Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
WalruZ

New Feature Request - Single Log Per Cache.

Recommended Posts

Perhaps this has been asked for before. Even so, I'll ask for it again.

 

 

It can't be that hard to limit each user to one 'found' or 'attended' log per cache, and it's hardly unreasonable. That should not be "up to the cache owner".

 

It would also be nice to disallow a cache owner the option of 'finding' their own cache.

 

 

This user has been to 1156 events as of this post. This is just not acceptable. Please. Do something.

 

edited to clairify log types.

 

 

:laughing:

Edited by WalruZ

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps this has been asked for before. Even so, I'll ask for it again.

 

 

It can't be that hard to limit each user to one log per cache, and it's hardly unreasonable. That should not be "up to the cache owner".

 

 

This user has been to 1156 events as of this post. This is just not acceptable. Please. Do something.

 

 

:laughing:

 

Line 2 seems to be outa place with line 3 would like a better explaination of your request

Share this post


Link to post

I agree. You can only "attend" and event once. Do you get credit in school more than once for writing your name multiple times on the roll sheet?

 

Same goes with "find"ing a cache. After you've found it you know where it is. How can you "find" it again? "Oh look, this cache is in the same place it was last time" :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Excellent suggestion, and one that makes 'common sense'...

 

1 event or 1 cache=1 log.

 

What a concept!

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

It can't be that hard to limit each user to one log per cache, and it's hardly unreasonable. That should not be "up to the cache owner".

 

 

 

This is the line that has me wondering,:::

 

Does he mean I log a find the first time I find it: But can't log a note saying I dropped of a new Colorado Geo coin....at a later date

confuzzled

Share this post


Link to post

Come to think of it, wasn't one of the reasons this wasn't implemented a long time ago the fact that some Locationless caches could be logged more than once . . . <_<

 

Now that those aren't on this site anymore, is there any valid reason for the site to allow more than one "Found It" log for the same cache.

 

Why does the site allow someone to log a "Found It" on their own cache? Or multiple "Found It" logs on their own cache to make up for some non-approved caches they couldn't log. :laughing:

 

How can someone "Attend" the same event more than once?

 

Seems like this could be easily implemented . . .

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps this has been asked for before. Even so, I'll ask for it again.

 

It can't be that hard to limit each user to one log per cache, and it's hardly unreasonable. That should not be "up to the cache owner".

 

This user has been to 1156 events as of this post. This is just not acceptable. Please. Do something.

 

<_<

I'm trying as hard as I can, but I just can't seem to care about how many times someone logs an event. And, gosh, I guess I should care, because that big number somehow makes them so much better than other people. Right? :laughing:

 

G.O.I. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Now that [locationless caches] aren't on this site anymore, is there any valid reason for the site to allow more than one "Found It" log for the same cache.
There are still a few grandfathered travelling caches around. One has been wandering around here recently, being found and re-hidden a few times a day. Some people have found it more than once. Although I suppose you could just log a Note instead of a Found It when you find such a cache a second (or third, or...) time.

 

Why does the site allow someone to log a "Found It" on their own cache?
Amen. I'd rather not even have the option. I've hidden only one cache so far, and I've still accidentally posted a Found It log for it twice. (I changed them to Note logs as soon as I'd realized what I'd done.)

 

How can someone "Attend" the same event more than once?
Maybe they left to feed the parking meter and then came back... :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

I can think of one instance where a second found log might be acceptable. A while ago I posted an SBA log on a cache as it was vandalized.

 

Someone adopted it, moved it 20-50' & changed the cache container size, and allowed other people to re-log it, as it was something of a new experience. When I went back to the cache, I chose to 'note' log the second time, but that is just me, not a reflection on the cache.

 

So anyway, all that to say, yeah I can see a case where it would not be unreasonable to log a cache more than once. I understand what you are getting that, and I don't disagree with the principle, just that it might not be the greatest option is all.

