the cache description was changed after publication,

[Pup Patrol]

Is it possible that the cache page was edited after it was published?

 

I have a hard time believing that the reviewer didn't have a problem with that sort of blatant ALR and threat to delete logs.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[+Coldgears]

I don't see it as an ALR. Just a way to prove you actually went to each stage.

[+Chokecherry]

I don't see it as an ALR. Just a way to prove you actually went to each stage.

 

To log a cache as found you need to sign the log in the cache. Not the log in every cache along the way. I agree if this is what the owner wanted they should have set it up as individual caches instead of a multi. If someone makes it to the end of their multi and signs the log without signing the steps they can still log the cache online and the log would stand I would guess because that's what matters. Not if they performed the extra, arbitrary logging requirements.

[Pup Patrol]

I don't see it as an ALR. Just a way to prove you actually went to each stage.

 

For what purpose?

 

Signing the log in the final stage is "proof" that you completed the other stages, and got the clues or redirects needed to find the final stage.

 

EACH STAGE HAS A LOG PLEASE SIGN ANY FINAL LOGGERS WHO HAVEN'T LOGGED AT EACH STAGE WILL BE DELETED!!

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=309

 

3.1. Logging of All Physical Geocaches

 

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:

 

1. Cease deleting logs based on ALRs.

2. 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.

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

[+SwineFlew]

You are require to sign the final cache. The stage(s) itself is not the cache, its just hint(s) to lead to you the cache itself which its the final cache.

 

So I feel its ALR as best and a reviewer should look into that Matter.

Edited August 28, 2011 by SwineFlew

[+Manville Possum]

It is ALR.

[Tahosa and Sons]

No doubt about it, this is a ALR.

[+Coldgears]

I disagree that it is an ALR. But none of our opinions matter, the reviewer agreed to it. SO I guess I must be right. Huh?

[+Chokecherry]

I disagree that it is an ALR. But none of our opinions matter, the reviewer agreed to it. SO I guess I must be right. Huh?

 

Reviewer might not even know about it since you can edit listings after the fact without the reviewer knowing. Personally I'd be tempted to phone a friend and do the final an appeal a log deletion if the cache owner had a problem.

[+Panther&Pine]

If I'd encountered that I probably would have assumed that someone didn't get the idea of a multi-cache..

 

And I'll agree with the ALR.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Definitely ALR. Unacceptable.

[+Walts Hunting]

I disagree that it is an ALR. But none of our opinions matter, the reviewer agreed to it. SO I guess I must be right. Huh?

 

You are assuming that the current description is what the reviewer saw. I have come across caches that I thought wouldn't have passed review and notified (by either a na log or note to reviewer) the proper person and they seem to be changed or archived shortly after. I would have to imagine a reviewer doesn't want someone to think that they approved an inappropriate cache.

 

One that comes to mind was in Yuma that was listed as a traditional but the description said you had to post a picture from a nearby web cam to not have your log deleted. That was archived within 24 hours.

[+Coldgears]

I disagree that it is an ALR. But none of our opinions matter, the reviewer agreed to it. SO I guess I must be right. Huh?

 

You are assuming that the current description is what the reviewer saw. I have come across caches that I thought wouldn't have passed review and notified (by either a na log or note to reviewer) the proper person and they seem to be changed or archived shortly after. I would have to imagine a reviewer doesn't want someone to think that they approved an inappropriate cache.

 

One that comes to mind was in Yuma that was listed as a traditional but the description said you had to post a picture from a nearby web cam to not have your log deleted. That was archived within 24 hours.

I've never heard of a geocacher doing something that... Shady...

[+edscott]

 

Signing the log in the final stage is "proof" that you completed the other stages, and got the clues or redirects needed to find the final stage.

 

 

Not really.. since doing multis via maps is a relatively difficult hit or miss process w/o using a GPS, I usually look over the area and try to get into the head of the hider and skip right to the final. Often a grid search of a couple acres of woods is much quicker than going from stage to stage, crunching the numbers, and transferring the spot by hand to the paper map. If I'm successful I log the find. If not, I go to the beginning, get a set of coordinates, see where they are, and rethink the process. Doesn't work on a well planned Multi, but I've often skipped stages in Multis and Multi staged puzzles if I can look ahead and predict a location.

[Tahosa and Sons]

I've all ready put a note on the cache page and the cache owner has even E Mailed me back. He seems to be worried that others are sharing information. I have had that done to a few of my multis, then I have hiked back in and moved them. They can cheat and I can do cache maintenance.

[+GeoBain]

A log for each stage is considered a ALR. One log = One Smiley More logs = More Smileys

 

I agree with ALR and one log = one smiley.

 

But are you saying that if I were to sign each of those logs on that multi that I should log multiple finds too?

[+cache_test_dummies]

EACH STAGE HAS A LOG PLEASE SIGN ANY FINAL LOGGERS WHO HAVEN'T LOGGED AT EACH STAGE WILL BE DELETED!!

I'm not sure if this is really an ALR. The way this is worded, your log can remain, but the person who logged it will be deleted. Even if people are deleted, is it an ALR if their logs are allowed to stand?

 

In any case, although not specifically mentioned in the guidelines, deleting people doesn't seem to be a good idea.

[+Harry Dolphin]

 

Signing the log in the final stage is "proof" that you completed the other stages, and got the clues or redirects needed to find the final stage.

 

 

Not really.. since doing multis via maps is a relatively difficult hit or miss process w/o using a GPS, I usually look over the area and try to get into the head of the hider and skip right to the final. Often a grid search of a couple acres of woods is much quicker than going from stage to stage, crunching the numbers, and transferring the spot by hand to the paper map. If I'm successful I log the find. If not, I go to the beginning, get a set of coordinates, see where they are, and rethink the process. Doesn't work on a well planned Multi, but I've often skipped stages in Multis and Multi staged puzzles if I can look ahead and predict a location.

 

Yup. Brute forced a few evil mystery caches that I could not solve. Hey! I signed the log! Evil cache with 7 miles of hiking/bike riding? Found two stages by car, and figured the rest out using Google Earth. Made it into a cache and dash! But I signed the log! And signing the log is the proof that I found the cache.

If the CO wants to require signatures at each stage, then it should be listed as a series of caches. Not a multi.

[+Walts Hunting]

I disagree that it is an ALR. But none of our opinions matter, the reviewer agreed to it. SO I guess I must be right. Huh?

 

You are assuming that the current description is what the reviewer saw. I have come across caches that I thought wouldn't have passed review and notified (by either a na log or note to reviewer) the proper person and they seem to be changed or archived shortly after. I would have to imagine a reviewer doesn't want someone to think that they approved an inappropriate cache.

 

One that comes to mind was in Yuma that was listed as a traditional but the description said you had to post a picture from a nearby web cam to not have your log deleted. That was archived within 24 hours.

I've never heard of a geocacher doing something that... Shady...

 

It doesn't happen very often but in my travels I have probably found about a dozen that either were changed after publication (including movements, there is one locally that was moved 150 feet by the owner the day after publication with no intermediate logs to explain it) or the reviewer missed the issue. I am going with changed since we have sharp reviewers. The really strange thing is that it doesn't have a FTF log and has been active for 17 days. Around here you can get seriously hurt getting between a FTF hound and the cache.

 

Keystone has talked in the past about some of these rare instances. It doesn't endear the placer to the reviewer for the future.

[Krydos]

Surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but if saw a log in a stage of a multi-cache, I personally would probably get a little confused and think I'd finished it. Sign the "log" and call it a find at stage one and never find the rest...

[+SwineFlew]

I disagree that it is an ALR. But none of our opinions matter, the reviewer agreed to it. SO I guess I must be right. Huh?

 

Reviewer might not even know about it since you can edit listings after the fact without the reviewer knowing. Personally I'd be tempted to phone a friend and do the final an appeal a log deletion if the cache owner had a problem.

 

LOL... I felt that way too just to test him.

[+Chokecherry]

I'll brute force multi's or puzzles once in awhile. I've done two night caches and both of them involved some degree of brute forcing. It is at times more labor intensive and sometimes not. It's not my default mode for doing caches but thinking placements through and analyzing cache pages is a tool I use in my searching.

 

People share answers to puzzles and multis. It's just how it is. I agree with the person who goes out and maintains the caches after the coordinates are shared. that's an option if that is so bothersome. But sharing is just a fact of life. Hiders can't micromanage the finders. It's just not possible and trying to do is just going to make everyone miserable.

 

I also agree with the person where if I see a log in a cache in a multi I assume I've found the end. I would be very annoyed if I signed a log only to find out the owner put a log in every cache.

