Claiming a find when cache is MIA

[+TrailGators]

I regularly, maybe five or six times a year, DNF a cache, call the owner, and discover that the cache is missing.

 

I, or one of the cachers with me, will usually have a small or micro cache in our kit and will replace the cache - remember we're not talking about an everyday DNF, but about ones where we know for a fact the cache is missing.

Yeah, we have had several of those in my area; a cacher cannot find a cache, so they call the owner, and they decide together that it is really, really missing. So the seeker places a new cache container and claims a find.

 

Then, a couple weeks later, when somebody finds the original container (that probably moved from its original spot), there is a great deal of confusion about which cache is which.

 

And the "find" claimed by the person who replaced the (not actually missing) original cache is even less valid than it was originally, since they did not find the cache and they have actually made the situation worse.

 

Not a good solution, IMO.

This does happen sometimes, but it also happens even when the owner replaces the cache. If someone moves the cache then everyone can get faked out. I really try to make sure that the cache is missing before I do someone a favor. I'll call the owner and ask exactly where he/she hid it. But I can see how this could get abused by people that only want to look for 5-10 minutes.

[+Cyclosarin]

Granted I'm a bit new to the game with somewhere around 34 finds logged so far (I blame college and full time work for not letting me have more by now > ) - but I've never seen Geocaching as about smileys and number found first and foremost.

 

To me - it's all about the challenge of finding them. The fun of going out on my road bike late in the night to do night prowling for the containers hidden all over the place. Also - the 'yay' sensation when I finally find the container and can sign the log.

 

The number of caches found to me seems like a side-effect of playing the game - and it shouldn't be rushed or forced. This isn't a race as far as I know. I don't think that by having a large 'caches found' number that I will be the envy of the geocaching population and that other cachers will want to get into my pants all of a sudden.

 

It'll be neat when I hit the milestones like 100 and 500 and so forth - but most of my pleasure is received when I'm riding my bike at night and I actually have the container in my hands after a challenging search. :3

-Jen

[Mushtang]

It'll be neat when I hit the milestones like 100 and 500 and so forth - but most of my pleasure is received when I'm riding my bike at night and I actually have the container in my hands after a challenging search.

You're supposed to put the container back where you found it, not ride off with it on your bike.

[+Always & Forever 5]

It's rather humorous that the ONE cache I've done this with sparks so much heated debate.

 

Pretty funny, too, that this is a game in which nobody can claim "Victory!", but that so many people yell, "Cheater!!!"

 

You people take this WAY too seriously. I love to cache, and have never logged a bogus find (yeah, I know, debatable for some), and have never accused others of doing so, either. But, apparently this is more than clean, legal fun for some of you.

 

Sad, really. Life's too short.

[+CYBret]

It's rather humorous that the ONE cache I've done this with sparks so much heated debate.

 

Pretty funny, too, that this is a game in which nobody can claim "Victory!", but that so many people yell, "Cheater!!!"

 

You people take this WAY too seriously. I love to cache, and have never logged a bogus find (yeah, I know, debatable for some), and have never accused others of doing so, either. But, apparently this is more than clean, legal fun for some of you.

 

Sad, really. Life's too short.

 

And integrity is far too valuable to have it called into question over something as insignificant as a silly little game.

 

Bret

[Mushtang]

I love to cache, and have never logged a bogus find

Except that one.

 

(yeah, I know, debatable for some)

This is the place for "debatable" for sure. We'll beat a dead horse for 20+ pages if nothing else fun to debate shows up.

[+TrailGators]

It'll be neat when I hit the milestones like 100 and 500 and so forth - but most of my pleasure is received when I'm riding my bike at night and I actually have the container in my hands after a challenging search.

You're supposed to put the container back where you found it, not ride off with it on your bike.

[+briansnat]

briansnat and CYBret bring up the issue that someone may go looking for a missing cache because there is a "Found It" log. Of course this wouldn't happen if they realized that a smiley does not equal the cache being found.

 

Kind of sad that it's come to that. This sport used to be about finding geocaches. How about if we keep one website dedicated to the game of geocaching? We can call it something like Geocaching.com.

 

That segment of people who are playing a different game, one that often doesn't involve finding geocaches, can create their own game and website. Perhaps they can call the game SmileyHunt and create a website called Rackupsmileys.com.

[+Totem Clan]

I love to cache, and have never logged a bogus find

Except that one.

 

(yeah, I know, debatable for some)

This is the place for "debatable" for sure. We'll beat a dead horse for 20+ pages if nothing else fun to debate shows up.

I got my stick now where's the horse.

[+CYBret]

briansnat and CYBret bring up the issue that someone may go looking for a missing cache because there is a "Found It" log. Of course this wouldn't happen if they realized that a smiley does not equal the cache being found.

 

Kind of sad that it's come to that. This sport used to be about finding geocaches. How about if we keep one website dedicated to the game of geocaching? We can call it something like Geocaching.com.

 

That segment of people who are playing a different game, one that often doesn't involve finding geocaches, can create their own game and website. Perhaps they can call the game SmileyHunt and create a website called Rackupsmileys.com.

