Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Les Pandas

Partnership and Teamwork caches

Recommended Posts

As a result of an international cache that we are working on with other geocachers, I came across the following statement in GC guidelines....

 

  • Caches cannot require geocachers to contact the cache owner or anyone else.

 

Surely this should only apply to simple traditional caches, otherwise earthcaches, many virtuals and anything requiring cooperation and teamwork cannot be approved. But there is an attribute available that shows " teamwork required" !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post

There is nothing preventing you from logging a Find in all the examples you gave. For EC's and Virtuals, if you fulfilled the logging requirements, there is no need to wait for a reply from the cache owner. For teamwork type caches, if properly constructed and submitted, there should be no need to contact the cache owner. The intent of that statement in the Guidelines is to prevent requiring contact of the CO in order to get final coordinates and/or get permission to log a Find. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Les Pandas said:

there is an attribute available that shows " teamwork required" !!!!!

 

The attribute is the teamwork cache attribute, it says nothing about 'required'. See image below.

 

Teamwork caches "encourage" cachers to work together,  they cannot require it.

 

Partnership caches are done in partnership with Geocaching.com.  They have nothing to do with contacting  anyone.  There have been some commercial partnerships (Timberland, Europe only) and some sponsorships by Geocaching.com for a few other things (Dino train caches, USA only).

teamwork cache.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

It may get around the rule because technically you could solve the teamwork cache without help if you physically went to the other location yourself?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Les Pandas said:

Caches cannot require geocachers to contact the cache owner or anyone else.

Yes, but this is in the guidelines under the subject title Choose location wisely.

So it means the cache itself can be logged without having to contact someone, when you are at the right location (so you shouldn't have to ask for it etc.).

This requirement doesn't state anything about the process to get to cache location.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, irisisleuk said:
7 hours ago, Les Pandas said:

Caches cannot require geocachers to contact the cache owner or anyone else.

Yes, but this is in the guidelines under the subject title Choose location wisely.

So it means the cache itself can be logged without having to contact someone, when you are at the right location (so you shouldn't have to ask for it etc.).

This requirement doesn't state anything about the process to get to cache location.  

 

Furthermore, it's under the subsection Must be Accessible. I'm pretty sure the intent of that guideline is to prohibit caches where you need the contact the CO in order to get to the location or access the cache once there (like to get some secret code to open the container).

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Furthermore, it's under the subsection Must be Accessible. I'm pretty sure the intent of that guideline is to prohibit caches where you need the contact the CO in order to get to the location or access the cache once there (like to get some secret code to open the container).

Pretty much. Some of the early challenge caches were set up so you had to contact the CO with proof that you had met the challenge, and then the CO would tell you were the cache was located (and perhaps even move the cache from some safe storage location at home to its proper location). That kind of thing is what the guideline is intended to prohibit.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Les Pandas said:

As a result of an international cache that we are working on with other geocachers, I came across the following statement in GC guidelines....

 

  • Caches cannot require geocachers to contact the cache owner or anyone else.

 

Surely this should only apply to simple traditional caches, otherwise earthcaches, many virtuals and anything requiring cooperation and teamwork cannot be approved. But there is an attribute available that shows " teamwork required" !!!!!

 

Don't get confused between caches that simply have the Teamwork attribute and the new 2.19 Teamwork cache type. A typical cache with the attribute could be a gadget cache that requires four hands to open or a climbing cache that you need someone to belay you. Those types don't require you to contact any specific person, but suggest that you might be more successful if you bring someone extra along. But the idea under the new Teamwork cache is to contact someone at another location who is wanting to find a partner cache to the cache you are trying to find. The Help Center article explaining this cache type is codified (numbered) as 2.19 in the Hide a cache section. This new cache type is an exception to the No-contact-required rule of the guidelines. It is required that this cache type include the Teamwork attribute. 

 

Examples include GC7P829 in Utah and its partner GC7V4WX in Oklahoma.

Edited by Team Christiansen
added links

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

 

Don't get confused between caches that simply have the Teamwork attribute and the new 2.19 Teamwork cache type. A typical cache with the attribute could be a gadget cache that requires four hands to open or a climbing cache that you need someone to belay you. Those types don't require you to contact any specific person, but suggest that you might be more successful if you bring someone extra along. But the idea under the new Teamwork cache is to contact someone at another location who is wanting to find a partner cache to the cache you are trying to find. The Help Center article explaining this cache type is codified (numbered) as 2.19 in the Hide a cache section. This new cache type is an exception to the No-contact-required rule of the guidelines. It is required that this cache type include the Teamwork attribute. 

