[Why no new virtual caches]

In what areas did they gain? Physical caches are still not allowed in national parks for example, but there are still virtuals in National Parks. I would think something is better then nothing.

Actually, there are fully authorized physical caches in National parks. The ban is a myth. It's up to the individual park to determine whether to allow geocaches.

Point me to a couple

 

It is true that some NPs will allow caches. You pay a fee and they tell you where you can hide the cache. I received this info directly from a park ranger/head honcho after being instructed to remove an 'illegal' letterbox. He suggested that I might 'chip in' with other lboxers or geocachers to come up with the $150 yearly fee to hide within the park at an approved location.

(This all happened a couple years ago, so things might have changed in that time. I did not pursue the pay-for-placement plan. I already donate to the park.)

[bears ancounter while hiking]

We've encountered many black bears up close while hiking in the Smokies, and we never felt we'd be attacked even though it does happen on rare occasions. We don't carry spray or knives or guns. We carry hiking sticks and stay close together and pay attention to our surroundings.

 

Actually on Aug.12 a young boy was slightly injured by a black bear on a Smokies trail...... we were back out hiking the 13th with no hesitation and again we saw 3 large bears up close and personal. We didn't bother them and they didn't bother us.

[Bring back virtuals (just the counts)]

You could quadruple the counts.... it still wouldn't get me to like Waymarking.

[Has Topozone.com been bought out?]

Oh wow, this is terrible news, I used Topozone for everything.

[Are You Missing A Plushy Blue Travel Bug?]

Yay! Another season of nest watching, I'm happy to see that lil egg!

[Should Groundspeak get into the stats business?]

............ I think that the pursuit of numbers has had a negative affect on the sport and I'm against anything that would encourage it.

 

You da man, briansnat.

[Walking.......]

.... because, some people like to walk.

We "walk" 8-10 miles in the mountains each weekend for no other "reason" than we like it.

 

Maybe you could invest in some rollerblades or a bike if you don't like walking, or stick to parking lot caches. There is certainly no shortage of those.

[If you could change one thing about geocaching what would it be?]

Eliminate public display of numbers on gc.com.

- Most of the questionable and/or undesireable behaviors I've observed have been directly related to the numbers race.

 

If I can't have that, bring back the Virtuals.

[Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?]

If you think there is no competition in geocaching, you haven't been paying attention. Not everyone is involved in competing, but there are plenty who are competing, on many different levels.

Those who are competing are often those who are faking finds.

 

I've seen it happen, so there is nothing you can say that will convince me that this isn't true.

 

Apparently you haven't seen it happen, and there is nothing I can say that will convice you otherwise. I'm not going to provide examples because I refuse to point out specific people, so don't ask.

 

No doubt my lack of specific examples will be cited as "proof" that it doesn't happen. And even if I did point it out, you'd say "who cares?"

 

So, we're all shouting into the wind here.

Just curious: Who are you talking to?

 

Whoever will actually listen. Which means myself, I guess.

[Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?]

If you think there is no competition in geocaching, you haven't been paying attention. Not everyone is involved in competing, but there are plenty who are competing, on many different levels.

Those who are competing are often those who are faking finds.

 

I've seen it happen, so there is nothing you can say that will convince me that this isn't true.

 

Apparently you haven't seen it happen, and there is nothing I can say that will convice you otherwise. I'm not going to provide examples because I refuse to point out specific people, so don't ask.

 

No doubt my lack of specific examples will be cited as "proof" that it doesn't happen. And even if I did point it out, you'd say "who cares?"

 

So, we're all shouting into the wind here.

[Virtuals, allow them back in Business?]

Count me among those that were sad to see Virtuals killed. Waymarking is not the same experience and I still don't like the way it is set up. I would have preferred to see Virtuals just given their own find count and section, just like Benchmarks, and with the same gc.com layout they had (still have) based on coordinate location alone, not all the category stuff.

But whatever.

[Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?]

This doesn't mean that puritans should give up trying to convince people that their definition of find is the correct one.

