Groundspeak Forums: update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009 - Groundspeak Forums

Jump to content

  • (24 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009 Additional Logging Requirements will no longer be allowed.

#1 User is offline   MissJenn 

  • I'll give you my 5 cents.
  • Group: Lackeys
  • Posts: 4095
  • Joined: 26-December 01

Posted 03 April 2009 - 03:00 PM

Hello, Geocachers.

The Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines have been updated today. Please take a moment and look at them before submitting your next cache. To make it a bit easier to see what has changed, I'll point out the major changes below.
  • Additional Logging Requirements are no longer be allowed. The following text has been stricken from the Guidelines: Caches with mandatory requirements in addition to signing the logbook should be listed as mystery caches. Examples include sending the cache owner a verification codeword found inside the logbook, performing some task at the cache location and taking a photograph, or writing the online log in a format or with content that satisfies the cache requirements. The mystery cache designation assists finders in identifying that something extra is required in order to log a find.
  • Also stricken from the guidelines: Caches that require the geocacher to do something beyond finding the container and signing the logbook generally do not qualify as traditional caches.
  • A section called Logging of All Physical Caches has been added to the guidelines.

Quote

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

If it is appropriate for your cache location or theme, you may ask the cache seeker to accomplish an optional and simple task, either close to the cache site (normally within 0.1 miles or 161 meters) or when writing their online log. For example, wear the goofy hat inside the cache container and upload a photograph. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish optional tasks. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

This guideline change applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:
  • Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.
  • Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into an optional and simple task, or whether it must be removed altogether.
  • Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.
Some explanations about the above:

A "simple" task is one that should generally take no more than 10 minutes to accomplish.

The wording of a cache page should not suggest that the task is anything other than optional.

The optional and simple task should respect other cache listing guidelines. For example, the optional tasks will not invite the seeker to enter a business, trespass on private property or engage in activities which might be perceived as promoting an agenda, etc.

Caches with an optional task retain the same type as they would without the optional task. If your cache was listed as "Mystery" solely because of the ALR, then, once you have changed the wording to remove the ALR altogether or change it into an optional simple task, please contact your reviewer to have the cache type changed to its "natural" value.

Code word verifications are included in this: they too are an ALR which should not prevent someone who signed the log from claiming that cache as Found.

EarthCaches, remaining virtuals and remaining webcam caches are not affected by this guideline change. They do not have a physical container. They will continue to require some form of verification.

Also, a Wherigo cache owner can continue to require a completion code.

We have made this change because, over time, the ALRs attached to a rapidly-growing number of caches have devolved to have little or nothing to do with geocaching: the act of finding a unique container/location using latitude and longitude. Many ALRs now only distort the spirit of the game. We regret that a few really cool ideas may be lost as a result, and we apologize to the cache owners concerned. Groundspeak has decided that the number of ALRs which approached and even reached the absurd had grown large enough.


4. The following section about Challenges has been added to the Mystery/ Puzzle section:

Quote

Challenge caches incorporate special logging requirements and are listed as Mystery/Puzzle caches. Typically they require the seeker to have previously met a reasonable geocaching-related qualification (Waymarking and Wherigo qualify too, of course) such as first finding a cache in every county in your state. If you are thinking of creating such a cache, please include a note to the reviewer demonstrating either that you have met the challenge yourself, or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.



Thank you very much for taking the time to be aware of these changes.



(edited to specify a Wherigo detail)

#2 User is offline   vagabond 

  • X CHARTER MEMBER
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2495
  • Joined: 12-February 01

Posted 03 April 2009 - 03:05 PM

Thank you all up there :lol: :wub: :wub: :) :laughing: :D :D :D

#3 User is offline   Star*Hopper 

  • Cash & Fuel
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 730
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 03 April 2009 - 03:13 PM

This is simply mind boggling. I just placed one, my very first, with ALR's on (& named) "April Fool!!!" It is - or WAS - simply a Liar's Cache....set to induce fun & from what I heard, is the only one in this end of the state.

