Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
SwineFlew

Is this cache ALR?

Recommended Posts

A reviewer in my area unarchiving cache that been archived for close to two year but it got one problem, the cache page havent been updated to remove what I think is ALR.

 

Is this cache is ALR?

 

Here is the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

A reviewer in my area unarchiving cache that been archived for close to two year but it got one problem, the cache page havent been updated to remove what I think is ALR.

 

Is this cache is ALR?

 

Here is the cache.

 

It sounds like it from the description, but there is no threat to delete logs.

 

This is just a simple little cache, off exit 159 (DO NOT attempt to access the cache from I-5!!) but there is a catch: To log this catch, you are to create an interesting (I am the judge since this is my cache, and interesting is subjective) story. I have even placed the cache near an interesting structure you can use if you want to - just make up something (or tell the true story) about what the structure across the street is (not the freeway). You can make your story be real or completely fictional, but it should be interesting to read!! You get to log a cache, and I get some entertainment for my effort of placing and maintaining it for you. Sounds fair, doesn't it?

 

Also, there are several logs which obviously do not comply and which have not been deleted, so I'd say that it was fine.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, it is. It is essentially a liar's cache. But I agree that as long as the owner isn't attempting to delete logs that don't comply, it is on the safe side of the borderline, but just barely. He/she really should change the description to express a wish rather than a demand, IMO. But it isn't your place to post an NA, unless it has been changed since reviewer saw it when it was unarchived.

Share this post


Link to post

Looking for some clarification on this guideline. An ALR is anything that you would have to do after signing the log to have it stand?

 

I am looking for examples of stuff you'd have to do to get to/retrieve the cache that might be ruled as ALR, over which the CO would have no control, if that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post

Looking for some clarification on this guideline. An ALR is anything that you would have to do after signing the log to have it stand?

 

That's how I see it. Anything that the CO *requires* you to do (or the online log will be deleted) in *addition* to "signing the log" is, by definition, and "Additional Logging Requirement".

 

I am looking for examples of stuff you'd have to do to get to/retrieve the cache that might be ruled as ALR, over which the CO would have no control, if that makes sense.

 

Things you might have to do to get to/retrieve the cache are, to me, just aspects of "finding" the cache that can be reflected in the D/T ratings. However, something like "you must be a member of a Yacht club" to find a cache hidden on the private property of a yacht club wouldn't be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post

I am looking for examples of stuff you'd have to do to get to/retrieve the cache that might be ruled as ALR, over which the CO would have no control, if that makes sense.

 

Things you might have to do to get to/retrieve the cache are, to me, just aspects of "finding" the cache that can be reflected in the D/T ratings. However, something like "you must be a member of a Yacht club" to find a cache hidden on the private property of a yacht club wouldn't be allowed.

 

Having to email the cache owner for coordinates (even for things like a DeLorme Challenge) is a no no.

Share this post


Link to post

Looking for some clarification on this guideline. An ALR is anything that you would have to do after signing the log to have it stand?

 

That's how I see it. Anything that the CO *requires* you to do (or the online log will be deleted) in *addition* to "signing the log" is, by definition, and "Additional Logging Requirement".

 

I am looking for examples of stuff you'd have to do to get to/retrieve the cache that might be ruled as ALR, over which the CO would have no control, if that makes sense.

 

Things you might have to do to get to/retrieve the cache are, to me, just aspects of "finding" the cache that can be reflected in the D/T ratings. However, something like "you must be a member of a Yacht club" to find a cache hidden on the private property of a yacht club wouldn't be allowed.

 

This is a good example. Lets say I knew the owner(s) of the yacht club and they liked the idea of having a cache on their property. A cacher could show up for the purposes of finding the cache and they would be allowed in, no charge, no membership required. Would it still be ALR?

Share this post


Link to post

Looking for some clarification on this guideline. An ALR is anything that you would have to do after signing the log to have it stand?

 

That's how I see it. Anything that the CO *requires* you to do (or the online log will be deleted) in *addition* to "signing the log" is, by definition, and "Additional Logging Requirement".

 

I am looking for examples of stuff you'd have to do to get to/retrieve the cache that might be ruled as ALR, over which the CO would have no control, if that makes sense.

 

Things you might have to do to get to/retrieve the cache are, to me, just aspects of "finding" the cache that can be reflected in the D/T ratings. However, something like "you must be a member of a Yacht club" to find a cache hidden on the private property of a yacht club wouldn't be allowed.

 

This is a good example. Lets say I knew the owner(s) of the yacht club and they liked the idea of having a cache on their property. A cacher could show up for the purposes of finding the cache and they would be allowed in, no charge, no membership required. Would it still be ALR?

 

No, because there isn't anything "additional" required for someone to enter the property and find the cache. What you're describing is basically just a cache where explicit permission has been granted. I wouldn't even consider something like requiring someone to contact someone at the yacht club to obtain access to a specific area in the yacht club to be an ALR (but it might not be published for other reasons). Requiring someone to take a picture of the yacht club Burgee (the unique flag a yacht club flies which identifies the club) and upload it with their online log (or the log will be deleted) would be an ALR.

Share this post


Link to post

Requiring them to get a membership would be an ALR.

Requiring them to wear a blue blazer and skipper's cap while searching, or posting a picture of them in this outfit would be an ALR.

There isn't anything ALR about finding a cache placed on private property that is placed with permission.

 

There isn't anything ALR about the cited cache in the OP either. The CO is just asking for nice logs, factual or fictional, to be posted to his listing. There isn't any threat of deletion for failing to do so.

Share this post


Link to post

Requiring them to get a membership would be an ALR.

Requiring them to wear a blue blazer and skipper's cap while searching, or posting a picture of them in this outfit would be an ALR.

There isn't anything ALR about finding a cache placed on private property that is placed with permission.

 

There isn't anything ALR about the cited cache in the OP either. The CO is just asking for nice logs, factual or fictional, to be posted to his listing. There isn't any threat of deletion for failing to do so.

 

Excellent dialog here. Isn't the requirement to wear the blue blazer and skipper's cap something that is required to get to the cache, BEFORE the log is signed? Thus rendering it a PTLR (Prior To Logging Requirement)? If pre-logging requirements are ALR, then should the ISS and ocean bottom caches should not have been published as they require orbital launch or deep-sea-diving capabilities?

 

EDIT: spelling

Edited by frinklabs

Share this post


Link to post

Requiring them to get a membership would be an ALR.

Requiring them to wear a blue blazer and skipper's cap while searching, or posting a picture of them in this outfit would be an ALR.

There isn't anything ALR about finding a cache placed on private property that is placed with permission.

 

There isn't anything ALR about the cited cache in the OP either. The CO is just asking for nice logs, factual or fictional, to be posted to his listing. There isn't any threat of deletion for failing to do so.

 

Excellent dialog here. Isn't the requirement to wear the blue blazer and skipper's cap something that is required to get to the cache, BEFORE the log is signed? Thus rendering it a PTLR (Prior To Logging Requirement)? If pre-logging requirements are ALR, then should the ISS and ocean bottom caches should not have been published as they require orbital launch or deep-sea-diving capabilities?

 

EDIT: spelling

 

Doesn't matter if the requirement is something before, or after you log. Just matters if it is an additional requirement.

 

The ISS and Ocean bottom caches require special equipment to get to, but no special requirement to do anything but get there. The special equipment might be needed, but if you could find a way to get there you can log them.

Share this post


Link to post

Requiring them to get a membership would be an ALR.

Requiring them to wear a blue blazer and skipper's cap while searching, or posting a picture of them in this outfit would be an ALR.

There isn't anything ALR about finding a cache placed on private property that is placed with permission.

 

There isn't anything ALR about the cited cache in the OP either. The CO is just asking for nice logs, factual or fictional, to be posted to his listing. There isn't any threat of deletion for failing to do so.

 

Excellent dialog here. Isn't the requirement to wear the blue blazer and skipper's cap something that is required to get to the cache, BEFORE the log is signed? Thus rendering it a PTLR (Prior To Logging Requirement)? If pre-logging requirements are ALR, then should the ISS and ocean bottom caches should not have been published as they require orbital launch or deep-sea-diving capabilities?

 

EDIT: spelling

 

Doesn't matter if the requirement is something before, or after you log. Just matters if it is an additional requirement.

 

The ISS and Ocean bottom caches require special equipment to get to, but no special requirement to do anything but get there. The special equipment might be needed, but if you could find a way to get there you can log them.

 

Is that the intent of this guideline? It was my understanding that it was introduced because of increasingly ridiculous and non-relevant requirements that were being forced upon finders by the CO, under threat of log deletion.

 

In the context of the yacht club, finding a way to get there would include the blazer and cap, requirements that are not introduced or enforced by the cache owner.

 

Additionally, proof of being capped and blazered would not need to be provided to log the cache; once you have signed, there is no justification that the CO would have to delete your log.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe this will help clarify the difference between an ALR and something you just have to do to find the cache:

 

Consider a cache anchored to a tree trunk 30ft/10m off the ground. Clearly, the cache's location provides an obstacle to those seeking it. To sign the log, seekers must climb the tree, or use a ladder or similar tool to get to the cache, or possibly use some other tool to retrieve and replace the cache from the ground. Putting the cache in the tree does not create an ALR, because the actions taken by seekers are just part of what they need to do to find the cache.

 

Now let's say that the CO intended for seekers to climb the tree, and has decided that no other alternative is acceptable. This is where the CO will get into trouble. Requiring a photo of the geocacher in the tree next to the cache would be an ALR. Even merely requiring seekers to climb the tree instead of using alternative techniques would be an ALR (although that doesn't make techniques like cutting down the tree without permission acceptable).

 

As far as other ALR examples, the ones I saw were either about how you wrote your log (e.g., mention your favorite pizza toppings, or write your log in verse) or were rather challenge-like (e.g., find one of the CO's signature items and post a photo of it). The log-related ones still survive, but it's now an Additional Logging Request, instead of an Additional Logging Requirement.

Share this post


Link to post

Requiring them to get a membership would be an ALR.

Requiring them to wear a blue blazer and skipper's cap while searching, or posting a picture of them in this outfit would be an ALR.

There isn't anything ALR about finding a cache placed on private property that is placed with permission.

 

There isn't anything ALR about the cited cache in the OP either. The CO is just asking for nice logs, factual or fictional, to be posted to his listing. There isn't any threat of deletion for failing to do so.

 

Excellent dialog here. Isn't the requirement to wear the blue blazer and skipper's cap something that is required to get to the cache, BEFORE the log is signed? Thus rendering it a PTLR (Prior To Logging Requirement)? If pre-logging requirements are ALR, then should the ISS and ocean bottom caches should not have been published as they require orbital launch or deep-sea-diving capabilities?

 

EDIT: spelling

 

Doesn't matter if the requirement is something before, or after you log. Just matters if it is an additional requirement.

 

The ISS and Ocean bottom caches require special equipment to get to, but no special requirement to do anything but get there. The special equipment might be needed, but if you could find a way to get there you can log them.

 

Is that the intent of this guideline? It was my understanding that it was introduced because of increasingly ridiculous and non-relevant requirements that were being forced upon finders by the CO, under threat of log deletion.

 

In the context of the yacht club, finding a way to get there would include the blazer and cap, requirements that are not introduced or enforced by the cache owner.

 

Additionally, proof of being capped and blazered would not need to be provided to log the cache; once you have signed, there is no justification that the CO would have to delete your log.

 

The blazer and cap requirement muddies the waters a bit.

 

If the CO threatens deleting a log unless the finder uploads a picture of themselves wearing a nautical blazer and cap then it would definitely be an ALR.

 

However, if the yacht club has a dress code that requires anyone on the premises to wear a blazer and cap that's not something imposed by the CO and isn't much different than a cache in a state park that has a daily use fee. It sounds kind of odd, but wearing a blazer and cap might be thought of as part of negotiating the terrain to get to the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Lucky that I didnt updated my GSAK file and I found that they changed the wording a bit.

 

"This is just a simple little cache, off exit 159 (DO NOT attempt to access the cache from I-5!!) but there is a catch: To log this catch, you MUST create an interesting (I am the judge since this is my cache, and interesting is subjective) story. I have even placed the cache near an interesting structure you can use if you want to - just make up something (or tell the true story) about what the structure across the street is (not the freeway). You can make your story be real or completely fictional, but it must be interesting to read!! You get to log a cache, and I get some entertainment for my effort of placing and maintaining it for you. Sounds fair, doesn't it?"

Share this post


Link to post

Is that the before or after wording?

Before I started this thread.

Well, time for someone to test it out. If a "TFTC" log is put down, and not deleted, I don't really see how the wording (as it stands now on the cache page) makes it an ALR.

 

If the owner DP4C decides to delete any non-story log, then it is clearly an ALR. There are many caches (Earthcaches even have it in their approval guidelines) that encourage something to happen (a photo, a poem, etc), but can not, according to Groundspeak guidelines, require those activities for a "Found it" log to stand.

Share this post


Link to post

There are many caches (Earthcaches even have it in their approval guidelines) that encourage something to happen (a photo, a poem, etc), but can not, according to Groundspeak guidelines, require those activities for a "Found it" log to stand.

Actually, EarthCaches must have an Additional Logging Requirement(s) to be approved. According to Groundspeak, "An EarthCache must include logging tasks which relate to - and help teach - the Earth Science lesson."

Share this post


Link to post

There are many caches (Earthcaches even have it in their approval guidelines) that encourage something to happen (a photo, a poem, etc), but can not, according to Groundspeak guidelines, require those activities for a "Found it" log to stand.

Actually, EarthCaches must have an Additional Logging Requirement(s) to be approved. According to Groundspeak, "An EarthCache must include logging tasks which relate to - and help teach - the Earth Science lesson."

Um, right. But just below that #6 Guidelineit says:

"7. 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. This particular guidelines was updated on 1 January 2011. All EarthCaches must conform to this guideline as photo requests are considered "optional tasks" and follow the guidelines set forth by Geocaching.com.

Existing EarthCaches that do not meet this guideline must be updated to comply. Cache owners may not delete the cacher's log based solely on optional tasks."

 

That's what I'm referring to. Earthcaches are ALR caches, but there's no log. Because there is no log, this type of cache requires an alternate method of logging. The quote you have from me agrees with what you said after it.

Edited by NeverSummer

Share this post


Link to post

There are limited conditions in which logs can be deleted.

- Profanity or non family friendly language.

- Breaking the law, or rules of the park

- Not signing the logbook

- Posting obvious spoilers, or final coordinates to multis and puzzles.

 

Challenge caches, Earthcaches, and virtuals are exempt, as the requirements are inherently part of the ALR.

Requiring special club membership is not by definition an ALR, although the area should be available to the public with only an entrance fee and/or with specialized knowledge such as climbing, boating, scuba diving, ect.

 

Well, time for someone to test it out. If a "TFTC" log is put down, and not deleted, I don't really see how the wording (as it stands now on the cache page) makes it an ALR.

 

There are several logs that do not comply from a few years ago which are still on the page.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool

Share this post


Link to post

There are limited conditions in which logs can be deleted.

...

- Breaking the law, or rules of the park

This one had me heading for the guidelines. The guidelines don't explicitly mention illegal actions. They could maybe fall under "otherwise inappropriate", but I'm not so sure. I interpret their use of "inappropriate" as relating to the content of the log itself, not the actions in the field. If a cacher broke a law, but found the cache and signed the log, the online log would probably be allowed to stand by TPTB (barring a major offense, like committing a murder on the way to the cache, of course :o ).

 

- Not signing the logbook

That should actually read "Not finding the cache". As has been mentioned in other discussions, there are scenarios where signing the log just isn't possible, but you did still legitimately find the cache. If a finder wasn't able to sign the log, but posted a non-spoiler photo proving their visit, I fully believe TPTB would stand behind the finder.

 

- Posting obvious spoilers, or final coordinates to multis and puzzles.

Nothing to nitpick here ( :laughing: ), I just wanted to point out that this falls under the site Terms of Use (section 4-(m) ). This isn't even mentioned in the guidelines regarding log deletion, but it probably should (though the Terms of Use are mentioned on the deeper Log Deletion page).

Share this post


Link to post
- Not signing the logbook

That should actually read "Not finding the cache". As has been mentioned in other discussions, there are scenarios where signing the log just isn't possible, but you did still legitimately find the cache. If a finder wasn't able to sign the log, but posted a non-spoiler photo proving their visit, I fully believe TPTB would stand behind the finder.

 

I'm not sure "finding the cache" works either. Just seeing it 40' up in the tree shouldn't allow a cacher to log the find.

Share this post


Link to post
If a cacher broke a law, but found the cache and signed the log, the online log would probably be allowed to stand by TPTB (barring a major offense, like committing a murder on the way to the cache, of course :o ).

Even if the FTF was still up for grabs? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
If a cacher broke a law, but found the cache and signed the log, the online log would probably be allowed to stand by TPTB (barring a major offense, like committing a murder on the way to the cache, of course :o ).

Even if the FTF was still up for grabs? :ph34r:

 

If the cachers go in after the park is closed, I believe the log can be deleted from what the moderators have posted in these forums over the years. Breaking the law is forbidden in the guidelines, but not specifically spelled out as grounds for log deletion.

 

Previously cachers were allowed to delete logs for any reason they felt like, which is how ALRs were developed.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool

Share this post


Link to post

The blazer and cap requirement muddies the waters a bit.

 

If the CO threatens deleting a log unless the finder uploads a picture of themselves wearing a nautical blazer and cap then it would definitely be an ALR.

 

However, if the yacht club has a dress code that requires anyone on the premises to wear a blazer and cap that's not something imposed by the CO and isn't much different than a cache in a state park that has a daily use fee. It sounds kind of odd, but wearing a blazer and cap might be thought of as part of negotiating the terrain to get to the cache.

 

This yacht club is of course a bit of a deviation from the OP, but I found this interesting. I agree with above, that the dress code is not an ALR, and should be fine. If you think about it other caches have some dress code - e.g. a cache hidden inside a library or other building may require shoes and a shirt. The blazer and cap may be more extreme, but it's the same idea.

Share this post


Link to post

The blazer and cap requirement muddies the waters a bit.

 

If the CO threatens deleting a log unless the finder uploads a picture of themselves wearing a nautical blazer and cap then it would definitely be an ALR.

 

However, if the yacht club has a dress code that requires anyone on the premises to wear a blazer and cap that's not something imposed by the CO and isn't much different than a cache in a state park that has a daily use fee. It sounds kind of odd, but wearing a blazer and cap might be thought of as part of negotiating the terrain to get to the cache.

 

This yacht club is of course a bit of a deviation from the OP, but I found this interesting. I agree with above, that the dress code is not an ALR, and should be fine. If you think about it other caches have some dress code - e.g. a cache hidden inside a library or other building may require shoes and a shirt. The blazer and cap may be more extreme, but it's the same idea.

 

I'm not that familiar with yacht clubs. Are you saying that I wouldn't be allowed to enter unless I dress like Mr. Howell? What if I dress like Gilligan? (At least I'm past that stage where I liked to dress like Ginger.)

Share this post


Link to post

The blazer and cap requirement muddies the waters a bit.

 

If the CO threatens deleting a log unless the finder uploads a picture of themselves wearing a nautical blazer and cap then it would definitely be an ALR.

 

However, if the yacht club has a dress code that requires anyone on the premises to wear a blazer and cap that's not something imposed by the CO and isn't much different than a cache in a state park that has a daily use fee. It sounds kind of odd, but wearing a blazer and cap might be thought of as part of negotiating the terrain to get to the cache.

 

This yacht club is of course a bit of a deviation from the OP, but I found this interesting. I agree with above, that the dress code is not an ALR, and should be fine. If you think about it other caches have some dress code - e.g. a cache hidden inside a library or other building may require shoes and a shirt. The blazer and cap may be more extreme, but it's the same idea.

 

I'm not that familiar with yacht clubs. Are you saying that I wouldn't be allowed to enter unless I dress like Mr. Howell? What if I dress like Gilligan? (At least I'm past that stage where I liked to dress like Ginger.)

 

For the past couple of years I've been a member of a yacht club. As far as I know there isn't an dress code, and members aren't even required to own a boat.

Share this post


Link to post

I am wondering if one of the forumites who is also a reviewer might weigh in here, and let me know if they would publish the hypothetical dress-code-required yacht club cache?

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

I am wondering if one of the forumites who is also a reviewer might weigh in here, and let me know if they would publish the hypothetical dress-code-required yacht club cache?

 

Thanks!

 

It's not any different than a cache that requires scuba gear. Neither are ALRs.

Share this post


Link to post

I am wondering if one of the forumites who is also a reviewer might weigh in here, and let me know if they would publish the hypothetical dress-code-required yacht club cache?

 

Thanks!

 

It's not any different than a cache that requires scuba gear. Neither are ALRs.

 

I know it.

 

You know it.

 

I'd like to see a reviewer acknowledge it.

Share this post


Link to post

If the cache is placed with permission on private property and there is a reasonable dress code to enter the property, I would probably publish it. You couldn't go into a library or restaurant without a shirt or shoes on.

 

But if the cache was placed on the site of a nudist colony and you could only get the cache by getting nekkid I wouldn't publish it.

 

And if you had to wear the specified attire as a condition for logging the cache it would be an ALR and would not be published.

 

Are there really yacht clubs out there that require wearing a blazer simply to be on the property? If there are I doubt that they would ever grant permission for a cache.

 

Back when ALR's were discontinued, but before they were all edited or archived I got into a dustup as a player with a CO who threatened to delete my find because I failed to post a pic of me wearing the raggedy ann wig that was in the cache. Silly carp like that are exactly why ALR's were done away with and not even grandfathered in.

Edited by NCreviewer

Share this post


Link to post

If the cache is placed with permission on private property and there is a reasonable dress code to enter the property, I would probably publish it. You couldn't go into a library or restaurant without a shirt or shoes on.

 

But if the cache was placed on the site of a nudist colony and you could only get the cache by getting nekkid I wouldn't publish it.

 

And if you had to wear the specified attire as a condition for logging the cache it would be an ALR and would not be published.

 

Are there really yacht clubs out there that require wearing a blazer simply to be on the property? If there are I doubt that they would ever grant permission for a cache.

 

Back when ALR's were discontinued, but before they were all edited or archived I got into a dustup as a player with a CO who threatened to delete my find because I failed to post a pic of me wearing the raggedy ann wig that was in the cache. Silly carp like that are exactly why ALR's were done away with and not even grandfathered in.

 

How is there a difference between a dress code and an un-dress code?

Share this post


Link to post

 

How is there a difference between a dress code and an un-dress code?

 

I'd say it should be OK, as long as it's properly rated a D5 for 'Special Equipment Required'. ;)

 

EDITED to clarify:

 

'Cause like if your equipment isn't special enough, you probably shouldn't be there.

 

:lol:

Edited by AZcachemeister

Share this post


Link to post

(Speculation):

The difference between a dress code and an undress code (for the nudist colony) could be related to the "family friendly" policy.

Share this post


Link to post

(Speculation):

The difference between a dress code and an undress code (for the nudist colony) could be related to the "family friendly" policy.

 

But not an ALR.

Share this post


Link to post

There are many caches (Earthcaches even have it in their approval guidelines) that encourage something to happen (a photo, a poem, etc), but can not, according to Groundspeak guidelines, require those activities for a "Found it" log to stand.

Actually, EarthCaches must have an Additional Logging Requirement(s) to be approved. According to Groundspeak, "An EarthCache must include logging tasks which relate to - and help teach - the Earth Science lesson."

Um, right. But just below that #6 Guidelineit says:

"7. 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. This particular guidelines was updated on 1 January 2011. All EarthCaches must conform to this guideline as photo requests are considered "optional tasks" and follow the guidelines set forth by Geocaching.com.

Existing EarthCaches that do not meet this guideline must be updated to comply. Cache owners may not delete the cacher's log based solely on optional tasks."

 

That's what I'm referring to. Earthcaches are ALR caches, but there's no log. Because there is no log, this type of cache requires an alternate method of logging. The quote you have from me agrees with what you said after it.

I challenged this part once. It was you had to photograph a tool. I contacted GC and a lackey/reviewer said it was allowed because it was a phenomenon. A Man Made Tool a phenomenon? I had also contacted the EC reviewer and they said NO! it is not allowed as a requirement.

Edited by jellis

Share this post


Link to post

Lucky that I didnt updated my GSAK file and I found that they changed the wording a bit.

 

"This is just a simple little cache, off exit 159 (DO NOT attempt to access the cache from I-5!!) but there is a catch: To log this catch, you MUST create an interesting (I am the judge since this is my cache, and interesting is subjective) story. I have even placed the cache near an interesting structure you can use if you want to - just make up something (or tell the true story) about what the structure across the street is (not the freeway). You can make your story be real or completely fictional, but it must be interesting to read!! You get to log a cache, and I get some entertainment for my effort of placing and maintaining it for you. Sounds fair, doesn't it?"

I see it as a requirement even if they don't say they will delete your log. They should add "you can write a story"

By your message I am sure they got told they can't require it either now.

 

Note added: I actually did this one, but it was prior to the change in the ALR.

I saved the original write up on it. I don't remember doing it but I see I made a change in it almost a month after I logged it. With what I said in my log I wonder if I ended up with a message from the CO to make a change in my log.

Edited by jellis

Share this post


Link to post

Lucky that I didnt updated my GSAK file and I found that they changed the wording a bit.

 

"This is just a simple little cache, off exit 159 (DO NOT attempt to access the cache from I-5!!) but there is a catch: To log this catch, you MUST create an interesting (I am the judge since this is my cache, and interesting is subjective) story. I have even placed the cache near an interesting structure you can use if you want to - just make up something (or tell the true story) about what the structure across the street is (not the freeway). You can make your story be real or completely fictional, but it must be interesting to read!! You get to log a cache, and I get some entertainment for my effort of placing and maintaining it for you. Sounds fair, doesn't it?"

I see it as a requirement even if they don't say they will delete your log. They should add "you can write a story"

By your message I am sure they got told they can't require it either now.

 

Note added: I actually did this one, but it was prior to the change in the ALR.

I saved the original write up on it. I don't remember doing it but I see I made a change in it almost a month after I logged it. With what I said in my log I wonder if I ended up with a message from the CO to make a change in my log.

 

I agree with this. Some people could come home after finding the cache, read the description and decide that it is impossible to write an interesting log for what may be an uninteresting cache. They may not be aware that the CO can't force them to do anything but put their moniker in the logbook, and thus not log it online. The absence of a threat to delete logs doesn't change the fact that he is making demands by using terms such as "must".

 

If I were to find this cache, my interesting log would be the now famous quote from the guidelines on logging of physical caches.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×
×
  • Create New...