Edited by New England n00b

Share this post


Link to post

I can think of one instance where a second found log might be acceptable. A while ago I posted an SBA log on a cache as it was vandalized.

 

Someone adopted it, moved it 20-50' & changed the cache container size, and allowed other people to re-log it, as it was something of a new experience. When I went back to the cache, I chose to 'note' log the second time, but that is just me, not a reflection on the cache.

 

So anyway, all that to say, yeah I can see a case where it would not be unreasonable to log a cache more than once. I understand what you are getting that, and I don't disagree with the principle, just that it might not be the greatest option is all.

 

I agree. I have logged a few twice that way. Essentially you have a new cache. Perhaps if we want to be particular about the 1 cace 1 log thing, we should at the same time require cache replacements where the cache is significantly different in nature to require a re-issue cache page with another GC number.

 

Or, if it came down to it, I would not see a big loss in being restricted to one find. It would be good to help stop the complaints.

 

If we were to ijmplement a 1 cache 1 log rule, I would support it.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps this has been asked for before. Even so, I'll ask for it again.

 

It can't be that hard to limit each user to one 'found' or 'attended' log per cache, and it's hardly unreasonable. That should not be "up to the cache owner".

 

It would also be nice to disallow a cache owner the option of 'finding' their own cache.

 

This user has been to 1156 events as of this post. This is just not acceptable. Please. Do something.

 

edited to clairify log types.

 

:laughing:

Check out this event. It looks like some cachers logged the thing dozens of times. For one low-number cacher, multiple found it logs for this event compose 25% of their total finds. Now I know how some of the high-number cachers who attended this event got so many finds.

Edited by geognerd

Share this post


Link to post

Again, frankly, I'd rather Groundspeak focus on adding new USEFUL functionality and fixing things that are broken than appeasing the numbers w**res making these silly proposals.

 

I couldn't care less if Joe Noob logs his own cache 90,000 times. If he logs mine twice, I'll fix it.

 

Please, leave it alone, TPTB. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps this has been asked for before. Even so, I'll ask for it again.

 

It can't be that hard to limit each user to one 'found' or 'attended' log per cache, and it's hardly unreasonable. That should not be "up to the cache owner".

 

It would also be nice to disallow a cache owner the option of 'finding' their own cache.

 

This user has been to 1156 events as of this post. This is just not acceptable. Please. Do something.

 

edited to clairify log types.

 

:laughing:

Check out this event. It looks like some cachers logged the thing dozens of times. For one low-number cacher, multiple found it logs for this event compose 25% of their total finds. Now I know how some of the high-number cachers who attended this event got so many finds.

 

That one wasn't so bad. Check this one out: Highway 100.

Share this post


Link to post
If he logs mine twice, I'll fix it.

 

Now see? If every cache owner was just as responsible, alot of the problems we are seeing would never have happened...

 

Excellent point, ParrotRob! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

I found a cache in 2004, with a couple of my students. We had a blast looking for it.

 

Early this year, the owner asked me if I would like to take over that cache. I adopted it. Now I maintain it, replace the logbook when it fills up, etc.

 

Explain to me exactly why I shouldn't have credit for finding it and for being the owner of it?

Share this post


Link to post

I found a cache in 2004, with a couple of my students. We had a blast looking for it.

 

Early this year, the owner asked me if I would like to take over that cache. I adopted it. Now I maintain it, replace the logbook when it fills up, etc.

 

Explain to me exactly why I shouldn't have credit for finding it and for being the owner of it?

 

You found it before you were the owner of it. If you placed the cache, the reason why you shouldn't log the find should be fairly obvious.

Edited by ReadyOrNot

Share this post


Link to post

I found a cache in 2004, with a couple of my students. We had a blast looking for it.

 

Early this year, the owner asked me if I would like to take over that cache. I adopted it. Now I maintain it, replace the logbook when it fills up, etc.

 

Explain to me exactly why I shouldn't have credit for finding it and for being the owner of it?

