[Keith Watson]

northernpenguin, on 20 March 2012 - 04:41 AM, said:

This ALR "discussion" / thread hijacking is a net positive for the geocaching community, right?

Not sure what you mean. Can you explain?

[northernpenguin]

Keith Watson, on 20 March 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

northernpenguin, on 20 March 2012 - 04:41 AM, said:

This ALR "discussion" / thread hijacking is a net positive for the geocaching community, right?

Not sure what you mean. Can you explain?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, since I know you're intelligent enough to figure it out.


Though if you want to have a big debate about whether or not a Challenge Cache parameter is equal to or not equal to an ALR, with all due respect (I mean that), start up another thread or e-mail CacheDrone directly.
81 Proof was reviewed, published and logged by people. Your ALR language above is more general than this one cache and it should be it's own free standing topic.

[Keith Watson]

northernpenguin, on 20 March 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Keith Watson, on 20 March 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

northernpenguin, on 20 March 2012 - 04:41 AM, said:

This ALR "discussion" / thread hijacking is a net positive for the geocaching community, right?

Not sure what you mean. Can you explain?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, since I know you're intelligent enough to figure it out.


Though if you want to have a big debate about whether or not a Challenge Cache parameter is equal to or not equal to an ALR, with all due respect (I mean that), start up another thread or e-mail CacheDrone directly.
81 Proof was reviewed, published and logged by people. Your ALR language above is more general than this one cache and it should be it's own free standing topic.

Please, before dragging this thread off topic by discussing what is off topic, you may want to look at the original post. You may also want to make you posts a little easier to understand. I was confused because you seemed to indicate this thread was being hijaked. The ALR topic was restarted by CacheDrone, a reviewer, so I assumed by his post and the original post is was a fair discussion. It looks like perhaps you hijacked the thread by accusing someone else of hijacking the thread. Very interesting concept. Hmmmmm...

Tequila, on 08 April 2008 - 12:46 PM, said:

This forum thread is for the discussion of any aspects of the following cache:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...6c-ea3fe7a446d4

Please use this thread to discuss the cache and feel free to exchange requests for caches of certain D/T ratings.

Happy Hunting

I will sit on the sidelines for a while and try not to distract.

[northernpenguin]

Keith Watson, on 20 March 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

Please, before dragging this thread off topic by discussing what is off topic, you may want to look at the original post. You may also want to make you posts a little easier to understand. I was confused because you seemed to indicate this thread was being hijaked. The ALR topic was restarted by CacheDrone, a reviewer, so I assumed by his post and the original post is was a fair discussion. It looks like perhaps you hijacked the thread by accusing someone else of hijacking the thread. Very interesting concept. Hmmmmm...

Tequila, on 08 April 2008 - 12:46 PM, said:

This forum thread is for the discussion of any aspects of the following cache:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...6c-ea3fe7a446d4

Please use this thread to discuss the cache and feel free to exchange requests for caches of certain D/T ratings.

Happy Hunting

I will sit on the sidelines for a while and try not to distract.

Ok, explain how this is specific to 81 Proof, and not a generalized comment about the definition of an ALR.
Keep in mind that CacheDrone has already ruled on the status of this specifically with regards to 81 Proof:

Keith Watson, on 20 March 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:

Virtual and earth caches also have ALR's and that as well has been grandfathered by Groundspeak. A personal choice to not see the additional logging requirements does not mean they are not still additional logging requirements to the basic requirement of sign the log and get your smiley.

With this diatribe going on (and the one before it), where does one go for information about completing this specific challenge, and which caches qualify, which caches had their D/T changed since 81 Proof was published, etc.

And yes, I agree that CacheDrone could ALSO be encouraged to take the generalized ALR vs Challenge Cache generalization to another thread. Perhaps start one and post a link to it here so this one can go back to being specific about 81 Proof.

Unless, of course, someone already has an agenda to work some logic/loophole/language to have a challenge cache they don't qualify for archived for some twisted sense of self purpose. ( Those I am referring to know who they are, no need to post quick links to the forum guidelines as I'm not directing that to any particular individual ).

