Jump to content

Changes to logging, specifically stopping double logs


duncanhoyle
Followers 18

Recommended Posts

If anyone doesn't understand why we want to keep GC45CC, try looking at the cache page - the photographs will give you a good idea what's so special about them. Getting 'multiple' smileys takes enormous effort; it's not remotely like logging a urban nano more than once!

I dont understand. The only thing I understand is One cache = One find. Does matter how "wonderful" the cache is, its still against the guidelines. Stop putting lipstick on a pig. A pig is a pig.

 

Is there any particular need for your constantly snidy remarks?

 

I am not going behind anyone backs... I am right up front. Snidy is the wrong word. Try again.

I see why you are here... you found that cache 67 times and a few other caches. Would you find those caches over and over if you only get one find? No you wouldn't. You are just upset that GS is taking away your "fun" loophole. I guess that UK got some funny idea about logging caches and GS is finally putting the stop to it.

Link to comment

You are just upset that GS is taking away your "fun" loophole. I guess that UK got some funny idea about logging caches and GS is finally putting the stop to it.

 

I've heard of anyone logging their own cache or multiple found logs, but it's nuts to me that someone would do that. :( Man, that is a lame way to pad ones numbers. :laughing:

 

Truthfully, I thought this was all about the double posts that sometimes happen when logging from the app in the field. I just thought it was a bug or something being fixed. :anicute:

Link to comment

Will those who host an event be able to log that one? As it seems unfair if they can't especially when souvenirs are involved as you can't have two events too close together in times or distance

 

Also if you adopt a cache which you have previously found would you then loose your find

Link to comment

Will those who host an event be able to log that one? As it seems unfair if they can't especially when souvenirs are involved as you can't have two events too close together in times or distance

 

Also if you adopt a cache which you have previously found would you then loose your find

 

Yes, and No.

See early posts in this thread.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I am not going behind anyone backs... I am right up front. Snidy is the wrong word. Try again.

I see why you are here... you found that cache 67 times and a few other caches. Would you find those caches over and over if you only get one find? No you wouldn't. You are just upset that GS is taking away your "fun" loophole. I guess that UK got some funny idea about logging caches and GS is finally putting the stop to it.

 

'Loophole' is incorrect. A loophole, in English, is a way of avoiding a responsibility, and by analogy, a way of making something easier. As logging YoSMs is far harder than logging average caches, the word choice is inappropriate. The lexical blunder suggests that either you don't really know what your talking about, or you're deliberately winding people up; probably both.

Edited by agentmancuso
Link to comment

If anyone doesn't understand why we want to keep GC45CC, try looking at the cache page - the photographs will give you a good idea what's so special about them. Getting 'multiple' smileys takes enormous effort; it's not remotely like logging a urban nano more than once!

I dont understand. The only thing I understand is One cache = One find. Does matter how "wonderful" the cache is, its still against the guidelines. Stop putting lipstick on a pig. A pig is a pig.

 

Is there any particular need for your constantly snidy remarks?

 

I am not going behind anyone backs... I am right up front. Snidy is the wrong word. Try again.

I see why you are here... you found that cache 67 times and a few other caches. Would you find those caches over and over if you only get one find? No you wouldn't. You are just upset that GS is taking away your "fun" loophole. I guess that UK got some funny idea about logging caches and GS is finally putting the stop to it.

 

I'm afraid you are completely wrong there.

I don't care over much on losing the smiley.

I do care about management of past and ongoing logs (if they continue in any form) being a sensible and workable system.

 

At least I am still an active cacher, your finds seem to be a bit lax at the moment.

Link to comment

 

You are both incorrect. The collection of survey markers posted within the YOSM and the Brass Cap cache pages are virtual caches, not locationless or moving caches.

 

The goal, in case you're not aware, is to visit a posted set of coordinates (ie the location of a particular survey marker) and read the data printed on the marker. You then email the data printed on the survey marker as proof of finding.

 

I'm fully aware of the goal. This does not change the fact that many locationless caches worked in the same manner. I'm familiar with them from the time when they still existed ion gc.com. I do not need to refer to web pages which only contain a very short and incomplete description.