 

Just for clarification: the number of my smilies is equal to the number of caches I have found (yes, including virtuals and attended events). As you pointed out, I might be confused about how to play though, I've only been doing this for five years. I'll defer to Brian's seniority.

 

 

Bret

[+Always & Forever 5]

 

And integrity is far too valuable to have it called into question over something as insignificant as a silly little game.

 

Well said, Bret, except it's obvious it's much more than a "silly little game" to a lot of people out here.

[+Kealia]

Um....no cache = no find.

 

If you didn't find the cache and sign the log, you don't get no stinkin' smiley.

 

I also wouldn't claim a find on the cache mentioned that was frozen in snow. It leads to too many other "options".

 

"I saw the cache but didn't want to get dirty"

"I saw the cache but wasn't tall enough to reach it"

"I think I know where it was, but didn't want to look suspicious so I didn't reach for it"

 

So you drove X miles and hiked X miles for it and it wasn't there. it's OK, really. You didn't find THAT one. Go find another one.

 

It's not rocket science.

(Aplogies to those rocket scientists in our company here! )

[+cerberus1]

I'm surprised at how lackadaisical cache owners have become. If the owners would check once in awhile, they might be astonished at how many falsify finds. There's a cacher in NJ who posted false finds (another incident we were involved in). Now when we log we look and if his name isn't on it, we notify the cache owner. So far, only two have deleted him.

Cache owners themselves could/should clear this problem up easily, but it's not happening.

I guess it's the "It's only a game" thing.

[+Totem Clan]

Having read what all of you have said here, I realize I made a mistake in given the find to the cachers that found my cache frozen in the ice. Since it is done, I will not go back on my word and take it away from them. In the future I will not do it that way again.

 

I would never ask someone to give me a find in that same way. I think it was the distance involved that made do it. But that shouldn't have mattered.

 

There may be times when you find a cache but can't sign the log (missing pen, missing log, soaked log, etc), but if I can't find the cache, I don't count it is a find.

I hunted for one cache and found a place where the cache should have been, I thought anyway. I DNFed it because I Did Not Find it. Later I found out the coords were off by 50 or 60 feet. By some folks logic I could have claimed it, but I wouldn't feel right doing it.

 

From now on I will require the same out of those finding my caches too.

[+Cyclosarin]

Having read what all of you have said here, I realize I made a mistake in given the find to the cachers that found my cache frozen in the ice. Since it is done, I will not go back on my word and take it away from them. In the future I will not do it that way again.

 

 

Is it odd for me to say that I'd carry an ice pick and hammer with me to dig the cache out of the frozen ice? (I'll be careful, I promise!)

 

I live in southern California though near Los Angeles so I don't know what the chances of that are.

 

But if it happens? I promise I won't ride off on my bike with it.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Cyclosarin

[Neos2]

I've allowed a cacher to claim a find on a cache of mine that has turned up missing before. They logged a DNF and sent a note with enough info to convince me they were actually at the exact spot. I checked on the cache and it really wasn't there. I replaced the cache.

 

My reasoning?

 

They had the experience I wanted them to have--they enjoyed the stroll, the beautiful environment, the scenic view, and found the spot that held the cache. If the cache had been there, there is no way they could have missed it in that particular spot.

 

What did the "fail to do"? They didn't get the thrill of opening the container and writing their name. I figure that someone with over 300 finds has opened an ammo can once or twice and probably has had the pleasure of signing their name on some paper before.

 

They did what I really wanted them to do and they provided me with valuable information to help me tend to my cache. No sense making them go back there again just to write their name. That's just busy work.

[+briansnat]

Having read what all of you have said here, I realize I made a mistake in given the find to the cachers that found my cache frozen in the ice. Since it is done, I will not go back on my word and take it away from them. In the future I will not do it that way again.

 

I don't think this is really about finding caches and not being able to sign the log because of unusual circumstances. I wouldn't give anybody grief for that. Hey, they found the cache, right? It's the MIA caches that are being logged that cause the controversy.

 

I have a fairly long multi (a 3-5 mile hike depending on your route). Not long ago I removed the log during a maint visit because it was falling apart. I wanted to staple the pages together. The cache is rarely found (gets a log every few months), so I figured what are the chances of someone searching for it while the log was gone.

 

Well sure enough, Murphy's Law went into action and someone found the cache shortly after I removed the logbook. There was no logbook to sign. Hey, he found the cache so its a find as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't have dreamed of deleting his find. Now if he got there and the container was missing and he tried to log a find, totally different story.

[+Criminal]

It's rather humorous that the ONE cache I've done this with sparks so much heated debate.

 

Pretty funny, too, that this is a game in which nobody can claim "Victory!", but that so many people yell, "Cheater!!!"

 

You people take this WAY too seriously. I love to cache, and have never logged a bogus find (yeah, I know, debatable for some), and have never accused others of doing so, either. But, apparently this is more than clean, legal fun for some of you.

 

Sad, really. Life's too short.

There’s that cheater word again, but I haven’t seen it used by anyone but you so far.

 

I agree, it's sad indeed. The same people who continue to bellow about the irrelevance of the numbers are always the ones who will try to justify inflated find counts, whether it’s one or hundreds. Several people in these forums come out angrily when someone exposes one of the top-two finders for having so many fake finds, even though they themselves would never do such a thing. That’s called hypocrisy. They do so because they know and like her. I’m sure if I ever met her, I would like her as well.