 

As long as you found it BEFORE you adopted it, there is no conflict and you SHOULD claim a find on it.

Share this post


Link to post

Again, frankly, I'd rather Groundspeak focus on adding new USEFUL functionality and fixing things that are broken than appeasing the numbers w**res making these silly proposals.

 

I couldn't care less if Joe Noob logs his own cache 90,000 times. If he logs mine twice, I'll fix it.

 

Please, leave it alone, TPTB. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post

I found a cache in 2004, with a couple of my students. We had a blast looking for it.

 

Early this year, the owner asked me if I would like to take over that cache. I adopted it. Now I maintain it, replace the logbook when it fills up, etc.

 

Explain to me exactly why I shouldn't have credit for finding it and for being the owner of it?

 

You found it before you were the owner of it. If you placed the cache, the reason why you shouldn't log the find should be fairly obvious.

Lets take another look at the grandfathered traveling cache example. If I own the cache and you move it somewhere, why shouldn't I be able to log a find? I didn't hide it and don't know where it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Lets take another look at the grandfathered traveling cache example. If I own the cache and you move it somewhere, why shouldn't I be able to log a find? I didn't hide it and don't know where it is.

 

Because it has the same GC#...

Share this post


Link to post

 

Check out this event. It looks like some cachers logged the thing dozens of times. For one low-number cacher, multiple found it logs for this event compose 25% of their total finds. Now I know how some of the high-number cachers who attended this event got so many finds.

 

That one wasn't so bad. Check this one out: Highway 100.

 

To me, that doesn't even really meet the definition of an "event" - where people hang out, meet each other, and discus geocaching, etc. Based on the description, I don't think it would even be approved in my area.

Share this post


Link to post

As a second example of when an owner might legitimately claim a "found" log on their cache, I have had one experience where I felt that it was reasonable to do so.

 

When I placed one of my caches, I had placed it in a particular location (obviously). Some time later, it was found by the local children who used that park, and left sitting out in the open, along with a log in the logbook indicating that they had known all along where it was. A well-meaning cacher moved the cache to another location in the park for me and provided me(via email) the new coordinates of the cache, as well as some instructions on how to get there. As I wouldwith any other cache, I attempted to use the coords to find the cache. Only when I failed to do so due to the heavy tree cover did I resort to the instructions. I personally feel that since I had to find my own cache, that cache is reasonable to claim as a find.

 

Incidentally, on the topic of moving caches, I would suggest that if someone placed a moving cache (back when they were legal) and said cache is still "alive", and they find it's hidden(by someone else) nearby, I think they should be able to log a find on it if they choose to do so.

Share this post


Link to post

It can't be that hard to limit each user to one 'found' or 'attended' log per cache, and it's hardly unreasonable. That should not be "up to the cache owner".

 

It would also be nice to disallow a cache owner the option of 'finding' their own cache.

 

There are two ways to accomplish this.

 

One is when you go to log the cache it looks to see if you are the owner and if you had already logged a Found It on that cache. If either are true then it doesn't show you the Found It log-type option. This would prevent you from logging the cache twice as a find or if you are the owner.

 

The other way is to change how total is actually aggregated. Today it is a simple count of the Found It logs. Change the query to number of caches where you have a Found It log and are not the owner. This is simpler, but owners of adopted caches who found it previous to the adoption would lose a smilie. I'm one who has adopted a few caches and I couldn't care less if I lost smilies. Others would though, I'm sure. Just like the ones whose find count gets cut in half in the count scheme.

 

Both will work in reducing the improper logging. One will force the stop of the practice, the other will remove the incentive. Either works for me.

Share this post


Link to post

This is separate post because it didn't quite fit in the above.

 

I mentioned this a while back. You could do the first option where you prevent addition Found It logs with site programming.

 

This does eliminate the ability to multi-log caches should allow it, like the remaining moving caches. (Oh, BTW, this scheme would automatically "grandfather" previous logs.) The answer to this is to allow the option of multi-logging. It would be a simple switch, approvable by a reviewer, that removed the test to turn off the appropriate log option.