With no 'Grandfathering', I hope your servers can handle the load. What's the deadline for cachers having everything changed over? And if they decide not to, archiving instead?
~*

#4 User is offline   sTeamTraen 

  • Geocachers in Alsace, France
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4013
  • Joined: 15-February 04

Posted 03 April 2009 - 03:13 PM

Posted Image

#5 User is offline   jmd65 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 04-January 09

Posted 03 April 2009 - 03:20 PM

Good. Now I'll go after some of those caches I've ignored so far.

#6 User is offline   MissJenn 

  • I'll give you my 5 cents.
  • Group: Lackeys
  • Posts: 4095
  • Joined: 26-December 01

Posted 03 April 2009 - 03:36 PM

View PostStar*Hopper, on Apr 3 2009, 04:13 PM, said:

What's the deadline for cachers having everything changed over? And if they decide not to, archiving instead? ~*

How about as soon as is convenient for you and your community?

We have not put a specific date on the calendar as a deadline yet because we realize this change may take a little while to propagate throughout the community. We intend to have a little reasonable flexibility with cache owners. There is also the time from the reviewers involved in making those changes.

#7 User is offline   Star*Hopper 

  • Cash & Fuel
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 730
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 03 April 2009 - 03:39 PM

Oh, and while on the subject, (and since it's being discussed in another thread right now, & has been the point of many other arguments):

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

Signed by whom?

Asked with all due respect - just one man's opinion but there's so much 'gray area' here I think it's way past time Groundspeak issued or clarified the guidelines in this regard. Some 'black & white', please?

Thank you.
~*

#8 User is offline   StarBrand 

  • StarBrand - WNAG.NET
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 18633
  • Joined: 30-January 02

Posted 03 April 2009 - 03:45 PM

View PostStar*Hopper, on Apr 3 2009, 05:39 PM, said:

Oh, and while on the subject, (and since it's being discussed in another thread right now, & has been the point of many other arguments):

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

Signed by whom?

Asked with all due respect - just one man's opinion but there's so much 'gray area' here I think it's way past time Groundspeak issued or clarified the guidelines in this regard. Some 'black & white', please?

Thank you.
~*

I'll toss in with - obviously - the account holder of the geocaching account that actually signed the log.

right??

This post has been edited by StarBrand: 03 April 2009 - 03:45 PM


#9 User is offline   Don_J 

  • Chatsworth, CA - The view is the treasure!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4989
  • Joined: 08-May 05

Posted 03 April 2009 - 03:45 PM

Wow!
I'm kind of bummed now.
My only ALR cache was in a small park dedicated to a fallen LEO. It simply asked that the seeker stop and read the dedication plaque so they would understand why they were standing in a park. I'll now suggest that they do this. The cache and dashers will lose out, but they'll still get their smiley. I guess that is all that is important.

It's to bad that some have to stretch things until they break.

#10 User is offline   Allanon 

  • Through Knowledge, Power...
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2723
  • Joined: 15-October 04

Posted 03 April 2009 - 03:47 PM

View PostStar*Hopper, on Apr 3 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

Signed by whom?

What do you mean?

You don't reference the other thread you mention.

#11 User is offline   Motorcycle_Mama 

  • Let's Ride!
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5282
  • Joined: 03-March 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 03:48 PM

Thank you, Miss Jenn and all those who had a hand in it. :lol::):wub:

#12 User is offline   Tequila 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2972
  • Joined: 17-June 01

Posted 03 April 2009 - 03:49 PM

This is gonna give cache hounds the green light to find out the location of a complex multi's final, go straight to it and ignore all the intermediate stages.

I have an 9 stage multi that is 15 km long. The final is only about 2 km. Defeats the whole purpose of putting the cache out.

#13 User is offline   Keystone 

  • Everything in Moderation
  • Group: Site Wide Moderators
  • Posts: 16692
  • Joined: 16-May 03

Posted 03 April 2009 - 03:52 PM

View PostTequila, on Apr 3 2009, 07:49 PM, said:

This is gonna give cache hounds the green light to find out the location of a complex multi's final, go straight to it and ignore all the intermediate stages.

I have an 9 stage multi that is 15 km long. The final is only about 2 km. Defeats the whole purpose of putting the cache out.

The guideline change only addresses Additional (now Optional) Logging Requirements, and Challenge Caches. I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that the change affects a regular multicache. :lol:

#14 User is offline   Star*Hopper 

  • Cash & Fuel
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 730
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:05 PM

View PostAllanon, on Apr 3 2009, 03:47 PM, said:

View PostStar*Hopper, on Apr 3 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

Signed by whom?

What do you mean?

You don't reference the other thread you mention.


Doesn't really matter - I'm sure you've seen it countless times. It's the old "one climbs the tree & signs for all in the party", or "2 find the cache & sign the log for the 3 others sittin' back in the car a mile away" bit.
~*

#15 User is offline   Juicepig 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1382
  • Joined: 06-July 05

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:05 PM

View PostKeystone, on Apr 3 2009, 07:52 PM, said:

View PostTequila, on Apr 3 2009, 07:49 PM, said:

This is gonna give cache hounds the green light to find out the location of a complex multi's final, go straight to it and ignore all the intermediate stages.

I have an 9 stage multi that is 15 km long. The final is only about 2 km. Defeats the whole purpose of putting the cache out.

The guideline change only addresses Additional (now Optional) Logging Requirements, and Challenge Caches. I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that the change affects a regular multicache. :lol:


I think he is bummed because the location of his final got leaked to people that do not bother completing the other stages.

I think it is reasonable to delete logs of people who do not bother to participate in the "multi" aspect of a multi-cache such as this

#16 User is offline   radioscout 

  • Geoscout
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8829
  • Joined: 09-January 03

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:14 PM

Many thanks for removing ALR.

But introducing challenge caches was not a good idea. Why should one be allowed to log a cache only if one has found some other caches?

#17 User is offline   Tequila 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2972
  • Joined: 17-June 01

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:14 PM

View PostKeystone, on Apr 3 2009, 03:52 PM, said:

View PostTequila, on Apr 3 2009, 07:49 PM, said:

This is gonna give cache hounds the green light to find out the location of a complex multi's final, go straight to it and ignore all the intermediate stages.

I have an 9 stage multi that is 15 km long. The final is only about 2 km. Defeats the whole purpose of putting the cache out.

The guideline change only addresses Additional (now Optional) Logging Requirements, and Challenge Caches. I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that the change affects a regular multicache. :lol:


To prevent people from short cutting the multi, I put an ALR requiring the finders to email me a copy of their track log.

A couple months back, I created a BFL cache in the east end of Toronto to give local cachers a nearby opportunity to experience night caching. After 6 finders, one of them started emailing the location of the final so that others could find it in the daylight.

It was disappointing. And demotivating when it comes to creating complex caches.

This post has been edited by Tequila: 03 April 2009 - 04:15 PM


#18 User is offline   Tequila 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2972
  • Joined: 17-June 01

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:17 PM

What does this mean for existing Fizzy like challenge caches? Do we have to remove the requirement of finding all 81 diff/terrain ratings? If so, we might as well archive them.

#19 User is offline   CacheDrone 

  • Joy Machine
  • Group: +Reviewers
  • Posts: 274
  • Joined: 24-April 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:18 PM

View PostJuicepig, on Apr 3 2009, 04:05 PM, said:

View PostKeystone, on Apr 3 2009, 07:52 PM, said:

View PostTequila, on Apr 3 2009, 07:49 PM, said:

This is gonna give cache hounds the green light to find out the location of a complex multi's final, go straight to it and ignore all the intermediate stages.

I have an 9 stage multi that is 15 km long. The final is only about 2 km. Defeats the whole purpose of putting the cache out.

The guideline change only addresses Additional (now Optional) Logging Requirements, and Challenge Caches. I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that the change affects a regular multicache. :lol:


I think he is bummed because the location of his final got leaked to people that do not bother completing the other stages.

