Adventure lab based on traditional caches

[+nemesis905]

I  plan on placing five guideline compliant traditional caches. These will follow all the rules for traditional caches (specifically the 161m/528ft proximity rule). In each of the caches, I will have a "code word" written in the container somewhere.

 

I also plan to create an Adventure Lab. Each stage will correspond to the location of the physical caches I placed. For the prompt, you would have to enter the "code word" within the  geocache to claim that stage.

 

I know that Adventure labs don't allow "physical placements". However, my understanding of this case is that my Adventure Lab is based on "pre-existing" geocaches. If someone chooses, they could just find the 5 traditional geocaches without doing the AL. However the Adventure Lab could not be completed without "finding" the physical caches.

 

Is this allowed?

Edited December 13, 2023 by nemesis905

[Keystone]

The Adventure Lab guidelines say to make sure all locations "Do not involve placing a physical object or container for the Adventure."

 

Would there be a way to complete the Adventure without having to create a geocaching account and find the five geocaches?

[+Max and 99]

23 minutes ago, nemesis905 said:

I  plan on placing five guideline compliant traditional caches. These will follow all the rules for traditional caches (specifically the 161m/528ft proximity rule). In each of the caches, I will have a "code word" written in the container somewhere.

 

I also plan to create an Adventure Lab. Each stage will correspond to the location of the physical caches I placed. For the prompt, you would have to enter the "code word" within the  geocache to claim that stage.

 

I know that Adventure labs don't allow "physical placements". However, my understanding of this case is that my Adventure Lab is based on "pre-existing" geocaches. If someone chooses, they could just find the 5 traditional geocaches without doing the AL. However the Adventure Lab could not be completed without "finding" the physical caches.

 

Is this allowed?

There's one exactly like that near me. 

[+nemesis905]

19 minutes ago, Keystone said:

The Adventure Lab guidelines say to make sure all locations "Do not involve placing a physical object or container for the Adventure."

 

Would there be a way to complete the Adventure without having to create a geocaching account and find the five geocaches?

 

I am not placing physical caches for the adventure per se. These are standalone caches that can be done by anyone with a free geocaching account.

 

The adventure lab can also be completed without logging a find in geocaching dot com. You just need the code in the container.

 

I guess, I am trying to create a loosely coupled geocaching/AL experience here. You can do the caches, or you can do the lab, or you can do both... It's up to you.

Edited December 13, 2023 by nemesis905
clarity

[Keystone]

9 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

There's one exactly like that near me. 

From and after February 10, 2022, answers to Adventure Location questions are not to be placed in physical geocaches.  I'm guessing you found a cache/adventure design set up prior to that date.  These have legacy status.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Keystone
corrected effective date of guideline change

[+GerandKat]

2 hours ago, nemesis905 said:

I am not placing physical caches for the adventure per se.

 

but that:

 

3 hours ago, nemesis905 said:

I will have a "code word" written in the container somewhere.

would make it a physical placement, and that wouldn't be allowed under currect ALC guidelines.

[+Mausebiber]

On 12/13/2023 at 5:21 AM, Keystone said:

Would there be a way to complete the Adventure without having to create a geocaching account and find the five geocaches?

 

 I guess, you could just ask someone for the five codes and complete the AL this way.

[+thebruce0]

There was one placed like this in my area as well. Individual cache series, each with some alien item in the container. The AL was set up based on identifying what "happened to be" in the containers at each coordinate/Location. Geocaches do not need to be "found", but each location is set up just like any other would be going to a coordinate and answering a question about what you find at gz.

 

I was aiming to place one similar before GIFF but was going back and forth with the reviewer a couple times and the schedule fizzled.

 

It would be nice to have some clarification on this ability in the AL guidelines. Existing geocaches that do not need the AL to be found can be used just like any other element in the real world, if an AL decides to use coordinates that point to them.  I would think if it's disallowed, the guidelines would need to state that AL Locations cannot make use of active geocaches even if having not been placed for an AL in any way. Otherwise there'd be a whole lot of grey area debating. But I hope that's not the case. I can understand the reasoning behind a decision like that, but technically speaking, anything an AL location points to could 'break' at any time; OTOH at least an active geocache (even if for a different owner) we know has an active owner so the AL can get active again as well.

