what would you do?

[+CheshireFrog]

OK, what if, just as Howard Carter opens the tomb he hears voices and finds that Brendan Fraser has gotten there before him, and Brendan Fraser runs and jumps into a biplane and flies through a giant face made of sand and comes out of the mouth just as a giant spaceship lands outside the tomb and some big roly-poly aliens get out followed by Bruce Willis and Milla Jojovich and they save the earth from a giant ball of lava just before beetles come out of the tomb and eat Howard Carter in a matter of seconds.

 

Then would it be OK for anyone witnessing this to log multiple finds on an archived traveling pocket cache listed on another site at an event they didn't even attend?

Edited August 16, 2006 by CheshireFrog

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

OK, what if, just as Howard Carter opens the tomb he hears voices and finds that Brendan Fraser has gotten there before him, and Brendan Fraser runs and jumps into a biplane and flies through a giant face made of sand and comes out of the mouth just as a giant spaceship lands outside the tomb and some big roly-poly aliens get out followed by Bruce Willis and Milla Jojovich and they save the earth from a giant ball of lava just before beetles come out of the tomb and eat Howard Carter in a matter of seconds.

 

Then would it be OK for anyone witnessing this to log multiple finds on an archived traveling pocket cache listed on another site at an event they didn't even attend?

 

Yep, I think that would be within the norm for my area.

[+niraD]

I recently found a film canister with a signed scrap of paper (nothing identifying it as a geocache, however) that was left as a "replacement" for a missing regular-size cache. And the cacher logged a find for it. Makes no sense to me...

The replacement container helps subsequent finders, especially if they don't know the container is missing.

In what way does a film canister (even if it were identified as a geocache) help someone who is looking for a long-gone regular-size cache? It didn't help me. It doesn't seem to have helped any of the cachers who have posted DNFs since then.

 

It also gives the owner a time extension to get to the site.

And if the owner never gets back to the site, because he quit a week after creating his GC.com account? The cache should be archived, and the film canister doesn't help.

 

In the mean time, the person who drove 100 miles just to find this cache at least has something to log as found.

Or maybe a person who drove 100 miles just to find a cache will find the wrong container, and be deprived of the (much better) actual hide.

 

IMHO, the point of the game isn't to find "something". The point is to find the cache you're looking for. I always find "something" while looking for a cache. I sometimes fill a bag or two with "something", which I toss in a trash can or dumpster.

[+Mudfrog]

The replacement container helps subsequent finders, especially if they don't know the container is missing. It also gives the owner a time extension to get to the site.

 

And it definitely does not matter if the replacement container matches the original or even the owner's idea of what it should be. The owner has to go out there anyway. In the mean time, the person who drove 100 miles just to find this cache at least has something to log as found.

 

As i said above, this is one of those gray areas. If you're going to do it though, then you need to know what kind of container the missing one was, where and how it was hidden. Whether someone does this or not is not the really the issue here though. It's when someone claims a "find" because they did this, that is silly.

[+conradv]

After trying to read this entire thread, I just can't understand how a "replacement" cache could even be considered due to the fact that the original Cacher was never contacted before the "replacement" was put in. It's just absolutely silly.

 

To not find something, even if the entire mountain where the cache was originally located on has now dropped 2 miles into the Ocean doesn't seem like a good reason to put in a replacement just for the benifit of future cachers who may make a trip and find the mountain and cache gone!

 

If it's there, it's there. If the owner asks you to replace it, then replace it. Am I that goofy in thinking that it's all about the Owner? It's his/her Cache, it's his/her desicion to replace...

 

?

[+conradv]

3. Logging a missing cache as a find if you replace the container with a new one.

Acceptable by almost 100% of the folks I have cached with, and happens almost every cache run.

 

This is absolutely crazy. If it is missing, post that it is missing. It was not found, how is a person to know that it isn't there?

 

I totally disagree that this is "Geocaching"

 

(on edit: I guess that I'm not part of that "100% of folks", and am thankfull of that.)

Edited August 16, 2006 by conradv

[+Happy Humphrey]

I'm with conradv here.

 

Back to the OP, we've had similar debates in the UK forums, and there's a proportion of cachers who just say "it's only a game: don't take it so seriously - just let them log it if they think they deserve a smiley".

 

If it's only a game, why would someone have to check before logging? Surely they are the ones taking it too seriously - if there's any doubt, it's only a game - so why not just log a DNF or note?

 

HH

[+briansnat]

3. Logging a missing cache as a find if you replace the container with a new one.

Acceptable by almost 100% of the folks I have cached with, and happens almost every cache run.