I think it is reasonable to delete logs of people who do not bother to participate in the "multi" aspect of a multi-cache such as this


Those that cheat, cheat themselves. I'm not sure how a cache owner of a multi-cache would verify all stages were found by another person unless there was a logbook in each stage (which by the way is fine IMHO).

#20 User is offline   Keith Watson 

  • VA3UPL
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1342
  • Joined: 21-September 03

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:20 PM

I can understand this. I have a cache with a very difficult logging requirement. So difficult, very few people have been able to claim a find on it. I guess now more people will be able to enjoying solving the puzzle and finding the cache.

Problem with forcing people to upload a track log is like forcing them to take a picture. Not everyone owns equipment to do that, and they are blocked from logging a find because they may not be able to afford it.

#21 User is offline   DaisyChain 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 23-August 03

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:21 PM

:lol: What about virts?

#22 User is offline   Sioneva 

  • Strangelet
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1726
  • Joined: 03-January 06

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:22 PM

View Postradioscout, on Apr 3 2009, 04:14 PM, said:

Many thanks for removing ALR.

But introducing challenge caches was not a good idea. Why should one be allowed to log a cache only if one has found some other caches?


Because that's the point of the cache? They're referring to things like the various Delorme Challenges and County Challenges.

#23 User is offline   Tequila 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2972
  • Joined: 17-June 01

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:26 PM

View PostKeith Watson, on Apr 3 2009, 04:20 PM, said:

I can understand this. I have a cache with a very difficult logging requirement. So difficult, very few people have been able to claim a find on it. I guess now more people will be able to enjoying solving the puzzle and finding the cache.

Problem with forcing people to upload a track log is like forcing them to take a picture. Not everyone owns equipment to do that, and they are blocked from logging a find because they may not be able to afford it.



I am not aware of any GPS that does not create a track log. And there are lots of freeware programs that can read the tracklog from the GPS and save it in a format readable by most programs. There should be no cost involved in providing a track log.

But the point is moot now.

#24 User is offline   Keystone 

  • Everything in Moderation
  • Group: Site Wide Moderators
  • Posts: 16692
  • Joined: 16-May 03

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:29 PM

View PostTequila, on Apr 3 2009, 08:17 PM, said:

What does this mean for existing Fizzy like challenge caches? Do we have to remove the requirement of finding all 81 diff/terrain ratings? If so, we might as well archive them.

A Fizzy Challenge meets the description in the new guidelines governing challenge caches. I look forward to finishing that someday myself. It is not affected.

A Challenge requiring the finder to take pictures of fifty different zoo animals would fare differently under the new test, at least if I were reviewing it.

#25 User is offline   Tequila 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2972
  • Joined: 17-June 01

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:32 PM

View PostKeystone, on Apr 3 2009, 04:29 PM, said:

View PostTequila, on Apr 3 2009, 08:17 PM, said:

What does this mean for existing Fizzy like challenge caches? Do we have to remove the requirement of finding all 81 diff/terrain ratings? If so, we might as well archive them.

A Fizzy Challenge meets the description in the new guidelines governing challenge caches. I look forward to finishing that someday myself. It is not affected.

A Challenge requiring the finder to take pictures of fifty different zoo animals would fare differently under the new test, at least if I were reviewing it.


Thanks for the clarification. I have a Tequila:81 Proof cache and I didn't want to have to archive it. It created so much fun and competition last summer. Caches that hadn't been visited in 2 years suddenly were getting visited.

#26 User is offline   Keystone 

  • Everything in Moderation
  • Group: Site Wide Moderators
  • Posts: 16692
  • Joined: 16-May 03

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:32 PM

View PostDaisyChain, on Apr 3 2009, 08:21 PM, said:

:lol: What about virts?

The new section of the listing guidelines is entitled "Logging of All Physical Caches." By its terms, it does not apply to grandfathered virtual caches, nor to earthcaches.

#27 User is offline   Allanon 

  • Through Knowledge, Power...
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2723
  • Joined: 15-October 04

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:32 PM

View PostDaisyChain, on Apr 3 2009, 05:21 PM, said:

:lol: What about virts?