 

The solution is simple. The programming isn't trivial, but not that hard.

 

The advantages are the cache count would be as it now--counting the number of logs written--but would remove the ability to do the debatable logging practices of today.

Share this post


Link to post

There is an event today (which I have to miss because of work) that is being put on by a local park.

It is set up around four multi-caches. Each multi-cache has three locations, each location has a tag that gives part of a combination to a lock on the cache container that is back at the check-in area.

You can find one cache, or as many as you want up to all four.

Why shouldn't someone be able to log the event four times if they found all four caches? Or do you think it's right that someone who found one cache gets the same credit for the find as someone who found all four?

Keep in mind that the website guidelines specifically state that you can't have several event listings (note it says "listings", not "logs") for the same event.

Share this post


Link to post

Why shouldn't someone be able to log the event four times if they found all four caches?

 

It's not that they don't get credit for the finds. They just don't get credit here.

 

The finds count, but Groundspeak has not made a provision for users to show all finds no matter where the cache was listed.

Share this post


Link to post

I think there is a simple solution to this. One log per GC####. No exceptions. I had a cache that was taken by a clean-up crew, brought to their office, handed to a friend of mine who knew what a cache was, and I picked it up at their house. I 'found' it at their home, but it never ever occurred to me to log my own cache. Come on people. If you are at an event and you find a cache that has no GC####, how can you rationalize logging a separate 'find'? It's not a geocache for logging on GC.com until it has a GC####. Period. It is sad that we have to get a fix for something so patently, obviously against the spirit of caching. However, I say if it can be done, it really needs to be done, along with algorithm thrown in to remove previous abuse of this 'loophole'.

Share this post


Link to post

Why shouldn't someone be able to log the event four times if they found all four caches?

 

It's not that they don't get credit for the finds. They just don't get credit here.

 

The finds count, but Groundspeak has not made a provision for users to show all finds no matter where the cache was listed.

I think it's odd that I can claim my terracaching.com finds on this site merely by posting additional "attended" logs on an event.

Share this post


Link to post

Why shouldn't someone be able to log the event four times if they found all four caches?

 

It's not that they don't get credit for the finds. They just don't get credit here.

 

The finds count, but Groundspeak has not made a provision for users to show all finds no matter where the cache was listed.

I think it's odd that I can claim my terracaching.com finds on this site merely by posting additional "attended" logs on an event.

 

I suppose you could claim it anywhere. I personally feel you shouldn't be claiming it on an established cache that has nothing to do with the caches you're claiming.

 

I used to feel claiming multiple finds on events for temporary event caches was acceptable, but since the logs have been changed to "attended" I no longer think it appropriate.

 

I think what we are left with are finds that don't really have a home. In an effort to claim such finds folks are getting creative. If Groundspeak gave these finds a home this creativity wouldn't be needed. Combine this with the ability for a finder to communicate directly with a cache owner via a private log and the ability to hide one's own stats--to truly let folks do it their way--then much of this would go away.

Share this post


Link to post

I can think of one instance where a second found log might be acceptable. A while ago I posted an SBA log on a cache as it was vandalized.

 

Someone adopted it, moved it 20-50' & changed the cache container size, and allowed other people to re-log it, as it was something of a new experience. When I went back to the cache, I chose to 'note' log the second time, but that is just me, not a reflection on the cache.

 

So anyway, all that to say, yeah I can see a case where it would not be unreasonable to log a cache more than once. I understand what you are getting that, and I don't disagree with the principle, just that it might not be the greatest option is all.

 

I agree. I have logged a few twice that way. Essentially you have a new cache. Perhaps if we want to be particular about the 1 cace 1 log thing, we should at the same time require cache replacements where the cache is significantly different in nature to require a re-issue cache page with another GC number.

 

Or, if it came down to it, I would not see a big loss in being restricted to one find. It would be good to help stop the complaints.