 

Nowadays you will be able to obtain coordinates for almost everything. I do not have locationless caches in mind where the goal is to find a blue elephant and take a photo and send in the coordinates. There is no difference between going to brass caps with specific coordinates from a list or to going to say all sacral art buildings by a certain artist (for which you also find lists with coordinates).

 

A virtual cache leads to a fixed position and even if it were moving, it would not be the same as the brass cap concept.

 

Have a look at the concept of safari caches at the German opencaching site and you will see that this concept would fit the YOSM cache type the closest.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I'd like to add my view to this topic, as we have found GC45CC YOSM many times. Our view is that it's a great idea, and has taken us to numerous places in the UK we would have been unlikely to visit.

A cache with 20,000 logs and 600 favourite points seems to suggest it's well liked by the caching community. I know lost of cachers who have only logged it once, because it messes up the stats, which if fine (so do lab caches).

Surely one of the strengths of our hobby is the diversity, and the odd anomaly? It would be (and will be) duller if everything is standardised. Most of the anomalies are old ones, that could not be set today. But why remove the few remaining oddities just to standardise everything?

The double-logging issue, based on our owned caches, stems from new-ish cachers using their 'phones and pressing the log button twice. It seems to be a sledge-hammer to crack a very small nut to respond to a minor problem by banishing some well-loved caches to the dustbin.

Some of the other posts on here seem to get very agitated by minor points about cache adoption and the reasons behind it, among other things. We think we should value a bit of diversity and recognise that people want to pursue the common activity in slightly different ways.

Cameron & Debbie

(tundra70)

Couldn't have put it better myself. A sad day brought on in part by "solving" a problem caused by modern technology. This cache also often takes folk into the great outdoors where they wouldn't normally visit. Surely that is something Groundspeak should be proud of rather than destroying. Please think again.

Link to comment

I am not going behind anyone backs... I am right up front. Snidy is the wrong word. Try again.

I see why you are here... you found that cache 67 times and a few other caches. Would you find those caches over and over if you only get one find? No you wouldn't. You are just upset that GS is taking away your "fun" loophole. I guess that UK got some funny idea about logging caches and GS is finally putting the stop to it.

 

'Loophole' is incorrect. A loophole, in English, is a way of avoiding a responsibility, and by analogy, a way of making something easier. As logging YoSMs is far harder than logging average caches, the word choice is inappropriate. The lexical blunder suggests that either you don't really know what your talking about, or you're deliberately winding people up; probably both.

 

Wrong...dead wrong...I see people logging many time in one day...

 

http://www.yosm.org.uk/cacher_list.php

 

Look up most in one day. Sound pretty easy to me. Its just looking up the map and make a plan to find them.

 

Its still a loophole. The loophole is the fact that you can log it more than one time when GS guideline said One cache = one find.

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment

 

I am not going behind anyone backs... I am right up front. Snidy is the wrong word. Try again.

I see why you are here... you found that cache 67 times and a few other caches. Would you find those caches over and over if you only get one find? No you wouldn't. You are just upset that GS is taking away your "fun" loophole. I guess that UK got some funny idea about logging caches and GS is finally putting the stop to it.

 

'Loophole' is incorrect. A loophole, in English, is a way of avoiding a responsibility, and by analogy, a way of making something easier. As logging YoSMs is far harder than logging average caches, the word choice is inappropriate. That you have made this lexical blunder suggests that either you don't really know what your talking about, or you're deliberately winding people up; probably both.

 

Snide is defined thus:

"1.

derogatory or mocking in an indirect way.

"snide remarks about my mother"

synonyms: disparaging, derogatory, deprecating, deprecatory, denigratory, insulting, vituperative, disapproving, contemptuous.mocking, taunting, ridiculing, sneering, jeering, scoffing, scornful, derisive, sarcastic, caustic, biting, bitchy, shrewish, spiteful, hurtful, nasty, mean."

 

Which fits.

However the poster presumably read with this further definition in mind:

 

"2.

North American

(of a person) devious and underhand."

 

Not that it excuses the tone of the message,or explains why someone would be so snide. I suspect agentmancuso has deduced the answer to the latter question.

Link to comment

I just don't understand where the first notice, or this official one just posted in announcements says anything about players not being able to log any of these caches that have been mentioned here.

