Would this be an ALR?

[+cx1]

A friend of mine was planning a trip to King's Island in Ohio and was planning to grab some caches along the way. A particular cache came up in his search and he brought it to my attention. This cache.

He asked me how the owner can delete logs if a person's name is in the physical log. To me this didn't seem allowed but being unsure I thought I would ask here. He seemed particularly concerned about the owners maintenance log,

Group finds are NO LONGER ALLOWED effective IMMEDIATELY

[+Ike 13]

I wouldn't call that an ALR. And how would they know if you were caching with a group.

 

Basically the hider has a 4 star terrain and does not want 10 cachers meeting up, 1 cacher goes up the tree and the other 9 get to claim a find. I understand this philosophy, but do not agree with it. If so a lot of people would have a lot less finds.

[+baloo&bd]

Even setting aside the fact that the CO has no way to know who wrote the name in the log, this most definitely is an attempt to circumvent the no ALR rule. This is something they applied after the cache was published (on 29may10) and will eventually be seen by a reviewer and dealt with, probably shortly after deleting a log.

[+narcissa]

That's definitely an ALR. The guidelines clearly state:

 

"Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

It doesn't matter if the person signing the log retrieved the cache or not. If they sign the log, they can log the find online.

[Mr.Yuck]

That's definitely an ALR. The guidelines clearly state:

 

"Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

It doesn't matter if the person signing the log retrieved the cache or not. If they sign the log, they can log the find online.

 

Oh, I dunno here, tough one. I believe you can make everyone climb a tree on a tree climbing cache. Hey, if the CO goes to Ohio Northern University, he should probably be able to spell Ohio. It's not a difficult word. OK, sorry, couldn't resist there. But I digress, I think asking everyone in a group to perform a physical task is not an ALR. Frog Central correct me if I'm wrong.

[+narcissa]

That's definitely an ALR. The guidelines clearly state:

 

"Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

It doesn't matter if the person signing the log retrieved the cache or not. If they sign the log, they can log the find online.

 

Oh, I dunno here, tough one. I believe you can make everyone climb a tree on a tree climbing cache. Hey, if the CO goes to Ohio Northern University, he should probably be able to spell Ohio. It's not a difficult word. OK, sorry, couldn't resist there. But I digress, I think asking everyone in a group to perform a physical task is not an ALR. Frog Central correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Demanding the completion of any task beyond signing the log and threatening log deletion for non-compliance is the very definition of an ALR. Physically retrieving the cache isn't an exception.

[+beejay&esskay]

So a terrain 4 cache requires a valid find to be made by someone actually climbing the tree, instead of having the cache thrown down to the ground for the rest of the group to sign?

 

Doesn't sound like an ALR any more than the requirement that the cache not be taken to the next event to have everyone there sign it.

[Mr.Yuck]

That's definitely an ALR. The guidelines clearly state:

 

"Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

It doesn't matter if the person signing the log retrieved the cache or not. If they sign the log, they can log the find online.

 

Oh, I dunno here, tough one. I believe you can make everyone climb a tree on a tree climbing cache. Hey, if the CO goes to Ohio Northern University, he should probably be able to spell Ohio. It's not a difficult word. OK, sorry, couldn't resist there. But I digress, I think asking everyone in a group to perform a physical task is not an ALR. Frog Central correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Demanding the completion of any task beyond signing the log and threatening log deletion for non-compliance is the very definition of an ALR. Physically retrieving the cache isn't an exception.

 

Fair enough. I'd like to see Keystone weigh in on this one. I have seen caches where everyone is required to climb the tree, or everyone is required to enter the cave (the one that pops into my head), but it's been a couple of years, and obviously before the "no more ALR's" era.

[+thedeadpirate]

Demanding the completion of any task beyond signing the log and threatening log deletion for non-compliance is the very definition of an ALR. Physically retrieving the cache isn't an exception.

 

Normally it would be clear cut if the CO threatened to delete logs if a certain rule wasn't followed.

 

However, one exception is when the finder's name does not appear in the physical log.

 

Though I find it kind of silly to get bent out of shape because someone signed a team name instead of each individual's name, one could make a case that the physical logging would only be good for a group find log, not for the individual members to log online.

 

The easy fix is to simply log each individual's name in the physical logbook along with the team name. A bit silly, but then that removes any reason to delete the online find log. (except for a spoiler log)

 

This is one of those cases where it would be interesting to get a reviewer's input.

[+narcissa]

So a terrain 4 cache requires a valid find to be made by someone actually climbing the tree, instead of having the cache thrown down to the ground for the rest of the group to sign?

 

Doesn't sound like an ALR any more than the requirement that the cache not be taken to the next event to have everyone there sign it.

 

Addition Logging Requirement means any requirement beyond signing the log.

 

As a cache owner, you can't force someone to climb the tree for themselves. You can't force them to find every waypoint in a multi. You can't force them to solve your puzzle. It doesn't matter how they get the cache, if they have signed the logbook, the log must be allowed to stand.

[+cx1]

Well maybe my calling it an ALR is a stretch, but it clearly seems against the rules in spirit to me. Had I been going along with my friend for this cache I would be watching him the entire time while he was in the tree for safety reasons. I would probably be holding a safety rope as he climbed. If he then signs his name and mine while he is up in the tree I don't see how the CO could legitimately delete my log. I was there (just in this example argument, neither of us have actually been to the cache yet), I helped in cache retrieval and my name is on the log. It seems well within the guidelines for me to log it on-line as a find.

[+buttaskotch]

Will CO be paying medical bills?

To reiterate the CO doesn't want individual cachers registering their name in group finds. This hasn't to do with teams. I would love to hear abt individual cachers that had their logs deleted and appealed to Groundspeak. I firmly believe they would have their logs reinstated as it is an ALR the only thing necessary is to have a name listed in the log

[+Taoiseach]

I agree that this is an ALR. It's one thing to threaten to publicly ridicule those who do not climb the tree, but it's another thing to delete their log. The way I see it, if somebody wants to log one of my caches as found I really don't care all that much. I've even let a log stand where the 'finder' signed a discarded Gatorade lid! I found it funny, and didn't let it bother me in the way that those who take this sport far too seriously would.

 

For what it's worth, a couple of my caches have quasi-snotty comments about using Google Street View. If I found out that they used Street View against my wishes, I'd publicly shame them but I wouldn't delete their logs. As far as I'm concerned the same policy should be enforced for any wish that the CO posts to the cache page.

 

Here's what I have on one of mine -

 

One further note - This cache is not intended to be a Google Street View cache. Please refrain from using this resource, as it will not help you much, and it will only make you the subject of ridicule

 

And another -

 

A part of this cache is that it is a resurrection of VictorEcho's cache, and it is therefore not 'Google Street View Proof,' as my 'The Divine Downtown Diocesan Tour' is. This cache was also placed before Google Street View came into being, and I therefore never added the same request. Although I cannot and would not delete your log for using Street View, I strongly discourage the practice.

[+narcissa]

Well maybe my calling it an ALR is a stretch, but it clearly seems against the rules in spirit to me. Had I been going along with my friend for this cache I would be watching him the entire time while he was in the tree for safety reasons. I would probably be holding a safety rope as he climbed. If he then signs his name and mine while he is up in the tree I don't see how the CO could legitimately delete my log. I was there (just in this example argument, neither of us have actually been to the cache yet), I helped in cache retrieval and my name is on the log. It seems well within the guidelines for me to log it on-line as a find.

 

Calling it an ALR is not a stretch. It is an ALR. Signing the physical log is the ONLY requirement to log a find. How you obtain the coordinates and/or retrieve the cache doesn't matter. It's up to each cacher to make the call based on his/her personal caching ethics.

[+thedeadpirate]

The bit about "One person cannot sign for more than themselves" is clearly an ALR. As long as the signatures are in the log book, it doesn't matter if one person climbed and signed or if one person climbed and lowered the cache and each person signed. XXX in the logbook allows XXX to log a find online.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

To me, this isn't so much about a guideline issue as it is an acceptable practices issue that is between the cache owner and those logging the cache online. As numerous people have mentioned, it's not an ALR issue if everyone in the group signed the log. However, it's obvious that the COs intent in placing the cache was that finders of the cache climb the tree. Yes, you can technically post a found it log if you've signed the physical log but is that smiley face more important than potentially creating ill will with someone else in the caching community. If enough people continue to post found it logs without finding the cache as the CO intended, the most probable outcome will be that the CO archives the cache, thus denying anyone that would climb that tree to retrieve the cache the opportunity to do so.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

From the Guidelines, "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

[+beejay&esskay]

Just to make sure I'm clear...

 

If you climb the tree, retrieve the cache, and take it to an event for everyone there to sign....

 

you don't think the cache owner can delete the logs.

[+Ike 13]

Should the log deletion threat be removed? Yes

 

But this is just a case where if I was in a group and retrieved the cache in a way that the CO did not intend I would just lie about it.

[+narcissa]

To me, this isn't so much about a guideline issue as it is an acceptable practices issue that is between the cache owner and those logging the cache online. As numerous people have mentioned, it's not an ALR issue if everyone in the group signed the log. However, it's obvious that the COs intent in placing the cache was that finders of the cache climb the tree. Yes, you can technically post a found it log if you've signed the physical log but is that smiley face more important than potentially creating ill will with someone else in the caching community. If enough people continue to post found it logs without finding the cache as the CO intended, the most probable outcome will be that the CO archives the cache, thus denying anyone that would climb that tree to retrieve the cache the opportunity to do so.

 

The cache owner can clarify his intent, but he/she can't force people to comply with it. It's up to individual cachers to make the call on hides like this.

 

As a cache owner, you do have to let go a bit and accept that some people are going to do things their own way. Getting frazzled to the point of log deletion is a choice, as much as logging the cache when you didn't retrieve it is a choice.

[+narcissa]

Just to make sure I'm clear...

 

If you climb the tree, retrieve the cache, and take it to an event for everyone there to sign....

 

you don't think the cache owner can delete the logs.

 

If the cache was stolen from its hiding place so people off-site could log it, and the owner knew about it, he/she could probably make the case for log deletion. Geocaches are supposed to be put back in their hiding spot, not removed from the site. Travelling caches are no longer permitted.

 

That's a very different scenario than what is actually being discussed here. The cache owner cannot delete logs simply because someone didn't climb the tree.

[+KBLAST]

I think for my numbers friends I'm going to go to the ET Power Trail and sign all of their names to the logs as I'm doing the trail. Hope there's enough room for all of them!

 

I think for my buddies who struggles with puzzles I'm going to solve all of the puzzles in my area and give them all the coordinates.

 

I think for my friends who don't have time for multis and wherigos I'm going to go and do the multi then give them all the final coordinates. Heck, I might just sign their names for them!

 

I think for my friends who can't be bothered with hiking 3 or 4 miles I'll just sign their name to the log.

