You can't log this cache until you did 'X'

[+narcissa]

In that example, long trails were completely saturated with challenge caches. When the next one, and the next one, and the next one....and so are, are more challenges that, because one isn't an uber cacher might not ever be able to "find" the proliferation of challenge caches starts to have a significant negative impact.

 

I's say less negative impact than conventional powertrails. If powertrails get less visitors, that's fine with me.

 

If it were me, I rather would question powertrails than challenge caches.

 

I see this as the perfect solution. I am not particularly keen on either, so if all the challenge caches were confined to boring rail trails it would leave good spots open for good caches.

[+tozainamboku]

Personally, I agree with narcissa's assessment that even with challenge powertrails there are still plenty of caches for people to find. There have been complaints of too many puzzles, too many virtuals, or even too many park and grabs. In general these things even out over time and while you may get a group of cachers who saturate an area with a paticular kind of cache, others will start placing more of the kinds of cache they like and move things to a more balanced mixture of caches.

 

One issue with high-numbers cachers is that they find a lot of caches. And per capita they tend to hide more caches. When they are hiding park 'n grabs or powertrails, the complaint of "too many" rings a bit hollow because you can still find these caches albeit at a slower rate even if you're not into numbers. With challenges that are designed to appeal to and be reasonably attainable only by cacher who already have thousands of finds, these caches are truly excluding a fair number of cachers. One could say the same for puzzles that require computer programming or a knowledge of how to solve systems of partial differential equations, or of high-terrain caches that require scuba certification or rock climbing skills. However these caches tend to be self-limiting. When was the last time you saw a powertrail of scuba caches or a powertrail of puzzles that required an engineering degree to solve? High numbers cachers are more likely to hide high numbers of caches that exclude all but high numbers cachers. At some point Groundspeak may decide to limit these.

[+The A-Team]

...a powertrail of puzzles that required an engineering degree to solve...

Ooh, that gives me an idea!

 

<laughs maniacally>

 

[cezanne]

When was the last time you saw a powertrail of scuba caches or a powertrail of puzzles that required an engineering degree to solve? High numbers cachers are more likely to hide high numbers of caches that exclude all but high numbers cachers.

 

There are powertrails with tree climbing caches (comparable to the pictures posted by LoneR for challenge caches) and there are quite a number of trails with difficult puzzles (in my area there is a trail with 65 puzzle caches that require knowledge at the level needed for a pilote licence).

 

If there are enough high numbers cachers in an area, then their challenge caches appeal to a sufficient number of cachers. If only a few high numbers cachers are around, then there is something wrong with the publication of the challenge caches.

[+NeverSummer]

When was the last time you saw a powertrail of scuba caches or a powertrail of puzzles that required an engineering degree to solve? High numbers cachers are more likely to hide high numbers of caches that exclude all but high numbers cachers.

 

There are powertrails with tree climbing caches (comparable to the pictures posted by LoneR for challenge caches) and there are quite a number of trails with difficult puzzles (in my area there is a trail with 65 puzzle caches that require knowledge at the level needed for a pilote licence).

 

If there are enough high numbers cachers in an area, then their challenge caches appeal to a sufficient number of cachers. If only a few high numbers cachers are around, then there is something wrong with the publication of the challenge caches.

And yet, I wonder if that owner would be willing to offer some help if someone asked?

 

At least with those puzzles you have a chance and opportunity to log the cache when you sign the logbook regardless of if you "solved" the puzzle or had any help with it. But, with a "challenge cache", you "can't" (read: not "supposed to") log the cache online if you don't do "X"; an owner is within their right to delete your "Found it" log.

[+KC2WI]

If numbers mean a lot to you then you'll do whatever the challenge requires. On the other hand, if you just like finding caches, nothing's stopping you from finding a challenge cache whether or not you log it as a find on geocaching.com.

 

I suppose you could just 'write note' and say you found the actual cache but didn't bother with the challenge.

[+NeverSummer]

<snip>

 

I suppose you could just 'write note' and say you found the actual cache but didn't bother with the challenge.

Yeah, but that's where we get right into the mantra that was even spoken by Groundspeak about physical geocaches with a logbook are loggable online when you have found the cache and signed the logbook. So...a Note isn't really the correct log type, is it?

[+GeoBain]

<snip>

 

I suppose you could just 'write note' and say you found the actual cache but didn't bother with the challenge.

Yeah, but that's where we get right into the mantra that was even spoken by Groundspeak about physical geocaches with a logbook are loggable online when you have found the cache and signed the logbook. So...a Note isn't really the correct log type, is it?

 

Who cares?

[Keystone]

<snip>

 

I suppose you could just 'write note' and say you found the actual cache but didn't bother with the challenge.

Yeah, but that's where we get right into the mantra that was even spoken by Groundspeak about physical geocaches with a logbook are loggable online when you have found the cache and signed the logbook. So...a Note isn't really the correct log type, is it?

Quoting just the first sentence of the logging guidelines, or the "mantra" as you call it, is misleading. If you're going to cite guidelines, they should be read in their entirety. Here's a longer quote:

 

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

 

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing. Other than documenting a Challenge Cache, physical caches cannot require geocachers to contact anyone.

 

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.

[+tozainamboku]

I guess we have a few people who are enamored by the idea of separating the WIGAS system into WIGAS points for finding caches and WIGAS stars for completing challenge requirements. As long as someone wants to have a WIGAS score, I think there should be only one, and those of us who don't want a WIGAS score at all have fewer numbers to ignore. Sure, there are going to be some caches on the map that I've found but can't marked as such because they have challenges I'm not going to do, but I can handle these with the ignore list or by marking them found in GSAK.

[cezanne]

<snip>

 

I suppose you could just 'write note' and say you found the actual cache but didn't bother with the challenge.

Yeah, but that's where we get right into the mantra that was even spoken by Groundspeak about physical geocaches with a logbook are loggable online when you have found the cache and signed the logbook. So...a Note isn't really the correct log type, is it?

 

Apart from the fact that challenge caches are an exception (see also Keystone's post), I feel that a note is the correct log type. I have logged numerous notes for caches where I have found the cache and signed the logbook (puzzles I did not solve, caches I could not reach, but was handed the log book etc).

[cezanne]

At least with those puzzles you have a chance and opportunity to log the cache when you sign the logbook regardless of if you "solved" the puzzle or had any help with it. But, with a "challenge cache", you "can't" (read: not "supposed to") log the cache online if you don't do "X"; an owner is within their right to delete your "Found it" log.

 

That's true, but a lot of honest cachers will not want to write found it logs under such circumstances.

 

I think it is not true that challenge caches are in general more competetive/exclusive than other cache types. It is simply a fact that many cachers are proud if they have achieved something not everyone can achieve. Some will be proud of having solved a large number of hard puzzles, some will be proud to have completed the original fizzy challenge, some will be proud that they can manage a cache series like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?key=jagdkommando&submit4=Go

(note that the cache descriptions even mention the motivation to have managed something that only few can do - still those caches are extremely popular among those who manage them).

