Integral part of finding a cache or ALR?

[+TopShelfRob]

I am searching the rules trying to find the exact distinction on what makes a requirement an "additional logging requirement" that would not be not permitted, and something that is integral to finding (and accessing) a cache. For instance, let's say you have a puzzle cache and someone cheats (like calls a friend) to get the answer, and if they sign the log but didn't actually solve the puzzle, they are permitted to cheat, because it seems that is considered fair game, they got the answer, no matter how they did find the cache, and the CO would not permitted to delete a found log in that case. To require them to "show their work" and explain how they solved the puzzle before letting a Found It log stand would be considered an ALR and not permitted, correct?

 

But now let's say you have a mystery cache with three locks on it and it's clearly stated on the cache page that the keys are hidden in other caches or travelables or something like that, and someone doesn't have the key and takes a bolt cutter or damages the cache to get into it, they can say "well, so what I found the cache", it should count as a find. To require them to use the keys to open it is the same thing, wouldn't that also be an ALR? Or is it different because they'd have to damage the cache to get into it? But what if they figured out a way to open it, for instance with a crowbar and they brought their own hammer and nails or a glue gun and were able to sign the log and then fix it and put it back together, or they were otherwise able to access without the keys, perhaps knew how to pick a lock, etc. somehow able to open it so that in the end it wasn't damaged? Would the CO be able to deny them a find in that case? If the clearly stated requirement is they have to use the keys in order to open the cache as intended, clearly they would be breaking the rules to get into it without using the keys, but how technically is that any different than calling a friend to get a puzzle answer that would just be "innocent" cheating on a puzzle? Can't a puzzle owner similarly state that it is "cleraly intended" that they get into the cache only by solving the puzzle?

 

Maybe I'm overlooking what the clear distinction is here, but I'm just trying to understand specifically why one instance should be against the rules and the other isn't?

Edited March 6, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+dprovan]

The basic requirement is signing the log, so that's a clear boolean: either they did or they didn't.

 

Intentionally damaging the hide is another matter entirely, and while technically there might be a debate about whether a CO could delete a find because the cache was destroyed in order to sign the log -- I might be wrong, but I doubt the guidelines anticipate that issue -- no one would object.

 

The real problem, though, is that it's unlikely someone will say "I cut the locks with bolt cutters" in their logs, so how would you know who did it? If a locked cache was cut open with bolt cutters, the last person I'd suspect is the last person to sign the log. In fact, I'd assume it was a muggle trying to figure out what was in the mysterious locked box.

[+J Grouchy]

If someone "cheats" on a puzzle and gives the answer to someone else, what's to stop them from giving them the method of solving as well? Kind of hard to prove cheating. It's pretty much an honor system. There are also those times when brute force or random chance and good fortune can lead to a solution. Should you really penalize those people?

 

To me, those that "cheat" on a puzzle still find the cache itself...which is more than I can say for those people that cache in groups where only one person in the group technically finds the cache container.

[+TopShelfRob]

Intentionally damaging the hide is another matter entirely, and while technically there might be a debate about whether a CO could delete a find because the cache was destroyed in order to sign the log -- I might be wrong, but I doubt the guidelines anticipate that issue -- no one would object.

 

Fair enough, okay let's forget about damaging the cache or using bolt cutters.. I think we could all agree that'd be worthy of a deleted find. Let's focus on if they figured out a way to open it without the keys, for instance picking the lock. Would that be fair game? Assuming the keys are trackables which the CO could find out that they weren't accessed by the cachers who signed the log? Would that be a legitimate find, as permissable as "phoning a friend" to get the answer to a puzzle?

 

If someone "cheats" on a puzzle and gives the answer to someone else, what's to stop them from giving them the method of solving as well? Kind of hard to prove cheating. It's pretty much an honor system. There are also those times when brute force or random chance and good fortune can lead to a solution. Should you really penalize those people?

 

To me, those that "cheat" on a puzzle still find the cache itself...which is more than I can say for those people that cache in groups where only one person in the group technically finds the cache container.

 

But even the phrase "brute force" - solving a puzzle by that manner - is analagous to using brute force to physically open a locked cache with a crowbar, which would be frowned upon.

Edited March 6, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+kunarion]

Maybe I'm overlooking what the clear distinction is here, but I'm just trying to understand specifically why one instance should be against the rules and the other isn't?

Word!!

 

Let's say I utterly destroy a Geocache in order to sign it. I don't understand how that's any different from signing a puzzle cache log after getting the coords from a friend.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK, seriously. If you've cut the locks off a container and the Cache Owner therefore deletes your log, you can contact Groundspeak and get the Find log restored. But don't expect a lot of creative caches to be placed within your reach anymore.

Edited March 6, 2014 by kunarion

[+TopShelfRob]

Word!!

 

Let's say I utterly destroy a Geocache in order to sign it. I don't understand how that's any different from signing a puzzle cache log after getting the coords from a friend.

 

OK, seriously. If you've cut the locks off a container and the Cache Owner therefore deletes your log, you can contact Groundspeak and get the Find log restored. But don't expect a lot of creative caches to be placed within your reach anymore.

 

As I added to my reply to dprovan above: "Fair enough, okay let's forget about damaging the cache or using bolt cutters.. I think we could all agree that'd be worthy of a deleted find."

 

I guess I meant more if the cacher found a way around the locks without damaging the cache? Would that be as tolerated as cheating on a puzzle is?

 

And if Groundspeak were to restore a find log I deleted because someone cut my locks off, I'd be ticked. Not to mention archive the cache rather than fix it. Could (or would) they really take the cacher's side in that case?

