Seed caches…

[TyeDyeSkyGuy]

…of any kind, are they allowed any more?

[gotta run]

I was told by a reviewer “no,” but this is apparently part of the Big Book O’ Secret Reviewer Rules That No One Else is Allowed to Know Because We Don’t Include it In the Hiding a Cache Guidelines.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[cheezehead]

I think they are still allowed, ya just can’t force/require them to make another cache to make the log. Somewhere here I asked the same thing and got an answer.

[TyeDyeSkyGuy]

I’ve heard it both ways in the forums, but can’t find anything in writing. I’m hoping a reviewer or two frequents these threads and can answer this. 😉 😀

[-cheeto-]

I beleive the wording wiskid used on a recent one of mine (Winter Friendly) that was originally going to require listing another cache (that was marked available in winter) was that new caches could no longer require publishing another cache as a requirement for logging that cache.

I would guess that they would not have any issues with “hinting” that cachers can place a new cache as long as you don’t require it.

What’s interesting about this new “rule” is the reason I was told it was inacted differs from what is discussed here and in other forum posts. I was told it was to limit the number of new “lame” caches that were just thrown out there with no regard to quality at all just to log a cache but here (http://wi-geocaching.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=6765) we see that it was added because folks were chaining together the log a cache requirement causes an excessive out of control situation.

I personally agree with the rule change for both of the reasons above

[gotta run]

While I understand that not every contingency and scenario can be codified in a rule made available to the geocaching public, this one should be, given the likelihood of people to attempt to place caches based on existing precedent. (Yes, I know precedent isn’t a criteria for publication–that’s not my point here.)

Now, the WGA is not gc.com, so what is the process for suggesting this be outlined under “…prohibited special logging requirements are, but are not limited to…”

On the Left Side of the Road...

[Team Deejay]

@gotta run wrote:

While I understand that not every contingency and scenario can be codified in a rule made available to the geocaching public, this one should be, given the likelihood of people to attempt to place caches based on existing precedent. (Yes, I know precedent isn’t a criteria for publication–that’s not my point here.)

Now, the WGA is not gc.com, so what is the process for suggesting this be outlined under “…prohibited special logging requirements are, but are not limited to…”

That procedure would be to write Groundspeak, the people who actually make the decision.

And yes, you can have a seed cache.

[gotta run]

@Team Deejay wrote:

And yes, you can have a seed cache.

You can put a cache with seeds in it out of the goodness of your heart, but you can’t have one that involves a special logging requirement, which is the point.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[TyeDyeSkyGuy]

@Team Deejay wrote:

@gotta run wrote:

While I understand that not every contingency and scenario can be codified in a rule made available to the geocaching public, this one should be, given the likelihood of people to attempt to place caches based on existing precedent. (Yes, I know precedent isn’t a criteria for publication–that’s not my point here.)

Now, the WGA is not gc.com, so what is the process for suggesting this be outlined under “…prohibited special logging requirements are, but are not limited to…”

That procedure would be to write Groundspeak, the people who actually make the decision.

And yes, you can have a seed cache.

Good deal. My seed cache won’t have a requirement, it will be an option. Then again, I’m thinking NEMESIS miulti, instead of Seed of NEMESIS. But I’m undecided. Keeping the seed cache stocked might be an impossible task.

[Author]

Posts