Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
arisoft

ALR or not

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, coachstahly said:

It's up to the CO to verify a find, not the seeker.

isn't that what the verifier does?  It was written by the CO to verify finds - like a check of the log sheet, only in real time.  Personally, I'd like to know right away if I've found the wrong container, as opposed to finding out later when the log is deleted, when there is a high chance of throwdowns on a cache.  I tried the verifier, just for fun.  I used a random code and it told me that I'd mistyped the code or found a throwdown, if it was a throwdown please remove it.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, coachstahly said:

If the CO had stopped before the bolded part, then I'd agree with you. That's not what they did.  Instead, the CO tells you to enter the code after you find the cache to prove/verify/validate you found the correct one. It's up to the CO to verify a find, not the seeker.

Well, we can go back and forth all day, but I just think it's undeniably not a requirement as expressed in the text, and no consequences are listed. Verify as an imperative is significantly different than prove and validate.

 

Although you can easily enough imagine other motives that are not supported by the actual text, structurally that sentence is no different than any other suggestion the CO might have made. "When you find the container, take a minute to enjoy the scenery, then go online and log your experience." I doubt many people would think that if you didn't enjoy the scenery, the CO would delete your find.

 

Anyway, that's enough for me. I'm not going to worry about it until someone finds the cache. Until then, there are plenty of other reasons to think the CO is jerking people around without considering the hypothetical ALR. Personally, I'm not convinced there's actually a cache with a code in it to begin with, and it certainly seems unlikely anyone will ever find it if there is one, so it will never come down to him rejecting a find that doesn't "verify" code, anyway.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

there are plenty of other reasons to think the CO is jerking people around without considering the hypothetical ALR. Personally, I'm not convinced there's actually a cache with a code in it to begin with, and it certainly seems unlikely anyone will ever find it if there is one, so it will never come down to him rejecting a find that doesn't "verify" code, anyway.

 

According to the cache description, the cache owner went to the extreme of... making the container easy for a finder to identify.  Uh huh.  Sure.  B)

 

Anyway, yeah.  The "Here's An ALR For You Oh And It's Not An ALR" thing is just part or the craziness.

Coords are loose.  Obviously very loose.
Aggressive cache hunters once “BURRIED IT!!” with a scorched-earth search.  Maybe they could 100 feet from GZ into the forest one direction or another, but not at GZ.
The cache page is fluid and has drastically changed several times.
The description is now hidden due to "excessive viewing".
The cache was originally a 2.5 difficulty (because “cachers will tell other cachers where it is once found”) and is now a 5 difficulty.
There was once a Geocoin in the cache's inventory, quite a trick for a Nano.  The coin subsequently vanished.

 

There's a lot odd with that cache and several others by various COs around here.  The caches aren't really about Geocaching, or at most they are about “the cool, old-fashioned Geocaching days long ago before there were stuffy, boring rules”.  There are still some old local caches with intact ALRs and an added note that the ALR isn't allowed, and to this day that big, bold warning always makes me wonder which it is.  The original intact ALR may remain right there on the page, but it's not enforceable (also, new ones may not be published like that).  You can ignore them.  Cache Owners are trying to prove a point (and daring anyone to do anything about it), cachers hunting these things are also deliberately adding to the weirdness, and that's all fine and dandy.  You can hunt them and ignore the weird parts and log the find without having to first decide if a Not-An-ALR is an ALR (if you can find anything).  But it's remarkable how these seem to linger forever.

 

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

This is a pretty amusing discussion.  Frankly I am baffled at all of those here that think that this checker is there for the CO to verify a find... How would it do that when it doesn't know who is entering the 4 digit code?

 

It's obvious that the checker is there so that a finder can make sure they have found the correct cache container and not a throwdown.  As in, they know they have found the right container so they can stop looking, as opposed to finding a throwdown, signing it, heading home, only to find out later that their log is deleted because their signature is not on the real cache's logsheet.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/11/2019 at 7:59 AM, LZ33 said:

All that said, the CO has assured me he has a container at the posted coords and checks on it frequently.  I think it's also key to note, the self proclaimed "I am the curse of Atlanta" is currently banned from the GC.com site and spending a little time in Geo-Jail.

 

Well, it's still on his profile... lol

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

Well, it's still on his profile... lol

 

If a cache has something goofy on its page, it doesn't leave the profile? Go figure. :yikes:

 

 

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, kunarion said:

 

If a cache has something goofy on its page, it doesn't leave the profile? Go figure. :yikes:

 

 

Read what I quoted again.

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

This is a pretty amusing discussion.  Frankly I am baffled at all of those here that think that this checker is there for the CO to verify a find... How would it do that when it doesn't know who is entering the 4 digit code?

I think the verifier sends the cacher info to the CO. Could be wrong, though.

Share this post


Link to post

With a cache like that, all that the CO needs is the verification.  The cacher who then logs the find is the one who verified it.  Until that first find, it doesn’t matter how it could work.  After that find on a cache like that... the verification code thing may need to be overhauled. The logs, throwdowns, etc. will get nutty.  Or... Nuttier. :cute:

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, TriciaG said:

I think the verifier sends the cacher info to the CO. Could be wrong, though.

How?

 

It's a web page on the CO's own server, with no connection to the Groundspeak system, so no knowledge of which user is logged in on the geocaching website, therefore no idea who is entering the code for verification.

 

There may or may not be other silliness going on with this cache/cacher (I do not know either way) but the container verification system is clearly there so that a finder can ensure they have found the correct cache and won't be disappointed to find out later they did not.

 

 

Edited by funkymunkyzone

Share this post


Link to post

So, the CO with the "container verifier" is the same one who has a cache inside a Visitor Center (wonder how the GPS works inside that building) that appears to have led to his/her/its/whatever vacation from website use for a while, and has the "I am the Curse of Atlanta" label flashing on his locked account page.

 

Sounds like the same type of person who really wants to F / mess with the finders in the area.  CO adds a "container verifier" language to a cache page and doesn't bother with hiding a tiny container.  Laughs his/her/its/whatever way to the point where he/she/it/whatever feels vindicated of his/her/its/whatever cache hiding supremacy, then after a long time of claiming his/her/its/whatever that the cache in unfindable, and claiming to visit this park location often, he/she/it/whatever finally places a container out there.

 

I'm happy I don't have CO like this one seems to be this in my area.

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, K13 said:

So, the CO with the "container verifier" is the same one who has a cache inside a Visitor Center (wonder how the GPS works inside that building) that appears to have led to his/her/its/whatever vacation from website use for a while, and has the "I am the Curse of Atlanta" label flashing on his locked account page.

 

Sounds like the same type of person who really wants to F / mess with the finders in the area.  CO adds a "container verifier" language to a cache page and doesn't bother with hiding a tiny container.  Laughs his/her/its/whatever way to the point where he/she/it/whatever feels vindicated of his/her/its/whatever cache hiding supremacy, then after a long time of claiming his/her/its/whatever that the cache in unfindable, and claiming to visit this park location often, he/she/it/whatever finally places a container out there.

 

I'm happy I don't have CO like this one seems to be this in my area.

 

 

+1

 

You've summed it up!  I'd add that of course the ALR was not added so a finder "won't be disappointed".  The theme of the cache is disappointment.

 

Also, finders have no requirement to enter any code, whether it's an ALR or a "Not-An-ALR" ALR.  Sign the cache log, log it online.  If the cache is by definition indistinguishable from a throwdown, it's already a disappointment.  B)

 

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

WOW! I cannot believe this is actually a topic! Reading some of these posts solidifies my thoughts that are convincing me that humanity really is regressing! How can anyone possibly think that the checker I placed on the page is mandatory? Where on the cache page does it state that the verifier is mandatory? I want to give a thumbs up and a shout out to the few of you who have the ability to still use logic and can still read and understand the English language. You understand that the verifier is there for your convenience.

 

Just wait till you see the changes on the cache page I will be making on my Smokey and the Bandit cache GC7MPJF ! That will give some of you more reasons to gripe on this thread! I can't wait to be entertained by those comments that will hopefully have me laughing even harder. So bring it on! Throw those verbal punches at me! "Entertain me some more my little minions!" Quiz: Where did that last quote come from?

 

I have been trying to get away from and quit this game for some time now. But when reading forums like this, you people keep pulling me back into the game. This thread has inspired yet another idea for a new simple cache puzzle hunt! I think I will call it: "Humanity in Regression".

 

Here are some tips for those of you who get easily angered in this GAME called Geocaching! Having recently spent time in Geo-Prison, I need to take some of my own advice here also!

 

1> There is a nice little button that GCHQ has included on every cache page. It is called the IGNORE button. If a cache page makes you angry, ((((USE THAT BUTTON ASAP!!!)))) and you'll never be bothered by that cache page again!

2> Don't create threads like this on a public forum! You risk making yourself look foolish!

3> Just have fun hunting a cache whether you find it or not! The cache hide discussed in this thread has turned out to be MUCH harder than originally intended, and has angered many of you! If you are one of those angered people, go back and read tip #1. Think very very very small and use the right tool! (OOPS, was that another hint?)

4> To those who like to assume things when reading text written in the English language, I advise you to go back and read MY post again, maybe 3, 4, 5, or even 10 times before making assumptions! I think everyone should read this post at least 2 times. We are all human and we miss things when reading words the first time.

5> If you find yourself to be one of those that get easily angered in this game, it may be time for you to step away from Geocaching for a while and think about what is really important in your life. If this game ranks very high in importance and priority in your life, then it may be time for you to seek some psychological help.

6> Do not put yourself in the position of going to Geo-Prison. The food in there sucks!

 

A special shout out goes out to the many of you in the GC community who have encouraged me and made me laugh while doing time in Geo-Prison! You know who you are!!! I will not post your names to prevent nutty people from harassing you in forums like this!

 

  • Funny 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yowza.

Ok, in short...

ALR = a task the CO requires and attempts to enforce by deleting logs of people who don't do it.

Coordinates checker != ALR.  Someone who finds the cache without using a coordinate checker can't have their log deleted.

Send the passcode == ALR. If a CO deletes a log from someone who doesn't send the passcode, then it can be appealed as an ALR which is not allowed.

 

The question is whether this CO is enforcing an implied ALR.  Personally, I don't care whether there's a "please" included, or a consequence.  The answer will be found in how the CO deals with a logger who does not do what is implied as a requirement (whether one infers it as required or not).

 

If the CO hasn't deleted any logs of people who haven't sent the passcode, then they're not treating it as an ALR.  If they have, then there's a problem.

If people infer that the task is required, and they do it, then... okay. That was their choice. They'd know if they didn't have to do it if they logged it without doing it.

 

Multis with coordinate checkers to get to the next stage don't employ ALRs. As mentioned, someone could skip the whole thing and just get the final coordinates from someone, sign and log it found, and the CO can do nothing about it. Checkers may be the intended means of finding the final cache, but they are not ALRs.

 

So, in the case of the OP, I think action can only be taken (or not) based on how the cache owner responds to logs from cachers who have not used the passcode verifier. And if there's no evidence that they're attempting to enforce that implied/inferred requirement/request, then it's not an ALR. And that would be why the text is still standing.

 

 

Interestingly, I don't think "sign the log in the red container" is an ALR, even though it's technically a verifiable task, because "the red container" is the description of the cache itself.  If you don't find the cache, you can't log it online - that's not an additional logging requirement, that's THE logging requirement. So instructing people about which container is the geocache is, well, geocaching 101. Whether or not there are other containers around (ie, throwdowns, or they've been cleared out by the CO).

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Yowza.

Ok, in short...

ALR = a task the CO requires and attempts to enforce by deleting logs of people who don't do it.

Coordinates checker != ALR.  Someone who finds the cache without using a coordinate checker can't have their log deleted.

Send the passcode == ALR. If a CO deletes a log from someone who doesn't send the passcode, then it can be appealed as an ALR which is not allowed.

 

The question is whether this CO is enforcing an implied ALR.  Personally, I don't care whether there's a "please" included, or a consequence.  The answer will be found in how the CO deals with a logger who does not do what is implied as a requirement (whether one infers it as required or not).

 

I don't think "sign the log in the red container" is an ALR, even though it's a verifiable task, because "the red container" is the description of the cache itself. If you don't find the cache, you can't log it online - that's not an additional logging requirement, sure, that's THE logging requirement. But there is no guarantee that a cache will today be published (at least not a Traditional) with the text “Sorry to have to do this but send me the color of the container and it will be verified for you”.  The reviewer doesn't check to see what the CO does after the find, the reviewer instead publishes a cache without the ALR.  And with old caches that still have ALR text, you may ignore it and log the find.  You don't have to decide if it's an actual ALR, and nobody needs to check up on the CO.  The legitimate find is a find.