 

This is absolutely crazy. If it is missing, post that it is missing. It was not found, how is a person to know that it isn't there?

 

I totally disagree that this is "Geocaching"

 

(on edit: I guess that I'm not part of that "100% of folks", and am thankfull of that.)

 

Its not geocaching. Its a way of padding your find count and telling yourself you are doing "good" so you feel better about it.

 

As a cache owner I do not welcome throw down caches and would not allow these "finds". First off you didn't find anything. That is a DNF.

 

Second, I put a nicely stocked ammo box there for a reason. If I wanted a film canister at that site I would have placed one there.

 

Finally, how can you be sure the cache is really gone? If I had a dollar for every time someone was positive my cache was missing and I went there and found it safe and sound, I could take the family out for a very nice dinner.

 

Way too often these throw down caches just cause confusion because there are now two (and in some cases three) caches at the site. It also makes more work for me as an owner as I now have to consolidate logbooks.

 

Thankfully the practice is pretty much unheard of in this area. It may be 100% in Alabama but its pretty close to 0% in northern NJ. The one instance I was aware of that it happend, the "find" was quickly changed to a note.

 

If the finder can't find the cache he should just log a DNF and let me take care of it. He's not saving me any work because I have to go out there anyway, either to replace my cache or to trash out his film canister.

Edited August 16, 2006 by briansnat

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Have y'all ever played football?

 

I don't think so.

 

I say that because football in the UK is quite different than in the US. Canadian football is different yet. Australian-rules football, I've been told, is a whole 'nother something else.

 

Even in the US it is played differently by different people.

 

Pick-up football with kids from the neighborhood, local league-organized football, high-school football, college football, professional football, touch, tackle - not to mention the variations in each of those categories, are all played with different rules... yet all players say they play football.

 

Some players want to complete the down... oops, unit of play action (not everyone uses downs) in a fun and sporting manner. Some are out to rip the ball carrier's arm off and beat him over the head with it.

 

Is it all football?

 

Some play with a round ball, some a proleate spheroid. Some kick and carry, some throw.

 

Stick with the American understanding of a football for clarity, just for the sake of this argument... and you get different sizes of football, some are pig-skin, some are plastic, some are approved by various game-sanctioning bodies.

 

Well, yeah, but moving something somehow through a goal of some sort is common to all, so that can be equated to the common act, in our game, of signing a log, right?

 

Well, no, there are other ways to score in football without the ball going through the goal.

 

So, according to the this thread, if I don't play football by your rules, I am playing something else, and whatever it is I am doing, it ain't football.

 

Too bad, football might have become a fun world-wide sport if everyone could have agreed on a few simple rules.

 

Ed

Edited August 16, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+briansnat]

Have y'all ever played football?

 

I've played all kinds of football. American football (flag, touch and tackle), what we call soccer, rugby, etc...

 

There are indeed many different versions, but in every version of football that I've ever played the point of the game was to get the ball over a line

 

You don't get points for simply being on the field (or pitch for you UK folk), trying hard, racking up yardage, making nice passes, or replacing the ball if it the old one gets a hole in it. You have to get the ball over that line to get a point.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Have y'all ever played football?

 

I've played all kinds of football. American football (flag, touch and tackle), what we call soccer, rugby, etc...

 

There are indeed many different versions, but in every version of football that I've ever played the point of the game was to get the ball over a line

 

You don't get points for simply being on the field (or pitch for you UK folk), trying hard, racking up yardage, making nice passes, or replacing the ball if it the old one gets a hole in it. You have to get the ball over that line to get a point.

 

You might have me with the over-the-line commonality, I will have to work on that one!

 

I was thinking goal-post, the various ways to score it, and touch-backs or whatever ways there are to score without going through the goal. Is there a way to score in football without crossing the goal-line?

 

If so my argument stands.

 

If not I am a blow-hard shmuck that doesn't know what he's talking about and I'll have to find a better argument!

[+Happy Humphrey]

Surely the point of the football metaphor is that you always have to actually score a point/goal somehow - getting close is never enough. Like geocaching: where you find the cache, or you don't.

 

Saying "well, we almost scored, and the other side didn't get near - so we win" won't get you anywhere. Nor should "We got to the cache location and felt sure that we looked in the right place, so we must have found it".

 

HH

[+tozainamboku]

Once upon a time the world union of international any rule goes football had a website where you could log online your score from whatever kind of football you played. Some football players decided that in their rules you would score anytime you got the ball on offense. The any rule goes football puritans got very upset. "At least you have to get the football over the line", they said. "Those who score just because they got the ball on offense aren't playing football, they're cheaters"

"What is the harm of them scoring just because they had the ball on offense", some said.

