Jeep_Dog

Had a great power day back in February. Was a little disappointed, since I had intended to only log one cache that day, but accidently logged two. I hate when that happens. Spent 10 hours on this cache: GC11MQ0. Powerful, indeed.

Kit Fox, that is probably more poignant than anything I have seen lately. It now takes me an inordinate amount of time to find appropriate and meaningful caches when I am doing the activity as a family-oriented event. Just because a location could have a cache doesn't mean it has to have a cache. For the likes of me, I do not understand why some folks feel the need to place caches - to stroke their egos that they "own" something in geocaching? Anyhow, back to the topic at hand - 1) The standards do seem to be slipping; 2) Cache owners are allowing "bogus" logs despite agreeing to the guidelines each time they submit a cache or update the cache that they will not allow such "bogus" activities; 3) TPTB will not usurp cache owner hegemony, which seems the only way to police up caches owned by folks who refuse to enforce the guidelines. 4) The problem seems as if it will not go away since neither the collective whole of cache owners nor the listing site will take responsibility to enforce the written standards (our espoused values). When groups' actions in practice do not meet espoused values, failure normally follows. What will the failure for geocaching be? Hard to tell.

Personally, I wouldn't claim FTF on a cache with a previous finder, regardless of a change in coords or container. Caches get shifted and replaced all the time. I've moved and replaced many of mine. If someone wants to make a FTF claim on being the first to sign the new log in the new container, fine by me. Second that motion. I wouldn't claim an FTF on a previously found cache. For me, I keep track of caches where I was indeed the first to find it - without previous hiders. If someone else claims an 'FTF' on one of those same caches, I could still care a less. The logbook shows the truth. I could care a less who claims "FTF" on any of my caches, wither it is the actual first finder or the 100th finder. On one of my caches a couple of years ago had a family log the cache, where the adults had separate accounts, the children had no accounts. This family had a nice habit of saying "XYZ in party was FTF on this one," meaning that person in the group was the one to find it first (they all looked away or walked away until others in the group also found it). Now, some folks got all ansgty over these "FTF" logs, and got irritated at me for not deleting it. First, I could care a less who claims an FTF on my caches, second - even if I did, this log made sense. There was nothing "bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements" for the cache. Now, if the guidelines ever add an "official" FTF log/icon, with guidelines outlining this (sheesh, I sure hope this does NOT happen), then I'll begrudginly care about the FTF side of cache maintenance. In the case of OP's hide - I agree with countless others. If it is a new hide, then re-list it. If it is the same hide (same spirit, general location), I wouldn't consider a new "FTF," so would not offer that up as a "bonus," but neither would a delete an FTF log on it. Like others have said - it is your cache, do with it as you like.

Uh, THEY ALREADY HAVE. If you want a chuckle, click on the one captioned "The Plaque in Infamy", then go on to the logging requirement of a "certificate." Get a deeper chuckle understanding that the "certificate requirement" really isn't a requirement, but a myth for that cache that began as dry humor as to a way to log this cache from afar....

First, I give you a standing ovation for keeping up with your cache. One of the bigger questions in this discussion is where in the daylights are all the other virtual cache owners who are allowing this practice in spades across the US?!?!?!? Right - there are those that say "blah blah blah, play your game, let others play theirs, and shut up!", but sadly sometimes these things CAN be bothersome. For example, in December I logged the Buffalo Soldiers monument in Kansas - I've known the "answer" to the logging requirement for years, since I was a Squadron XO in the 10th Cavalry. Yet, I waited until I got back to the momunent to visit it before logging the cache. Two days later, in came the "greetings from Germany, I'm logging this cache." Alright, after taking some of Keystone's Chemical X, I am over it and not letting them detract from *my* experience and find. All this being said, I think, in answer to your "right?" question, that the guidelines "Virtual Caches... are special categories of caches that ask the seeker to find a pre-existing item to log" implies an actual visit to the virtual location. Makes sense to me. However, the guidelines only imply this, and do not say it outright. Then, let's confuse the matter even more by saying "logging a virtual cache find requires compliance with the requirements stated by the owner, including answering the required questions by e-mail to the owner, providing original photos if so requested, etc. Answers to questions, hints or clues should not be placed in the logs, even if encrypted." So, if your "requirement" is "send me the answer to XYZ,", then some could interpret that sending you the answer is your only "requirement." In other words, I can understand how they are confused. Yet, to me, it is obvious - visit the coordinates, get the answer! However, perhaps the quotes above or idiomatic when translated or something - beats me as to how this can be confusing, but apparently it is! Unfortunately, and as terribly sad as this truth is (and I am saddened that we have gotten to this point), you probably do need to stipulate "go to the posted coordinates, visit the site, and provide XYZ answer (or other logging requirement)." Perhaps Groundspeak demonstrated some wisdom in eliminating this category....

