Jump to content

Is My Opinion Overboard?


Recommended Posts

What I think it means that for GW V, all you will have to do is get 5 cachers together in the city of your choice and as long as they stay within .5 miles of each other they can log that they were at GW V :ph34r: . Allowing cachers to log in from sattelite locations will save on the high cost of fuel and will be politcly correct because it will be a way to fight global warming :( . This will also allow cachers to fax pages of log books to each other so that they can claim hundreds of cache without leaving their living room. This would also eliminate the need for pocket caches. :(

Link to comment

So does this mean if we did not even go to GW4 we can still log it to get the brand new icon??/

 

:(

 

No. You haven't been paying attention. You have print the cache page out. Put the printout in your pocket. Then you and anyone in your team within .5 miles can log it for the new icon as long as they remember sign the container. :(

 

The sad thing is that I'm sure a lot of people had fun at GW4. It is only the misguided actions of a very few that are being discussed here. I can't wait for those that attended to start posting about some of the more positive happenings.

Link to comment

We couldn't agree more! We traveled long distances and enjoyed wonderful hikes to find two of the ape caches. It cheapens the sport when the cache can be brought to an event like this! What is the point? The cache isn't really "found" at the event! It's actually just handed to someone to sign. This is a game of adventure and discovery.

 

We love our numbers but this is WAY TOO FAR! We log what we find and that is the enjoyment for us!

Funny you should mention those APE caches. Rumor has it that the owners of those caches were asked if they could be borrowed so everyone at GW4 could log it. Obviously at least those cache owners have some ethics because I haven't noticed any TX logs on them.

 

Don't be so quick to knock this. It actually this opens a whole new world of geocaching. There are a few very tough caches in my area that will take a lot of effort for me to log. Now what if I just paid the owners to bring the logbooks to my house so I can log them? I see a win/win here. The owners get a little extra gas money and I get a find for these caches, so that when people look at my profile they will be impressed.

 

So does this mean if we did not even go to GW4 we can still log it to get the brand new icon??

 

I think you have to actually touch someone who went to GW4 in order for you to log the event. But as always happens, there will be some cheaters who will log an attended for GW4 if they see an attendee from

a distance.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

We couldn't agree more! We traveled long distances and enjoyed wonderful hikes to find two of the ape caches. It cheapens the sport when the cache can be brought to an event like this! What is the point? The cache isn't really "found" at the event! It's actually just handed to someone to sign. This is a game of adventure and discovery.

 

We love our numbers but this is WAY TOO FAR! We log what we find and that is the enjoyment for us!

Funny you should mention those APE caches. Rumor has it that the owners of those caches were asked if they could be borrowed so everyone at GW4 could log it. Obviously at least those cache owners have some ethics because I haven't noticed any TX logs on them.

Don't be so quick to knock this. It actually this opens a whole new world of geocaching. There are a few very tough caches in my area that will take a lot of effort for me to log. Now what if I just paid the owners to bring the logbooks to my house so I can log them? I see a win/win here. The owners get a little extra gas money and I get a find for these caches, so that when people look at my profile they will be impressed.

So does this mean if we did not even go to GW4 we can still log it to get the brand new icon??

I think you have to actually touch someone who went to GW4 in order for you to log the event. But as always happens, there will be some cheaters who will log an attended for GW4 if they see an attendee from

a distance.

Brian, please let me know when you are having that log-signing party at your house. I wanna drop by and log 'em all too! In return, I will bring you copies of logs from all our caches, plus my 300 most favorite pocket caches. Better yet, lets call the log-signing party at your house an event, so we can each earn an event smiley, too! :ph34r::wub::(:(

 

And, as for logging finds on the GW4 event: well, I have logged 154 finds on it, because I read at least 154 posts related to GW4 on the national forums. And, a few folks whom I know attended the event, so that makes it even more "homey". :(:ph34r:

Link to comment

If logging an Iraqi cache is showing support, because you wanted to write a nice note to the soliders, then do that on the cache page. WRITE A NOTE!!!!!!!!!!

 

And I agree with the other posters that this is such a tiny display of support anyway. Send a care package.

 

I agree! This is just my two cents but I hope it counts for something. I myself am ex Spec Ops. I earned my Ranger Tab and finished sniper school. I got to see alot of the worst things that man can do to man. I served in every corner of the world. I have 3 CBIs. I was in the sand box for the first go round. I support every man and woman in uniform anywhere they are. In short 'Been there done that.

 

What these yahoos did with this cache was not only against the rules, it's disrespectful. One of the things that made what I did bearable was knowing that there were somethings that just me and my buddies would share. Emotions and experinces that we had togather that nobodyelse had. Yeah, a cache is no big deal, but it was their's and you a..holes took it from them.

 

You want to show respect. Buy some some body armor for one of troops. Or least a box of cookies. The OSU would be glad to take any donation you could give.

 

End of rant

 

As you were......

Link to comment

If logging an Iraqi cache is showing support, because you wanted to write a nice note to the soliders, then do that on the cache page. WRITE A NOTE!!!!!!!!!!

 

And I agree with the other posters that this is such a tiny display of support anyway. Send a care package.