 

"Players will no longer be able to log more than 1 (one) Find, Attended, Webcam Photo Taken, or Will Attend per cache. Players will still be able to change a Write Note to a Find if they have not already logged a Find on the cache."

 

- Just no more "smileys".

 

As said a few times now, Write Note is a record in your profile under All Geocaching Logs...

- And Past logs aren't even affected either.

 

"These changes are not retroactive. Past logs are not affected."

 

So, fess up, isn't the issue really just all about the smiley? :)

Link to comment

Yeah, GSAK does this by labeling them 'Finds on Unique Geocaches'.

I believe the official Find count on gc.com is also unique geocaches ("Caches Found").

I'm not sure of any location calling it "# Finds" which is also properly the count of Find Logs rather than Caches.

 

The find count on geocaching.com is just the total number of Found logs you have, not the actual total number of distinct caches you have found. I hope they change this along with the changes in how logging works.

 

In contrast, the number of logged trackables on geocaching.com is the number of *different* trackables you have found, regardless of how many times you have logged each one.

Link to comment

 

The find count on geocaching.com is just the total number of Found logs you have, not the actual total number of distinct caches you have found. I hope they change this along with the changes in how logging works.

 

Why do you care about that? The find count on gc.com is not even close to the actual number of distinct caches I have found and never will be.

I found a number of caches on gc.com but have not logged them as finds and I have found a number of caches not listed at gc.com at all.

 

Everyone can adapt their logging behaviour to their own ethics.

 

I know cachers who logged two finds for caches which got moved by several 100m or even more and did not get relisted - the latter would have been regarded as crazy back then in many areas. I'm perfectly comfortable with both approaches: one group of cachers decided to log only one find and others logged two finds if they found the cache at the new position. Certainly those who logged twice did not do it for the smilie - nowadays every such cache would get relisted as new cache and those who complain about two found it logs on the same cache, would not have the slightest issue to visit the new edition of a cache, not even if the hideout and the container did not change at all.

Link to comment

If I want to log a find on GC43F3 125 times (for 125 unique brass caps - virtuals, BTW, not locationless), what does anyone else care? Seriously?

 

I do not care how often someone logs such a cache however it is a locationless cache and not a virtual. Have you ever looked into the concept of locationless caches which existed in the early years of gc.com?

Actually, it's a moving cache...

You are both incorrect. The collection of survey markers posted within the YOSM and the Brass Cap cache pages are virtual caches, not locationless or moving caches.

 

The goal, in case you're not aware, is to visit a posted set of coordinates (ie the location of a particular survey marker) and read the data printed on the marker. You then email the data printed on the survey marker as proof of finding.

 

They are NOT locationless (and they certainly aren't moving caches - see GCA0D6 for an example of a moving cache). See definitions below from the web page:

Locationless caches: "Instead of finding a hidden container, you locate a specific object and log its coordinates." [this isn't the case - you are given coordinates which you must visit]

Virtual caches: "A Virtual Cache is about discovering a location rather than a container. The requirements for logging a Virtual Cache vary—you may be required to answer a question about the location, take a picture, complete a task, etc... In any case, you must visit the coordinates before you can post your log." [this is correct]

 

 

From what I can tell, the set of coordinates posted are not the published coordinates for the cache. If someone finds a YOSM or Brass Cap location, the published coordinates of the caches aren't changed and "posted". The locations where one can go to visit a brass cap or survey monument aren't even hosted on the the pages for these caches. To me, it feels a little like exploiting a loophole and I'm kinda surprised that it wasn't exploited more often. I might have expected to see a Yet Onother Waterfall virtual, or Visit a World Heritage site, where one could log a find for every waterfall or world heritage site visited.

 

At the end of the day, this boils down to the fact that people will not longer be able to log a subsequent find on these caches. There is nothing stopping someone from visiting survey monuments all over the UK, or brass caps all over Canada and posting a note. They can even include a list of YOSM or Brass Caps they've visited in their profiles. They're just not going to get credit for a find. Is that almighty find count so important that some cachers are willing to commit geocide?

 

As has been mentioned several times previously the YOSM and Brass Cap caches listings are a rare breed. Frankly, I don't think that GS should be giving a lot of weight to these rare exception in determining how they implement one of the most important pieces of functionality they produce (how cache logging works). Allowing these two caches as exceptions, and coding for it, would only set a precedent for other rare exceptions impacting the design of core functionality.