 

I don't like doing the virtuals and earthcaches - I wonder if my friends will reciprocate by photoshopping my face into their pictures that they send off to the COs and give me the answers to their questions?

 

All this should help me complete the challenges I don't have time to complete - maybe I can trade a tree climb log signing for a friend of mine in Cleveland so I don't have to drive up to northeast Ohio to log finds in those northeast Ohio counties - oh - that should help me with the Ohio Delorme challenge, too!!!

 

HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART:

 

I live in Columbus - better known as "Hookland" because of all the tree climbers that Drainhook has put out or influenced in the area. There are some tree climbing caches I've done in groups and have had the "climber" sign the final log - but ONLY if I thought the cache owner would be OK with it. I've even gone so far as to call the cache owner to verify that the fact that I waded through a creek to get stage 3 and was a spotter at stage 7 was good enough for my name to be on the log. This is NOT the case for all tree climbers - there are some I am building up to doing ON MY OWN and I will not accept someone signing my name on the log, nor should the CO. If I'm going to the trouble of working up to physically being able to sign this log myself while dangling 50 feet in the air, I don't want someone who didn't put in the work signing next to my name. That's the point of something challenging with a high terrain.

 

If having someone complete the terrain in order to claim the smiley is an ALR, then I'm going to drive my friends who like to hike around Ohio and have them do the tough terrain hikes while I sit in an air conditioned restaurant, then I'll go pick them up later after they've signed our names to the log. After all, I did all the driving.

[+jellis]

Did someone report him, talk to him or did he read this posting because I don't see any threat of deletion on it. Did he remove it.

[+Team JNLE4]

KBLAST ~ I don't think I could have said it better. There are some puzzles that I have not been able to solve and you have not given me the coords or signed my name. I realize that's the difficulty of the cache and if I can't meet the difficulty then I don't get to sign. As a cache owner of some challenging hides and challenging climbs, I appreciate the call requesting permission. I know cachers that realize there limitations and will either ignore the cache or locate from the ground and post a note, but not log the find. That's why as cache owners of high terrain caches we say "Know your limitations" it's a physical challenge.

 

Logging a find comes down to 2 requirements: 1)physically finding the cache and 2) signing the log. The definition of physically finding lies with the CO. I've seen pictures of caches, while not being at the location so simply viewing the cache probably doesn't fulfill the requirement. And signing the log doesn't necessarily demonstrate the physical element as KBLAST explained. However, because there is no ALR allowed there is an element of trust involved. The cache owner has to trust that you have completed both elements physically finding and signing the log. If the CO has any reason to doubt that you have done either than they should delete your log. Otherwise what's the purpose of having the requirements to log.

[+bigdog421]

Let's get the owner's perspective

 

Wow...this has really gotten out of hand. Let me start off by saying that a NEEDS ARCHIVED log, is a DRASTIC step. Narcissa never e-mailed me or posted a note to discuss this before publicly using this powerful tool.

 

1) How is signing the log an ALR? If you personally do not sign it, is caching simply about the numbers? Caching them all? There is something called an ignore list if you don't plan on wishing to do it.

 

2) The rule was written so that there is a HUGE loop hole !!! You know what it is? DON'T TELL ME YOU SENT ONE CACHER UP THE TREE AND YOU WATCHED SAFELY FROM THE GROUND! Not really hard to do now is it? The rule exits as a deterrent, not a black and white. I know as long as the name appears on the cache there is little I can do, but if you post to the WORLD that you did not have to climb the tree, you are inviting a log deletion. It's like logging a cemetery find at night and saying you did so; don't say it and the CACHE OWNER WILL NEVER KNOW!!!

 

3)Rule in cache guidelines:

 

"Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

 

How is not signing the log for yourself NOT a stated requirement for every cache. If you don't do a night cache at night, fine. If you solve a puzzle a different way, fine. If you find a stage of a multi ahead of others, fine. But ultimately, finding the cache includes signing your name. And based on the loop hole built intentionally built into the rule, I do realize my abilities to police this are limited. No one has had a log deleted for this or any other of my tree climbing caches.

 

4) Since when do you DESERVE a smiley...you EARN it. Sorry if I'm old fashioned for thinking that watching someone else experience the cache's terrain difficulty is enough to deserve a reward.

 

5)great post KBLAST

 

6)I'd love to hear more about what you all think. It is an important issue

[+bigdog421]

Did someone report him, talk to him or did he read this posting because I don't see any threat of deletion on it. Did he remove it.

 

The rule in the cache description says no group finds allowed.

 

The owner's maintenance log states "No one will get their log deleted if they have logged this cache by 10:45 pm 5/29/10"

 

I actually never stated I would delete logs, merely implied it

[+Chokecherry]

We don't really have tree hides here. We have plenty of ground space in which to hide things so high up in trees is not really a need here (at worst they're arms length away). That being said, a bunch of us cache in varying sized groups. The norm here is that the group will go forth and find the cache as a group and as a fun activity. Fun being the operative word there. Then the group, who is having fun with each other, will find the cache and instead of passing around the log book in the rain, much or mosquito and tick infested areas one member of said group will physically write all the other group member's names in while the others forage in the cache. Sometimes two will write names in. Sometimes one will write names and another will write a little note etc. The group, who is still having fun, will then have someone put the cache back.

 

Not everyone is into the individualistic aspect of the sport. When I cache with my mom am I going to tell her she didn't "find" a cache because she is physically unable to crawl to it or bend in a way to pick it up? Absolutely not. She doesn't log online so it should be no skin off the cache owners teeth.

