Bonus cache

[+KRON family]

What is it bonus cache?

Is it bonus, or cache only? Which statement is true? What do you think?

- "It's a classic cache. The only requirement is an entry in the logbook. It does not matter if you found all serial caches, get coordinates from friends or you find it completely by accident. "

- "It's a bonus. Something else for something. You can log it as found, only if you have found all serial caches."

Thank you.

[Pup Patrol]

What is it bonus cache?

Is it bonus, or cache only? Which statement is true? What do you think?

- "It's a classic cache. The only requirement is an entry in the logbook. It does not matter if you found all serial caches, get coordinates from friends or you find it completely by accident. "

- "It's a bonus. Something else for something. You can log it as found, only if you have found all serial caches."

Thank you.

 

What I've seen around here is that a series of caches have a part of the coordinates that are for a different cache. Find the series, gather all the coordinates, and you can then look for the bonus cache. The bonus cache is a stand-alone cache, and it's usually published as an "Unknown", " ? ", cache.

 

Help Center → Geocaching → Review Process: Hiding a Geocache

4.14. Puzzle/Mystery/Unknown

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=277

 

relevant section of that article:

 

Bonus Caches

 

Clues to the bonus cache location (often coordinates, or partial coordinates in several caches) are hidden in one or more other caches. Generally, clues for a bonus cache should not be placed in another bonus cache, and the bonus cache belongs to the owner of the caches where clues are found.

 

 

B.

[+KRON family]

So can I delete FoundIt log at my bonus cache, if any geocacher has not found all serial caches?

[+Ruddles1325]

All types of caches are just caches. If someone can find a cache without completing all the steps the CO designed then they still found it. It might be annoying but the fact is they found it. We have has some drama over exactly this kind of thing in my area, and depending on the methods the finder uses to get to the bonus, it can really annoy people. Just means the CO had to work harder at designing the bonus....

[Pup Patrol]

So can I delete FoundIt log at my bonus cache, if any geocacher has not found all serial caches?

 

If they signed the log book for the bonus cache, I wouldn't delete the "found it".

 

It's not worth the aggravation to delete a find if they found it, one way or the other, and signed the log book. Their signature proves they found the cache. Can't ask for much more than that.

 

It's the same with any type of cache. People can stumble upon them, get coordinates from others, use logic, or any other means. In the end, they found the cache.

 

If they did not sign the log book, and can't provide good evidence that they found it, then you might have a case for deleting their on-line "found it" log.

 

B.

[+KRON family]

If they signed the log book for the bonus cache, I wouldn't delete the "found it".

 

Thanks. A great reason for find all challenge caches, if major is sign in logbook for any cache types.

 

Just a question... Why is it named "bonus cache", if it is "finditwhenyouwant cache"? Bonus mean this: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bonus

[+wimseyguy]

So can I delete FoundIt log at my bonus cache, if any geocacher has not found all serial caches?

 

No you can not. The guidelines are quite clear on this.

You cannot require that they find all serial caches in order to find the bonus.

 

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache 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.

[+dprovan]

So can I delete FoundIt log at my bonus cache, if any geocacher has not found all serial caches?

No, you can't delete their find. But your description can explain how dishonorable it would be to claim this find without finding the others first, if that's what you want. But even if you want to publically shame people for breaking your rules, I suggest that privately you accept and, perhaps, even find humor in the ways people find of getting around your requirements. Always remember that the most important thing is they found and enjoyed your cache!

 

I've seen bonus caches that go both ways, including some where the bonus cache still exists and is found, while the bonus cache description acknowledges that several of the "required" caches are long gone. Personally, I try to follow the CO's desires, so if they're relaxed about how you find the final, I might skip some of the others. But if the CO seems intent on the others being found first, I try to do it that way, although more than once I've had to fudge the final because a required cache or two was out of action when I was working on the series.

[+Don_J]

If they signed the log book for the bonus cache, I wouldn't delete the "found it".

 

Thanks. A great reason for find all challenge caches, if major is sign in logbook for any cache types.

