Challenge caches

[+Deepdiggingmole]

With older challenges a few COs used to request that the physical log not be signed until after the challenge criteria has been met. This changed I know.

However am I right in thinking that with these older challenges the CO can no longer insist on this. I.e. if a cacher was passing by a challenge cache and signed it leaving a note in the cache page, the CO could not request that his/her permission had to be asked first in order for this to be done or refused to allow that log to be accepted as the challenge had not been met (even though it is only a note and a found it log would be added once qualified

 

Thanks 

[+Rikitan]

I think you are right, but I'm not sure about it.

It would be ALR, but ALR help center page mentions that old Challenge caches may have ALR's - they are exception.

But this kind of ALR, limiting timing of FI log? Not sure about it. Good question, curious to see other responses.

[+Isonzo Karst]

The special allowance for Challenge ALR has always been for the CO's definition of a set of finds required, and how they'd prove that set (stuff like screen shots for black out challenges, lists in particular forms, etc).   Other ALR (do not sign until qualify, do not sign as a non-qualifier until someone has the FTF, etc) would not be part of that.  One other exception, "email me for coords" after proof of qualifying was permitted for a time after the Nov 2005 guideline ended it, but mostly only for county and DeLorme challenges (USA). 

 

This is my opinion only. (Generally, staff will only involved themselves with log deletion disputes that involve Found it! logs. )

 

I have some sympathy for requesting no Write Note logs, as a cheat is to Write Note on a challenge, wait awhile, and change it to a Found it!  I've seen a fair amount of this on one of the challenges I own.  Once I solicited a checker for it (thanks Arisoft) I now find it a mixed bag when people log Write Note to it, listing their qualifications. On the one hand, hey, they're interested, on the other,  they could just log the find when they find it.  I now know that i need to visit regularly to photograph the log book, and post that to the cache.  Fun?

Edited February 28, 2019 by Isonzo Karst

[+niraD]

From the Help Center article Challenge caches:

Quote

Cachers may sign a challenge cache's physical log at any time. However, the challenge cache may be logged as found online only after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented.

 

[+cerberus1]

We're still challenge-free, but we even have our sig on a few challenge logs (walking distance hides with others on the way to another mostly). 

We wouldn't log an online write note if we were going to complete one (no intention to..), when some could take years.  Doesn't make sense (to us).

 

There are numerous examples where logs have been "changed" or photos added without a notification to the CO in these forums.

This question could be "fixed"  by making any "correction"/addition to the log be included in notifications.

 - I'm not tech-enough to know whether this is a simple fix...   

[+ecanderson]

Unclear why a CO would require that a log not be signed until the challenge is completed -- it's rather disconnected from claiming an official find.  I certainly wouldn't have any problem with that sequence.  A muggle could find a cache and sign the log (it happens) and never claim it as a find at all.

 

@Isonzo Karst

If, after looking at all of the new "?" caches that are published, one is a challenge and I'd like to know if I qualify, and if it takes some time to sort that out for any reason, I'll publish the Note log immediately rather than going through the 'proof' exercise a 2nd time at some later date with the find.  Once the physical find is complete, I'll then add a new Found log.

 

Project GC has taken a lot of the pain out of many challenges, so I probably no longer have my old excuse for a Note early on most of them, but there are still challenges published where Project GC is not the source for demonstration of eligibility to log a Found, and once the homework is done, I prefer to document those immediately while I have the information readily at hand.  I know I've spent a heck of a lot of time manipulating My Finds in GSAK figuring some of them out.  It's definitely copy/paste to a Note  just as soon as that information pops out, I can tell you.

 

 

 

[+thebruce0]

Yeah, requesting someone not sign the logsheet before qualifying seems like a futile request, let alone enforcible, especially if the person doesn't log their Note/Find online at that time. All they need to do is wait until they qualify, then log the find.  At worst, the CO could check the logsheet and maybe see the signing date way before the online log date and try to delete the find. That won't fly

[+The Jester]

3 hours ago, ecanderson said:

Unclear why a CO would require that a log not be signed until the challenge is completed -- it's rather disconnected from claiming an official find.  I certainly wouldn't have any problem with that sequence.  A muggle could find a cache and sign the log (it happens) and never claim it as a find at all.

