Couch Potato Caching

[+Womel_Family]

Has anyone noticed this happening to the virtuals in their area? We are in the middle of an ice storm here, so I was wishful thinking on the web, when I noticed a virtual that had been found today. I clicked on it to see who was crazy enough to be out in this weather and it was someone from Germany. This cacher googled the information needed to get the certificate, then logged it as a find.

 

Any thoughts on the subject? It kind of makes me mad, but playing devil's advocate, they did find the information needed to log the cache.

 

Just curious what others think of "Couch Potato" caching.

 

Womel_family

[+StarBrand]

Has anyone noticed this happening to the virtuals in their area? We are in the middle of an ice storm here, so I was wishful thinking on the web, when I noticed a virtual that had been found today. I clicked on it to see who was crazy enough to be out in this weather and it was someone from Germany. This cacher googled the information needed to get the certificate, then logged it as a find.

 

Any thoughts on the subject? It kind of makes me mad, but playing devil's advocate, they did find the information needed to log the cache.

 

Just curious what others think of "Couch Potato" caching.

 

Womel_family

- that pretty well sums it up for me.

 

The info needed to verify a visit to a virtual should have been much more unique. Part of why virtuals are now over at Waymarking.

[+Blue Power Ranger]

Just curious what others think of "Couch Potato" caching.

 

lame - lame - lame

[+txoilgas]

it was someone from Germany.

 

If it is the same one I saw he openly states he is doing a Virtual tour. It goes back, IMHO, to lazy virtual owners. If they won't monitor what is happening then they should let someone adopt the cache.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I am not much for policing geocachers or demanding that numbers be holy, but I do think one needs to be on the hunt to claim a find!

 

I am occasionally the driver on a cache run, for instance. On a cache run we generally do drive-ups and quickies and skip the hikes. I cache on crutches, and by the time I park and get out of the car somebody has likely already found it, so I may stay in the car and watch others get out, find it and sign it. Usually one person signs for all that are there... after all, in such a group only one can actually find it. If I can see them do it such that I know where the cache is I may log it as a find, may not.

 

I think that's about as flexible as logging should be.

 

If you never hunted it, weren't right there when it was signed, you didn't find it.

 

The game is wide open; I do very much believe in "Play it your way", but just making up stuff isn't the game.

 

I have been very surprised at some of the folks I know who do armchair caching, however.

[+Renegade Knight]

The idea is to go there, find the info, then log the find.

 

Finding the answer on goodle without the visit is akin to looking for stolen regular caches and logging a find because the log has been stolen and the find can't be verified.

[+Moore9KSUcats]

Several years ago I saw a thread on this, and a particular cache was mentioned, where the cache owner says that if they can find the info on line, feel free to log it. I figured it out, but never logged it. E-mail exchanges with the cache owner ended up with us getting a free personal tour of Gettysburg Military Battlefield from him, and we had a wonderful day! (We travelled to DC that summer, and took a day and went to Gettysburg, and he came over and took us on a tour.) He told us stories that we wouldn't have heard from most of the other tours, and he also took us to one of his local caches.

 

Fine, if you want to find the info on line to prove that you can, go ahead.... just don't log it unless you were actually there.

 

Just my personal opinion, for what ever it is worth.

[Mr.Yuck]

Has anyone noticed this happening to the virtuals in their area? We are in the middle of an ice storm here, so I was wishful thinking on the web, when I noticed a virtual that had been found today. I clicked on it to see who was crazy enough to be out in this weather and it was someone from Germany. This cacher googled the information needed to get the certificate, then logged it as a find.

 

Any thoughts on the subject? It kind of makes me mad, but playing devil's advocate, they did find the information needed to log the cache.

 

Just curious what others think of "Couch Potato" caching.

 

Womel_family

 

There are some virtuals where couch potato caching is actually encouraged (or I guess not looked down upon). And go figure, most of them are in Germany. So the cache finder in question was just doing what he has observed others doing back home. I'd give a bookmark list of "couch potato caches", but why bother, since this couch potato virtual cache Four Windows is listed on about 20 bookmark lists, if anyone cares to look at them.

 

As far as an opinion, if the internet finds are definately encouraged, I don't see it as that big of a deal. But the case the OP describes is totally different.

Edited January 16, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+Phillips4]

Well I'll jump in as Devil's Advocate...

If the intent of the hide was to draw attention to a unique person/place/thing for the purpose of having others learn something, then the "spirit" of the hide was achieved and the find should be allowed.

I've Googled several virtuals but have never logged them as finds, even ones like "A Simple Life" in San Fran which I've visited before but wasn't caching at the time. That's not the way I play, so I won't log it until I return to the site with GPS in hand. Also have found several virts on the DC mall but missed others. Many of those ones I missed could easily be researched and the info obtained, but again, that's not how I play.

Edited January 16, 2007 by Phillips4

[+Jhwk]

cheater!

 

I got into this 'sport' to get me out of the house, not spend more time on my butt at the computer.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I suspect this kind of silliness is what led to the demise of virts and the decree that a geocache is a container with a log, period.

[+CYBret]

LAAAAAAAAMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

I saw this yesterday on a virtual outside of Terre Haute. Checking the finds of the cacher, they had hit many virtuals all over the world in one day.

 

I don't get it....what on earth do you stand to gain from that?

 

Bret

[+AStargirl]

All I have to say about it is...What's the point?

To me, virtual caches are all about going to the location to experience/learn about whatever it is that the person owning the cache thought worthy of notice. If you just look it up, why geocache? Buy a book instead...

[+AStargirl]

LAAAAAAAAMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

I saw this yesterday on a virtual outside of Terre Haute. Checking the finds of the cacher, they had hit many virtuals all over the world in one day.

 

I don't get it....what on earth do you stand to gain from that?

 

Bret

 

Guess I should have posted, "Yeah, what he said!"

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Ut oh, I may be becoming a conservative in my dotage.

 

I equate armchair caching with logging a list of coins someone emailed you, or some cacher saying "You can log all my caches, I don't care!" and someone doing it.

 

I am a pretty laid-back and open-minded guy, but that just isn't geocaching.

[+drat19]

 

I saw this yesterday on a virtual outside of Terre Haute. Checking the finds of the cacher, they had hit many virtuals all over the world in one day.

 

I don't get it....what on earth do you stand to gain from that?

 

Bret

Four words: The New Numbers Game.

[+sbell111]

[cezanne]

I am occasionally the driver on a cache run, for instance. On a cache run we generally do drive-ups and quickies and skip the hikes. I cache on crutches, and by the time I park and get out of the car somebody has likely already found it, so I may stay in the car and watch others get out, find it and sign it. Usually one person signs for all that are there... after all, in such a group only one can actually find it. If I can see them do it such that I know where the cache is I may log it as a find, may not.

.................

If you never hunted it, weren't right there when it was signed, you didn't find it.

 

Let me start with stressing that I do not like armchair caches at all. I do not share, however, your opinion about what should be logged as a find.

 

Whenever the logging requirements of a virtual cache do not make sure that a visit of the location is indispensable (for example, by asking questions the answers of which cannot be found in the internet or in books and by requiring a photograph of the finder or his/her GPS at the location), it is the hider of the cache who is to be blamed and not the cachers logging a find.

 

I know many multi-caches where several or all intermediary stages can be skipped because it is easy to guess the answers to some of the questions. Someone who skips some or even all stages expect the final one where a log book needs to be signed and is not using information he got from other cachers, is perfectly eligible for a find. The same holds true in my opinion for a badly designed virtual cache that can be completed without a visit of the location.

 

I know quite a lot of badly designed virtual caches (e.g. if someone asks for the text on a sign near a famous statue of which numerous photographs can be found in the internet). In such cases a visit to the location does not even teach a cacher something new - there is no real difference in looking up the information online or directly at the spot.

 

I do not share your opinion that the personal presence at a location is the most important aspect. I never log caches as "found it" where I am not able to retrieve and rehide the cache on my own. I encountered quite a number of caches where I had to stop about 1-2 meters from the cache - I even could see it in many cases, but I was not able to reach it (lack of physical skills, not tall enoughl etc). I have no problem if other cachers feel comfortable with logging such finds as "found it" , I do not. Thus in such cases I just sign the log book in the cache and write a note online if someone helped me to get the cache container.

 

Cezanne

[+briansnat]

I don't get it....what on earth do you stand to gain from that?

 

An increment to your find count, numbers, perceived prestige. Look around you, it's all the rage these days.

[+nekom]

I also don't understand the purpose of this kind of thing. I guess it's just people thinking they're going to win a prize if they get to x amount of finds.

 

I've only got 37, but every single one of them I went to, and (with the exception of I believe 2 virts) signed the logbook.

[+drat19]

...perceived prestige.

Wow, that's about as eloquently as I've seen it (where "it" = the larger issue of folks doing anything they can to run up their stats, and the so-called payoff for it) expressed to date, Brian.

Edited January 16, 2007 by drat19

[+CYBret]

I've got a GREAT idea. How about if Geocaching.com just automatically adds 1000 finds to every account. So as soon as you sign up you're already ahead of the game!

 

Wouldn't that make everyone feel special?

 

Bret

[+drat19]

I've got a GREAT idea. How about if Geocaching.com just automatically adds 1000 finds to every account. So as soon as you sign up you're already ahead of the game!

 

Wouldn't that make everyone feel special?

 

Bret

Not necessary, Bret. One weekend of virt surfing, or lamppost hopping in a major metro, gets 'er done.

 

"Perceived prestige"...I REALLY REALLY like that.

[+tozainamboku]

...perceived prestige.

Wow, that's about as eloquently as I've seen it (where "it" = the larger issue of folks doing anything they can to run up their stats, and the so-called payoff for it) expressed to date, Brian.

 

If the couch potato cachers perceive themselves has having more prestige because the were able to open a certificate of accomplishment by guessing the number who cares. If a group in Germany holds an event to honor someone for finding 1000 caches without leaving the house who cares. You and I know the caches we have found we have earned. If some jerks someplace want to abuse the system and log finds we know are illegitimate, it won't effect my enjoyement of these caches. If briansnat's friend drives 100 miles to find a cache that he could have found while sitting at home in front of his computer, then briansnat's friend would have had a lot more fun (even if he got a DNF). Yes, the point of geocaching is to go out and find the cache. It is not log as many finds online as you can get away with. But I can't see wasting my time worrying about it. (But I will waste my time worrying that other people are worrying about it too much )

Edited January 16, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+drat19]

...perceived prestige.

Wow, that's about as eloquently as I've seen it (where "it" = the larger issue of folks doing anything they can to run up their stats, and the so-called payoff for it) expressed to date, Brian.

 

If the couch potato cachers perceive themselves has having more prestige because the were able to open a certificate of accomplishment by guessing the number who cares. If a group in Germany holds an event to honor someone for finding 1000 caches without leaving the house who cares. You and I know the caches we have found we have earned. If some jerks someplace want to abuse the system and log finds we know are illegitimate, it won't effect my enjoyement of these caches. If briansnat's friend drives 100 miles to find a cache that he could have found while sitting at home in front of his computer, then briansnat's friend would have had a lot more fun (even if he got a DNF). Yes, the point of geocaching is to go out and find the cache. It is not log as many finds online as you can get away with. But I can't see wasting my time worrying about it. (But I will waste my time worrying that other people are worrying about it too much )

Toz, I can't figure out if you are arguing an alternative point of view here, or if you are basically agreeing in principle with the majority of respondents on this thread but with a slightly different twist.

Edited January 16, 2007 by drat19

[+tozainamboku]

...perceived prestige.

Wow, that's about as eloquently as I've seen it (where "it" = the larger issue of folks doing anything they can to run up their stats, and the so-called payoff for it) expressed to date, Brian.

 

If the couch potato cachers perceive themselves has having more prestige because the were able to open a certificate of accomplishment by guessing the number who cares. If a group in Germany holds an event to honor someone for finding 1000 caches without leaving the house who cares. You and I know the caches we have found we have earned. If some jerks someplace want to abuse the system and log finds we know are illegitimate, it won't effect my enjoyement of these caches. If briansnat's friend drives 100 miles to find a cache that he could have found while sitting at home in front of his computer, then briansnat's friend would have had a lot more fun (even if he got a DNF). Yes, the point of geocaching is to go out and find the cache. It is not log as many finds online as you can get away with. But I can't see wasting my time worrying about it. (But I will waste my time worrying that other people are worrying about it too much )

Toz, I can't figure out if you are arguing an alternative point of view here, or if you are basically agreeing in principle with the majority of respondents on this thread but with a slightly different twist.

I agree that it is silly (or maybe even lame) to log virtuals just because you found the answer on the internet or discovered one that doesn't even have an enforceable logging requirement. I feel that is is just as silly to worry about other people's find count.

Edited January 16, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+briansnat]

If briansnat's friend drives 100 miles to find a cache that he could have found while sitting at home in front of his computer, then briansnat's friend would have had a lot more fun.

 

You are assuming I have a friend.

[+Packanack]

Just curious what others think of "Couch Potato" caching

 

Love it.

 

GCZART

 

This is one where the expectation is that you will go online , get the info,

Get the coordinates and go out and sign the log. It is one great cache.

[+drat19]

Just curious what others think of "Couch Potato" caching

 

Love it.

 

GCZART

 

This is one where the expectation is that you will go online , get the info,

Get the coordinates and go out and sign the log. It is one great cache.

Your example is different from what we're talking about here, and actually sounds good.

 

1. Expectation that you will go online

2. Go out and sign the log

 

Crux of this thread is cachers who take "finds" on virts through on-line research only, without physically visiting the cache sites, for the sole purpose of achieving...wait for it....perceived prestige, by padding their stats in this manner.

[+sbell111]

This is a cache owner responsibility issue, nothing more.

[+rhelt100]

This is a cache owner responsibility issue, nothing more.

 

 

I think it's lame in most cases. Having said that, I have personally logged the "Four Windows" cache. This cache is a special case because you're not actually supposed to go hunting for a container, you're supposed to solve a riddle.

 

 

Also, I logged one virt that I didn't go to early in my caching career. This was "What in the World" (I think that's what it was called) up in Maine. It says right on the page that you don't have to visit the site to log it. However, my attitude has changed a little since then and I wouldn't log it now. I have not, however, deleted the find because it would screw up my milestones.

 

 

So, I guess I'm not totally against it, but I choose not to for the most part with the rare exception. As others have said, this comes down to the owners of these caches. They can delete logs as they see fit and TPTB can archive caches that they feel are against the guidelines.

[+sbell111]

This is a cache owner responsibility issue, nothing more.

I think it's lame in most cases. Having said that, I have personally logged the "Four Windows" cache. This cache is a special case because you're not actually supposed to go hunting for a container, you're supposed to solve a riddle.

 

Also, I logged one virt that I didn't go to early in my caching career. This was "What in the World" (I think that's what it was called) up in Maine. It says right on the page that you don't have to visit the site to log it. However, my attitude has changed a little since then and I wouldn't log it now. I have not, however, deleted the find because it would screw up my milestones.

 

So, I guess I'm not totally against it, but I choose not to for the most part with the rare exception. As others have said, this comes down to the owners of these caches. They can delete logs as they see fit and TPTB can archive caches that they feel are against the guidelines.

Early on, there were a number of virts that did not require a visit. Those are different than normal virts that people log without visiting.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I heard about this when I first started out, a friend showed me a link to some armchair caches. One thing this could be good for are the physically disabled who just can't go out to get their numbers (if that's what they are after).

 

I'd have to say that if that's what these people want to do, go for it! we all play the game differently. Not my idea of caching, but it doesn't bother me.

[+Cache Heads]

If this is the cache, then the logger in question seems like he did all that was needed to log the cache.

 

There are no requirements at all on the page, other than answering a trivia question. There's no logbook or box to find. Heck, who knows if the hider has even visited the location....?

 

I think the issue isn't the finder or the hider, it's the idea of "virtual" geocaching. IMO, this is just one of the many problems with virts that lead TBTP to decide to stop listing them.

[cezanne]

Early on, there were a number of virts that did not require a visit. Those are different than normal virts that people log without visiting.

 

I do not understand how you differentiate between these two classes of virtual caches. There exist many virtual caches where the answers that are required to log, are so easily obtainable and often even belong to the common knowledge. Consequently no visit is required (this case also arises for the virtual cache the original poster is talking about).

 

Suppose for example that there would exist a virtual cache in Vienna at St Stephen's cathedral were the only logging requirement were to send the numbers at the roof of the cathedral to the owner of the virtual cache. In my opionion, it is perfectly legitimate to log a "found it" if someone has sent the correct answers. It does not matter whether he went to the cathedral and actually, I even would prefer that someone who knows the answer anyway and does not live nearby refrains from driving there and thus wasting fuel and causing unnecessary damage to the environment.

 

The problem with such caches is not to be searched for at the side of the people who log found it logs for such caches, but at the side of those who set up such caches and even more at the side of the site who hosts such caches (as they do not fit the idea of geocaching). The responsability to make sure that a visit to the location is required is with the owner of the cache!

 

BTW: I do not think that increasing one's found counter is the only motivation for the group of cachers who like armchair caches. Some people enjoy to solve location related puzzles and take it as a challenge to use the internet and diverse tools (maps etc) to answer questions about a location without going there. There is basically nothing wrong with this except that it is a different game than geocaching (however, also different from Waymarking where the focus is on actually visiting locations). I am not aware of any non-geocaching related website which offers a platform for activities of the armchair cache type.

 

Cezanne

Edited January 16, 2007 by cezanne

[+Rockin Roddy]

The list I saw looked pretty tough...I looked at a few and they didn't look too easy, but I was new to caching too! I thought then as I do now, to each their own.

 

I would like to see virts come back...with the proper guidelines! There are some nice areas to see that just don't allow containers.

[+greengecko]

 

[+hairball45]

Yeah, it took me about a minute to determine the answer to the trivia question to the above virt. OK, so what? I guess I could log it, but why would I? I havn't been there. I didn't see it. If I made a trip to the location I'd log it in a heartbeat. No shame in logging a real virt (now there's a contradiction in terms), but sitting here in the den with the TV on, well I'm fooling around on the computer, I'm not caching.

There's my two cents worth.

hairball

[+Team Perks]

I don't have any strong feelings about it, if the cache owner made it easy to google the information. I suppose it's kinda silly (what's the point?) but if others want to play the game that way, I can still have fun playing the game my way.

[+briansnat]

I do not understand how you differentiate between these two classes of virtual caches. There exist many virtual caches where the answers that are required to log, are so easily obtainable and often even belong to the common knowledge. Consequently no visit is required (this case also arises for the virtual cache the original poster is talking about).

 

With few exceptions, the expectation when people list a virtual cache is for geocachers to visit it. The point of answering questions is to prove you actually visited the site.

 

The entire point of geocaching is to use a GPS to find things. Sitting at your desk Googling answers to questions

and solving puzzles may be loads of fun, but it isn't geocaching.

 

I even would prefer that someone who knows the answer anyway and does not live nearby refrains from driving there and thus wasting fuel and causing unnecessary damage to the environment.

 

Excellent idea! How about we expand on that and don't bother with actually hunting for real caches? We can use Google Earth to see where the cache is and the cache owner can post a photo of the container on the page. That way we won't waste any fuel and cause unnecessary damage to the environment.

[+Criminal]

...but I do think one needs to be on the hunt to claim a find!

Hmmm, how about they actually go to the trouble of finding it to claim a find?

[+Quest Master]

...perceived prestige.

Wow, that's about as eloquently as I've seen it (where "it" = the larger issue of folks doing anything they can to run up their stats, and the so-called payoff for it) expressed to date, Brian.

 

But does anyone perceive prestige when they see big numbers these days?

 

I guess so because that's the only logical explanation for the behavior we're seeing in this brave new world of geocaching. I'm bewildered by it all. Whenever I see big numbers these days, I wonder how many lightpoles that person must have kissed.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

I also don't understand the purpose of this kind of thing. I guess it's just people thinking they're going to win a prize if they get to x amount of finds.

 

I've only got 37, but every single one of them I went to, and (with the exception of I believe 2 virts) signed the logbook.

 

Ditto, only 25 finds but they are all honest finds, I just realized early on that it would only take me a few days to find every cache within afordable driving distance of home, so I cut waaaayyyy back on the hunting.

Lots of new cemetary micros have appeared since then, but I could still clean out the local area in a couple of weeks if I tried.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

During my GSMNP research I saw there is a Virt at a shelter house on the Appalachian trail, to prove the find you must email the owner as to which side of the shelter the window is on. I was in that shelter house in 1994, so unless it has changed, unlikely, I know the answer. But even though I've visited the side it was not a cache in 1994, so I haven't and won't log a find on it unless I physically return and personally verify that it is still where it was.

And no I won't give away the right answer.

If someone else does it though they are only cheating themselves out of the hike.

[cezanne]

I do not understand how you differentiate between these two classes of virtual caches. There exist many virtual caches where the answers that are required to log, are so easily obtainable and often even belong to the common knowledge. Consequently no visit is required (this case also arises for the virtual cache the original poster is talking about).

 

With few exceptions, the expectation when people list a virtual cache is for geocachers to visit it. The point of answering questions is to prove you actually visited the site.

 

I do not believe that your claim ist true for the majority of virtual caches where only a trivial question needs to be answered and no additional logging requirement like a photograph is put forward.

My experience is that if the owner of a virtual cache wants the finders to visit the location, he at least tries his best to come up with reasonable logging requirements.

 

Sitting at your desk Googling answers to questions

and solving puzzles may be loads of fun, but it isn't geocaching.

 

I fully agree. That's why I wrote above that I do not like armchair caches.

 

 

Excellent idea! How about we expand on that and don't bother with actually hunting for real caches? We can use Google Earth to see where the cache is and the cache owner can post a photo of the container on the page. That way we won't waste any fuel and cause unnecessary damage to the environment.

 

This is getting somewhat off-topic, but let me reply nevertheless.

My personal understanding of caching requires more than just finding things with a GPS and go there.

For a cache becomes meaningful and a real cache only when it shows me something very special and/or if the way to the cache offers an experience or adventure that is worth to visit it. You cannot replace a gorgeous hike through a nice landscape and the feeling of being tired, but happy after the hunt by a virtual hunt of the way you mentioned. In case of caches which offer nothing, but just another smilie for the finders, I indeed think what you suggest above, would be the better alternative. (NB: This is just my personal opinion. It is clear to me that there exist many different attitudes towards what geocaching should be about.)

 

 

Cezanne

[+GrizzlyJohn]

I've got a GREAT idea. How about if Geocaching.com just automatically adds 1000 finds to every account. So as soon as you sign up you're already ahead of the game!

 

Wouldn't that make everyone feel special?

 

Bret

 

Or how about they just not display a finds count page anymore?

 

That will do away with this and all of the other dumb discussions that swirl around the number of finds, getting all of the different types of icons, and all the rest that seem to come up weekly.

[+Quest Master]

I've got a GREAT idea. How about if Geocaching.com just automatically adds 1000 finds to every account. So as soon as you sign up you're already ahead of the game!

 

Wouldn't that make everyone feel special?

 

Bret

 

Or how about they just not display a finds count page anymore?

 

That will do away with this and all of the other dumb discussions that swirl around the number of finds, getting all of the different types of icons, and all the rest that seem to come up weekly.

 

Amen to that!

 

And let's not forget about the pointless bickering about what is and isn't a "find".

 

And as a bonus, I'll bet it would significantlly reduce the load on the server if the system didn't have to update the all of those find counts!

[+Mopar]

I do not understand how you differentiate between these two classes of virtual caches. There exist many virtual caches where the answers that are required to log, are so easily obtainable and often even belong to the common knowledge. Consequently no visit is required (this case also arises for the virtual cache the original poster is talking about).

 

With few exceptions, the expectation when people list a virtual cache is for geocachers to visit it. The point of answering questions is to prove you actually visited the site.

 

I do not believe that your claim ist true for the majority of virtual caches where only a trivial question needs to be answered and no additional logging requirement like a photograph is put forward.

My experience is that if the owner of a virtual cache wants the finders to visit the location, he at least tries his best to come up with reasonable logging requirements.

 

As one of the "old timers", I'd just like to point at that whaaaay back when virtuals first came about, there were NO logging requirements needed. You just went to the spot the hider wanted you to go to, and you claimed your find. Back then the honor system worked. Obviously it no longer does, hence the logging requirements on newer virtuals.

Virtuals were ALWAYS about going to the location, and with maybe a few exceptions any the encourage you to log a find without leaving your chair were changed that way after they were listed.

Trust me, when virtual caches were created nobody considered people would sit at home and "find" them on the internet. Since the game is all about getting outside it never crossed anyone's mind someone would cheat like that.

That said, the cache owner not only has the right to delete those logs, he has the RESPONSIBILITY to delete them. It's part of the guidelines. If the cache owner allows bogus caches to remain, he stands the chance of having his cache archived. That chance is probably slim right now, but as the problem grows I expect there will be a crack down. Just look at pocket caches.

[+Packanack]

But thank you to the OP for introducing many of us to an entirely new facet of our hobby. Which I am sure we will enjoy for weeks to come.

[+brodiebunch]

I think we had a couch potato geocacher in the Seattle in mid December. They found about 40 caches in one day. Not that its not an impossibility but that was a weekend after a major windstorm so there were trees down, many intersections without stop lights and they were spread out over a fairly vast area so getting around here-not always easy-would have been even tougher. The online postings all said the same thing. A local geocacher became suspicious and went to verify the finds in his caches log books. The local suggested we do the same and sure enough nothing had not logged on that date by the geocacher. We both emailed him to say we deleted his finds. That geocacher then sent out a generic email stating they would come back next summer to log in their finds in the logbook and they commented how tempermental the local geocachers were.

 

Anyway, thats my take on the subject.