[Cache-tech]

I've already asked once, Keith Watson and nothernpenguin, do not post further to this thread, effectively, I am booting both of you out, further posting will result in a forum suspention. Do not email me or PM me regarding this as it is not open for further discussion. Thank you, there is also not to be further discussion in this regard as these two posters cannot respond. This thread is to return to the intended topic of the cache and not a challenge/ALR debate.

[Juicepig]

well, now that they can't respond..

I like Tequila 81 Proof - when is the 162 Proof coming out? Has it fermented long enough?
I find it odd that this cache still inspires descent when their are so many more controversial challenge caches (not challenges! - I hear they are still around!)

[Tequila]

Juicepig, on 21 March 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

well, now that they can't respond..

I like Tequila 81 Proof - when is the 162 Proof coming out? Has it fermented long enough?
I find it odd that this cache still inspires descent when their are so many more controversial challenge caches (not challenges! - I hear they are still around!)

Tequila: Make Mine A Double is not in the works. There are plenty of other double fizzies in existence for cachers to find.

Tequila:81 Proof was the first challenge cache in Canada, to the best of my knowledge. It was fun working with Cache Drone and Brook22 to develop and name. And it was even more fun to watch yourself and psycocyclist message each other, via weekend logs, over the summer and ultimately log a joint FTF.

Shortly I will update the "Changed Ratings" list. The cache container is in good shape and I look forward to some fun and interesting logs from this years finders.

[hurleyanne]

Tequila, on 21 March 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

Tequila:81 Proof was the first challenge cache in Canada, to the best of my knowledge.

Say something like that and you just know some smart a** is going to come along and refute it... and here I am! Saskatchewan's first challenge cache was published Mar. 31/08 Numeric Conundrum . Two more challenges were published there on the same day as Tequila:81 proof.


That said, I was pretty excited by the idea of this challenge when it first came out, and even more excited when one was published closer to home, and probably the most excited when I finished it and was FTF! Someday I hope to be able to log Tequila:81 proof, but need to find some older caches somewhere on my travels. There sure aren't a lot of older high difficulty/high terrain caches around these parts...

[Tequila]

I stand happily corrected. And I look forward to meeting you when you come to log My cache.

.

[thebruce0]

I wonder if there's any challenge cache that includes logging the oldest challenge cache(s) in Canada

This post has been edited by thebruce0: 21 March 2012 - 07:16 PM

[CanadianRockies]

hurleyanne, on 21 March 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

Saskatchewan's first challenge cache was published Mar. 31/08 Numeric Conundrum .

Corrected the link for you.

[Tequila]

Congratulations to chris-mouse on completing the requirements for Tequila:81 Proof.

Another great log and what sounds like an awesome adventure with the BFL Team.


.

[Avernar]

Reunion event soon?

This post has been edited by Avernar: 20 July 2012 - 02:10 PM

[frinklabs]

Tequila, on 21 March 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

Shortly I will update the "Changed Ratings" list.

Where can I find this list?

[northernpenguin]

Tequila, on 20 July 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

Congratulations to chris-mouse on completing the requirements for Tequila:81 Proof.

Another great log and what sounds like an awesome adventure with the BFL Team.


.

Yes I'm risking a forum suspension for this but frankly I'll risk it, as I really want to say congrats to Chris-Mouse, since I shared a lot of that journey with him.

[chris-mouse]

Tequila, on 20 July 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

Congratulations to chris-mouse on completing the requirements for Tequila:81 Proof.

Another great log and what sounds like an awesome adventure with the BFL Team.

Thanks. I had a ball getting all the caches I needed for this. I had to skip over a lot of the memories because there simply isn't enough room in the log for anything more.

I even added an additional challenge to the cache. I rode Geocycle to the cache, covering 84km in just under four hours.

For the record, there are now two people who have completed the cache without benefit of owning a car []

[frinklabs]

frinklabs, on 20 July 2012 - 08:22 PM, said:

Tequila, on 21 March 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

Shortly I will update the "Changed Ratings" list.

Where can I find this list?

Still looking for this. I have 22 left to go (or more, depending on what this list has to say).

Thanks!