 

Just a question... Why is it named "bonus cache", if it is "finditwhenyouwant cache"? Bonus mean this: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bonus

 

Why do you want to confuse the issue? A bonus cache is different than a challenge cache and it has a different set of guidelines and logging requirements.

 

It sounds like you set up a great big hoop and someone failed to jump through it. You need to put down the dictionary and read Groundspeak's guidelines. It's really silly to Get bent all out of shape because someone didn't find your cache the way that you wanted him to. Honestly, if you don't approve of it, why would go out and do it yourself?

[+lamoracke]

if its a series and you found it by accident and did not find the others yet, its probably safe to ask the CO first before logging, most I bet will have no problem with you logging the find. I should have asked one earlier in my cache life in retrospect, but I would do so going forward.

 

If its a challenge cache, most COs will not mind you sign it while there (never understood why some get upset if you do, but some do), but either way, signing in advance or not, you cannot claim a find on it until you complete the requirements.

[+Don_J]

So can I delete FoundIt log at my bonus cache, if any geocacher has not found all serial caches?

No, you can't delete their find. But your description can explain how dishonorable it would be to claim this find without finding the others first, if that's what you want. But even if you want to publically shame people for breaking your rules, I suggest that privately you accept and, perhaps, even find humor in the ways people find of getting around your requirements. Always remember that the most important thing is they found and enjoyed your cache!

 

I've seen bonus caches that go both ways, including some where the bonus cache still exists and is found, while the bonus cache description acknowledges that several of the "required" caches are long gone. Personally, I try to follow the CO's desires, so if they're relaxed about how you find the final, I might skip some of the others. But if the CO seems intent on the others being found first, I try to do it that way, although more than once I've had to fudge the final because a required cache or two was out of action when I was working on the series.

 

Really, really bad idea. Your description should be about your cache or the location. It should not be a platform for calling out other cachers because you don't like the way that they play the game.

 

Anyone that has followed the years log drama in Illinois can see exactly where tactics like this will get you.

[+Straight-Cache-Homey]

Oh come on it's a bonus cache not a challenge! If cachers can find some other way it and it's not specifically a challenge cache you're out of luck. Accept it and move on.

[+KRON family]

Yes, I get it now. A bonus cache is different than a challenge cache. It sounds like situation in our politics: Bribes are prohibited, but commissions are required. In simple - it's stupid.

Lock this topic please, I am disgusted by the rules. No wonder, why some players do not want to place any cache...

[+Don_J]

Yes, I get it now. A bonus cache is different than a challenge cache. It sounds like situation in our politics: Bribes are prohibited, but commissions are required. In simple - it's stupid.

Lock this topic please, I am disgusted by the rules. No wonder, why some players do not want to place any cache...

 

At this point, most people with control issues pick up their game pieces and quit playing.

 

This is supposed to be a simple fun activity. When people insist on inserting drama, politics and their own issues with control, it's no longer fun.

 

Read this out loud, "It's my cache and you will find it the way that I say you will find it, and that's final".

[+Maingray]

 

At this point, most people with control issues pick up their game pieces and quit playing.

 

This is supposed to be a simple fun activity. When people insist on inserting drama, politics and their own issues with control, it's no longer fun.

 

 

+1

[+dprovan]

But your description can explain how dishonorable it would be to claim this find without finding the others first, if that's what you want.

Really, really bad idea. Your description should be about your cache or the location. It should not be a platform for calling out other cachers because you don't like the way that they play the game.

Gee, limiting myself to discussing the cache and the location would make it really difficult to do a normal puzzle cache. This is, after all, a type of puzzle cache, it's perfectly reasonable to explain the intended rules -- i.e., the puzzle -- and, if desired, speak ill of people that don't follow them. I would suggest doing it with general statements at the time of publication rather than calling out specific individuals and actions after the fact. And, if it were me, I'd do it in a good natured way, with a wink towards the fact that there's not a darned thing I can do about it if anyone doesn't follow my rules.

 

Anyone that has followed the years log drama in Illinois can see exactly where tactics like this will get you.

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. Was it a problem caused by someone saying, "And I'll be very, very disappointed in anyone not following my rules. I might even cry."? Or was it a problem with someone being nasty?

