"Special" instructions from Cache Owner

[+OZ2CPU]

dan.. alot of people take pictures of their name in the logbook,

specielly if a cache is good, special, hard to do, FTF, or it is likely the cache could go missing easily,

I have seen many such pictures posted as find prof, even on traditionals,

you mostlikely got a cam in your phone, so no big deal to take that picture

just to make that CO happy, even if his demand is NOT ok when we read the guidelines,

but his cache is approved by a local reviewer, this means his demands are ok.

[AZcachemeister]

 

 

"In addition to logging an online find, you also must log/upload photographic evidence of that find on that cache's listing web page. A picture of the cache's physical log will do nicely."

 

 

Is it a Geocaching related challenge, or a photography challenge?

 

I'd be ignoring it too.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

This is one from a local challenge cache. I know the CO reads these forums on a regular basis so I hope he doesn't take it personally, because he is one of my favorite cache hiders.

 

In order to count towards the challenge cache, any qualifying caches require photographic proof:

 

"In addition to logging an online find, you also must log/upload photographic evidence of that find on that cache's listing web page. A picture of the cache's physical log will do nicely."

 

This has always rubbed me the wrong way. If the owner of a qualifying cache has no reason to doubt the validity of my find and has allowed my online log to stand, then that should be good enough for a third party as well. I have specifically avoided going after this challenge cache as a minor protest against the photograph requirement.

 

I would log the challenge without the photos. When the log is deleted, appeal to GC. That woudl be my protest.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

dan.. alot of people take pictures of their name in the logbook,

specielly if a cache is good, special, hard to do, FTF, or it is likely the cache could go missing easily,

I have seen many such pictures posted as find prof, even on traditionals,

you mostlikely got a cam in your phone, so no big deal to take that picture

just to make that CO happy, even if his demand is NOT ok when we read the guidelines,

but his cache is approved by a local reviewer, this means his demands are ok.

 

Just because the cache was aprpoved by a reviewer, doesn't mean the listing could have been changed after the approval. Or that it is an older cache (which was approved before the guidelineupdate) and the CO just hasn't taken the effort to change the listing.

 

Just because something is easy to do, doesn't mean I have to do it, especially it is specifically not within the (clearly stated) guidelines.

[+Ike 13]

You agree not to:... Publish, on any Groundspeak owned web property, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner.

I see that says any, but then if you combine that with the other guideline posted below it confuses me.

 

Owner is responsible for geocache listing maintenance. As the owner of your cache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache listing. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate.

 

To me this says I can only delete a log that is bogus (i.e. A DNF logged as a find), off-topic (a note that is more of a discussion piece then relating to the cache), or inappropriate (bad language and the like?). From my understanding if I sign the log an owner should not delete my find. Again they can ask for an edit or encrypt, but should not be able to delete.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Upon retranslating the cache description, I found that the final had vanished a few times a while ago, and the cache owner changed the logging requirement to allow people to log the cache with a photo taken at the final. So it was a good thing I took the photos....

 

Not sure if I'd log this one today, knowing there was no cache. I'd have to think about it.

I probably would. It sounds like quite an experience, and the cache was more about the journey than finding a container and writing on a piece of paper. Yes, I admit it. I have logged a find on a couple (maybe three out my 1100 something finds) on caches when I didn't actually sign the log sheet.

I'd log it as a DNF and include a great write-up. I've gone on lots of wonderful journeys that ended with a DNF. The journey has nothing to do with writing on a piece of paper or claiming a find.

 

I agree, after all he Did Not Find it.

 

Aren't the memories of the experience enough or do you really need that smiley?

 

If one truly does not care about the numbers then it really doesn't matter if the experience counts as a find or it doesn't. As I see it, every cache owner creates caches for different reasons. If a cache is placed 30 feet up in a tree then climbing the tree, opening the container, and signing the log is an integral part of the experience of finding the cache. If a cache is located a mile down a pretty trail to a specific location that offers a spectacular view, I would think that the "point" of the cache is about the journey and bringing someone to a specific location, and not so much about finding the container and signing the log once you get there. If a CO adds a "special instruction" that allows those that have experienced the journey and the place where the cache is hidden to post a found it log, that tells me that physically signing the log was not a significant aspect in the experience that the CO was trying to create. In that case, I'll much more likely adhere to the wishes of the cache owner than someone on the forum that tries to dictate to others how the game should be played.