 

I agree! This is just my two cents but I hope it counts for something. I myself am ex Spec Ops. I earned my Ranger Tab and finished sniper school. I got to see alot of the worst things that man can do to man. I served in every corner of the world. I have 3 CBIs. I was in the sand box for the first go round. I support every man and woman in uniform anywhere they are. In short 'Been there done that.

 

What these yahoos did with this cache was not only against the rules, it's disrespectful. One of the things that made what I did bearable was knowing that there were somethings that just me and my buddies would share. Emotions and experinces that we had togather that nobodyelse had. Yeah, a cache is no big deal, but it was their's and you a..holes took it from them.

 

You want to show respect. Buy some some body armor for one of troops. Or least a box of cookies. The OSU would be glad to take any donation you could give.

 

End of rant

 

As you were......

Well put, well said. What is telling for me is that almost none of the online find logs for that cache said anything about support, and rather, only "thanks for the smiley"!

Link to comment

One of the things that made what I did bearable was knowing that there were somethings that just me and my buddies would share. Emotions and experinces that we had togather that nobodyelse had.

 

Exactly. You've managed to articulate what I was trying to say but couldn't. This is as true for a cache in Iraq as it is for a cache atop some high peak. There is a camaraderie in accomplishing something difficult that is destroyed when someone can also log it without the effort, danger, or whatever it was that made that cache uniquely difficult.

 

I would like to note that the cache owner who started this appears to have had nothing but the best intentions. It is my impression that he honestly believed in what he was doing. There has been a degradation of integrity that has been going on for a long time; this was merely the culmination of the new loose standard. We looked the other way when the camel poked its nose under the tent, now cheating has become the paradigm, and pointing it out makes them hostile.

Link to comment
Funny you should mention those APE caches. Rumor has it that the owners of those caches were asked if they could be borrowed so everyone at GW4 could log it. Obviously at least those cache owners have some ethics because I haven't noticed any TX logs on them.

Don't be so quick to knock this. It actually this opens a whole new world of geocaching. There are a few very tough caches in my area that will take a lot of effort for me to log. Now what if I just paid the owners to bring the logbooks to my house so I can log them? I see a win/win here. The owners get a little extra gas money and I get a find for these caches, so that when people look at my profile they will be impressed.

So does this mean if we did not even go to GW4 we can still log it to get the brand new icon??

I think you have to actually touch someone who went to GW4 in order for you to log the event. But as always happens, there will be some cheaters who will log an attended for GW4 if they see an attendee from

a distance.

 

You make me laugh in that polite "spew milk out of your nose" way. Too funny.

Link to comment

I think this cache should only be logged by individuals that actually find it Iraq. The difficulty for it should be raised to a 5 since you either need to be a member of the military stationed in Iraq or a civilian contractor for the military in Iraq. "Joe Average Cacher" has not earned logging this cache. If you wish to show your support for the military write letters, your congressman etc. Maybe even post a note but do not log the cache.

 

I say this as a father of son in the army and an uncle of a nephew who interrupted his education to serve 18 months active duty in Iraq.

 

So to answer your question, no I don't think you are overboard.

Link to comment

We couldn't agree more! We traveled long distances and enjoyed wonderful hikes to find two of the ape caches. It cheapens the sport when the cache can be brought to an event like this! What is the point? The cache isn't really "found" at the event! It's actually just handed to someone to sign. This is a game of adventure and discovery.

 

We love our numbers but this is WAY TOO FAR! We log what we find and that is the enjoyment for us!

Funny you should mention those APE caches. Rumor has it that the owners of those caches were asked if they could be borrowed so everyone at GW4 could log it. Obviously at least those cache owners have some ethics because I haven't noticed any TX logs on them.

 

Don't be so quick to knock this. It actually this opens a whole new world of geocaching. There are a few very tough caches in my area that will take a lot of effort for me to log. Now what if I just paid the owners to bring the logbooks to my house so I can log them? I see a win/win here. The owners get a little extra gas money and I get a find for these caches, so that when people look at my profile they will be impressed.

 

So does this mean if we did not even go to GW4 we can still log it to get the brand new icon??

 

I think you have to actually touch someone who went to GW4 in order for you to log the event. But as always happens, there will be some cheaters who will log an attended for GW4 if they see an attendee from

a distance.

 

I like this idea a lot. Criminal placed a cache not too far from my home location, unfortunately for me it is almost straight up. So if I train a mountain goat to seek out caches and send it up to find the cache then I can claim the find right?

I mean I would have actually touched the cache container (after I wiped off the goat saliva) and signed the physical log. Woo hoo. And if I pass the log around to all my buddies then they can sign it to before I send the goat back up to mountain.

Link to comment

I think this cache should only be logged by individuals that actually find it Iraq. The difficulty for it should be raised to a 5 since you either need to be a member of the military stationed in Iraq or a civilian contractor for the military in Iraq. "Joe Average Cacher" has not earned logging this cache.

 

I think I may be diverting off topic on my own topic. I wonder what will happen...?

 

At any rate, you bring up a VERY interesting point about the difficulty/terrain rating over here. I have had that discussion with a couple of cachers on this side, and selecting ratins throw us for a loop. It would seem as easy as you describe it, yet unfortunately it is not. Difficulty and terrain is relative.

 

For example, BOOMER! in most places in the world probably would be a 5 difficulty or terrain rating. If you visit this cache at the wrong time, then it could kill you. Literally. Specialized knowledge (watching the cache area over a couple of days), specialized training, and at times equipment might be needed. That is all solidly 5 star material, say, back in my cache stomping grounds in Texas. Yet, here, it is quite easy. Everyone has the knowledge and at least some training or savvy about the area, so the cache is quite easy with that knowledge. The cache in this example, once you factor the relative experience of the cachers here, works out to about the posted rating.

 

So, is it better to post the rating based on what we would expect to rate a cache in other places? Or, perhaps, is it better to factor some of the "routine" difficulties of the region, to avoid 5 star rating on all the caches, and cachers have idea of what they are actually getting into? Obviously, most of us have chosen the latter.

 

Finally, your point is excellent. It is because many of these caches might be 5 stars anywhere else, but not really advertised on the pages since the pages are for the information of local cachers, that has been a part of factoring into the angst in the "average Joe" claiming a find.

Link to comment

What's wrong, anyhow? You didn't get to go to GeoWoodstock, so you're in a bad mood this weekend?

Too bad.

 

It seems the words honesty and integrity are not in your vocabulary. And service in uniform to your country must not be something you have experienced. So all the explanations that could be made would not be understood.

 

The words honesty and integrity are not as absolute as you seem to think. By your own standards one who does not agree with your original premise has experiences you clearly lack. Therefore, you are just as ignorant of their experiences and views of what it means to be a good human as you claim they are of yours. If your point is that neither of you can understand one another that seems about right, but let's not assume you have the truth and everyone lacking such experiences does not. No event or individual is ever beyond critique.

 

And as to this whole issue of find padding, the original point of thread, I am confused as to why anyone should care? As long as cool people are hidding cool caches in cool areas the rest can do whatever gets them through the night, IMO.

Link to comment

And as to this whole issue of find padding, the original point of thread, I am confused as to why anyone should care? As long as cool people are hidding cool caches in cool areas the rest can do whatever gets them through the night, IMO.

 

The original point of the thread was NOT find padding (although that has come up a lot and in other threads over the GW4 weekend)...the thread was checking if the community felt that people logging an online "find" on a cache actually located in Iraq because of a duplicate seen at the GW4 event was OK.

 

I haven't taken an actual count, but from my weekend review, it looks like the online comunity participating in the discussion are pretty much on the side saying this practice is NOT OK, and that the logs should be deleted/changed to notes. At least that's been my impression so far...anyone else have a different impression?

 

Celticwulf

Link to comment

GW4 is full of examples like this. Most of us have to play by the rules, and the rules clearly say that traveling caches are not allowed. My bookmark list is full of examples of this manner of cheating.

 

(I just happened across this thread a few days after this post. I don't read the forums often, but had to reply to this.)

 

"...traveling caches are not allowed." You 100% sure about that?

 

Think carefully before you answer...

 

Might want to stick the words "no longer" in for "not", change the period to a comma, and add the phrase "except those that have been grandfathered in and those that have gotten special approvals since."

 

To rephrase it correctly: "Traveling caches are no longer allowed, except for those that have been grandfathered in and those that have gotten special approvals since."

 

That said, duplicating a cache from Iraq is just wrong. Send 'em a "cache" in the form of a care package instead.

 

Overall I enjoyed myself at GW4, with around 45 (forty-five) caches found and 3 events attended over a 4 day span. I agree that many people "all about the numbers" - but trying to lump everyone who attended GW4 as "just in it for the numbers" is just plain dumb.

 

(Yes, I have about 2400 logged finds. I enjoy finding caches of all types, terrains, and difficulties. Does that make me all about the numbers? Don't think so. )

Edited by Cymbaline
Link to comment

GW4 is full of examples like this. Most of us have to play by the rules, and the rules clearly say that traveling caches are not allowed. My bookmark list is full of examples of this manner of cheating.

 

(I just happened across this thread a few days after this post. I don't read the forums often, but had to reply to this.)

 

"...traveling caches are not allowed." You 100% sure about that?

 

Think carefully before you answer...

 

Might want to stick the words "no longer" inbetween "are" and "not", change the period to a comma, and add the phrase "except those that have been grandfathered in and those that have gotten special approvals since."

 

To rephrase it correctly: "Traveling caches are not allowed, except for those that have been grandfathered in and those that have gotten special approvals since."

 

That said, duplicating a cache from Iraq is just wrong. Send 'em a "cache" in the form of a care package instead.

 

Overall I enjoyed myself at GW4, with around 45 caches found and 3 events attended over a 4 day span. I agree that many people "all about the numbers" - but trying to lump everyone who attended GW4 as "just in it for the numbers" is just plain dumb.

 

(Yes, I have 2400 logged finds. I enjoy finding caches of all types, terrains, and difficulties. Does that make me all about the numbers? Don't think so. )

And the funny and great thing is that even the worst of the numbers-whores, who do bizarre things to get finds, are -- some of their geo-behaviors aside -- still lovable, and usually-likable, people.

Link to comment

GW4 is full of examples like this. Most of us have to play by the rules, and the rules clearly say that traveling caches are not allowed. My bookmark list is full of examples of this manner of cheating.

 

(I just happened across this thread a few days after this post. I don't read the forums often, but had to reply to this.)

 

"...traveling caches are not allowed." You 100% sure about that?

 

Think carefully before you answer...

 

Might want to stick the words "no longer" inbetween "are" and "not", change the period to a comma, and add the phrase "except those that have been grandfathered in and those that have gotten special approvals since."

 

To rephrase it correctly: "Traveling caches are not allowed, except for those that have been grandfathered in and those that have gotten special approvals since."

 

That said, duplicating a cache from Iraq is just wrong. Send 'em a "cache" in the form of a care package instead.

 

Overall I enjoyed myself at GW4, with around 45 caches found and 3 events attended over a 4 day span. I agree that many people "all about the numbers" - but trying to lump everyone who attended GW4 as "just in it for the numbers" is just plain dumb.

 

(Yes, I have about 2400 logged finds. I enjoy finding caches of all types, terrains, and difficulties. Does that make me all about the numbers? Don't think so. )

 

Semantics aside. I don't remember reading anywhere in this thread where anyone said that everyone who attended GW4 is a cache whore. The original intent of this thread was about those that logged an Iraq cache as a find while in Texas. If you didn't do it, you have my respect. For those that did, in my oh so humble opinion, they'd need a step ladder to kiss a whales bum.

Link to comment
Either the cache follows the rules or it does not.

Rules? We have rules? I always thought we had guidelines. Maybe that's where my confusion comes from. I didn't know about these "rules". Maybe the Holy Church of BetterThanYou was right all along. If that's the case, then I humbly apologize, and prostrate myself before the altar. Obviously, someone breaking a "rule" would be cheating, as in the baseball analogy mentioned by Criminal, wouldn't they? Let's see what Webster's has to say about cheating;

Cheating;

To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.

Yep, looks like it must be cheating.

 

Of course, if the Holy Church is wrong, (Gasp), and there are no rules, only guidelines, and this game is played entirely by one's self, then there cannot be any cheating going on, and those spewing such hateful, intolerant words as "Cheater" and "Liar" must just like slinging insults around to satisfy there own needs.

 

All you lying cheaters better quit! :laughing::laughing:;)

Link to comment
Either the cache follows the rules or it does not.

Rules? We have rules? I always thought we had guidelines. Maybe that's where my confusion comes from. I didn't know about these "rules". Maybe the Holy Church of BetterThanYou was right all along. If that's the case, then I humbly apologize, and prostrate myself before the altar. Obviously, someone breaking a "rule" would be cheating, as in the baseball analogy mentioned by Criminal, wouldn't they? Let's see what Webster's has to say about cheating;

Cheating;

To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.

Yep, looks like it must be cheating.

 

Of course, if the Holy Church is wrong, (Gasp), and there are no rules, only guidelines, and this game is played entirely by one's self, then there cannot be any cheating going on, and those spewing such hateful, intolerant words as "Cheater" and "Liar" must just like slinging insults around to satisfy there own needs.

 

All you lying cheaters better quit! ;):laughing::D

 

From Dictionary.reference.com:

 

guideline

 

n 1: a light line that is used in lettering to help align the letters 2: a detailed plan or explanation to guide you in setting standards or determining a course of action; "the president said he had a road map for normalizing relations with Vietnam" [syn: road map] 3: a rule or principle that provides guidance to appropriate behavior [syn: guidepost, rule of thumb]

 

OK, so I'm pretty sure 1 and 2 don't quite work for us, but wow...look at number 3. Anyone else think that says that you can pretty much interchange "guideline" with "rule" and come up with the same thing? :laughing:

 

sorry...had too :angry:

 

Celticwulf

Link to comment

Semantics aside. I don't remember reading anywhere in this thread where anyone said that everyone who attended GW4 is a cache whore. The original intent of this thread was about those that logged an Iraq cache as a find while in Texas. If you didn't do it, you have my respect. For those that did, in my oh so humble opinion, they'd need a step ladder to kiss a whales bum.

 

Yeah, it's easy to miss.. it was on the first page of this thread, compliments of Mopar:

 

As we've seen before, Geowoodstock is all about the numbers, and very little about the ethics of obtaining them.

 

But as I said in my original post, I'm right there with you.. having an Iraq cache there is just wrong. Had I known about it while I was there, I certainly would have made my opinion verbally known. I didn't see it, and didn't know about it until I read this thread.

Link to comment

And the funny and great thing is that even the worst of the numbers-whores, who do bizarre things to get finds, are -- some of their geo-behaviors aside -- still lovable, and usually-likable, people.

 

I don't buy that for a second. In fact I'm pretty sure they all look something like this.

 

180px-Villianc.jpg

Link to comment
Either the cache follows the rules or it does not.

Rules? We have rules? I always thought we had guidelines. Maybe that's where my confusion comes from. I didn't know about these "rules". Maybe the Holy Church of BetterThanYou was right all along. If that's the case, then I humbly apologize, and prostrate myself before the altar. Obviously, someone breaking a "rule" would be cheating, as in the baseball analogy mentioned by Criminal, wouldn't they? Let's see what Webster's has to say about cheating;

Cheating;

To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.