[Tequila]

Rating shown is to be used for Tequila:81 Proof

GC1537R-Evil in the Park 4.5/3.0 See Posts 52-54

GCX84E-A Grand Word Search 1.5/4.5 See Post 75

GC1498V-Rocky Hike, Scenic Drive 1.5 / 4.5 See Post 106

GCFG140ACT 277 5.0/5.0 See Post 323

GCH1MZ-Silver Peak 2.0/4.5 See Post 355

GCB332-Crooked Creek 2.5/3.5 See Post 358


All of the above caches have been brought to my attention by one or more cachers who were considering them for part of their T81 grid and noticed the change. My thanks to them for their diligence.

It is my strong recommendation that you not use one of these caches for your grid. It will make your tracking more complex. This is a recommendation only. You are free to use them at the above rating.

For any cache owner following this thread: If you change the rating on one of your caches, placed before April 8, 2008, I am sure all cachers would appreciate you posting a note here advising of the change. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Finally, I think I have all of the above correct. However, fingers and eyes being what they are, there could be an error. If you notice an error please either post a note here or send me an email. Thanks in advance.





.
[/quote]

[res2100]

Sounds like this gets pretty complicated and almost impossible for someone to know when a rating of a cache has changed and could easily lead to someone thinking that they have qualified when they in fact really haven't which I understand has happened in once instance already. Since 2 of my caches have been identified, because of the location of my Silver Peek cache the difficulty changes seasonably, being more difficult in the winter months obviously and the cache has changed slightly too from when it was originally placed. Depending on when you find the cache, it would potentially have different ratings, although most people find it in the more pleasant months. My other cache Crooked Creek has also had several rating changes as the hide location has changed considerably from when I first placed it 10 years ago as even I have trouble finding it each time I visit it. It is good to see responsible cache owners out there who maintain their caches and cache pages to keep them up to date. I know I have several more caches where I have updated the cache pages accordingly, but I don't keep track of this and I have seen other cache owners do the same.

[frinklabs]

Not complicated at all; every cache with variance shall be documented within this thread for the purposes of this challenge.

Can I get a ruling on GCYTYV Shoe Inn?

It was D5.0/T1.0 when I logged it, but before it got archived (from the trees being chopped down) the CO changed the terrain to 1.5 (as it was not wheelchair accessible).

Thanks!

[thebruce0]

chris-mouse, on 25 July 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

I even added an additional challenge to the cache. I rode Geocycle to the cache, covering 84km in just under four hours.

Impressive!

Quote

For the record, there are now two people who have completed the cache without benefit of owning a car

Woo! Congratulations my friend Carless, unite!

This post has been edited by thebruce0: 10 August 2012 - 05:10 PM

[fbax]

May I request a ruling on GC1207H Bridges of Strathroy - multi which was recently changed?

[Tequila]

In all cases use the rating that existed on the day T81 was published.

.

[Paul n Susan]

FWIW, I have noted the following additional ratings changes since the day T81 was published:

Organic Panic - was a 5/3, now a 3.5/3 because it got easier

The Talented Mr. Bean - was a 5/1, now a 5/1.5 as it's tough in a wheelchair.

Eagles Nest; Caverns Walk - was, I can't remember what it was (!) but it was changed to a 5/5 after being adopted and fixed up.

This post has been edited by Paul n Susan: 15 August 2012 - 10:01 AM

[Tequila]

Congratulations to Paul n Susan on completing T81. Thank you for another great log.

It sounds like you and the kids had a lot of fun.


.

[hurleyanne]

hurleyanne, on 21 March 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

Tequila, on 21 March 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

Tequila:81 Proof was the first challenge cache in Canada, to the best of my knowledge.

Say something like that and you just know some smart a** is going to come along and refute it... and here I am! Saskatchewan's first challenge cache was published Mar. 31/08 Numeric Conundrum . Two more challenges were published there on the same day as Tequila:81 proof.


That said, I was pretty excited by the idea of this challenge when it first came out, and even more excited when one was published closer to home, and probably the most excited when I finished it and was FTF! Someday I hope to be able to log Tequila:81 proof, but need to find some older caches somewhere on my travels. There sure aren't a lot of older high difficulty/high terrain caches around these parts...

... and then almost a year later she returns to say she found even older ones in British Columbia, and the oldest of them is Vancouver Island Topo Challenge. Just in case somebody cares...