Edited March 6, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+J Grouchy]

Intentionally damaging the hide is another matter entirely, and while technically there might be a debate about whether a CO could delete a find because the cache was destroyed in order to sign the log -- I might be wrong, but I doubt the guidelines anticipate that issue -- no one would object.

 

Fair enough, okay let's forget about damaging the cache or using bolt cutters.. I think we could all agree that'd be worthy of a deleted find. Let's focus on if they figured out a way to open it without the keys, for instance picking the lock. Would that be fair game? Assuming the keys are trackables which the CO could find out that they weren't accessed by the cachers who signed the log? Would that be a legitimate find, as permissable as "phoning a friend" to get the answer to a puzzle?

 

If someone "cheats" on a puzzle and gives the answer to someone else, what's to stop them from giving them the method of solving as well? Kind of hard to prove cheating. It's pretty much an honor system. There are also those times when brute force or random chance and good fortune can lead to a solution. Should you really penalize those people?

 

To me, those that "cheat" on a puzzle still find the cache itself...which is more than I can say for those people that cache in groups where only one person in the group technically finds the cache container.

 

But even the phrase "brute force" - solving a puzzle by that manner - is analagous to using brute force to physically open a locked cache with a crowbar, which would be frowned upon.

 

I don't agree that they are truly analagous. Per the GC site:

 

1.Take note of the style and method of this hide. Where did this geocache bring you? Enjoy the location.

2.Sign the logbook with your name, the date, and a few words about your experience.

3.If you trade for items, remember to trade for something that is of equal or greater value.

4.Make sure to seal the cache and place it back exactly where and how you found it. If it had some rocks covering it, please replace those.

5.Use the waypoint you created as a helpful guide for your return.

6.When you get home, log your experience online by going back to that cache page and using the links provided. The cache owner is automatically notified of your log and is always happy to know about your adventure, the condition of their cache, and any environmental factors. Upload photos to share your experience visually with other geocachers.

 

Physically breaking open a cache is not replacing it how it was found. Picking the lock? Sure...I'd say that is a better analogy to brute force puzzle "solving". Lock picking or puzzle cheating, though...either way they fulfilled the requirements of finding the cache, signing the log and returning it to its hiding spot.

[+kunarion]

I guess I meant more if the cacher found a way around the locks without damaging that cache? Would that be as tolerated as cheating on a puzzle is?

It's tolerated on most every cache, puzzle or not. So, yes.

 

And no. I have a couple of ideas for caches that would at first be pretty well hidden. But even a 5-foot Geotrail would become kind of a beacon to everyone, non-cachers as well. So once a cache is compromised (too obvious to passers-by or opened wrong), I'm likely to archive it, not just delete a Found log. Maybe from that, you may see the distinction.

[+TopShelfRob]

Intentionally damaging the hide is another matter entirely, and while technically there might be a debate about whether a CO could delete a find because the cache was destroyed in order to sign the log -- I might be wrong, but I doubt the guidelines anticipate that issue -- no one would object.

 

Fair enough, okay let's forget about damaging the cache or using bolt cutters.. I think we could all agree that'd be worthy of a deleted find. Let's focus on if they figured out a way to open it without the keys, for instance picking the lock. Would that be fair game? Assuming the keys are trackables which the CO could find out that they weren't accessed by the cachers who signed the log? Would that be a legitimate find, as permissable as "phoning a friend" to get the answer to a puzzle?

 

If someone "cheats" on a puzzle and gives the answer to someone else, what's to stop them from giving them the method of solving as well? Kind of hard to prove cheating. It's pretty much an honor system. There are also those times when brute force or random chance and good fortune can lead to a solution. Should you really penalize those people?

 

To me, those that "cheat" on a puzzle still find the cache itself...which is more than I can say for those people that cache in groups where only one person in the group technically finds the cache container.

 

But even the phrase "brute force" - solving a puzzle by that manner - is analagous to using brute force to physically open a locked cache with a crowbar, which would be frowned upon.

 

I don't agree that they are truly analagous. Per the GC site:

 

1.Take note of the style and method of this hide. Where did this geocache bring you? Enjoy the location.

2.Sign the logbook with your name, the date, and a few words about your experience.

3.If you trade for items, remember to trade for something that is of equal or greater value.

4.Make sure to seal the cache and place it back exactly where and how you found it. If it had some rocks covering it, please replace those.

5.Use the waypoint you created as a helpful guide for your return.

6.When you get home, log your experience online by going back to that cache page and using the links provided. The cache owner is automatically notified of your log and is always happy to know about your adventure, the condition of their cache, and any environmental factors. Upload photos to share your experience visually with other geocachers.

 

Physically breaking open a cache is not replacing it how it was found. Picking the lock? Sure...I'd say that is a better analogy to brute force puzzle "solving". Lock picking or puzzle cheating, though...either way they fulfilled the requirements of finding the cache, signing the log and returning it to its hiding spot.

 

Right... lock picking is probably the better example I should have focused on in the original posting. I feel that would be as antithetical to the spirit of the hide as cheating on a puzzle cache would be. I guess, that would be permissible then. Requiring them to use the keys, therefore, would be an ALR.. (Although probably much easier to cheat on a puzzle by calling a friend than the specialized skill of picking a lock.) Still, I do think that would be cheating.

Edited March 6, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+TopShelfRob]

To add another thought, someone getting lucky and coming up with the solution to the puzzle by random chance, I think would be comparable to picking the lock. I could almost live with that. But someone who's solved the puzzle just giving the answer to someone who asks for it, would be like someone who took the time to chase down the key just making copies of it for everybody.

 

And in fact, I wouldn't even be that upset at the person who's asking for the answer, more at the person who gives them the answer. To me, they are the one that's damaging the integrity of the puzzle cache. I couldn't understand, if you solved a puzzle no one else could, why on Earth would you just give the answer to others who couldn't figure it out on their own.