Football moderator briansnatsky replied, "My friend might see the score and drive 250 miles to play football and then find out the goal line is missing"

OK, so the football analogy doesn't work.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Once upon a time the world union of international any rule goes football had a website where you could log online your score from whatever kind of football you played. Some football players decided that in their rules you would score anytime you got the ball on offense. The any rule goes football puritans got very upset. "At least you have to get the football over the line", they said. "Those who score just because they got the ball on offense aren't playing football, they're cheaters"

"What is the harm of them scoring just because they had the ball on offense", some said.

Football moderator briansnatsky replied, "My friend might see the score and drive 250 miles to play football and then find out the goal line is missing"

OK, so the football analogy doesn't work.

 

Guess not... changing my forum title to Blowhard Schmuck now

[+fox-and-the-hound]

Has anyone just thought to ask a "finder" why it was logged as a find? In the end it's the owner's right to do as they feel is needed to maintain the integrity of all the other finders.

 

I agree as a person with a dual account that if we ever go our seperate ways we'll go back and log our finds independently even if they've been archived.

 

There's always the chance that it was found, too. We once disabled a cache to have some time to rebuild it after we looked and couldn't locate it ourselves after a couple dnfs appeared. Then suddenly while it was disabled it was found by a meticulous cacher who found it nearby.

 

Every situation is different, but the only way to know for sure is to just ask the finder. No answer equals a delete which should quickly get their attention if they fail to respond.

 

editing for not reading ENTIRE POST LOL

Edited August 16, 2006 by fox-and-the-hound

[Trinity's Crew]

I got an email last night about a cache that I archived about a month ago...the person said that they got to the right spot, and so would like to log the cache as a "found"...maybe I'm overly strict, but I feel like if the cache has been archived for almost a month, there's no cache at the location, and you didn't sign a logbook, you really shouldn't log it as a found...

 

What would you have done? What have you done? I have no wish top be mean, but it seems a bit silly to me...

 

Jamie - NFA

 

Not lost any sleep over it.

[+Sagefox]

As a cache owner I do not welcome throw down caches and would not allow these "finds". First off you didn't find anything. That is a DNF.

 

Second, I put a nicely stocked ammo box there for a reason. If I wanted a film canister at that site I would have placed one there.

 

The throw down micro intended mostly to justify a find is only one aspect of replacement containers. I can understand a cache owner being upset by this and I would have no problem with those finds being deleted. I agree that this action doesn't seem right (unless they are replacing a micro) especially if any one cacher racked up a lot of these. And more especially if a lot the containers they "replaced" were actually not missing.

 

But there are other reasons that people replace containers and those actions are appreciated by owners and finders. Usually the replacement is not a micro unless the original was. Some caches are effectively ownerless and often it is the community that wants to keep them alive. If someone logs that kind of replacement as a find I'm not going to fret about it because it won't happen more than a handful of times per 1000 caches found for any one cacher.

[4wheelin_fool]

If a football team showed up to play a game, only to find the other team wearing soccer(futbol) uniforms, I think both sides would be a little disappointed and would have some issues if they tried to actually play a game.

 

In the beginning, it was Geocachers vs. Muggles. Now there are the "Puritans" vs the "Cheaters"; the "Urban Micros" vs the "Ammo Boxers on a Mountaintoppers"; ect. I like the traditional "Geocachers" vs "Muggles" scenario best.

[+Mudfrog]

If a football team showed up to play a game, only to find the other team wearing soccer(futbol) uniforms, I think both sides would be a little disappointed and would have some issues if they tried to actually play a game.

 

In the beginning, it was Geocachers vs. Muggles. Now there are the "Puritans" vs the "Cheaters"; the "Urban Micros" vs the "Ammo Boxers on a Mountaintoppers"; ect. I like the traditional "Geocachers" vs "Muggles" scenario best.

 

AMEN brother!

 

The football analogy doesn't work unless the different ways of geocaching are done on the different geocaching websites. We are all under one roof here at GC.com so the basics, like actually finding the cache to claim a "find", should be adhered to by all who claim their finds here.

[+tomfuller & Quill]

I have the ammobox for Oregon's last (I think) moving cache. In the 4 years 4 months and 4 days this cache was on the move it was logged by more than 150 cachers. Thank you to the reviewer who allowed me to write the final log for GC33E7 Hide & Seek. I attached a TB to the original logbook and it moves from cache to cache in Oregon. I'm sorry you can't log opening the box but you can still find and read the logbook if you can track down what cache it's in.