BelKen

In Australia yesterday a 6 year old boy was killed by a train. Witnesses have come forward after his death and they are able to piece together his movements in the 90 minutes he was missing including a near miss accident with a car 1 hr before he died. He was seen wandering the train tracks by at least three witnesses. No-one it seems made any phone call until they heard of his death. I would rather a phone call was made and all was found Ok than the above incident.

By the very definition of FtF. First to Find, "beta testers" not only count but it is just simply an indisputable fact. First to find is a binary condition, either you are or you are not. If getting an FTF is important to you, something that does not make sense to many, it would be very hollow indeed if it was awarded to you rather than earned simply because you were given the coords by a source or listing service other than the CO. What about puzzle caches? If a CO just gives the coords to a beta-tester to test the coordinates then how is that fair to a non-beta tester who has to solve a difficult puzzle to get the cache? FTF is not a binary condition, it is also not a dictionary defined term either. For example what about group FTFs and shared FTFs? FTFs are for fun and not an official part of geocaching. There is wiggle room but there is also, I believe, a "code of honor". What if I were just out hiking in the woods and I found the final to an unfound 5 star puzzle but had never looked at the cache page previously? I would still be the FTF on the cache. I'm not sure where the confusion lies. If there is another signature in the logbook, you're not FTF. Seems pretty cut and dried. How/when that signature got there makes no difference. If you want to know about FTF then maybe you should ask a FTF hound. Asking the people in here that say they don't participate in this side game is a bit useless. You have the FTF and the beta testers can log whenever they want. The order of logs is not an indication. Their signature in the logbook is not an indication. Publication date and time is important.

These cover what you need to do if you wish to list a cache on this site. Some of us don't exactly believe that they form any complete list of guidelines to geocaching. Having said that the person/s who put the mentioned site together has even less relevance to geocaching in my eyes.

edited to remove link

Yep it doesn't take long for anything posted on this forum to implode this is why I have chosen to take it off my watch list we just wanted to share our experience but I'm outta here. Scubasonic The world is a pretty big place. The title of the thread says Newest World Record. Yet in the body of the text it says ET trail record breaking run. If the silly claim of world record was left off these threads then maybe they may not cause as much angst. I enjoy reading about people doing amazing things. The mechanics behind doing the power trail are interesting. Not my cup of tea though. I can live with people doing their thing. Its just the claim of some World record that gets my back up. Leave that out and let us all read about the ET power trail record, or the blink method record etc

US$4.00 is about $3.80 australian at the moment isn't it.

Its silly to think there was a world record.

It actually got silly ftom the opening post. Claiming a world record is silly.

Actually the puritan point of view is that the things they found are not geocaches. Therefore they are not geocaching therefore they can log and do as they wish but certainly not claim a geocaching record. Oops. edited to add the smiley to soften the blow. Ah! But the puritan view is that they are geocaches. They are listed on Geocaching.com, each with its own GC number. They meet all the guidelines for a geocache. If they we setting a record by posting finds for each stage of multi or by attending an event addtional times for each temporary cache, the puritans would say they were not geocaching. Perhaps we need a different epithet for those who think the so-called power trail caches should not be approved. Perhaps reactionary - describing someone who objects to a change in the guidelines they didn't like - or revisionist for insisting on a narrow view of geocaching and ignoring any changes that have occurred in the guidelines that they object to. OK. I'm not puritan then. Just puritan leanings. Given what you said above you going to hate analysing the subculture I belong to. Just to give you a hint. I would enjoy doing this run. Probably when I get tired of geocaching. They meet all the guidelines to be listed on geocaching.com as a cache. edited to add Maybe a kanutist

Actually the puritan point of view is that the things they found are not geocaches. Therefore they are not geocaching therefore they can log and do as they wish but certainly not claim a geocaching record. Oops. edited to add the smiley to soften the blow.

Disclaimer:Quoting barn owl is not meant as an argument with an individual its just that the view expressed here is nearly opposite of my own so it forms the basis of my post. I always believed that the cache was hidden from muggles not fellow geocachers. When I hunt a cache it is an exclusive game between me and the hider. All others are excluded until I find and then we share our experiences with others. I have introduced muggles to the game but they are known to me and led down the path in an orderly manner. If I have been "caught" searching then I feel that as a geocacher I have failed. The trick is to find, retrieve, log and return the cache without getting caught. Many techniques can be used.

Neither is important as such. The hider is the only one that can make the rules regarding their cache providing those rules don't go outside the TOU or cache listing guidelines. The finder only has their log that must comply with the TOU. hmmm, you say neither is important as such. Then you state the hider "makes the rules", and the finder "must comply" I am sure that Plantation Masters felt the same way. If a cache owner makes a rule that is valid and then polices it then yes the finder must comply. If a cache owner chooses no rules and allows all comers then the finder can do as they wish. Then there is the varying degrees in the middle. Reread what I said in that post and my original. I meant that I believe a cache owner has the right to make the rule. I believe that signing the log is important and would delete bogus logs but I rarely check logbooks with online logs. Interpret that to mean that whilst I think its important to sign the log I don't police it. My second statement said that the finders logs must comply with the TOU (of the GC.com site ). If you think GC.com as a Plantation Manager then so be it. So you disgaree with me and believe that someone is more important. Who would you say is the most important? Cache owners shouldn't be making up rules. They used to be allowed to make rules for logging caches. These were called additional logging requirements The guidelines were changed to eliminate these made up rules. They added a guideline saying that the geocache could logged as found online once the physical log was signed (and any additional requirement ignored). I believe the general intent is that a Found log should be allowed when the cache is found. However Groundspeak did not want to tell cache owners they had to accept the word of finder on this. They also did not want cache owners to require proof a find by a photograph or by emailing a code word written in the cache. So they left the signed physical log book as the accepted verification that you found a cache. Finders were told to sign the log in order to verify that they found the cache. In that respect, cache owners can delete finds if the physical log was not signed. If a log appears bogus, cache owners should delete it. If it is a legitimate find and the finder signed the physical log (and the cache or log has not gone missing or otherwise become unreadable) the finder can always say that he signed the log. Then the owner (or the next finder) can verify the log is signed and the delete log can be reinstated. If the log does not appear bogus, the cache owner should not be deleting logs. Usually, if someone logs that they found the cache but were not able to sign and gives the reason the log would not appear bogus. If the OP's logs say he went on a hike and signed some logs but then stop signing logs because it took too much time, it may in fact appear as if the logs where he did not sign were bogus. So a cache owner could legitimately delete these without needing to make up a rule. However a cacher who went to look for a cache and didn't have anything to sign the log with, but who discovered a travel bug that was in the cache or took a picture of the cache hands would appear to have a legitimate find. Cache owners who delete this log because the finder didn't sign are making up a rule (IMO). Obviously most cases fall somewhere in between. The cache owner is given some freedom to make judgments as to whether a log is bogus or not. The rule I keep referring to is as you stated. A signed log is verification of a find. The rest of what you said. I thought I said, in less words. However on an earlier [point regarding rules as such or it could be called conditions ie climb a tree rapel a cliff) providing the rule/condition does not violate the TOU and cache guidleines then it is ok. This is where the spirit of geocaching gets stretched. If the rules as people are apt to quote do not appear in those two documents then they are not rules as per listing caches on this site. IMHO

Clearly the finder. I do assume that you place a cache to be found? Don't assume that either the finder or the owner can do whatever they want on this site. Push it outside the guidelines and you are out of the game. I assume the finder wants to find something? Without a cache he is going for a walk as the OP is. And your out of this site the game can continue without Groundspeak.

Neither is important as such. The hider is the only one that can make the rules regarding their cache providing those rules don't go outside the TOU or cache listing guidelines. The finder only has their log that must comply with the TOU. hmmm, you say neither is important as such. Then you state the hider "makes the rules", and the finder "must comply" I am sure that Plantation Masters felt the same way. If a cache owner makes a rule that is valid and then polices it then yes the finder must comply. If a cache owner chooses no rules and allows all comers then the finder can do as they wish. Then there is the varying degrees in the middle. Reread what I said in that post and my original. I meant that I believe a cache owner has the right to make the rule. I believe that signing the log is important and would delete bogus logs but I rarely check logbooks with online logs. Interpret that to mean that whilst I think its important to sign the log I don't police it. My second statement said that the finders logs must comply with the TOU (of the GC.com site ). If you think GC.com as a Plantation Manager then so be it. So you disgaree with me and believe that someone is more important. Who would you say is the most important?

Neither is important as such. The hider is the only one that can make the rules regarding their cache providing those rules don't go outside the TOU or cache listing guidelines. The finder only has their log that must comply with the TOU.