Since those are a separate section in the requirements, I don't think this applies to them. Same for Webcams.

#28 User is offline   Zop 

  • Must.... find..... cache......
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 514
  • Joined: 21-February 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:39 PM

OK!

Well, being the owner of an ALR cache, I striked the line about logs being deleted but simply changed it to read "ridiculed" So....
In my attempt to invite clever and fun logging, may I insult those cachers who simply leave the dreaded "TFTCSL" "Found It", "This was 1 of..." Instead of telling it like it really was? like "Gee this cache stunk! Why would you even think of placing one here?" Or saw a cool little kittycat attack and eat a small hamster someone dropped at the cache site? Ya know what I mean?

Actually, I am not really a fan of ALR's but when they are done for fun, they really can be fun!

#29 User is offline   radioscout 

  • Geoscout
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8829
  • Joined: 09-January 03

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:39 PM

View PostTequila, on Apr 4 2009, 01:26 AM, said:

I am not aware of any GPS that does not create a track log.

Sometimes I use my PDA for geocaching. This is a very old device with an inaccurate GPS receiver and because of a battery life of about one or two hours I have to turn it of between multi cache stages.
Using this device I am not able to create a track log. Even if I would record a track log no one would be able to use it. And if someone gives away the final coordinates of a multi cache he can also share his track log.

What about privacy protection?

If a cache owner wants to make sure that a cacher visits some locations he has to place caches instead of multi cache stages there.


Some cachers use GPS devices without a PC interface.

This post has been edited by radioscout: 03 April 2009 - 04:41 PM


#30 User is offline   Tequila 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2972
  • Joined: 17-June 01

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:47 PM

View Postradioscout, on Apr 3 2009, 04:39 PM, said:



If a cache owner wants to make sure that a cacher visits some locations he has to place caches instead of multi cache stages there.




My understanding is that making a 9 stage multi into 9 separate caches is discouraged by reviewers. At least in my area. And I am not in favour of that either. People will hike the 15 km to get 9 smileys but they won't hike it to get one.

I know this sounds like sour grapes. I don't mean it to. I create caches that are not typical caches and people take pride in finding them. I have a very strong reputation in the area for creating complex/challenging caches and people's logs reflect that. Under these guidelines there will be finds on some of my caches without the cacher doing nearly as much as some of the original finders. And that is disappointing.

But......it is just a game..........have to think of other ways to make the caches more challenging and complex.

#31 User is offline   radioscout 

  • Geoscout
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8829
  • Joined: 09-January 03

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:47 PM

View PostTequila, on Apr 4 2009, 01:32 AM, said:

It created so much fun and competition last summer. Caches that hadn't been visited in 2 years suddenly were getting visited.

I saw caches requiring climbing gear but they were rated T 4.5 instead of T 5. Asking why I have been told that there was a need of a rare D/T-combination so this cache was intentionally rated wrong.
Very funny... :lol:

#32 User is offline   gelfling6 

  • Just plain NUTS!!!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 495
  • Joined: 11-April 06

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:48 PM

View PostStar*Hopper, on Apr 3 2009, 04:05 PM, said:


Doesn't really matter - I'm sure you've seen it countless times. It's the old "one climbs the tree & signs for all in the party", or "2 find the cache & sign the log for the 3 others sittin' back in the car a mile away" bit.
~*


I think a simple "Honor System" applies here.. You need to be the one signing the log, to log the find online.
The idea of signing a log for everyone in the team, including the ones in the car a mile away, the rest of the team still stuck in work any variable distance away, the one serving in the armed forces clear across the planet, The team member who's an astronaut aboard the space station, etc... You can see how ludicrous this could go..

Simple stated.. If it's a team find, EVERYONE in the team MUST sign their OWN signature, if they want to log it online.

Though, I've got a couple of caches, where someone signed the log book, but never logged it online.. Go figure? :lol:

As for the multi issue.. I think we're crossing over too far.. I don't think the guideline change is intended to force caches with clues to a final to become a different type.. If a series has a clue for a final, I believe it is saying it can remain separate. Just get out there, and find all of the series, and nail off the final.. I've done quite a few.. 2 finished, some, I've got the clues collected, stored away for when I do get to going after the final.