Yep, looks like it must be cheating.

 

Of course, if the Holy Church is wrong, (Gasp), and there are no rules, only guidelines, and this game is played entirely by one's self, then there cannot be any cheating going on, and those spewing such hateful, intolerant words as "Cheater" and "Liar" must just like slinging insults around to satisfy there own needs.

 

All you lying cheaters better quit! :laughing::laughing:;)

It is not, and was never intended to be, an insult. If you claim to have found a cache that you did not it is a lie. One who lies is correctly titled a liar. So you can see it’s merely a statement of fact, nothing personal.

 

It’s incredibly poor form to cheat at a game where the score matters, where you win something for having the best score. It’s all that much lower if you cheat at a game that’s based on the honor system.

 

You’re right, they are guidelines. Those guidelines state unequivocally that traveling caches are not allowed on this site. Knowing this, the proponents of these pocket caches found a way to sneak around the guideline. They were caught and exposed. A person almost always responds with anger, shame, and hostility when they are caught doing something they know in their heart is wrong. You can make all the snarky comments you like, it’s still wrong and you know it.

 

I hope they don't quit, but rather choose to play by the guidelines the rest of us must.

Link to comment

You’re right, they are guidelines. Those guidelines state unequivocally that traveling caches are not allowed on this site. Knowing this, the proponents of these pocket caches found a way to sneak around the guideline. They were caught and exposed. A person almost always responds with anger, shame, and hostility when they are caught doing something they know in their heart is wrong. You can make all the snarky comments you like, it’s still wrong and you know it.

 

Geocaching.com Listing Requirements/Guidelines

 

There's the guidelines, last revised November, 2005. Am I missing something? If not, is it possible that - and I'm only supposing here - you might be?

 

(If this doesn't make any sense to you, read my previous post. *Some* traveling caches *do* exist - albeit they are few in number.)

Link to comment

You’re right, they are guidelines. Those guidelines state unequivocally that traveling caches are not allowed on this site. Knowing this, the proponents of these pocket caches found a way to sneak around the guideline. They were caught and exposed. A person almost always responds with anger, shame, and hostility when they are caught doing something they know in their heart is wrong. You can make all the snarky comments you like, it’s still wrong and you know it.

 

Geocaching.com Listing Requirements/Guidelines

 

There's the guidelines, last revised November, 2005. Am I missing something? If not, is it possible that - and I'm only supposing here - you might be?

 

(If this doesn't make any sense to you, read my previous post. *Some* traveling caches *do* exist - albeit they are few in number.)

Semantics. Yes, there are some that are grandfathered. None of the ones on my bookmark list are one of those.

Link to comment

You’re right, they are guidelines. Those guidelines state unequivocally that traveling caches are not allowed on this site. Knowing this, the proponents of these pocket caches found a way to sneak around the guideline. They were caught and exposed. A person almost always responds with anger, shame, and hostility when they are caught doing something they know in their heart is wrong. You can make all the snarky comments you like, it’s still wrong and you know it.

 

Geocaching.com Listing Requirements/Guidelines

 

There's the guidelines, last revised November, 2005. Am I missing something? If not, is it possible that - and I'm only supposing here - you might be?

 

(If this doesn't make any sense to you, read my previous post. *Some* traveling caches *do* exist - albeit they are few in number.)

Semantics. Yes, there are some that are grandfathered. None of the ones on my bookmark list are one of those.

 

Semantics? Uh, ok.

 

So when you say "Those guidelines state unequivocally that traveling caches are not allowed", should I take that to mean - semantically - that you're really saying "I'm just pulling stuff out of my arse"?

 

Or is there another set of guidelines that we - the folx who actually hide and seek caches - should be aware of?

 

Nonetheless, thank you for finally conceding the point that traveling caches ARE allowed on this site and DO exist, regardless of what exists on YOUR bookmark list.

 

(And do note: I'm refering to those traveling caches that are A) grandfathered or B.) have received the requisite permissions - NOT "pocket caches.") Edit: Stupid emoticons.

Edited by Cymbaline
Link to comment

Pretty simple semantics, It is a grandfathered cache type.

GRANDFATHERED Travelling caches are allowed and do exist on this site. That is the only type that is allowed. The ones that were ORIGINALLY APPROVED as Travelling Caches.

It is no longer an approvable cache type.

It is a cache type that is no longer acceptable for NEW hides. Or changing traditional current caches to ones that 'secretly' move. That is not allowed and therefore should not exist according to the guidelines.

 

Nonetheless, thank you for finally conceding the point that traveling caches ARE allowed on this site and DO exist, regardless of what exists on YOUR bookmark list.
Link to comment

It could have been done better by asking people to sign a log book that would later be put into the cache in Iraq, and post NOTES (instead of FINDS) on the cache page. But on the the other hand, I continue to fail to see the harm done to anyone by a few found logs on this cache.

If it were only that cache, with clearly that motive, I don't think there would be much of a fuss. It's something bigger and weirder, which I haven't quite figured out yet.

 

Why did a random puzzle cache in Massachusetts called "Curiosity Killed the Cat" get twenty logs?

 

I think someone gave out the wrong GC number... how embarrasing.. :laughing:

 

I was at GW4 and found this cache as well as the Iraq cache.