 

 

I actually recently went to find a cache and could not even though it had no DNFs. I read some logs and found the CO was allowing photos and the last 20 or so were photo logs so I left, posted DNF and NA, later I found out the cache had been replaced, just hard to find and since photos were OK no one was searching for it with any effort. Quite frankly I don't care how they justify their smilies but posting "fake" found logs can mess up future cachers as it did me and wasted my time.

 

That's why when I'm caching far from from home I *always* read the description and the text of recent logs.

[+The Jester]

You agree not to:... Publish, on any Groundspeak owned web property, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner.

I see that says any, but then if you combine that with the other guideline posted below it confuses me.

 

Owner is responsible for geocache listing maintenance. As the owner of your cache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache listing. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate.

 

To me this says I can only delete a log that is bogus (i.e. A DNF logged as a find), off-topic (a note that is more of a discussion piece then relating to the cache), or inappropriate (bad language and the like?). From my understanding if I sign the log an owner should not delete my find. Again they can ask for an edit or encrypt, but should not be able to delete.

I would think blatent spoilers would be covered by "inappropriate" - it is the CO's cache aafter all.

[+CanadianRockies]

You agree not to:... Publish, on any Groundspeak owned web property, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner.

I see that says any, but then if you combine that with the other guideline posted below it confuses me.

 

Owner is responsible for geocache listing maintenance. As the owner of your cache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache listing. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate.

To me this says I can only delete a log that is bogus (i.e. A DNF logged as a find), off-topic (a note that is more of a discussion piece then relating to the cache), or inappropriate (bad language and the like?). From my understanding if I sign the log an owner should not delete my find. Again they can ask for an edit or encrypt, but should not be able to delete.

I'm sorry you find this confusing. Maybe more from the Groundspeak guidelines will help clear things up:

 

Logs that fail to meet stated requirements (such as Found It logs by people who have never found the cache) or logs that conflict with our Terms of Use Agreement may be deleted....

 

If your log has been deleted by a listing owner and you feel that the deletion is in error, please politely send a message to the listing owner. You may also try re-logging the cache while avoiding any spoilers and meeting logging requirements.

Logs containing spoilers (without owner consent) violate Groundspeak's Terms of Use Agreement (see above). Groundspeak has made it clear that cache owners are allowed to delete Found It logs containing spoilers. However, if an owner does delete your Found It log because it contains a spoiler, then you can re-post it without the spoiler (or offensive language, off-topic discussion, etc.).

Edited September 27, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[Andronicus]

This is one from a local challenge cache. I know the CO reads these forums on a regular basis so I hope he doesn't take it personally, because he is one of my favorite cache hiders.

 

In order to count towards the challenge cache, any qualifying caches require photographic proof:

 

"In addition to logging an online find, you also must log/upload photographic evidence of that find on that cache's listing web page. A picture of the cache's physical log will do nicely."

 

This has always rubbed me the wrong way. If the owner of a qualifying cache has no reason to doubt the validity of my find and has allowed my online log to stand, then that should be good enough for a third party as well. I have specifically avoided going after this challenge cache as a minor protest against the photograph requirement.

Ahh, but that one is one of the great challange caches. Personaly, I only have 2 qualifying finds, and don't know if I kept my photos of the log book. Hopefully I uploaded them with my find logs.

 

PS, it would be fairly easy to fake the photo if you wanted anyway, so not sure what the photo is supposed to prevent...

[Andronicus]

Upon retranslating the cache description, I found that the final had vanished a few times a while ago, and the cache owner changed the logging requirement to allow people to log the cache with a photo taken at the final. So it was a good thing I took the photos....

 

Not sure if I'd log this one today, knowing there was no cache. I'd have to think about it.

I probably would. It sounds like quite an experience, and the cache was more about the journey than finding a container and writing on a piece of paper. Yes, I admit it. I have logged a find on a couple (maybe three out my 1100 something finds) on caches when I didn't actually sign the log sheet.

I'd log it as a DNF and include a great write-up. I've gone on lots of wonderful journeys that ended with a DNF. The journey has nothing to do with writing on a piece of paper or claiming a find.

I visited 2 archived virtual caches (part of the First Post Series). Rather than DNF, I used a note. Since I new that they were no longer there, I really wasn't trying to find them, so a DNF seemed a little silly. But that is just the way I see it.