Okay, let's nail this from another view.. Earth Caches.. Some have ALR's, where you need to send a specific info letter to the placer. Does this mean now, Earth Caches, when logged, cannot be deleted? Since there is no physical log book?

This could spell the end for Earth Caches, like it did virtual & reverse caches.

This post has been edited by gelfling6: 03 April 2009 - 05:01 PM


#33 User is offline   Tequila 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2972
  • Joined: 17-June 01

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:51 PM

View Postradioscout, on Apr 3 2009, 04:47 PM, said:

View PostTequila, on Apr 4 2009, 01:32 AM, said:

It created so much fun and competition last summer. Caches that hadn't been visited in 2 years suddenly were getting visited.

I saw caches requiring climbing gear but they were rated T 4.5 instead of T 5. Asking why I have been told that there was a need of a rare D/T-combination so this cache was intentionally rated wrong.
Very funny... :lol:



I solved that by only using caches that were published before mine and I ran PQ's to capture all the Ontario caches at the time to prevent that sort of thing. Having said that, most cache owners embraced the spirit of the competition and there was only once case of a cache rating changing. And it changed to a simpler rating due to a change it the way it was hid.

#34 User is offline   Allanon 

  • Through Knowledge, Power...
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2723
  • Joined: 15-October 04

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:59 PM

View Postgelfling6, on Apr 3 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

Simple stated.. If it's a team find, EVERYONE in the team MUST sign their OWN signature, if they want to log it online.

Wrong.

A sticker on the log stating "Found by Team XYZ" and then my online log saying I was part of Team XYZ is enough...especially if you're trying to not fill up the log sheet during a large event.

Of course, if the cache owner has a problem with it, that is their issue and they can delete the logs if they want...but so far no one has for all the ones I've done.

#35 User is offline   sandvika 

  • Sandvika
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 07-June 07

  Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:00 PM

I'd suggest that anything that removes freedom from cachers to be able to specify what is necessary to claim a find diminishes the game. Others can choose to ignore caches with ALRs, but to ban them seems heavy handed and detrimental. Another genus of cache diversity gets frog-marched to extinction.

A typical example would be GCVFP3.... It's good plain honest fun and if you can't rise to the occasion and meet the requirement, then shame on you!

As it's a long way from my home, it's been on my todo list for ages, however, I plan to satisfy the requirement and enjoy the moment.

#36 User is offline   Keith Watson 

  • VA3UPL
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1342
  • Joined: 21-September 03

Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:14 PM

Not sure if this stands with or against the new guideline. One could argue either way.
Posted Image
Log Picture

#37 User is offline   radioscout 

  • Geoscout
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8829
  • Joined: 09-January 03

Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:17 PM

View Postsandvika, on Apr 4 2009, 02:00 AM, said:

I'd suggest that anything that removes freedom from cachers to be able to specify what is necessary to claim a find diminishes the game.

Why? The game is about finding hidden containers and a "found it" log means "I have found the stash.
Geocaching does not mean to make people to silly things.

Do you remove the log entry in the caches logbook if a cacher does not perform the ARL?

#38 User is offline   tozainamboku 

  • geoyokozuna
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7503
  • Joined: 21-February 03

Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:21 PM

So the puritans have won. The guideline now suggest the signing the physical log = finding a cache. There can be no other definition of a find. There is no room for the heretics anymore. (Of course there does seem to be room for a cache owner to not delete the log of someone who doesn't sign the log. But now if a person can show they did sign the log, the cache owner may not delete the log unless it is off topic.

Delete any logs that appear to be bogus (ie, didn't sign log), counterfeit (ie, didn't sign log), off topic (I guess the cache owner can still decide what that means, spoiler?, potty language?) or not within the stated requirements (since we're not allowed to have any requirements this is meaningless).

I suggest that TPTB update this sentence too as to not cause any confusion.