Not sure what a "robo-puritan" is, but I found this fact.... From http://www.geocaching.com/faq/default.aspx What are the rules in Geocaching? 1. If you take something from the cache, leave something of equal or greater value. 2. Write about your find in the cache logbook. 3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com. These look like pretty simple rules to me....or am I missing something? You didn't miss anything and that point has been made to Tozainamboku several times. Nothing you say will change his mind. There is a problem in reading something into the so-called the "rules" in the FAQ that is not there in the first place. First of all, these rules in the FAQ are meant to a be a short concise description of geocaching. They originally came from Dave Ulmer's instructions for the first cache that someone has already posted earlier in this thread so I won't repeat them here. Dave's instructions - and for many years the version on Geocaching.com as well - made no mention at all about logging online at Geocaching.com. At some point a few years ago, Groundspeak decided the "rules" needed some modification. They combined the rules about taking something and leaving something to stress the idea of trading up. They also made the trading rule conditional (though I think it already was understood to be so) because some puritans were attempting to use the rules to say that log only micros were not geocaches. Since three rules are better than two rules, they added a rule about logging your experience online. No place in the rules do they say that they have to be done in order or that doing one is dependent on having done another. You basically have to find a cache before you can do 1 or 2. It would be hard to trade items or sign the physical cache without first having found the container. But certainly some people will sign the log before they start looking for items to trade. Rule number 3 can be done without even finding the cache. If you don't find the cache, you can still log your experience online. Everyone should agree that a DNF log is logging your experience online at www.geocaching.com. Why some people want to read rule 3 as refering only to a Found It logs and then saying that doing nnumber 3 is dependent on having done rule 2 is beyond me. Now some may claim that aside from rule 1 which is conditional then all the rules must be followed. I prefer that doing these steps be optional as they always have been. Many people only sign the log book and never log online - but you don't see people call them cheaters. Some people simple look for caches and neither sign the log or share online. The idea is to have fun and not get bogged down is silly rules that can be interpreted many ways. However so long as robo-puritans continue to invent a rule that is not there, I will point it out. I agree that when you log your experience online you should use the correct log type. Use Found when you found the cache, DNF when you look and didn't find the cache, and Write note otherwise. Bogus Found (or for that matter DNF) logs when a person didn't even look should be deleted. There is some disagreement on how you know if you found the cache. As has been pointed out, sometimes there is a decoy cache that the cache owner expects you will find before finding the real cache, or there may be some other object like a letterbox that could be mistaken for the cache. And there are caches that have a physical challenge to retrieve or open that the cache owner expect that you do. If you just claim "find" because you saw something, I don't know how you can be sure you found the cache. This should be the reason given for signing the physical log (or at least having it in your hand), not some imaginary rule. I don't know why we always try and read what the "rules" are from the guidelines posted on GC.com. When I list a cache I agree to at least two things. The first is GEOCACHING.COM SITE TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT Last updated: June 10, 2009 When listing a cache I also need to agree to Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines Guidelines last updated June 2, 2010. In those two items the quoted text is not mentioned so why argue about it. The cache lsiting guidelines does state "Logging of All Physical Caches. Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed." Pretty self explanatory. No ambiguity. Yes it does go on to talk about ALR's but it is the only rule or guideline I agree to when listing a cache. The terms of use don't seem to cover anything as a finder of a cache and any logging requirement. So I don't agree to any other rules. On my caches I am The Power That Be providing I don't violate the two agreements when the cache is listed on GC.com. To the OP. I sign all the logs then log a find. I do delete blatant bogus logs on my caches. I rarely check logbooks to online logs. Enjoy.

Back in May, a non-PM found a cache by himself, through his own methods. The PMO owner deleted the log and the cache finder appealed to TPTB. Here's a post that communicated TPTB's response: TPTB did reinstate his found log. Thanks for this. It is still third hand but it will do. The wording again is a little strange ie Groundspeak encourages cache owners to allow. ??? In post 57 T4E showed some wording used that seems pretty clear but as we see that means squat when we read 7 other lines from the guidelines. In Post 66 Jholly mentioned my world view. Well in my world we say what we mean and mean what we say. The strange way the GS handle PMOCs looks and feels dirty and deceptive. Why?? They need to fix it up. I came across this thread when I was wondering how to best protect a cache from the unwashed hoards. It seems from various things said in this thread PMOCS is not the way. ie phone apps etc

The "quotes" I posted are not mine. They are pulled from and linked back to the Guidelines according to Groundspeak. If one were to click on the provided links, they could read the same Game Rules that I was able to read. Has nothing to do with what I think or what 2 other cachers think. Again, it's what the almighty Creator and Controller, Groundspeak, has published on the matter. Personal opinions are irrelevant after one reads the written rules. That's why it is "black & white". I read the same things I came to a different conclusion. So did at least one other in this thread. Groundpeak has not said anywhere that a cache owner would be chastised for deleting a non PM log. They have supported the ability to log Pm cachers by non PM's. Not exacrly the same thing. Even Keystones post seems to be deliberately worded to leave doubt.

I don't believe this at all.