[+CanadianRockies]

As I see it, every cache owner creates caches for different reasons. If a cache is placed 30 feet up in a tree then climbing the tree, opening the container, and signing the log is an integral part of the experience of finding the cache. If a cache is located a mile down a pretty trail to a specific location that offers a spectacular view, I would think that the "point" of the cache is about the journey and bringing someone to a specific location, and not so much about finding the container and signing the log once you get there. If a CO adds a "special instruction" that allows those that have experienced the journey and the place where the cache is hidden to post a found it log, that tells me that physically signing the log was not a significant aspect in the experience that the CO was trying to create. In that case, I'll much more likely adhere to the wishes of the cache owner than someone on the forum that tries to dictate to others how the game should be played.

I'm much more likely to adhere to my own ethical standards. For example, just because a cache owner says it's okay for me to log a Found It for their cache that is 1,000 miles away, it doesn't mean I will do so. Even if they explain that looking at the photos on their cache listing page was the experience they were trying to create, I still wouldn't log a Found It.

 

This is geocaching, after all. It can involve climbing trees, hiking along pretty trails, and sharing photos. But it involves more than just that...at least to me.

Edited September 27, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[jholly]

This is one from a local challenge cache. I know the CO reads these forums on a regular basis so I hope he doesn't take it personally, because he is one of my favorite cache hiders.

 

In order to count towards the challenge cache, any qualifying caches require photographic proof:

 

"In addition to logging an online find, you also must log/upload photographic evidence of that find on that cache's listing web page. A picture of the cache's physical log will do nicely."

 

This has always rubbed me the wrong way. If the owner of a qualifying cache has no reason to doubt the validity of my find and has allowed my online log to stand, then that should be good enough for a third party as well. I have specifically avoided going after this challenge cache as a minor protest against the photograph requirement.

Looks to me like a ALR that has escaped the notice of the reviewers. I'm sure this requirement will not pass the sniff test if brought before the frog. Not only does it have the ALR, but you could well argue that spoiler pictures are being published which is also something the frog does not allow.

[+Don_J]

This is one from a local challenge cache. I know the CO reads these forums on a regular basis so I hope he doesn't take it personally, because he is one of my favorite cache hiders.

 

In order to count towards the challenge cache, any qualifying caches require photographic proof:

 

"In addition to logging an online find, you also must log/upload photographic evidence of that find on that cache's listing web page. A picture of the cache's physical log will do nicely."

 

This has always rubbed me the wrong way. If the owner of a qualifying cache has no reason to doubt the validity of my find and has allowed my online log to stand, then that should be good enough for a third party as well. I have specifically avoided going after this challenge cache as a minor protest against the photograph requirement.

 

Wait, he's requiring you to post a photo to your log on my cache? It's not enough that he is controlling his cache, he wants to control the caches that you find as well?

 

I would guess that about 95% of the caches described so far in this thread would go straight to my ignore list. I simply don't get along with people that have an desire to control everything they come in contact with.

[+Don_J]

dan.. alot of people take pictures of their name in the logbook,

specielly if a cache is good, special, hard to do, FTF, or it is likely the cache could go missing easily,

I have seen many such pictures posted as find prof, even on traditionals,

you mostlikely got a cam in your phone, so no big deal to take that picture

just to make that CO happy, even if his demand is NOT ok when we read the guidelines,

but his cache is approved by a local reviewer, this means his demands are ok.

 

Just because the cache was aprpoved by a reviewer, doesn't mean the listing could have been changed after the approval. Or that it is an older cache (which was approved before the guidelineupdate) and the CO just hasn't taken the effort to change the listing.

 

Just because something is easy to do, doesn't mean I have to do it, especially it is specifically not within the (clearly stated) guidelines.

 

And, it's easy to do for all of us. My phone doesn't have a camera, and I don't tote my digital camera everywhere I go.

[+Don_J]

This is one from a local challenge cache. I know the CO reads these forums on a regular basis so I hope he doesn't take it personally, because he is one of my favorite cache hiders.

 

In order to count towards the challenge cache, any qualifying caches require photographic proof:

 

"In addition to logging an online find, you also must log/upload photographic evidence of that find on that cache's listing web page. A picture of the cache's physical log will do nicely."