[+Team OPJim]

Not sure I agree with calling this ALR. It is a multi-cache, and the idea of a multicache is to find all the stages. Most Multi's I have found cannot be brute forced, you have to go to the stages in order. I couldn't find any information in the knowledge base, but it seems reasonable to me that finding all the stages of a multicache should be required to find the final, and I'm not convinced that signing a log at each stage to prove that you really did all stages is wrong.

Disclosure: I do believe that the CO in question is deliberately planting near impossible caches so he can gain DGP points. However, this is his right, and if you don't want to find them don't look for them.

[+GeoBain]

What are DGP points?

[Pup Patrol]

What are DGP points?

 

Google teaches me something new every day...

 

http://www.brighthub.com/electronics/gps/articles/81080.aspx

 

The Deepsouthwest Geocaching Project is an organization dedicated to challenging all geocachers, living or visiting this area of the U.S., to participate in a competitive version of geocaching based on their point system. Here, we’ll explain more about it and give you their official link as well.

 

Good Old American Ingenuity Brought About by Laudable Efforts

 

DPG LogoEssentially the Deepsouthwest Geocaching Project (DPG) came up with its own brand of a scoring system that assigns points to specific caches based on the amount of times they're found. It's called the Challenge Point (CP) System. As most geocachers know, the traditional scoring system found on Geocaching.com, awards one point for each cache found, whether it was an arduous physical or mental challenge to find or not. The DPG found something awry with that point system, so they created one to suit their own theories.

 

http://dgpstats.com/

 

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1615025-incorperate-a-second-scoring-method-like-dgp-to-en

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=c5926987-d2bb-43e8-8e45-92ded2d39343

 

http://forums.extreme-caching.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=360

 

Yeah, geocaching isn't a competition. Nor is it about the numbers.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[Pup Patrol]

http://dgpstats.com/cacherdetails?c=103384

[+Vater_Araignee]

Not sure I agree with calling this ALR. It is a multi-cache, and the idea of a multicache is to find all the stages. Most Multi's I have found cannot be brute forced, you have to go to the stages in order. I couldn't find any information in the knowledge base, but it seems reasonable to me that finding all the stages of a multicache should be required to find the final, and I'm not convinced that signing a log at each stage to prove that you really did all stages is wrong.

Disclosure: I do believe that the CO in question is deliberately planting near impossible caches so he can gain DGP points. However, this is his right, and if you don't want to find them don't look for them.

Nope sorry the idea of a multi is to find the cache with the log in it, just like every other cache with a container holding a log. From a CO perspective the point of a multi is to leave a bread crumb trail to the cache, but that doesn't mean a finder is required to use what has been offered.

[+pppingme]

To quote the guideline exactly, it simply says that the finder is required to sign the log.

 

It does NOT specify that there can or can't be more than one log involved.

 

It seems to me that the only people that would be upset are the ones that cheated and skipped the first steps, somehow thinking they are above the multi-steps involved.

 

If you don't want to complete the work on a multi stage cache, don't attempt them.

[+keehotee]

I think the title pretty-much spells it out.

I can see where the CO might wish to stop co-ordinate sharing, or PAF finds.

 

Shouldn't each stage have been listed as a separate cache, with the 'final' being a bonus 'mystery'?

 

The CO seems to be in some sort of competition to make the 'most impossible to find' cache in Arizona, but is this the way to do that?

 

I AM going to ignore it and move on, but should something be said to the reviewer?

 

As far as I'm aware "Additional Logging Requirements" are actions you need to take in addition to signing the log, and at the same time or afterwards.

 

Signing into each stage are actions you are asked to take before signing the final log - so this looks to me more like a challenge than an ALR - even if he doesn't call it a challenge cache - and apparently you no longer need to include the word challenge in a challenge cache title

 

Here's an example of a similar requirement

 

And these are from the guidelines

A challenge cache requires that geocachers meet a geocaching-related qualification or series of tasks before the challenge cache can be logged. Waymarking and Wherigo qualify too, of course. The additional qualification or tasks are considered the basis of a challenge cache, rather than Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs).

 

Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the challenge requirements have been met and documented to the cache owner's satisfaction.

Edited September 5, 2011 by keehotee

[+Vater_Araignee]

To quote the guideline exactly, it simply says that the finder is required to sign the log.

 

It does NOT specify that there can or can't be more than one log involved.

 

It seems to me that the only people that would be upset are the ones that cheated and skipped the first steps, somehow thinking they are above the multi-steps involved.

 

If you don't want to complete the work on a multi stage cache, don't attempt them.

to quote the guideline exactly, it simply says "Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location."