[+wimseyguy]

Yes, I get it now. A bonus cache is different than a challenge cache. It sounds like situation in our politics: Bribes are prohibited, but commissions are required. In simple - it's stupid.

Lock this topic please, I am disgusted by the rules. No wonder, why some players do not want to place any cache...

 

You are correct, a bonus cache is different from a challenge cache. And you cannot create a challenge cache that requires finding a specific list of caches to qualify.

 

But think about this-what if your bonus cache needed me to find caches 1-6 in order to get the actual coords of N 50° 43.ABC E 015° 11.DEF and I found 1-5 and only needed to find #6 to get F. Or I could just use a 5, and widen my search area by 30' east and west of my GZ and still find the bonus cache. How am I breaking any rules?

 

If you want this thread locked, click the report button under your post-that will notify the moderators.

But this is a valid discussion and one worth continuing.

[Keystone]

If you want this thread locked, click the report button under your post-that will notify the moderators.

But this is a valid discussion and one worth continuing.

If a good discussion is taking place, the moderators may choose not to honor an OP's request to close their thread. If it's degenerated into a flame war and the OP requests their thread to be locked, we'll usually oblige. For someone with control issues, this can be disconcerting.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Why does someone automatically have "control issues" just because they give a darn?

 

Maybe we should just

 

1) make all Challenge and EarthCache requirements optional

2) ask puzzle cache owners to post their puzzle finals on their cache pages

3) make signing the physical log optional

 

It's just supposed to be a fun game, right?

[+Roman!]

Why does someone automatically have "control issues" just because they give a darn?

 

Maybe we should just

 

1) make all Challenge and EarthCache requirements optional

2) ask puzzle cache owners to post their puzzle finals on their cache pages

3) make signing the physical log optional

 

It's just supposed to be a fun game, right?

 

Signing the log was a part of Geocaching right from the first cache, the rest I agree with.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Challenge Caches are special and IMO should have their own cache type. No puzzle, despite being a Mystery. It is the only kind of cache where finding it does not neccesarily allow logging a Found log.

 

Bonus caches are a kind of puzzle where the answer is hidden in other caches, rather than the cache page or an encyclopedia.. Like puzzle caches, bonus caches can be found other ways.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Why does someone automatically have "control issues" just because they give a darn?

 

The control issues discussion stems from the fact a CO doesn't want a Found It to stand if a finder didn't do the series + bonus in the way they wanted a person to do it. If the CO lays out the series such that a finder can "short circuit" it, that's their problem, not the finders.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Why does someone automatically have "control issues" just because they give a darn?

 

The control issues discussion stems from the fact a CO doesn't want a Found It to stand if a finder didn't do the series + bonus in the way they wanted a person to do it. If the CO lays out the series such that a finder can "short circuit" it, that's their problem, not the finders.

 

Huh? I don't think the OP has given us enough detail to draw any conclusions.

 

If someone bumped into their bonus cache by accident and the OP was making a big deal about it, I would agree with you.

 

However, if someone found their bonus cache by getting the coordinates from their friend, I would be just as annoyed as the OP.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Why does someone automatically have "control issues" just because they give a darn?

 

The control issues discussion stems from the fact a CO doesn't want a Found It to stand if a finder didn't do the series + bonus in the way they wanted a person to do it. If the CO lays out the series such that a finder can "short circuit" it, that's their problem, not the finders.

 

Huh? I don't think the OP has given us enough detail to draw any conclusions.

 

If someone bumped into their bonus cache by accident and the OP was making a big deal about it, I would agree with you.

 

However, if someone found their bonus cache by getting the coordinates from their friend, I would be just as annoyed as the OP.

 

From the OPs posts, it is clear he is upset someone was able to log their Bonus cache without finding all of the caches in the series leading up to the bonus, no matter how it was found.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I've got a private email from the OP and it seems to me that's it not that someone innocently bumped into the final.

 

From what he's told me, it sounds to me like there's a general attitude in his area that as long as their names on the logbook, they don't give a darn how it got there or whether the CO cares.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Why does someone automatically have "control issues" just because they give a darn?