 

 

Link to comment

 

As said a few times now, Write Note is a record in your profile under All Geocaching Logs...

- And Past logs aren't even affected either.

 

"These changes are not retroactive. Past logs are not affected."

 

So, fess up, isn't the issue really just all about the smiley? :)

 

I'm not living in the Uk and I have not logged multiple finds on any cache. I do not agree however that a note serves the same purpose.

I write many notes for all sorts of reasons and about every third found it log ends up to be longer than 4000 characters forcing me to split it and to use notes.

My list of notes is a whole mess and I would not like at all to have to find something among my notes.

 

They could introduce a new log type "repeated visit" - that would help a little bit. In that manner one could count how many times one visited a cache and how often it has been completed.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

As said a few times now, Write Note is a record in your profile under All Geocaching Logs...

- And Past logs aren't even affected either.

 

"These changes are not retroactive. Past logs are not affected."

 

So, fess up, isn't the issue really just all about the smiley? :)

 

I'm not living in the Uk and I have not logged multiple finds on any cache. I do not agree however that a note serves the same purpose.

I write many notes for all sorts of reasons and about every third found it log ends up to be longer than 4000 characters forcing me to split it and to use notes.

My list of notes is a whole mess and I would not like at all to have to find something among my notes.

 

They could introduce a new log type "repeated visit" - that would help a little bit. In that manner one could count how many times one visited a cache and how often it has been completed.

 

Creating a new log type for specific caches is even less likely than them making an exception.

No. What happens now is a month or two...maybe several...of griping and knicker-twisting, following by acceptance and finally fond remembrance. Meanwhile, those particular "special" caches continue to rack up the find counts, albeit at a less rapid pace.

Link to comment

 

I am not going behind anyone backs... I am right up front. Snidy is the wrong word. Try again.

I see why you are here... you found that cache 67 times and a few other caches. Would you find those caches over and over if you only get one find? No you wouldn't. You are just upset that GS is taking away your "fun" loophole. I guess that UK got some funny idea about logging caches and GS is finally putting the stop to it.

 

'Loophole' is incorrect. A loophole, in English, is a way of avoiding a responsibility, and by analogy, a way of making something easier. As logging YoSMs is far harder than logging average caches, the word choice is inappropriate. That you have made this lexical blunder suggests that either you don't really know what your talking about, or you're deliberately winding people up; probably both.

 

Snide is defined thus:

"1.

derogatory or mocking in an indirect way.

"snide remarks about my mother"

synonyms: disparaging, derogatory, deprecating, deprecatory, denigratory, insulting, vituperative, disapproving, contemptuous.mocking, taunting, ridiculing, sneering, jeering, scoffing, scornful, derisive, sarcastic, caustic, biting, bitchy, shrewish, spiteful, hurtful, nasty, mean."

 

Which fits.

However the poster presumably read with this further definition in mind:

 

"2.

North American

(of a person) devious and underhand."

 

Not that it excuses the tone of the message,or explains why someone would be so snide. I suspect agentmancuso has deduced the answer to the latter question.

 

Loophole as defined by the Cambridge English Dictionary

 

I'd say that fits pretty well with the definition and sense meaning that SwineFlew obviously has in mind.

 

I guess the fact we've reached the point of arguing semantics is an indicator that we're nearing the end of this thread's useful lifespan :ph34r:

Link to comment

Yeah, GSAK does this by labeling them 'Finds on Unique Geocaches'.

I believe the official Find count on gc.com is also unique geocaches ("Caches Found").

I'm not sure of any location calling it "# Finds" which is also properly the count of Find Logs rather than Caches.

 

The find count on geocaching.com is just the total number of Found logs you have, not the actual total number of distinct caches you have found. I hope they change this along with the changes in how logging works.

 

Hm. Well in that case, these numbers and terms, for anyone who's multi-found any caches, should not be identical given their labeling:

 

findterms.jpg

 

* Anywhere it's labeled "Cache" should be unique caches.

* Anywhere it's labeled "Finds" should be unique find logs.

 

Presumably, this is one inconsistency that this update is aiming to clear up (going forward).