 

If we were to ijmplement a 1 cache 1 log rule, I would support it.

 

Did it have the same GC #

The first cache I ever did in 02/01 was moved about a 1/2 a mile away my 2nd log on it was a note. Although it was moved it was still the same cache. Same Gc# one find

Share this post


Link to post

Why shouldn't someone be able to log the event four times if they found all four caches?

 

It's not that they don't get credit for the finds. They just don't get credit here.

 

The finds count, but Groundspeak has not made a provision for users to show all finds no matter where the cache was listed.

I think it's odd that I can claim my terracaching.com finds on this site merely by posting additional "attended" logs on an event.

 

I suppose you could claim it anywhere. I personally feel you shouldn't be claiming it on an established cache that has nothing to do with the caches you're claiming.

 

I used to feel claiming multiple finds on events for temporary event caches was acceptable, but since the logs have been changed to "attended" I no longer think it appropriate.

 

I think what we are left with are finds that don't really have a home. In an effort to claim such finds folks are getting creative. If Groundspeak gave these finds a home this creativity wouldn't be needed. Combine this with the ability for a finder to communicate directly with a cache owner via a private log and the ability to hide one's own stats--to truly let folks do it their way--then much of this would go away.

I think it's odd that I can also claim finding my car keys by posting an extra "found it" log on a cache page.

Share this post


Link to post

That works for me, even though I have two "Found It" logs for one cache that, instead of being Archived when it was moved more than a mile away, was just moved. B)

 

My caching partner had it on her GPSr, and since the hunt was so very different, I logged a second "Found It."

 

If there was a "Sweep" through the database for all of those, I wouldn't mind that "Found It" being changed to a "Note" if it would stop all this other silliness of hundreds of logs on Event caches, and multiple "Found It" logs on owned caches. B)

Share this post


Link to post
If he logs mine twice, I'll fix it.

 

Now see? If every cache owner was just as responsible, alot of the problems we are seeing would never have happened...

 

Excellent point, ParrotRob! B)

 

Exactly. Why do we need technology to do what cache owners should already be doing - IF THEY SO CHOOSE?

Share this post


Link to post

I also support the concept of 1 GC#### = 1 Found It Log. NO Exceptions! None!

I also think the chance we'll ever see it is about ZERO.

 

But assume it did happen (and with a corresponding sweep/purge of the database).

That would immediatly exaserbate the issue of logging archived Caches.

There are a few examples of perfectly legitimate reasons for logging Found on an archived Cache.

 

Don't think for a minute the mass multiple logging = fun crowd won't just take their number pumping activity to archived caches.

It's already bad. It would get a lot worse.

 

So much for the argument that they are only having fun and I should not worry about it.

Eventually some practices becomes so egregious they get regulated.

That affects ALL of us, so it really is my problem.

Share this post


Link to post

This is copied from the Geocaching Guidelines:

 

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

So if you take the last line of this statement, It seems that Geocaching is OK with event caches being hidden. Now saying that, there has to be a way of Logging these So Called Event caches. The only way to log an Event cache is on the Event cache page as multiple Attend logs. Therefore if Geocaching is OK with event caches, then this should be an acceptible practice.

 

And before you start to pursecute me I do have multiple logs for the same event for these Event caches. All of the logs are legit (per the event cache guidelines).

 

I do believe however that there is abuse going on for this type of logging. There needs to be a LIMIT put on the amount of Event cache logging that a person can do.

Share this post


Link to post

Another reason to have multiple logs on one cache...

 

Aren't some of the moving caches still grandfathered and active? If you found one of them two or three different times, you might want to log it multiple times.

 

I haven't ever run across one of those, so I'm not really sure how they work, but I imagine that you could find them multiple times and each time in a different place, different "hide"--the story would be more interesting than if it was the only time a person found it, I would think.

 

Edited to remove a superfluous word.