 

There are cachers who are neither able/willing to cope with extreme physical nor extreme intellectual challenges, for them some challenge caches that can be reached by investing time, money and devotion will be a chance to get the same sort of feeling that they have accomplished something not everyone can accomplish than the other cache types mentioned above provide. In my opinion, this is fair.

[team tisri]

Personally, I agree with narcissa's assessment that even with challenge powertrails there are still plenty of caches for people to find. There have been complaints of too many puzzles, too many virtuals, or even too many park and grabs. In general these things even out over time and while you may get a group of cachers who saturate an area with a paticular kind of cache, others will start placing more of the kinds of cache they like and move things to a more balanced mixture of caches.

 

One issue with high-numbers cachers is that they find a lot of caches. And per capita they tend to hide more caches. When they are hiding park 'n grabs or powertrails, the complaint of "too many" rings a bit hollow because you can still find these caches albeit at a slower rate even if you're not into numbers. With challenges that are designed to appeal to and be reasonably attainable only by cacher who already have thousands of finds, these caches are truly excluding a fair number of cachers. One could say the same for puzzles that require computer programming or a knowledge of how to solve systems of partial differential equations, or of high-terrain caches that require scuba certification or rock climbing skills. However these caches tend to be self-limiting. When was the last time you saw a powertrail of scuba caches or a powertrail of puzzles that required an engineering degree to solve? High numbers cachers are more likely to hide high numbers of caches that exclude all but high numbers cachers. At some point Groundspeak may decide to limit these.

 

High-terrain caches do tend to be self-limiting as you say because there are only so many places you can put them. That said in a park with lots of tall trees I don't suppose anything stops the person who feels a need to hide caches 528 feet apart when they are all up trees.

 

A theoretical power trail of caches requiring scuba gear would have minimal impact on those who weren't into scuba diving because they would probably be more than 528 feet from land, and so have minimal impact on other people placing caches.

 

A regular power trail of 1.5/1.5 type caches of the endless film-pot-behind-post or keysafe-behind-guardrail genre is, in theory, easy enough to ignore but has an obvious impact on other cache placement because of the way it creates a quarter-mile-wide sausage shaped exclusion zone for anything else to be placed. Those not into numbers can do them a few at a time if they feel like it, although those not into numbers aren't likely to be interested in endless film pots behind posts or guard rails regardless of whether they find 5 at a time or 500 at a time.

[+L0ne.R]

Personally, I agree with narcissa's assessment that even with challenge powertrails there are still plenty of caches for people to find. There have been complaints of too many puzzles, too many virtuals, or even too many park and grabs. In general these things even out over time and while you may get a group of cachers who saturate an area with a paticular kind of cache, others will start placing more of the kinds of cache they like and move things to a more balanced mixture of caches.

 

One issue with high-numbers cachers is that they find a lot of caches. And per capita they tend to hide more caches. When they are hiding park 'n grabs or powertrails, the complaint of "too many" rings a bit hollow because you can still find these caches albeit at a slower rate even if you're not into numbers. With challenges that are designed to appeal to and be reasonably attainable only by cacher who already have thousands of finds, these caches are truly excluding a fair number of cachers. One could say the same for puzzles that require computer programming or a knowledge of how to solve systems of partial differential equations, or of high-terrain caches that require scuba certification or rock climbing skills. However these caches tend to be self-limiting. When was the last time you saw a powertrail of scuba caches or a powertrail of puzzles that required an engineering degree to solve? High numbers cachers are more likely to hide high numbers of caches that exclude all but high numbers cachers. At some point Groundspeak may decide to limit these.

 

High-terrain caches do tend to be self-limiting as you say because there are only so many places you can put them. That said in a park with lots of tall trees I don't suppose anything stops the person who feels a need to hide caches 528 feet apart when they are all up trees.

 

A theoretical power trail of caches requiring scuba gear would have minimal impact on those who weren't into scuba diving because they would probably be more than 528 feet from land, and so have minimal impact on other people placing caches.

 

A regular power trail of 1.5/1.5 type caches of the endless film-pot-behind-post or keysafe-behind-guardrail genre is, in theory, easy enough to ignore but has an obvious impact on other cache placement because of the way it creates a quarter-mile-wide sausage shaped exclusion zone for anything else to be placed. Those not into numbers can do them a few at a time if they feel like it, although those not into numbers aren't likely to be interested in endless film pots behind posts or guard rails regardless of whether they find 5 at a time or 500 at a time.

 

^^^^ This. Thank you tt. Well said.

[cezanne]

A regular power trail of 1.5/1.5 type caches of the endless film-pot-behind-post or keysafe-behind-guardrail genre is, in theory, easy enough to ignore but has an obvious impact on other cache placement because of the way it creates a quarter-mile-wide sausage shaped exclusion zone for anything else to be placed. Those not into numbers can do them a few at a time if they feel like it, although those not into numbers aren't likely to be interested in endless film pots behind posts or guard rails regardless of whether they find 5 at a time or 500 at a time.

 

But if they are not interested, it does not play a role whether these caches are challenge caches or not and that's exactly my point.

Why should it be so important to have those caches on one's list of found it caches if one is not a numbers cachers (and thus will not qualify)?

 

Cezanne

[+DanOCan]

At least with those puzzles you have a chance and opportunity to log the cache when you sign the logbook regardless of if you "solved" the puzzle or had any help with it. But, with a "challenge cache", you "can't" (read: not "supposed to") log the cache online if you don't do "X"; an owner is within their right to delete your "Found it" log.

That's true, but a lot of honest cachers will not want to write found it logs under such circumstances.

Is this implying that cachers who log a Found It on a puzzle they may not have solved entirely on their own are somehow dishonest? If you want the log type to be called "Found the cache and jumped backwards through all the flaming hoops exactly as the owner intended", then that's a feature request for a different forum.

[cezanne]

At least with those puzzles you have a chance and opportunity to log the cache when you sign the logbook regardless of if you "solved" the puzzle or had any help with it. But, with a "challenge cache", you "can't" (read: not "supposed to") log the cache online if you don't do "X"; an owner is within their right to delete your "Found it" log.

That's true, but a lot of honest cachers will not want to write found it logs under such circumstances.

Is this implying that cachers who log a Found It on a puzzle they may not have solved entirely on their own are somehow dishonest? If you want the log type to be called "Found the cache and jumped backwards through all the flaming hoops exactly as the owner intended", then that's a feature request for a different forum.

 

No, I referred to not having worked on the puzzle at all (I just did not delete the help part in the quote I replied to). Moreover, I did not ask for a change of the name of the log type.

I just made the point that having to meet the requirements of a challenge cache is comparable to having worked seriously on a puzzle cache. There are many cachers out there who hardly visit puzzle caches because they are not able or not willing to solve the puzzles, but do not want to log "found it" logs on the basis of final coordinates they got from elsewhere. (Keystone belongs to that group.)

I think that the argument that puzzle caches can be logged as "found it" regardless of how one obtained the coordinates is not really a good one when it comes to criticizing challenge caches.