I prefer guidelines whose rationale is to improve the image of the game in dealing with land managers, law enforcement, and the general public. If PVC pipes were banned because people view these a bombs I can understand the change. I realize some guidelines have been instituted because TPTB felt the some caches interfere with a clean simple definition of geocaching and TPTB think it distracts from the game. So we don't have virtuals and the must have the option of using a GPS as an integral part of the search. But each time guidelines are added for this reason, you can be sure it has taken away part of the game from at least some segment of the community. We don't all agree with TPTB's view of what is or is not geocaching.

In my opinion the total removal of ALRs was unneccesary. One could have simply written requirements describing what is an appropriate ALR. (Funny that there is now a guideline for appropriate optional task is). Reviewers could have been asked to suggest that ALRs be optional. Of course I also felt that making ALR caches into mystery unknown caches wasn't a good idea either. I would have preferred that the an attribute be used. And what about fizzy challenge caches. Do people who have used an ALR to fulfill the mystery/unknown requirement now have to find a puzzle to replace this?

#39 User is offline   DavidMac 

  • Knoxville! Knoxville!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1427
  • Joined: 25-December 02

Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:33 PM

How soon until these forums start seeing waves of "I didn't follow the optional logging suggestion and my find was deleted!" threads? I don't see how this will solve the problem of anal cache owners "arbitrarily" deleting logs that they don't "like". The angst will continue.

I think something more diplomatic could have been done to reign in the use of ALRs on caches but IMO this new guideline goes way too far, especially the part about existing caches no longer being grandfathered.

#40 User is offline   niraD 

  • rehcacoeG
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6795
  • Joined: 24-January 06

Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:39 PM

View Postgelfling6, on Apr 3 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

Simple stated.. If it's a team find, EVERYONE in the team MUST sign their OWN signature, if they want to log it online.

View PostAllanon, on Apr 3 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

Wrong.

A sticker on the log stating "Found by Team XYZ" and then my online log saying I was part of Team XYZ is enough...especially if you're trying to not fill up the log sheet during a large event.
I agree with Allanon. And FWIW, around here, some groups print stickers with everyone's name, rather than just "Team XYZ".

Also, I have no problem with one person signing the log by hand for everyone in the group, while everyone else does other things (log TBs, get food/drink out of their backpacks, paw through the swag, set their GPSr to the next waypoint, take photos, etc.).

And some geo-kids have accounts before they can write, so it's fine for their geo-parents sign (and presumbably, log online) on their behalf. Actually, it's probably better for parents to sign on behalf of any kids that are not yet old enough to write neatly.

#41 User is offline   tozainamboku 

  • geoyokozuna
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7503
  • Joined: 21-February 03

Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:40 PM

Can I delete logs if someone says they did my night cache in the daytime?

Can I delete logs if someone says they didn't solve my puzzle but they got the coordinates from a friend?

Can I delete logs if someone says they found the cache after dark and I know the park is closed at dusk?

Can I delete logs if I know someone broke local laws when searching for my cache?

Can I delete logs if someone damaged property while searching for the cache and I know the cache can be found and retrieve without having to damage property?

Can I delete logs if someone didn't climb the tree but got a long poll to reach the cache with?

Can I delete logs if someone didn't climb the tree but sent his kid up to retrieve the cache?

.....

:lol:

#42 User is offline   Harry Dolphin 

  • Major Porpoise
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7941
  • Joined: 03-July 04

Posted 03 April 2009 - 06:03 PM

View PostDon_J, on Apr 3 2009, 03:45 PM, said:

Wow!
I'm kind of bummed now.
My only ALR cache was in a small park dedicated to a fallen LEO. It simply asked that the seeker stop and read the dedication plaque so they would understand why they were standing in a park. I'll now suggest that they do this. The cache and dashers will lose out, but they'll still get their smiley. I guess that is all that is important.

It's to bad that some have to stretch things until they break.