 

ETA: Interestingly, in examining lodgebarn's stats, the find count was the same everywhere, meaning the count must always be of total Find logs, not unique caches.

 

BUT, viewing the "All Geocache Finds" summary listing (which only includes non-archived found caches), logs on YOSM do some wierd stuff to the summary listing. Typically the listing shows 20 caches per 'page'. Any page with YOSM shows fewer - presumably the 'hidden' rows are duplicate logs on the virtual. But YOSM still shows on the page.

 

There are indeed some issues with the existence of multiple finds logs on geocache listings.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Please see today's post in the Announcements Forum, which answers some of the questions raised by the community. In particular, Geocaching HQ has confirmed that there will not be any exceptions made to the "one cache, one find" concept. I point this out because I didn't want to see continued arguments being constructed regarding exceptions, when the answer is now known.

Yes indeed, and hows about adding that you must log physically and return the same cache container in position to make the power trails behave the same as all other caches please.

Link to comment
As has been mentioned several times previously the YOSM and Brass Cap caches listings are a rare breed. Frankly, I don't think that GS should be giving a lot of weight to these rare exception in determining how they implement one of the most important pieces of functionality they produce (how cache logging works). Allowing these two caches as exceptions, and coding for it, would only set a precedent for other rare exceptions impacting the design of core functionality.

+1

 

It would be crazy of Groundspeak to use time on coding support for breaking the rules on 0,000679903‰ of the active caches in the world.

Link to comment

Please see today's post in the Announcements Forum, which answers some of the questions raised by the community. In particular, Geocaching HQ has confirmed that there will not be any exceptions made to the "one cache, one find" concept. I point this out because I didn't want to see continued arguments being constructed regarding exceptions, when the answer is now known.

Yes indeed, and hows about adding that you must log physically and return the same cache container in position to make the power trails behave the same as all other caches please.

lodgebarn, I'm not quite sure why you quoted my post to alert discussion participants to the clarifying announcement. But, in answer to your question unrelated to the logging mechanics of the website and API, please see this Help Center article for instructions on signing the log and replacing the cache back exactly as found - without moving it.

Link to comment

Please see today's post in the Announcements Forum, which answers some of the questions raised by the community. In particular, Geocaching HQ has confirmed that there will not be any exceptions made to the "one cache, one find" concept. I point this out because I didn't want to see continued arguments being constructed regarding exceptions, when the answer is now known.

Yes indeed, and hows about adding that you must log physically and return the same cache container in position to make the power trails behave the same as all other caches please.

 

Because it would be unenforceable.

Link to comment

Please see today's post in the Announcements Forum, which answers some of the questions raised by the community. In particular, Geocaching HQ has confirmed that there will not be any exceptions made to the "one cache, one find" concept. I point this out because I didn't want to see continued arguments being constructed regarding exceptions, when the answer is now known.

 

Since I was quick to criticize, let me also then be quick to say "thanks" to HQ for getting this official confirmation message out, including the expanded clarifications.

 

I also am grateful that this confirmation message was posted today, rather than tomorrow. (Sigh. I hate this time of year.)

 

Link to comment
As has been mentioned several times previously the YOSM and Brass Cap caches listings are a rare breed. Frankly, I don't think that GS should be giving a lot of weight to these rare exception in determining how they implement one of the most important pieces of functionality they produce (how cache logging works). Allowing these two caches as exceptions, and coding for it, would only set a precedent for other rare exceptions impacting the design of core functionality.

+1

 

It would be crazy of Groundspeak to use time on coding support for breaking the rules on 0,000679903‰ of the active caches in the world.

But ok to spend time changing what has been working happily for 15 years.

Link to comment
As has been mentioned several times previously the YOSM and Brass Cap caches listings are a rare breed. Frankly, I don't think that GS should be giving a lot of weight to these rare exception in determining how they implement one of the most important pieces of functionality they produce (how cache logging works). Allowing these two caches as exceptions, and coding for it, would only set a precedent for other rare exceptions impacting the design of core functionality.

+1

 

It would be crazy of Groundspeak to use time on coding support for breaking the rules on 0,000679903‰ of the active caches in the world.

But ok to spend time changing what has been working happily for 15 years.