[+bigdog421]

We don't really have tree hides here. We have plenty of ground space in which to hide things so high up in trees is not really a need here (at worst they're arms length away). That being said, a bunch of us cache in varying sized groups. The norm here is that the group will go forth and find the cache as a group and as a fun activity. Fun being the operative word there. Then the group, who is having fun with each other, will find the cache and instead of passing around the log book in the rain, much or mosquito and tick infested areas one member of said group will physically write all the other group member's names in while the others forage in the cache. Sometimes two will write names in. Sometimes one will write names and another will write a little note etc. The group, who is still having fun, will then have someone put the cache back.

 

Not everyone is into the individualistic aspect of the sport. When I cache with my mom am I going to tell her she didn't "find" a cache because she is physically unable to crawl to it or bend in a way to pick it up? Absolutely not. She doesn't log online so it should be no skin off the cache owners teeth.

 

The point of a terrain cache is the challenging aspect of it. Caching is a group is fine, fun, and rewarding. You can challenge each other to find the cache, have a running total as you go. But most terrain caches are not about finding the cache so much as sharing in the same thrilling experience of climbing/crawling/boating/bushwhacking.

 

Again, all you have to do is abstain from telling me you watched someone sign your name. When the cache is on ground level area, you are all searching for it. A lot of times, you can't see the cahce from the ground. How is the group below helping to find it? DO I believe you should be safe and not climb alone...YES. But please take turns if you want the smiley

[+joranda]

I see the cache owners point. Why should other people get credit for a find when they did not climb up to find it themselves. There are caches in my area that are the same way and most times the cache owners shut them down after groups of caches who could never get to them without someone else climbing up to sign it for all. Whatever happened to the if you can't do it just walk away. There are plenty of park and grabs out there for you to do. Why ruin a good challenge cache. That is why they are out there, to challenge us. If you can not do the challenge then just walk to the nearest park and grab.

[+joranda]

And no, it is not a ALR cache either.

[+KBLAST]

We don't really have tree hides here. We have plenty of ground space in which to hide things so high up in trees is not really a need here (at worst they're arms length away). That being said, a bunch of us cache in varying sized groups. The norm here is that the group will go forth and find the cache as a group and as a fun activity. Fun being the operative word there. Then the group, who is having fun with each other, will find the cache and instead of passing around the log book in the rain, much or mosquito and tick infested areas one member of said group will physically write all the other group member's names in while the others forage in the cache. Sometimes two will write names in. Sometimes one will write names and another will write a little note etc. The group, who is still having fun, will then have someone put the cache back.

 

Not everyone is into the individualistic aspect of the sport. When I cache with my mom am I going to tell her she didn't "find" a cache because she is physically unable to crawl to it or bend in a way to pick it up? Absolutely not. She doesn't log online so it should be no skin off the cache owners teeth.

 

That's awesome! We should all have fun. I had fun a few months ago when my daughter and I drove a number of miles to watch a group tackle a 5 terrain tree. By the time they got all the ropes in place and all the gear ready, we had to leave. We had an AWESOME TIME with lots of FUN!!! Our names are not on the log, nor did we log a find on the cache online. I think it's silly that we HAVE to sign our name in order to have fun. There were about 5 people out there at this group who did not sign their names because they did not complete the cache's challenge. They ALL had fun. If we follow this logic, then I can have fun sitting at my desk reading other people's found it logs and then post my own because I had a GREAT time virtually!!!

 

One more thing - you can feel free to do the same thing here in a group - one person signs the log while everyone else forages through the cache. You will all need to be up in the tree to accomplish this, though... Just like you ALL need to be out in the rain or near the mosquitoes or by the ticks in order to log the finds you're talking about. So by all means - have a group find - in the tree!

[+buttaskotch]

Oblast, joranda and your ilk, does it suck that you can't enforce want you want? Yes, it does. However, these are the rules that Groundspeak put in. Until there are revisions to them, you will have to keep climbing that tree to verify against the online log. These are enforceable.

Once you start deletions there will be problems, I mean how can you tell that all 5 people in a group of 5 didn't climb the tree individually? Are you going to stand vigil at the GZ indefinitely? I hasten to think that even if there is video proof of non compliance of your ALR that the deletions would stand. These rules are in print and anyone can appeal. Therefore, the rules, as written work against you and your incredibly mature friends.

It's like anything else, "stuff happens" and life isn't always fair. There will be cheaters, liars and thieves in this game and everywhere else. You can write the names of your entire school in a cache, every puzzle and letterbox the you come upon. If that's how you want to retaliate, go for it and get a cramped hand to make your point.

And virtually logging the cache is against the rules. Your name is not physically in the cache.

[Mr.Yuck]

We don't really have tree hides here. We have plenty of ground space in which to hide things so high up in trees is not really a need here (at worst they're arms length away). That being said, a bunch of us cache in varying sized groups. The norm here is that the group will go forth and find the cache as a group and as a fun activity. Fun being the operative word there. Then the group, who is having fun with each other, will find the cache and instead of passing around the log book in the rain, much or mosquito and tick infested areas one member of said group will physically write all the other group member's names in while the others forage in the cache. Sometimes two will write names in. Sometimes one will write names and another will write a little note etc. The group, who is still having fun, will then have someone put the cache back.

 

Not everyone is into the individualistic aspect of the sport. When I cache with my mom am I going to tell her she didn't "find" a cache because she is physically unable to crawl to it or bend in a way to pick it up? Absolutely not. She doesn't log online so it should be no skin off the cache owners teeth.

