Integral part of finding a cache or ALR?

[+Don_J]

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...

 

Stretching the guidelines to the max only gives us more restrictive guidelines. It's why we no longer have Virtuals, ALR caches, and will be the eventual end of Challenge caches.

[team tisri]

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...

 

Stretching the guidelines to the max only gives us more restrictive guidelines. It's why we no longer have Virtuals, ALR caches, and will be the eventual end of Challenge caches.

 

We can but hope...

 

ETA: I quite like the idea of the resuscitator challenge caches, but caches you can only find once you've found 20 caches in a day, or 8 cache types in a day or some such just seem pointless.

Edited March 26, 2014 by team tisri

[+J Grouchy]

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...

 

Stretching the guidelines to the max only gives us more restrictive guidelines. It's why we no longer have Virtuals, ALR caches, and will be the eventual end of Challenge caches.

 

We can but hope...

 

ETA: I quite like the idea of the resuscitator challenge caches, but caches you can only find once you've found 20 caches in a day, or 8 cache types in a day or some such just seem pointless.

 

Yeah...we have a local who churns out challenge caches, filling my map with caches I will likely never be able to "find".

[+FIREWALKER438]

I've had cachers drop spoilers in their logs which took away from the cache design and I've had cachers wrench off a padlock on an ammo can breaking it to gain entry. Both of which were at caching events and not done by muggles. Initially your P.O'd ,but after you realize some cachers will try anything when it comes to a point and smiley, this should provide a lesson on how to make the cache better! Yes both caches got archived as soon as I heard about it and it's impossible to place blame on any one cacher because just may be it wasn't hidden well after the last cacher or may be a muggle found it and just wanted in...it stinks, but it's reality. The rules of geocaching aren't perfect but nether is this world.

Edited April 16, 2014 by FIREWALKER438

[+thebruce0]

Puzzles...

Puzzles can't be "broken" in the same way that locks can be "broken", unless somehow one person makes it so that the puzzle itself strictly doesn't work for the next person. In a digital/virtual environment (like the cache listing, or an external web page), that would take hacking and .. yeah... equating breaking a lock to 'breaking a puzzle' doesn't really work.

Brute forcing a puzzle is effectively solving it in a way not intended. Sign the log, that's a valid smiley.

Cheating on a puzzle is effectively solving it in a way not intended. Sign the log, that's a valid smiley.

(though arguably the CO might think it's unfair, or the person is just cheating themselves =P)

Technically, for puzzle caches, there's no equivalent to "damaging property" like destroying a physical cache to sign the log; unless maybe you take down a web server

 

In all physical cache cases: Sign log. Get smiley.

But damage cache property (inapplicable to non-physical puzzles, unless damaging the puzzle's virtualized presentation) to sign the log? Yeah I'd think Groundspeak would support the CO's decision to delete the find log if they did. *shrug*

 

Hm. I suppose one could consider perhaps a user posting the solution to a puzzle in their log temporarily 'breaking' the puzzle, but then the CO has the ability (and I believe the right) to delete the log right away if they want. Or perhaps someone does by sharing the solution over social media. There've been plenty of COs who then archived their puzzle cache because they felt it was ruined; the solution being out there (anyone watching would have received log post content in email notification, even if the log were then immediately deleted). That would be about the closest I'd think one could get to 'breaking' a puzzle, generally speaking.

 

And I agree with the point that requiring a user to unlock a lock with a specific key before logging a Find online would be considered an ALR. But merely locking the cache in such a way that the key is intended to unlock it is not an ALR. It's a hurdle to overcome =P. Just don't break the hurdle for the next person.

Edited April 16, 2014 by thebruce0

[+lowca]

In our area it was created a serie of caches + bonus. I managed to do the serie, and went to bonus with other cacher that had only 40% of serie done. We both signed logbook and reported 'Found'

 

Afterwards the second person was asked (nor ordered, not shouted - but kindly asked) to remove 'Found' log, as he only had 40% of serie, and the final (really nice piece of quiz) was designed for being really final.

 

Yes, an example of ALR.

 

Asked = granted, log was deleted, and only comment from this cacher was "No problem - their cache - their rules" said with smile. I guess he will have a really long time to complete whole serie and re-sign bonus.

[+TopShelfRob]

In our area it was created a serie of caches + bonus. I managed to do the serie, and went to bonus with other cacher that had only 40% of serie done. We both signed logbook and reported 'Found'

 

Afterwards the second person was asked (nor ordered, not shouted - but kindly asked) to remove 'Found' log, as he only had 40% of serie, and the final (really nice piece of quiz) was designed for being really final.

 

Yes, an example of ALR.

 

Asked = granted, log was deleted, and only comment from this cacher was "No problem - their cache - their rules" said with smile. I guess he will have a really long time to complete whole serie and re-sign bonus.

 

Well that was nice of him to accept the CO's rules like that. The CO probably couldn't have enforced it though, if the cacher had refused to remove his find log.

 

I guess if CO really wanted to make it an enforceable requirement, however, he could have just figured out a way to make it a challenge cache, LOL.

 

But as you allude, the lesson there is, ask nicely and perhaps people will work with a CO and respect his wishes, even if they don't have to to be within the rules.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I guess if CO really wanted to make it an enforceable requirement, however, he could have just figured out a way to make it a challenge cache, LOL.

 

No, though people sure try to do this.

A Challenge cache cannot be "find my caches" or "find my caches in this series", or even "find this series of caches", (explicit list).

If this were permitted, a huge number of cache owners would own some kind of Find my Caches Challenge. There are some early "find my caches" challenges, now grandfathered.

 

Occasionally there is a way to do a sort of end run around the no explicit list requirement - example, there a "star" series in many states, and with it a "find x number of caches with "star" in the title challenge. Enough other caches have "star" in the their titles that a person can qualify without finding any of the caches in the series, but mostly, cachers find the series and use those.

[+dprovan]

Asked = granted, log was deleted, and only comment from this cacher was "No problem - their cache - their rules" said with smile. I guess he will have a really long time to complete whole serie and re-sign bonus.

The way I see it, ALRs are not allowed because there's no good way to impartially judge what makes an ALR reasonable. But if my personal opinion is that an unofficial ALR is reasonable, then I happily try to follow it. I don't do it because it's the CO's rule; I do it because that's what the CO wants me to experience.

[+TopShelfRob]

I guess if CO really wanted to make it an enforceable requirement, however, he could have just figured out a way to make it a challenge cache, LOL.

 

No, though people sure try to do this.

A Challenge cache cannot be "find my caches" or "find my caches in this series", or even "find this series of caches", (explicit list).

If this were permitted, a huge number of cache owners would own some kind of Find my Caches Challenge. There are some early "find my caches" challenges, now grandfathered.

 

Occasionally there is a way to do a sort of end run around the no explicit list requirement - example, there a "star" series in many states, and with it a "find x number of caches with "star" in the title challenge. Enough other caches have "star" in the their titles that a person can qualify without finding any of the caches in the series, but mostly, cachers find the series and use those.

 

Right, I was being sarcastic. (hence the LOL... you guys following the other thread about challenge caches?)

 

It's funny some of the same people that defend the existence of challenge caches having allowable ALRs are the same ones that say that ALRs are a bad thing in any other circumstance!

[+Walts Hunting]

In our area it was created a serie of caches + bonus. I managed to do the serie, and went to bonus with other cacher that had only 40% of serie done. We both signed logbook and reported 'Found'

 

Afterwards the second person was asked (nor ordered, not shouted - but kindly asked) to remove 'Found' log, as he only had 40% of serie, and the final (really nice piece of quiz) was designed for being really final.

 

Yes, an example of ALR.

 

Asked = granted, log was deleted, and only comment from this cacher was "No problem - their cache - their rules" said with smile. I guess he will have a really long time to complete whole serie and re-sign bonus.

That's not an ALR. The letter A stands for After. He published an unknown that requirements to allow it to be logged.

[+thebruce0]

That's not an ALR. The letter A stands for After. He published an unknown that requirements to allow it to be logged.

 

Actually no, it's "Additional Logging Requirements".