 

As your "flaming hoops" statement is regarded, let me just say that for me it is important to take into account what the cache owner had in mind. I'm allowed to log "found its" for tree climbing caches if someone hands me the log book, but I regard this is very lame. The same is true for not working on puzzles for puzzle caches. For me geocaching is more than just signing a log book. For example, if someone hides a container up a tree, then I suppose for a good reason and not to have me log a "found it" if I send a friend up the tree. I cannot climb up trees and have no need to abuse tree climbing caches to add an additional cache to those on which I logged a "found it".

 

 

Cezanne

Edited September 23, 2014 by cezanne

[+narcissa]

these caches are truly excluding a fair number of cachers

 

Yes, cachers who:

 

1. Have fewer finds, and therefore more unfound caches available to find.

2. Cache at a slower pace and are unlikely to run out of caches to find.

 

Any way you slice it, there are still tons and tons of very easy traditionals out there. It's simply unreasonable to get bent out of shape because some caches are not meant for all cachers.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

these caches are truly excluding a fair number of cachers

 

Yes, cachers who:

 

1. Have fewer finds, and therefore more unfound caches available to find.

2. Cache at a slower pace and are unlikely to run out of caches to find.

 

Any way you slice it, there are still tons and tons of very easy traditionals out there.

 

Which is fine, I suppose, if you're satisfied with very easy traditionals. Some geocachers, however, like to find caches that have more going for them other than they're easy.

[cezanne]

Any way you slice it, there are still tons and tons of very easy traditionals out there.

 

Which is fine, I suppose, if you're satisfied with very easy traditionals. Some geocachers, however, like to find caches that have more going for them other than they're easy.

 

But for these cachers there are enough caches available, too (in those areas where there is a substantial number of challenge caches, not somewhere at a lonely location in Africa). Why do thes cachers need to insist on easy challenge power trail like traditionals whose only challenge is to qualify if they neither want to do what is required for qualifying nor are interested into easy traditionals?

Edited September 23, 2014 by cezanne

[+narcissa]

these caches are truly excluding a fair number of cachers

 

Yes, cachers who:

 

1. Have fewer finds, and therefore more unfound caches available to find.

2. Cache at a slower pace and are unlikely to run out of caches to find.

 

Any way you slice it, there are still tons and tons of very easy traditionals out there.

 

Which is fine, I suppose, if you're satisfied with very easy traditionals. Some geocachers, however, like to find caches that have more going for them other than they're easy.

 

Yes, and those have always been more rare.

 

We all wish that every single cache out there was an extra special terrific cache placed with just our tastes in mind, but that's not how it works, and that's not what this thread is about.

[+NeverSummer]

<snip>

 

I suppose you could just 'write note' and say you found the actual cache but didn't bother with the challenge.

Yeah, but that's where we get right into the mantra that was even spoken by Groundspeak about physical geocaches with a logbook are loggable online when you have found the cache and signed the logbook. So...a Note isn't really the correct log type, is it?

Quoting just the first sentence of the logging guidelines, or the "mantra" as you call it, is misleading. If you're going to cite guidelines, they should be read in their entirety. Here's a longer quote:

 

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

 

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing. Other than documenting a Challenge Cache, physical caches cannot require geocachers to contact anyone.

 

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.

Woah there. Yes, that's the update to the guidelines to allow for "challenge caches". The "mantra", as I called it, came more from the discussions in the forums about ALRs back in 2008-2009. I don't have the direct quotes, but the gist of why ALRs were done away with was that physical caches are logged online as "Found" once the cache is found and its logbook signed. That's what I'm talking about, specifically, not the current guideline. This is where I discuss lack of consistency in the other threads about "challenge caches", "challenge stars", etc.

 

And, if we wanted to pick nits, the guideline you refer to contradicts itself with the last 2 sentences. Amiright?

[+NeverSummer]

<snip>

 

I suppose you could just 'write note' and say you found the actual cache but didn't bother with the challenge.

Yeah, but that's where we get right into the mantra that was even spoken by Groundspeak about physical geocaches with a logbook are loggable online when you have found the cache and signed the logbook. So...a Note isn't really the correct log type, is it?

 

Apart from the fact that challenge caches are an exception (see also Keystone's post), I feel that a note is the correct log type. I have logged numerous notes for caches where I have found the cache and signed the logbook (puzzles I did not solve, caches I could not reach, but was handed the log book etc).

However, as clear from experiences outlined in the forums and in real life, you can log a "Found it" online for finding a puzzle container and signing its logbook where you didn't solve the attached puzzle. Your personal choices regarding how you handle online logging of physical caches is moot.

[+NeverSummer]

At least with those puzzles you have a chance and opportunity to log the cache when you sign the logbook regardless of if you "solved" the puzzle or had any help with it. But, with a "challenge cache", you "can't" (read: not "supposed to") log the cache online if you don't do "X"; an owner is within their right to delete your "Found it" log.

 

That's true, but a lot of honest cachers will not want to write found it logs under such circumstances.

 

I think it is not true that challenge caches are in general more competetive/exclusive than other cache types. It is simply a fact that many cachers are proud if they have achieved something not everyone can achieve. Some will be proud of having solved a large number of hard puzzles, some will be proud to have completed the original fizzy challenge, some will be proud that they can manage a cache series like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?key=jagdkommando&submit4=Go

(note that the cache descriptions even mention the motivation to have managed something that only few can do - still those caches are extremely popular among those who manage them).

 

There are cachers who are neither able/willing to cope with extreme physical nor extreme intellectual challenges, for them some challenge caches that can be reached by investing time, money and devotion will be a chance to get the same sort of feeling that they have accomplished something not everyone can accomplish than the other cache types mentioned above provide. In my opinion, this is fair.

And how proud were those who actually took photos wearing a funny hat to be able to log those ALR caches 5 years ago? Some of those people were very sad or upset that ALR caches went away--they enjoyed those hoops to jump through to log the cache online; they welcomed the oddities that came around from some of those ALR caches.

 

You're essentially arguing the same way that fans of ALRs were when those ALR caches were threatened with removal. The line (or "mantra" *cough*) Groundspeak took on the subject was that physical caches were designed to be logged as "Found" online when the cache was found and the logbook signed.

 

So, what we have here is the same fight coming to a head, and there are those who are trying to find ways to keep "challenge caches" alive despite this inconsistency. (I'm one of them! See "challenge stars", or other ideas that allow the "challenge cache" physical cache type to be logged as "Found" in addition to a "challenge completed".)

[+NYPaddleCacher]

these caches are truly excluding a fair number of cachers

 

Yes, cachers who:

 

1. Have fewer finds, and therefore more unfound caches available to find.

2. Cache at a slower pace and are unlikely to run out of caches to find.

 

Any way you slice it, there are still tons and tons of very easy traditionals out there.

 

Which is fine, I suppose, if you're satisfied with very easy traditionals. Some geocachers, however, like to find caches that have more going for them other than they're easy.

 

Yes, and those have always been more rare.

 

We all wish that every single cache out there was an extra special terrific cache placed with just our tastes in mind, but that's not how it works, and that's not what this thread is about.

 

I don't think we all wish that at all. I know what this thread is about. It's about challenge caches with a drift towards power trails of challenge caches. I'm not asking those that put out power trails of challenges to stop doing so, and instead place the type I prefer. I'd be happy if those cache owner would just pause to consider that when they complete saturate a trail with a certain type of cache, there won't be anywhere else on the trail for anything else.

 

Maybe rails trails in your area are all boring, but at least around here there are several existing and future rails trails that have scenic locations and plenty of spots where something creative could be placed. I have a few caches along a couple of those trails. The day that someone saturates those trails with easy traditional or challenge caches will be the day I archive those caches.

[team tisri]

A regular power trail of 1.5/1.5 type caches of the endless film-pot-behind-post or keysafe-behind-guardrail genre is, in theory, easy enough to ignore but has an obvious impact on other cache placement because of the way it creates a quarter-mile-wide sausage shaped exclusion zone for anything else to be placed. Those not into numbers can do them a few at a time if they feel like it, although those not into numbers aren't likely to be interested in endless film pots behind posts or guard rails regardless of whether they find 5 at a time or 500 at a time.

 

But if they are not interested, it does not play a role whether these caches are challenge caches or not and that's exactly my point.

Why should it be so important to have those caches on one's list of found it caches if one is not a numbers cachers (and thus will not qualify)?

 

Cezanne

 

I don't care if a particular cache is on my "found" list or not. My concern is that when an area starts to get overrun with a particular type of cache (whether it's a fiendish puzzles, film pots behind posts, challenges, whatever) it starts to restrict the game for people who dislike that particular type of cache.

 

Whether people end up not doing particular caches because they are physically incapable of climbing tall trees, lack the time/resources/inclination to jump through the hoops required to qualify for a challenge, or simply can't be bothered to find endless film pots behind posts, the end result is that geocaching for that person in that area becomes significantly less fun because there are ever-fewer places to hide a cache that might interest them.

 

At this point (and I can hardly believe I'm saying something positive about film pots behind posts) the advantage of endless film pots behind posts is that if you choose to go and find them they are usually easy enough to find, even if not particularly interesting. A challenge cache that says you have to have found 1000 puzzles beforehand is remarkably difficult for many, a challenge that requires caching in 5 different countries requires a potentially significant financial commitment (obviously it's much easier for someone in Belgium than someone in Colorado), and so on.

[cezanne]

However, as clear from experiences outlined in the forums and in real life, you can log a "Found it" online for finding a puzzle container and signing its logbook where you didn't solve the attached puzzle. Your personal choices regarding how you handle online logging of physical caches is moot.

 

As many other cachers (at least old timers) handle it similarly it is not that moot. What you write above does not change the fact that puzzle caches and high terrain caches provide the very same sort of barrier than challenge caches to a large number of cachers because they care about more than whether their logs can be deleted legitimately.

This thread is not about when log deletion is allowed - there is a clear answer for that.

 

A puzzle too tiresome for Keystone excludes him in the same way as challenge cache for uber caches excludes Lone.R (in both cases their individual logging practise is taken into account).

[+NeverSummer]

<snip>

As your "flaming hoops" statement is regarded, let me just say that for me it is important to take into account what the cache owner had in mind. I'm allowed to log "found its" for tree climbing caches if someone hands me the log book, but I regard this is very lame. The same is true for not working on puzzles for puzzle caches. For me geocaching is more than just signing a log book. For example, if someone hides a container up a tree, then I suppose for a good reason and not to have me log a "found it" if I send a friend up the tree. I cannot climb up trees and have no need to abuse tree climbing caches to add an additional cache to those on which I logged a "found it".

 

So here we have another quote that is oddly similar as to how it defends the "challenge cache" as an ALR cache. Let me play mad libs with your quote to drive that point home...

 

As your "flaming hoops" statement is regarded, let me just say that for me it is important to take into account what the cache owner had in mind. I'm allowed to log "found its" for tree climbing caches a cache requiring me to post a photo of me wearing a tutu and on pointed toe if someone hands me the log book, but I regard this is very lame. The same is true for not working on puzzles for puzzle caches. For me geocaching is more than just signing a log book. For example, if someone hides a container up a tree requires me to post a limerick in my log, then I suppose for a good reason and not to have me log a "found it" if I send a friend up the tree let my friend's limerick count for my normally-written log. I cannot climb up trees and have no need to abuse tree climbing caches to add an additional cache to those on which I logged a "found it".

[+NeverSummer]

these caches are truly excluding a fair number of cachers

 

Yes, cachers who:

 

1. Have fewer finds, and therefore more unfound caches available to find.

2. Cache at a slower pace and are unlikely to run out of caches to find.

 

Any way you slice it, there are still tons and tons of very easy traditionals out there.

 

Which is fine, I suppose, if you're satisfied with very easy traditionals. Some geocachers, however, like to find caches that have more going for them other than they're easy.

 

Yes, and those have always been more rare.

 

We all wish that every single cache out there was an extra special terrific cache placed with just our tastes in mind, but that's not how it works, and that's not what this thread is about.

 

I don't think we all wish that at all. I know what this thread is about. It's about challenge caches with a drift towards power trails of challenge caches. I'm not asking those that put out power trails of challenges to stop doing so, and instead place the type I prefer. I'd be happy if those cache owner would just pause to consider that when they complete saturate a trail with a certain type of cache, there won't be anywhere else on the trail for anything else.

 

Maybe rails trails in your area are all boring, but at least around here there are several existing and future rails trails that have scenic locations and plenty of spots where something creative could be placed. I have a few caches along a couple of those trails. The day that someone saturates those trails with easy traditional or challenge caches will be the day I archive those caches.

Essentially what is being discussed here is in regard to the expansion of the game. Saturation today has a different implication than it did 14 years ago.

 

We now have to consider not only the physical saturation of caches in an area, but also the type of caches that saturate an area. For example, if an area (rail-to-trail) is saturated with "challenge caches", then that area is effectively off-limits to all who might wish to find and place caches on that rail-to-trail.

 

Believe me, this isn't the best argument for or against "challenge caches" or Puzzles, but it is another issue that needs to be considered in the grand picture of gameplay for all of us; its another level of gameplay etiquette which becomes more necessary to address as more restrictive cache types become commonplace.

[+NeverSummer]

However, as clear from experiences outlined in the forums and in real life, you can log a "Found it" online for finding a puzzle container and signing its logbook where you didn't solve the attached puzzle. Your personal choices regarding how you handle online logging of physical caches is moot.

 

As many other cachers (at least old timers) handle it similarly it is not that moot. What you write above does not change the fact that puzzle caches and high terrain caches provide the very same sort of barrier than challenge caches to a large number of cachers because they care about more than whether their logs can be deleted legitimately.

This thread is not about when log deletion is allowed - there is a clear answer for that.

It is moot. Be sure to look up what that word means (I don't mean that in a mean way--you said English isn't your first language).