 

@Isonzo Karst

If, after looking at all of the new "?" caches that are published, one is a challenge and I'd like to know if I qualify, and if it takes some time to sort that out for any reason, I'll publish the Note log immediately rather than going through the 'proof' exercise a 2nd time at some later date with the find.  Once the physical find is complete, I'll then add a new Found log.

 

Project GC has taken a lot of the pain out of many challenges, so I probably no longer have my old excuse for a Note early on most of them, but there are still challenges published where Project GC is not the source for demonstration of eligibility to log a Found, and once the homework is done, I prefer to document those immediately while I have the information readily at hand.  I know I've spent a heck of a lot of time manipulating My Finds in GSAK figuring some of them out.  It's definitely copy/paste to a Note  just as soon as that information pops out, I can tell you.

 

You can just as easily copy/paste the info to the Notes in GSAK so everything is ready to be copied to the Find log.  That way the CO doesn't have to look back to see where the qualifing info is on the cache page. 

[+barefootjeff]

Looking at my own challenge cache, the WNs are split fifty-fifty between those who've signed the log but haven't yet qualified and those who've qualified but haven't yet signed the log. Either way I don't care. A couple have already converted their notes into finds so I'm hoping the rest might eventually too, as so far in nearly two years it's only had 11 finds.

[+hzoi]

On 2/28/2019 at 10:30 AM, Deepdiggingmole said:

With older challenges a few COs used to request that the physical log not be signed until after the challenge criteria has been met. This changed I know.

However am I right in thinking that with these older challenges the CO can no longer insist on this. I.e. if a cacher was passing by a challenge cache and signed it leaving a note in the cache page, the CO could not request that his/her permission had to be asked first in order for this to be done or refused to allow that log to be accepted as the challenge had not been met (even though it is only a note and a found it log would be added once qualified

 

Good question.

 

The rules have changed for challenge caches.  They require checkers, they're supposed to be hidden at the posted coordinates, and cachers can sign the log at any time, just to name three.

 

But: at least some of these rule changes have not been retroactively applied.  Delorme challenges can't be published now, but those that are still out there have been allowed to endure.  And many of these also had bogus coordinates - the COs would give out the final coords when they were satisfied a cacher had qualified.  So in theory, you couldn't sign the log ahead of time even if you wanted to.  (In practice, of course, it's entirely possible to get the coordinates from a previous finder.)

 

I think, given the rule shift, Groundspeak has basically advertised that they're in favor of checkers versus CO verification, challenges hidden at posted coordinates, and cachers signing logs when they're in the area and then posting finds when qualified.  I don't know that Appeals would bother restoring a deleted note, but I do think they'd restore a find where a cacher signed the log  on date X and then posted their find on date X+Y once they'd qualified.

 

That's my take.  There's one way to find out for sure...

 

18 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

We wouldn't log an online write note if we were going to complete one (no intention to..), when some could take years.  Doesn't make sense (to us).

 

One reason it makes sense to do so now is that project-GC tracks challenge caches, not only those one has found, but those one has left a note.  By leaving a note on a challenge cache, cachers are able to track challenges they've signed but not found.  (Or they can ensure project-GC doesn't track this by editing their note and including [NOT-SIGNED] in the log.

 

I normally didn't sign a challenge unless I'd qualified, but I started to change this practice when the new rules came out.  It can be convenient.  GC4G3C9 used to be 40 minutes or so up the highway from the house, but now it's on the other side of the ocean.  I signed it when I was in the area, so if I ever do end up qualifying for it, project-GC has it socked away for me to remind me to log it.