 

It also says Geocache Contents: Geocache containers include a logsheet. That means that the first container you find with a log in it is a geocache so any after that is just finding bonus traditionals.

 

Seems to me that the only people that get upset are the CO's and individuals that want to imagine nonexistent requirements.

 

If the CO doesn't want people skipping steps then they need to figure out a way to prevent it without ignoring guidelines.

[+pppingme]

to quote the guideline exactly, it simply says "Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location."

 

It also says Geocache Contents: Geocache containers include a logsheet. That means that the first container you find with a log in it is a geocache so any after that is just finding bonus traditionals.

You are reading something into it thats simply not there.

[+Vater_Araignee]

to quote the guideline exactly, it simply says "Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location."

 

It also says Geocache Contents: Geocache containers include a logsheet. That means that the first container you find with a log in it is a geocache so any after that is just finding bonus traditionals.

You are reading something into it thats simply not there.

I am reading nothing into it. A geocache is a container and log originally placed by the CO. It does not get any simpler than that. Sounds like you are reading more into it.

[+pppingme]

Nor does anything state that there can't be more than one container or log.

 

Assuming you quoted it correctly (I didn't check):

 

Geocache Contents: Geocache containers

 

That is clearly plural.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Nor does anything state that there can't be more than one container or log.

 

Assuming you quoted it correctly (I didn't check):

 

Geocache Contents: Geocache containers

 

That is clearly plural.

You attempt to quote that out of context was doomed from the start. I did correctly quote it from:

Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines

II. LISTING Guidelines: Listing guidelines cover the requirements that you, as a geocache owner, need to adhere to in order for your geocache to be successfully published on Geocaching.com

1. Listing Guidelines for All Geocaches

item 3. Geocache Contents

[+pppingme]

Nor does anything state that there can't be more than one container or log.

 

Assuming you quoted it correctly (I didn't check):

 

Geocache Contents: Geocache containers

 

That is clearly plural.

You attempt to quote that out of context was doomed from the start. I did correctly quote it from:

Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines

II. LISTING Guidelines: Listing guidelines cover the requirements that you, as a geocache owner, need to adhere to in order for your geocache to be successfully published on Geocaching.com

1. Listing Guidelines for All Geocaches

item 3. Geocache Contents

Wow, you want to put such a narrow context on it and from that you derive this rule of singularity.

 

There is absolutely nothing in the guidelines that states that there can't be more than one container/log.

 

GS has defined the word multi- and even gave it its own icon.

 

Nothing in the guidelines stats that there can't be a log on each step of the already defined multi, and the definition already includes multiple containers.

 

Again, you're trying to read something in that just simply isn't there.

[+baloo&bd]

to quote the guideline exactly, it simply says "Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location."

 

It also says Geocache Contents: Geocache containers include a logsheet. That means that the first container you find with a log in it is a geocache so any after that is just finding bonus traditionals.

You are reading something into it thats simply not there.

I am reading nothing into it. A geocache is a container and log originally placed by the CO. It does not get any simpler than that. Sounds like you are reading more into it.

 

This assessment is right, other than this last "first cache with a log" thing. Even so, there simply is no argument for not calling this an ALR. Either somebody will put a NA log on it so the reviewer notices or the first time a log gets deleted, GS will most certainly step in to correct it.

Edited September 5, 2011 by baloo&bd

[+Vater_Araignee]

Nor does anything state that there can't be more than one container or log.

 

Assuming you quoted it correctly (I didn't check):

 

Geocache Contents: Geocache containers

 

That is clearly plural.

You attempt to quote that out of context was doomed from the start. I did correctly quote it from:

Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines

II. LISTING Guidelines: Listing guidelines cover the requirements that you, as a geocache owner, need to adhere to in order for your geocache to be successfully published on Geocaching.com

1. Listing Guidelines for All Geocaches

item 3. Geocache Contents

Wow, you want to put such a narrow context on it and from that you derive this rule of singularity.

 

There is absolutely nothing in the guidelines that states that there can't be more than one container/log.

 

GS has defined the word multi- and even gave it its own icon.

 

Nothing in the guidelines stats that there can't be a log on each step of the already defined multi, and the definition already includes multiple containers.

 

Again, you're trying to read something in that just simply isn't there.

And there is nothing in the guidelines that say I have to log every single one of the multi stages with a log in it. So the first one I come to, I can claim as the find. You cant change that no matter how much you protest.

 

Then there is the simple fact that an Additional Logging Requirement is an additional logging requirement, there are rules governing them. Arguments about past and future action do not apply, 1+1+2=4, so does 1+2+1=4 and 2+1+1=4.

Sign the log claim the find.

[+pppingme]

And there is nothing in the guidelines that say I have to log every single one of the multi stages with a log in it. So the first one I come to, I can claim as the find. You cant change that no matter how much you protest.

OK, then you need to tell gs to eliminate multi's, as thats the definition of one.

[+GeoBain]

And there is nothing in the guidelines that say I have to log every single one of the multi stages with a log in it. So the first one I come to, I can claim as the find. You cant change that no matter how much you protest.

OK, then you need to tell gs to eliminate multi's, as thats the definition of one.

 

No it's not. I've never seen a multi where you were required to log every stage.

 

A multi has multiple stages with a container at the end with a logbook that should be signed. The intermediate stages can be virtual or physical.

 

What Vater is saying is that because the final stage is the one that should have the logbook, if he finds a logbook at any point during that multi that he is going to sign it and assume it is the final. Since the rules say that once you have signed the logbook you can log online, I am sort of in support of that interpretation.

 

It's kind of like traditional caches where the CO also hides decoys along the way. If I find one of the decoys and it is clearly marked as such, I will continue to search until I find the true cache. But if I come across a container with a logbook in it, I'm gonna sign it and count it as a find.

[+GeoBain]

And I haven't done any challenge caches, but aren't they marked as unknown/puzzle, not multi?

[+Team OPJim]

My email inquiry to Groundspeak for clarification has not been responded to: disappointing but not surprising. There is very little written in the guidelines that I can find about the topic. Nonetheless, I completely disagree with those who state that if you find the first stage of a multi and sign the logbook that you can log the cache. My interpretation is as follows:

1. This entire idea that you can't put a logbook in earlier stages of a cache is not supported in the guidelines, and more than half of the multis I have found have logbooks in each stage. It's up to the CO unless GS specifically addresses the topic.

2. I think the CO is completely within his rights to delete your electronic log if you have not signed the logbook in the final stage, period. The final stage is the cache, the other stages are whatever the CO wanted them to be. Otherwise, I could go to a stage without a logbook, write my name on a scrap of paper, and claim I signed the log and found the cache. The logbook in the final stage is the only logbook that matters

3. The real question is whether a CO can require you to find the stages in order and sign all the logs. Unless GS says otherwise, I support the CO over the cacher who wants to cut corners. There is usually a reason a CO plants a multi rather than a regular cache, it often has to do with completing a hike, seeing views, etc. Rarely it may simply be to show the best was to the final GZ. If the CO doesn't care, then so be it. But it should be the CO choice. If Groundspeak does reply to me, I will post it online.

Edited September 10, 2011 by opjim

[+baloo&bd]

If Groundspeak does reply to me, I will post it online.

 

Post what online?

 

As to the cache, if by some stretch this ALR requiring all the logs at each stage need to be signed got past a reviewer, the first time a log got deleted for only signing the actual cache log in the final and complained about, the deletion would be reversed and the cache would need to be corrected.

 

As to GS responding, yea maybe they should be quicker, however with the move, more pressing matters and the fact that it is already covered in the guidelines, it might not be as high on the to do list as you might desire. A quicker response may or may not come from the reviewer in the area.

[+Team OPJim]

I did get a reply from Groundspeak, which is quoted below:

 

Hi there,

A multi or puzzle cache will require that the final stage is found to count as 'found' in the logging of the cache.

See here for more explicit wording from our guidelines. A cache owner who chooses to have logbooks at stages may be confusing the cachers who find the caches so should clarify that the stage is not the final.

Regards,

 

Sandy

Community Relations Manager

 

Her link didn't tranfer, but it refers to this page: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=309

 

So the bottom line is that the only logbook that counts for a smiley is the final stage log. The others don't count, and there is NOT a rule saying a CO cannot put a logbook in other stages.

 

She doesn't resolve the issue of whether requiring a signature on all logbooks is an ALR.

 

As a CO, I haven't had an issue with people logging smileys that I worry didn't find all the stages. If I did suspect that someone was sharing the final coordinates, I would move my final. Most people haven't bothered with even looking for my multi's.

 

I think it goes along with another topic I saw that basically says that geocachers in person seem to be much nicer than some of them in the forums (his words, not mine). Generally I've had no issue with false logging, but I live in a rural area which might be part of the issue.