 

When I signed the log book for the Iraq cache it was a note for the guys on the front line. I thanked them for their service and wished them well and that they all make it back home. I also had made up my mind that when I got home I would log a note and not a find as I was sure that the guys putting lives on the line would consider those finds as a badge of pride. The cache was put together well and H2Nut did a fantastic job. The cache had laminated sheets describing the history of caching in Iraq as well as a nice map of the locations of all the caches there. He also made a get photo album of soldiers finding the caches in their real location with tribute pages to a few who had fallen in the line of duty.

 

I think the "Curiosity Killed the Cat” was an honest mistake as I think it was a cache located in the message board at GW4, which I think I saw at a prior event a year ago. It is play dough can inserted in to the leg of the message board. I think that it was intended to be submitted to GC.com, but was not due to reason or another. It just so happens to be that there is only 1 cache that comes up when you do a key word search on GC.com.

 

All the other temp caches that were at GW4 were real posted caches that the owners saw fit to bring with them to share. For the most part these hides were about the containers and not the hunt. AN example was the Texas Micro; normally sitting in the owner's front yard was now sitting in their campsite. I have no problem logging the temp caches as long as what I found is the same as the normal placement. Meaning, if what I found was a Park and grab at some ones campsite and the normal posting was a PNG.

 

However if the one I found was a PNG and the normal was a significant hike to reach the same container, in my right mind I can not log a find.

 

As far as the record run.... :laughing:

Link to comment

Pretty simple semantics, It is a grandfathered cache type.

GRANDFATHERED Travelling caches are allowed and do exist on this site. That is the only type that is allowed. The ones that were ORIGINALLY APPROVED as Travelling Caches.

It is no longer an approvable cache type.

It is a cache type that is no longer acceptable for NEW hides. Or changing traditional current caches to ones that 'secretly' move. That is not allowed and therefore should not exist according to the guidelines.

 

Nonetheless, thank you for finally conceding the point that traveling caches ARE allowed on this site and DO exist, regardless of what exists on YOUR bookmark list.

 

Actually, your last comment there ("new" hides) isn't 100% accurate, but we'll let that one go.

 

But yes! They are grandfathered! You know that, and I know that, and others know that.. but not everybody, evidently. There's a minor problem, though. See, the Guidelines also talk about Grandfathered caches:

 

Geocaching.com Listing Guidelines - Grandfathered

 

Guess what isn't listed or discussed there - in any way, shape, or form.

Link to comment

Pretty simple semantics, It is a grandfathered cache type.

GRANDFATHERED Travelling caches are allowed and do exist on this site. That is the only type that is allowed. The ones that were ORIGINALLY APPROVED as Travelling Caches.

It is no longer an approvable cache type.

It is a cache type that is no longer acceptable for NEW hides. Or changing traditional current caches to ones that 'secretly' move. That is not allowed and therefore should not exist according to the guidelines.

 

Nonetheless, thank you for finally conceding the point that traveling caches ARE allowed on this site and DO exist, regardless of what exists on YOUR bookmark list.

 

And before I forget, you forgot to quote the rest of my comment. I referenced the grandfathered caches (which is why I was so excited that somebody else was paying attention!) AND "pocket caches" in the part of my post that you neglected to quote. Here's the rest of it for you, for continuity:

 

Nonetheless, thank you for finally conceding the point that traveling caches ARE allowed on this site and DO exist, regardless of what exists on YOUR bookmark list.

 

(And do note: I'm refering to those traveling caches that are A) grandfathered or B.) have received the requisite permissions - NOT "pocket caches.") Edit: Stupid emoticons.

 

That is all.

Link to comment

I guess I just don't get the confusion or controversy.

 

Groundspeak's "tagline" is "The Language of Location."

 

The first half of the word "Geocache" is "Geo," from "Geography."

 

At the top of every Geocache page on the Groundspeak web you find the Geographical coordinates for a particular location.

 

If you didn't go to that geographic location then you may have found a cache, but you didn't find a Groundspeak listed Geocache.

 

So don't log it on the Groundspeak site.

 

Works in my head, anyway.

 

Bret

Edited by CYBret
Link to comment

Y'know....I sit and read a lot of things about people's logging practices. I read about multiple finds on the same cache, finds that are really dnf's and my opinion has always been that these issues are just between the cache owner and the cacher. There's no score in this game, no governing board. It's about how you play the game and I've come to some peace with the reality that even if you're on the same website I'm on, you might be playing a different game than me.

 

 

 

But this is just stupid.

 

This practice cheapens this game for everyone. There is no cohesiveness to the caching experience with this practice. It cheapens the experience of those who put real time and effort into finding the cache. It makes GPS usage utterly meaningless when you can log a cache that is registered in one country or even state in a completely different state. This does nothing to build or strengthen the caching community. All it does is bastardize your own stats.

 

If you logged caches like this you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

 

Bret

 

Well said, Bret.

 

I hope each person that logged this cache does the honorable thing and deletes their find.

Link to comment

It seems that Groundspeak is being a bit hypocritical here. They have obviously known about temporary caches being taken to events for YEARS. Some descriptions of events had references to temporary caches that were going to be in place. The events were APPROVED even with that in the description.

It obviously has been going on, otherwise, why would so many people from so many different parts of the country take temporary caches to Woodstock? Just so they could get archived?

So I guess Groundspeak has been turning a blind eye to this practice for a long time and NOW, after Woodstock, everyone who took a temporary cache or signed into a temporary cache is a liar and a cheater?

If it was such a big deal, why didn't Groundspeak take steps to prevent this YEARS ago? Why were events approved that had temporary caches mentioned in the description? Why were people allowed to sign in to events multiple times to account for each temporary that was found? Why didn't Groundspeak limit it to one log per event?

Are we going to go back a year, 2 years, 3 years, and search out every event that had temporary caches and archive all of them?

I was asked to bring some temporary caches to Woodstock. I took 3 that I thought were unusual containers that maybe people in different parts of the country had not seen before. All of the comments I received were positive and several people asked permission to copy the idea in their home states.

I thought it would be great to share new ideas with people who may not get to travel much and see new types of containers. They have been archived now.

Hey, if Groundspeak wants to play hardball and crack down on padding numbers, that's just fine. But why act so innocent like they didn't know a thing about it until now? Come on, give me a break. They're not that stupid. They could have cracked down a long time ago and then all this mess would have never happened.

Link to comment
... I guess Groundspeak has been turning a blind eye to this practice for a long time and NOW, after Woodstock, everyone who took a temporary cache or signed into a temporary cache is a liar and a cheater?

 

Actually they were before GW4 as well.

 

f it was such a big deal, why didn't Groundspeak take steps to prevent this YEARS ago? Why were events approved that had temporary caches mentioned in the description?

 

Because there are no rules against temporary caches at events. They can't be listed here, but there is nothing keeping people from hiding them. In fact I've found dozens of these temporary event caches and I had loads of fun doing so.

 

I was asked to bring some temporary caches to Woodstock. I took 3 that I thought were unusual containers that maybe people in different parts of the country had not seen before. All of the comments I received were positive and several people asked permission to copy the idea in their home states.

I thought it would be great to share new ideas with people who may not get to travel much and see new types of containers. They have been archived now.

 

I'm confused. Since temporary caches are not listed on this website, how could they have been archived?

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
I was asked to bring some temporary caches to Woodstock. I took 3 that I thought were unusual containers that maybe people in different parts of the country had not seen before. All of the comments I received were positive and several people asked permission to copy the idea in their home states.

I thought it would be great to share new ideas with people who may not get to travel much and see new types of containers. They have been archived now.

 

I think it's neat that you were able to show off your interesting containers to people who have never seen those cache styles. But I don't understand why you would tell them to log the cache...

Link to comment

It seems that Groundspeak is being a bit hypocritical here. They have obviously known about temporary caches being taken to events for YEARS. Some descriptions of events had references to temporary caches that were going to be in place. The events were APPROVED even with that in the description.

It obviously has been going on, otherwise, why would so many people from so many different parts of the country take temporary caches to Woodstock? Just so they could get archived?

So I guess Groundspeak has been turning a blind eye to this practice for a long time and NOW, after Woodstock, everyone who took a temporary cache or signed into a temporary cache is a liar and a cheater?

If it was such a big deal, why didn't Groundspeak take steps to prevent this YEARS ago? Why were events approved that had temporary caches mentioned in the description? Why were people allowed to sign in to events multiple times to account for each temporary that was found? Why didn't Groundspeak limit it to one log per event?

Are we going to go back a year, 2 years, 3 years, and search out every event that had temporary caches and archive all of them?

I was asked to bring some temporary caches to Woodstock. I took 3 that I thought were unusual containers that maybe people in different parts of the country had not seen before. All of the comments I received were positive and several people asked permission to copy the idea in their home states.

I thought it would be great to share new ideas with people who may not get to travel much and see new types of containers. They have been archived now.

Hey, if Groundspeak wants to play hardball and crack down on padding numbers, that's just fine. But why act so innocent like they didn't know a thing about it until now? Come on, give me a break. They're not that stupid. They could have cracked down a long time ago and then all this mess would have never happened.

 

Temps have been allowed because THEY ARE JUST TEMPS FOR THAT SPECIFIC EVENT! How many times do people have to post this?

 

Here, how about looking at the rules for having an event published on the website...if ya check, it says "event's can not be held just to go find geocaches". Events are meant to be fun places to meet other geocachers, NOT to run up your numbers frivolusly.

 

OK, on to your points: first off, I applaud you for bringing entertaining geocache containers to show off. But realize THAT was your goal, not to give people free smileys. Secondly, and this is just my honest belief, I don't believe TPTB actually thought it would ever get this far. They believed that human nature was better than what we saw it to be at GW4. I believe that although there were many great cachers and great people there, the NUMBER of fake finds and dishonest behavior was so bad that everyone who participated FORCED this decision on them. All of us that have been on the side wondering WTF people are doing trying to force MORE rules, when the guidelines in place were enough for anyone who wasn't trying to...well, as criminal would say...Cheat.

 

OK...I'm sorry, but it's frustrating following this saga and seeing so many people NOT even try to understand...or even try to say "oh, wow, that is wrong".

 

Let's put it this way...the whole "cop didn't see it I didn't do it" doesn't work when you're trying to create a positive comunity where the logs in question are all online and can be audited.

 

blah

Celticwulf

Link to comment
I was asked to bring some temporary caches to Woodstock. I took 3 that I thought were unusual containers that maybe people in different parts of the country had not seen before. All of the comments I received were positive and several people asked permission to copy the idea in their home states.

I thought it would be great to share new ideas with people who may not get to travel much and see new types of containers. They have been archived now.

 

I think it's neat that you were able to show off your interesting containers to people who have never seen those cache styles. But I don't understand why you would tell them to log the cache...

Because that's the way it's been done as long as I can remember. Never heard anyone say--this is a no no as far as Groundspeak goes. People have been finding and logging temporary caches at lots of events, and signing in multiple times. Why didn't Groundspeak put a stop to this if it was such a horrible and evil thing?

Link to comment

Because that's the way it's been done as long as I can remember. Never heard anyone say--this is a no no as far as Groundspeak goes. People have been finding and logging temporary caches at lots of events, and signing in multiple times. Why didn't Groundspeak put a stop to this if it was such a horrible and evil thing?

 

Groundspeak doesn’t really have a problem with temporary event caches. They are cracking down on legitimate caches that were hidden somewhere else and turned into traveling caches that people take to different events. It seems pretty strange that a lot of people in Texas found this cache, but the people in Florida where it’s supposed to be hidden couldn’t.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...c1-2cbd961100d9

Link to comment
I was asked to bring some temporary caches to Woodstock. I took 3 that I thought were unusual containers that maybe people in different parts of the country had not seen before. All of the comments I received were positive and several people asked permission to copy the idea in their home states.

I thought it would be great to share new ideas with people who may not get to travel much and see new types of containers. They have been archived now.

 

I think it's neat that you were able to show off your interesting containers to people who have never seen those cache styles. But I don't understand why you would tell them to log the cache...

Because that's the way it's been done as long as I can remember. Never heard anyone say--this is a no no as far as Groundspeak goes. People have been finding and logging temporary caches at lots of events, and signing in multiple times. Why didn't Groundspeak put a stop to this if it was such a horrible and evil thing?

 

You go back longer than I do, but I first heard of this practice about a year ago. I've yet to see it at any events I've attended (Outside one person. With 80 some people at the event, and with most finding a half dozen or so temporary event caches, only one logged the event multiple times. You'd think he'd realize that something was wrong with that picture).

Link to comment

Because that's the way it's been done as long as I can remember. Never heard anyone say--this is a no no as far as Groundspeak goes. People have been finding and logging temporary caches at lots of events, and signing in multiple times. Why didn't Groundspeak put a stop to this if it was such a horrible and evil thing?

 

Hey, if Groundspeak wants to play hardball and crack down on padding numbers, that's just fine. But why act so innocent like they didn't know a thing about it until now? Come on, give me a break. They're not that stupid. They could have cracked down a long time ago and then all this mess would have never happened.

 

Welllll, you could say that turning a blind eye to a few fun-lovin cachers denotes acceptance, but to say that since they didn't before they can't now....

Link to comment

I was asked to bring some temporary caches to Woodstock. I took 3 that I thought were unusual containers that maybe people in different parts of the country had not seen before. All of the comments I received were positive and several people asked permission to copy the idea in their home states.

I thought it would be great to share new ideas with people who may not get to travel much and see new types of containers. They have been archived now.

 

Showing off your cache containers and hide ideas is a great thing to do at an event. I don't think anyone has a problem with that. Encouraging and/or allowing GW4 attendees to log them as if the cache were still in its listed location, however, is the problem. That is clearly a violation of the guidelines.

 

I have never understood the allure of temporary caches and why some folks think an event has to have temp caches.

Link to comment
Event Caches

 

Event caches are gatherings that are open to all geocachers and which are organized by geocachers. After the event has passed, the event cache should be archived by the organizer within four weeks. While a music concert, a garage sale, a ham radio field day or town’s fireworks display might be of interest to a large percentage of geocachers, such events are not suitable for submission as event caches because the organizers and the primary attendees are not geocachers. In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches. Such group hunts are best organized using the forums or an email distribution list.

 

For geocaching events that involve several components, such as a day-long group cache hunt that also involves a seminar and dinner, only a single event cache covering all components should be submitted.

 

Event caches should be submitted no less than two weeks prior to the date of the event, so that potential attendees will have sufficient notice to make their plans. Events are generally listed no more than three months prior to the date of the event, to avoid having the listing appear for a prolonged period of time on the nearest caches page and in the weekly e-mail notification of new caches. Exceptions are sometimes made for events that are designed to attract a regional, national or international group of geocachers. Contact your reviewer if you wish to set up such an event, which may be listed up to six months in advance.

 

How do others think temporary caches fit within the section of the guidelines for events that I've highlighted?

Link to comment

I'm sure H2nut didn't realize the furor his cache would create. I completely missed seeing this cache at GW, but I did have the honor of walking up a hill with and finding a cache with him. ( A real, numbered, permanent cache). I had never met him before this time, but he is the real deal. He has served for 22 years, and getting ready to retire from the Army. I think his intentions were entirely honorable.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...