Edited by Team Neos

Share this post


Link to post

This is copied from the Geocaching Guidelines:

 

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

So if you take the last line of this statement, It seems that Geocaching is OK with event caches being hidden. Now saying that, there has to be a way of Logging these So Called Event caches. The only way to log an Event cache is on the Event cache page as multiple Attend logs. Therefore if Geocaching is OK with event caches, then this should be an acceptible practice.

 

I'm afraid you've completely misconstrued the statement If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there. That means that if you've set up perminant caches (with their own cache page on gc.com), but want the event members to have first crack at them, you should print off the cache page to distribute among the event members. The reviewer will hold off publishing the caches until after the event.

Share this post


Link to post

This is copied from the Geocaching Guidelines:

 

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

So if you take the last line of this statement, It seems that Geocaching is OK with event caches being hidden. Now saying that, there has to be a way of Logging these So Called Event caches. The only way to log an Event cache is on the Event cache page as multiple Attend logs. Therefore if Geocaching is OK with event caches, then this should be an acceptible practice.

 

And before you start to pursecute me I do have multiple logs for the same event for these Event caches. All of the logs are legit (per the event cache guidelines).

 

I do believe however that there is abuse going on for this type of logging. There needs to be a LIMIT put on the amount of Event cache logging that a person can do.

I could agree with the need for a reasonable limit. I understand why event caches aren't encouraged, and understand why they are desirable at the same time.

 

They aren't encouraged because, face it, if they were made "official" there would be a need to have them reviewed --and that just puts extra work on the volunteer reviewers for a temporary cache.

 

On the other hand, they are desirable because they do much to promote geocaching:

 

For many newbies, they offer a chance to see a variety of well-placed, intriguing hides.

 

For many park managers, they are a chance to see what impact geocaching might have on the area. In our area, the park managers will often allow a cache to be hidden for a weekend to allow cachers to find it for an event. Perhaps the area wouldn't sustain the cache permanently--but they still want to accomodate cachers when they can, to encourage them to visit the area, since many cachers are also hikers.

 

For many long-time cachers, they offer the chance to see new hides that they can take back to their home area.

 

I for one think temporary event caches *should* have their own category. How they would "count" I don't really care...but it would be nice to have them there. I've heard about frivolous event hides (stand on one foot the longest, etc) but in my area the hides tend toward the devious, the clever, the unusual, and the exciting. Perhaps if we set a limit (say 10 or 20 per day) the rest of the geocaching world would be encouraged to promote quality temporary hides for events. And then the only people who would complain are the ones who can't go to the event.

Share this post


Link to post

Another reason to have multiple logs on one cache...

 

Aren't some of the moving caches still grandfathered and active? If you found one of them two or three different times, you might want to log it multiple times.

 

I haven't ever run across one of those, so I'm not really sure how they work, but I imagine that you could find them multiple times and each time in a different place, different "hide"--the story would be more interesting than if it was the only time a person found it, I would think.

 

Yes there are still some active grandfatherd moving Caches.

So find it once and move on to the next Cache.

 

That's what happens when people abuse a system.

When you put a stop to the abuse, something like this has to suffer.

Share this post


Link to post

This is copied from the Geocaching Guidelines:

 

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

So if you take the last line of this statement, It seems that Geocaching is OK with event caches being hidden. Now saying that, there has to be a way of Logging these So Called Event caches. The only way to log an Event cache is on the Event cache page as multiple Attend logs. Therefore if Geocaching is OK with event caches, then this should be an acceptible practice.

 

I'm afraid you've completely misconstrued the statement If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there. That means that if you've set up perminant caches (with their own cache page on gc.com), but want the event members to have first crack at them, you should print off the cache page to distribute among the event members. The reviewer will hold off publishing the caches until after the event.

Really? I thought it meant that if you want to hide temporary caches for an event you should put the information on a flyer and hand them out at the event. That way you aren't wasting geocaching.com resources on cache pages that won't be published because they are only temporary. If the caches are to be permanent and posted on geocaching.com, everyone can bring their own printouts or PDAs loaded with the cache pages.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm afraid you've completely misconstrued the statement If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there. That means that if you've set up perminant caches (with their own cache page on gc.com), but want the event members to have first crack at them, you should print off the cache page to distribute among the event members. The reviewer will hold off publishing the caches until after the event.