[+baloo&bd]

Her link didn't tranfer, but it refers to this page: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=309

 

So the bottom line is that the only logbook that counts for a smiley is the final stage log. The others don't count, and there is NOT a rule saying a CO cannot put a logbook in other stages.

 

She doesn't resolve the issue of whether requiring a signature on all logbooks is an ALR.

 

As a CO, I haven't had an issue with people logging smileys that I worry didn't find all the stages. If I did suspect that someone was sharing the final coordinates, I would move my final. Most people haven't bothered with even looking for my multi's.

 

I think it goes along with another topic I saw that basically says that geocachers in person seem to be much nicer than some of them in the forums (his words, not mine). Generally I've had no issue with false logging, but I live in a rural area which might be part of the issue.

 

"So the bottom line is that the only logbook that counts for a smiley is the final stage log."

 

Guess I can read as much into this statement as you are reading into the rest of the message, This would seem to indicate a confirmation that requiring the other logs is a ALR.

 

No one ever said you could not have logs in each stage. What was said is it would be confusing (confirmed here) and that some cachers would think they had found it since a log was present, which in and of itself would indicate a find to the majority of cachers. The other issue pointed out is that if the final log is signed, whether or not the rest are signed, it wwould be considered a find and GS would agree.

 

Not sure why someone needs to have this type of unnecessary control over other cachers,

[+thebruce0]

2. I think the CO is completely within his rights to delete your electronic log if you have not signed the logbook in the final stage, period. The final stage is the cache, the other stages are whatever the CO wanted them to be. Otherwise, I could go to a stage without a logbook, write my name on a scrap of paper, and claim I signed the log and found the cache. The logbook in the final stage is the only logbook that matters

3. The real question is whether a CO can require you to find the stages in order and sign all the logs. Unless GS says otherwise, I support the CO over the cacher who wants to cut corners. There is usually a reason a CO plants a multi rather than a regular cache, it often has to do with completing a hike, seeing views, etc. Rarely it may simply be to show the best was to the final GZ. If the CO doesn't care, then so be it. But it should be the CO choice. If Groundspeak does reply to me, I will post it online.

As to #2, I don't think anyone's debating that the CO can delete your online log if you haven't signed the log at the final stage. So, as to whether there are logbooks in the previous stages, I think the response opjim got addresses that - if there are logs in previous stages, they should be clearly marked as NOT the final stage (and thus not the final logbook).

 

However, I'm the side that requiring signage of all previous stages before the final stage logbook IS indeed an ALR.

 

If your geocaching.com log can be deleted by the CO due to a requirement not being met other than signing the logbook at the final, it is by definition an ALR.

 

Challenge caches I believe are the only current exception (not including grandfathered cache types)

 

The workaround is to keep a separate 'leaderboard' in the cache description, if you will, of verified finders who have signed the logbooks at every stage. If there are some who didn't complete that task, they may have a smiley logged in the cache history, but they won't be listed in the leaderboards, which is entirely up to the CO's discretion (logging finds is not, other than confirmation of a signature at the final logbook).

 

* To log a smiley on the cache listing for a multicache, there cannot be an ALR, and one must only be required to sign the final logbook.

* If a multicache has multiple logbooks, all that are NOT the official cache logbook must be indicated as such, so the cacher knows that the stages are not complete.

 

That's my understanding of the multicache guidelines.

[+pppingme]

If your geocaching.com log can be deleted by the CO due to a requirement not being met other than signing the logbook at the final, it is by definition an ALR.

Corrected...

 

The only way to get that is to read something between the lines that just isn't there.

 

Groundspeak, states "signed the log", for anyone to infer that means only one log is adding to that.

 

If it said "only the final log" or something, then it would be different, but it doesn't.

[+baloo&bd]

If your geocaching.com log can be deleted by the CO due to a requirement not being met other than signing the logbook, it is by definition an ALR.

Corrected...

 

The only way to get that is to read something between the lines that just isn't there.

 

Groundspeak, states "signed the log", for anyone to infer that means only one log is adding to that.

 

If it said "only the final log" or something, then it would be different, but it doesn't.

 

I actually fix the wording and underlined it to make it clearer.

 

Tell ya how to settle this. Set up a cache requiring each stage of a multi to sign the log. If by some miracle, it gets past the review process, have someone log only the final or delete someone for missing one of the stages. All your questions for further clarification will be answered.

Edited September 14, 2011 by baloo&bd