Yeah, that's exactly what I did - although I did not make any assumptions about muggles being the cause. As brother Isonzo Karst pointed out, believe it or not I've taken this all with a grain of salt, especially given the two folks have a low find count (and one of them claimed a second "find" on this, a second visit). I'm merely trying to promote a discussion that this could be a more open-minded activity if we simply state facts as opposed to making assumptions. Indeed, as I point one finger at someone else this is an experiential lesson where I note that by that act I am pointing three fingers back at myself. At any rate, I would love to have a few doses of Keystone's Chemical X - that man is like a tephlon coated, silicon sprayed, and kevlar-wearing duck!

Well, if you indeed found it a certain way.....then placed it back that way, and that way was exposed....what would be incorrect about the above statement. Could you be taking this a TAD personally? What assumptions are you making? I assume that the problem isn't that it was out in the open, but that the person assumed (or appeared to assume) it was the previous cacher who'd left it out. Precisely. Thank you for noticing the point I was trying to make. It has nothing to do with the container that was left in the open, but the assumption about the previous cacher (in this case, it is me, but I've seen other logs like this that bother me that do not involve me, but did not feel at liberty to use one of those as an "example"). In the case of this cache, folks, it is a magnetic altoids tin on a metal object. The lid on the tin is not doing so well (loose), and there are somewhat limited places to put the cache horizontally with the lid facing up. Indeed, there are a couple places somewhat more "discreet," but this location and where the cache is hidden does not scream "here I am!" Who knows how the cache was originally hidden but for the cache owner - the last time the cache owner signed the log book was 18 months prior, and at that visit left a note in the log that they took an MGA coin out of the cache and never logged it out online. So, I'll say it again - is a log of "previous cacher left this in the open" really necessary or even helpful? Would it not be better to simply say "cache is in the open, we re-hid it more discreetly, and emailing the owner as to details of the hiding spot?"

Well, sometimes I am just aghast. Why do folks have to make assumptions about others without difinitive proof? I have seen an increase in the number of such assumptive logs in the last 6 or so months. For example, this said following a one of my recent finds: "Found this one this morning with my Battle Buddy ... The previous cacher left it completely exposed so we re-stashed it. [buddy] also left a travel gnome in it. Enjoy." Here's some of the rest of the story- I am ALWAYS very careful with replacing a cache hide exactly the way I found it. If I find anything out of the ordinary, I state as such in the log or email a cache owner. The only exceptions to hiding a cache differently than I found it is like a somewhat close cache to the one above - where a cache is obviously dislodged (in the case to the follow-on cache to the one above, the cache was on the way down a mountain). At any rate, some assumptions are made in the above log with which I disagree: 1) They assume the cache should be hidden differently; 2) They assume that they have a better hiding method than the owner intends; 3) They assume that the previous cacher has been the cause of #1 and/or #2. No, my "feelings" are not hurt about the above incident. I am truly concerned about such logs, when it is just as easy to objectively state "we are not sure about the cache hiding spot, as we found it in an exposed position, so we rehid it. Hiding technique being emailed to the owner."

Do people have problems with the these gates? I have a Stargate Cache nearby. A bug will only be moved to another gate if "orders" are requested to do so. Normally, I notice a TB or Coin that has a far destination as a mission (such as a Technology Student bug I picked up that wanted the bug to move outside the U.S.), I will note when I "grab" the bug in the log where I intend to take the bug, and give it orders at a stargate to XYZ, and if the owner wishes otherwise, then let me know. Also, a TB owner still can cancel "orders" if they request. Overall, I've seen positive feedback and experiences with the local Stargate Cache. Here's the specifics from a Stargate Page: If a TB is left at this cache with a valid Stargate address, the TB will be transported to that specified Stargate TB Cache (for example: if “P3898” is included in the log entry or on a physical note attached to the TB, that TB will arrive at the Stargate P3898 TB Cache). If the TB is left without a valid Stargate address, or has an invalid address, it will be transported to a cache that best advances its goal (in the cache owner’s opinion). If travel via the Stargate Network will hinder the TB's goal(s), the TB's travel orders will be revoked. If a TB owner doesn’t want their TB to travel the Stargate network, quickly contact me (drossdross) and I’ll revoke its traveling orders. If the cacher dropping off the TB doesn’t want the TB to travel the Stargate network, include this information in the cache log (both paper and web). The TB will be assigned local support duty.

No, I have never stumbled upon one (although your link has given me great lat/lon ideas to place caches - if only Groundspeak would get over this quirky notion of considering military installations as against the guidelines ). However - There I sat in October of 2004 with some of my Delta Mind-Controlled soldiers as I was ensuring they were loaded upon a "craft" at our saucer base (Fort Hood, TX, TX, 31° 15'N 97° 48' W) when a "geocacher" stumbled upon me (seeking what I know today as a "Locationless (Reverse) Cache" type) and my gloriously clandestine attempt to win the War on Terror. I immediately had two of my Delta Mind-Controlled killers dispatch of that "geocacher" (I found out he was a "geocacher" when I put my alien laser annhilator type 2 weapon to his head, he cracked easier than a waterboarded Letterboxer), since I did not recognize codename "Geocacher," and my book of Alien Regulations, AR 51, Section 1034, Paragraph XX, Subparagraph XXa, part XIV, instruction 669 clearly states "immediately dispatch - meaning cause the silence of, meaning, of course, preventing future life - of any individual or group of individuals (known as "geoherders") who utter a Codename of which you do not recognize." Since this "geocacher" seemed related to the regulatory "geoherder," the dispatching was carried forward postwit. Upon investigation of this person's Magellan GPS unit, I espied a "waypoint" entered as "GC4675." Not recognizing what I assumed to be a waypoint code for the "enemy." I googled "GC4675" and immediately turned up a "Geocache." For a nanosecond I regretted the "dispatch" of the Geocacher, upon learning of the innocent activity lacking nefarious intent for this lost soul, but then realized he had seen far too much and the "dispatch" procedure would be called for in the next instruction 670. At any rate, I became hugely interested in geocaching, and that is how I became a geocacher myself. (oh dear. It just occurred to me that I shall probably be chastized once again by eagletrek for giving away Ft. Hood secrets!) I would heartily recommend avoiding cache placement or seeking a cache in any of the underground alien bases, such as the one at aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Here's the text taken verbatim from the cache in question >> Based on that, I'd say you would be well within your right, to delete the additional logs, should you choose to do so, since they are "not within the stated requirements" as outlined in the guidelines. In my opinion, this is not a question of "cheating," rather, a matter of a "bogus" logs needing deletion due to violation of the stated cache requirements.

1) Is there such a thing as "cheating" in geocaching? 2) Did you state the ALR of actually requiring to solve the puzzle for each person who logs the cache? If not, then they abided by the "take something from the cache, leave something in the cache, write about it in the logbook" basic rules.

Yeah, I have lost my Jeep on several occasions. Below is part of a log entry where I lost my Jeep only 100' away! The partial log, the full log at this link: Well, Jeep and I got pretty close, but I still had to walk just a wee bit, since I didn't feel like buffing out cedar scratches from my clear coat this weekend. GPSr zeroed out, no cache. Uh-oh, perhaps I didn't remember the code as well as I thought I had? There I stood, scratching my head, wishing I had transcribed the code on something (like my paws), to re-crack it. As I pondered my stupidity, I spied the cache. Ah-ha! Horray for my memory. Quiet spot, fun cache! TNLNSL. LOL. This is the second time in Copperas Cove area where I managed to loose my Jeep 100 ft from a cache. Now I understand why my wife wonders just how I manage to get by in life. The trees and the proximity of the vehicle created an interesting effect in that the mapping function and reverse route wasn't exactly helpful. Not to fear, I did remember to bring my keys along. I always wondered what I could do with the "panic" function on my Jeep's alarm system. Now I know.... when I loose my Jeep in the woods, PANIC works well (although I wasn't quite panicked, per se). BEEP BEEP BEEP went trusty Jeep, beckoning to me to come back... alas, there it sat, lights blaring, horn honking. As if the bright silver paint job wasn't a dead give-away. Disgraceful as that refinding of the Jeep went, it was successful, and I felt very clever indeed.

?? Uh, it looks like a duck. It sounds like a duck. EM R DUCKS! Oze R not! Em R two! See um WANGS? Ell I'll bee. Em R DUCKS! Those telephone spoilers are still spoilers. It is a duck.

I completely agree with the position outlined in OP. I vehemently disagree with Anaheim Hider's reasoning for deleting the log, and furthermore find that reasoning ludicrous. The cache owner's purview on this reigns supreme, unfortunately, and their bogus opinion trumps all of the others' stated here for that particular cache. Personally, the only time I would delete ANY log would be in the case of "any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements." In fact, I cannot remember ever deleting a log. I had considered it once on a "I forgot to bring a pen to sign the log" online found log - sent an email to the finder, asked them to return to the cache and sign, and that if I did not see their name in the log next maintenance run (within a month), I would delete their online log. The cache came up missing, so I gave them the benefit of the doubt (actually, I strongly suspected them of taking the cache in revenge for my email). That's the only deletion action I can even remember on my caches. At any rate, have you considered a bookmark list that is titled "MY DNFs" and making it a public list? That is one aspect of your caching experience and this cache that you CAN control.

The ULTIMATE vehicle TB that is owned by friend Gimli - Bummer. When I encountered this at the Second Annual Combat Cacher's Reunion, I forgot to get the number to enter a "discovered" log. I generally do not "discover" TBs or coins, but this one would have been the exception.

I got here during the first Jeep TB - YJTB - and the associated link off Jeep's Community page. Hey, the link is STILL there. Cool for GC.COM. Jeep's Community Page I just noticed something interesting on that page when I dug up the link - Jeep is now calling Jeep Gear and accessories (clothing, et cetera) "swag." Far out.

Man, same here. This blew my mind. In addition, I am not sure what makes this "old school." I only started in 2004, and have done plenty above 6,000 ft. I plan on doing two above 6000 on Jan 1 or 2. I can see how higher terrain (or caches requiring a hike) caches can be considered "old school," but the fact remains there are more of these types today than in 2001! One merely has to filter out the micro 1/1.5 caches, et voila! On a side note - altitude sickness usually begins around 8,000 ft. "Altitude sickness occurs when you cannot get enough oxygen from the air at high altitudes. This causes symptoms such as a headache and not feeling like eating. It happens most often when people who are not used to high altitudes go quickly from lower altitudes to 8000 ft or higher." - Web MD edit: took out an extra ""

I claim a new find on Virtuals in Germany and Austria each time I look up the information on the Internet (or, in one case, look at an uploaded photo that is a spoiler). I always wondered if this was a kosher form of caching, and now I know it is. Thank you.

As a lead-in, I will restate the following - Perhaps this cache in question has nothing to do with control. Perhaps it has to do with the responsiblity TO geocaching and others that each of us theoretically should bring to the activity to maintain healthy relationships and community image. I believe the difference in opinions on this topic boil down to many in disagreement to the OP see listing a geocache on this site as a privilege, not as an innate geocaching right. Yes, you read that right. I think listing a cache here a privilege, and will continue to think of it as such.

In my experience, control of something and responsibility are not related. Perhaps I am jaded from my profession, where I have many responsibilities but little control over much of that for which I am responsible. An example that comes to mind is being a parent. I recently realized that responsibility can have a huge difference in meaning if you look at it as a "responsibility for" or a "responsibility to." Sure, I can control my children in every move they make, and ensuring the outcome of their future and behaviors. This is probably taking responsibility "for." Yet, is it not better to have a responsibility "to" them, by teaching them the values adults need in life, such as weighing outcomes, taking responsibility "for" their actions, having responsibility to others in a community, and making their own decisions? I can hardly teach/mentor them toward this endstate by controlling them. Perhaps this cache in question has nothing to do with control. Perhaps it has to do with the responsiblity to geocaching and others that each of us theoretically should bring to the activity to maintain healthy relationships and community image.

Not too bright muggles, but very kind and considerate. I'll take kind and considerate over brains any day. Hey! I always wondered why they have "to reduce confusion and alarm when a cache is discovered accidentally, clearly label your container on the outside with appropriate information to say it is a geocache" as part of guidelines. It all makes sense now.

I have always respected your posts and opinions in the three years I have visited these forums. However, the comments you made concern me considerably. The fact remains, the guidelines state "the cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings." Regardless of archive circumstances, it is still your listing! I do not follow the logic of violating the "in the event that a cache ... has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time" part of the guidelines with the subsequent follow-on consequence as advertised "we may archive or transfer the listing" magically transfers the responsibility to a Reviewer. Responsibility has to stay with the listing owner, since anyone who decides to quit could easily put all their caches to "disabled", await archival, and "not worry" about cleaning up what is now litter. In short, I disagree vehemently with the attidue expressed above. A newer cacher could read this, coming from a "charter member," and believe this attitude and passing of responsibilities as appropriate. I do not think this is in line with the greater caching community's culture.

Yup, same here. I think that is a great rule of thumb. However, a look at my stats will show that there are two less "unique" hides than found logs. This was on one cache that moved (but not a moving cache) - the first time, .24 from the original spot with a new container, the second time .26 from the second spot, different hide and container again. Edit add: In my first year of caching I took an additional "smiley credit" for solving a puzzle or answering a question, et cetera, as offered on cache pages (seemed a popular option back then). Then, I did not know any better. However, I have long since removed the "extra" smiley for those types by changing the log from "found" to "note." Personally, if I move a cache more than 528 feet and use a new container, I archive the old cache cache and submit a new cache listing, since I truly think such a move is a different and unique container. I feel this type of responsible cache ownership takes away the angst/worry/moral/ethical concerns of finders.

I believe placing a quality cache requires some or all of the following: a creative idea (combining container and unique location) common sense (ability to think through second and third order of effects) understanding the guidelines (the "rules" of the game) experience Generally speaking, it seems good caches were placed with at least three of the four above applied. Average caches at least 2 of the 4. Lack of experience (below "100 cache finds" as defined by you - although I would state that I had as much "experience" at 40 finds as I garnered by 500 finds - each person and area is different) can easily by made up for by someone who thoroughly understands the guidelines, has superb common sense, and applies creativity to their hide. Take someone without common sense and never reads "rules," and you are correct - coupled with lack of experience, the only thing they may have going for them is a creative idea (resulting in a great cache that lasts little over 80 days then gets washed away during the first flood, for example). Experience is good, but I too have seen an experienced cachers (above 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 1000 cache finds) who lacks creativity, common sense, and amazingly cannot articulate the guidelines place really awful caches! 100 caches is sage advice to someone lacking attributes/abilities in the other areas. Yet, each person must judge themselves. Then, there's those that will only learn by "doing" (indeed, experiential learning is the quickest for a majority of folks in western society), so sage advice is also "get out there and start placing." As you plan the cache, ask yourself "would I enjoy finding this cache, or am I placing it just to place a cache since that activity gives me self-worth in seeing my name on a cache page?" I never place a cache for my benefit. I place caches for the benefit of others. That particular outlook seems to net decent cache placements. The best advice? A combination of Alabama Rambler, WSR, and Starbrand - When placing a cache you should not be selfish, know yourself, know the guidelines - and have fun!