 

In short I'm not sure why there would be a disallowance for an AL to use a "pre-existing geocache" (as opposed to placing something physical in the world for the AL which is different). So if that distinction could be clarified (even if it's sort of like a fine print, or reviewer-only note), that would save a lot of reviewer inquisitions

Edited December 14, 2023 by thebruce0

[Keystone]

On 12/12/2023 at 11:49 PM, Keystone said:

From and after February 10, 2022, answers to Adventure Location questions are not to be placed in physical geocaches. 

 

What about this statement is unclear and needs to be clarified?

 

It's within a few words of being a direct quote of the written guidance provided by HQ to the Community Volunteer Reviewers, building out detail from the public guidance (Adventures "Do not involve placing a physical object or container...")

[+thebruce0]

Because what does it take for someone to have a friend place a geocache, then someone else objectively claim that they did not place anything physical for the AL and are only using pre-existing elements in the world?  Same sort of wordplay needing clarification of the 'break ground' guideline buried geocaches.  People will find a way around vague wording if they really want to As it stands, there is an interpretive issue with whether one can create an AL that references something related to a pre-existing geocache, whether owned by the same person or not...

[+fizzymagic]

On 12/14/2023 at 7:13 AM, thebruce0 said:

As it stands, there is an interpretive issue with whether one can create an AL that references something related to a pre-existing geocache, whether owned by the same person or not...

 

ALs were not designed to be another "complete this pointless challenge to get a star" activity, even though they are rapidly turning into that.  Your attempted AL you described above is in the same vein.  If your (generic you in this case) goal is to further degrade whatever reputation ALs have for being interesting and educational, then by all means keep on pushing this way.  But at least be honest about what you are doing.

Edited December 17, 2023 by fizzymagic

[+thebruce0]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.  I'm explaining the situation about what someone wants to do with an AL. That's just a fact.  What's interpretive - by demonstration - is that the wording about what can be used for an AL isn't clear: there have been ALs published in such a manner in the past, and people still ask about whether they can create an AL in the same style now. So the wording is not clear. 

 

* Can an AL location make use of a pre-existing geocache, just as if it were referring to any other pre-existing 'thing' at the coordinates provided?  If not, then the wording should state simply that ALs cannot make use of any pre-existing geocache listing, regardless of Cache Type or who the owner is. That would be clear.  Otherwise let it be known to reviewers that in the (rare?) case someone asks about it, they know that it is okay to use a pre-existing geocache and would respond by allowing it, rather than either deliberating over it or having differing reviewer opinions ("they allowed it there, why can't I?") that frustrate people because of the no-precedent clause...

[+fizzymagic]

On 12/17/2023 at 11:50 PM, thebruce0 said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

 

One of the saddest things I have experienced in geocaching over the years has been the inevitable descent of the guidelines into rules.  Looking back, the game has changed its flavor greatly.  It started out as a "let me bring you to this great spot!" activity and has devolved into "let's see how many stars we can get" competition.  ALs had a chance to be a "let me give you a tour of neat stuff where you can learn something" activity, but is devolving in a similar direction. 

 

Additionally, ALs were designed from the start to not require reviewers; ALs are assumed to be good until somebody complains.

 

Your request for "rules clarification" works against the intent of ALs in both respects.

 

Doesn't really matter much to me because I intensely dislike most ALs, but I am still sad for those that enjoy them as an activity apart from geocaching.

[+barefootjeff]

11 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

Looking back, the game has changed its flavor greatly.  It started out as a "let me bring you to this great spot!" activity and has devolved into "let's see how many stars we can get" competition.  ALs had a chance to be a "let me give you a tour of neat stuff where you can learn something" activity, but is devolving in a similar direction. 

 

There are still some of us hiding "let me bring you to this great spot!" caches, but they rarely get any finders. GC9QR5W, a 1.5/3.5 traditional located amongst a series of beautiful waterfalls, was published in April 2022 but has only had 5 finders. It's not exactly remote, being a 5 minute drive from the M1 Somersby interchange and then a 2km hike mostly along the Great North Walk, but nobody's interested. Last month I did an awesome 3/4 Earthcache (GC9Q2EZ) in the Blue Mountains (west of Sydney) that was published in July 2022; it had a group of four claim joint FTF shortly after publication but I've been the only other finder since. My own most recent hide (GCAEX05), a 1.5/4 traditional at a series of waterfalls and rock pools with nice views down across the Hawkesbury River, has only had one finder in the two and a bit months since publication.

 

 

By comparison, a 1.5/1.5 traditional a short walk from a car park in Gosford has had 61 finders in just eight months, and a similar cache in a suburban park in Newcastle, published in January, has had 97 finds. By and large, most players these days, particularly the newer ones who only use their phone and have never visited the website, don't want great spots, they just want quick smileys.

 

As for ALs, with mine I've tried to showcase what I think are interesting places that are a bit off the beaten track. They're not meant to be educational, just fun experiences you might not have otherwise had. It's much the same with the 36 ALs I've completed over the last three and a half years, most are fairly mundane but still fun to do. It's hard to create ALs in nice bushland locations because often there's poor phone coverage, little if anything to ask meaningfui and unambiguous questions about and the app's map doesn't show most walking tracks. But ALs are pretty much dead here now, with only two new ones in 2022 (one of them mine) and none this year. ALs as an experience were probably doomed right from the start when they decided to award smileys for each location, and even more so now that the app encourages people to cherry-pick whatever locations are close by rather than do an AL in its entirety.

 

Getting back to the original question, I'd have to wonder if the only thing worthy of bringing someone to a location is an existing physical cache, what is the point of the AL? Other than for an easy extra smiley, I suppose.

[+thebruce0]

Ok so thanks for the clarification - it sounded like you were scolding me for asking for clarification on a rule, but I see you changed it to the royal "you".

 

19 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

One of the saddest things I have experienced in geocaching over the years has been the inevitable descent of the guidelines into rules.  Looking back, the game has changed its flavor greatly.  It started out as a "let me bring you to this great spot!" activity and has devolved into "let's see how many stars we can get" competition.  ALs had a chance to be a "let me give you a tour of neat stuff where you can learn something" activity, but is devolving in a similar direction. 

 

I very much agree.

 

19 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

Additionally, ALs were designed from the start to not require reviewers; ALs are assumed to be good until somebody complains.

 

Your request for "rules clarification" works against the intent of ALs in both respects.

 

On part 1, also agreed. On part 2, I don't fully agreed. I'm all about creativity and uniqueness. There's nothing inherently devolving about determining whether a mechanic is officially allowable or not. It came into question because reviewers in Ontario can be extremely strict - it could roll over into whether a cache series could be published, if it's believed they're used specifically for an AL. To my recollection I believe some ALs have also had reviewer action take at some point in their lives. The issue with ALs is that they are an open container, and without reviewers, if there are no rules then there will be bad ALs or ones that push/skirt/break from the 'spirit' of the AL. My intent for clarification on this rule was because there have been differing takes from reviewers about what is allowable when it comes to what's used in a Location. And I have seen very creative uses (well, one so far :P) of this mechanic, while also hearing that it had been disallowed and also hoping to make use of it myself. So I'd like to know if it's officially allowable - to be on the up and up, rather than trying to 'sneak' it in.

 

Personally I don't care if an AL is 'a tour of neat stuff where you can learn something', or a puzzle that leads you to information to find a real/bonus geocache.  As long as it's fun, and for my preference, creative, showing some effort from the owner and more than merely entering a keyword in a mobile app at a gps location for a statistical smiley that implies you found a geocache.

 

I still prefer to only do ALs that are required for a geocache bonus, or ALs that are reportedly really well done. Tho I won't go out of my way not to do them either. But I won't otherwise go out of my way to do them, as geocaching. They aren't "true" geocaching to me either.

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I still prefer to only do ALs that are required for a geocache bonus, or ALs that are reportedly really well done. Tho I won't go out of my way not to do them either. But I won't otherwise go out of my way to do them, as geocaching. They aren't "true" geocaching to me either.

 

I don't really like AL bonus caches as often, even for a really good AL, they're just an afterthought with a micro in a guardrail or under a bush. As an owner, bonus caches have always been the hardest part in coming up with a new AL as they take away all the benefits of the AL being virtual and really it just degenerates into a multi with 5 virtual waypoints, except the finders get six smileys instead of one. With my most recent AL on Dangar Island, I didn't provide a bonus cache, in part because the AL guidelines now recommend against it and also because there wasn't anywhere on the island where I would have felt comfortable placing a physical cache. So far no-one's outright complained, but it's only had 15 completions in over a year and some of those were group visits.

 

To me, ALs are really a separate activity to caching as just about everything is different, apart from bonus caches and the awarding of smileys for every location visited. I delete the latter from the website since they're way out of proportion to all my other caching finds.

[+thebruce0]

But again you're brushing all AL bonus caches with a broad stroke. I would rather an AL have a bonus cache than not, because as a geocacher I want to find things, not just put in digital codes to a phone (eve though that can be fun and educational), and I would rather an AL be fun and creative than not. If it's both, even more fantastic. An AL is a tool that can be used for good or ill. And people have preferences for they find more than otherwise. I believe ALs are taking away from 'geocaching'. But if they are to exist, let's use them to encourage geocaching. Else keep referring to them as a separate thing (like not official "geocache types" as many are being led to believe)

Anyway the nature of ALs has been discussed over and over in the forum. This thread is about using pre-existing geocaches as reference for AL locations. And I would love if there were an official call on this. 

[+barefootguru]

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

This thread is about using pre-existing geocaches as reference for AL locations. And I would love if there were an official call on this. 

Keystone answered that in his second post.

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, barefootguru said:

Keystone answered that in his second post.

 

No, his answer (which is fine) was quoting the guideline, but not a clarification to the vagueness that has been demonstrated by both the allowance and denial of the setup in question - the reasoning explained as the thread continues.

 

Keystone quoted: The Adventure Lab guidelines say to make sure all locations "Do not involve placing a physical object or container for the Adventure."

 

So then a pre-existing geocache that was not "placed for the Adventure" can be used as references for an AL Location? That is the question.

And then inevitably the issue will be people published geocaches independent of the AL, then creating an AL to use those geocaches. That is the interpretive result.

So it's a matter of principle or practicality. Does it matter if the independent geocache was published by the AL owner or not (principle) if the end result of the experience is the same? (practical)  Because if the principle matters, people will certainly have friends publish the caches so the practical allowance is still met (not placed for the AL but still usable).

 

It's an inevitable slippery slope that can be answered by a simple question to reduce headaches:

Can a pre-existing independent geocache be used as a reference for an AL Location? (This is not addressed by the quoted rule)

Edited December 20, 2023 by thebruce0

[Keystone]

Repeating one of my prior posts:

 

Quote

From and after February 10, 2022, answers to Adventure Location questions are not to be placed in physical geocaches. 

 

This is close to a direct quote from written guidance provided by HQ to Community Volunteer Reviewers, and is consistent with the public-facing guidance.

[+thebruce0]

On 12/12/2023 at 11:49 PM, Keystone said:

From and after February 10, 2022, answers to Adventure Location questions are not to be placed in physical geocaches.  I'm guessing you found a cache/adventure design set up prior to that date.  These have legacy status.

 

Yeah, got that one But what about on? Or near (eta: ok not near as that would require something newly placed for the AL)? What about a question like "What colour is the geocache located here?" (as much as I'd despise that question, it's for argument's sake)  I guess the point being made is again that if you just go to the location and read or identify something, does it matter if it's a geocache, or if it's a sign?  For the cache I found (grandfathered in it seems), if the containers in the series had an image on the outside rather than an item "inside", would that be disallowed per the above quote? (That's why I was hoping for a clarification about 'making use of 'pre-existing' geocaches. You know someone will find a way around the wording

Edited December 20, 2023 by thebruce0

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Yeah, got that one But what about on? Or near (eta: ok not near as that would require something newly placed for the AL)? What about a question like "What colour is the geocache located here?" (as much as I'd despise that question, it's for argument's sake)  I guess the point being made is again that if you just go to the location and read or identify something, does it matter if it's a geocache, or if it's a sign?  For the cache I found (grandfathered in it seems), if the containers in the series had an image on the outside rather than an item "inside", would that be disallowed per the above quote? (That's why I was hoping for a clarification about 'making use of 'pre-existing' geocaches. You know someone will find a way around the wording

 

So where do you draw the line? If the answer is "no, you can't use the outside of a cache as an AL stage", do you then want to ask "What colour is the camo rock covering the cache?" or "What sort of bush is the cache hanging in?" What I'm struggling to get my head around is why you'd want to be doubling up physical caches and AL stages at the same location, other than the obvious answer of providing two smileys for the price of one. If that's what the game has devolved into, then I'm just going to have to agree with fizzymagic's assessment of them and be glad ALs are dead here.

[+thebruce0]

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

So where do you draw the line?

That's the point. If a physical item cannot be placed for the purpose of an AL, and a pre-existing geocache cannot be used for an AL stage, then there is no question about it. Otherwise yes it's a slippery slope. One that can provide room for creativity, but one that can also be abused or taken to absurdity... just like many other aspects of this game (take powertrails for instance, or people caching for numbers and stats above all else; YMMV). I'm avoiding subjective opinions because those vary depending on who you talk to, where they are, skills, how long they've been caching, among other factors. All I'm trying to clarify is the limitations to the use of this tool or mechanic. And if the possible results of those limitations (or lack thereof) are to be considered, then that'll help HQ decide what an official call would be. 

 

For my personal perspective, yes, I know for a fact that there can be creative AL experiences that make use of existing geocaches. I'd prefer not receiving 5 smileys plus the physical geocache finds I decided to log on the way (not required), but if I want to I can delete 4 of the AL completions and take it as one smiley - but this applies to every AL that awards 5 smileys for entering 5 keywords into a phone app, which I don't consider geocaching, even if it is a fun one to do.  But all of that preference is beside the point. And the point is - can a pre-existing geocache be used as reference, in any way, for an AL stage, per the OP?

[+fizzymagic]

46 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

That's the point. If a physical item cannot be placed for the purpose of an AL, and a pre-existing geocache cannot be used for an AL stage, then there is no question about it.

 

See, that's the thing with the "make up a perfect rule and everything will be fixed" position.  There will be a question about it, and people will find a way around it.  People will put out QR codes and claim "it's legal because it was not a geocache" or something to that effect.

 

Turning guidelines, which specify intent, into rules, where definitions and exact wording matter, has been a disaster for geocaching and will be for ALs as well.  I suppose, given human nature, that the clamor for just-so rules will increase and eventually the guidelines will devolve into rules, but putting that moment off as long as possible seems like a good idea.

[+thebruce0]

1 minute ago, fizzymagic said:

People will put out QR codes and claim "it's legal because it was not a geocache" or something to that effect.

Well no because that's something placed in the world for the AL, which is already disallowed. (despite ALs intending to be reviewer-hands-off)

 

1 minute ago, fizzymagic said:

Turning guidelines, which specify intent, into rules, where definitions and exact wording matter, has been a disaster for geocaching and will be for ALs as well.  I suppose, given human nature, that the clamor for just-so rules will increase and eventually the guidelines will devolve into rules, but putting that moment off as long as possible seems like a good idea.

It's a fine line. Without them, people will always try to push the boundaries, and if guidelines don't become certain rules, then there can be ongoing headaches and arguments and debates and discussions and inconsistencies with no end in sight because no one says anything definitive leading to good and bad results as people interpret and infer for themselves.  But I think this is making a mountain our of a mole hill.  For this topic, if nothing can be placed, and no pre-existing geocache can be used, then ALs become entirely 'virtual', only using what already exists that isn't already used in a cache listing.  Of course there's still ways around it. A friend puts up a statue in their yard, and the AL creator claims they're just using what's already there. If it's really a problem, HQ would have to deal with it on a case by case basis. But this context is a simple question - if there is a pre-existing independent set of geocaches, can an AL's Locations reference something about those placed geocaches (that does not require opening them or touching them, but so little as observing them as one would observe a sign to read text for an answer)?

[+barefootjeff]

44 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

For this topic, if nothing can be placed, and no pre-existing geocache can be used, then ALs become entirely 'virtual', only using what already exists that isn't already used in a cache listing.

 

That last phrase seems to go beyond just using an existing cache. I have an AL that overlaps two virtual locations in a pre-existing (2015) multi. At one location, the AL even references the same plaque as the multi, although they ask different questions, simply because that plaque is about the only thing at the lookout to base unambiguous questions on. Beyond those two locations, the AL and multi go in different directions and follow different themes, with the mulit's final nowhere near any of the AL's stages or its bonus cache. Neither of us placed the plaque at the lookout, so I wouldn't have thought there'd be a conflict with the wording or spirit of the guidelines, and there's no free smiley since answering the multi's questions doesn't give you the answer to the AL question (or vice versa), but, well, I guess it could be seen as one of those grey areas.

[+thebruce0]

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

For this topic, if nothing can be placed, and no pre-existing geocache can be used, then ALs become entirely 'virtual', only using what already exists that isn't already used in a cache listing.

 

That last phrase seems to go beyond just using an existing cache.

 

Ok I was never referring to anything that wasn't physical or use for another non-physical geocache. I thought that was clear since ALs already do this, just like Virtuals and any puzzle that gets info from the real world. That is what ALs do. Get info from a GPS location (at least that is the intent).  If it wasn't clear - "only using what already exists that isn't ready used [as a physical cache] listing. Or clearer yet, wasn't physically placed for another cache listing. If the intent is that ALs universally only use what already exists outside of geocaching, then geocaches that only exist as being placed by a geocaching owner are not allowed to be used as an AL location reference.

 

Perhaps if the intent is to connect to non-AL/non-geocaching world, then the question could be whether there would still be a Location question if geocaches and ALs didn't exists. Is the item you're referencing something that would still exist without geocaching?  Still lots of room for creativity there, but removes the temptation to use a GPS location to take someone to something that was placed there only for the purpose of geocaching.

 

That would also address the rampant issue of travel ALs with hundreds of questions in geoart formations where the locations mean absolutely nothing except to get couch-logged for quick and easy smileys.  Exceptions could be granted for special temporary ALs for events like Megas, going back to how they initially launched.  If there's the general rule, and then a definition of what is excepted, then that could be much clearer. 

 

So on one end: ALs take you to real world locations and sites to answer a question, not geocaching sites.

On the other end: ALs are a tool that can do the above, or also provide compelling stories and experiences in places that otherwise may have none.

Neither is free from people who'll find a way to push the limits of allowability, of course.

[+JL_HSTRE]

To paraphrase a wise man nearly eaten by dinosaurs: some people are so concerned with whether they could instead of whether they should.

 

17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

What I'm struggling to get my head around is why you'd want to be doubling up physical caches and AL stages at the same location, other than the obvious answer of providing two smileys for the price of one.

 

That's it. That's exactly it. It's really that simple.

 

Everything is a competition and the race to the bottom never ends.

 

[+thebruce0]

I don't disagree. But that doesn't answer the question.