 

That's a big issue on my caches. I request that the actual container with its log be found and signed. It was published with that intent, and I agree that it's not an additional logging requirement. But cachers find some bottle cap and log a Find “Log missing. signed paper. TFTC”. That's annoying to me because I hide caches that are discernible from trash.  They didn't even attempt to ensure they found it.  They did their Smiley and moved on.

 

I in no way ever need to have a Non-ALR “send me the color of the container and I verify it for you”, because unlike the sooo many pill bottles with pill dust still inside, you'll know when you find my actual cache container. AND when you find it, sign the log sheet. If you found a throw-down, come back and find the actual cache. The real one is not a throw-down, but it might be tricky and it might not be a quick Smiley and your done. If you can't or won't return to find the real one, you can log about how it's a scummy, smelly drainage ditch where you hate to be, and that helps me will improve my hides, which I do without drama.  If it's a 5D, it's a place you would visit again and again to try a new plan.  If the cache is in a place that nobody likes, that's not such a good spot.

 

AND if you don't put my cache back in its hiding spot because you “don't like that ALR of 're-hide it in its place'”, it in no way causes me to delete your log. But it certainly creates the possibility that the cache gets archived.  There are things that Geocachers must do, such as placing the container in its place, treating others with respect, or not ruining property, things that are best practices, without requiring me to have them in a cache page (or especially... on a TB page).  But if I feel the need to type them, you can do your own thing anyway.  Which messes up the game for everybody but you.

 

But if nobody ever finds it and it's later archived because nobody appreciates my caches (or whatever over-the-top complaints I have when archiving a highly questionable cache), the ALR doesn't matter. Nobody "verified" it, so there was no way to know how the CO would react once the code was submitted.

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, talk2azs said:

2> Don't create threads like this on a public forum! You risk making yourself look foolish!

 

Thanks for the advice :), but the entertainment value of the topic overcomes the consequences. :D

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 3
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, talk2azs said:

Where on the cache page does it state that the verifier is mandatory?

 

Where on the cache page does it state that the verifier is NOT mandatory?  This is the crux of the issue for me.

 

Be specific in your requirements (or lack of, in this case) and you'll get no complaints from me about this as an ALR.  Until then, it's vague because it can be understood either way and even a reviewer agrees that as written, it's an ALR and wouldn't be published if it were a new hide.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Where on the cache page does it state that the verifier is NOT mandatory?  This is the crux of the issue for me.

That point seems beyond arbitrary to me. Where's the line? If I say "enjoy the view" do I have to say "but it's not mandatory" least it be declared an ALR and my cache forbidden? What if I say, "click this link to read about my adventure when I placed this cache"? What is it exactly that makes this case suddenly require an explicit declaration of being not mandatory? Even though I recognize that the CO is trying hard to tweak everyone's nose, I can't deny that he stayed on the right side of any possible official line.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, dprovan said:

That point seems beyond arbitrary to me. Where's the line? If I say "enjoy the view" do I have to say "but it's not mandatory" least it be declared an ALR and my cache forbidden? What if I say, "click this link to read about my adventure when I placed this cache"? What is it exactly that makes this case suddenly require an explicit declaration of being not mandatory? Even though I recognize that the CO is trying hard to tweak everyone's nose, I can't deny that he stayed on the right side of any possible official line.

To some degree, I think it's a case of "I know it when I see it."

 

But I think there's a difference between "enjoy the view" or "read more information here" or "please replace as found", which come across as polite suggestions to me, and "verify that you found the correct container here", which comes across as an ALR to me.

 

If the CO's only interest is in helping finders know that they found the correct container and signed the correct log (so their Finds are not subject to deletion), then there are easier ways of doing it without creating an online verification system.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:

To some degree, I think it's a case of "I know it when I see it".

As I said: arbitrary. I see the same thing and don't think it's mandatory even without a disclaimer.

 

1 hour ago, niraD said:

If the CO's only interest is in helping finders know that they found the correct container and signed the correct log (so their Finds are not subject to deletion), then there are easier ways of doing it without creating an online verification system.