Get real. Your explanation with quotes is as simplistic and childish as mine. It proved nothing. You are OK with the basic member logging. I am Ok with that. But what makes you believe all PM;s have the same view. There is at least two that do not.

its implied in the Benefits of Premium Membership 6.Seek and create Premium Member Caches LOL... "implied"?!? As I posted a short while ago... the actual logging "rule" directly states that anyone who signs the physical log gets to enter an online log. There is nothing implied about that rule. It's clear as a bell. Plain as day. Black and White. Next topic. Interesting take on it. Premium Member Only cache. Nothing implied, Plain as day black and white. If you were not a premium member I would delete your log. Plain as day black and white. I as the cache owner look after the logs. I check the log is legitimate. Not a premium member, not legitimate. Nothing implied, Plain as day black and white. Your going to delete a log of a 6 year old child? Man you have a black and cold heart. And if I was that child's father I would appeal to GS to have the log re-instated. Bet they would. And lock the log. And send you a naughty boy letter. Geez, what is the difference if a non-pm logs your cache or not? And maybe if you delete the log of a non-pm just because they had the audacity to log your precious sacrosanct PMO cache they just might come back and delete your cache permanently. By the way, what is your favorite? Milk of Magnesia or Exlax? The post was in relation to the quotes regarding rules/guidelines/wordings and what it all means. I will respond though to you. If I had a PM cache then I would assume it would be for a reason. Your take on it is that my reasons account for nothing. If someone wrote to Groundspeak regarding me deleting a non legitimate log I would hope Groundspeak would uphold my rights as the cache owner. If not then get rid of the option altogether. This whole thread is about how to get a non PM to log a PM cache. No regards that I can see to the cache owner. I sort of get your implied insult but am not going to bother googling to find out exactly what you are about. I can tell you though I will never be mistaken for an empath. The only problem I see with your line of reasoning is this fella Jeremy Irish supports non-pm logging a pm cache. He has made the statement that geocaching will never be pay-to-play. GS takes great pains in making sure the ability for a non-pm to log a pm cache is in the software. If for some reason they happen to break it they quickly fix it and apologize for breaking it. Seems GS fully intends for non-pm to have the ability to log a pm cache. How do you rectify that with your world view? By the way, the only thing a non-pm can do is log it. They can not get the coordinates, read the cache page or get anything else. The PM caches are listed in a non-pm search and the GC number is available. Think of a family out caching, likely not everyone in the family will have a PM account, why should they be denied the ability to log a legitimate find? And according to the guidelines finding the cache and signing the logbook constitutes a legitimate find. There are no words about a non-pm signing the logbook of a pm cache not being a legitimate find. Your rights as a cache owner are to delete bogus finds on your cache page. A non-pm finding the cache with pm friends or family and signing the logbook is not a bogus find. Look at it another way, requiring everyone that signs the logbook and logs online to be a PM would be an ALR. ALR's are not allowed. I would certainly hope that GS would side with the non-pm person that signed you logbook and you subsequently deleted the online log. If they did not I would be disappointed. Bit of a different response than the original insult. Thanks for that.

its implied in the Benefits of Premium Membership 6.Seek and create Premium Member Caches LOL... "implied"?!? As I posted a short while ago... the actual logging "rule" directly states that anyone who signs the physical log gets to enter an online log. There is nothing implied about that rule. It's clear as a bell. Plain as day. Black and White. Next topic. Interesting take on it. Premium Member Only cache. Nothing implied, Plain as day black and white. If you were not a premium member I would delete your log. Plain as day black and white. I as the cache owner look after the logs. I check the log is legitimate. Not a premium member, not legitimate. Nothing implied, Plain as day black and white. Your going to delete a log of a 6 year old child? Man you have a black and cold heart. And if I was that child's father I would appeal to GS to have the log re-instated. Bet they would. And lock the log. And send you a naughty boy letter. Geez, what is the difference if a non-pm logs your cache or not? And maybe if you delete the log of a non-pm just because they had the audacity to log your precious sacrosanct PMO cache they just might come back and delete your cache permanently. By the way, what is your favorite? Milk of Magnesia or Exlax? The post was in relation to the quotes regarding rules/guidelines/wordings and what it all means. I will respond though to you. If I had a PM cache then I would assume it would be for a reason. Your take on it is that my reasons account for nothing. If someone wrote to Groundspeak regarding me deleting a non legitimate log I would hope Groundspeak would uphold my rights as the cache owner. If not then get rid of the option altogether. This whole thread is about how to get a non PM to log a PM cache. No regards that I can see to the cache owner. I sort of get your implied insult but am not going to bother googling to find out exactly what you are about. I can tell you though I will never be mistaken for an empath.

its implied in the Benefits of Premium Membership 6.Seek and create Premium Member Caches LOL... "implied"?!? As I posted a short while ago... the actual logging "rule" directly states that anyone who signs the physical log gets to enter an online log. There is nothing implied about that rule. It's clear as a bell. Plain as day. Black and White. Next topic. Interesting take on it. Premium Member Only cache. Nothing implied, Plain as day black and white. If you were not a premium member I would delete your log. Plain as day black and white. I as the cache owner look after the logs. I check the log is legitimate. Not a premium member, not legitimate. Nothing implied, Plain as day black and white.

Looks like you're not adverse to a little deceit as well.

Around that same period (2005/6) wasn't there an Indy Diver V! that went above US$500? Link Found a thread I think. Edited to add link