 

It’s ironic that if someone agrees with you, the world is wonderful, if they disagree with you, they’re taking the game WAY too seriously.

 

Pardon me, your narcissism is showing.

[+tozainamboku]

I've allowed a cacher to claim a find on a cache of mine that has turned up missing before. They logged a DNF and sent a note with enough info to convince me they were actually at the exact spot. I checked on the cache and it really wasn't there. I replaced the cache.

 

My reasoning?

 

They had the experience I wanted them to have--they enjoyed the stroll, the beautiful environment, the scenic view, and found the spot that held the cache. If the cache had been there, there is no way they could have missed it in that particular spot.

 

What did the "fail to do"? They didn't get the thrill of opening the container and writing their name. I figure that someone with over 300 finds has opened an ammo can once or twice and probably has had the pleasure of signing their name on some paper before.

 

They did what I really wanted them to do and they provided me with valuable information to help me tend to my cache. No sense making them go back there again just to write their name. That's just busy work.

The puritans will tell you that geocaching is about finding caches. It's not about the experience of getting to the cache site. It's not about reporting valuable information to cache owner. It's not about helping out by replacing someone else's missing cache. The puritans will point out that the smiley is not a award given by the cache owner. To the puritans the smiley is an indication that you found the cache and the frowny is an indication that you didn't find the cache. Some puritans are disgusted that people play this game just to accumulate smileys. I used to complain that they were the ones that saw geocaching as a competition and were getting way too upset that people were "cheating". I've since change my asssesement of the puritans and feel that they are really put off having a find count stand for something other than what they deem a find. The problem is that it is between the cache owner and the finder to determine what is a find. What if you didn't sign the log because your pen ran out of ink and there was no pen or pencil in the cache? What if you find a nano cache and the log sheet is full? What if you find the cache but can't get it opened because the container froze in cold? What if you are group caching and the group leaves a group sticker instead of everyone signing the log? There are cases were even some puritans would allow the online find. Until we require that every geocache has an electronic device and each geocacher carries a smart card that records their visit, it will be up to the cache owner and finder to decide whether to allow an online log. At least the puritans are not forced to log a find they think they don't deserve.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Having read what all of you have said here, I realize I made a mistake in given the find to the cachers that found my cache frozen in the ice. Since it is done, I will not go back on my word and take it away from them. In the future I will not do it that way again.

 

I don't think this is really about finding caches and not being able to sign the log because of unusual circumstances. I wouldn't give anybody grief for that. Hey, they found the cache, right? It's the MIA caches that are being logged that cause the controversy.

 

I have a fairly long multi (a 3-5 mile hike depending on your route). Not long ago I removed the log during a maint visit because it was falling apart. I wanted to staple the pages together. The cache is rarely found (gets a log every few months), so I figured what are the chances of someone searching for it while the log was gone.

 

Well sure enough, Murphy's Law went into action and someone found the cache shortly after I removed the logbook. There was no logbook to sign. Hey, he found the cache so its a find as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't have dreamed of deleting his find. Now if he got there and the container was missing and he tried to log a find, totally different story.

Well said. Agreed!

[+Criminal]

I've allowed a cacher to claim a find on a cache of mine that has turned up missing before. They logged a DNF and sent a note with enough info to convince me they were actually at the exact spot. I checked on the cache and it really wasn't there. I replaced the cache.

 

My reasoning?

 

They had the experience I wanted them to have--they enjoyed the stroll, the beautiful environment, the scenic view, and found the spot that held the cache. If the cache had been there, there is no way they could have missed it in that particular spot.

 

What did the "fail to do"? They didn't get the thrill of opening the container and writing their name. I figure that someone with over 300 finds has opened an ammo can once or twice and probably has had the pleasure of signing their name on some paper before.

 

They did what I really wanted them to do and they provided me with valuable information to help me tend to my cache. No sense making them go back there again just to write their name. That's just busy work.

Again, faulty reasoning. The find count doesn’t represent the stroll, the environment, or the scenic view, it represents the total number of geocaches the person has found.

 

If that is your position, then the reverse would also have to be true, that if someone found the cache while riding a scooter, on a cold rainy night, and it was too dark to see the view, then they should log a DNF, right?

 

It’s not a reward, it’s a tally.

[+Always & Forever 5]

Edited to remove post. I've wasted enough time here today.

 

Have a great day, everyone!

Edited March 12, 2007 by Always & Forever 5

[+Bill Kettler]

Does it annoy anyone else when you a cache is clearly gone and you log a DNF and then subsequent cachers admit they didn't find it but claim a find anyway? Am I missing something here? I thought you had to actually find it and sign the log to claim a find.

This is an example:

An example

That's why we carry a digital camera, these days they are really in-expensive and we just attach a photo to the log as evidence of the find.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Bill & Teresa

[+BlueDeuce]

I've allowed a cacher to claim a find on a cache of mine that has turned up missing before. They logged a DNF and sent a note with enough info to convince me they were actually at the exact spot. I checked on the cache and it really wasn't there. I replaced the cache.

 

My reasoning?

 

They had the experience I wanted them to have--they enjoyed the stroll, the beautiful environment, the scenic view, and found the spot that held the cache. If the cache had been there, there is no way they could have missed it in that particular spot.

 

What did the "fail to do"? They didn't get the thrill of opening the container and writing their name. I figure that someone with over 300 finds has opened an ammo can once or twice and probably has had the pleasure of signing their name on some paper before.

 

They did what I really wanted them to do and they provided me with valuable information to help me tend to my cache. No sense making them go back there again just to write their name. That's just busy work.

The puritans will tell you that geocaching is about finding caches. It's not about the experience of getting to the cache site. It's not about reporting valuable information to cache owner. It's not about helping out by replacing someone else's missing cache. The puritans will point out that the smiley is not a award given by the cache owner. To the puritans the smiley is an indication that you found the cache and the frowny is an indication that you didn't find the cache. Some puritans are disgusted that people play this game just to accumulate smileys. I used to complain that they were the ones that saw geocaching as a competition and were getting way too upset that people were "cheating". I've since change my asssesement of the puritans and feel that they are really put off having a find count stand for something other than what they deem a find. The problem is that it is between the cache owner and the finder to determine what is a find. What if you didn't sign the log because your pen ran out of ink and there was no pen or pencil in the cache? What if you find a nano cache and the log sheet is full? What if you find the cache but can't get it opened because the container froze in cold? What if you are group caching and the group leaves a group sticker instead of everyone signing the log? There are cases were even some puritans would allow the online find. Until we require that every geocache has an electronic device and each geocacher carries a smart card that records their visit, it will be up to the cache owner and finder to decide whether to allow an online log. At least the puritans are not forced to log a find they think they don't deserve.

 

Puritan here. As my own personal preference I like caches that are in a fairly nice place for people to visit and once you are there you can find the cache without pulling your hair out looking for it.

 

So these are the types of caches I own.

 

And just like how I claim to have found a cache, you need to leave your signature in the cache container to claim my caches.

 

Hardly an unreasonable request.

Edited March 12, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[+StarBrand]

...

The puritans will tell you that geocaching is about finding caches....

 

The experience and the find are separate things to me. I had a great time walking out on a beautiful hilltop overlooking the entire river valley only to see a cache encased in ice and snow (it was -5 out). Logged a DNF because I could not open it and sign the log.

 

I can enjoy my experience of the outdoors and not find a cache. Did it for 35 years before I discovered geocaching.

 

You can log the facts of your "experience" in a DNF the same way you can log the "experience" in a found log. Only difference is in actually finding, opening the cache and signing the logbook.

 

I will admit to being a reformed cacher that used to want to log such things but I have concluded that is wrong.

[+Totem Clan]

...

The puritans will tell you that geocaching is about finding caches....

 

The experience and the find are separate things to me. I had a great time walking out on a beautiful hilltop overlooking the entire river valley only to see a cache encased in ice and snow (it was -5 out). Logged a DNF because I could not open it and sign the log.

 

I can enjoy my experience of the outdoors and not find a cache. Did it for 35 years before I discovered geocaching.

 

You can log the facts of your "experience" in a DNF the same way you can log the "experience" in a found log. Only difference is in actually finding, opening the cache and signing the logbook.

 

I will admit to being a reformed cacher that used to want to log such things but I have concluded that is wrong.

I think I've been converted. I'm now a reformed cacher. No cache in hand, no find.

 

I still go out to places where there are no caches or where I've found all the caches and still have a great experience, but that's not caching. And going to the spot of the cache and not getting my hands on the cache is not finding.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Totem Clan

[+tozainamboku]

...

The puritans will tell you that geocaching is about finding caches....

 

The experience and the find are separate things to me. I had a great time walking out on a beautiful hilltop overlooking the entire river valley only to see a cache encased in ice and snow (it was -5 out). Logged a DNF because I could not open it and sign the log.

 

I can enjoy my experience of the outdoors and not find a cache. Did it for 35 years before I discovered geocaching.

 

You can log the facts of your "experience" in a DNF the same way you can log the "experience" in a found log. Only difference is in actually finding, opening the cache and signing the logbook.

 

I will admit to being a reformed cacher that used to want to log such things but I have concluded that is wrong.

In one of these threads I once posted that the problem is that they use a smiley face for the found log and a frowny face for the DNF log. They should've used something else. Here's a log of mine from last week that I would've have preferred to use a smiley face on. And there are plenty of Found It logs I have where a frowny face would've been more appropriate .

[crtrue]

I claimed a find after cleaning up a cache that had gone through a land-clearing thresher. I spent an hour gathering up old log pages and even returned a bent TB. Honestly, if I found everything in the cache in the original location while still active, not to mention contributed to the cleanup thereof, I think I'm somewhat justified in claiming a find. Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking so, since I didn't find the "original" cache intact (although I garnered it based on how the pages were spread about a single spot) and the scenery had been altered (it used to be woody and brushy, but was essentially a field with a few pines).

 

I still stand by my decision to claim it -- I would not have had I not found any evidence of the cache.

[+TrailGators]

In one of these threads I once posted that the problem is that they use a smiley face for the found log and a frowny face for the DNF log. They should've used something else. Here's a log of mine from last week that I would've have preferred to use a smiley face on. And there are plenty of Found It logs I have where a frowny face would've been more appropriate .

I think this smiley would be better for DNFs... I also agree that I would have liked to use this or this for some of my finds. It would be cool to have a choice. I have many finds that I would have liked to use this and that's why most of us do it. Edited March 13, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

I claimed a find after cleaning up a cache that had gone through a land-clearing thresher. I spent an hour gathering up old log pages and even returned a bent TB. Honestly, if I found everything in the cache in the original location while still active, not to mention contributed to the cleanup thereof, I think I'm somewhat justified in claiming a find. Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking so, since I didn't find the "original" cache intact (although I garnered it based on how the pages were spread about a single spot) and the scenery had been altered (it used to be woody and brushy, but was essentially a field with a few pines).

 

I still stand by my decision to claim it -- I would not have had I not found any evidence of the cache.

That was very nice of you to do that. We try to do the same thing out here.

[+Totem Clan]

I claimed a find after cleaning up a cache that had gone through a land-clearing thresher. I spent an hour gathering up old log pages and even returned a bent TB. Honestly, if I found everything in the cache in the original location while still active, not to mention contributed to the cleanup thereof, I think I'm somewhat justified in claiming a find. Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking so, since I didn't find the "original" cache intact (although I garnered it based on how the pages were spread about a single spot) and the scenery had been altered (it used to be woody and brushy, but was essentially a field with a few pines).

 

I still stand by my decision to claim it -- I would not have had I not found any evidence of the cache.

I still say no cache in hand; no find. And you had the cache in hand. Granted it was not intact, but you found the cache.

 

I think this smiley would be better for DNFs... I also agree that I would have liked to use this or this for some of my finds. It would be cool to have a choice. I have many finds that I would have liked to use this and that's why most of us do it.

I'll second that.

[+gof1]

In one of these threads I once posted that the problem is that they use a smiley face for the found log and a frowny face for the DNF log. They should've used something else. Here's a log of mine from last week that I would've have preferred to use a smiley face on. And there are plenty of Found It logs I have where a frowny face would've been more appropriate .

I think this smiley would be better for DNFs... I also agree that I would have liked to use this or this for some of my finds. It would be cool to have a choice. I have many finds that I would have liked to use this and that's why most of us do it.

 

Now THIS is an idea I can get behind.

[+BlueDeuce]

I claimed a find after cleaning up a cache that had gone through a land-clearing thresher. I spent an hour gathering up old log pages and even returned a bent TB. Honestly, if I found everything in the cache in the original location while still active, not to mention contributed to the cleanup thereof, I think I'm somewhat justified in claiming a find. Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking so, since I didn't find the "original" cache intact (although I garnered it based on how the pages were spread about a single spot) and the scenery had been altered (it used to be woody and brushy, but was essentially a field with a few pines).

 

I still stand by my decision to claim it -- I would not have had I not found any evidence of the cache.

I still say no cache in hand; no find. And you had the cache in hand. Granted it was not intact, but you found the cache.

 

I agree. The tricky part is where to draw the line. What if he had only found part of a cracked lid? Is that a find?

 

At what point do the parts no longer make a cache? Certainly that has to be decided by the cache owner and finder.

 

But..to get back to the point of the debate, just because the owner and the finder decide that no-find can qualify as a-find doesn't make it okay. If it did, vitual logging wouldn't result in banned members.

[+Totem Clan]

 

I agree. The tricky part is where to draw the line. What if he had only found part of a cracked lid? Is that a find?

 

At what point do the parts no longer make a cache? Certainly that has to be decided by the cache owner and finder.

 

Just the lid? ......... I wouldn't log it as a find, so I have to say no.

[Neos2]

I've allowed a cacher to claim a find on a cache of mine that has turned up missing before. They logged a DNF and sent a note with enough info to convince me they were actually at the exact spot. I checked on the cache and it really wasn't there. I replaced the cache.

 

My reasoning?

 

They had the experience I wanted them to have--they enjoyed the stroll, the beautiful environment, the scenic view, and found the spot that held the cache. If the cache had been there, there is no way they could have missed it in that particular spot.

 

What did the "fail to do"? They didn't get the thrill of opening the container and writing their name. I figure that someone with over 300 finds has opened an ammo can once or twice and probably has had the pleasure of signing their name on some paper before.

 

They did what I really wanted them to do and they provided me with valuable information to help me tend to my cache. No sense making them go back there again just to write their name. That's just busy work.

Again, faulty reasoning. The find count doesn’t represent the stroll, the environment, or the scenic view, it represents the total number of geocaches the person has found.

 

If that is your position, then the reverse would also have to be true, that if someone found the cache while riding a scooter, on a cold rainy night, and it was too dark to see the view, then they should log a DNF, right?

 

It’s not a reward, it’s a tally.

Nah, the reverse would not "have to be true"--that's faulty reasoning. I was talking about being a reasonable person....of course, I never was one to quibble over persnickety details.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Many points being brought up here.

The first basic principle seems to be: Find the cache.

If you didn't find the cache, you didn't find the cache. That part seems fairly simple. If it's missing, you didn't find it. Yes. I mentioned that a cache seemed to be missing. Owner said I could log a find anyway. I declined. I'll wait until you rehide it.

A very nice local cacher replaced a venerable cache, and logged a find on it. Many people told her that that did not qualify as a find. She didn't find it. I said that I would not consider that a find either. She changed her log to a note.

As to caches with missing or wet logs: I have been known to leave my signature in the cache on a separate piece of paper. This includes a few muggled caches, where we found the container. Found cache, left signature on log inside cache. One we found strewn across the forest floor. Found the cache! The one that got hit by the lawnmower and was in many little pieces, we DNFed. Found the cache, but nowhere to put our signature on a log.

Found cache but didn't open it to put our signature on a piece of paper inside? I've disallowed two of those. "Write about it in the log." Both of those cachers were very unhappy about that. "We don't do that that way where I come from!" Find the cache, and sign a log!

Find the cache and sign the log. Isn't that what this game is all about? "Found where the cache used to be" does not seem to be playing the same game. "Went for a nice hike in the neighborhood" does not seem to be playing the same game. Find the cache, and sign a log! Leave proof within the cache that you have actually found the cache. Sorry if you forgot to bring a pen with you, and someone stole the pen, and the pencil that were in the cache. (People actually go geocaching without writing implements?!?)

I have not yet run into the problem of my cache being imbedded in ice. I will decide how to address that problem when it happens. (Though some whacko whackadoodle went geocaching after a blizzard, in three or four feet of snow, and still managed to find one of my caches by the 'thunk' noise.)

Edited March 13, 2007 by Harry Dolphin

[+pghlooking]

Perhaps those who so choose should campaign for a new log type - a Signed It, that can only be gotten by actually signing a physical log.

 

Until a Signed It requirement is imposed the case under discussion, finding the spot where a MIA cache should have been completes the Found It mission as far as I am concerned.

 

For you, signing the log may be the only way to claim a find, for others the sig is an only one part of the entire experience... you still had the experience if you didn't actually put pen to paper.

 

Before igniting your flamethrower remember that we're talking strictly about the OP - finding MIA cache sites.

Let's play a game. Replace the item we are looking for, a cache, with your car keys. Now pretend you lost them in your house. Your kids are helping you look for them. Every couple minutes one yells out "Found It" when they really didn't find anything. Now doesn't that sound fun? They should get credit for finding them since the keys were there at some point.

 

The log type "Found It" is as black and white as it needs to be. You either found the cache, or you didn't. To pretend that becausse some object was once in this spot, then I should get credit for being here with it as well, makes no sense. If the experience without a logbook was all that was required then we would still be hunting virts. In order for any caches to be approved it must contain a logbook. Therefore if you don't have a ogbook to sign, it's not a cache. End of story. Are we really that obsessed that we must log everything whether it is there or not. What happened to the basics and purpose this game was created for?

 

* This post is less intended to be directed at TAR than it may appear. For that I will apoligize in advance to him, but he brought up some points that alot of other make, and I disagree with.

[Neos2]

If you and a friend share a banana split sundae, and the friend gets the cherry off the top, that means that you didn't eat any sundae, right?

 

That seems to be how a few of the folks in here look at geocaching.

 

The ice cream is meaningless. The banana has no value. The chocolate sauce has no flavor, nor does the caramel sauce or the strawberry topping. The nuts are nothing at all. The whole thing is absolutely meaningless if you don't get the cherry on top.

 

Yeah, try running that past your doctor when he asks why you keep gaining weight!

[+boda]

Perhaps those who so choose should campaign for a new log type - a Signed It, that can only be gotten by actually signing a physical log.

 

Until a Signed It requirement is imposed the case under discussion, finding the spot where a MIA cache should have been completes the Found It mission as far as I am concerned.

 

For you, signing the log may be the only way to claim a find, for others the sig is an only one part of the entire experience... you still had the experience if you didn't actually put pen to paper.

 

Before igniting your flamethrower remember that we're talking strictly about the OP - finding MIA cache sites.

Let's play a game. Replace the item we are looking for, a cache, with your car keys. Now pretend you lost them in your house. Your kids are helping you look for them. Every couple minutes one yells out "Found It" when they really didn't find anything. Now doesn't that sound fun? They should get credit for finding them since the keys were there at some point.

 

The log type "Found It" is as black and white as it needs to be. You either found the cache, or you didn't. To pretend that becausse some object was once in this spot, then I should get credit for being here with it as well, makes no sense. If the experience without a logbook was all that was required then we would still be hunting virts. In order for any caches to be approved it must contain a logbook. Therefore if you don't have a ogbook to sign, it's not a cache. End of story. Are we really that obsessed that we must log everything whether it is there or not. What happened to the basics and purpose this game was created for?

 

* This post is less intended to be directed at TAR than it may appear. For that I will apoligize in advance to him, but he brought up some points that alot of other make, and I disagree with.

 

There are typos in many of the posts in this thread. There are often some in my posts as well. Spelling in the English language is as black and white as it needs to be.

 

I read through all of these posts, and satisfied the requirements for understanding them; but, there were some areas where they just weren't precise—. Does this mean my efforts to understand them was in vain?

 

I'm not picking on anyone ; I'm just trying to agree with the points that Toz and Briansnat have recently made. Sometimes common sense has to come in to play. Things are not always black and white.

 

Some of the earlier examples in this thread dealt with logging caches that were obviously missing. I still think that is wrong. But many of the posts herein discussed those grey areas and I feel they need to be handled on an individual basis between the "finder" and the cache owner.

 

If the cache owner says "no" - then it is a "no" whether I would agree with him or her, or not.

[+BlueDeuce]

ah, the analogy war. “If I can come closest to describing something like caching then I’m right.“

 

Sign the logbook already, okay? If it’s a pulpy mess then figure out how to leave your mark on the inside of the cache.

 

DNA, whatever.

Edited March 13, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[+wavector]

 

Just for clarification: the number of my smilies is equal to the number of caches I have found (yes, including virtuals and attended events).

 

I take it then you have never found a moving cache?

You have never attended a monthly event which moves from location to location but uses the same cache page?

Have never found a multi-target virtual cache like outforthehunts's Ye Olde Survey Monument

 

These are all perfectly legitimate caches that result in multiple smilies for one cache, or 1 GC number = multiple finds. In the case of Leap Frog you have to find two caches, hide one in a new place and move one cache to the first found location to make a claim for one smiley. If you find it twice you have actually hidden two caches and found four!

 

I am not arguing with your basic premise that logging a cache requires finding a cache, just pointing out that there are very few absolutes and every case I pointed out is a perfectly legitimate refutation of your absolute statement. It is very possible to have multiple finds on a single GC number. In the case of outforthehunts's Brass Cap Cache which is a moving virtual many Alberta geocachers have multiple finds recorded on a single cache, I have found 77 of the 340 possible targets and every one of them is recorded as a find on the same cache page, not one of them was in the same place mind you.

 

Edited to change 338 to 340

Edited March 13, 2007 by wavector

[+SGT red jeep]

Some folks are more stringent than others - but like cache listings themselves, that doesn't set a precedent!

 

I and most of the folks I know are in this for fun, and making and following all these 'rules' isn't fun. It's really a simple game, why make it hard? If you DNF a cache because it is MIA you've done your part, you should be able to log it.

 

I regularly, maybe five or six times a year, DNF a cache, call the owner, and discover that the cache is missing.

 

I, or one of the cachers with me, will usually have a small or micro cache in our kit and will replace the cache - remember we're not talking about an everyday DNF, but about ones where we know for a fact the cache is missing.

 

There have been a few times when revisiting a cache that I was sure of its location, couldn't contact the owner, and set out a replacement cache. In those cases I post a note explaining what I did and asking the owner to go have a look, make sure that his original is in fact missing, and if it is there, pick up the one I left.

 

I would hope that anyone finding one of my caches MIA would do the same... and if they don't have a container they still get the log.

 

Let's don't allow the game to get so rule-bound that there is no flexibility or consideration of exigent circumstances.

 

Thankfully each cache owner sets the logging requirements for their own caches and most are quite friendly.

I also am in it for the fun.

I've found pieces of caches, empty caches, obvious hiding places built or hollowed out but missing the cache container, and caches with missing or destroyed log books.

 

I may not have been in this sport from the beginning but I thought the original idea was for someone to hide something at a specific location and log the coords online for someone else to find.

 

The purpose of the logbook is to prove you found what the original hider wanted you to find.

 

I've logged a cache location because I found the obvious hiding place (a log with a carved out hole big enough for a film canister) , logged an empty container or one with a missing or destroyed logbook but leaving a piece of paper or a small logbook behind with my name to prove I was there.

In these cases, I e-mail the cache owner with what I found describing the cache and condition.

 

But if I find no evidence of the cache, I log a DNF

[+briansnat]

I have not yet run into the problem of my cache being imbedded in ice. I will decide how to address that problem when it happens. (Though some whacko went geocaching after a blizzard, in three or four feet of snow, and still managed to find one of my caches by the 'thunk' noise.)

 

I sir, am no whacko. I am a whackadoodle (and it was only 2 feet of snow).

 

I may not have been in this sport from the beginning but I thought the original idea was for someone to hide something at a specific location and log the coords online for someone else to find.unsure.gif

 

The purpose of the logbook is to prove you found what the original hider wanted you to find. dry.gif

 

I've logged a cache location because I found the obvious hiding place (a log with a carved out hole big enough for a film canister) ....

 

 

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect here.

Edited March 13, 2007 by briansnat

[+Kealia]

If you and a friend share a banana split sundae, and the friend gets the cherry off the top, that means that you didn't eat any sundae, right?

 

That seems to be how a few of the folks in here look at geocaching.

 

The ice cream is meaningless. The banana has no value. The chocolate sauce has no flavor, nor does the caramel sauce or the strawberry topping. The nuts are nothing at all. The whole thing is absolutely meaningless if you don't get the cherry on top.

 

Yeah, try running that past your doctor when he asks why you keep gaining weight!

 

Sorry. Worst analogy I've ever seen. This isn't even close to the same thing.

 

As somebody else said, no analogies are needed. You find a cache, you sign the log, you get a smiley.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

And integrity is far too valuable to have it called into question over something as insignificant as a silly little game.

 

Second best quote of 2007

[+CYBret]

 

Just for clarification: the number of my smilies is equal to the number of caches I have found (yes, including virtuals and attended events).

 

I take it then you have never found a moving cache?

You have never attended a monthly event which moves from location to location but uses the same cache page?

Have never found a multi-target virtual cache like outforthehunts's Ye Olde Survey Monument

 

These are all perfectly legitimate caches that result in multiple smilies for one cache, or 1 GC number = multiple finds. In the case of Leap Frog you have to find two caches, hide one in a new place and move one cache to the first found location to make a claim for one smiley. If you find it twice you have actually hidden two caches and found four!

 

I am not arguing with your basic premise that logging a cache requires finding a cache, just pointing out that there are very few absolutes and every case I pointed out is a perfectly legitimate refutation of your absolute statement. It is very possible to have multiple finds on a single GC number. In the case of outforthehunts's Brass Cap Cache which is a moving virtual many Alberta geocachers have multiple finds recorded on a single cache, I have found 77 of the 340 possible targets and every one of them is recorded as a find on the same cache page, not one of them was in the same place mind you.

 

Edited to change 338 to 340

 

Found a moving cache - logged it as a note

 

Never attended a moving meeting - if I did I'd log it once

 

Never found a virtual like the one you described, but I've found plenty of virtuals...and logged most of them.

 

Every find on my list is a unique find and every find was actually found. I found all my finds and logged every find that I claim to have found.

 

Is it just me, or does it seem ridiculous to have to explain this?!?!?

 

Bret

[+CYBret]

I hate to go totally off-topic, but this discussion reminds me of a Harvey Penick quote I read once:

 

Hole Them All

 

Two proud parents came to me at the club and announced that their young son had just scored his first birdie.

 

I agreed that was a wonderful event and asked them how long was the putt Junior made for the birdie

 

The parents said the putt was only two feet long, so they gave Junior a "gimme" to assure his first birdie.

 

"I've got bad news for you," I said. "Junior still hasn't made his first birdie."

 

Not only did Junior not sink the birdie putt, it was now planted in his mind that he could pick up his ball two feet from the hole and pronounce the putt as made, not having to face the moment of truth

 

When Junior reaches a higher level of play, where there are no "gimmes," he may develop an anxiety about short putts that will bother him the rest of his life.

 

My rule is that a youngster, no matter how small, should be required to hole every putt.

 

If Junior grows up knowing he has to make all the short ones, that will automatically become part of his game. When he plays on higher levels and faces a two-footer to win an important match, he'll be ready.

[+briansnat]

I hate to go totally off-topic, but this discussion reminds me of a Harvey Penick quote I read once:

 

Hole Them All

 

Two proud parents came to me at the club and announced that their young son had just scored his first birdie.

 

I agreed that was a wonderful event and asked them how long was the putt Junior made for the birdie

 

The parents said the putt was only two feet long, so they gave Junior a "gimme" to assure his first birdie.

 

"I've got bad news for you," I said. "Junior still hasn't made his first birdie."

 

Not only did Junior not sink the birdie putt, it was now planted in his mind that he could pick up his ball two feet from the hole and pronounce the putt as made, not having to face the moment of truth

 

When Junior reaches a higher level of play, where there are no "gimmes," he may develop an anxiety about short putts that will bother him the rest of his life.

 

My rule is that a youngster, no matter how small, should be required to hole every putt.

 

If Junior grows up knowing he has to make all the short ones, that will automatically become part of his game. When he plays on higher levels and faces a two-footer to win an important match, he'll be ready.

 

Not totally OT. I'm willing to bet the kind of people who log phony finds, if they golfed, would take "gimme" puts and mulligans. Logging a phony Found It on a missing cache is geocaching's version of golf's gimme put.

[+pghlooking]

If you and a friend share a banana split sundae, and the friend gets the cherry off the top, that means that you didn't eat any sundae, right?

 

That seems to be how a few of the folks in here look at geocaching.

 

The ice cream is meaningless. The banana has no value. The chocolate sauce has no flavor, nor does the caramel sauce or the strawberry topping. The nuts are nothing at all. The whole thing is absolutely meaningless if you don't get the cherry on top.

 

Yeah, try running that past your doctor when he asks why you keep gaining weight!

Actually it would be more like showing up to the table that your friend has just finished the sundae. You can see the empty bowl where the sundae was though, but there is nothing there. You didn't eat any of it, but yet you claim to have had a sundae. Try convincing your stomach that it is full.

 

Why people try to pretend to find something they haven't alludes me. In fact it sound like a good thread itself.

[+wavector]

Every find on my list is a unique find and every find was actually found. I found all my finds and logged every find that I claim to have found.

Is it just me, or does it seem ridiculous to have to explain this?!?!?

Bret

 

There are caches that are designed to be found multiple times, these caches are within the guidelines.

People have fun finding them and they are not doing anything wrong.

Their Finds are entirely legitimate and each is a unique experience, a unique Find.

They are not claiming a Find when a cache is missing in action.

 

In fact they can say the same thing that you said, is this not obvious?