I can't imagine what easier way you have in mind or how that easier way would avoid the same ALR trap, but why should the CO be expected to be as clever as you?

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I can't imagine what easier way you have in mind or how that easier way would avoid the same ALR trap, but why should the CO be expected to be as clever as you?

How about something simple like, "The correct log sheet is yellow" or "The correct container is a camo-painted Bison tube with 'OFFICIAL GEOCACHE' engraved on it". Make it clear that you are trying to help the seeker identify the correct container, and that you are not trying to get them to verify (to whom?) that they have found the correct container.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, talk2azs said:

I have been trying to get away from and quit this game for some time now. But when reading forums like this, you people keep pulling me back into the game. This thread has inspired yet another idea for a new simple cache puzzle hunt! I think I will call it: "Humanity in Regression".

 

I agree with K13.

 

On ‎8‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 9:40 PM, K13 said:

I'm happy I don't have CO like this one seems to be this in my area.

 

You clearly aren't in this game for the right reasons.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

That point seems beyond arbitrary to me. Where's the line? If I say "enjoy the view" do I have to say "but it's not mandatory" least it be declared an ALR and my cache forbidden? What if I say, "click this link to read about my adventure when I placed this cache"? What is it exactly that makes this case suddenly require an explicit declaration of being not mandatory? Even though I recognize that the CO is trying hard to tweak everyone's nose, I can't deny that he stayed on the right side of any possible official line.

 

I'd say it's because the statement relates directly to the find. The other examples of statements that clearly aren't ALRs, like "enjoy the view" or "ride your mountain bike to the cache", are tangential to the find, so they don't carry the same weight.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

Once again, the arguing over whether the grammar implies ALR will be endless.

What is actually happening with the cache? If it's not being enforced as an ALR, then there's no issue.  If that's the case, the argument is whether a cacher reads it and thinks it's an ALR or not - when practically it doesn't matter if they do that extra task or not. So, sure, if they do it and then find out they didn't have to, they might be a bit upset. To me, that seems to be the only drawback. Not likely something a reviewer or HQ will use to tell the CO to change the wording.

 

It is an issue if the CO is using that task to defend deleting logs of people who don't do it.

So are they? Is the CO deleting logs who don't use the verification?

If not, why is there still arguing?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, niraD said:

How about something simple like, "The correct log sheet is yellow" or "The correct container is a camo-painted Bison tube with 'OFFICIAL GEOCACHE' engraved on it". Make it clear that you are trying to help the seeker identify the correct container, and that you are not trying to get them to verify (to whom?) that they have found the correct container.

My impression is that the CO is concerned about specific deceit, not casual mistaken identity. I think he's anticipating that if he says, "The correct log sheet is yellow" or "The correct container is a camo-painted Bison tube with 'OFFICIAL GEOCACHE' engraved on it", the next day there will be a camo-painted bison tube with "official geocache" engraved on it with a yellow log.

 

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

What is actually happening with the cache?

The cache has never been found, likely will never be found, and if it ever is found, the finder will most likely be only too happy to prove in whatever way he can that he found the actual cache. There's almost no chance this will have any practical effect.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have, over the years, used various techniques that allow the finder to verify that they truly found the cache or solved the puzzle.  I have always been careful to frame these as optional, only to be used as desired. No log would ever be deleted if someone did not do the verification step, but then all subsequent loggers will see the he or she did not do so and may draw their own conclusions. It does not sound to me as if the activity in this case was framed in the same way, which leads me to believe that it was intended as an alr.

  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, The A-Team said:

I'd say it's because the statement relates directly to the find. The other examples of statements that clearly aren't ALRs, like "enjoy the view" or "ride your mountain bike to the cache", are tangential to the find, so they don't carry the same weight.

 

ALR should relate to logging not finding. Riding a bike relates to finding not logging. ALR is not an Additional Finding Requirement. For example, "Use ladders to reach the cache" is direct order to use ladders. It has nothing to do with logging. "Post your Find It log while standing on ladders" is an ALR.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

ALR should relate to logging not finding. Riding a bike relates to finding not logging. ALR is not an Additional Finding Requirement. For example, "Use ladders to reach the cache" is direct order to use ladders. It has nothing to do with logging. "Post your Find It log while standing on ladders" is an ALR.