 

That's awesome! We should all have fun. I had fun a few months ago when my daughter and I drove a number of miles to watch a group tackle a 5 terrain tree. By the time they got all the ropes in place and all the gear ready, we had to leave. We had an AWESOME TIME with lots of FUN!!! Our names are not on the log, nor did we log a find on the cache online. I think it's silly that we HAVE to sign our name in order to have fun. There were about 5 people out there at this group who did not sign their names because they did not complete the cache's challenge. They ALL had fun. If we follow this logic, then I can have fun sitting at my desk reading other people's found it logs and then post my own because I had a GREAT time virtually!!!

 

One more thing - you can feel free to do the same thing here in a group - one person signs the log while everyone else forages through the cache. You will all need to be up in the tree to accomplish this, though... Just like you ALL need to be out in the rain or near the mosquitoes or by the ticks in order to log the finds you're talking about. So by all means - have a group find - in the tree!

 

Wow, you're hardcore man. You're from Ohio, and to top all that, you don't log events as attended 100 times.

 

I agree it is "lame" to sit at the bottom of the tree with a group and have the cache tossed down to you. I don't do this, and haven't. As a matter of fact, I ignore most tree climbing caches, unless I'm personally told they aren't "too bad". As I said earlier, I have seen many, many tree climbing caches that say everyone in the group has to climb the tree, and a cave cache where everyone has to go into the cave. I never gave it too much thought, and agreed with it. But we are now in the post ALR era. And I'm really looking forward to some reviewers weighing in on this.

[+narcissa]

I see the cache owners point. Why should other people get credit for a find when they did not climb up to find it themselves. There are caches in my area that are the same way and most times the cache owners shut them down after groups of caches who could never get to them without someone else climbing up to sign it for all. Whatever happened to the if you can't do it just walk away. There are plenty of park and grabs out there for you to do. Why ruin a good challenge cache. That is why they are out there, to challenge us. If you can not do the challenge then just walk to the nearest park and grab.

 

That's a matter of personal caching ethics, not the guidelines. If a cache owner feels such a need to control others that they'll shut a cache down because people didn't find it the "right" way, that's their choice.

[+thedeadpirate]

If enough people continue to post found it logs without finding the cache as the CO intended, the most probable outcome will be that the CO archives the cache, thus denying anyone that would climb that tree to retrieve the cache the opportunity to do so.

If it causes the CO that much stress and discomfort, then it is probably best that the CO archive the cache for his own mental and physical health.

 

Just to make sure I'm clear...

 

If you climb the tree, retrieve the cache, and take it to an event for everyone there to sign....

 

you don't think the cache owner can delete the logs.

 

Taking the cache to an event is quite different from signing the other people's names that happen to be standing below you or lowering the cache down so that those people can sign the log.

 

But this is just a case where if I was in a group and retrieved the cache in a way that the CO did not intend I would just lie about it.

Or simply make no mention of how it was retrieved. As long as the name (the name used to log online, not necessarily a team name) is there, there's no need to explain how your name got there.

 

Of course one could just ask someone to sign their name to every cache they find whether or not they are even at ground zero. There are a lot of things that CAN be done. It's up to each person to decide how honest they want to be.

[+thedeadpirate]

I think for my numbers friends I'm going to go to the ET Power Trail and sign all of their names to the logs as I'm doing the trail. Hope there's enough room for all of them!

 

I think for my buddies who struggles with puzzles I'm going to solve all of the puzzles in my area and give them all the coordinates.

 

I think for my friends who don't have time for multis and wherigos I'm going to go and do the multi then give them all the final coordinates. Heck, I might just sign their names for them!

 

I think for my friends who can't be bothered with hiking 3 or 4 miles I'll just sign their name to the log.

 

I don't like doing the virtuals and earthcaches - I wonder if my friends will reciprocate by photoshopping my face into their pictures that they send off to the COs and give me the answers to their questions?

 

All this should help me complete the challenges I don't have time to complete - maybe I can trade a tree climb log signing for a friend of mine in Cleveland so I don't have to drive up to northeast Ohio to log finds in those northeast Ohio counties - oh - that should help me with the Ohio Delorme challenge, too!!!

 

HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART:

 

I live in Columbus - better known as "Hookland" because of all the tree climbers that Drainhook has put out or influenced in the area. There are some tree climbing caches I've done in groups and have had the "climber" sign the final log - but ONLY if I thought the cache owner would be OK with it. I've even gone so far as to call the cache owner to verify that the fact that I waded through a creek to get stage 3 and was a spotter at stage 7 was good enough for my name to be on the log. This is NOT the case for all tree climbers - there are some I am building up to doing ON MY OWN and I will not accept someone signing my name on the log, nor should the CO. If I'm going to the trouble of working up to physically being able to sign this log myself while dangling 50 feet in the air, I don't want someone who didn't put in the work signing next to my name. That's the point of something challenging with a high terrain.

 

If having someone complete the terrain in order to claim the smiley is an ALR, then I'm going to drive my friends who like to hike around Ohio and have them do the tough terrain hikes while I sit in an air conditioned restaurant, then I'll go pick them up later after they've signed our names to the log. After all, I did all the driving.

 

You can do all those things. You don't really have to be at ground zero in order to have someone sign your name. The only requirement is that your name be in the physical logbook. The real question is whether you want to run your find count up that way and whether your friends are willing to help you do it.

 

There's a big difference between sitting in your air conditioned apartment and letting a buddy sign for you and standing at the bottom of the tree sweating along with him.