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, hzoi said:

They require checkers, they're supposed to be hidden at the posted coordinates

 

Actually not this. But they location does have to be included in a public Final waypoint if they're not at posted. The location can't be hidden by a task or puzzle.

I have a challenge trail as a geoart - posted coords make the shape, but caches are all located at their additional waypoints.

 

2 hours ago, hzoi said:

20 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

We wouldn't log an online write note if we were going to complete one (no intention to..), when some could take years.  Doesn't make sense (to us).

  

One reason it makes sense to do so now is that project-GC tracks challenge caches, not only those one has found, but those one has left a note.  By leaving a note on a challenge cache, cachers are able to track challenges they've signed but not found.  (Or they can ensure project-GC doesn't track this by editing their note and including [NOT-SIGNED] in the log.

  

I normally didn't sign a challenge unless I'd qualified, but I started to change this practice when the new rules came out.  It can be convenient.  GC4G3C9 used to be 40 minutes or so up the highway from the house, but now it's on the other side of the ocean.  I signed it when I was in the area, so if I ever do end up qualifying for it, project-GC has it socked away for me to remind me to log it. 

 

Yep, ditto. I have multiple bookmark lists. One of them is qualified-but-not found (so I know I can find AND log it immediately). Another is found-but-not-signed (so I can come back when I qualify and log it found). Another is near-qualified (so I know I can find it though I don't yet qualify, but soon), mainly so I can effectively have an ignore list of never-going-to-qualify (like 3 year streaks, eg). Those latter ones I could still have fun and find, just not log online.

 

Mainly, like you said, if I'm in the area, why not find it and sign it so it can be claimed found at a later date? I have no qualms about that at all.

[+ecanderson]

7 hours ago, The Jester said:

You can just as easily copy/paste the info to the Notes in GSAK so everything is ready to be copied to the Find log.  That way the CO doesn't have to look back to see where the qualifing info is on the cache page. 

Sometimes the notes are far more extensive than one could reasonably stuff into the GSAK notes field (lists of caches, etc).  In any case, I ALWAYS refer back to my Note log in my Found log, and it's rarely more than a week or two separated in time.

[+niraD]

10 hours ago, ecanderson said:

Unclear why a CO would require that a log not be signed until the challenge is completed -- it's rather disconnected from claiming an official find.

Back in the dark ages, when challenge caches weren't as formalized as they are now, some challenge cache owners envisioned their challenge as a sort of prerequisite to finding the cache. Just as finders must (or are intended to) solve a puzzle before finding the puzzle cache, these challenge cache owners thought finders should qualify for a challenge before finding the challenge cache.

 

During this period, it was pretty much up to the challenge cache owner. Some allowed pre-signing. Some required the challenge to be completed first. And chaos ruled the earth. Then Groundspeak changed the guidelines, and pre-signing is now allowed for all challenge caches.

[+thebruce0]

I think HQ realized they really didn't want to have to arbitrate those he-said-she-said disputes any more

[+hzoi]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

3 hours ago, hzoi said:

They require checkers, they're supposed to be hidden at the posted coordinates

 

Actually not this. But they location does have to be included in a public Final waypoint if they're not at posted. The location can't be hidden by a task or puzzle.

I have a challenge trail as a geoart - posted coords make the shape, but caches are all located at their additional waypoints.

 

Thanks, forgot that some challenges have become geo art.  Either way, the final coordinates to the challenge are supposed to be out in the open now, not withheld by the CO until a potential finder proves they have qualified.

[+CAVinoGal]

When I was very new to geocaching (about a year, less than 500 finds), I attended a CITO event along a bike trail that had Challenge caches strung along the route, the Challenge Bikeway.  The gal I was partnered with encouraged me to find and sign them all as we walked the route and picked up the trash and litter along the way.  I looked at one or two on the app - The 6666 Challenge, for instance, requires 6666 Traditionals, 666 Unknown Caches, 66 Multi-caches, 66 Letterbox Hybrids, 66 Virtual Caches, 66 Event Caches, 66 Wherigo Caches, 66 Earthcaches, 6 Webcam Caches, and 6 CITO events.  Others were just as daunting and I felt I'd never meet any of them!  But my partner for the day said she'd signed them all, helped me to find and sign them all, and said that I might be surprised as I continued caching just how many I might actually qualify for!  She was right.

 

Here we are, a year later, and I've been able to claim a smilie on 9 of the 28 challenges, and this year's goal is to claim a few more that are actually within reach at this point in my geocaching "career".  Signing the challenges, posting a "Write Note" the day I sign it, then adding a second "Found It" log when the challenge is met is the way it seems to be done in my neck of the woods.  We now have a list of challenges, and caches we need to find to fill in the gaps.  To me, the challenges just add another dimension to our caching outings.  We look for caches that not only give us a smilie, but get us closer to fulfilling one challenge or another, or may be the last piece we need to claim that Challenge smilie we signed 6 months ago!

[+The Jester]

3 hours ago, ecanderson said:

Sometimes the notes are far more extensive than one could reasonably stuff into the GSAK notes field (lists of caches, etc).  In any case, I ALWAYS refer back to my Note log in my Found log, and it's rarely more than a week or two separated in time.

How extensive are you talking about?  I just copied a 143KB text file in the User Notes six times and didn't exceed the limit (which I'm thinking is 2GB, but I may be wrong), that's a whole lot of text to add to a log.

[+ecanderson]

Many times, the copied text (especially from a web page)  is 'blown up' due to linefeed issues from the source, creating massive single paragraphs for otherwise well organized data.  So I usually limit what's in the User Notes area to just a few sentences worth and whatever I'm entering manually.

[+arisoft]

On 2/28/2019 at 11:30 AM, Deepdiggingmole said:

With older challenges a few COs used to request that the physical log not be signed until after the challenge criteria has been met. This changed I know.

 

Nothing changed. I was witnessing myself when this question was asked from Jeremy face to face and he told exacly the same which is the current guideline and this happened many years ago. The order does not matter. You can log online when both requirements are met. This is the regular case, but if a reviewer has allowed more strict ALR this may be different or not because you are not required to date your log entries correctly.

[+frinklabs]

These would be non-issues if a system were implemented that separated the finding of the container from the completion of the challenge requirements with proper log types.

[+arisoft]

36 minutes ago, frinklabs said:

These would be non-issues if a system were implemented that separated the finding of the container from the completion of the challenge requirements with proper log types.

 

I don't think that there is any real issues at all. There is only one log type required and it is Found it when all requirements have been completed.

[+Mausebiber]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

There is only one log type required and it is Found it when all requirements have been completed.

I also don't see a real problem.

You can always write in today's log:  Thanks for the challenge ...  the cache was actually found on -whatever date- and today we finally fulfilled the requirements.

 

This would cover both dates.

[+The Jester]

11 hours ago, frinklabs said:

These would be non-issues if a system were implemented that separated the finding of the container from the completion of the challenge requirements with proper log types.

Too bad you're the only one that wants this in place, apparently.  Repeating this every time CC's are discussed does nothing to advance the idea.

[+MNTA]

12 hours ago, frinklabs said:

These would be non-issues if a system were implemented that separated the finding of the container from the completion of the challenge requirements with proper log types.

 

If you pay for project-gc you get a challenge tab. I love it! If you sign a note it shows up on the challenge list, there are easy ways to exclude if needed. It also tells you if the challenge has a checker or not and it also tells you if you qualify or not. It's all automated.

 

I used to only sign after qualifying, but too often I would spend a huge effort to qualify only to find that the cache is now missing. So now I prefer to sign before I spend the effort to qualify. Specially when some of these challenges are crazy hard to qualify. Some I doubt I will every try to work on but never say never.

 

Love challenges: 

- Completed - 359

- Signed not qualified - 75

- Challenges owned - 2

            - Canada to Mexico contiguous county challenge

            - Find a Top10 favorite cache in 50 different counties

 

[+papu66]

10 minutes ago, MNTA said:

 

If you pay for project-gc you get a challenge tab. I love it! If you sign a note it shows up on the challenge list, there are easy ways to exclude if needed. It also tells you if the challenge has a checker or not and it also tells you if you qualify or not. It's all automated.

 

 

This sounds like a great tool. What I would like is to have some tool that checks closeby challenges and lists all above some completion level. That is, finds challenges that I have a chance of completing with my current caching style.

 

[+MNTA]

2 minutes ago, papu66 said:

 

This sounds like a great tool. What I would like is to have some tool that checks closeby challenges and lists all above some completion level. That is, finds challenges that I have a chance of completing with my current caching style.

 

project-gc has a challenge map as well. Lists all challenges in the area you search and it tells you if you qualify right on the map. 

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, The Jester said:

14 hours ago, frinklabs said:

These would be non-issues if a system were implemented that separated the finding of the container from the completion of the challenge requirements with proper log types.

Too bad you're the only one that wants this in place, apparently.  Repeating this every time CC's are discussed does nothing to advance the idea.

 

Not the only one. But one of the only ones who sees the merit in having a separate rating system to keep the D and T relevant to the cache directly while also addressing numerous other concerns that have been raised over the years in these forums, all in one feature that is also non-intrusive for people who wouldn't care about it.  (but yes, we can always rely on frinklabs to plug at any event somewhat relevant opportunity ;P)

[+arisoft]

14 hours ago, papu66 said:

This sounds like a great tool. What I would like is to have some tool that checks closeby challenges and lists all above some completion level. That is, finds challenges that I have a chance of completing with my current caching style.

 

PGC live map is the right tool for you. It shows challenges you have completed. I found this function accidentally when looking for the map for other reasons and there was a symbol I didn't understand. Then it appeared to be a symbol for a completed challenge. Use filtering by name "challenge" to see only challenge caches. Here is my map of nearby challenges.

 

 

Edited March 4, 2019 by arisoft

[+hzoi]

On 3/3/2019 at 11:05 AM, frinklabs said:

These would be non-issues if a system were implemented that separated the finding of the container from the completion of the challenge requirements with proper log types.

 

 

Edited March 4, 2019 by hzoi

[+papu66]

13 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

PGC live map is the right tool for you. It shows challenges you have completed. I found this function accidentally when looking for the map for other reasons and there was a symbol I didn't understand. Then it appeared to be a symbol for a completed challenge. Use filtering by name "challenge" to see only challenge caches.

 

 

Maybe I better cough up the premium price then. Obviously, I can't filter by name without it.

 

Of course, this only shows whether I qualify or not, so it's like looking for "achievement caches" in a sense that I'm not actually undertaking a challenge.

 

It would be cool if the checker (and the map) would show the percentage of completion so then you could pick doable challenges (there's the d-rating but I don't know if that is set how accurately by the CO). Very few checkers seem to say how close you are for qualifying or at least that's my impression. Just a blunt "you do not qualify" usually.

(Your "Seven League Boots" had exceptionally good checker in that respect, if I remembers correctly...)

 

To keep in topic, you can write a note challenge cache to inform that

1) You take up the challenge but do not qualify yet

2) You qualify and will visit the cache later

3) You visited the cache but do not qualify yet.

Later, you make a new log to "found it" and may delete the note, or in case you want to keep the correct logging order,

change note to found in case (3). Can also follow with a note so that CO is informed of the changed log.

There no need to extra log types. Thats my 2c worth.

Edited March 4, 2019 by papu66

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 3/1/2019 at 6:41 AM, niraD said:

From the Help Center article Challenge caches:

 

Hi fully aware if this hence my query. The cache in question is from before that ruling came in, my query is whether they can still insist on that 

[+Deepdiggingmole]

Hi thanks all for replies, though ( and I appreciate my initial OP was quite long winded) but the main query is

....can a CO still insist on asking permission for a cache to be signed pre-qualifying... 

My example is that I found a challenge that required a cache to found in all counties of one country. I am in the process of travelling round that country and so will at some point complete the task. However the cache is remote, not near an airport and would mean a 1500 kilometer trip back to the cache at the point we would get the final cache and qualify. I signed the log, CO got annoyed stating that I shouldn't have pre-signed as per the description and should have asked for permission ( not mentioned in the description) .. I acknowledged this was an older cache. My log was allowed. But I do want to point out that the CO must change this in the description, but wanted verification that the CO can no longer insist on not pre-signing

[+arisoft]

7 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

Hi fully aware if this hence my query. The cache in question is from before that ruling came in, my query is whether they can still insist on that 

 

On 2/28/2019 at 11:30 AM, Deepdiggingmole said:

the CO could not request that his/her permission had to be asked first in order for this to be done or refused to allow that log to be accepted as the challenge had not been met

 

Normally CO will delete the find it log if the player does not meet requirements. Sometimes CO have asked to find the cache after the requirements have been met, but actually nothing prevents finding it before.

 

Could you give a real example.

[+barefootjeff]

On 3/5/2019 at 8:07 AM, papu66 said:

It would be cool if the checker (and the map) would show the percentage of completion so then you could pick doable challenges (there's the d-rating but I don't know if that is set how accurately by the CO). Very few checkers seem to say how close you are for qualifying or at least that's my impression. Just a blunt "you do not qualify" usually.

(Your "Seven League Boots" had exceptionally good checker in that respect, if I remembers correctly...)

 

The project-gc checker on my challenge shows how close you are to qualifying in the box labelled Script Output, for example...

 

 

On another one I just tried (a pre-moratorium challenge) the Script Output box lists the qualifying caches I've found so I can just count them to see how close I am, but I suppose it'd be nice if it also displayed a summary like the one above.

 

[+arisoft]

12 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

I acknowledged this was an older cache. My log was allowed. But I do want to point out that the CO must change this in the description, but wanted verification that the CO can no longer insist on not pre-signing 

 

Quote

 

challenge caches published prior to April 21, 2015 are grandfathered into the game. As with any grandfathered cache, Geocaching HQ may archive caches which become problematic.

 

 

Does this explain the situation

 

Quote

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=107&pgid=823

 

If you own an existing cache that has a mandatory ALR, you must:

• Edit the text of your cache page to make the ALR optional, or remove it.
• Cache owners must not delete logs based on ALRs. This applies to all logs written since April 4, 2009.

Exception: Challenge caches

Challenge caches published prior to April 2015 are grandfathered and may have ALRs that require further documentation. 

 

 

 

 

As you see, the only allowed ALR for grandfathered challenges is documentation, nothing else or the archive is calling.

 

Edited March 8, 2019 by arisoft

[+niraD]

24 minutes ago, arisoft said:

As you see, the only allowed ALR for grandfathered challenges is documentation, nothing else or the archive is calling.

I'm not convinced that the part you quoted means that.

 

 

50 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

On 2/28/2019 at 9:41 AM, niraD said:

From the Help Center article Challenge caches:

Hi fully aware if this hence my query. The cache in question is from before that ruling came in, my query is whether they can still insist on that 

Some of the new requirements/limitations for Challenge Caches are grandfathered. Others are not. It isn't always clear which are which.

 

For example, new location-based Challenge Caches can use only countries, states/provinces, and counties (or their local equivalent). But existing location-based Challenge Caches that use other regions (e.g., quad challenges, DeLorme challenges) are grandfathered.

 

But I recall statements from lackeys and volunteer reviewers that other requirements are not grandfathered, and that existing Challenge Caches must comply with the new requirements/limitations. I recall that presigning being allowed was one of those, but I cannot find a specific statement to back that up right now.

[+The A-Team]

Using the Wayback Machine to look at the old versions of the Challenge Cache guidelines, here's what I found.

