Welcome
Welcome to the NorthWest Arkansas Cachers forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today.

Re: Removal of Additional Logging Requirements

If it's about geocaching -- Let's hear it

Re: Removal of Additional Logging Requirements

Postby paris1time » Thu Apr 09, 2009 6:53 pm

I saw where our state reviewer Chuck Walla posted this on the ArkGeo forum, and thought I would paste it here for anyone interested...

ChuckWalla wrote:On April 3, 2009, Groundspeak issued a new revision to the “Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines”. Among the changes was a change regarding logging requirements for caches; more specifically, “additional logging requirement” (or ALR) caches. The guidelines now contain the following text:
Logging of All Physical Caches

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.

I have asked for clarification and have been told by Groundspeak that the following types of caches will be considered as ALR caches: caches which threaten deletion of logs which are “copy & paste” logs, or are not a certain number of words or sentences long. In other words, a simple “TFTC” logged online is sufficient if the cache finder signed the physical log in the cache. If you currently have a cache of this type, please modify your cache description to remove the requirement or make it optional. Please note that as the cache owner, you still retain the right and responsibility to police the logs posted against your cache, and you may delete any logs which appear to be false finds, obscene in nature, etc.

It should be noted that challenge caches are still allowed to have special logging requirements. However, these caches must have “challenge” in the title, be listed as mystery/puzzle caches, and must be located at the posted coordinates. Logging of these caches as finds is done on an honor system, although the cache owner retains the right to delete any Found It logs where the cache finder did not meet the requirements of the challenge. There are only two types of challenge caches that Groundspeak allows to be at coordinates other than the posted coordinates and which require that the cache owner provide the coordinates to the cache hunter by email or other means. These two are the Delorme challenge and county challenge caches. Two examples of challenge caches in Arkansas which are at the posted coordinates are a Razorback Challenge cache in the Jacksonville / Cabot vicinity (I think) and another cache near Ft. Smith which requires that the finder have written logs of a certain length for several other caches, to be allowed to claim a find (sorry, but I don’t recall the name of the cache).

If you have a question about whether your current or future cache complies with these requirements, feel free to contact me at chuck.walla@hotmail.com.

Chuck Walla
Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer
"Greater than treasure, Usul. We have thousands of such caches. Only a few of us know them all.''
User avatar
paris1time
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:01 pm
Location: Paris, AR

 

Postby *TnT* » Thu Apr 09, 2009 8:45 pm

Thanks for posting this here David. I know of one cacher who has a lot of typing ahead of him due to additions he made to his cache listing not too long ago.

As I said in another thread last weekend when I first learned of the ALR ban, what is groundspeak's recourse in all of this. Are they going to start banning cachers for deleting what are (by the new guidelines) legitimate logs?

I think they may have opened up a whole big can of worms.

But, at least Calliope's Challenge meets the new requirements. Now, how long before we start seeing dozens of caches similar to it?
Image
User avatar
*TnT*
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1777
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: Bentonville

Postby OEnavigators » Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:43 pm

TnT wrote:As I said in another thread last weekend when I first learned of the ALR ban, what is groundspeak's recourse in all of this. Are they going to start banning cachers for deleting what are (by the new guidelines) legitimate logs?


I was wondering that myself. It seems almost impossible to police such a guideline. I deleted a log from one of my geocaches not long ago. The finder put a simple "TFTC" and I emailed him asking very politely to share his adventure, or lack of, with us. I got no response so after waiting a week or so I deleted his log. The way the new guideline reads, if I'm interpreting it correctly, I would have broken the new rule.

I bet we'll see some revisions on this guideline in the future. I'm glad that Calliope is still acceptable but kind of sad to see the other ALR's go. It's really not very good for this game when creativity is suppressed while a simultaneous advancement in technology and an obsessive fixation on numbers increases the need for more and more geocaches. At this rate, geocaches will be little more than just easy, bland roadway hunts. On the bright side, you'll be able to use geocaching.com to map backroads. :lol:
OEnavigators
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 9:08 pm

Postby *TnT* » Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:31 pm

I agree with some of what you say. On the one hand, a challenge is a challenge. On the other -- finding more than TFTC to say for many of the caches out there is the challenge. Requiring someone to write something that is "up to my standards" is wrong.

We all wish that people were more eloquent, but its never going to happen. How can you expect someone who can't even remember exactly where / how they found a cache to be heavy in their prose?
Image
User avatar
*TnT*
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1777
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: Bentonville

Re: Removal of Additional Logging Requirements

Postby kimandsteve1 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:51 pm

Ok, I realize that the last post in this thread was 2009. Sorry to bring it up, but I am trying to understand as what I have read on this forum is new info for me. If what I am reading is correct then the following taken from an active cache discription is out of bounds? "A lot of time, effort, and money go into getting and placing caches such as this one. The only reward we get form such hides are the logs written by the finder of the cache. Keep in mind that the owner of the cache has every right to take away the find if the owner feels that the logs are not up to the standards of the cache. As of 11-09-08 we will be enforcing this right."

The reason I'm asking is that it can intimidating for a new cacher to see things like that in a cache discription. Do people really want to hear "I worked a three day tour at work, came home, went to bed, got up and felt the urge to cache, so here I am!" There really isn't much to say some days, I downloaded a list of nearby caches drove to them, walked to gz and saw the cache. I guess what I am really asking is what would the experienced cachers on here describe as an appropriate response to a cache like that?
kimandsteve1
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:26 pm

Re: Re: Removal of Additional Logging Requirements

Postby *TnT* » Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:00 am

By the new standards, the logging requirement you quoted is out of bounds. Around that time, alot of cachers, particularly in the river valley were adding that to their cache descriptions in an attempt to encourage better logs. When ALRs were banned, they never bothered to delete the verbiage from their listings.

Having said that, their is nothing more insulting to a cache owner (in my opinion) than logs like "found it" or "TFTC". I've stated publicly that if anyone ever sees only TFTC as my log on a cache, what I'm really saying is "This was a really lame cache with no redeeming value. Why did you even bother." With the explosion of people logging from smart phones however, I'm seeing more and more logs like "TFTC".

Think of it this way. The cache owner put forth some effort to place and maintain the cache. The least you can do as the finder is thank him for helping you add to your numbers and let him know the condition of his cache. I.E. "log is full", "log is damp", "cache is in good shape"
Image
User avatar
*TnT*
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1777
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: Bentonville

Re: Re: Removal of Additional Logging Requirements

Postby kimandsteve1 » Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:01 am

THANKS for the clarification. It sounds fair enough to me. When we first started, we'd just post a TFTC if nothing truly interesting had happened during the day. Course personally, I've started using caching as a way to listen to my audio books in silence and relax. . . sometimes when the kids are still at home. OOPS! Kim's going to put the kibosh on solo caching trips for me now, I just know it.
kimandsteve1
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:26 pm


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred