Desert_Trailblazers

Yes, these would be called offset caches. They are listed under Multi-caches. http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#multi "Offset caches are a variation on multi-caches. They are listed as a multi-cache when selecting a cache type. They are not found by simply going to some coordinates and finding a cache there. With the offset cache the published coordinates could be of an existing historical monument, plaque, or even a benchmark that you would like to have your cache hunter visit. At this spot, the hunter looks for numbers or information already appearing on the marker or on some part of the marker or site (geocachers never deface public or private property). The geocacher is then able to manipulate these numbers or information using instructions posted on the cache page to continue the hunt." Uh, oh... we just thought of something. What if the original coordinates were indoors? That would be our goal. To get the cacher inside the attraction. They are almost all museums, or museum-like places. Would it be okay to give parking coordinates and then instructions on the cache page to "go inside and look for"x" and this will give you the coordinates to the final stage of the cache?"

Thanks so much! We will read up on offset multi-caches. That's great that there is a way to accomplish what we would like to do. We sure hope that they bring back Virtual Caches someday. They are really fun, and interesting to us. We have always enjoyed the ones that we have done. Anyway, thanks again!

We would like to do a series of caches at some local places of interest. We want the cachers to actully take a minute to see the inside of the places (which are free) but, as there are no more Virtual Caches, we can't do one of those. What we were thinking is to place a cache just outside of the premises of the museum (whatever, we have already received permission from the GMs) but have the final numbers for the coordinates to the cache be on something that would have to be found inside the attraction (like on a display or something?) Is this legal and can cachers be asked to do this as part of a puzzle cache?

Oops... also forgot to thank trainmanup. As a post script, I do want to note that I did write a very nice note to the cacher, (as I explained in my original post) who never replied, and that we don't make a practice of "policing" our caches. This one just came to our attention by another cacher. Other than that, I agree it's ridiculous to go out and look for offenders. Again, thanks to those who offered constructive advice as to what to do when something like this comes up. Happy caching!

I haven't seen anyone condoning the practice of logging a cache as a find on a cache they have not found and signed the log. I've seen lots of suggestions that if you discover that someone has logged a found it long on a cache on which they didn't sign the log, that is within your right to delete the log. In fact, the guidelines specifically stipulate that it is the cache owners responsibility to delete bogus logs as part of maintaining the cache. Groundspeak has even taken this a step further by asking reviewers to archive virtual caches which are not properly being maintained (mostly caches that allow other log log the cache without any sort of verification that they visited the cache). However, some cachers will allow people to log a find a cache when for one reason or another a finder of the cache couldn't sign the log. At the end of the day, it's between the person that (alledgedly) found the cache and the cache owner as to whats deemed acceptable proof that the cache was found. What you're asking though is the opinion of those about cache which you do not own, and again, I think the consensus is that it is not something that they would condone but most of the responses suggest that the issue is between the cache owner and the person posting the bogus logs. Yes, it may be annoying to see someone posting bogus logs on caches that they haven't found but it's still up to the CO owner as to whether any action should be taken. Some of the responses have agreed that the practice of logging caches that you haven't actually found *is* cheating but it's more like cheating at solitaire than it is cheating on a spouse. Cheating at solitaire or how they're playing the geocaching game is only cheating themselves. It doesn't hurt other cachers in anyway. It doesn't change your find count. It shouldn't change how much enjoyment you get finding the same cache or others. If someone that was logging bogus finds on caches came here gloating about how many caches they have found and it was discovered that they really didn't find those caches you can bet that there would be a lot of responses less than complimentary. If it seems that many of the responses don't seem to be expressing the amount of concern that you have about the practice it just may be that most of them are coming from people that have been playing the game a long time and have seen it all before and come to realize that, as in any game, some people just lack integrity for how it's played, but won't let it impact the enjoyment they get out it personally. Thank you for an intelligent, balanced, and insightful post. I think this would be a good place to sign off, and officially declare this topic as being at the point of beating a dead horse. I must say, though, this entire thread is why I went to the reviewer in the first place, rather than the Forums. There is way too much drama on here. It would have been nice to have had more level-headed input from people such as yourself, ohmerfam's original reply, GeoBain, uxorious, kmartcachier, BCProspectors, Setan Meyacha, Max and 99, Colonial Cats, dorqie, microvision, and Minimike2. Thank you for participating in my "poll" and not judging me, rather than addressing the topic. Moving on, and off to go caching and have some fun today.

Thank you. And you don't have to have hidden any caches to know the difference between right from wrong. Yes, i DO have caches hidden and are in review. I, for one, decided to have at least 100 finds before hiding any caches to avoid making any rookie mistakes. Thanks for not looking down your nose at me. Oh, wait ... too late. My goodness! I think you have completely misunderstood my response! It came on the heels of someone suggesting that you shouldn't have a say in this thread because you currently don't have a caches showing as hidden. I think that is outrageous! I was defending the value of your opinion on here! How in the world did you get that I was looking down my nose at you? Not at all! I was doing just the opposite! Good luck with your new caches!

Finally, someone has hit the nail on the head! Although, I think the word "interpreting" is a bit of a stretch. It seems to me that this practice calls for an "absolutely not," but that's just my opinion. Thanks for your two cents.

Thanks for the very helpful reply... not!

It has been mentioned several times that this is not a question for a reviewer. Just out of curiosity, and bearing in mind that the Forums are strictly a compendium of opinions, who does one go to with GS when one has a controversial question that needs addressing? contact@Groundspeak.com is one place Thanks!

It has been mentioned several times that this is not a question for a reviewer. Just out of curiosity, and bearing in mind that the Forums are strictly a compendium of opinions, who does one go to with GS when one has a controversial question that needs addressing?

Here's some more food for thought on this topic. Right now, as this thread is taking place, there is another thread going on with many unhappy cachers because GS won't sanction an app for the Android phone. Perfect example of my point. Is it really more important for them to be spending time and sanctioning energy on how cachers are finding caches so they can go geocaching, than it is for them to look at situations where cachers are fraudulently logging caches that they didn't find? When did the method of access to a game become more important than the game itself?

... And I'm not upset about it... just curious. And I've also decided what to do regarding the situation I recently saw, so I'm not asking for advice. Just opinions about why Groundspeak would not have a Guideline about it. That's all. So, now that we have the record straight on that...

Some of these posts are getting the question of the day. Good for you to at least answer the question. The irony in all of this is that I'm not even perturbed about the practice! A better word would be incredulous that it would be condoned to claim a find without finding it! This all started out to simply be a poll of level-headed opinions about how one views a cacher who would cheat, and that Groundspeak doesn't seem to have any specific guideline or rule in place that states that the cache must be found for it to be considered a "find." There are specific guidelines for rating Difficulty and Terrain, about saturation, etc. Yet no guideline that simply says, "A person must physically find a cache, and sign the log as proof of the find before logging the find on the website." Bigger deals are made on how close containers can be in multi's, getting permission from Forest Service land, etc. Isn't this worthy of a guideline? That's all... just a poll.

Sigh... The issue is that a reviewer stated that is was "probably not" okay to log a find when the cacher didn't even find the cache. Does anyone agree that it is cheating for someone to just go on the computer and log finds without going out and finding the cache? That is the question here folks! Please, can we put the log signing issues aside? (To myself... I knew I should have called this thread something else...) ("God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change...." )

Thank you. And you don't have to have hidden any caches to know the difference between right from wrong.

Okay, I knew this was going to happen. Would everyone please read my entire post before responding? Secondly, maybe it's because I'm not feeling well this morning, and I'm a little cranky, but I personally think the expression, "getting your panties in a wad" is rude. I wonder what the male equivalent to that would be? Maybe "Get your jockstrap all tied up?" Once again, the question of the day folks is not really about not signing the logs. It's about cachers who don't even go out and find the cache and then log a find. Now, are you actually going to tell me that someone pointing out that this cheating is being, more or less, condoned is just fine and dandy? This probably wasn't a good day for me to start this thread...

We recently had a situation come up that we had never heard of, let alone thought might be acceptable. We had placed a cache, and it had been logged on the site as having been found once. When the second person found the cache, he mentioned that there was no signature on the log sheet in the cache. For discussion purposes of this thread, let's forget the FTF issue. I know that Groundspeak does not get involved in that, and doesn't want to discuss it. Non-issue. We, as relative newcomers to geocaching, have taken it for granted that signing the log sheet is part of the find. Heck, it's even in the little video they made to describe the game! However, I have had several back and forths with a reviewer who, if I am reading his responses correctly, make this out to be just a part of the game, and that I should just chill. To back track a little, I should mention that my first email from the reviewer mentioned that this cacher had logged three other finds in the same area as our cache that same day (as if this somehow validated that he had actually been there.) Just out of curiosity, and because we are very close to the other two caches that were found by this cacher that day, we went to those caches and looked at their logs, and they were not signed by this cacher either. (And, yes, I wrote a very polite note to the cacher explaining that we didn't see his signature in the log, and could he please let us know, for the purposes of other cachers who were a little peeved by this, to let us know what happened. We have never received a response.) When I brought this point up to the reviewer, his response was, "Is it OK to log online if you did not visit a cache? Probably not. Is it something to fret over? No." Probably not???! How about NOT! I just don't get this, and if I'm out in left field, I welcome a different viewpoint, but how in the world is it okay to sit at home and log finds on your computer without actually going out and finding them? And please... no comments about, well maybe he didn't have a pen with him, or you don't really know if that is what happened. THIS thread is about one question, and one question only. Is it okay for a cacher to claim a find without really finding it? A secondary question might be, is it okay for a cacher to go around making finds, and being too lazy to open the cache and sign the log? But that's really where the "chill" part comes in. I get that this is going to happen, we're dealing with the masses, etc., etc., and it's a waste of energy for me, personally, to "fret over." But to not even find the cache? Awhile ago, I asked a question about something I thought was equally unscrupulous, and the thread was bombarded with outraged responses. It was about COs who deliberately put out coordinates that are "off" to make the find more difficult. If all of you think that is unethical, how could it even be considered remotely okay for cachers to log finds without getting their butt out of their easy chair at home? I would really think that this crosses the line from just being unethical, to an outright violation of the guidelines/rules of the game. Now I will sit back and see what everyone else thinks.

I'll second this one. Either something useful for an adult (simple is fine... one we kept was a cute Christmas ornament) or something nice enough that we would feel comfortable using it as a trade item to pass on. And I'll say it again... stuff for adults!!! I'm so sick of finding rubber snakes!

I don't know if you caught this in the above posts, but the proposed place for the third cache is in a historic place that is not visible from any street. You would have to be led there, and it wouldn't be a matter of just adding another cache to explore the area. One wouldn't find this unless they had something (like a geocache) to bring them there. The other two caches are very different. Kinda "park 'n grabs" with no real significance to the area.

Had never known this existed! Thanks! What a cool way to do a cache anytime, not just for a problem situation!

As mentioned above, we worked that out. But thanks!

I don't recognize that one-Airplane? And please don't call me Shirley. No... sorry to say that was from "The Life of Mrs. Desert Trailblazers." Didn't you see that one? It was a huge hit at the box office!

Now see? That makes sense!! I knew there had to be some sort of concession for something like that! Now all I need is to go get myself a river to put between these two caches!!

Okay, I'll bite... Huh?? Relates to post #33 and as the crow flies and coconuts. In Monty Python And The Holy Grail,the birds were swallows and coconuts were involved. >>> the lady in the lake and swords is an oblique reference to Sir Lancelot etc. etc. I am not a devotee of the Holy Grail, however, I am studying the movie gathering clues for a puzzle cache in Santa Cruz, Calif. Called, you guessed it, Monty Python And The Holy Grail. Aren't you sorry you bit? I am sorry I opened that particular cache page and now the sucker is poking me real hard. LOL, LOL. Naw! My mother always agonized over the horrible things I must have been "learning" hanging around a bunch of crusty old pilots in an airplane hangar all the time, at the tender age of 15! Of course, she was right, and I got the reference that could involve a lady, sword, etc. but the lake threw me! Okay, now I think this thread is beginning to really deteriorate (or would degenerate be more appropo? ) Are we allowed to have fun on these threads, or are we supposed to keep it all business? Just in case, I will mention that you gave a great idea for a puzzle cache with the whole movie theme as the foundation! (Uh, oh... now I'm off-topic.) I better shut up before I get myself into more trouble.

Just recently, I have seen/heard several situations of people deliberately marking their coordinates away from the actual cache, just to throw people off and make the cache harder to find. Is this ethical, legal, devious but okay? What is the consensus? Thank for any input.