 

This has always rubbed me the wrong way. If the owner of a qualifying cache has no reason to doubt the validity of my find and has allowed my online log to stand, then that should be good enough for a third party as well. I have specifically avoided going after this challenge cache as a minor protest against the photograph requirement.

Ahh, but that one is one of the great challange caches. Personaly, I only have 2 qualifying finds, and don't know if I kept my photos of the log book. Hopefully I uploaded them with my find logs.

 

PS, it would be fairly easy to fake the photo if you wanted anyway, so not sure what the photo is supposed to prevent...

 

So what happens when the control freak who owns one of your qualifying caches deletes your log because he doesn't want a photo of the logsheet on his cache page? You'll be stuck between two control freaks.

 

One cache owner telling someone how they have to log someone elses cache is way past the point of ridiculous.

[Andronicus]

This is one from a local challenge cache. I know the CO reads these forums on a regular basis so I hope he doesn't take it personally, because he is one of my favorite cache hiders.

 

In order to count towards the challenge cache, any qualifying caches require photographic proof:

 

"In addition to logging an online find, you also must log/upload photographic evidence of that find on that cache's listing web page. A picture of the cache's physical log will do nicely."

 

This has always rubbed me the wrong way. If the owner of a qualifying cache has no reason to doubt the validity of my find and has allowed my online log to stand, then that should be good enough for a third party as well. I have specifically avoided going after this challenge cache as a minor protest against the photograph requirement.

Ahh, but that one is one of the great challange caches. Personaly, I only have 2 qualifying finds, and don't know if I kept my photos of the log book. Hopefully I uploaded them with my find logs.

 

PS, it would be fairly easy to fake the photo if you wanted anyway, so not sure what the photo is supposed to prevent...

 

So what happens when the control freak who owns one of your qualifying caches deletes your log because he doesn't want a photo of the logsheet on his cache page? You'll be stuck between two control freaks.

 

One cache owner telling someone how they have to log someone elses cache is way past the point of ridiculous.

Good point.

 

However, not sure how a picture of the log book can be a spoiler?

Also, the type of people who hide caches that can qualify for the callange cache in question are not the type to be that paranoid.

[+niraD]

However, not sure how a picture of the log book can be a spoiler?

Well, if the cache is "an ammo can" with the size not specified, then a tiny strip of paper might indicate that it's a novelty micro-size "ammo can". Or vice versa: If the cache is "a micro in the woods" with the size not specified, then a full-size notebook might indicate that it's a microwave oven that has been recycled as a cache container.

[+Understandblue]

We had one where the guy said any logs from stickers or your own stamps would be deleted, pen or pencil only. Eventually that was brought up on the forums and it eventually got removed.

Yikers! I use a stamp on larger logs and so do several really prolific finders in my area.

 

Will I have to switch to a quill?

Edited September 28, 2012 by Understandblue

[+jellis]

I remember one cache in the Bay Area that you were required to lie about the cache (tell a story that wasn't true about the cache).

It sounded like fun but of course it was still an ALR.

I have forgotten about it until a friend told me that she logged a find on it and her log was deleted because she didn't read and follow the instructions.

I tried to tell the reviewer but they at first didn't see anything wrong with the cache page, because the thing was the ALR was not written on the cache page but in the Log Book.

My friend's log was reinstated. I never checked to see what happened to the cache.

Edited September 28, 2012 by jellis

[+SwineFlew]

I remember one cache in the Bay Area that you were required to lie about the cache (tell a story that wasn't true about the cache).

It sounded like fun but of course it was still an ALR.

I have forgotten about it until a friend told me that she logged a find on it and her log was deleted because she didn't read and follow the instructions.

I tried to tell the reviewer but they at first didn't see anything wrong with the cache page, because the thing was the ALR was not written on the cache page but in the Log Book.

My friend's log was reinstated. I never checked to see what happened to the cache.

We got a unknown cache like that as well. Its rated really high and yep its a rare combo as well.

[+Ma & Pa]

I remember one cache in the Bay Area that you were required to lie about the cache (tell a story that wasn't true about the cache).

It sounded like fun but of course it was still an ALR.

I have forgotten about it until a friend told me that she logged a find on it and her log was deleted because she didn't read and follow the instructions.

I tried to tell the reviewer but they at first didn't see anything wrong with the cache page, because the thing was the ALR was not written on the cache page but in the Log Book.