 

Don't split those hairs, to use an English idiom.

"You must use a ladder" is an ALR.

You can't justify your statement by simply saying that the "L" in "ALR" stands for "Logging", not "Finding"; referential English and its acronyms are as much conceptual mechanisms as they are literal. Maybe more so.

 

An "ALR" is one where the CO MEANS "I won't let your FIND stand unless you comply with this requirement beyond the Guidelines."

 

And DON'T come back with a twisty example; that could implicitly includes breaking laws, disrespecting property, or just being a %#$@@#.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, dprovan said:

That point seems beyond arbitrary to me. Where's the line? If I say "enjoy the view" do I have to say "but it's not mandatory" least it be declared an ALR and my cache forbidden? What if I say, "click this link to read about my adventure when I placed this cache"? What is it exactly that makes this case suddenly require an explicit declaration of being not mandatory? Even though I recognize that the CO is trying hard to tweak everyone's nose, I can't deny that he stayed on the right side of any possible official line.

 

Then "Where on the cache page does it state that the verifier is mandatory?" is just as arbitrary.  You can't have it both ways.  The CO is walking a fine line which people have inferred either it is an ALR or it is not an ALR.  A simple clarification where things are laid out in a manner that clears up any confusion erases this entire debate.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

Then "Where on the cache page does it state that the verifier is mandatory?" is just as arbitrary.  You can't have it both ways.  The CO is walking a fine line which people have inferred either it is an ALR or it is not an ALR.  A simple clarification where things are laid out in a manner that clears up any confusion erases this entire debate.

 

You're assuming he wants to clear up this debate.

  • Funny 4
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/24/2019 at 8:24 AM, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

You're assuming he wants to clear up this debate.

 

I'm pretty sure they don't either.

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/23/2019 at 7:43 PM, thebruce0 said:

If it's not being enforced as an ALR, then there's no issue.

Is the enforcement as an ALR (i.e., deletion of logs that do not comply) really the only issue?

 

What if another CO hides a cache with the same language? One CO enforces the request/requirement by deleting logs that do not comply. The other does not. Is the language okay in one cache listing, but not okay in the other cache listing?

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, niraD said:

What if another CO hides a cache with the same language? One CO enforces the request/requirement by deleting logs that do not comply. The other does not. Is the language okay in one cache listing, but not okay in the other cache listing?

 

Ok... how about the requirement for peddling a mountain bike when searching the cache. One CO enforces the request/requirement by deleting logs that do not comply. The other does not. Is the language okay in one cache listing, but not okay in the other cache listing?

 

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Ok... how about the requirement for peddling a mountain bike when searching the cache. One CO enforces the request/requirement by deleting logs that do not comply. The other does not. Is the language okay in one cache listing, but not okay in the other cache listing?

Or what about the language for "enjoying the view" when searching for the cache?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, niraD said:

Or what about the language for "enjoying the view" when searching for the cache?

 

Exactly! The situation is unbearable.

 

Anyway... "enjoying the view" is a textbook agenda and should be removed during the reviewing. One of my friends tried to publish a cache with a kind request that visitors would feed the birds. The cache was a real bird feeder with a container filled with bird food. The reviewer did the right move and demanded to remove this agenda from the cache description. The explanation was that anything you ask players to do, joining a party or feeding birds, is an agenda and not allowed.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, niraD said:

What if another CO hides a cache with the same language? One CO enforces the request/requirement by deleting logs that do not comply. The other does not. Is the language okay in one cache listing, but not okay in the other cache listing?

 

It's okay in one, and okay in the other. What's not okay the is the CO enforcing the language as an ALR.

Whether it's "use the verifier" or "enjoy the view".

The language in this case is not the issue, the issue is what the CO attempts to enforce.  Since in this case the language is obviously debateable as to whether it is intended as an ALR, the answer is whether the CO IS enforcing it as an ALR.  If one CO with the language does and another CO with the same language doesn't, then the problem is with the CO that does.

 

Obviously if the language were clarified one way or another, then the language would be clear. "You cannot log your find unless..." is disallowed. "Optionally, you may..." is allowed. Niether of those are there in this case. So the CO's actions determine what the CO meant with the language.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/25/2019 at 1:58 PM, arisoft said:

 

Ok... how about the requirement for peddling a mountain bike when searching the cache.

 

Forcing a cacher to sell something is not allowed.  That violates the "no commercial" things.

 

Sorry.  I could not resist.

  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post

Coachstahly, in your post on August 23rd, you countered my text,

On 8/23/2019 at 9:05 AM, talk2azs said:

Where on the cache page does it state that the verifier is mandatory? 

with the following text:

 

"Where on the cache page does it state that the verifier is NOT mandatory?  This is the crux of the issue for me."

 

Are you really in need of having every little detailed spelled out for you by having the English language spoon fed? Maybe some additional text on the cache page is needed just for people who need to have the do's and don'ts of a cache hunt specifically listed. The text below should be a good start!

 

1> Always drive your vehicle on roads. Not on people!
2> Do not drive your vehicle into the Lake!
3> Park your vehicle(IN A PARKING LOT), before hunting this cache!
4> In order to get out of vehicle, open door, get out, close door! Now walk to cache coordinates.
5> The cache container is NOT for human consumption. It will be harmful to your health if swallowed!
6> The contents of the cache container should not be eaten! May be harmful if swallowed!
7> Caution: The contents of this cache container should not be fed to fish.
8> Eating rocks in the cache area will lead to broken teeth!
9> Do not hunt this cache while sleeping or unconscious!
10> If you will be using shin pads, be informed that they cannot protect any part of the body they do not cover.
11> Do not place cache container in eyes. Cache container may irritate eyes!
12> Cache container WILL be hot after being exposed in open flame!
13> Do not use the cache container orally.
14> Do not climb inside this cache container and close it up. Doing so will cause injury and death.
15> Do not use cache container as an ear plug!
16> After finding the cache, twist top off with hands! Do not put top in mouth!
17> The cache container will be hot after heating!
18> Choking hazard: This cache is a micro container! DO NOT PUT IN MOUTH!
19> Warning: May cause drowsiness if hunting for this cache for too long a period of time!
20> Cache container is NOT to be used as a personal flotation device!
21> In case of flood, PROCEED UPHILL. In case of flash flood, proceed uphill quickly.
22> Do not eat plants in the area as some may be poisonous!
23> Do not place cache container into any openings on your body!
24> Cache container not intended for use as a dental hygiene tool.

25> After hunting this cache, proceed back to your vehicle on foot! (By on foot, I mean walking!)

26> When you arrive back at your vehicle, open door. If your vehicle's door does not open, UNLOCK the door. Now open the door. Get into your vehicle through the big opening the now open door created. Once you are in your vehicle, make sure you arms and legs are completely inside before closing the door. Start you vehicle using your key. Put vehicle in gear of the direction you would like to go.

Edited by talk2azs
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, talk2azs said:

Coachstahly, in your post on August 23rd, you countered my text,

with the following text:

 

"Where on the cache page does it state that the verifier is NOT mandatory?  This is the crux of the issue for me."

 

Are you really in need of having every little detailed spelled out for you by having the English language spoon fed? Maybe some additional text on the cache page is needed just for people who need to have the do's and don'ts of a cache hunt specifically listed. The text below should be a good start!

 

1> Always drive your vehicle on roads. Not on people!
2> Do not drive your vehicle into the Lake!
3> Park your vehicle(IN A PARKING LOT), before hunting this cache!
4> In order to get out of vehicle, open door, get out, close door! Now walk to cache coordinates.
5> The cache container is NOT for human consumption. It will be harmful to your health if swallowed!
6> The contents of the cache container should not be eaten! May be harmful if swallowed!
7> Caution: The contents of this cache container should not be fed to fish.
8> Eating rocks in the cache area will lead to broken teeth!
9> Do not hunt this cache while sleeping or unconscious!
10> If you will be using shin pads, be informed that they cannot protect any part of the body they do not cover.
11> Do not place cache container in eyes. Cache container may irritate eyes!
12> Cache container WILL be hot after being exposed in open flame!
13> Do not use the cache container orally.
14> Do not climb inside this cache container and close it up. Doing so will cause injury and death.
15> Do not use cache container as an ear plug!
16> After finding the cache, twist top off with hands! Do not put top in mouth!
17> The cache container will be hot after heating!
18> Choking hazard: This cache is a micro container! DO NOT PUT IN MOUTH!
19> Warning: May cause drowsiness if hunting for this cache for too long a period of time!
20> Cache container is NOT to be used as a personal flotation device!
21> In case of flood, PROCEED UPHILL. In case of flash flood, proceed uphill quickly.
22> Do not eat plants in the area as some may be poisonous!
23> Do not place cache container into any openings on your body!
24> Cache container not intended for use as a dental hygiene tool.