[+kunarion]

I couldn't understand, if you solved a puzzle no one else could, why on Earth would you just give the answer to others who couldn't figure it out on their own.

Then there are people who perform a scorched-earth hunt for a difficult Micro. Geocachers are insane. I hope I never meet one in the woods.

 

The reason to give away that answer is, the guy asking is a scorched-earth guy. Nuff said.

Edited March 6, 2014 by kunarion

[+T.D.M.22]

Cutting the locks? No one would admit to to that. Picking the lock? If you want to do that, rather than read the cache page I'd gladly let the find stand for you doing all that extra work.

 

But worrying on how they open the cache, well what about groups of cachers? I'm caching with 2 others, and one opens the lock. Does that mean he has to re-lock it and I have to open and relock, and then she does as well?

 

Does that mean I can't use a helicopter to get to cross the canyon and get to the top of a mountain to get the T5 cache? As far as I know, Groundspeak has not really cared how you access the cache, just as long as the logbook is signed.

 

I'll point out that hey allow basic members to log PMO caches. Same thing, except instead of a padlock, it's an electronic limitation.

[+kunarion]

Cutting the locks? No one would admit to to that.

I'm usually the first one to log that the lock is broken. And it's obviously been like that for months.

[cezanne]

 

Intentionally damaging the hide is another matter entirely, and while technically there might be a debate about whether a CO could delete a find because the cache was destroyed in order to sign the log -- I might be wrong, but I doubt the guidelines anticipate that issue -- no one would object.

 

Distributing the solution of challenging puzzle caches and writing logs with heavy spoilers often is just another way of intentionally damaging a cache, just not a cache container.

Turning a challenging puzzle into a trivial one is somehow like replacing a creative, hand-made container by a film pot.

[+Touchstone]

To require them to use the keys to open it is the same thing, wouldn't that also be an ALR?

 

If the requirement is to use the keys, and only the keys, to access the log in the container, then yes, I would consider that an ALR and should not be on the Listing page.

 

Use of bolt cutters, lock pick tools sounds like a cache design issue and not cheating There are ways of defeating such methods of *cheating*, if that's a concern.

[+J Grouchy]

Intentionally damaging the hide is another matter entirely, and while technically there might be a debate about whether a CO could delete a find because the cache was destroyed in order to sign the log -- I might be wrong, but I doubt the guidelines anticipate that issue -- no one would object.

 

Fair enough, okay let's forget about damaging the cache or using bolt cutters.. I think we could all agree that'd be worthy of a deleted find. Let's focus on if they figured out a way to open it without the keys, for instance picking the lock. Would that be fair game? Assuming the keys are trackables which the CO could find out that they weren't accessed by the cachers who signed the log? Would that be a legitimate find, as permissable as "phoning a friend" to get the answer to a puzzle?

 

If someone "cheats" on a puzzle and gives the answer to someone else, what's to stop them from giving them the method of solving as well? Kind of hard to prove cheating. It's pretty much an honor system. There are also those times when brute force or random chance and good fortune can lead to a solution. Should you really penalize those people?

 

To me, those that "cheat" on a puzzle still find the cache itself...which is more than I can say for those people that cache in groups where only one person in the group technically finds the cache container.

 

But even the phrase "brute force" - solving a puzzle by that manner - is analagous to using brute force to physically open a locked cache with a crowbar, which would be frowned upon.

 

I don't agree that they are truly analagous. Per the GC site:

 

1.Take note of the style and method of this hide. Where did this geocache bring you? Enjoy the location.

2.Sign the logbook with your name, the date, and a few words about your experience.

3.If you trade for items, remember to trade for something that is of equal or greater value.

4.Make sure to seal the cache and place it back exactly where and how you found it. If it had some rocks covering it, please replace those.

5.Use the waypoint you created as a helpful guide for your return.

6.When you get home, log your experience online by going back to that cache page and using the links provided. The cache owner is automatically notified of your log and is always happy to know about your adventure, the condition of their cache, and any environmental factors. Upload photos to share your experience visually with other geocachers.

 

Physically breaking open a cache is not replacing it how it was found. Picking the lock? Sure...I'd say that is a better analogy to brute force puzzle "solving". Lock picking or puzzle cheating, though...either way they fulfilled the requirements of finding the cache, signing the log and returning it to its hiding spot.

 

Right... lock picking is probably the better example I should have focused on in the original posting. I feel that would be as antithetical to the spirit of the hide as cheating on a puzzle cache would be. I guess, that would be permissible then. Requiring them to use the keys, therefore, would be an ALR.. (Although probably much easier to cheat on a puzzle by calling a friend than the specialized skill of picking a lock.) Still, I do think that would be cheating.

 

Requiring them to use a key to open the cache is not an ALR. Requiring them to post a picture of themself opening the cache with a key IS and additional logging requirement. The former is a condition of finding the cache and signing the log, the latter is a condition of submitting a log.

[+Fugads]

I'll toss in my real-life experience with this one. I am GUILTY of having circumvented a lock on a difficult puzzle cache final. I had solved 90% of the very long and arduous puzzles, and was determined. The previous two finders did not spend half the effort as I did (they also happen to be much cleverer than me, or at least better at getting into the COs head). I did contact the CO about my intentions though and he had no problem with it, since it was obviously more work than he intended the cache to be. In fact, he posted a nice note on the cache page about my "out-of-the-box" solution. My point is, not all COs will be upset with you for finding a different way to solve their puzzle cache. A courtesy communication is key though, and the difference from being respectful and disrespectful.

 

I have also been on the other end, with people finding my caches without having solved the puzzles. I can only smile to myself about this, since in my opinion they only cheated themselves. As the owner of a puzzle-cache, it's up to you to design the cache as well as possible to get people to solve it the way you want (or not).

[+Harry Dolphin]

I am searching the rules trying to find the exact distinction on what makes a requirement an "additional logging requirement" that would not be not permitted, and something that is integral to finding (and accessing) a cache. For instance, let's say you have a puzzle cache and someone cheats (like calls a friend) to get the answer, and if they sign the log but didn't actually solve the puzzle, they are permitted to cheat, because it seems that is considered fair game, they got the answer, no matter how they did find the cache, and the CO would not permitted to delete a found log in that case. To require them to "show their work" and explain how they solved the puzzle before letting a Found It log stand would be considered an ALR and not permitted, correct?

 

But now let's say you have a mystery cache with three locks on it and it's clearly stated on the cache page that the keys are hidden in other caches or travelables or something like that, and someone doesn't have the key and takes a bolt cutter or damages the cache to get into it, they can say "well, so what I found the cache", it should count as a find. To require them to use the keys to open it is the same thing, wouldn't that also be an ALR? Or is it different because they'd have to damage the cache to get into it? But what if they figured out a way to open it, for instance with a crowbar and they brought their own hammer and nails or a glue gun and were able to sign the log and then fix it and put it back together, or they were otherwise able to access without the keys, perhaps knew how to pick a lock, etc. somehow able to open it so that in the end it wasn't damaged? Would the CO be able to deny them a find in that case? If the clearly stated requirement is they have to use the keys in order to open the cache as intended, clearly they would be breaking the rules to get into it without using the keys, but how technically is that any different than calling a friend to get a puzzle answer that would just be "innocent" cheating on a puzzle? Can't a puzzle owner similarly state that it is "cleraly intended" that they get into the cache only by solving the puzzle?

 

Maybe I'm overlooking what the clear distinction is here, but I'm just trying to understand specifically why one instance should be against the rules and the other isn't?

 

Find cache. Sign log. Get smiley. Seems fairly simple. I would certainly take exception to calling 'not found in the intended manner' cheating. Find cache. Sign log Get smiley. I have some tough mystery caches that have been brute forced. They found the cache. They signed the log. They get a smiley! I consider that a valid find. (Twenty people going on the tour with only one solving it, and signing with a team name is cheesy at best, but it is still valid, since the log was signed.) One CO took exception to me logging a cache I saw him hide. I did not find it in the intended manner. With an attitude like that, I deleted my find, and put him on my Ignore List.

No. A CO cannot delete a log because it was not found in the intended manner. Didn't find the key, but signed the log anyway? That's a find. Broke the cache trying to open it, but signed the log? That's a find. Teach you to hide that kind of cache! (Yeah. I think I broke one. But I signed the log, so my find is valid. No. I did not admit to breaking it, though I think the CO knows...) (Yeah. There's one cacher who does not rehide my caches properly, and the bears chew on them. He signed the log. So it's find.)

So. No. There's no distinction. Find cache. Sign log. Get smiley. Seems fairly simple.

So. I do not understand what your problem is. Did the cacher sign the log? Then it's a find.

[+T.D.M.22]

Here's something to think about. If-as a CO-I can only let people who found the cache in the intended manner log a find, I could refuse any log where the cache was not put where I put it. Doesn't matter if the cache is moved 2 feet or 2 miles... SO as you can see- Sign it=found it.

[+TopShelfRob]

So basically it's up to the cache owner to make it sturdy enough or whatever to prevent cheating or bypassing of a lock, etc... That seems fair, I guess.

 

Broke the cache trying to open it, but signed the log? That's a find. Teach you to hide that kind of cache!

 

I'd like to think that there wouldn't be too many cachers who would literally bust open a cache if they couldn't get it open, however.

[+funkymunkyzone]

I guess I meant more if the cacher found a way around the locks without damaging the cache? Would that be as tolerated as cheating on a puzzle is?

 

I'll admit I've "picked" a lock to get into a cache before...

 

And now I'll explain. It was a puzzle where you counted stuff on a long walk and then used those numbers on a combination lock. Unfortunately it was one of those combination locks where you can change the combination when it's open, so the last finder had accidentally done just that. I carefully unlocked it, and let the cache owner know (just in case I had counted wrong, although the combination as set was not even possibly a result of the counts and calculations)

 

That said, if I was presented with such a cache and I did decide to pick the lock and I succeeded, I'd sign the log and log the find. The puzzle was presented to me, and I managed to solve it myself, without damaging anything. If I owned such a cache myself and someone picked the lock, I'd be more than happy for them to log the find too.

 

I do think that puzzle cache owners (and I'm extending this to be field puzzle owners too) sit in two camps: Those who get wound up if you don't solve the puzzle their way, and those (like me) who believe a puzzle has been set and can be solved by *whatever* means at your disposal, discounting only the effortless "cheating" of getting the coords from someone else.

Edited March 7, 2014 by funkymunkyzone

[+funkymunkyzone]

So basically it's up to the cache owner to make it sturdy enough or whatever to prevent cheating or bypassing of a lock, etc... That seems fair, I guess.

Yeah that's how I feel about it, although "sturdy enough" is subjective as it should be reasonable to expect a cacher won't use excessive force to break something open, you know, fair play.

 

The same goes for a puzzle cache. Not long ago a puzzle was created locally that was in itself quite difficult to solve their intended way, but the way they described it, it was very easy to open Google Maps and say I think the cache is right *there*... And it was. The way I solved it wasn't at all invalid, I just solved the puzzle presented to me on the cache page, rather than the puzzle the CO had possibly intended to present...

[+niraD]

There are differences between "found in a way the CO did not anticipate/desire" and "intentionally damaged/destroyed the cache to find it".

 

As a matter of principle, a CO can delete logs that violate the terms of use, and a find obtained by intentionally damaging/destroying the cache might be considered a violation of the TOU's prohibition against promoting "property damage" (2.D.xxii). So Groundspeak might let such a log deletion stand. (Or they may not. I am not a lackey, and I don't even play one on TV.)

 

But as a matter of practicality, you would be deleting the log of someone who has already demonstrated [a] that they know where your cache is and that they have no regard for you or your property. That might not be the best way to promote the longevity of your cache.

 

Meanwhile, if someone solves a puzzle or otherwise finds a cache in a way that you didn't intend, and replaces it as found without damaging it, then the find stands. As an example, I've found elevated caches where the CO intended seekers to use a tool to retrieve the cache, and I've found elevated caches where the CO intended seekers to climb to where the cache was placed. But in either case, the CO cannot require a preferred method for finding the elevated cache.

[+Don_J]

Maybe I'm overlooking what the clear distinction is here, but I'm just trying to understand specifically why one instance should be against the rules and the other isn't?

Word!!

 

Let's say I utterly destroy a Geocache in order to sign it. I don't understand how that's any different from signing a puzzle cache log after getting the coords from a friend.

 

OK, seriously. If you've cut the locks off a container and the Cache Owner therefore deletes your log, you can contact Groundspeak and get the Find log restored. But don't expect a lot of creative caches to be placed within your reach anymore.

 

One of the basic rules of Geocaching is that you replace the cache as you found it. If you figured out how to pick the lock, and then relocked it, Kudos. If you simply cut the lock or vandalized the container itself, you did not replace it as you found it. I personally think that you don't deserve a Found It log. I honestly don't know what side Groundspeak would land on this. I have also made it clear over and over again that I am not a fan of deleting logs, but I think if I had a cache such as this and someone cut the lock off, I would more than likely delete the log and put the ball back on the vandal's court.

[+kunarion]

Maybe I'm overlooking what the clear distinction is here, but I'm just trying to understand specifically why one instance should be against the rules and the other isn't?

Word!!

 

Let's say I utterly destroy a Geocache in order to sign it. I don't understand how that's any different from signing a puzzle cache log after getting the coords from a friend.

 

OK, seriously. If you've cut the locks off a container and the Cache Owner therefore deletes your log, you can contact Groundspeak and get the Find log restored. But don't expect a lot of creative caches to be placed within your reach anymore.

 

One of the basic rules of Geocaching is that you replace the cache as you found it. If you figured out how to pick the lock, and then relocked it, Kudos. If you simply cut the lock or vandalized the container itself, you did not replace it as you found it. I personally think that you don't deserve a Found It log. I honestly don't know what side Groundspeak would land on this. I have also made it clear over and over again that I am not a fan of deleting logs, but I think if I had a cache such as this and someone cut the lock off, I would more than likely delete the log and put the ball back on the vandal's court.

That's OK, but as dprovan said, the likely scenario is some future cacher logging that the locks were found cut off, the vandal not having mentioned it. I've found destroyed caches, and often wonder why I'm the First To NM.

 

I have a puzzle cache, and fully half of the finders don't mention the puzzle. Can't they at least say "the puzzle was easy" if they felt the puzzle was unworthy of them? Or did they "solve" it a different way? I'll probably never know. I didn't delete logs, since I can pretend that everyone solved it as intended, just didn't see fit to log anything in particular, and they didn't trash the cache.

 

Wait... yes they did. After just a couple of finds, I went to check on the cache, and all of the camo had been ripped away as if shredded by stampeding rhinos. That was how I discovered how... enthusiastic... some Geocachers are.

[+Don_J]

I had a friend hide a cache inside a chain link fence post next to an open area. The actual fence was long gone and only a series of poles remained. He dropped a container with a magnet glued on top and the idea was to drop a string with a metal nut attached to fish it out. 30 or 40 finds and than these guys show up from England. They backed their rental car into the pole and pushed it out of the ground, then pulled the cache out of the bottom. My friend was appalled and immediately archived the cache. He left their logs intact so that others could see just how petty and destructive some cachers can be.

 

In retrospect, I think If I owned a locked cache and someone cut it, I'd let the log stand and post a note of what they did. They can't delete my log and it will be out there for all to see. They get their find count point, but the rest of the world can see just what they did to get it.

[+dprovan]

Let's focus on if they figured out a way to open it without the keys, for instance picking the lock. Would that be fair game?

Yes, picking the lock would definitely be fair game. As CO, you're free to give them a bad time, but you cannot reject their find. (Personally, I'd be impressed and laugh at their creative solution, although that doesn't necessarily mean I wouldn't also give them a bad time.)

 

The thing to keep in mind is that you created the puzzle for people that will enjoy solving the puzzle, whether that's a logical puzzle to calculate the coordinates or a physical puzzle such as yours to collect the right keys to open the cache. What difference does it make to you that some people that obviously don't enjoy solving your puzzle sign the log anyway? You didn't make the cache for them, anyway, so who cares if they didn't enjoy it as you intended them to?

 

By the way, this is reminding me of a cache near me where the point of the cache is to figure out how to hack the combination of a combination lock. In an odd twist, the lock itself doesn't lock anything. Instead, you figure out the combination, then use the numbers in the combination to calculate final coordinates.

[+tozainamboku]

Groundspeak opened a can of worms when they decide to use the following wording to make all existing ALRs null and void:

 

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

 

I'm certain they did not mean to leave cache owners defensless against some destroying a cache just to get a the log book. It's less clear if they meant to eliminate a cache owner ability to deal with people who brute force a puzzle or get the answers from a so-call "cheat" site.

 

It is very likely that they realized that some cache owners make a physical challenge to retrieve or open a cache. In order to indicate that meeting the challenge an intergral part of finding the cache and not an ALR, they allow cache owners to delete online finds if the physical log is not signed. They ought to make it clear to what degree a cache owner can determine if the finder met requirements to find a cache. IMO, by making the signing of the physical log the only definition of find, they actually encourage finders to be destructive. If either cache owners were told to leave found logs where some says "Found the cache but couldn't figure out the combination", or allowed the cache owner to delete logs if someone used bolt cutters, people wouldn't use bolt cutters to open locked caches.

 

--

I'm going to ask a moderator to move this thread. It isn't really a how to? topic and I missed it because I generally only look at the general topics forum.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I do not believe I have seen an example in this thread where a found log should be deleted if the physical log is signed. If the finder admitted to destroying a cache on purpose, account should be locked.

[4wheelin_fool]

Suppose you have to beat someone up to get the answer to a puzzle. Wouldn't that be an ALR?

[+GeoBain]

I once brute forced the Concurrence Theorem Series. I used ruler tool in photoshop to pinpoint the centroids of each of the caches. The caches were about 350 miles from where I live, so I never really planned to actually find the caches. However, it worked out that I was within 50 miles of that area so I found and logged the caches. The owner contacted me and asked how I solved it and I told him. He had no problem with the way I came up with my answers.

 

However, a few months later, I decided to study up on centroid, circumcenter, incenter, and orthocenter of triangles and solved them mathematically just for my own enjoyment. But I figure as long as someone doesn't damage my cache, I don't really care how they get to the logbook.

 

Another example that has come up before is tree and cliff caches. If you owned one, would you feel inclined to accept or delete a find by someone in a wheelchair who got their buddy to lower the cache down to him/her? The intention is to have the finder climb to sign the logbook. Would you consider signing without climbing to be cheating?

[+TopShelfRob]

So what I'm gathering from this thread is: An ALR that wouldn't be allowed is something that a cache owner requires a person to do solely in addition to signing the log, but anything you can create that they literally by design have to do in order to get to, or open, the cache would be fair game, although anything they can do to bypass such obstacles (within reason, i.e. not destroying the cache) is also fair game.

[team tisri]

Intentionally damaging the hide is another matter entirely, and while technically there might be a debate about whether a CO could delete a find because the cache was destroyed in order to sign the log -- I might be wrong, but I doubt the guidelines anticipate that issue -- no one would object.

 

Fair enough, okay let's forget about damaging the cache or using bolt cutters.. I think we could all agree that'd be worthy of a deleted find. Let's focus on if they figured out a way to open it without the keys, for instance picking the lock. Would that be fair game? Assuming the keys are trackables which the CO could find out that they weren't accessed by the cachers who signed the log? Would that be a legitimate find, as permissable as "phoning a friend" to get the answer to a puzzle?

 

I think this sort of thing is simple ingenuity. You get at the log by whatever means it takes, as long as you don't trash the cache in the process. How is it any different to turning up with a huge ladder to retrieve a cache hidden up a tree where the hider clearly intended people to climb the tree?

 

If someone "cheats" on a puzzle and gives the answer to someone else, what's to stop them from giving them the method of solving as well? Kind of hard to prove cheating. It's pretty much an honor system. There are also those times when brute force or random chance and good fortune can lead to a solution. Should you really penalize those people?

 

To me, those that "cheat" on a puzzle still find the cache itself...which is more than I can say for those people that cache in groups where only one person in the group technically finds the cache container.

 

But even the phrase "brute force" - solving a puzzle by that manner - is analagous to using brute force to physically open a locked cache with a crowbar, which would be frowned upon.

 

Not really, brute force to break open a container leaves the container broken for the next finder. Brute force in the context of solving puzzles merely means trying every single permutation until you hit the right one. No damage is done to anything along the way.

[+Harry Dolphin]

So what I'm gathering from this thread is: An ALR that wouldn't be allowed is something that a cache owner requires a person to do solely in addition to signing the log, but anything you can create that they literally by design have to do in order to get to, or open, the cache would be fair game, although anything they can do to bypass such obstacles (within reason, i.e. not destroying the cache) is also fair game.

 

Yup. The only requirement is signing the log. Not even sure 'destroying the cache' would disqualify the find. I have a mystery cache I consider 5* for difficulty (for solving the puzzle). Most of the finders have brute forced it. They signed the log! They get the smiley. (I've brute forced a few in my day...)

It is not 'the intended manner' to find the cache. It is signing the log.

Twelve stage walking tour to get the coords for the next stage? Google is your friend.

Throw-downs, on the other fin, do not qualify. Log not signed.

[+TopShelfRob]

 

But even the phrase "brute force" - solving a puzzle by that manner - is analagous to using brute force to physically open a locked cache with a crowbar, which would be frowned upon.

 

Not really, brute force to break open a container leaves the container broken for the next finder. Brute force in the context of solving puzzles merely means trying every single permutation until you hit the right one. No damage is done to anything along the way.

 

Well, okay. But being literal, that is what the phrase "brute force" means. Maybe it doesn't physically destroy the puzzle in the process, but it does bypass "doing it the way the CO intended" But that's fine. Apparently the problem with physically busting open the cache to get at it isn't that you went contrary to the cache owner's intentions, but that you left it damaged for the next guy.

 

According to that logic, if you break it open, as long as you repair it for the next guy, that would be okay.