And I have a cache with a spectacular view. That's the reason for the cache. If you want to do the cache in peasoup fog, that's your prerogative. (And, yes. Several people have.) Guess I'd never contemplated forcing people to admire the view. Oh, well. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

#43 User is offline   Tequila 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2972
  • Joined: 17-June 01

Posted 03 April 2009 - 06:05 PM

It is all about the numbers

#44 User is offline   HH242 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 399
  • Joined: 21-April 06

Posted 03 April 2009 - 06:10 PM

I am not nitpicking. I swear. But, I have a concern about the new requirement that the physical log be signed before the cache may be logged.

1. If one finds a cache and the log is too wet to sign or too full to sign, does that mean one cannot log it as having been found? The "too full to sign" problem is particularly acute with some of the nanos. I, myself, have found some nanos where the sliver of paper is so full that all I can do is put a dot onto it. Will that count in the future?

2. When a team finds a nano, the entire sliver of paper will be filled up when every team member signs the log. Is that really desirable?

#45 User is offline   niraD 

  • rehcacoeG
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6795
  • Joined: 24-January 06

Posted 03 April 2009 - 06:12 PM

View Posttozainamboku, on Apr 3 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

Can I delete logs if someone says they did my night cache in the daytime?

Can I delete logs if someone says they didn't solve my puzzle but they got the coordinates from a friend?

Can I delete logs if someone says they found the cache after dark and I know the park is closed at dusk?

Can I delete logs if I know someone broke local laws when searching for my cache?

Can I delete logs if someone damaged property while searching for the cache and I know the cache can be found and retrieve without having to damage property?

Can I delete logs if someone didn't climb the tree but got a long poll to reach the cache with?
Can I delete logs in a box?
Can I delete logs with a fox?
Can I delete logs with a mouse?
Can I delete logs in a house?
Can I delete them here or there?
Can I delete them anywhere?

SCNR

View Posttozainamboku, on Apr 3 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

Can I delete logs if someone didn't climb the tree but sent his kid up to retrieve the cache?
FWIW, there's a cache in a local park where the cache owner actually recommends bringing a toddler. It's easier (and less conspicuous) for an adult to lift a toddler up to where the cache is hidden, than for an adult to climb up there.

#46 User is offline   flask 

  • if he won't eat it i will
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 5075
  • Joined: 12-December 02

Posted 03 April 2009 - 06:12 PM

View PostHarry Dolphin, on Apr 3 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

Oh, well. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.



you know what dorothy parker said.

#47 User is offline   KBI 

  • Gruntled
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3164
  • Joined: 21-October 02

Posted 03 April 2009 - 06:17 PM

We can only assume that Earthcaches will be the next to go.

#48 User is offline   linuxxpert 

  • Evil Maniacal Psycho Cache Hider
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 168
  • Joined: 10-March 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 06:29 PM

Ok I've got a cache that requires you to climb a pillar in the middle of the river... the cache is all about getting on top of that pillar. In order to avoid people claiming a find that have not climbed the pillar... like getting the log book handed down to them, the only alr is to take a picture of yourself on the pillar. This cache is about conquering a physical challenge.
How do I avoid people claiming a find that have not climbed the pillar?

#49 User is offline   Clan Riffster 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9210
  • Joined: 26-December 04

Posted 03 April 2009 - 06:36 PM

Before this thread gets locked for angsty posts, allow me to offer my humble thanx to Groundspeak, and to everyone there who had a paw in this change.
I dislike ALRs as a rule, because they generally are trying to control the actions of others, through their cache page.
To misquote Steinbeck, it's the difference between "Thou Shalt, Thou Wilst & Thou Mayest"
I much prefer "Mayest". :lol:

This post has been edited by Clan Riffster: 03 April 2009 - 06:37 PM


#50 User is offline   Mushtang 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3917
  • Joined: 13-June 03

Posted 03 April 2009 - 06:37 PM

Meh. I've always said that this is Groundspeak's sandbox so we have to play by their rules or go away. It's not the first change they've made that I disagreed with, and I'm sure it won't be the last, but it's still going to be a fun game to play.

There's only one result of this change that I'm really not looking forward to seeing....

Share this topic:


  • (24 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic