Found before I started geocaching...

[uintahiker]

January- winter camping trip to a public use cabin. Stayed overnight. Wrote in the guestbook/logbook.

May- Started geocaching. Bought a GPS.

October- Thinking about the cabin trip, decided to check if there's nearby caches.

 

As it turns out, the cabin itself is a virtual cache. No log requirements, other then be there. So, all that said, would you log it?

 

Reasons against- Technically I wasn't a geocacher back then. It's padding my stats.

 

Reasons for- I was there. I signed the logbook. It's not some tourist trap virtual cache that everyone who goes through the area stops at. It took a pretty serious hike to get there.

 

What do you think? Would you log the find? Is this different then finding an ammocan under a tree somewhere and logging it as a find?

[+Haffy]

January- winter camping trip to a public use cabin. Stayed overnight. Wrote in the guestbook/logbook.

May- Started geocaching. Bought a GPS.

October- Thinking about the cabin trip, decided to check if there's nearby caches.

 

As it turns out, the cabin itself is a virtual cache. No log requirements, other then be there. So, all that said, would you log it?

 

Reasons against- Technically I wasn't a geocacher back then. It's padding my stats.

 

Reasons for- I was there. I signed the logbook. It's not some tourist trap virtual cache that everyone who goes through the area stops at. It took a pretty serious hike to get there.

 

What do you think? Would you log the find? Is this different then finding an ammocan under a tree somewhere and logging it as a find?

 

I say go for it and log it unless it says to take a picture with your GPS in it and then that would be different. Just my opinion

[+GRANPA ALEX]

It's kinda simple. You found it, you signed a 'log' even if not required . . . it counts as a smilie .

 

Did the same thing when the game was being introduced to me by my son . . . found three (signed logs). It was two years later when I claimed the smilies on line.

 

Don't overthink it, just for fun, this game we play. Go ahead, claim the find, get your smilie !!!!

Edited October 23, 2006 by GRANPA ALEX

[+D@nim@l]

 

Don't overthink it, just for fun, this game we play. Go ahead, claim the find, get your smilie !!!!

 

Yeah, I say log it, in fact you could log every time you left and came back.

 

Just look at the fun these people had this event!

 

WoW!

Edited October 23, 2006 by D@nim@l

[+Blue Power Ranger]

...actually, I probably wouldn't log it until you visit it as a cacher.

 

There are any number of virtuals that many of us could go back and lookup and then log. Washington DC comes to mind. There are a ton of virtuals there that I have visited several times. But I wouldn't think of logging them as a find until I go back with the intention of visiting them as a cache.

 

Same thing with virtuals on the Vegas Strip etc. I was there just a month before I "became a cacher" but I wouldn't dream of going back and logging those as finds until my next trip.

 

Stats don't mean all that much in the grand scheme of things but personal integrity does. I recommend preserving yours by only logging real finds made as a cacher.

 

That's my two cents.

Edited October 23, 2006 by Blue Power Ranger

[+BlueDeuce]

Just curious, which cache is it?

[+Blue Power Ranger]

Just curious, which cache is it?

 

Looks like this one. He has already logged it as a find.

Edited October 23, 2006 by Blue Power Ranger

[+Renegade Knight]

If it was a real cache there would be no debate. Log it. As a virtual, I think you are right. It's trickier and can be considered padding your stats. What are the odds you will go there again sometime?

[+PoledraDog]

Well, there are no hard and fast rules, so I say it depends on how you feel about it. If you're always going to look at it as a cheater find, then don't log it. If you feel good about it, then do. It's one find, so it doesn't affect your stats that much either way, so do whatever fits within your own personal definitions.

 

I went through sort of a similar self-questioning about my first caches. My father discovered geocaching, told me about it, and bought a GPS so that he could try it with myself and my kids when he was out here for a visit. I went with him to geocache, helped with all the finds, and used the GPS as much as he did. I debated logging those for a while, wondering if some would consider it cheating since it wasn't my GPS. But I thought, hey, I drove (in some *rough* terrain for my vehicle, I might add!), I navigated, I hiked, I used the GPS, so I figure I should share in the find. I don't feel one bit badly about claiming those finds.

[uintahiker]

If it was a real cache there would be no debate. Log it. As a virtual, I think you are right. It's trickier and can be considered padding your stats. What are the odds you will go there again sometime?

 

I sent the owner a PM to see what he thought. It got returned. Apparently he's not that active. The odds of me going there again sometime are pretty good- sometime. No definite timetable, but it's definitely a place to visit again.

 

That said, I did log a visit. The reason being- there was a logbook. When I was there, I did sign the book. If I hadn't signed it, or there was not a logbook, I don't think I would log it as a find. The cache is listed as a virtual, but the fact there's a physical logbook makes me look at it a little differently. There is a difference between just having a location to go visit and there being an object at the location where you can document your visit.

 

What are your thoughts? Blue Power Ranger, yours?

[+wimseyguy]

<<pulls out soapbox-but you did ask>>

I think they are your stats and represent the way you choose to play the sport. I don't care about them. I also don't care what you think of my stats and how I choose to play. Sadly, there are too many forum regulars who spend too much time caring and worrying about the behavior and actions of others. This is supposed to be fun, and you can define fun however you care to, despite what some other posters might tell you .

<<putting soapbox away for now>>

It sounds like you enjoyed a fabulous experience at a very special destination, and in the greater scheme of things that is far more inportant than one smiley more or less.

 

PS do try to keep your find count > than your post count. That is important to me

[+briansnat]

There is no requirement other than visiting. You did, so go ahead and log it. Heck that's more than a lot of people do to log "finds" on cache.

[+BlueDeuce]

Just curious, which cache is it?

 

Looks like this one. He has already logged it as a find.

 

That's not a virtual, that's a cabin sized cache with a logbook.

 

Claim it.

Edited October 23, 2006 by BlueDeuce

[+edscott]

There is no requirement other than visiting. You did, so go ahead and log it. Heck that's more than a lot of people do to log "finds" on cache.

 

There you go!! At least you have actually BEEN there... Wonder if everyone that has logged it has really been there?

[Guyute1210]

...

Just look at the fun these people had this event!

 

WoW!

 

I was there...only one for me...

 

That's not my kind of game...or my brothers...

[+Harry Dolphin]

There are any number of virtuals that many of us could go back and lookup and then log. Washington DC comes to mind. There are a ton of virtuals there that I have visited several times. But I wouldn't think of logging them as a find until I go back with the intention of visiting them as a cache.

 

Hmm... The DC Virtuals that I did required answers. I had never seen any of the locations on my lasat trip to the Mall, and would not have known any of the answers. Of course, that doesn't seem to stop a lot of people... Looked for a Wood Chuck's Paradise . The location was not available due to construction, and a heavy contingent of Secret Service Agents. Only seemed to have stopped the honest people. (Requirements were changed after we were there.) Oh, well.

 

If the requirements were met, as in OP's case, then by all means log the cache. If you do not know what "Which armed service is remembered in the sixth panel from the left?", then you have not fulfilled the requirements to log the cache.

[+Blue Power Ranger]

There are any number of virtuals that many of us could go back and lookup and then log. Washington DC comes to mind. There are a ton of virtuals there that I have visited several times. But I wouldn't think of logging them as a find until I go back with the intention of visiting them as a cache.

 

Hmm... The DC Virtuals that I did required answers....

 

Okay, some DC virts require answers, some don't (sample). Often when they do require "answers", those answers can easily be found from other sources. I still say (and it is just my opinion) that if you found a virtual prior to caching with no intention of logging it as a cache, it is not a find. It is irrelevant here that there is a logbook in the cabin in this case since the log has no relation to geocaching.

 

I have visited many many locations throughout the world that I have since discovered are virtual caches. I don't think it would be right to go back and log those.

 

Am I alone here in this thought? Have any of you gone back an logged virtuals from prior travels?

Edited October 24, 2006 by Blue Power Ranger

[+briansnat]

Have any of you gone back an logged virtuals from prior travels?

 

I have. The Bennington Monument in Vt. I had been there dozens of times and didn't see the point of going back again with my GPS in hand. Its not like I didn't know where it was, so I logged it. I visited it several times subsequently too, also without my GPS. I eventually deleted the log because I personally didn't feel right about it, but I wouldn't give anybody else grief for doing it.

[+sbell111]

I'm confused. Was this cabin on the Mall in DC? If not, I'm not sure what many of the posts in this thread have to do with the topic.

 

As it stands, I agree with BlueDeuce. The cache does not appear to be categorized correctly. It should not be listed as a virt. It is actually a non-trading super-sized traditional cache.

 

Since you signed the logbook, you should claim your smiley.

[+sbell111]

Have any of you gone back an logged virtuals from prior travels?

I have. The Bennington Monument in Vt. I had been there dozens of times and didn't see the point of going back again with my GPS in hand. Its not like I didn't know where it was, so I logged it. I visited it several times subsequently too, also without my GPS. I eventually deleted the log because I personally didn't feel right about it, but I wouldn't give anybody else grief for doing it.

There wasn't a verification requirement to that old virt. In the absense of a a verification pic requirement, a GPSr is not necessaryto log a find. If you visited the location after you learned of the virt and prior to its archival, you should log it.

 

Think of it this way: I read a cache description and realize that I know exactly where the cache is hidden. I drive over (without my GPSr), find the cache, and sign the log book. I then drive home and log my find online. Certainly, I didn't break any rules. Your virt find is no different.

Edited October 24, 2006 by sbell111

[+Blue Power Ranger]

I'm confused. Was this cabin on the Mall in DC? If not, I'm not sure what many of the posts in this thread have to do with the topic.

 

Not sure where you really lost the train of though here...

 

There are any number of virtuals that many of us could go back and lookup and then log. Washington DC comes to mind. There are a ton of virtuals there that I have visited several times. But I wouldn't think of logging them as a find until I go back with the intention of visiting them as a cache.

 

I thought it was pretty clear that I was using DC as an example of other virts that many may have visited pre-caching that they likely wouldn't choose to go back and log. It is apparent that I am in the minority opinion and that is fine. The location really isn't relevant.

 

This wasn't a case of whether or not uintahiker found this cache with the use of a GPSr. This is a case of going back and logging a site that he visited before he was a cacher that he later discovered was a virtual. It is my opinion that if you want to log it as a "find" you should go back and find it with the intention of logging it as a virtual.

 

Many many cachers (myself included) could spend a couple of hours on the site and find 20+ virtuals that we have visited at some point in our lives prior to knowing about Geocaching and go back and log them as finds. Technically, we were there right? I guess this is probably a more common practice than I had realized.

 

So before I go back and log virtuals with no requirements that I have visited in the past... Is there a limitation to how far back in to the past one should go? 5 years okay? 10 years? After all the point is just that you have visited them right? As long as that is how I choose to play the game, I guess anything goes.

 

PS - the logbook is a red herring. It has nothing to do with caching. It is a cabin log, not a cache log.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Blue Power Ranger

[+sbell111]

... This wasn't a case of whether or not uintahiker found this cache with the use of a GPSr. This is a case of going back and logging a site that he visited before he was a cacher that he later discovered was a virtual. It is my opinion that if you want to log it as a "find" you should go back and find it with the intention of logging it as a virtual.

Many muggles happen upon a cache and end up logging it as a find. By your definition, this practice is wrong because they didn't 'find it with the intention of logging it'.

Many many cachers (myself included) could spend a couple of hours on the site and find 20+ virtuals that we have visited at some point in our lives prior to knowing about Geocaching and go back and log them as finds. Technically, we were there right? I guess this is probably a more common practice than I had realized.

If you found the exact object in the virtual and you could complete any verification requirements put in place by the cache owner (without using the internet to find the answers), I guess yu could go back and log those.

So before I go back and log virtuals with no requirements that I have visited in the past... Is there a limitation to how far back in to the past one should go? 5 years okay? 10 years? After all the point is just that you have visited them right?

I've logged finds a few years after I signed the book or went to the event. Why would I care if you log your finds late?

As long as that is how I choose to play the game, I guess anything goes.

I never posted that and most people will disagree with you on this point.

[+Blue Power Ranger]

If you found the exact object in the virtual and you could complete any verification requirements put in place by the cache owner (without using the internet to find the answers), I guess yu could go back and log those.

 

I have visited this virtual many times. My most recent visit on the 4th of July in 1997. No "logging requirement" so I guess I should go back and log it. Neat! I'm FTF!

 

I know I'm taking it to the extreme but you get my point. I do appreciate your opinion and can see this from your side too.

[+sbell111]

I have visited this virtual many times. My most recent visit on the 4th of July in 1997. No "logging requirement" so I guess I should go back and log it. Neat! I'm FTF!

 

I know I'm taking it to the extreme but you get my point. I do appreciate your opinion and can see this from your side too.

I wouldn't log it as a find because at the time of the visit, it wasn't a cache. You do what you think is best.