Multi-cache, or ALR?

[+thebruce0]

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...

Ok, let me rephrase that. "...other than signing the logbook..."

A little clearer: "...signing the logbook..."

Not "A" logbook, THE logbook. Whatever order the pieces of paper or booklets are in the multiple stages, there is only one logbook; the logbook that defines a cache find, and the rest (as outlined earlier) should be in some way indicated as not the logbook.

Requiring signing of anything more than the logbook to avoid having your online log deleted is, by definition, an Additional Logging Requirement.

[+keehotee]

 

Requiring signing of anything more than the logbook to avoid having your online log deleted is, by definition, an Additional Logging Requirement.

 

No - it could also be a challenge!

A challenge cache requires that geocachers meet a geocaching-related qualification or series of tasks before the challenge cache can be logged.

I can't think of many "geocaching related qualifications" more geocaching related than finding a stage using a GPSr and signing a piece of paper.....

Edited September 14, 2011 by keehotee

[+keehotee]

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

 

What control? Until we live somewhere that forces you to find every cache on your map, you have the ultimate say!

[+pppingme]

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.

Refer to 2nd post.

[+baloo&bd]

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.

Refer to 2nd post.

 

Refer to post 3,4,6,7,9,10, etc.

[+thebruce0]

Requiring signing of anything more than the logbook to avoid having your online log deleted is, by definition, an Additional Logging Requirement.

No - it could also be a challenge!

Refer to my previous comment. And the point that the cache in question is not being submitted as a challenge cache.

Edited September 14, 2011 by thebruce0

[AZcachemeister]

And, in my understanding, a challenge cache cannot specify certain particular caches that must be found in order to qualify.

[+dfx]

oh oh oh, is this another "what's a geocache" or "what's a find" thread? And I missed it? Bugger!

[+thebruce0]

I think it's just getting started

[+dfx]

Well, in that case........

 

Here's how I see it, and it all comes back to the old cache vs. listing discussion (and before anyone says anything, in this context "cache" == "geocache").

 

First off, strictly speaking, a multi-cache (multiple caches) is some setup that involves more than one hidden container out there. All those containers are caches, hence the name "multi-cache". A setup that involves going to some location, gathering some information and then using that to figure out where to go from there ("virtual stage") is called an "offset cache" (because the cache isn't at the given location, but rather at an offset from there) and so isn't a real multi because it doesn't involve multiple caches. However, Groundspeak chose to treat those two types the same and have people use the same listing type ("multi") for both of them, which is a smart decision, because those two types can be combined in many variations and it would be hard to make a clear distinction between the two.

 

Now about the listing. Each listing on gc.com corresponds to one cache (except those types which don't correspond to any caches at all, heh). Logging a "found" on such a listing tells the world that you've found that cache.

 

A "traditional" listing corresponds to the cache at the given coordinates. A "multi" listing corresponds also to a cache, but it doesn't give you the coordinates to it. Instead, you get the coordinates to a starting point. If it's a "real" multi, then there will also be a cache at that location (the first stage), but that's not the cache the listing is for. Instead, the listing is for the cache that you'll find at the end, the final cache. The only logical conclusion is that logging a "found" on such a listing still is only about the final cache (because that's the cache the listing is for). There's other caches out there (the stages), but you can't log a "found" for them, because they don't have a listing.

 

Now we know that the listing (and thus also the "found" log) is about the final cache only and not about any of the stages. We also know that the only allowable requirement for being allowed a "found" log is having signed the log in the cache. Since "the cache" is the final cache, you can't require anyone to sign anything else, including the stages. So it would be an ALR.

[+S&SLaird]

I say it is a Multi....although I think it is a stupid requirement.

 

A Multi-Cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations. The final location is a physical container. There are many variations, but most Multi-Caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has a hint to the third, and so on. An offset cache (where you go to a location and get hints to the actual cache) is considered a Multi-Cache.

 

The definition of a Multi clearly calls a "stage" a Cache. As a cache it should have a log book.

 

Again I think putting a log book in each stage is dumb I don't think it is ALR due to the fact that GS refers them as caches not stages. If they refered to them as stages then I would agree that it is an ALR. But I probably wouldn't log each one either.

[4wheelin_fool]

Well, I don't see anything wrong with it as long as the CO allows a "find" log for each stage.

Edited September 14, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

[+dfx]

The definition of a Multi clearly calls a "stage" a Cache. As a cache it should have a log book.

 

That's a fallacy. The only entity saying that caches must/should have a log book is Groundspeak, and that's only to get the cache listed here. Since you're not listing the individual stages, but rather the final cache, only the final cache needs the log. Or, if you see the multi-cache as the sum of all the involved caches (stages plus final), even then it's only a single cache and so only needs a single log book.

[+thebruce0]

Well, I don't see anything wrong with it as long as the CO allows a "find" log for each stage.

hah! Unfortunately then it would be a series of traditionals. Rather, a series of unknowns since the location of each stage/cache would be found only via finding the previous in the series.

 

...and then we arrive at a daisy-chained cache series, and another completely different debate

 

Here, in context:

* One geocache listing. Multiple stages (or caches, physical or not). Published as a multi-cache. Logs in each stage. To log the cache online, you must sign the Multi-cache log. The ALR: Signatures required at each stage's logbook or your find will be deleted. Problem: ALRs not allowed on a multi-cache.

 

That's really all there is to it.

[+S&SLaird]

The definition of a Multi clearly calls a "stage" a Cache. As a cache it should have a log book.

 

That's a fallacy. The only entity saying that caches must/should have a log book is Groundspeak, and that's only to get the cache listed here. Since you're not listing the individual stages, but rather the final cache, only the final cache needs the log. Or, if you see the multi-cache as the sum of all the involved caches (stages plus final), even then it's only a single cache and so only needs a single log book.

 

Call it what you will.

 

Definition of a Multi came from GS (cut and paste even) They call them caches....again I think having more then one log in a multi is stupid and I wouldn't sign them all. I think GS should call them stages and make additional log books in a multi an ALR and there for optional. But as written I don't think it is currently an ALR but I do think it is a Multi with CO who has control issues.

[+thebruce0]

But as written I don't think it is currently an ALR but I do think it is a Multi with CO who has control issues.

If he's deleting logs of people who haven't met his requirement for logging it found (which is more than just signing the cache's logbook, which is Groundspeak's requirement), then it is an ALR, which is disallowed. But yes, I agree that the CO may have control issues

[+dfx]

Definition of a Multi came from GS (cut and paste even) They call them caches....again I think having more then one log in a multi is stupid and I wouldn't sign them all. I think GS should call them stages and make additional log books in a multi an ALR and there for optional. But as written I don't think it is currently an ALR but I do think it is a Multi with CO who has control issues.

 

What I meant to say was that Groundspeak is correct in that definition. The stages are caches. Nobody says that a cache is only a cache when it has a log - it's well possible to have a geocache without a log, it would still be a geocache. Only problem you'll get is that you can't list it here. In order to list a geocache here, it needs to have a log, because it's a requirement coming from Groundspeak (and not because it's not a geocache when it doesn't have a log). Which proves my point from earlier: the listing for a multi is for the final cache, because only the final cache is required to have a log, and so all online logs also are about the final cache only.