 

Similarly, perhaps a cache owner would consider a puzzle that has been "brute forced" to be 'broken', even if it is still able to be solved by the next geocacher. Just food for thought.

 

Added:

 

Not even sure 'destroying the cache' would disqualify the find.

 

According this guy, even that's fine, I guess

Edited March 22, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+briansnat]

I'm generally in the sign log, log a found it camp, but I draw the line at calling the deliberate vandalization of the container or hiding place a legitimate find.

[+DanOCan]

Similarly, perhaps a cache owner would consider a puzzle that has been "brute forced" to be 'broken', even if it is still able to be solved by the next geocacher. Just food for thought.

 

Added:

 

Not even sure 'destroying the cache' would disqualify the find.

 

According this guy, even that's fine, I guess

Cache finders will solve a puzzle in a manner that is enjoyable for them. If someone doesn't enjoy solving a particular puzzle but can find someone to give them the answer, or they can tag along with someone else who has solved the puzzle, or they can brute force a solution, that is obviously how they wanted to do it. I think if someone does that and the puzzle owner considers the puzzle to be "broken", they have control issues.

 

I quickly learned to embrace the different methods of seekers. When someone asks me for help with one of my puzzles, I try and find out if they want an obscure hint, a blatant hint, or a step-by-step solution. I had one seeker who solved the northing coordinates and then made some logical assumptions about the final location and went out and just "walked the line" to find the container. Rather than worrying he didn't do the puzzle in my intended manner, I saluted him for creativity. I place caches so others can enjoy them and try not to get in the way of that enjoyment, even if it isn't something I would personally find fun.

 

As for destroying a cache? There is a difference between "being fine" and claiming a Find. If I found someone intentionally destroyed one of my caches in the process of finding it, I would be angry but I wouldn't delete their Find. I look at the "Find" as a simply statement of fact. Whether they destroyed the cache, trespassed, ran a red light, or did something else wrong in the process doesn't take away the fact they found it. I don't have to like it though!

[+dprovan]

So what I'm gathering from this thread is: An ALR that wouldn't be allowed is something that a cache owner requires a person to do solely in addition to signing the log, but anything you can create that they literally by design have to do in order to get to, or open, the cache would be fair game, although anything they can do to bypass such obstacles (within reason, i.e. not destroying the cache) is also fair game.

That sounds right, but keep in mind that we're discussing this from the CO's point of view. Seekers can hold themselves to higher standards. In my area, for example, many seekers, when they sign a puzzle cache log because they're caching with someone else that's solved it, don't consider that cache found until they solve the puzzle for themselves.

[team tisri]

 

But even the phrase "brute force" - solving a puzzle by that manner - is analagous to using brute force to physically open a locked cache with a crowbar, which would be frowned upon.

 

Not really, brute force to break open a container leaves the container broken for the next finder. Brute force in the context of solving puzzles merely means trying every single permutation until you hit the right one. No damage is done to anything along the way.

 

Well, okay. But being literal, that is what the phrase "brute force" means. Maybe it doesn't physically destroy the puzzle in the process, but it does bypass "doing it the way the CO intended" But that's fine. Apparently the problem with physically busting open the cache to get at it isn't that you went contrary to the cache owner's intentions, but that you left it damaged for the next guy.

 

According to that logic, if you break it open, as long as you repair it for the next guy, that would be okay.

 

Similarly, perhaps a cache owner would consider a puzzle that has been "brute forced" to be 'broken', even if it is still able to be solved by the next geocacher. Just food for thought.

 

Not food for thought at all - the way the CO intended the cache to be solved/retrieved is irrelevant as long as you solve/retrieve the puzzle without breaking it for the next finder.

 

Theoretically if you were to find a box locked with a combination, didn't have the combination because you didn't solve the puzzle, so cut the thing open with a laser cutter, signed the log, and then welded it closed again you'd be leaving the cache in a condition ready for the next person to find it.

 

If the CO hid the cache up a tree expecting finders to climb the tree but someone turned up in a cherrypicker, what of it? If the CO intended a cache to be retrieved by abseiling from the top of a cliff but someone decided to climb up from the bottom, what of it? If the CO intended a combination lock to be opened by finding the combination in the stages of a multi but someone took the time to try every possible combination until the lock opened, what of it? They got to the cache and signed the log, and replaced it such that the next finder would find it in the same condition.

 

Likewise if the CO expects a puzzle to be solved one way but it is solved another way, what of it? The coordinates are calculated and the cache can be found. I've solved several puzzles with a combination of "battleships" and brute force. We can discuss ways in which "broken" might be used metaphorically but the fact remains that brute force in the context of a puzzle changes nothing on the ground whereas brute force in the context of a physical cache leaves the cache damaged or broken for the next finder and creates a need for the owner to make a maintenance visit.

[+palmetto]

Similarly, perhaps a cache owner would consider a puzzle that has been "brute forced" to be 'broken',

 

Sure, lots of broken puzzles out there, but this is the cache owner's problem - weak design.

I've seen many many Mystery caches found by means not intended by the cache owner. In several cases (tempted to link to one, but won't) the puzzle was so ill designed that it was easier to solve for the final location by other means than by the way the cache owner intended.

 

There's an old and locally famous Mystery where a close reading of the long long long cache page will yield all but the longitude hundredths. Most people walk the walk...;-) 13 miles. Mapping will yield 2 possible final locations, both with a long mile of available parking. (you can tell from logs how people have done this one, long logs from the walk the walk folks, and "thanks!" from others...;-) I'm quite sure the cache owner didn't realized they'd spoiled their own puzzle.

 

I was asked by a Mystery cache owner if they could delete the finds of those who had taken short-cuts with their Mystery.

