ALR Caches Are No Longer Allowed

[seldom|seen]

The irritation I express about this is not directed at any individual and certainly not at Rsplash to whom I owe a great deal of time and thanks for covering for me. No harm intended man.

What irritates me is the moves in recent history by Groundspeak to keeping pushing for simplicity so that every member has a fair chance of finding every cache and how that philosophy gets distilled into action.

Action: Some cachers armchair are caching and short-cutting virtuals to get finds, to which some owners respond by deleting logs.

Reaction: Remove the category and force every new cache to have a slip of paper and use GPS coordinates, even though the category and the caches in that category were in places where sensitive cache places would rather not put a container or where a container wasn’t allowed but the historical or natural significance of the area was certainly worthy of bringing people to it.

Same thing with this new decision:

Action: A few cachers decided to make some ALR’s TOO difficult or maybe even ridiculous to which other cachers responded by logging anyway and then somebody’s ego got bruised when a found log was deleted and subsequently complained.

Reaction: Avoid having to deal with case-by-case instances and problem caches, or cachers, by making a blanket change to policy and forcing the entire geocaching community to revise and cheapen their caches to fit that new policy, irregardless of how it was about too impact thousands of caches around the globe.

Any Why? So no one has to deal with anybody on a case-by-case basis. It’s the same reason a whole host of other societal problems are bubbling to the surface. No individual responsibility needed, just revise the policy and let the chips fall where they may.

Now, you may think I’m making a bigger deal out of this than is reasonable. But even to the point of Zuma’s post about the long walk in the woods. What is the best part of a cache like that? Is it the long walk, the hunting around for the cache or the actual opening of the physical container?

In the same way that the reward for finding traditional caches is the experience of getting there and making the find, the same holds true for some ALR caches, the experience of fulfilling the requirement is the reward, not getting the smiley.

So, the policy is make everything uniform and findable, yet a cache like Nifty Fifty which sits at the bottom of Lake Winnebago and will probably never be found by more that a dozen cachers in A-OK, a cache like Consult the Oracle, now with 109 finds AND almost as many renderings which EVERYONE, to my knowledge enjoyed, is not. That’s my issue and I’ll comment further later… I’m going bowling.

[marc_54140]

@gotta run wrote:

@Team Deejay wrote:

The following is a list of all the challenge caches in Wisconsin that I am aware of. None of these require any modification:

GC15JH6 Crazy Retro Driver’s Wanted!
GC1P8AF WSQ 000 The quest ….

Now see, even here this gets fuzzy. The “challenge” part of “Crazy Retro” is to find the puzzle caches. But the cache requires the log be formatted in a particular way. Is that an ALR?

Same goes for WSQ 000. Not only do you have to find 66 caches, but you gotta post in your log when you found them all.

No, I do not see these as ALRs. It’s just the way of saying “I have completed the other caches”. Probably a subtle difference ……

[gotta run]

@marc_54140 wrote:

No, I do not see these as ALRs. It’s just the way of saying “I have completed the other caches”. Probably a subtle difference ……

You’re probably right 😯

On the Left Side of the Road...

[marc_54140]

@gotta run wrote:

@marc_54140 wrote:

No, I do not see these as ALRs. It’s just the way of saying “I have completed the other caches”. Probably a subtle difference ……

You’re probably right 😯

Oh, my ………!

[K0rpl]

This is a very interesting topic, and will have to wait and see how it all unfolds. I neither agree or Disagree with this decision. I can see valid points on both sides. I guess we just have to cache the way we want to…

[Team Deejay]

@marc_54140 wrote:

@gotta run wrote:

@Team Deejay wrote:

The following is a list of all the challenge caches in Wisconsin that I am aware of. None of these require any modification:

GC15JH6 Crazy Retro Driver’s Wanted!
GC1P8AF WSQ 000 The quest ….

Now see, even here this gets fuzzy. The “challenge” part of “Crazy Retro” is to find the puzzle caches. But the cache requires the log be formatted in a particular way. Is that an ALR?

Same goes for WSQ 000. Not only do you have to find 66 caches, but you gotta post in your log when you found them all.

No, I do not see these as ALRs. It’s just the way of saying “I have completed the other caches”. Probably a subtle difference ……

This is a correct interpretation. Incidentally, I missed “The Cheesy Well Rounded Cacher” on my original list, as it is listed as a LBH, rather than mystery. Just an oversight on my part.

[seldom|seen]

Just working up my global boilerplate:

“I wholeheartedly disagree with the change in policy regarding Additional Logging Requirements but I must abide by the rules and make the ALR for this cache optional. While I will think that you are a lowdown no-good offspring of a farm animal for logging this cache without completing the ALR, I can’t prevent you from doing so. My caches are designed to give you more that a smiley and if that’s all that you are after, might I suggest you ignore list all seldom|seen caches and go elsewhere for that satisfaction.”

There, that ought to significantly reduce the number of number-seekers to my caches or at least give me the black eye that I apparently deserve and perhaps push some fence-sitters off the other side.

The next time a policy like this goes through without comment with the purpose of “precisely defining” geocaching, I’m out. Then cachers can flood the valley with grab-n-go’s with the express purpose of getting their pobah stats up.

[seldom|seen]

Not too painfull. Just 15 caches with ALR’s out of 191. Another week or two and there will be 5 more and I have NO intention of quiting the practice of including them in my caches either. Bring on the flamage…

[Mathman]

@seldom|seen wrote:

Not too painfull. Just 15 caches with ALR’s out of 191. Another week or two and there will be 5 more and I have NO intention of quiting the practice of including them in my caches either. Bring on the flamage…

I too can understand both points of view. However, as an example, a S/S cache, “Consult The Oracle” would not mean anything to me without the “optional” task. I remember being there that day with the Bandits and we had a blast with the cache. Did it take extra time? Yes, but it was well worth the laughs we shared that day. Great cache and one I’d highly recommend to others.

[Team Black-Cat]

@seldom|seen wrote:

There, that ought to significantly reduce the number of number-seekers to my caches or at least give me the black eye that I apparently deserve and perhaps push some fence-sitters off the other side.

Not getting me off the fence. Nope! No way. I like it here.

Ok… hopping off.
I have turned off the computer and walked away several times to avoid posting here or in the GS forums to keep from getting worked up over this. I was talking with rsplash and GMO today about this subject, and I mentioned that I can’t figure out why this decision by GS bothers me so much. None of our caches are ALRs. I don’t go out of my way to find ALR caches, but don’t really dislike them. I’ve seen some that I would never do, but that is my choice. I don’t have to do them.

GS’s line is that “Groundspeak has decided that the number of ALRs which approached and even reached the absurd had grown large enough.” Too many? That’s their reason? By this reasoning, any container with a magnet should not be allowed.

One reason that has been mentioned on GS forums is that local reviewers are having to moderate conflicts because of deleted logs on some ALRs. Or, reviewers don’t what to have to figure out what is a “reasonable” ALR. If that’s truely the reason, then why not say so? I can understand that. I might be reading something that isn’t there in the posts from our two reviewers, but I get the impression that they’re not too sold on the reasons for the change in policy. I’m sure they will correct me if I am wrong.

Alex, although I mostly agree with you, you might be over reacting a bit. Most geocachers will never know that this change has happened. Very few read the GS forums and fewer are active in this forum. I couldn’t guess how few or how many actually read the guidelines. Word your suggestion carefully and I’m sure the vast majority of finders will fulfill the task. If you want 100% compliance, then I guess I got nothin’.

[Lostby7]

So would I be correct in assuming that travel bug “prisons” which require a trade in order to move bugs are now optional as well? So who is responsible for replacing the deleted logs once cache owners delete the finds? The reviewers? Don’t they already have enough to do?

I just think this causes more problems than it solves…

[-cheeto-]

Most geocachers will never know that this change has happened. Very few read the GS forums and fewer are active in this forum. I couldn’t guess how few or how many actually read the guidelines. Word your suggestion carefully and I’m sure the vast majority of finders will fulfill the task.

I actually agree 100% with TBC. That’s why I removed one of the notes on my caches and carefully worded the new description on the only other ALR cache I owned. I wanted to make it sound like something fun to do with the cache not make it sound like I was ticked off at Groundspeek. Especially considering the ALR cache I owned was a KFC (Kid Friendly Cache).

I understand the frustration but we probably should not “take it out on” those who will never even understand why…

[gotta run]

Alex, you’re a creative guy, and I’m sure you’ll find out some way to get what you want done within the confines of the gc publication process…you always seem to manage it somehow. 😆

Regarding the groundspeak decision–in biz speak I think we’d call this “focusing on their core competency.”

gc decided that its purpose in the world is to give people a way to find things using their GPSr, period.

That is, unless it’s an EarthCache…or they can make money selling an app like whereigo…

On the Left Side of the Road...

[gotta run]

On the Left Side of the Road...

[Trekkin and Birdin]

GR, That’s a great way to phrase this. And TBC is right, the majority of people have no clue about any of this, anyway. On top of that, an awful lot never bother to read the cache description in the first place.

I did see a cacher near my parents’ home posting on every single ALR cache yesterday….”Is this open for grabbing per the new gs rules?” Some of these are ones for which we’d completed the requirements and were eligible to find (and I did, my last trip home). I can’t control his actions. He obviously plays the game differently than I do, and I guess that’s just fine. The world would be SO boring if we all did things the same way! We watch our numbers, but with the complete understanding that they are completely meaningless in so many ways, and it’s just for our own twisted amusement that we do so.

[Author]

Posts