25> After hunting this cache, proceed back to your vehicle on foot! (By on foot, I mean walking!)

26> When you arrive back at your vehicle, open door. If your vehicle's door does not open, UNLOCK the door. Now open the door. Get into your vehicle through the big opening the now open door created. Once you are in your vehicle, make sure you arms and legs are completely inside before closing the door. Start you vehicle using your key. Put vehicle in gear of the direction you would like to go.

 

Quite hilarious but completely missing the point.

  • Upvote 5
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, talk2azs said:

Coachstahly, in your post on August 23rd, you countered my text,

with the following text:

 

"Where on the cache page does it state that the verifier is NOT mandatory?  This is the crux of the issue for me."

 

Are you really in need of having every little detailed spelled out for you by having the English language spoon fed? Maybe some additional text on the cache page is needed just for people who need to have the do's and don'ts of a cache hunt specifically listed. The text below should be a good start!

 

1> Always drive your vehicle on roads. Not on people!
2> Do not drive your vehicle into the Lake!
3> Park your vehicle(IN A PARKING LOT), before hunting this cache!
4> In order to get out of vehicle, open door, get out, close door! Now walk to cache coordinates.
5> The cache container is NOT for human consumption. It will be harmful to your health if swallowed!
6> The contents of the cache container should not be eaten! May be harmful if swallowed!
7> Caution: The contents of this cache container should not be fed to fish.
8> Eating rocks in the cache area will lead to broken teeth!
9> Do not hunt this cache while sleeping or unconscious!
10> If you will be using shin pads, be informed that they cannot protect any part of the body they do not cover.
11> Do not place cache container in eyes. Cache container may irritate eyes!
12> Cache container WILL be hot after being exposed in open flame!
13> Do not use the cache container orally.
14> Do not climb inside this cache container and close it up. Doing so will cause injury and death.
15> Do not use cache container as an ear plug!
16> After finding the cache, twist top off with hands! Do not put top in mouth!
17> The cache container will be hot after heating!
18> Choking hazard: This cache is a micro container! DO NOT PUT IN MOUTH!
19> Warning: May cause drowsiness if hunting for this cache for too long a period of time!
20> Cache container is NOT to be used as a personal flotation device!
21> In case of flood, PROCEED UPHILL. In case of flash flood, proceed uphill quickly.
22> Do not eat plants in the area as some may be poisonous!
23> Do not place cache container into any openings on your body!
24> Cache container not intended for use as a dental hygiene tool.

25> After hunting this cache, proceed back to your vehicle on foot! (By on foot, I mean walking!)

26> When you arrive back at your vehicle, open door. If your vehicle's door does not open, UNLOCK the door. Now open the door. Get into your vehicle through the big opening the now open door created. Once you are in your vehicle, make sure you arms and legs are completely inside before closing the door. Start you vehicle using your key. Put vehicle in gear of the direction you would like to go.

Do you work in a ladder factory writing product safety instructions?:lol::unsure:

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

Pity we don't have a "downvote" option.:ph34r: 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, talk2azs said:

Maybe some additional text on the cache page is needed just for people who need to have the do's and don'ts of a cache hunt specifically listed. The text below should be a good start!

 

1> Always drive your vehicle on roads. Not on people!

[...]

 

26> When you arrive back at your vehicle, open door. If your vehicle's door does not open, UNLOCK the door. Now open the door. Get into your vehicle through the big opening the now open door created. Once you are in your vehicle, make sure you arms and legs are completely inside before closing the door. Start you vehicle using your key. Put vehicle in gear of the direction you would like to go.

 

Good advice, thank you. Reading this I have the feeling that I have donw many mistakes in my geocaching career which I could have avoided. I am sure the post helps me getting a better geocacher!

 

I only miss the part about signing the logbook if I find it. But with the cache which this thread is all about there seems to be no danger of finding it so maybe it is okay to skip that part.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×
×
  • Create New...