 

Examples include GC7P829 in Utah and its partner GC7V4WX in Oklahoma.

This seems, to me, to contradict the consensus of another forum thread about the teamwork attribute and when it should be used. I even deleted the attribute from some of my geocaches after reading the posts.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

This seems, to me, to contradict the consensus of another forum thread about the teamwork attribute and when it should be used. I even deleted the attribute from some of my geocaches after reading the posts.

Sorry, your right. I guess I am speaking in past tense before the attribute was renamed Teamwork cache from Teamwork required.

 

I just reread the forum below that introduced me to the new teamwork cache:

 

This mentions that in the attributes list, it is now called Teamwork cache rather than Teamwork required. The same is true that when creating a cache and the attribute when clicked says Teamwork cache. Unfortunately, when hovering over the attribute on a published cache, it still says Teamwork required. That's confusing.

 

Interesting that I just did a PQ for entire state of Utah for the Teamwork attribute. There are 86 caches with the attribute, and although I haven't reviewed them all. It seems that only 2 are real teamwork caches with only one following the new 2.19 rules. I hope others follow suit like you deleting the attribute where it no longer applies. But unfortunately, 6 of the 86 were published after yours and mine that aren't teamwork caches. Two of them are event caches that no mention of teamwork is mentioned in the descriptions.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Korichnovui said:

I made a CITO event and added on the teamwork attribute, seemed appropriate for a CITO?

I can pick up trash and put it in a bag all by myself! 😀

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I stand corrected , the hover text on a cache page is "teamwork required".  I thought this had been changed in the attributes reworking done a while back.  

 

The sum total of explanation of most attributes is on the attributes page, linky thingy

There you'll find Teamwork cache under Conditions (Yes/No). Aside from that, its use is required for a special subset of caches, as described in the Help Center article on Teamwork caches. But there's no restriction on its use elsewhere, nor any explanation of what teamwork cache/required is meant to be. 

 

As little explanation as there is for most attributes,  and as hard as it is to find that explanation (it's not linked from the CSP, which is where most attribute use begins), it's no surprise that the attributes are used by different people to mean different things.  I see the snowflake and sunshine "seasonal access" attribute used in Florida to mean available in all seasons.  My sense of it is the opposite, ie, a cache which is NOT available in all seasons, instead being only seasonally available. 

 

I own a cache that is seasonally UNavailable, but wouldn't use that attribute on it, as I think it's so commonly interpreted to mean always available. 

For a long time the boat attribute lost "required" on hover text, so you'll see it all over Florida walk-in-the-park caches as a facility -> meaning, boat ramp near, 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Team Christiansen said:

 

Don't get confused between caches that simply have the Teamwork attribute and the new 2.19 Teamwork cache type. A typical cache with the attribute could be a gadget cache that requires four hands to open or a climbing cache that you need someone to belay you. Those types don't require you to contact any specific person, but suggest that you might be more successful if you bring someone extra along. But the idea under the new Teamwork cache is to contact someone at another location who is wanting to find a partner cache to the cache you are trying to find. The Help Center article explaining this cache type is codified (numbered) as 2.19 in the Hide a cache section. This new cache type is an exception to the No-contact-required rule of the guidelines. It is required that this cache type include the Teamwork attribute. 

 

Examples include GC7P829 in Utah and its partner GC7V4WX in Oklahoma.

 

I came across one the other day that I'd like to do as I'll be in the area next weekend.  It's a puzzle cache similar to an exchange cache.  When you go to the cache listing it displays an image on the cache listing with a portion of the final coordinates based on the country you're in (based on your IP address).  You have to get people from other countries to visit the cache page then exchange information with them.   While technically it probably doesn't comply with the "Caches cannot require geocachers to contact the cache owner or anyone else." guideline I'm glad that reviewer give a little latitude in cases like this. I've also seen several caches where a caretaker is used to retrieve a container in places which have very few geocaches.  There's one on my bucket list at a school for impoverished children that everyone just raves about.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

I made a CITO event and added on the teamwork attribute, seemed appropriate for a CITO?