My friend's log was reinstated. I never checked to see what happened to the cache.

We got a unknown cache like that as well. Its rated really high and yep its a rare combo as well.

 

We have one around here also that the doesnt say you have to lie but the name implies it. There are a number of fun logs on it. Any regular log is not deleted.

 

http://coord.info/GC1H7H7

Edited September 28, 2012 by Ma & Pa

[Trinity's Crew]

In order to log this cache you must dance The Funky Chicken all the way from the parking lot to the cache site. To prove you've done this, either e-mail me with a clip of you doing so (AVI format only please)...OR...send me 2 notorized affidavits from witnesses attesting to the fact that you did this. Only after I received verification will allow you to post a log.

 

*****NOTE 1/17/2005!!!!!!!! Please be advised that The Funky Chicken and The Chicken Dance are not the same dance. Future logs (as of today) accompanied by videos of the finder doing The Chicken Dance (or any dance other than The Funky Chicken) WILL BE DELETED!!!!!!******

Where did I see that before?

Edited September 28, 2012 by Trinity's Crew

[+hzoi]

Upon retranslating the cache description, I found that the final had vanished a few times a while ago, and the cache owner changed the logging requirement to allow people to log the cache with a photo taken at the final. So it was a good thing I took the photos....

 

Not sure if I'd log this one today, knowing there was no cache. I'd have to think about it.

I probably would. It sounds like quite an experience, and the cache was more about the journey than finding a container and writing on a piece of paper. Yes, I admit it. I have logged a find on a couple (maybe three out my 1100 something finds) on caches when I didn't actually sign the log sheet.

I'd log it as a DNF and include a great write-up. I've gone on lots of wonderful journeys that ended with a DNF. The journey has nothing to do with writing on a piece of paper or claiming a find.

 

Should have clarified -- I'd log something, but I'm not sure whether these days I'd log it as "found" or not, since I never found a cache.

 

Back then, since I'd spent a couple hours on the cache and had been writing around in muddy clay groping for a nonexistant cache for a while, I was very much inclined to log a find. And I'll admit, if I had that exact same experience today, I might still be pretty darn tempted. If I went in today knowing that all I had to do was take a picture at the end of the tunnel, I'd have to think about it.

 

...every earthcache that still requires a photo to log it would qualify for this thread. The reviewers are good about enforcing this on new caches, but apparently no one has bothered to go back through older caches and bring them up to speed.

Are you sure about that? I've always wondered about that guideline. According to the Earthcache guidelines (bolding theirs):

Requests for photographs must be optional. Exceptions to this guideline will only be considered if the requested photograph is related to an Earth Science logging activity such as recording a phenomenon.

I read that as saying that if the photo is related to Earth Science (which ALL Earthcaches are), and it's for recording a phenomenon, then it may be acceptable to require it. It seems to me that a lot of Earthcaches could still require photos.

 

I should have said "just about every."

 

Very few of the ECs I've found with photo requirements that predate the guideline change had tied the photo to an earth science related activity. They have nearly always been virtual cache-type requirements: "Take a photo of you and your GPSr by the (sign, falls, what have you) or your log will be deleted."

 

Most of the time, when I see these, I'll take photos anyway, but they don't necessarily comply with the COs' mandates. Maybe we appear in 'em with GPSr in hand, maybe they're taken at the magic coordinates or at the magic sign or what have you, maybe it's just a bunch of pictures I took in and around the EC area.

[+hzoi]

I remember one cache in the Bay Area that you were required to lie about the cache (tell a story that wasn't true about the cache).

It sounded like fun but of course it was still an ALR.

I have forgotten about it until a friend told me that she logged a find on it and her log was deleted because she didn't read and follow the instructions.

I tried to tell the reviewer but they at first didn't see anything wrong with the cache page, because the thing was the ALR was not written on the cache page but in the Log Book.

My friend's log was reinstated. I never checked to see what happened to the cache.

We got a unknown cache like that as well. Its rated really high and yep its a rare combo as well.

One like that here as well. I was pretty disappointed, I was looking forward to a tough hunt, not an overgrown guardrail cache. But I was new to the area and played along.

[Clan Riffster]

Quite frankly I don't care how they justify their smilies but posting "fake" found logs can mess up future cachers as it did me and wasted my time.

My intemperate thoughts?