 

 

I respectfully disagree!!

 

If you notice the statement says: "If you wish to hide caches FOR an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there."

Now you can look at this in two different ways, One like you have refered to, or that these are event caches hidden to find at the event only.

If you had hide a bunch of permant caches you can have the reviewer hold them until the day of or the day before the event to be released. Just by sending them a note to release in conjunction of an event. So copies of recently released caches would not be necessary.

I have been to an event where they had a list of all the Local caches with in a 5 mile radious set up in a form of Route.

Share this post


Link to post

I can think of 4 caches in my area alone where the "only log once" limitation wouldn't work.

 

GCA0D6, GC4411, GC43F3, and GCVYF7.

 

Now granted, the first two are "grandfathered" moving caches that have been around for years but they are still two of the more popular caches in Calgary.

 

The third one is a bit unique. And it is probably THE most popular cache in Alberta. It's been grandfathered too, I doubt it would be approved today. But without "official" benchmarking in Alberta it gives people a chance to do something unique and enjoy some absolutely stunning hikes and views as well as some easy drive-ups.

 

The 4th one is fairly new, was recently approved, meets the guidelines, and allows up to 8 finds for the same cache listing.

 

In other words, we gotta be careful about all these "blanket" rules. There are often legitimate reasons to keep things as they are. *sarcasm on* And, of course, we all know how more and more and more rules in our lives has made things so much better, freer, and safer for all. *sarcasm off*

Share this post


Link to post

I can think of 4 caches in my area alone where the "only log once" limitation wouldn't work.

 

B)

 

Woops, I can think of 5. And one of 'em is my own cache! I dunno how I managed to forget about that one. Heheheh. Add GCNGJB to the list.

Share this post


Link to post

This is copied from the Geocaching Guidelines:

 

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

So if you take the last line of this statement, It seems that Geocaching is OK with event caches being hidden. Now saying that, there has to be a way of Logging these So Called Event caches. The only way to log an Event cache is on the Event cache page as multiple Attend logs. Therefore if Geocaching is OK with event caches, then this should be an acceptible practice.

 

I'm afraid you've completely misconstrued the statement If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there. That means that if you've set up perminant caches (with their own cache page on gc.com), but want the event members to have first crack at them, you should print off the cache page to distribute among the event members. The reviewer will hold off publishing the caches until after the event.

Really? I thought it meant that if you want to hide temporary caches for an event you should put the information on a flyer and hand them out at the event. That way you aren't wasting geocaching.com resources on cache pages that won't be published because they are only temporary. If the caches are to be permanent and posted on geocaching.com, everyone can bring their own printouts or PDAs loaded with the cache pages.

 

Well, As a reviewer I will say that sax has the correct meaning. The subject of the line about printouts of caches is "Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. " So if you have a temp cache hidden for your event, since you can not list them on the GC.com website because they do not qualify as a recognized cache, it is suggested that you provide the information about these temp caches in another manner, i.e. a printout.

 

The rest of this is personal opinion..... It does not address the logging of these temp caches because there is no reason to. Why would you log something that isn't recognized as a legit cache on the site?

Share this post


Link to post

This is copied from the Geocaching Guidelines:

 

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

So if you take the last line of this statement, It seems that Geocaching is OK with event caches being hidden. Now saying that, there has to be a way of Logging these So Called Event caches. The only way to log an Event cache is on the Event cache page as multiple Attend logs. Therefore if Geocaching is OK with event caches, then this should be an acceptible practice.

 

I'm afraid you've completely misconstrued the statement If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there. That means that if you've set up perminant caches (with their own cache page on gc.com), but want the event members to have first crack at them, you should print off the cache page to distribute among the event members. The reviewer will hold off publishing the caches until after the event.

Really? I thought it meant that if you want to hide temporary caches for an event you should put the information on a flyer and hand them out at the event. That way you aren't wasting geocaching.com resources on cache pages that won't be published because they are only temporary. If the caches are to be permanent and posted on geocaching.com, everyone can bring their own printouts or PDAs loaded with the cache pages.

 

Well, As a reviewer I will say that sax has the correct meaning. The subject of the line about printouts of caches is "Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. " So if you have a temp cache hidden for your event, since you can not list them on the GC.com website because they do not qualify as a recognized cache, it is suggested that you provide the information about these temp caches in another manner, i.e. a printout.

 

The rest of this is personal opinion..... It does not address the logging of these temp caches because there is no reason to. Why would you log something that isn't recognized as a legit cache on the site?

 

Now this is where the problem lies. If Geocaching is OK with Event caches, then there needs to be a way of logging these event caches. Yes they are not listed on the web site but they are LEGIT finds.

Now I'm not talking about these POCKET CACHES but when you have to go out hunting for Ammo boxes or Decon containers as an Event cache, then I would consider this as a find.

As I said earlier there is ABUSE going on though and there should be some type of LIMIT to the amount of finds that you can log. Whether there is a special log for event caches or whatever.

This is all personal opinion, as stated above.

Ultimately the responsibilty needs to be in the Cachers running the event to self moderate the number of Event caches hidden, and to DELETE excess logging.

I can find no where in the guidelines that this is not an accepted practice as far as GC is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post

This is copied from the Geocaching Guidelines:

 

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

So if you take the last line of this statement, It seems that Geocaching is OK with event caches being hidden. Now saying that, there has to be a way of Logging these So Called Event caches. The only way to log an Event cache is on the Event cache page as multiple Attend logs. Therefore if Geocaching is OK with event caches, then this should be an acceptable practice.

 

I'm afraid you've completely misconstrued the statement If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there. That means that if you've set up permanent caches (with their own cache page on gc.com), but want the event members to have first crack at them, you should print off the cache page to distribute among the event members. The reviewer will hold off publishing the caches until after the event.

Really? I thought it meant that if you want to hide temporary caches for an event you should put the information on a flyer and hand them out at the event. That way you aren't wasting geocaching.com resources on cache pages that won't be published because they are only temporary. If the caches are to be permanent and posted on geocaching.com, everyone can bring their own printouts or PDAs loaded with the cache pages.

 

Well, As a reviewer I will say that sax has the correct meaning. The subject of the line about printouts of caches is "Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. " So if you have a temp cache hidden for your event, since you can not list them on the GC.com website because they do not qualify as a recognized cache, it is suggested that you provide the information about these temp caches in another manner, i.e. a printout.

 

The rest of this is personal opinion..... It does not address the logging of these temp caches because there is no reason to. Why would you log something that isn't recognized as a legit cache on the site?

The event is a "legit cache", as recognized by the site. The cache was placed as part of the recognized event. Therefore, it is a legitimate find of a recognized cache.

 

Most events that I've seen listed will state on the cache page that temporary caches have been placed for the event. If these "event temps" are a violation of the guidelines, why do the reviewers accept them for listing on the site? If they aren't violations, then they are recognized as being a legitimate cache, albeit part of the event.

Share this post


Link to post

Numbers, numbers, numbers. Obviously certain people are only concerned with building huge number of 'finds', not enjoying caching. And certain other people are letting 'those' people get their goat. Play however you like.

 

The only numbers that count to me are mine, I know how they were obtained and I'm comfortable with them, it's more for my own accounting than anything else. Anyone elses numbers.... I couldn't care less! If you decide that you want to claim 1000 finds on an event it affects me not one iota, although it will affect my respect for you, at least in a geocaching aspect.

 

People who claim multiple finds for various reasons are essentially playing two different games and I'm certainly not in 'competition' with them. The only competitors I have in this game are Myself and the cache I'm trying to find at any particular moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...