ALRs Prohibition

[+GrateBear]

Curious as to when ALRs were prohibited for traditional caches.  There's one I'll be going after sometime this week (GCN0J0) that was placed in 2005.  CO requires that 3 questions be answered.  Are these grandfathered in, or does the prohibition apply to all, regardless of date placed?

[+niraD]

No ALRs are grandfathered.

 

ALRs were prohibited for traditional caches perhaps 10 years ago when new caches with ALRs were required to be listed as mystery/puzzle caches.

 

But more recent updates eliminated all ALRs for physical caches (except for challenge caches, which are heavily restricted), with no grandfathering of ALR caches.

[+Touchstone]

53 minutes ago, GrateBear said:

Curious as to when ALRs were prohibited for traditional caches.  There's one I'll be going after sometime this week (GCN0J0) that was placed in 2005.  CO requires that 3 questions be answered.  Are these grandfathered in, or does the prohibition apply to all, regardless of date placed?

ALR's were prohibited in the April 2009 update to the Guidelines.

[Keystone]

If you sign the logbook for that traditional cache, but you don't email the answers to the questions, the cache owner cannot delete your online find.  If they do, you could escalate to Geocaching HQ or the local reviewer.  If that happens, the cache owner would be asked to modify their cache to remove the ALR, or otherwise it's likely that the cache would be archived.

[+palmetto]

A brief history of ALR

2000 - 2007 Cache owners could attach additional logging requirements to caches of any type, and they could delete logs of finders who did not comply.  Log in haiku, email me codeword, or color of container, how you solved puzzle,  Q&A were common.

February 2007 Guidelines change: cache with ALR had to be listed as a Mystery cache. Older caches were NOT grandfathered. Cache owners were instructed to either remove the ALR, clearly make it optional, or contact a reviewer to change the cache type to Mystery. Reviewers were told not to actively seek out ALR caches but to respond when reported.

April 2009 Guidelines eliminated ALR, with an exception for Challenge Caches.

Older ALR caches were  again not grandfathered. Again, reviewers were told not to actively seek out ALR caches but to respond when reported. There are still ALR caches of all types listed.

 

[+J Grouchy]

What about a cache that was placed in 2013 where the CO has added an electronic code verification to confirm a find under threat of deletion?  I'm almost 100% certain that requirement was added after publication and if I ever find it, I have no intention of ever doing such a thing...but how are those looked upon by the powers-that-be?  Is it like stated above, where the finder has to "escalate" to Geocaching HQ?

Edited June 4, 2018 by J Grouchy

[+cerberus1]

50 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

What about a cache that was placed in 2013 where the CO has added an electronic code verification to confirm a find under threat of deletion?  I'm almost 100% certain that requirement was added after publication and if I ever find it, I have no intention of ever doing such a thing...but how are those looked upon by the powers-that-be?  Is it like stated above, where the finder has to "escalate" to Geocaching HQ?

 

I don't see why.  Someone that anal, folks could just mail the Reviewer.  No one placed a NM or NA on it either I bet...

We've seen Reviewers TD "hotel" caches just for a trackable "take one/leave one" ALR.  IIRC, they do something about them when someone complains.   

 

 

Just noticed palmetto covered that.

Edited June 4, 2018 by cerberus1
a "didn't notice" oops.

[+K13]

9 hours ago, Keystone said:

If you sign the logbook for that traditional cache, but you don't email the answers to the questions, the cache owner cannot delete your online find.  If they do, you could escalate to Geocaching HQ or the local reviewer.  If that happens, the cache owner would be asked to modify their cache to remove the ALR, or otherwise it's likely that the cache would be archived.

 

Why not have a Reviewer correct the listing now, rather than wait for some new cacher to try and replicate this cache? Is it really necessary for a cacher to have a log deleted and go to Appeals to get the cache compliant?

[+cerberus1]

16 minutes ago, K13 said:

 

Why not have a Reviewer correct the listing now, rather than wait for some new cacher to try and replicate this cache? Is it really necessary for a cacher to have a log deleted and go to Appeals to get the cache compliant?

 

No way am I a Reviewer, but it seems (to me) that if folks would just notify a Reviewer of these issues,  it would be taken care of. 

Just like the many we see that will not log a NM/NA , someone needs to start the process.

[+kunarion]

59 minutes ago, K13 said:

 

Why not have a Reviewer correct the listing now, rather than wait for some new cacher to try and replicate this cache? Is it really necessary for a cacher to have a log deleted and go to Appeals to get the cache compliant?

 

It seems to be OK for a cache page to include ALRs, but the ALRs have no teeth and if the CO doesn't enforce them, any Find log stands, and no appeal happens.

 

I've seen caches where the description remains, with an addition of a disclaimer that the ALR is no longer allowed.  That's the "corrected listing", where now the listing says that it is both required and not required to perform the ALR.

 

Many pages have the original ALRs intact with no disclaimer.  I've become confused at times when I read those, especially with the "disclaimer"... it's like they're saying it is in fact grandfathered, that the requirement remains.  Yeah, if it were my cache I'd prefer to remove the confusing parts.  But there are reasons a CO may choose to leave the page intact, and I'd hope caches aren't automatically archived merely for having unenforced text that no longer applies.  If TPTB decide that archiving otherwise fine caches that say "do this" must be archived, I'd be ticked if they single-out a cache.  I'm getting annoyed just thinking about it .  Instead, post a banner on such pages that "Since 2009, No ALRs are allowed".

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by kunarion

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

No way am I a Reviewer, but it seems (to me) that if folks would just notify a Reviewer of these issues,  it would be taken care of. 

The question is why it needs to be taken care of. I'm fine with GS telling reviewers to rule against ALRs if anyone complains. But I don't see how a stated ALR is a problem as long as everyone either complies with it or ignores it.

 

To the OP: you've gotten your answer, which is accurate and reliable. I think the official rules make sense because all the leverage is against a CO that wants to make people do something ridiculous. But I want to add that, despite all these rules, it's OK to just comply with the ALR if you think it will be fun. The rules say the CO can't compel you to perform the ALR, but the rules don't prohibit you from meeting the ALR. In my area, there are still a few caches with ALRs, and the more serious cachers mostly all just meet the ALR since none of the ALRs are onerous. Casual cachers don't notice the ALRs, and their finds are never rejected. I dread the day someone sees the listings and complains even though they never have any intention of finding the caches. Those ALRs aren't hurting anyone other than those people that can't stand the possibility that someone's having fun wrong.

[+Voltgloss]

Edge case: webcams.  The FAQs on webcams (2.7) and ALRs (3.3) seem obliquely at odds on this point.  I recall the question of "can a webcam owner enforce an ALR" came up semi-recently as part of a kerfuffle about a webcam CO deleting logs where the cacher in the webcam pic wasn't standing in the required area.  Without going down the full rabbit hole of that brouhaha (which covered a number of extraneous topics), suffice to say that I don't recall this specific question - "can a webcam CO still enforce an existing ALR" - was ever officially resolved.

[+niraD]

31 minutes ago, Voltgloss said:

Edge case: webcams.  The FAQs on webcams (2.7) and ALRs (3.3) seem obliquely at odds on this point.  I recall the question of "can a webcam owner enforce an ALR" came up semi-recently as part of a kerfuffle about a webcam CO deleting logs where the cacher in the webcam pic wasn't standing in the required area.  Without going down the full rabbit hole of that brouhaha (which covered a number of extraneous topics), suffice to say that I don't recall this specific question - "can a webcam CO still enforce an existing ALR" - was ever officially resolved.

The ALR prohibition applies only to physical caches. Webcams, virtuals, and EarthCaches are not physical caches, so by their very nature, they have logging requirements other than signing the physical log.

[+GrateBear]

Thank you, all!  I'm going to find/log it and see what happens.  

[+jellis]

On ‎6‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 7:13 PM, GrateBear said:

Curious as to when ALRs were prohibited for traditional caches.  There's one I'll be going after sometime this week (GCN0J0) that was placed in 2005.  CO requires that 3 questions be answered.  Are these grandfathered in, or does the prohibition apply to all, regardless of date placed?

If ALRs are not allowed why is this requiring you answers?

[+niraD]

7 hours ago, jellis said:

If ALRs are not allowed why is this requiring you answers?

It looks like an old cache listing that was never updated once ALRs were prohibited. If push comes to shove, Groundspeak will reinstate logs deleted because the finder did not comply with the stated ALR.