 

Here's the clause in question (hereafter referred to as "the clause"):

Quote

Cachers may sign a challenge cache's physical log at any time. However, the challenge cache may be logged as found online only after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented.

 

The clause was added in the December 19, 2014 version of the guidelines. In that version, a note at the end states:

Quote

Note: Challenge geocaches published prior to the guideline update 3/12/12 are grandfathered into the game and do not need to comply with current guidelines.

 

The way I see this is as follows, depending on when the cache was published:

• May 2, 2000 - March 11, 2012: The clause didn't exist and challenge caches are grandfathered, so the clause doesn't apply retroactively.
• March 12, 2012 - December 18, 2014: The clause didn't exist, but challenge caches aren't grandfathered, so the clause does apply retroactively.
• December 19, 2014 - April 21, 2015 (start of moratorium): The clause exists and applies.
• May 25, 2016 (end of moratorium) - present: The clause exists and applies to any new caches. Caches published prior to the moratorium are grandfathered regarding the new post-moratorium guidelines, so anything that applied to them before that still applies.

In summary, based on my reading of things, the clause does not apply to challenge caches published prior to March 12, 2012. It does apply to any challenge cache published on or after March 12, 2012.

 

Edit to add: Of course, if there are overriding grandfathering rules that aren't publicly documents as per niraD's post, then that could completely change things. Currently, there's nothing in the Help Center or guidelines that indicates this, so if something like this exists, it really needs to be written down.

Edited March 8, 2019 by The A-Team

[Rock Chalk]

47 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

....can a CO still insist on asking permission for a cache to be signed pre-qualifying... 

 

A challenge cache log can be signed anytime.

 

If we at HQ were presented with an older challenge cache listing that contains text indicating that finders must request permission to sign the log, then we would instruct the CO to remove that text. That kind of requirement is not grandfathered.

[+niraD]

3 minutes ago, Rock Chalk said:

A challenge cache log can be signed anytime.

 

If we at HQ were presented with an older challenge cache listing that contains text indicating that finders must request permission to sign the log, then we would instruct the CO to remove that text. That kind of requirement is not grandfathered.

Do you know whether or not this is documented publicly somewhere (e.g., in the Help Center)? And if it is, then can you provide a URL?

[+The A-Team]

5 minutes ago, Rock Chalk said:

A challenge cache log can be signed anytime.

 

If we at HQ were presented with an older challenge cache listing that contains text indicating that finders must request permission to sign the log, then we would instruct the CO to remove that text. That kind of requirement is not grandfathered.

Thanks, that's very good to know. Is it possible for this to be officially stated in the guidelines so it's there to point people to when this issue arises?

 

Edit: Cross-posted with niraD

Edited March 8, 2019 by The A-Team

[+arisoft]

13 minutes ago, niraD said:

I'm not convinced that the part you quoted means that.

 

Now you are convinced

 

For me it is sometimes strage how absolutely clear statement can be interpreted differently or even opposite when the reader have stong preconception about the matter.

[+arisoft]

9 minutes ago, niraD said:

Do you know whether or not this is documented publicly somewhere (e.g., in the Help Center)? And if it is, then can you provide a URL?

 

I thought that I just quoted few messages ago (with the URL) the guideline about this ruling. Are there some words that are not clear enough?

Edited March 8, 2019 by arisoft

[+niraD]

22 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I thought that I just quoted few messages ago (with the URL) the guideline about this ruling. Are there some words that are not clear enough?

The excerpt you quoted is referring to ALR caches, and referred to Challenge Caches in passing.

 

And the sentence that refers to grandfathered challenge caches says that they "may have ALRs that require further documentation."

That means that grandfathered challenge caches may have ALRs, and that those ALRs may require further documentation. It does not mean that the only grandfathered ALRs are those related to documentation. The whole concept of fulfilling a challenge before logging a Find on a challenge cache is an ALR, and the fulfillment of that challenge must be documented.

[+arisoft]

23 minutes ago, niraD said:

The excerpt you quoted is referring to ALR caches, and referred to Challenge Caches in passing.

 

What else did you expect?

[+The A-Team]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

I thought that I just quoted few messages ago (with the URL) the guideline about this ruling. Are there some words that are not clear enough?

I see nothing in that article that explains which aspects are grandfathered and which aren't. It mentions documentation, but that isn't very clear, and it doesn't say whether those are the only aspects that are grandfathered. Also, the article you quoted isn't the challenge cache article. Is one supposed to consult multiple articles in order to decide how this rule applies?

 

I see no reason to beat around the bush. If HQ has decided that, per Rock Chalk's post, "A challenge cache log can be signed anytime", then why not state in the challenge cache article that it applies to all challenge caches regardless of publishing date? They've made a definitive decision, so there should be a definitive statement. We could point people to Rock Chalk's post here, but it would be much better if this was written for all to see in the Help Center.

[+arisoft]

4 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

I see nothing in that article that explains which aspects are grandfathered and which aren't. It mentions documentation, but that isn't very clear, and it doesn't say whether those are the only aspects that are grandfathered. Also, the article you quoted isn't the challenge cache article. Is one supposed to consult multiple articles in order to decide how this rule applies?

 

I see no reason to beat around the bush. If HQ has decided that, per Rock Chalk's post, "A challenge cache log can be signed anytime", then why not state in the challenge cache article that it applies to all challenge caches regardless of publishing date? They've made a definitive decision, so there should be a definitive statement. We could point people to Rock Chalk's post here, but it would be much better if this was written for all to see in the Help Center.

 

The "article" you are referring here is not a random article. It is the curretly active guideline on this matter. It explicitely names only one aspect that is allowed: "may have ALRs that require further documentation". There is no exemption for any other aspect, for example, no exemption for asking permission from the CO to log.

 

 

 

[+The A-Team]

15 minutes ago, arisoft said:

The "article" you are referring here is not a random article. It is the curretly active guideline on this matter. It explicitely names only one aspect that is allowed: "may have ALRs that require further documentation". There is no exemption for any other aspect, for example, no exemption for asking permission from the CO to log.

Okay, so let's assume that it implicitly says that the signing clause is not exempted. Right here in the forums, Rock Chalk has explicitly stated HQ's position. Do you have any objection to having this explicit statement written down in that article and/or the challenge cache article? Rather than argue with a challenge cache owner based on each person's individual interpretation of the wording, similar to the multi-post discussion we're having here, wouldn't it be better to have it explicitly stated in order to remove all doubt?

[+arisoft]

7 hours ago, The A-Team said:

Okay, so let's assume that it implicitly says that the signing clause is not exempted

7 hours ago, The A-Team said:

Do you have any objection to having this explicit statement written down in that article and/or the challenge cache article?

 

I do not have any objection if it helps to understand what this sentence from the guidelines means in practice. For me this is not an exemption because it is the rule itself, not anything additional as it stated clearly.

 

Quote

A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook. All other logging requirements are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional.

 

[+Mausebiber]

I understand both positions, for one everything is quite clear, for others probably not so clear, for new cachers maybe not clear at all.  So, if an additional sentence would make it clear for everyone, I think it should become part of the guidelines.  It’s easy to implement  and it won’t hurt anyone 

[+Deepdiggingmole]

Wow, it has certainly raised considerable discussion and quite positive in my mind. I would agree that this sort of grandfathered requirement does get lost in the fine print as to whether it is still acceptable following new guidelines hence my reason for raising it here. I would also welcome additional wording in the guidelines to make it clear for future reference. 

I plan to contact the CO and advise them of the issues around their current requirements and HQs views on that, if there is a negative response from their end where would I report this to ?.

I am aware that someone on here from HQ has given their view but a report may go to another staff member who may not have the same view (another reason for the need for it to be in black and white in the guidelines as a reference to all including HQ Staff) 

Many thanks for the input on this