 

Now I've got to make a Puritan Power t-shirt to wear while caching

[Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?]

Looks like striving for honesty is now a character flaw.

Striving for honesty is never a character flaw, but it's a pretty futile task trying to mandate it. We all migrate towards what we like, and our hides and how we maintain them are reflections of ourselves. We each do what we think is right, but no one should expect everyone to have the same definition of what that is.

 

Are you saying it is too much to expect that when somebody logs online that they found "HappyMountain Cache", that they actually showed up at the coordinates of "HappyMountain Cache", found that cache container, signed the logbook, replaced the cache, and continued on?

That is the feeling I'm getting, perhaps I've misunderstood. Or maybe I'm confused as to the point of geocaching, although I think I should understand it after this amount of time.

 

If it is true that I'm expecting too much based on that, then geocaching has in fact degraded already.

[Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?]

I'm a bit tired of reading the inference that because one thinks false logs are lame, they therefore have no life and are also obsessed with numbers.

 

Looks like striving for honesty is now a character flaw.

[Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?]

B- By what means do you determine something in a log listing looks like it needs investigating without checking every posted log against the log book?

• If the person's log doesn't make sense for the cache
  
• If someone tips you that the person made bogus logs on other caches
  
• If your spidey sense tingles
  
  
• Out-of-the-blue late logs on archived caches without explanation
  

 

This has happened to my own archived caches, I know it to be a fact.

I have the old logsheets from my archived caches, so when somebody "late logs" a find dated 2005 now in 2008, I actually will go back and look.

It does happen. Why should I turn a blind eye? I'm not trying to police everybody else's caches, but I will enforce my own as I see fit. That doesn't make me a stick in the mud or a busybody or a jerk.

False logs are something of an insult to my intelligence and also reflect on the logger's lack of integrity.

We are on the honor system here, but some people have much less honor than others.

[Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?]

Each boxer has a unique signature stamp that gets stamped into the letterbox logbook, like signing your name in a cache log. You're stamping the box stamp into your personal log, and stamping your stamp into the box log.

So yes, the owner can check.

Sbell beat me to it, but I don't think changing our caches into Letterboxes as a means to protect our game makes sense.

 

We can't protect geocaching by changing it into letterboxing. It needs to stay geocaching.

 

However, in my opinion, geocaching doesn't need protecting. The issues discussed in this thread (fake logs, fake finds, etc) are so rare that they can be dismissed. These are not issues that will degrade the game we play at all.

 

I don't think you guys actually read my posts. I wasn't advocating turning geocaching into letterboxing.

I was simply (and apparently wildly unsuccessfully) trying to explain how letterboxing works to somebody who didn't appear to understand that there are TWO stamps involved.

As a result I am now assumed to be trying to change apples into oranges. Which I'm not.

 

I disagree that fake logs are so rare that they will not degrade the game. There have already been enough of them, otherwise we wouldn't have 7 pages of discussion in this thread alone.

[Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?]

That's why the hand-carved stamps evolved in letterboxing in 1907. After 50 years of letterboxing, people decided to create a new system to ensure people really HAD found a box. There is absolutely no way to fake it. The only way to get the stamp in your logbook is to find the box. When the goal is to accumulate stamps in your logbook, the incentive to cheat is gone.

 

I wish caches had hand-carved stamps - and I don't mean hybrid letterboxes per se, but just regular caches that happen to have a cache stamp unique to that cache. It's a very good system.

But if there were stamps couldn't I still log a find and claim I'd found it since I'd have the lack of proof in my stamp book? Even the owner couldn't check it then, only I'd know.

 

The way it is now at least the owner can check if he wants to.

Each boxer has a unique signature stamp that gets stamped into the letterbox logbook, like signing your name in a cache log. You're stamping the box stamp into your personal log, and stamping your stamp into the box log.

So yes, the owner can check.

Do we really want to turn geocaching into letterboxing?

 

Why isn't someone's name in the logbook sufficient evidence that he found the cache?