 

If "working happily" means that finders can get away with padding their find count by logging a cache multiple times, you might be right.

 

When cachers can post multiple logs for a single GC code:

 

People have created events then placed dozens of "temporary caches", then allowed attendees to log a find on the event for every temporary caches (which are not in compliance with GS placement guidelines) found.

 

New geocachers log every stage of a multi cache because they don't know any better. Some also think that they can log a find on a traditional cache every time they visited. When that happens, it's often up to the cache owner to explain that isn't how the game is supposed to be placed.

 

The change is also going to impact CO owners ability to log their own cache. Several years ago a group of geocachers got together to hide about 800 caches on a power trail. Because they couldn't get "credit" for hiding them (the owner of a cache is tied to a single account, even if a team does the work in hiding them), they justified to themselves that the could each log finds on all 800 caches.

 

Some geocachers will look for any loophole they can take advantage of it it means increasing their find count. I'm glad that GS is closing this one.

 

 

Link to comment
...The change is also going to impact CO owners ability to log their own cache. Several years ago a group of geocachers got together to hide about 800 caches on a power trail. Because they couldn't get "credit" for hiding them (the owner of a cache is tied to a single account, even if a team does the work in hiding them), they justified to themselves that the could each log finds on all 800 caches.

We've also personally seen cachers placing in a "team" account, to later find the names in the middle of the log somewhere.

Unless we haven't heard it all yet, this change doesn't correct that. :)

Link to comment

Please see today's post in the Announcements Forum, which answers some of the questions raised by the community. In particular, Geocaching HQ has confirmed that there will not be any exceptions made to the "one cache, one find" concept. I point this out because I didn't want to see continued arguments being constructed regarding exceptions, when the answer is now known.

Thanks for pointing this out since I read that post before it was edited and never would have noticed the questions were officially answered there.

 

What happens now is a month or two...maybe several...of griping and knicker-twisting, following by acceptance and finally fond remembrance.

Oh, nice. "It's OK to annoy people as long as they're nice enough to eventually stop complaining and put what you did to them behind them."

 

Some geocachers will look for any loophole they can take advantage of it it means increasing their find count.

Who cares?

Link to comment

The notice in announcements has been edited to read,

"Geocaching HQ will not be making exceptions to these logging rules for any specific caches."

 

And, "We believe these changes will streamline the core logging structure of the game, address requests for these changes from the community, and reduce confusion for our newer community members."

 

I'm not fibbin', look it up... :)

Other than the rants, kinda ends this thread.

Link to comment

 

I believe the official Find count on gc.com is also unique geocaches ("Caches Found").

I'm not sure of any location calling it "# Finds" which is also properly the count of Find Logs rather than Caches.

 

 

Small point, but the find count on Geocaching.com is total number of find LOGS. E.g. I have 7468 Finds on 7467 unique Geocaches. You will see in my profile I have 7468 finds according to geocaching.com.

Link to comment

I believe the official Find count on gc.com is also unique geocaches ("Caches Found").

I'm not sure of any location calling it "# Finds" which is also properly the count of Find Logs rather than Caches.

Small point, but the find count on Geocaching.com is total number of find LOGS. E.g. I have 7468 Finds on 7467 unique Geocaches. You will see in my profile I have 7468 finds according to geocaching.com.

Yes see my later followup comment #223

Link to comment

I am fascinated to note that the brass cap and YOSM lovers all seem to be avoiding the issue that these caches never should have been anything other than locationless caches. I'd be interested to see a response that counters my view.

 

(I did see one or two posts that featured side-stepping semantics that "no, they aren't locationless caches, they're virtual caches." Yes, I can see that. The icon's different and everything. Well done, clever clogs. But it's specious to argue that they don't work like locationless caches, because of course they do. They are exactly like locationless caches in all but name.)

 

These caches, beloved though they may be, should have been written up by the CO as locationless caches. They fact that they got published during a time when reviewers were much more relaxed about what satisfied the requirements for a virtual cache does not equate to a license by Groundspeak. Do a forum search for "wow factor" and you'll see stories of virtual caches based on dead animal carcasses and sneakers that were of the same vintage as YOSM and Brass Cap.