[+narcissa]

I think for my numbers friends I'm going to go to the ET Power Trail and sign all of their names to the logs as I'm doing the trail. Hope there's enough room for all of them!

 

(cut for brevity)

 

The guidelines allow some flexibility for geocachers to decide how they want to play the game. You can choose what counts as a real find for YOU.

 

If you really wanted to sign your friends into caches, there's not much the owner can do about it. The guidelines allow someone to log the find online if their name is in the physical log.

 

Most geocachers won't go to such lengths, because... what's the point? Besides, if someone is really desperate to just log as many caches as they can, who really cares? It has no impact on the way you play the game.

 

If you really wanted to distribute final coordinates to tough multis and puzzles, again, there's little the owner can do about it. "Trading" final coordinates to tough caches is not uncommon among geocachers.

 

Now, obviously this game relies on a certain amount of cooperation and good will between geocachers. If it seems like a particular cache owner is going to be really annoyed by your behaviour, then it's worth reconsidering what you're doing (or at least not bragging about it in the log). On the other side of the coin, cache owners need to accept that once they let their caches out into the world, there's very little they can do to prevent people from "cheating" if they're determined to do so.

 

BTW, Earthcaches and virtual caches are subject to slightly different rules than physical caches, because there is no physical log. In these instances, a cache owner is well within his/her right to delete logs if the person logging the cache did not visit the site.

[+narcissa]

The point of a terrain cache is the challenging aspect of it. Caching is a group is fine, fun, and rewarding. You can challenge each other to find the cache, have a running total as you go. But most terrain caches are not about finding the cache so much as sharing in the same thrilling experience of climbing/crawling/boating/bushwhacking.

 

Again, all you have to do is abstain from telling me you watched someone sign your name. When the cache is on ground level area, you are all searching for it. A lot of times, you can't see the cahce from the ground. How is the group below helping to find it? DO I believe you should be safe and not climb alone...YES. But please take turns if you want the smiley

 

You can certainly mention your feelings in your cache description, but you can't threaten log deletion if people choose not to comply. If someone's name is in the physical logbook, they can log the find online. It's up to the individual cacher - not you - to decide whether or not they must climb the tree themselves. For some cachers, working together to retrieve the cache is enough to log the find, and that's their choice to make.

[+KBLAST]

You are all correct that there is little the cache owner can do to stop people from signing their names to stuff. Heck, in the end, it's all just a game anyway, right? The Cache owner made it very clear that he would prefer you climb the tree, but if you talk about how you didn't climb it, things might happen (like deletions).

 

So the OP wants to follow the rules that don't allow for people to delete their log entry if they mention that they didn't climb the tree. Why? It's just a game! We all play it a little differently! The CO wants to follow the rules about deleting logs where the signature is in question. Why? It's just a game! We all play it a little differently!

 

This is what happens when we are all playing a worldwide game with a set of rules that can be interpreted differently. It would be like playing Monopoly on a worldwide scale. SOMEONE would complain that they landed on Free Parking and didn't get the pile of money in the middle of the board because that's how they've played the game their whole life, even though it's not in the REAL rules.

 

ALL THIS TO SAY: Good caches require time and effort to create and set up. When people like the OP decide to not follow the WISHES of the CO, the CO will archive the difficult hides and will not create new ones. If I put a bunch of my money and effort into a hide, I don't want one person finding it and telling the world how to solve it. Nor do I want everyone and their brother signing the log for others because it is too hard for them to get to. So in the end, you'll end up with good, creative, challenging hides being done away with, and you folks will be left with all park and grabs. Hmm... Maybe that was the intention of the OP. Never thought of that.

[+narcissa]

ALL THIS TO SAY: Good caches require time and effort to create and set up. When people like the OP decide to not follow the WISHES of the CO, the CO will archive the difficult hides and will not create new ones. If I put a bunch of my money and effort into a hide, I don't want one person finding it and telling the world how to solve it. Nor do I want everyone and their brother signing the log for others because it is too hard for them to get to. So in the end, you'll end up with good, creative, challenging hides being done away with, and you folks will be left with all park and grabs. Hmm... Maybe that was the intention of the OP. Never thought of that.

 

Good cache owners put out nice caches, maintain them, and enjoy the logs they receive. Good cache owners don't try to control others with threats of log deletion. There are many, many awesome cache owners in my area who create excellent, challenging caches but allow group finds because they recognize that group caching is a common part of the game that is fun for many cachers. Most of us will do the work ourselves anyway, because we know that it's part of the fun.

 

The sort of cache owners who threaten others into complying with their personal caching ethics are ultimately not contributing much to the game. If someone wants to archive their cache in a snit, it opens up that space for a friendlier cache owner to place a better cache.

 

My partner likes to create long, challenging multi-caches that require visiting historical sites around the city. When Google brough Streetview to our city, he was a little disappointed that it made some of his caches easier. He's responded to this new technology by figuring out ways to "Streetview Proof" his caches, but he isn't bothered by people who do use Streetview to figure out his caches. Ultimately, they're the ones robbing themselves of the chance to visit the sites in person, and it has no impact on him, or on other cachers.

[+thedeadpirate]

I see the cache owners point. Why should other people get credit for a find when they did not climb up to find it themselves. There are caches in my area that are the same way and most times the cache owners shut them down after groups of caches who could never get to them without someone else climbing up to sign it for all. Whatever happened to the if you can't do it just walk away. There are plenty of park and grabs out there for you to do. Why ruin a good challenge cache. That is why they are out there, to challenge us. If you can not do the challenge then just walk to the nearest park and grab.

He could try strapping the cache to the tree, much like the rock face caches you speak of. But there is still no stopping one person from getting to the cache and signing for the others.

 

Basically, if you're not willing to accept that some people will log the cache in a manner counter to what you desire, then you should not place those caches. Because trust me, people are going to log the cache counter to what you may like.

 

Personally, I think geocaching would be better off if they removed the found counts altogether.

[+KBLAST]

I just took a shower, and as I was showering, I realized I need to respond to something _I_ said.

 

I was wrong for saying that anyone would JUST want a bunch of park and grabs. That was a personal attack that is an exaggeration of my earlier logic/comments/drivel/whatever. I would go back and edit it, but it wouldn't be fair to other people who already read it and/or responded to it. Therefore, all I can do is say I'm truly sorry for that comment. This is not sarcastic, I really mean it. (OK - is it sad that there's so much sarcasm in DBs that I have to clarify that I'm serious?)

 

Anyway, sorry.

[+tozainamboku]

How you view this depends on how you view the online find log.

 

Some cache owners clearly seem to believe the the online find (smiley) is a reward given to cacher for completing their cache in the manner they intended. At one time there was some evidence that Groundspeak agreed with this point of view (or at least were able to live with it). Not only were cache owners told that it is their responsibility to maintain quality control of the posts to their cache page, but they were allowed to place all manner of conditions (additional requirements) for posting a Found It log online. The general attitude was it was up to the cache owner to determine what qualified for logging an online find on their cache. Groundspeaks view changed (or at least was clarified) with the change to the ALR guideline.

 

On the other side were those who believe that the smiley count was never intended to be a score. Cachers are asked to post their experiences looking for a cache. They choose from several log types (or choose not to log online at all). Geocaching.com does a few things though when the "Found It" log was used. The main thing is that caches are marked as found. That way cachers have a record of the caches they found and can concentrate on finding new caches instead of returning to ones they have already found. Ideally it would be solely up to the cache finder to determine whether or not to use Found log. If they felt they had "completed" the cache and successful found it, it should not matter if they signed the log, had a friend sign, or just saw it up in the tree and determined that they were never going to climb up to get it.

 

I believe that Groundspeak's attitude and that of most cachers is closer to the second view. Cache owners can have all kinds of challenging caches and those cachers who enjoy the challenge will not log a find until they have completed the challenge. I personally don't log finds on puzzles I went to with someone else who solved it until I figure out the solution for myself. But I haven't deleted the logs of people who found my puzzle because they went with a friend who had solved it (or because they found the container while looking for a place to hide a cache of their own).

 

Unfortunately there is another group that plays off these two views. They see that some view the find count as a score so they believe that having a higher find count must be advantageous. But they also see that many cache owners view the find logs as simply the cacher reporting on their experience and will accept a Found log regardless of the conditions. These people will post "bogus" logs where they never even went to look for the cache. These bogus logs are not entirely harmless. Some cachers use recent logs to determine whether to search for a cache, and cache owners use the logs to determine when to make a maintenance visit. A bogus log can influence these decisions. For this reason, cache owners are told to delete bogus logs. In order to help cache owners identify these logs, cachers are told to sign their name as proof they found the cache and cache owners are told that if there is no signature they can delete these logs. I personally, think there are other better ways to determine bogus logs and wouldn't delete a Found log solely because the log isn't signed. However, this is the method that Groundspeak has chosen to recommend.

[+KBLAST]

OK - my last post before I head to our local monthly meet 'n' greet. Here are my overall thoughts:

 

Nothing can be done to keep people from posting found it logs and having other people give stuff away and "ruin" puzzles, multis, wherigos, difficult hides, etc. I understand this. I know people give each other hints and stuff in order to help each other out. It's all part of the game.

 

More important than anything in this whole game are the people involved. Both the hiders and the finders. It's a game, and that's secondary to the people involved. I'm sticking up for my tree climbing friends around the area because I care about them. Others are sticking up for their friends who want to go have a good time finding caches and don't have time or aren't able to physically log the find.

 

I disagree that a cache owner WANTING to maintain the "integrity" of a difficult cache might want to delete logs that lower the degree of difficulty. If a cache owner wanted someone to earn a 4 terrain cache find by making them sweat to and work to get TO the tree, they would have hidden it on the ground. Around here, that's NOT a 4 terrain, it is usually a 2-3 terrain.

 

Now, whether or not you RESPECT a cache owner who worked hard to create something like this, and whether or not you agree with his reaction to that, does not make him the bad guy and you and others like you the good guys. I have lots of friends on both sides of this issue, and around here, it's a pretty hot topic. I have a daughter in a halo because she fell from one of these trees - believe me, I know how big of an issue this has become.

 

People are proud of their accomplishments - otherwise, like Geo Bain said, who needs "finds"? I am proud of the trees I've climbed, the holes I've crawled in, the difficult finds I've grabbed, the puzzles I've solved, and the number of caches I've found. I'm also proud of my friends who accomplish these things, and I'm proud as a cache owner when someone FINALLY conquers a tree climb I created. When someone cheapens the accomplishment, emotions fly.

 

I PERSONALLY don't care about groups finding my caches. That's their choice, and I hope they had a good time doing them. But I will CONTINUE to do my best to be respectful of the others who are hiding caches, and I will do my best to comply with their wishes, ALRs or not, because they ARE people, and they matter.

 

When you log the find on my friend BigDog421's tree climb, just log the find and share the experience. Don't say 'X' climbed it and signed it for us all. Problem solved.

 

And I also think the needs archived log was a bit much here. A note or a discussion with the CO and the whole discussion on the board and the posts on his cache page might have been avoided.

[+narcissa]

More important than anything in this whole game are the people involved. Both the hiders and the finders. It's a game, and that's secondary to the people involved. I'm sticking up for my tree climbing friends around the area because I care about them. Others are sticking up for their friends who want to go have a good time finding caches and don't have time or aren't able to physically log the find.

 

... (cut for brevity)

 

Now, whether or not you RESPECT a cache owner who worked hard to create something like this, and whether or not you agree with his reaction to that, does not make him the bad guy and you and others like you the good guys. I have lots of friends on both sides of this issue, and around here, it's a pretty hot topic. I have a daughter in a halo because she fell from one of these trees - believe me, I know how big of an issue this has become.

 

... (again, cut for brevity)

 

And I also think the needs archived log was a bit much here. A note or a discussion with the CO and the whole discussion on the board and the posts on his cache page might have been avoided.

 

First of all, it's possible to respect a person, while disagreeing with their personal view of the game. Some people don't read cache pages, and some people have different personal rules for the game. It's clear that this cache owner is overly interested in controlling others - that's a poor reason to place caches. If the intent of the cache is so others can have fun, then the cache owner needs to let go. Good cache owners make a conscious CHOICE to NOT read disrespect or insult into neutral actions.

 

Second, all of this discussion about who should claim what as a find is, frankly, irrelevant. It's up to the cacher to make that decision - not the owner. The guidelines state that a cacher can log a find as long as their name is in the log. Demanding, with the threat of log deletion, that each cacher climb the tree individually is an ALR. The owner can certainly request this. The owner can write a 2000 word rant about his/her personal caching ethics in the cache page. But the threat of log deletion crosses the line.

 

Third, the "Needs Archived" log is appropriate in cases where a reviewer needs to get involved. When a cache owner is threatening illegitimate log deletion on the cache page, a reviewer's input is needed. The "Needs Archived" log should be seen more as a "Needs Reviewer Attention" log. Private discussion with the cache owner is not the appropriate course of action when there's a clear guideline violation.

[+joranda]

I see the cache owners point. Why should other people get credit for a find when they did not climb up to find it themselves. There are caches in my area that are the same way and most times the cache owners shut them down after groups of caches who could never get to them without someone else climbing up to sign it for all. Whatever happened to the if you can't do it just walk away. There are plenty of park and grabs out there for you to do. Why ruin a good challenge cache. That is why they are out there, to challenge us. If you can not do the challenge then just walk to the nearest park and grab.

 

That's a matter of personal caching ethics, not the guidelines. If a cache owner feels such a need to control others that they'll shut a cache down because people didn't find it the "right" way, that's their choice.

And you are right, that is their choice as is is the choice of the way the cache owner wants to run their cache.

[+joranda]

Oblast, joranda and your ilk, does it suck that you can't enforce want you want? Yes, it does. However, these are the rules that Groundspeak put in. Until there are revisions to them, you will have to keep climbing that tree to verify against the online log. These are enforceable.

Once you start deletions there will be problems, I mean how can you tell that all 5 people in a group of 5 didn't climb the tree individually? Are you going to stand vigil at the GZ indefinitely? I hasten to think that even if there is video proof of non compliance of your ALR that the deletions would stand. These rules are in print and anyone can appeal. Therefore, the rules, as written work against you and your incredibly mature friends.

It's like anything else, "stuff happens" and life isn't always fair. There will be cheaters, liars and thieves in this game and everywhere else. You can write the names of your entire school in a cache, every puzzle and letterbox the you come upon. If that's how you want to retaliate, go for it and get a cramped hand to make your point.

And virtually logging the cache is against the rules. Your name is not physically in the cache.

 

1. You don't know me.

2. I have never deleted a log in my life.

I have had people group find my harder caches and never said a ill word about it. I am just making a point that the cache owner is supposed to be able to moniter the cache as they see is fit as long as they stay in the guidelines.

Do you even know who you was posting about cause as I read it, it doesn't fit my bill.

[+narcissa]

And you are right, that is their choice as is is the choice of the way the cache owner wants to run their cache.

 

Cache owners aren't dictators - they must adhere to the guidelines regarding the placement of their cache. The cache at issue violates the guidelines.

 

As Motorcycle Mama, a reviewer, has pointed out (in addition to others), the guidelines state:

 

"Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

It is common practice for cachers to sign each other in to cache logs, regardless of the terrain level. Terrain is a rating that tells geocachers what to expect at the geocache. It's not a reward, and it doesn't exempt the cache owner from adhering to the guidelines.

[+narcissa]

the cache owner is supposed to be able to moniter the cache as they see is fit as long as they stay in the guidelines

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...gingofallcaches

[+joranda]

And you are right, that is their choice as is is the choice of the way the cache owner wants to run their cache.

 

Cache owners aren't dictators - they must adhere to the guidelines regarding the placement of their cache. The cache at issue violates the guidelines.

 

As Motorcycle Mama, a reviewer, has pointed out (in addition to others), the guidelines state:

 

"Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

It is common practice for cachers to sign each other in to cache logs, regardless of the terrain level. Terrain is a rating that tells geocachers what to expect at the geocache. It's not a reward, and it doesn't exempt the cache owner from adhering to the guidelines.

 

But the ones who did not climb that tree. Did they really find it? I mean, really, who is the one being a child by not following the rules?