I was quite surprised, as I thought the puzzle had been deliberately designed to allow for those short-cuts (shortened the long paddle in tough conditions gathering clues, but then lacking some clues, have multiple areas to search for the cache - a trade off). I think most cachers saw that hole immediately, only the cache owner was oblivious.

 

As a player, I recently found one where the puzzle made little sense to me - it was a bonus cache, clues based upon a board game I'd never played. Without that knowledge, it was not amenable to field solution. I could have taken the info I had home, and learned more about the game, but instead, I found the bonus by process of elimination, ie, close to parking, there were trad hides about every 600ft, with one hole. Walking along that trail, a large handsome oak back in the woods in the "cache free zone". Checked it out, found cache.

At an event, I learned that ALL other finders had done the same thing (except FTF, not in attendance, don't know how they found it). Is this broken, or not?

You could skip the clues altogether (and some have) and find this thing.

[+palmetto]

An aside to this thread, TopShelfRob,you need to take a look at the logo usage page

http://www.geocaching.com/about/logousage.aspx

[+J Grouchy]

I once brute forced the Concurrence Theorem Series. I used ruler tool in photoshop to pinpoint the centroids of each of the caches. The caches were about 350 miles from where I live, so I never really planned to actually find the caches. However, it worked out that I was within 50 miles of that area so I found and logged the caches. The owner contacted me and asked how I solved it and I told him. He had no problem with the way I came up with my answers.

 

However, a few months later, I decided to study up on centroid, circumcenter, incenter, and orthocenter of triangles and solved them mathematically just for my own enjoyment. But I figure as long as someone doesn't damage my cache, I don't really care how they get to the logbook.

 

Another example that has come up before is tree and cliff caches. If you owned one, would you feel inclined to accept or delete a find by someone in a wheelchair who got their buddy to lower the cache down to him/her? The intention is to have the finder climb to sign the logbook. Would you consider signing without climbing to be cheating?

 

Yeah...one of my first puzzles was brute force solved by three folks before someone finally came up with the proper method of solving it. I let those finds stand but gave credit to the first true "solver" on the cache page.

[+TopShelfRob]

An aside to this thread, TopShelfRob,you need to take a look at the logo usage page

http://www.geocaching.com/about/logousage.aspx

 

Do you mean in my avatar?

[Keystone]

Your avatar and profile page photo are an alteration of the trademarked logo, yes. As explained in the linked logo usage guidelines, you have made Signal the Frog cry.

[+TopShelfRob]

Your avatar and profile page photo are an alteration of the trademarked logo, yes. As explained in the linked logo usage guidelines, you have made Signal the Frog cry.

 

Oh, dear, we can't have that...

[+RobDJr]

The way I see it, the original example of a cache with three locks would be an ALR if the owner specifically stated that in order to log the cache, the locks must be opened only with the provided keys which were hidden elsewhere.

 

In general, my understanding of an ALR is when the cache owner makes a distinction which, if not followed according to his/her wishes, can result in log deletion. So, locking a cache is fine, requiring it to be opened the way you want it to be opened is not.

 

It should be a common-sense understanding that a cache should never be intentionally damaged. I know it's a little to much to hope for, but it should be. (I, however, do not believe that cheating in the process of solving a cache, like sharing solutions or calling for help, damages the cache. It is an unfortunate thing to happen, but it only short-circuits the fun for the cheaters, and in no way affects the cache insofar as future seekers are concerned, unless an intolerant cache owner gets mad and takes his ball and goes home, in which case the issue is more with the owner than the cheaters).

 

Where cheating is concerned, I prefer to do all the work myself, so I don't call for help or rely on others (except when it's a group effort), but beyond that and damaging the cache, anything goes. Whether it is a puzzle, a physical challenge, or a lock, if I find a way to overcome it in a manner unforeseen by the cache owner, it counts.

 

By way of example, I once did a series of caches (now archived) similar to the OP's example, locked cache and hidden key, three caches of beginner, intermediate, and advanced difficulty, where the key was increasingly difficult to find. I found the beginner and intermediate keys easily, but the advanced one turned out to be hidden somewhere on or around the rusting hulk of an old car abandoned out in the forest. After a half hour of fruitless searching, I decided I didn't want to waste time on that any more and resorted to a different tactic -- I had already noted that the locks and keys of the first two caches appeared to be the kind that come in a pack, where the same key opens all locks. So I simply trotted .1 mile back to the intermediate cache, grabbed the key, presto! it worked, and (being a considerate cacher) I replaced the key back where it belonged on my way out. I certainly didn't find the key as intended by the owner, but I did open the lock and sign the log.

Edited March 24, 2014 by RobDJr

[+baloo&bd]

Your avatar and profile page photo are an alteration of the trademarked logo, yes. As explained in the linked logo usage guidelines, you have made Signal the Frog cry.

 

Oh, dear, we can't have that...

 

Definitely not in a thread specifically about nit picking the guidelines.

[+funkymunkyzone]

Definitely not in a thread specifically about nit picking the guidelines.

I see what you did there...

[+niraD]

Your avatar and profile page photo are an alteration of the trademarked logo, yes. As explained in the linked logo usage guidelines, you have made Signal the Frog cry.

What about other avatars and profile images that parody the Groundspeak logo in various ways?

 

Yeah, parody, that's the ticket... Parody is allowed as fair use. Oh, wait, that's copyright law, not trademark law... Aaaaaahhhhhhh!

[+suchanana]

parody?? is that like jeopardy - i'll take gc.com logos for 500 alex...myself i like my parody avatar of signal the frog...

 

as for the ALR's, well, be as creative as you can, stretching the guidelines to the max, within the realms of decency

that your local volunteer reviewer will allow and forget about the cheaters as they're not worth the effort...