Because of the new name change of the attribute to Teamwork cache which is defined under the new 2.19 rule, it is no longer appropriate. A CITO could not be a Teamwork cache as defined under 2.19. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

Because of the new name change of the attribute to Teamwork cache which is defined under the new 2.19 rule, it is no longer appropriate. A CITO could not be a Teamwork cache as defined under 2.19. 

This argument likely undermines the value of having a teamwork attribute, but:

There's nothing in 2.19 to say that teamwork attribute can't be applied to other caches (like my CITO).

Yes, it would be nice if things were a little more explicit, like "only use this attribute for that specific type of cache".

But that language is not to be found. So then we have the teamwork attribute (and other attributes) being put on all sorts of things, as Isonzo Karst already mentioned above.

Edited by Korichnovui

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Korichnovui said:

This argument likely undermines the value of having a teamwork attribute, but:

There's nothing in 2.19 to say that teamwork attribute can't be applied to other caches (like my CITO).

Yes, it would be nice if things were a little more explicit, like "only use this attribute for that specific type of cache".

But that language is not to be found. So then we have the teamwork attribute (and other attributes) being put on all sorts of things, as Isonzo Karst already mentioned above.

 

The very first sentence in 2.19 says, "Teamwork caches are created cooperatively by two owners from different areas.".

Please explain how that isn't explicit.  Thanks.  :)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Korichnovui said:

This argument likely undermines the value of having a teamwork attribute

I would agree, but it is not a "teamwork" attribute -- it is a "Teamwork cache" attribute. And Teamwork caches are defined as discussed above.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I use the "teamwork" attribute for all my events, since my events are created so that geocachers will interact with each other.  It's interesting that the same icon is labeled "teamwork cache" in the cache edit window and "teamwork required" in the listing itself (hovering over the icon in each location).

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

I stand corrected , the hover text on a cache page is "teamwork required".  I thought this had been changed in the attributes reworking done a while back.

Nope, that project - like many on this site - was never finished. On top of this labeling mistake, there are still outstanding issues with parts of some of the icons, as well as the "Takes less than 1 hour" icon implying that it will take either 3 or 9 hours, depending on how you interpret it.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

the "Takes less than 1 hour" icon implying that it will take either 3 or 9 hours, depending on how you interpret it.

 

You lost me there.  What are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

Nope, that project - like many on this site - was never finished. On top of this labeling mistake, there are still outstanding issues with parts of some of the icons, as well as the "Takes less than 1 hour" icon implying that it will take either 3 or 9 hours, depending on how you interpret it.

takes less than 1  hour Without hovering (to see the words takes less than an hour), all you see is a clock in the 9:00 position.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

You lost me there.  What are you talking about?

Before they made the changes to the attributes, the "Takes less than 1 hour" was a clock showing a time of 1:00, which made some sense. Now, it's a clock showing a time of 9:00, which could be interpreted either as needing 3 more hours to get to 12:00 or as taking 9 hours. Either way, it certainly doesn't imply anything about a single hour. I believe this ambiguity was pointed out on the first day, but nothing has been done to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

takes less than 1  hour Without hovering (to see the words takes less than an hour), all you see is a clock in the 9:00 position.

 

10 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

Before they made the changes to the attributes, the "Takes less than 1 hour" was a clock showing a time of 1:00, which made some sense. Now, it's a clock showing a time of 9:00, which could be interpreted either as needing 3 more hours to get to 12:00 or as taking 9 hours. Either way, it certainly doesn't imply anything about a single hour. I believe this ambiguity was pointed out on the first day, but nothing has been done to fix it.

 

That's not what I see at all.

 

 

hour.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 

 

That's not what I see at all.

 

 

hour.PNG

I should have checked at the different locations before posting. :lol:

1:00 position in the attributes list, but 9:00 position on a cache listing with that attribute.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

I should have checked at the different locations before posting. :lol:

1:00 position in the attributes list, but 9:00 position on a cache listing with that attribute.

 

Ah.  I had to check a few caches, but found one that has that attribute.  I see it now.  Weird.  I never would have interpreted that as 3 hours or 9 o'clock, though.  

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

I never would have interpreted that as 3 hours or 9 o'clock, though.  

I wouldn't either, but then we were used to the old icon and probably never looked at it closely anymore. For someone who has never seen it before, it doesn't convey a sense of "1 hour".

 

Edit: ...but I guess I've sidetracked this discussion. Sorry. Back to discussing teamwork...

Edited by The A-Team

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×