Double logging and geo-ethics

[+wavector]

It's very easy when your philosophy is one signed log on a GC-listed cache/event is one online "Found It/Attended" log on the GC-website. The line is incredibly clear to me.

 

We have one cache which offers 350+ unique targets, each one is separate, each hunt is unique and it is very popular but every time you find one of the targets it is logged as a Find on the same cache page. We have several moving caches as well and cachers compete to see who can log the most finds. We also have monthly events which simply recycle the cache page, each month there is a new Event at a new location with different attendees and the same cache page gets used over and over. There are people who cannot wrap their heads around these simple realities. There are many areas where people log caches more than once and those who cling to cut and dried rules are simply inexperienced, unaware or unwilling to admit that the rule they cherish means nothing. Real problems occur when geocachers start thinking the rule they adopted has some basis in fact.

[+3 Hawks]

I would just like someone to tell me how this recurrent topic adds anything positve to geocaching or to the quality of any of our lives.

 

I consider caching and discussing caching on a forum as two totally different activities. I won't think of this or any other thread at all the next time I'm out caching.

 

As for what it adds to my life- these forums add value for me through entertaining and informative discussions with creative, mostly friendly people. Some threads are more entertaining and informative than others, (and some people friendlier than others) but on the whole it's pretty positive for me.

 

Can't argue with that. Cache on!!!

[+Green Bay Paddlers]

Okay - so we agree that it's the cache owner's authority to allow or delete "finds" as necessary.

 

Multi-part cache stages are not all listed on geocaching.com. You get the coordinates for the first stage, and then you find the rest of the coordinates. Some cache owners let you log a find for each of these.

 

Isn't an event cache the same thing? You follow the coordinates to the first stage, and then you given the coordinates for each of the other caches. The cache owner has no problem letting you log on GC.com each time you find a cache.

 

I'm failing to understand the difference here. Help me out.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

Someone pass that man a beer!

Better make it a Guinness. I hear Snoog is a cacher of refined taste.

 

 

Actually, it's in my profile that I don't drink beer. Just the smell of it makes me wanna hurl.

 

 

Oh gosh. It's right there in black and white. How'd I possibly miss that??

Edited June 16, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[Mr.Yuck]

Okay - so we agree that it's the cache owner's authority to allow or delete "finds" as necessary.

 

Multi-part cache stages are not all listed on geocaching.com. You get the coordinates for the first stage, and then you find the rest of the coordinates. Some cache owners let you log a find for each of these.

 

This is, in my experience, an extremely rare occurance. I won't say "maybe in Wisconsin they do" though.

Edited June 16, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+angevine]

Gosh. It would never occur to me to do this sort of thing -- I'm constantly amazed at what people do!

 

But that's part of the joy and frustration of the hobby, isn't it, that people do things so differently from us?

 

Try to be Zen abut it. Do what you think is right, and ignore when others do things you think are wrong. Or vent here on the forums, that works too. But remember that you're never going to change others' behaviors, and you'll only upset yourself in the process.

 

-- Jeannette

[+Miragee]

Okay - so we agree that it's the cache owner's authority to allow or delete "finds" as necessary.

 

Multi-part cache stages are not all listed on geocaching.com. You get the coordinates for the first stage, and then you find the rest of the coordinates. Some cache owners let you log a find for each of these.

 

Isn't an event cache the same thing? You follow the coordinates to the first stage, and then you given the coordinates for each of the other caches. The cache owner has no problem letting you log on GC.com each time you find a cache.

 

I'm failing to understand the difference here. Help me out.

Neither of the statements I bolded are the norm. Around here no one would think of logging an Event cache as Attended more than one time.

 

And, no one would think of logging each stage of a Multi-cache as a find.

 

Even though those things might be "right" in your local area, if you travel elsewhere, don't expect other cache owners to tolerate multiple "Found it" logs on their caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

Okay - so we agree that it's the cache owner's authority to allow or delete "finds" as necessary.

 

Multi-part cache stages are not all listed on geocaching.com. You get the coordinates for the first stage, and then you find the rest of the coordinates. Some cache owners let you log a find for each of these.

 

Isn't an event cache the same thing? You follow the coordinates to the first stage, and then you given the coordinates for each of the other caches. The cache owner has no problem letting you log on GC.com each time you find a cache.

 

I'm failing to understand the difference here. Help me out.

 

There isn't much difference beyond the type of cache. There is a lot of debate over multiple logs in various situations. Regardless of what the owner is allowing.

 

Just as we agree that the owner sets the rules for their cache most of us would also agree that if someone had a cache that allowed a find log for every Terracache and Navicache you have found that it's goofy as heck and would fall outside what we think of as "normal" logging.

Edited June 16, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+Green Bay Paddlers]

Here is the funny thing. I visit these forums about once a year. Each year I visit, I inevitabely get drawn into this same debate time and time again. This has been going on for years.

 

So, until there is time where actual "rules" are put into place, or an actual "game" is established, I think that we, as posters, need to let this issue die. There are far too many that get themselves way too wound up over this topic. The time spent on these posts don't seem to change anything (again, since this has been going on for years,) and it's largely a waste of energy.

 

1) It would appear that we all agree that cache owners have final say over how many times one can log a "find."

 

2) We all agree that a "find" (or "geocache") is different by definition. A temp cache at an event is not a geocache to many of you because it doesn't have its own webpage. Individual stages of a multi don't count as a cache to many of you either. Even though these each have separate coordinates, locations, and difficulty. Many multi's require days, weeks, or even years to complete.

 

3) We all agree that GC.com technically allows multiple logs per find. Where that freedom ends is at the hands of the cache owner.

 

4) Do we agree that event temp caches can be of an equal or even higher quality of cache hide than an average GC.com individual cache? I would hope so. The event I attended had unbelievable temporary caches that easily rivaled most of the traditional caches I have found in the state. Each of these was EASILY worth a "log." I compare some of those finds to a typical magnetic key holder on a light pole in a store parking lot and wonder why this is even being debated. LOL

 

5) We agree that this will never end and the actual "find" numbers out there are probably so tainted that this can never correct itself.

[+3 Hawks]

Please remember, we are from Wisconsin, the land time forgot and nobody really understands. We all drive an old pick-up and we only get to go caching after we milk our cows. It's all hillbillies and hoedowns in these parts.

 

I've been to California a few times and I must say there are a lot of things you guys do differently. The least of these would have nothing to do with geocaching. Miller Lite was on the premium list at the bars I visited in the LA area some 12 years ago. If you think any Miller beer product is a "premium" beer, and a fair price for a hotel room sized condo is $500,000.00 then I feel sorry for you and I understand the anger.

 

I've only cached in five states and guess what? I've seen different caching practices on these topics in each of the states. Unfortunately, none were the same and none were identical to that which seems to be the practice out in the land of TV and movie stars. How is Paris doing?

 

I checked out event logs from 6 events in 6 states and found 3 that allowed logging of temps as attends and 3 that did not. That's three additional states, two in which I've caches and one where I have not, that allow this practice. That's 50%. Now, my sample size is a little small. What do you think I'd find if I looked into the practices of each state?

 

I think my Green Bay colleague may be referring to certain variant of "multi." There are a few around but you don't see them very often because they become too hard to maintain. You have say....18 stages. Each "stage" cache is miles/counties from the next. Each stands alone. Each is in a unique location. Each has its very own GC#. Some of the stages are standard caches. Some of the stages are traditional multi-caches. Some of the stages are puzzle caches. Each has a log.

 

You obtain a clue from each of the caches, compile the data, and solve for the location of a "mystery" cache that might be another 30 miles away. It is more of a series of caches with a mystery cache at the end for those who choose to find all of the "stages." You only need to find the stages if you want to find the mystery cache.

 

I just wanted to clarify before the next "cheessehead" gets sniped by another "bash WI" thread.

[+MountainMudbug]

4) Do we agree that event temp caches can be of an equal or even higher quality of cache hide than an average GC.com individual cache? I would hope so. The event I attended had unbelievable temporary caches that easily rivaled most of the traditional caches I have found in the state. Each of these was EASILY worth a "log." I compare some of those finds to a typical magnetic key holder on a light pole in a store parking lot and wonder why this is even being debated.

 

I don't agree with this. On geocaching.com, a "geocache" is an item that has been published by a geocaching.com reviewer, has a "permament" page listed on geocaching.com that *anybody* in the world can look at online. Temporary caches placed at event, no matter how fun, clever, hard, unique, fabulous or amazing, are NOT published geocaching.com caches, and therefore should not be logged on geocaching.com.

I can't believe this is a hard concept to grasp.

Anything else is just fun and practice and good social times.

 

5) We agree that this will never end and the actual "find" numbers out there are probably so tainted that this can never correct itself.

 

I don't agree with this either. I think someday it will end. Just like with virtuals, somebody eventually pushed it over the edge of tolerance to TPTB, and they pulled the plug.

I think it is just a matter of time with this issue for a similar result.

[+Miragee]

4) Do we agree that event temp caches can be of an equal or even higher quality of cache hide than an average GC.com individual cache? I would hope so. The event I attended had unbelievable temporary caches that easily rivaled most of the traditional caches I have found in the state. Each of these was EASILY worth a "log." I compare some of those finds to a typical magnetic key holder on a light pole in a store parking lot and wonder why this is even being debated.

 

I don't agree with this. On geocaching.com, a "geocache" is an item that has been published by a geocaching.com reviewer, has a "permament" page listed on geocaching.com that *anybody* in the world can look at online. Temporary caches placed at event, no matter how fun, clever, hard, unique, fabulous or amazing, are NOT published geocaching.com caches, and therefore should not be logged on geocaching.com.

I can't believe this is a hard concept to grasp.

Anything else is just fun and practice and good social times.

 

5) We agree that this will never end and the actual "find" numbers out there are probably so tainted that this can never correct itself.

 

I don't agree with this either. I think someday it will end. Just like with virtuals, somebody eventually pushed it over the edge of tolerance to TPTB, and they pulled the plug.

I think it is just a matter of time with this issue for a similar result.

I wanted to highlight the most important statements in this post.

 

Pocket caches went away, as did Virtual logging of Coins and Travel Bugs, and when people abused the privelege of creating quality Virtual caches, all Virtual caches were banned from being created on this site.

 

We can all hope that someday one GC# will equal one "Found it."

[+TrailGators]

5) We agree that this will never end and the actual "find" numbers out there are probably so tainted that this can never correct itself.

I don't agree with this either. I think someday it will end. Just like with virtuals, somebody eventually pushed it over the edge of tolerance to TPTB, and they pulled the plug. I think it is just a matter of time with this issue for a similar result.

There was an idea in another thread to only allow one log per day per cache and Jeremy liked this idea. Could you imagine somebody taking 50 days to log 50 temp caches? I don't care about numbers but for those that do, I'm sure that someone could make a leaderboard that counts only unique cache finds. Maybe that would help tone down the angst...

[+tozainamboku]

The arguments over whether you should be able to log temporary cache at events leads me to believe that neither side understands the difference between facts and opinions. It is a fact that temporary event cache don't meat the permanence guidelines and therefore are not listed on geocaching.com. It is also a fact that the online logs are intended to record your experience finding a cache that is listed on geocaching.com or attending an event listed on geocaching.com. It is also a fact that cache owners are the ones responsible for maintaining the integrity of the logs. This means that cache owners can award bonus smileys. While TPTB frown on this practice, the have repeatably stated that they have no plans to prevent it. In the case of multiple attended logs at events, the event owner has chosen to award extra smileys for finding the temporary caches at the event. It is reasonable to express opinions as to why this practice is or is not desirable. I wouldn't call those that do it "cheaters" however. I've been to events where there was a separately listed geocaching.com cache published on the day of the event that mysteriously became disabled after the event and stayed disabled till it got archived 3 months later. I have logged caches like these. I guess that's OK since they were listed as separate caches .

 

Some other fact and opinions

 

FACTS

 

Geocaching.com provides a way for cachers to record their caching experience. The user selects a log type when logging on line. 'Found It' is meant to be used when you found the cache. 'DNF' is meant to be use if you looked but did not find the cache. 'Attended' is meant to be used when you attend an event.

 

Geocaching.com does not police the use of the online log. You can use the wrong log mistakenly or intentionally. Geocaching.com asks cache owners to be responsible for maintaining the integrity of the logs on their caches and gives owners the ability to delete bogus logs.

 

Geocaching.com provides a count of the number of 'Found It' and 'Attended' logs a person has entered.

 

OPINIONS

 

There should be a standard definition of what constitutes a find. Leaving it up to the cache owner to decide which found it logs are bogus leads to problems.

 

Since the cache owner can decide if a found it log is bogus, its OK for cache owners to award bonus smileys and it is OK to log the extra found or attended if the cache owner says so.

 

There is an advantage to having a higher find count that is sufficient to make people cheat and claim finds they know they don't deserve.

 

Geocaching.com should only allow one found log per cache or one attended log per event to prevent cheating. The few cases, such as moving caches, where it makes sense to allow multiple finds should be handled by special code or if that is too difficult, then people should only use 'Found It' the first time they find these caches and use a 'Note' for subsequent finds.

 

Real cheating to inflate numbers is rare, so Geocaching.com does not need to change anything.