If you had fun searching, your time was not wasted.

 

It implies that new school is somehow exempt.

There may be some truth in the old school Vs. new school concept as relating to individual accountability. Civil trial lawyers make their fortunes convincing 12 people not bright enough to get out of jury duty, that BillyBob should not be held accountable for doing something incredibly stupid which cost him his health or his life. Come to think about it, criminal attorneys do the same thing. Our society is inherently twisted toward not putting blame where it belongs.

[jholly]

Quite frankly I don't care how they justify their smilies but posting "fake" found logs can mess up future cachers as it did me and wasted my time.

My intemperate thoughts?

If you had fun searching, your time was not wasted.

 

It implies that new school is somehow exempt.

There may be some truth in the old school Vs. new school concept as relating to individual accountability. Civil trial lawyers make their fortunes convincing 12 people not bright enough to get out of jury duty, that BillyBob should not be held accountable for doing something incredibly stupid which cost him his health or his life. Come to think about it, criminal attorneys do the same thing. Our society is inherently twisted toward not putting blame where it belongs.

Actually civil lawyers only have to convince 9 of those 12. Criminal lawyers have a much harder job.

[+SwineFlew]

I remember one cache in the Bay Area that you were required to lie about the cache (tell a story that wasn't true about the cache).

It sounded like fun but of course it was still an ALR.

I have forgotten about it until a friend told me that she logged a find on it and her log was deleted because she didn't read and follow the instructions.

I tried to tell the reviewer but they at first didn't see anything wrong with the cache page, because the thing was the ALR was not written on the cache page but in the Log Book.

My friend's log was reinstated. I never checked to see what happened to the cache.

We got a unknown cache like that as well. Its rated really high and yep its a rare combo as well.

One like that here as well. I was pretty disappointed, I was looking forward to a tough hunt, not an overgrown guardrail cache. But I was new to the area and played along.

The one I was talking about was at a old army training base. The cache write up made it sounds like something really real.

[+Don_J]

I remember one cache in the Bay Area that you were required to lie about the cache (tell a story that wasn't true about the cache).

It sounded like fun but of course it was still an ALR.

I have forgotten about it until a friend told me that she logged a find on it and her log was deleted because she didn't read and follow the instructions.

I tried to tell the reviewer but they at first didn't see anything wrong with the cache page, because the thing was the ALR was not written on the cache page but in the Log Book.

My friend's log was reinstated. I never checked to see what happened to the cache.

 

LOL. I would just log, "This was a great cache". When they deleted it, I'd tell them I was lying.

[+TxVic]

This is a very interesting thread. I am not ever going to hide a cache until I learn much more and threads like this one are very helpful. Knowing what people like and don't like to see can only keep the game pure and fun. I hope some other people share and thanks to those that have so far.

 

I haven't found that many yet, and I only did a TFTC, once so far, when mosquitoes were really getting me. But I made sure I went back and added to it. People who go to the trouble to make the caches interesting deserve more that just letters. Even people who just do an easy hide in a lamp post do too, because they took the time and gave me something to do at lunch, while in a hurry. I like that.

 

Thanks For The Thread!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

This is a very interesting thread. I am not ever going to hide a cache until I learn much more and threads like this one are very helpful. Knowing what people like and don't like to see can only keep the game pure and fun. I hope some other people share and thanks to those that have so far.

 

I haven't found that many yet, and I only did a TFTC, once so far, when mosquitoes were really getting me. But I made sure I went back and added to it. People who go to the trouble to make the caches interesting deserve more that just letters. Even people who just do an easy hide in a lamp post do too, because they took the time and gave me something to do at lunch, while in a hurry. I like that.

 

Thanks For The Thread!

 

My pleasure. However, it seems to have drifted to a thread about ALR (Additional Logging Requirement), Challenge caches, and even Earth caches.

 

Although there have been some amusing ALR caches (the funky chicken cache was a good one), I was more interested in seeing unusually instructions which describe *Alternate* logging methods such as taking an unusual photo or allowing container swapping, etc. In any case, it's been entertaining so far. Carry on.

[+CanadianRockies]

Knowing what people like and don't like to see can only keep the game pure and fun.

Hopefully, geocaching has always been fun for most of the participants. I don't think it ever has been (or will be) pure. These two observations might well be connected somehow.

Edited September 29, 2012 by CanadianRockies