Oh come on, I was answering a question re: checking sigs in letterboxes. Stop twisting things.

I'm not twisting anything. I was merely responding to your post.

 

TT wished all caches had stamps. You appeared to support this position. My questions were toward that position. Either you or TT (or anyone else that agrees with her position) were welcome to respond.

 

No, I did not support that position. I was responding to Mushtang's comment regarding the owner not being able to check the logbook. At this point we're so far off topic I suspect that nobody knows what we're talking about anymore.

[Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?]

That's why the hand-carved stamps evolved in letterboxing in 1907. After 50 years of letterboxing, people decided to create a new system to ensure people really HAD found a box. There is absolutely no way to fake it. The only way to get the stamp in your logbook is to find the box. When the goal is to accumulate stamps in your logbook, the incentive to cheat is gone.

 

I wish caches had hand-carved stamps - and I don't mean hybrid letterboxes per se, but just regular caches that happen to have a cache stamp unique to that cache. It's a very good system.

But if there were stamps couldn't I still log a find and claim I'd found it since I'd have the lack of proof in my stamp book? Even the owner couldn't check it then, only I'd know.

 

The way it is now at least the owner can check if he wants to.

 

Each boxer has a unique signature stamp that gets stamped into the letterbox logbook, like signing your name in a cache log. You're stamping the box stamp into your personal log, and stamping your stamp into the box log.

So yes, the owner can check.

Do we really want to turn geocaching into letterboxing?

 

Why isn't someone's name in the logbook sufficient evidence that he found the cache?

 

Oh come on, I was answering a question re: checking sigs in letterboxes. Stop twisting things.

[Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?]

That's why the hand-carved stamps evolved in letterboxing in 1907. After 50 years of letterboxing, people decided to create a new system to ensure people really HAD found a box. There is absolutely no way to fake it. The only way to get the stamp in your logbook is to find the box. When the goal is to accumulate stamps in your logbook, the incentive to cheat is gone.

 

I wish caches had hand-carved stamps - and I don't mean hybrid letterboxes per se, but just regular caches that happen to have a cache stamp unique to that cache. It's a very good system.

But if there were stamps couldn't I still log a find and claim I'd found it since I'd have the lack of proof in my stamp book? Even the owner couldn't check it then, only I'd know.

 

The way it is now at least the owner can check if he wants to.

 

Each boxer has a unique signature stamp that gets stamped into the letterbox logbook, like signing your name in a cache log. You're stamping the box stamp into your personal log, and stamping your stamp into the box log.

So yes, the owner can check.

[Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?]

Geocaching can only be degraded by others false logs if one approaches the sport as a competetive activity in which posted score is important. In other words if you care about others scores than the validity of others logs is important. However, I suspect most geocachers do it for the fun of the find and at most view ones score (or private cache find list) as personnel milestones.

 

As a cache owner, I have no interest in policing logbooks for false finds. If a false smiley is so important to someone, they have my pity, but it does not rise to the level of significance that I would bother to confront them, nor do I want to deal with the sport on that level.

 

In my perception, it has been competitive number hunting that has led to false logs (among various other weird practices) in pursuit of stats/milestones, that also often result in congratulations, recognition, events hosted by peers.

I'm not interested in racking up big numbers myself (I've been here a long time and haven't logged a ton of caches!). I do look on in wonderment(and sometimes disbelief) at some of the inflation techniques that I've observed. Just don't really understand why it is done other than for numbers' sake. And if it is just a game, just for fun, why does it come to that?

[Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?]

I can't believe that people would drive around and actually check the physical logs in their caches just to make sure that those that posted online had actually signed the log. That's crazier than logging a cache that you haven't found! Well, OK... maybe not if you only have one or two hides, and they're only blocks from your house, but otherwise... you have way too much time on your hands!

 

Well. When one of my cache logs fills up, I go maintain my cache and collect it. I take it home and read through it to see what finders have written (which frankly isn't much these days), to see if any muggles found the cache and signed the log, to see what signature stickers and such are in there. I keep all the old logs in a gallon ziplock bag.

 

It isn't like I'm running around looking for any possible hint of "cheating" every time somebody logs online.

 

Do you just toss your logbooks in the trash? Really curious, not trying to be snide....

[Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?]

I don't know why I respond to these posts... but at the risk of being flayed alive I feel someone needs to point out that this is not a problem unique to Geocaching. This is a broader issue concerning modern society and the push to be more and more "permissive" and less "judgemental". You know, the "we don't keep score because someone's feelings might get hurt" mentality. I guess I still come from that "old school" position that believes that things are right or wrong and that there's far less "gray" than some would have us believe. And someone will probably flame me here and say "how can you judge me personally on how I play geocaching... you don't even know me?". It's much like our current political campaigning... folks tell you what they think you want to hear, the only way to judge the moral character of an individual is based upon their prior actions. Yes, I do take into account that people change... we know they do, but your prior actions are still the best bet when judging how you'll behave in the future.

 

Now everyone stand back, I'm about to use the big "C" word... Cheating. Based on my belief in this theory, I'd figure that if you cheat at something as meaningless a geocaching, you must be a real piece of work in your daily interactions outside of geocaching. It's like the old saying "Character is what you do when no one's watching". Character assumes that right and wrong do exist, that there are objective moral standards that transcend individual choice—standards like respect, responsibility, honesty, and fairness. And I'll tell you that geocaching and "find logs" are the ultimate when it comes to "no one watching"... meaning, yes the site and TPTB leave you all the freedom in the world to log things however you want and however many times you wish. I just believe that others should then feel free to judge your character by your actions.

 

Feel free to flame away. I know some will want to argue about the semantics of what is and isn't a find... whether geocaching has "rules" or "guidelines" and what all that means. Some will want to call me "judgemental" or a "puritan" or other various and sundry names. There will be those that say "everyone plays by their own rules" which to me means "I'm unable to comprehend or follow simple instructions, so I make up my own, which keeps me happy"... and then there will be the string of posts shirking any responsibility with the words "it doesn't hurt me so why should I care?".

 

So I guess my answer is yes, we are allowing the degredation of geocaching... but I don't believe we have to accept it.

 

Thanks for the discussion,

 

DCC

 

My thoughts exactly! DCC for President of Geocachers with Integrity!

 

Amen to that my brother!!!!!!! He's got my vote!!!!!!

 

I agree. Excellent post, DCC.

[Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?]

Somewhere earlier in this thread someone rather passionately stated something to the effect that he was "proud to be a geocacher"... and so should we all be, but we shouldn't get so invested that we believe that the few things that harm the game harm our personal reputation.

 

Should then everyone be so laid back and unconcerned that it becomes an anything-goes free-for-all?

I'm reading a lot of "I don't care, it doesn't bother/affect me".

[Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?]

There was a false logging issue I became aware of a while back - may even still be an issue, I don't know. I can't comprehend why anybody would stoop so low, so I quit trying to follow the saga.

 

Long story short, individuals would together log caches they hadn't found - lots of them - amongst a few caches they did find, in an effort to massively increase their numbers (because don't you know, you get worshipped as a caching god when you have lots of finds??)

Result - much fawning over them, events to congratulate on the big numbers (probably there were a few golden ammo cans presented), blah blah blah

 

Further result - the false logging was discovered. One publicly apologized and voluntarily removed their portion of the false logs, at the same time outing other false logger. Other never said anything about it, and as far as I know continued to cache.

 

What exactly is the benefit of this type of behavior, for anyone? "Cheating" yourself, the cache owner, and other cachers is neither comendable nor impressive, makes no sense, and doesn't accomplish squat.

 

I just don't get it.

[A Groundspeak SOAPBOX forum]

Here's an idea - don't like the thread, don't read it.

 

If that logic is good enough for cache hunting (as it is repeatedly mentioned), why isn't it sufficient for forum threads? Just because it annoys you?

Why must the casual viewer be "protected" from it?