 

Being an "old timer" has little to do with this. Don't look at my join date and judge me against your criteria--I've been caching since 2001, but only a member since 2005. Also, you can't say that how "old timers" in your area specifically might handle logging a physical cache is how the game is played. The Guidelines state that you can log a find online once you've found a container and have signed its logbook. If you and your familiar "old timers" handle it differently, that point is moot against the existing guidelines, and how this "old timer" plays the game.

 

A puzzle too tiresome for Keystone excludes him in the same way as challenge cache for uber caches excludes Lone.R (in both cases their individual logging practise is taken into account).

 

But nothing stops Keystone from logging a "Found it" on that "tiresome puzzle" if they so choose, except for their own personal decisions about "if they log a 'Found it' for a cache they've found, yet not solved a tiresome puzzle"--a "Found it" log will stand. This is not the case with "challenge caches", and also why there is something that needs to be addressed.

 

But, as so many people get bent out of shape imagining this "great part of the game" being threatened, everyone should cool their jets and realize that all but a fringe element of the "'challenge caches' need to be addressed"-crowd are fully in favor of that type of cache owner's free expression ("let me just say that for me it is important to take into account what the cache owner had in mind...", was it cezanne?), and for that free expression to remain. Yet the key difference is that most see an inconsistency with how "challenge caches" are handled against the guidelines for physical caches, and also when weighed against how ALR caches were handled 5 years ago.

Edited September 23, 2014 by NeverSummer

[+narcissa]

or example, if an area (rail-to-trail) is saturated with "challenge caches", then that area is effectively off-limits to all who might wish to find and place caches on that rail-to-trail.

 

That is true regardless of what type of cache "saturates" an area. And the line from Groundspeak has always been "boo hoo, should have gotten there first."

[+narcissa]

I'd be happy if those cache owner would just pause to consider that when they complete saturate a trail with a certain type of cache, there won't be anywhere else on the trail for anything else.

 

I would be happy with that too, but the cat is out of the bag on that one and these people do not ever stop to consider that.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

or example, if an area (rail-to-trail) is saturated with "challenge caches", then that area is effectively off-limits to all who might wish to find and place caches on that rail-to-trail.

 

That is true regardless of what type of cache "saturates" an area. And the line from Groundspeak has always been "boo hoo, should have gotten there first."

 

I don't know that I've ever seen that line from Groundspeak, but it sounds like a line from someone that doesn't care at all about fostering the community. Sadly, this game has become more about instant gratification and one-upping other geocachers ( place a bigger power trail, find more caches, pat ones self on the back for all challenges complete that others have not) than any concern about a splintering of the community.

Edited September 23, 2014 by NYPaddleCacher

[+narcissa]

or example, if an area (rail-to-trail) is saturated with "challenge caches", then that area is effectively off-limits to all who might wish to find and place caches on that rail-to-trail.

 

That is true regardless of what type of cache "saturates" an area. And the line from Groundspeak has always been "boo hoo, should have gotten there first."

 

I don't know that I've ever seen that line from Groundspeak, but it sounds like a line that doesn't care at all about fostering the community.

 

Well, when they opened up the floodgates on these "power trails," some of us raised concerns about the impact this would have. The reviewers I spoke to essentially shrugged and said first come, first served.

[cezanne]

It is moot. Be sure to look up what that word means (I don't mean that in a mean way--you said English isn't your first language).

 

I do know the meaning of moot and I did not interpret it negatively.

 

Being an "old timer" has little to do with this. Don't look at my join date and judge me against your criteria--I've been caching since 2001, but only a member since 2005.

 

I did not look at your profile and did not intend to judge you anyway.

 

 

Also, you can't say that how "old timers" in your area specifically might handle logging a physical cache is how the game is played.

 

The Guidelines state that you can log a find online once you've found a container and have signed its logbook. If you and your familiar "old timers" handle it differently, that point is moot against the existing guidelines, and how this "old timer" plays the game.

 

Ok, I can agree with "moot against the existing guideline", but my point was that for many cachers there exists more than these guidelines and this effects their way of geocaching. So it's not moot for them.

 

 

But nothing stops Keystone from logging a "Found it" on that "tiresome puzzle" if they so choose, except for their own personal decisions about "if they log a 'Found it' for a cache they've found, yet not solved a tiresome puzzle"--a "Found it" log will stand.

 

His personal geocaching ethics and so the result stays the same for him.

 

The issue with puzzle caches is that there does not exist a reasonable way of proofing that one has solved the puzzle while for challenge caches

there exist objective rules provided in the cache description for what is needed for qualification.

So I'd rather say that logs for puzzle caches stand if the log book is signed because there is no other practicable way to go and not because

the intent is that everyone can log finds for such caches. The same holds true for challenge caches. Their idea is not to provide a find for everyone decoupled from

meeting the requirement.

 

This is not the case with "challenge caches", and also why there is something that needs to be addressed.

 

The first part is true, but I do not agree with the second.

There is no requirement for having consistent logging rules for all caches. There are inconsistencies present, no doubt. I just do not agree that these need to be addressed.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited September 23, 2014 by cezanne

[+NeverSummer]

It is moot. Be sure to look up what that word means (I don't mean that in a mean way--you said English isn't your first language).

 

I do know the meaning of moot and I did not interpret it negatively.

Ok then, so you know that your point is moot. How you have decided to not log a find online for a puzzle you have not solved yet found the container and signed the logbook is a personal preference, and beyond the scope of the existing guidelines and "spirit of the game".

 

Being an "old timer" has little to do with this. Don't look at my join date and judge me against your criteria--I've been caching since 2001, but only a member since 2005.

 

I did not look at your profile and did not intend to judge you anyway.

 

 

Also, you can't say that how "old timers" in your area specifically might handle logging a physical cache is how the game is played.

I never said how "old timers" in my area specifically might handle anything. I only said that my viewpoint toes the line of the guidelines--anyone can log a physical cache online once they have found the container and signed its logbook. That's not a personal preference, it's the bottom line on how one may log a cache on Geocaching.com. This, your personal preference stated above is what makes your decision and argument moot. I'm not stating preference, whereas you are.

 

The Guidelines state that you can log a find online once you've found a container and have signed its logbook. If you and your familiar "old timers" handle it differently, that point is moot against the existing guidelines, and how this "old timer" plays the game.

 

Ok, I can agree with "moot against the existing guideline", but my point was that for many cachers there exists more than these guidelines and this effects their way of geocaching. So it's not moot for them.

Ok, ok...you don't know what "moot" means. Here it means that we can go around and around on this because you're arguing personal preference that restrict the way you play the game above and beyond the guidelines for the game. It's like having a "house rule" for how you play cards at your house, even if the established rules for that card game are more simple. Your "house rule" about "not logging a 'found it' for a puzzle cache you haven't solved the puzzle for, yet found the container and signed the logbook" is above and beyond the requirements stated by Groundspeak for the criteria to log a "Found it" for a physical geocache on this website.

 

You are arguing for something that isn't there to argue about--we're talking about apples and oranges here. Your apple is your "house rule", and my orange is the guidelines as they stand now.

 

 

But nothing stops Keystone from logging a "Found it" on that "tiresome puzzle" if they so choose, except for their own personal decisions about "if they log a 'Found it' for a cache they've found, yet not solved a tiresome puzzle"--a "Found it" log will stand.

 

His personal geocaching ethics and so the result stays the same for him.

 

The issue with puzzle caches is that there does not exist a reasonable way of proofing that one has solved the puzzle while for challenge caches

there exist objective rules provided in the cache description for what is needed for qualification.

So I'd rather say that logs for puzzle caches stand if the log book is signed because there is no other practicable way to go and not because

the intent is that everyone can log finds for such caches. The same holds true for challenge caches. Their idea is not to provide a find for everyone decoupled from

meeting the requirement.

 

This is not the case with "challenge caches", and also why there is something that needs to be addressed.

 

The first part is true, but I do not agree with the second.

There is no requirement for having consistent logging rules for all caches. There are inconsistencies present, no doubt. I just do not agree that these need to be addressed.

 

 

Cezanne

 

Again, apples and oranges. I'm not arguing the point you're trying to make above.

 

I, and others, take issue with the fact that the guidelines were (are) cut and dry for physical geocaches and logging a "Found it" online. The issue, which I'll address against your last quote, is that there is a simple way to address this inconsistency which irons out the wrinkles. That would be to either create a new, non-physical cache type for "challenge caches", create a new log type of "Challenge completed" to be posted in addition to a "Found it" log on a "challenge cache", or to create a "Challenge Stars" system like discussed on the Website forum (and other threads here). None of those suggestions does away with what I (and others) see as a great part of the game. It does, however, address the issues that arise out of the ALR situation and the related arguments that were supposedly put to rest with the decisions about said ALR caches back in 2009.

 

I don't expect to convince you that my viewpoint is now yours. So, to that end, it's quite simple what we're arguing, and that is how you personally geocache is trumping the basic guidelines and how you think others should geocache. You've argued against what I've had to say in the very same way that ALR proponents argued to save their beloved cache type before Groundspeak came back out and said that physical geocaches are meant to be found and logged by those that find the container and sign the logbook.

 

That's how the game started, and that's how they made the call in 2009.

[cezanne]

I, and others, take issue with the fact that the guidelines were (are) cut and dry for physical geocaches and logging a "Found it" online. The issue, which I'll address against your last quote, is that there is a simple way to address this inconsistency which irons out the wrinkles. That would be to either create a new, non-physical cache type for "challenge caches", create a new log type of "Challenge completed" to be posted in addition to a "Found it" log on a "challenge cache", or to create a "Challenge Stars" system like discussed on the Website forum (and other threads here). None of those suggestions does away with what I (and others) see as a great part of the game. It does, however, address the issues that arise out of the ALR situation and the related arguments that were supposedly put to rest with the decisions about said ALR caches back in 2009.

 

Yes, it solves you consistency issue. It does away however with an essential attraction for challenge caches.

ALRs have been abolished because the requirements that were asked for got out of control and were often not geocaching related. I see no essential problem with allowing special types of requirements as it is the case now for challenge caches except the consistency issue.

 

You've argued against what I've had to say in the very same way that ALR proponents argued to save their beloved cache type before Groundspeak came back out and said that physical geocaches are meant to be found and logged by those that find the container and sign the logbook.

 

That might well be, but it is still Groundspeak who decides what is allowed and what not. For me allowing power trails is the worst thing Groundspeak has ever done, and yet there is no doubt that Groundspeak is free to do what they want.

I see what happened in 2009 as a rule that allows very special types of ALRs, namely those in published challenge caches and forbids all other ones.

 

That's how the game started, and that's how they made the call in 2009.

 

I do not agree with the second part as challenge caches have been introduced intentionally, not by mistake.

[+NeverSummer]

I, and others, take issue with the fact that the guidelines were (are) cut and dry for physical geocaches and logging a "Found it" online. The issue, which I'll address against your last quote, is that there is a simple way to address this inconsistency which irons out the wrinkles. That would be to either create a new, non-physical cache type for "challenge caches", create a new log type of "Challenge completed" to be posted in addition to a "Found it" log on a "challenge cache", or to create a "Challenge Stars" system like discussed on the Website forum (and other threads here). None of those suggestions does away with what I (and others) see as a great part of the game. It does, however, address the issues that arise out of the ALR situation and the related arguments that were supposedly put to rest with the decisions about said ALR caches back in 2009.

 

Yes, it solves you consistency issue. It does away however with an essential attraction for challenge caches.

ALRs have been abolished because the requirements that were asked for got out of control and were often not geocaching related. I see no essential problem with allowing special types of requirements as it is the case now for challenge caches except the consistency issue.

And that consistency issue is a problem for all users--especially for new users. It can be addressed by doing what they used to claim the Mystery/Unknown cache type was for--a place for new cache ideas to be tried out, and possibly adopted as a new cache type.

 

I think the "test period" is over, and they have shown how "challenge caches" can be positive, geocaching related, etc, while allowing a type of ALR to exist. Now I, and others, think it is time for more legitimacy to this good idea. This isn't a "better mistake tomorrow", rather this is a good idea and opportunity to build more substance and consistency into the game.

 

"Challenge caches" really should either be a "locationless" type of non-physical cache, a located and coordinate-based non-physical cache, or a new system of rating/award attached to existing physical caches that does not limit a "find" on that physical container.

 

You've argued against what I've had to say in the very same way that ALR proponents argued to save their beloved cache type before Groundspeak came back out and said that physical geocaches are meant to be found and logged by those that find the container and sign the logbook.

 

That might well be, but it is still Groundspeak who decides what is allowed and what not. For me allowing power trails is the worst thing Groundspeak has ever done, and yet there is no doubt that Groundspeak is free to do what they want.

I see what happened in 2009 as a rule that allows very special types of ALRs, namely those in published challenge caches and forbids all other ones.

Nice how you can give up on that topic when "giving up" supports your point of view, eh?

 

At first all ALRs were gone. Then there was some time where they adjusted plans and created an "asterisk" to the physical cache finding guidelines allowing for "challenge caches". The support for those "challenge caches" existing was solid, and I agree wholeheartedly with keeping them around...that is, except for the ALR/physical cache inconsistency.

 

Once again, any type of ALR is going to be abused, and the creation of "challenge caches" is verging on the ridiculous. But, because Groundspeak set themselves up for this eventuality, it's very hard to walk it back. Unless they side-step into a locationless, a non-physical, or ditching the ALR "you can't log this until X" from all physical caches. That way this good part of the game can remain, yet fall more in line with the "spirit of the game" they claim they defended in the 2009 ALR cases.

 

That's how the game started, and that's how they made the call in 2009.

 

I do not agree with the second part as challenge caches have been introduced intentionally, not by mistake.

See above. You like it because it easily supports your point of view. "Challenge caches" existed as some of the ALRs that were archived or required to remove the requirement language to remain. Then Groundspeak found a way to make them "fit" with some guiding principles articulated to the community and to Volunteer Reviewers to implement.