[+wavector]

We can all hope that someday one GC# will equal one "Found it."

 

That is what you hope, not me or anyone I know.

 

Let me explain this again, I just explained it at the top of the thread you know.

In Alberta we have one cache which offers 350+ unique targets, each one is separate, each hunt is unique and it is very popular but every time you find one of the targets it is logged as a Find on the same cache page. We have several moving caches as well and cachers compete to see who can log the most finds. We also have monthly events which simply recycle the cache page, each month there is a new Event at a new location with different attendees and the same cache page gets used over and over. There are people who cannot wrap their heads around these simple realities. There are many areas where people log caches more than once and those who cling to cut and dried rules are simply inexperienced, unaware or unwilling to admit that the rule they cherish means nothing. Real problems occur when geocachers start thinking the rule they adopted has some basis in fact.

 

At least you can acknowledge that the rule you have adopted has no basis in fact. Vainly hoping that geocaching.com will change things so that they are compliant with your viewpoint is OK but suggesting that "we" can all hope implies that I or others are hoping along with you and we are not, I hope that is clear.

[+Miragee]

We can all hope that someday one GC# will equal one "Found it."

That is what you hope, not me or anyone I know.

 

Let me explain this again, I just explained it at the top of the thread you know.

In Alberta we have one cache which offers 350+ unique targets, each one is separate, each hunt is unique and it is very popular but every time you find one of the targets it is logged as a Find on the same cache page. We have several moving caches as well and cachers compete to see who can log the most finds. We also have monthly events which simply recycle the cache page, each month there is a new Event at a new location with different attendees and the same cache page gets used over and over. There are people who cannot wrap their heads around these simple realities. There are many areas where people log caches more than once and those who cling to cut and dried rules are simply inexperienced, unaware or unwilling to admit that the rule they cherish means nothing. Real problems occur when geocachers start thinking the rule they adopted has some basis in fact.

 

At least you can acknowledge that the rule you have adopted has no basis in fact. Vainly hoping that geocaching.com will change things so that they are compliant with your viewpoint is OK but suggesting that "we" can all hope implies that I or others are hoping along with you and we are not, I hope that is clear.

As tozainamboku suggests in his post, there can be accomodations for moving caches and for Events that use the same page over and over again.

 

However, for the latter, why can't the Event page be recreated, so it has a new GC number every month? That certainly wouldn't be difficult. Then, if a cacher wants to use some of the Statistical tools available, they will see an accurate count of "unique caches" found, and Events "Attended."

 

<snip>

 

Geocaching.com should only allow one found log per cache or one attended log per event to prevent cheating. The few cases, such as moving caches, where it makes sense to allow multiple finds should be handled by special code or if that is too difficult, then people should only use 'Found It' the first time they find these caches and use a 'Note' for subsequent finds.

<snip>

[+TrailGators]

Geocaching.com should only allow one found log per cache or one attended log per event to prevent cheating. The few cases, such as moving caches, where it makes sense to allow multiple finds should be handled by special code or if that is too difficult, then people should only use 'Found It' the first time they find these caches and use a 'Note' for subsequent finds.

I wish they would do this. It would end much of the needless angst and lay the groundwork for some clear and fundamental rules that everyone follows. The other option is to let people opt of of making their stats visible to anyone but themselves. The final option is to do nothing and gripe about this until hell freezes over...

[+MountainMudbug]

I just came to a realization - the only person being cheated around here is me...... by me!

I can't believe how long I could have been doing things differently

 

Not anymore!

This weekend we're going camping, and I've got an awesome idea to really increase our fun. While I'm cooking dinner, I'll get my husband to hide some caches around the campground, take the coordinates, write out a few hints at the bottom of the grocery list, and bring it back.

After everything is cleaned up, I'll go caching! He's really creative, too, I'll bet some of them will be pretty hard to find. I can't wait!

 

But the icing on the cake will be when I come home and get to log all of my finds on geocaching.com. That way I'll be able to keep track of all my geocache finds, because they will be geocaches and I sure don't want to forget how much fun I had finding them, and this is the best way to remember. I have to be rewarded for all my hard work!

And it won't be a problem because I'm a geocacing.com geocache owner, and I can log my new finds on my own cache pages, so I don't even have to go to the trouble to get an event page to be approved!

 

Man, if only I had seen the light a few years earlier!!

[+tozainamboku]

As tozainamboku suggests in his post, there can be accomodations for moving caches and for Events that use the same page over and over again.