 

The control issues discussion stems from the fact a CO doesn't want a Found It to stand if a finder didn't do the series + bonus in the way they wanted a person to do it. If the CO lays out the series such that a finder can "short circuit" it, that's their problem, not the finders.

 

Huh? I don't think the OP has given us enough detail to draw any conclusions.

 

If someone bumped into their bonus cache by accident and the OP was making a big deal about it, I would agree with you.

 

However, if someone found their bonus cache by getting the coordinates from their friend, I would be just as annoyed as the OP.

 

No. BBWolf+3Pigs is correct. Sign log, get smiley is the standard (expect for EarthCaches and Challenge Caches, and WebCam Caches.) Sixteen people hiking about logging devious mystery caches that only one or two have solved? The signatures are on the cache log. "Couldn't find the cache, so I used PAF"? (Do you know how many times I've seen that?) Signature is on the cache log. And, yes. I have brute forced a few. My signature is on the caches log. "Sign log. Get smiley" is the guideline standard.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Hey, just because you can get away with something according to the "rules", doesn't make it morally correct. I think if the cache owner wishes that people only log the bonus cache if they found all in the series, cachers should respect that. Otherwise Groundspeak may as well just require all people placing bonus caches to list the final coordinates on the cache page.

[Keystone]

If you want to hide five containers and force people to find them in order to find a sixth container, place a multicache.

 

There, that was easy.

[+The_Incredibles_]

If you want to hide five containers and force people to find them in order to find a sixth container, place a multicache.

 

There, that was easy.

 

Nice try, but they'll skip the 5 containers and just email their friend for the final coordinates. Life is easier that way.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Hey! Surprising that some people so not understand the guidelines. The guideline is: "Sign log. Get smiley." Requiring someone to 'find the cache as the CO 'intended'' is an ALR. "Alternative Logging Requirement." Nope. The guideline is "Sign log. Get smiley." Does not make any difference if you were in the group of twenty-three, or you saw the cache owner hide the cache, or tripped over it by accident. Or brute forced it. If you signed the log, you have a valid 'find'.

[+The A-Team]

From what he's told me, it sounds to me like there's a general attitude in his area that as long as their names on the logbook, they don't give a darn how it got there or whether the CO cares.

As long as they actually visited the cache and their name is signed, as opposed to having someone sign their name in absentia, I don't see where the problem is. Finding a cache is a binary action: you either found it or you didn't find it. There aren't any intermediate levels of finding, like "Found it the way the owner intended". All there is is "Found it". I've had several cachers stumble upon a puzzle cache of mine and claim finds (including yourself, I just noticed), and I have exactly zero problem with that. They found it.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Sure, your find is 'valid', but why do it if you know if makes the cache owner upset? Actually, even if it didn't make the cache owner upset, I can't understand why you would it.

 

If the cache owner was requesting that you do a hand-stand at GZ, I could see this an being unreasonable.

 

However, there's nothing unreasonable about expecting someone to finish a series in order to find the coordinates for the 'bonus'.

 

I've got a series I've nearly finished. It will be 15 caches spread throughout the city with 1 final bonus cache. I'd like the bonus cache to be something extra special, as a reward for those who patiently travelled around town collecting all the required numbers. It would be kind of silly if someone just emailed their friend for the final coordinates without doing the whole series. I may be REQUIRED to accept their log (they followed the rules, right?), but I'm still going to do alot of eye-rolling....kind of like this....

[+The_Incredibles_]

From what he's told me, it sounds to me like there's a general attitude in his area that as long as their names on the logbook, they don't give a darn how it got there or whether the CO cares.

As long as they actually visited the cache and their name is signed, as opposed to having someone sign their name in absentia, I don't see where the problem is. Finding a cache is a binary action: you either found it or you didn't find it. There aren't any intermediate levels of finding, like "Found it the way the owner intended". All there is is "Found it". I've had several cachers stumble upon a puzzle cache of mine and claim finds (including yourself, I just noticed), and I have exactly zero problem with that. They found it.

 

Thanks for pointing this out. I've spent some time re-evaluating how I logged things in my 'early days' and I won't be taking advantage of 'dumb luck' anymore. The few that I logged like this never felt right. I will do the puzzle or delete my log.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Finding a cache is a binary action: you either found it or you didn't find it. There aren't any intermediate levels of finding, like "Found it the way the owner intended". All there is is "Found it".

 

Life is more complicated than 1s and 0s. I could log my own cache 5 times a day if I liked. It would be allowed, but should I do it?

 

You could distribute a spreadsheet of puzzle finals to all your friends to save them time, but you probably wouldn't. Actually, you could post the finals for all your puzzles on your cache pages, but you wouldn't do that either. Why not?

Edited June 21, 2013 by The_Incredibles_

[AZcachemeister]

I have found caches by 'dumb luck', and I have logged mystery caches that I never solved.

I have had logs on my caches where I suspect the same has happened.

It doesn't bother me so much.

[+Roman!]

When I Put out a cache I put it out with the hope finders will enjoy it. How they go about finding the cache does not matter to me as long as they enjoy the way they did.

 

Getting upset because someone found your cache differently than how you expected is just selfish.

[+The A-Team]

You could distribute a spreadsheet of puzzle finals to all your friends to save them time, but you probably wouldn't. Actually, you could post the finals for all your puzzles on your cache pages, but you wouldn't do that either. Why not?

I was thinking about this one when Roman! posted, and he summed up my position nicely:

 

When I Put out a cache I put it out with the hope finders will enjoy it. How they go about finding the cache does not matter to me as long as they enjoy the way they did.

My caches are placed to be found. If someone decides they don't want to go through the effort of solving the puzzle or finding all of a series and want to use other means to find it, it doesn't matter to me. As you said in an earlier post, I'd roll my eyes, but that's about it. At least I'll know the cache is still there!

[+Don_J]

.

 

However, there's nothing unreasonable about expecting someone to finish a series in order to find the coordinates for the 'bonus'.

 

I agree, however, if someone does not respect that and finds the cache by some other means, signs the log and then logs it online, there is nothing you can do about it, except maybe archive the cache and take up golf.

 

There is nothing wrong with having expectations. Trying to control people who do not meet them will only lead to trouble. And if you delete their log, Groundspeak will only put it back. Why bother getting so excited over things that are out of your control?

[+The_Incredibles_]

Some words of wisdom here. I FULLY realize that I'm going to have to let go of any expectations I have, otherwise I'm just going to end up playing ALOT of golf.

[+KRON family]

One mail about what triggered this discussion:

As long as "bonus cache" doesn't mean any bonus (yes, it's wrong), there is no way. Particularly in recent times when they all play with the idea of "I'm in logbook, so f*ck you".

Bonus cache should be bonus, not classical Unknown Cache. I thought if "bonus caches" is separate group in rules, it's not classical Unknown Cache. My fault.

It all started a few days ago when I saw one bonus cache listing in United States. There is written: "I reserve the right to delete any logs posted by cachers who haven't already logged 1 - 8". This cache (GC4EDN4) was published with this sentence and nobody in the United States has problem.

Problem was when I added this sentence to my bonus cache. Suddenly it's ALR in CZ and it's not allowed.

 

I add one joke made in CZ, name Rules:

Reviewer: What happened today, boys?

Green: He deleted my Write Note!

Redcap: Rules do not contain that the listing is a discussion forum!

Green: Rules do not contain that he can delete my Write Note!

Redcap: So ignore it if you dont like!

Green: Rules do not contain that I must ignore if I don't like!

Redcap: Rules do not contain that clues for a bonus cache should not be placed in unpublished caches!

Green: Rules do not contain that cache can be published during event!

Redcap: Rules do not contain that you can discuss about!

The third picture you will understand. That thing runs in the right corner is mind.

[+The_Incredibles_]

It all started a few days ago when I saw one bonus cache listing in United States. There is written: "I reserve the right to delete any logs posted by cachers who haven't already logged 1 - 8". This cache (GC4EDN4) was published with this sentence and nobody in the United States has problem.

Problem was when I added this sentence to my bonus cache. Suddenly it's ALR in CZ and it's not allowed.