 

That fit was more of a "force fit", and has been tested enough for some lessons to be learned. And those lessons are that ALRs just don't work for physical caches.

[+Roman!]

Challenges follow the orininal rules far more than lab caches do shouldn't they go first?

[+NeverSummer]

Challenges follow the orininal rules far more than lab caches do shouldn't they go first?

Best for another topic, no?

 

Lab Caches are entirely apart from what we're talking about here, which is physical geocaches. Lab Caches are much more like the "password" caches of yore, and much more like the Virtual caches we can no longer create.

 

If you want to start another thread asking for another thing to be dissolved because you don't like them, go ahead!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Challenges follow the orininal rules far more than lab caches do shouldn't they go first?

 

Lab caches aren't real cache. They're experimental location based games that *could* become a cache type. If they because a real cache type, then the original rules would be changed to accommodate for their unique characteristics.

[+Roman!]

Challenges follow the orininal rules far more than lab caches do shouldn't they go first?

Best for another topic, no?

 

Lab Caches are entirely apart from what we're talking about here, which is physical geocaches. Lab Caches are much more like the "password" caches of yore, and much more like the Virtual caches we can no longer create.

 

If you want to start another thread asking for another thing to be dissolved because you don't like them, go ahead!

 

NA, one at a time is nough.

 

For the record i don't like the completed challenge point idea, and if I could log a challenge without completing it I would and if I prequalified I wouldn't document my qualifications as I would not want those points attached to my account.

[+NeverSummer]

Challenges follow the orininal rules far more than lab caches do shouldn't they go first?

Best for another topic, no?

 

Lab Caches are entirely apart from what we're talking about here, which is physical geocaches. Lab Caches are much more like the "password" caches of yore, and much more like the Virtual caches we can no longer create.

 

If you want to start another thread asking for another thing to be dissolved because you don't like them, go ahead!

 

NA, one at a time is nough.

 

For the record i don't like the completed challenge point idea, and if I could log a challenge without completing it I would and if I prequalified I wouldn't document my qualifications as I would not want those points attached to my account.

See, and at least with that attitude and a slight change in how Groundspeak handles "challenge caches", you could just not complete any challenge at all if they were their own 1. locationless, or 2. non-physical cache type.

 

Everyone could filter their maps, work more effectively with their PQs, and generally be able to complete or not complete them as they decide for themselves.

 

So long as these "challenge caches" are attached to the Unknown/Puzzle cache type, they show on our map and in queries as such. They are something we should be able to exclude when trying to work on finding caches we would like to--especially those physical caches we should be able to log when found as we go--using the tools (PQs, maps, etc) provided on the site, and without having to run GSAK (which I can't on my computer anyway...).

 

That leads into the point that physical caches were once argued by Groundspeak themselves to be loggable online once the cache was found and the logbook signed. With "challenge caches" they had to adapt, bend, and apply an asterisk to what would have been very simple guidelines for physical caches. Doing away with the physical cache portion of the challenge would fix this issue immediately.

 

As for the arguments about the physical cache being the "reward" for completing the challenge set out, see the other threads for why this is a straw man argument. Add in that no cache is a reward beyond itself, and any physical cache should be handled in kind. Sentimentality isn't objective, and does not a good guideline make.

Edited September 23, 2014 by NeverSummer

[+Roman!]

I very much agree that challenge caches need their own icon, this would solve the majority of the issues and we could focus on more important inconsistencies like lab caches.

[+tozainamboku]

You're essentially arguing the same way that fans of ALRs were when those ALR caches were threatened with removal. The line (or "mantra" *cough*) Groundspeak took on the subject was that physical caches were designed to be logged as "Found" online when the cache was found and the logbook signed.

Not true. At the time Groundspeak announced ALRs were going away they admitted that some people enjoyed them and that many ALRs were fun and added to the game. The issue was that ALRs were being abused and that short of a "wow" requirement where reviewers had to decide if an ALR was worthy of being published, the only way to deal with cache owners subjecting people to burdensome requirements that either few people would want to do or that only a few people could do was to eliminate all ALRs. TPTB thought that ALRs limited to geocaching related goals would still be fun and reasonable for most people and that they added something to the game, so they exempted them from the new rules. Of course later they found that challenge caches could be abused just as any other ALR and added some limits to them.

 

Of course I objected when Groundspeak added the statement "Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed" to the guidelines; stating that some would read more into it than intended. You can go back and find the orginal discussions where several Groundspeak lackeys as well as some reviewers who were involved in coming up with that phrase, assured me that it was simply meant to make it clear that, with some exceptions, ALRs could not be enforced. I believe what I was told then, though clearly I was right that people would read more into the phrase than intended.

[+NeverSummer]

You're essentially arguing the same way that fans of ALRs were when those ALR caches were threatened with removal. The line (or "mantra" *cough*) Groundspeak took on the subject was that physical caches were designed to be logged as "Found" online when the cache was found and the logbook signed.

Not true. At the time Groundspeak announced ALRs were going away they admitted that some people enjoyed them and that many ALRs were fun and added to the game. The issue was that ALRs were being abused and that short of a "wow" requirement where reviewers had to decide if an ALR was worthy of being published, the only way to deal with cache owners subjecting people to burdensome requirements that either few people would want to do or that only a few people could do was to eliminate all ALRs. TPTB thought that ALRs limited to geocaching related goals would still be fun and reasonable for most people and that they added something to the game, so they exempted them from the new rules. Of course later they found that challenge caches could be abused just as any other ALR and added some limits to them.

 

Yeah, but no. "Challenge caches" as we know them today were intertwined with the ALRs that were banned. Much of the discussion that went on in the forums was talking about how that one part of ALRs was something most could agree should remain. (It was the middle of the bell curve of preferences for ALRs). One of the primary arguments that I can find in a search was that ALRs restricted what should otherwise be a physical cache one should be able to log as found because they signed the logbook.

 

The "crazy requirements" argument was part of the discussion, but as a related--not specifically--reason for ALRs going away. I remember reading discussions from TPTB that ALRs removed the reasonable expectation that all physical geocaches can be logged once a logbook is signed.

 

Of course I objected when Groundspeak added the statement "Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed" to the guidelines; stating that some would read more into it than intended. You can go back and find the orginal discussions where several Groundspeak lackeys as well as some reviewers who were involved in coming up with that phrase, assured me that it was simply meant to make it clear that, with some exceptions, ALRs could not be enforced. I believe what I was told then, though clearly I was right that people would read more into the phrase than intended.

Can you post a link? I'm not finding anything close to what you're describing. \

 

I don't see how there is anything to "read into" with that guideline. It is pretty cut-and-dry to say that a physical cache is meant to be logged online once the cache was found and the logbook signed. It ends the discussion/arguments that players would have with owners who would delete logs of otherwise "legitimate" finds where the seeker signed a logbook.