 

You have four caches that I'd argue should have been published as locationless and archived or modified back in 2006. You were allowed to keep them going 11 years longer than any other locationless caches. I'd say view that time as a gift. But, as above, I don't have a dog in this fight.

 

As far as how they will be affected, it appears that only one find would be allowed per geocacher, but I'll let Groundspeak answer that.

 

I agree with this. These caches have lived long past the time they should (since they are basically locationless caches). I hope that Geocaching HQ doesn't spend a lot of time producing special cases for a handful of caches that wouldn't be possible to publish today in any case. They had their time. Now it's time to go.

 

Perhaps the re-instatement of the American Ape cache should be squashed then~ that was an exception for a single cache and a backtrack on previous rulings!

 

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

The A.P.E. cache was archived because Groundspeak determined its A.P.E. status depended on the original container, which was apparently stolen. A tribute cache was placed in its stead. Then the original container was found, and Groundspeak opted to unarchive the original A.P.E. listing.

 

However, this has exactly nothing to do with the Brass Cap or other caches. You're not even comparing apples to oranges. You're dancing about architecture. Stick to the topic at hand.

Link to comment

I am fascinated to note that the brass cap and YOSM lovers all seem to be avoiding the issue that these caches never should have been anything other than locationless caches. I'd be interested to see a response that counters my view.

 

(I did see one or two posts that featured side-stepping semantics that "no, they aren't locationless caches, they're virtual caches." Yes, I can see that. The icon's different and everything. Well done, clever clogs. But it's specious to argue that they don't work like locationless caches, because of course they do. They are exactly like locationless caches in all but name.)

 

These caches, beloved though they may be, should have been written up by the CO as locationless caches. They fact that they got published during a time when reviewers were much more relaxed about what satisfied the requirements for a virtual cache does not equate to a license by Groundspeak. Do a forum search for "wow factor" and you'll see stories of virtual caches based on dead animal carcasses and sneakers that were of the same vintage as YOSM and Brass Cap.

 

Yeah...I've been to several caches that were honestly miscategorized based on current standards...traditionals published as mystery caches, virtuals published as multi-caches...

Just because it was published as a virtual doesn't make it a true virtual.

Link to comment

I am fascinated to note that the brass cap and YOSM lovers all seem to be avoiding the issue that these caches never should have been anything other than locationless caches. I'd be interested to see a response that counters my view.

My counter to your view that this means it's OK to kill them off is that they've been like this for ages without hurting anyone, just like all the other caches that are routinely logged as found multiple times.

Link to comment
It seems as though not much thought has gone into this.

 

Well, of course they posted it to the User Insights forum so we could give our feedback before the decision was made.

 

Oh ... oops, nothing has been posted to User Insights in over a year. Guess we know where we stand.

 

The problem this change is supposed to solve is ... what? Perhaps accidental double logging, I've seen a bit of that.

 

Armchair logging has been a big problem at times. This change will of course ... do nothing about armchair logging.

 

The restrictions on owner logs are just silly. Do those logs always make sense? For a difficult challenge, it makes sense for the owner to be allowed to log Found It. (I did so for the two challenges I've published, and no one has complained. I was not even close to FTF on either.) Are those logs often fun? Yes! Owner DNFs are some of the most humorous I've read. Owner NM and owner DNF logs can be owners poking fun at themselves.

 

This change seems to be a victory of rules over fun.

 

Edward

Link to comment

I am fascinated to note that the brass cap and YOSM lovers all seem to be avoiding the issue that these caches never should have been anything other than locationless caches. I'd be interested to see a response that counters my view.

 

Locationless Caches only permitted one find per location. (At least if properly maintained.) I still have the link somewhere for checking whether your locationless find is anywhere near someone else's find.

Since the brass cap brings up a new location for lots of cachers to find, it would not have qualified as a Locationless Cache. Virtual would be a better choice. And it was grandfathered. The potential to grandfather the multi logs whould be grandfathered as well. Not everything meets the newest guidelines. That's why grandfathering is so interesting.

Link to comment

As for the trig caches ... create a new category. Similar to benchmarks, but better implemented, and integrated with geocaching. They don't fit the geocaching model, but they are clearly popular GPS games. Why fix the inconsistency by kicking them out rather than by providing an appropriate framework for them within geocaching?

 

Edward

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 18
×
×
  • Create New...