 

Honestly, I don't think it's a United States vs Czech Republic problem. I could be wrong, but I think it's simply a matter of a reviewer making a mistake.

 

Thanks for posting the cartoon, though. I had a good laugh over the brain running away. It seems vaguely familiar.

Edited June 21, 2013 by The_Incredibles_

[Keystone]

It all started a few days ago when I saw one bonus cache listing in United States. There is written: "I reserve the right to delete any logs posted by cachers who haven't already logged 1 - 8". This cache (GC4EDN4) was published with this sentence and nobody in the United States has problem.

Problem was when I added this sentence to my bonus cache. Suddenly it's ALR in CZ and it's not allowed.

 

Honestly, I don't think it's a United States vs Czech Republic problem. I could be wrong, but I think it's simply a matter of a reviewer making a mistake.

 

Thanks for posting the cartoon, though. I had a good laugh over the brain running away. It seems vaguely familiar.

I'm not sure whether to treat his post as an unjustified attack against the Czech Republic reviewer for doing their job right, or as an unjustified attack against all USA reviewers because, for one cache, one reviewer overlooked the principle we're discussing. But either way, I'm not laughing.

 

I did laugh at the word "suddenly." ALR's were abolished years ago, resulting in an immediate dropoff in control freakery. I suppose it's sudden if you find out about an old guideline that you didn't read.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I'm not sure whether to treat his post as an unjustified attack against the Czech Republic reviewer for doing their job right, or as an unjustified attack against all USA reviewers because, for one cache, one reviewer overlooked the principle we're discussing. But either way, I'm not laughing.

 

 

I'd guess that the "reserve the right to delete" clause was added after the cache was approved. Has that local reviewer been contacted to "enlighten" the cache owner in question?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

.

 

However, there's nothing unreasonable about expecting someone to finish a series in order to find the coordinates for the 'bonus'.

 

I agree, however, if someone does not respect that and finds the cache by some other means, signs the log and then logs it online, there is nothing you can do about it, except maybe archive the cache and take up golf.

 

Yes, that is certainly an option, and it's that growing trend that, as Mrs. Incredible wrote, "there's a general attitude in his area that as long as their names on the logbook, they don't give a darn how it got there or whether the CO cares" that has been leading me to just archive caches that I own that have developed issues rather than replace them and maintain them. Yesterday, I got a 3rd DNF log on a cache that should be an easy find and disabled the cache. Even thought that cache was the first I ever found (I adopted it a few years ago) I'm considering archiving it rather than replacing it for a bunch of unappreciative cachers that are only interested in increasing their find count.

 

 

[+rosebud55112]

If you're really concerned about not feeding unappreciative cachers interested only in increasing their find count, keep it active. Archiving it will allow someone else to put a cache in that general area, one that those unappreciative cachers will use to increase their find counts. At least with yours there (assuming they've already found yours), they'll have to travel further to increase their count, and may thereby get frustrated with the game and leave.

[+Kacher82]

Some words of wisdom here. I FULLY realize that I'm going to have to let go of any expectations I have, otherwise I'm just going to end up playing ALOT of golf.

Golf doesn't always meet expectations, either.

[+dprovan]

Honestly, I don't think it's a United States vs Czech Republic problem. I could be wrong, but I think it's simply a matter of a reviewer making a mistake.

I'm not sure whether to treat his post as an unjustified attack against the Czech Republic reviewer for doing their job right, or as an unjustified attack against all USA reviewers because, for one cache, one reviewer overlooked the principle we're discussing. But either way, I'm not laughing.

Well, OK, I'm not laughing, and I don't think The_Incredibles_ was making a joke, either. When I read The_Incredibles_'s comment, I assumed it was saying that, for one cache, one reviewer overlooked the principle we're discussing, which The_Incredibles_ neatly and reasonably expressed by calling that oversight "a mistake". And it is a mistake, one that needs to be corrected. In other words, it is a justifiable claim, though not an attack on the reviewer, and certainly not an attack on reviewers in general, as evidence by the fact that the statement starts by denying there's a generality to be drawn here. The CO's claim to a non-existent right to delete logs in this case is just wrong and should be eliminated.

