MnGCA

[King Boreas]

[Marsha and Silent Bob]

[pfalstad]

[bflentje]

I guess that means Cache Factory v2.0 for this spring gets abandoned. Oh well.

[King Boreas]

[Kitch]

I wonder if they would approve a cache where you are required to become an paying Geocaching.com member....oh wait ...nevermind..

[zuma!]

[Paklid]

I'm conflicted on this topic.

On the one hand,
during the short history of caching, innovation has been encouraged to expand the game and bring new and interesting twists into it.

I jumped at the opportunity to do the first "seed" cache I saw (an arcticabn cache). I did a second one that was very near my home. I'm not sure I would do any others unless they were VERY close to home. I like the innovative side of it but I'm not necessarily looking to hide an individual cache at the behest of somebody else anymore.

Another example of innovation is the Gustobob series where he had a series of five caches, one at posted to get you to an area. That cache had coords for three nearby caches - each of which had a piece of the coords for a final cache. It was essentially a multi with legally loggable stages (five finds for your effort).

I like to see innovation in the game. I don't really appreciate efforts by Groundspeak to pull away from that value.

However, on the other hand,
I can definitely see a problem with cache owners who see fit to have you jump through a bunch more hoops than finding the cache and logging in the logbook before you can post a find. I won't even bother looking for them if I read the page well enough to see that weird logging requirements exist. I once drove a decent distance (relative to what I usually would do) to go after a new series of about a dozen caches. I found all but one. Still, with the info I had, I was able to figure out the general vicinity of the final "puzzle". So I visited the area and with luck and, well.. probably just luck... I did find that final. I logged a find on it, only to have it removed by the owner for my DNFing one of the caches in the series. The DNFed cache was a pretty hard one to find from witnessing the logs since most everyone either had the owner on the phone or in person to talk them through the find. I had no such advantage and got robbed of a find. Anyway, it was highly irritating to have a find removed.

Having what I consider to be a legitimate find deleted (legitimate find defined as: I read or determined the coords, ventured forth, found the container, logged my find in the logbook) is very annoying to me. If Groundspeak's actions are to put a lid on this, I'm probably a fan - though it bothers me that with more boundaries we might have less innovation.

Of course, as far as I can recall, I've never deleted anybody's log in more than three years of hiding caches. As far as I've gone is to email someone saying they might have given away too much info in their log. I even let multiple finds of the same cache stand - because I really don't care if someone else's stats are a little messed up.
_________________
-Paklid

[spinowner]

I think if you access the container by whatever means and you log your visit you deserve a find. Period. I've found several puzzle/multis without visiting all the preliminary stages, and one of my puzzles was found by a cacher looking for a place to hide a cache. No deletions in any of those cases. I agree with the new directive that bans the requirement to hide another cache in order to log a find.
_________________
Sig line? I don't need no stinking sig line!

[Marsha and Silent Bob]

[bflentje]

[bflentje]

Just kidding. I am sad to see the possible ruling about it but I will sure abide by it (not that I've have a choice).

[jambro]

[Bad_CRC]

[emmanogoldfish]