[+NeverSummer]

The language as quoted by Keystone was edited sometime in mid-late 2009 as far as I can track it. It was an edit to put to rest the ALR explosion, and the many appeals Groundspeak was fielding for logs to stand on caches where the owner had signed the logbook but was seeing their logs deleted by an owner when they didn't do "X".

 

At the time, most folks who were doing "challenges" (fizzy, Delorme, A-Z, All counties, e.g.) didn't have much to complain about--only those who qualified really bothered to log them. It was the "silly" or "lame" or "crazy" cache ALRs that would see more logging by annoyed people--it was a form of protest to log a find on one of those caches and then argue that they should be "entitled to a smiley" because of the lameness of the requirements and the language of the guidelines.

 

So, as more and more and more and more of those "lame" ALRs proliferated, it was very, very easy for people to find one to "protest" upon. Whereas, there were fewer true caching-related challenge ALRs, and a smaller following of those cache types, and those caches were also less of a protest target because of the "reasonable" and cache-related ALR they imparted on the community.

 

So, the other common theme I found when looking through many "ALR" historical threads and topics was that people thought that, even then in 2008-2009, ALRs/"challenge caches" should have their own icon.

 

Ok, that brings up a point. Can someone see when the ALR/challenges such as the original fizzy and Delorme were created? Seems to me they have been around for a while. I remember the "fizzy challenge" from nearly the beginning of my membership on this site. Those are clearly very embedded in the fabric of this caching community. Those types of challenges were also listed in some threads as being limited by Reviewers to "1 per state". (Is that still the case?) But now we see all kinds of what I and others would call "abuse of the challenge cache type", where crazy, outlandish requirements are being created to "1-up" the next person on the oddity they come up with.

 

This proliferation and ruination of the "challenge cache" was predicted in other, old threads about the ALR-to-"challenge cache" changeover. Without its own cache type, specific guidelines to limit "the crazy", and by lumping the "challenge cache" into the guidelines in awkward ways ("the asterisk"), we have the predicted ruination of a good idea.

 

This is, again, why Groundspeak has a great opportunity to use the ideas from the community to create something good before they are forced to "make a better mistake tomorrow". This would easily be dealt with for this ALR-turned-"challenge cache" thing to become a non-physical new cache type, ala Virtual or Earthcaches--where one must provide supplemental information to be able to "claim" a "Found it" on that cache type.

[+GeoBain]

Can you post a link? I'm not finding anything close to what you're describing. \

 

I don't see how there is anything to "read into" with that guideline. It is pretty cut-and-dry to say that a physical cache is meant to be logged online once the cache was found and the logbook signed. It ends the discussion/arguments that players would have with owners who would delete logs of otherwise "legitimate" finds where the seeker signed a logbook.

 

I don't have a link, but trust me, Toz pretty much did an entire dissertation on that point.

 

I believe the biggest concern was that people would read it to mean that you can only log a find if you have a signature in the logbook. TPTB assured that it only meant that once you signed the logbook you could log a find without any other extra shenanigans.

 

But as we have seen, there are plenty of people who try to say that the guidelines require a signature in order to log a find. This is simple not true.

 

*** Edit to add link to discussion starting where Toz specifically lays out his concern for how people will interpret the new ALRless guideline. LINKY

Edited September 23, 2014 by GeoBain

[+NeverSummer]

Can you post a link? I'm not finding anything close to what you're describing. \

 

I don't see how there is anything to "read into" with that guideline. It is pretty cut-and-dry to say that a physical cache is meant to be logged online once the cache was found and the logbook signed. It ends the discussion/arguments that players would have with owners who would delete logs of otherwise "legitimate" finds where the seeker signed a logbook.

 

I don't have a link, but trust me, Toz pretty much did an entire dissertation on that point.

 

I believe the biggest concern was that people would read it to mean that you can only log a find if you have a signature in the logbook. TPTB assured that it only meant that once you signed the logbook you could log a find without any other extra shenanigans.

 

But as we have seen, there are plenty of people who try to say that the guidelines require a signature in order to log a find. This is simple not true.

Ah, that side of the coin. I thought it was a statement about how there was "reading into" things by saying that physical caches follow the "find it, sign it, log it online" plan.

 

What I'm getting at isn't that "reading into" side of the coin; rather, I'm trying to say that physical caches are meant to be logged online with no shenanigans to stand in the way of logging your find online if you've found the cache.

Edited September 23, 2014 by NeverSummer

[+tozainamboku]

This is, again, why Groundspeak has a great opportunity to use the ideas from the community to create something good before they are forced to "make a better mistake tomorrow". This would easily be dealt with for this ALR-turned-"challenge cache" thing to become a non-physical new cache type, ala Virtual or Earthcaches--where one must provide supplemental information to be able to "claim" a "Found it" on that cache type.

Sounds alot like the geocaching challenge "better mistake".

 

ALRs existed since very early on in geocaching. Most were simple, fun requests and although they said thing like "You must do X in order to log a find", most cache owners didn't delete logs who didn't do X. This even applied to some early geocaching related tasks. If you provided a list of caches to show you did the task you might get a "congratulations" from the cache owner, if you didn't your find would likely not be deleted. Most ALRs were listed as traditional caches.

 

In the meantime a more formal idea of geocaching challenges began with Delorme challenges and county challenges, and these were listed as mystery caches. You had to send your qualification to the CO to get the final coordinates. I'm not sure if the fizzy challenge also began at this time. Because of the requirement to contact the cache owner these challenges required a special exception. I'm not sure the rules that the reviewers used to grant this exception, but it did limit the number of challenge caches in any one area.

 

Because of "paperless" caching, people started to complain that they would find traditional caches and only when the went to log them would they find there was an ALR. So if the ALR was to take picture of yourself in a 'phoon' position at the cache, you couldn't log your find (assuming you wanted to follow the request of the CO). Due to these complaints the guideline were changed to state that if you wanted to enforce an ALR you needed to list it as a mystery cache. This change opened th flood gates for ALRs (which had never been "officially" recognized before - although the reviewers were told to publish them.) It also signaled that it was OK to delete finds that didn't do the ALR. Prior to this few cache owners would delete finds. This new ALR standard got out of control. It also allow Challenges to proliferate. Instead of getting an exception for mailing the CO for the coordinates, reviewers told people who wanted to publish a challenge cache, to list the true coordinates and add an ALR for logging a find.

 

When Groundspeak finally decided that it was a mistake to official sanction ALRs so long as they were listed as mystery caches, it was too late to put the genie back in the bottle. In the end they decided to disallow any but optional, voluntary ALRs with the exception for what they called geocaching related challenges.

 

A short time later they started the idea of listing challenges (tasks to do at a location). This was meant to allow some way other than virtual caches or waymarks for people to share cacheless locations and get other geocachers to visit, and at the same time allow the "fun" of ALRs - like taking funny pictures . They probably tried to combine too many things as well as deal with control-freak owners by not allowing the "owners" of these challenges to delete logs. Perhaps a Geocache Challenge that is based on the challenge stars proposal could be made to work, but many will view it as another attempt at the same old mistake.