 

But I'm more worried about the fact that the CO would have that attitude. He's set up the problem and solution just fine, so people can either enjoy it or cheat themselves by getting the final coordinates from a friend. What does it matter to the CO if they do the latter?

[+Don_J]

One mail about what triggered this discussion:

As long as "bonus cache" doesn't mean any bonus (yes, it's wrong), there is no way. Particularly in recent times when they all play with the idea of "I'm in logbook, so f*ck you".

Bonus cache should be bonus, not classical Unknown Cache. I thought if "bonus caches" is separate group in rules, it's not classical Unknown Cache. My fault.

It all started a few days ago when I saw one bonus cache listing in United States. There is written: "I reserve the right to delete any logs posted by cachers who haven't already logged 1 - 8". This cache (GC4EDN4) was published with this sentence and nobody in the United States has problem.

Problem was when I added this sentence to my bonus cache. Suddenly it's ALR in CZ and it's not allowed.

 

 

Sorry, but it's not allowed. If you want to make a stink about it, report that cache in the US to it's local reviewer. I bet the language gets changed. The cache owner could proclaim that he'll delete your log if you don't stand on your head and cluck like a chicken, but if he does, Groundspeak will reinstate it and ask him to edit his cache description and to behave himself in the future. There are no different guidelines in the US, you simply found a cache listing that has fallen through the cracks.

 

Now understand, the term "Bonus" cache was coined by geocachers, not Groundspeak, for a certain type of puzzle cache. Groundspeak picked up the term and applied only one guideline to it, (as far as I know), that being that a bonus cache can't be made up of a series of other bonus caches, (daisy chaining). Otherwise, all other guidelines for puzzle caches apply to them, including logging. Yes, in a perfect world, people would do the other caches and then reward themselves with a bonus, but the world is not perfect and you can't make people behave as you wish.

[+Don_J]

It all started a few days ago when I saw one bonus cache listing in United States. There is written: "I reserve the right to delete any logs posted by cachers who haven't already logged 1 - 8". This cache (GC4EDN4) was published with this sentence and nobody in the United States has problem.

Problem was when I added this sentence to my bonus cache. Suddenly it's ALR in CZ and it's not allowed.

 

Honestly, I don't think it's a United States vs Czech Republic problem. I could be wrong, but I think it's simply a matter of a reviewer making a mistake.

 

Thanks for posting the cartoon, though. I had a good laugh over the brain running away. It seems vaguely familiar.

I'm not sure whether to treat his post as an unjustified attack against the Czech Republic reviewer for doing their job right, or as an unjustified attack against all USA reviewers because, for one cache, one reviewer overlooked the principle we're discussing. But either way, I'm not laughing.

 

I did laugh at the word "suddenly." ALR's were abolished years ago, resulting in an immediate dropoff in control freakery. I suppose it's sudden if you find out about an old guideline that you didn't read.

 

I may not even be a reviewer issue at all. The cache in the US could have been edited post publish just like the OP did with his. It's just that no one in the US has reported it, or no one has actually had their log deleted and complained.

[+Don_J]

.

 

However, there's nothing unreasonable about expecting someone to finish a series in order to find the coordinates for the 'bonus'.

 

I agree, however, if someone does not respect that and finds the cache by some other means, signs the log and then logs it online, there is nothing you can do about it, except maybe archive the cache and take up golf.

 

Yes, that is certainly an option, and it's that growing trend that, as Mrs. Incredible wrote, "there's a general attitude in his area that as long as their names on the logbook, they don't give a darn how it got there or whether the CO cares" that has been leading me to just archive caches that I own that have developed issues rather than replace them and maintain them. Yesterday, I got a 3rd DNF log on a cache that should be an easy find and disabled the cache. Even thought that cache was the first I ever found (I adopted it a few years ago) I'm considering archiving it rather than replacing it for a bunch of unappreciative cachers that are only interested in increasing their find count.

 

Interesting. I've hidden 196 caches and none of them were hidden for those that are only interested in increasing their find count. Probably only 15 could even be used as such. The rest you have to burn some energy to get to.