 

<snip>

 

<snip>

 

Geocaching.com should only allow one found log per cache or one attended log per event to prevent cheating. The few cases, such as moving caches, where it makes sense to allow multiple finds should be handled by special code or if that is too difficult, then people should only use 'Found It' the first time they find these caches and use a 'Note' for subsequent finds.

<snip>

That was in the OPINION section. Those that have the OPINION that there should be one "found it" log per GC# number either say that Geocaching.com could code special exceptions for the caches where it makes sense to allow multiple finds OR they could simply not allow multiple find on these caches too since you could always log a note for each subsequent find. Others have the OPINION that abuse of multiple "found it" logs isn't a real problem. The either BELIEVE that cache owners have the right to award additional smileys or they BELIEVE that the numbers of those that do abuse multiple "found it" logs doesn't matter a whole lot so they can live with it to allow some special cases where multiple "found it" logs makes sense.

 

I have to be careful here . In a prior thread I said I didn't think Geocaching.com would ever change the code to disable the ability to log a find or attended more than once on a cache because that would implicitly say that the find count matters and give Geocaching.com approval to the idea that this is a competition. ReadyOrNot pointed out that Waymarking.com didn't let you log a visit to a waymark more than once. I replied that I thought this was wrong as in the early days of Waymarking it was clearly stated that it was called a "visit" and not a "find" to avoid the angst over someone logging more than once. The idea was you could report each visit to a waymark. It turned out the ReadyOrNot was right. Somewhere along the way, Groundspeak changed the Waymarking code to only allow one visit per waymark. To me this was the most stupid, idiotic idea I could think of. The idea turns Waymarking into a competition for who visited the most unique waymarks . Given that Groundspeak could do something so STUPID with Waymarking, I can no longer dismiss the possibility that they may one day decide that Geocaching is a competition and add a RULE that you can only get one find per GC#. I hope it doesn't come to this.

[+TrailGators]

I just came to a realization - the only person being cheated around here is me...... by me!

I can't believe how long I could have been doing things differently

 

Not anymore!

This weekend we're going camping, and I've got an awesome idea to really increase our fun. While I'm cooking dinner, I'll get my husband to hide some caches around the campground, take the coordinates, write out a few hints at the bottom of the grocery list, and bring it back.

After everything is cleaned up, I'll go caching! He's really creative, too, I'll bet some of them will be pretty hard to find. I can't wait!

 

But the icing on the cake will be when I come home and get to log all of my finds on geocaching.com. That way I'll be able to keep track of all my geocache finds, because they will be geocaches and I sure don't want to forget how much fun I had finding them, and this is the best way to remember. I have to be rewarded for all my hard work!

And it won't be a problem because I'm a geocacing.com geocache owner, and I can log my new finds on my own cache pages, so I don't even have to go to the trouble to get an event page to be approved!

 

Man, if only I had seen the light a few years earlier!!

Good point. I'm waiting for that to start happening too.

[+tozainamboku]

Geocaching.com should only allow one found log per cache or one attended log per event to prevent cheating. The few cases, such as moving caches, where it makes sense to allow multiple finds should be handled by special code or if that is too difficult, then people should only use 'Found It' the first time they find these caches and use a 'Note' for subsequent finds.

I wish they would do this. It would end much of the needless angst and lay the groundwork for some clear and fundamental rules that everyone follows. The other option is to let people opt of of making their stats visible to anyone but themselves. The final option is to do nothing and gripe about this until hell freezes over...

Dadgum!!! I wish I hadn't typed those OPINIONS. Now they keep getting quoted as if they were my opinion. Please stop quoting me out of context.

[+TrailGators]

Geocaching.com should only allow one found log per cache or one attended log per event to prevent cheating. The few cases, such as moving caches, where it makes sense to allow multiple finds should be handled by special code or if that is too difficult, then people should only use 'Found It' the first time they find these caches and use a 'Note' for subsequent finds.

I wish they would do this. It would end much of the needless angst and lay the groundwork for some clear and fundamental rules that everyone follows. The other option is to let people opt of of making their stats visible to anyone but themselves. The final option is to do nothing and gripe about this until hell freezes over...

Dadgum!!! I wish I hadn't typed those OPINIONS. Now they keep getting quoted as if they were my opinion. Please stop quoting me out of context.

I simply agreed with that opinion that you wrote in your post. It's still a valid opinion whether it's yours or not...

[+wavector]

As tozainamboku suggests in his post, there can be accomodations for moving caches and for Events that use the same page over and over again.

 

There is an accomodation already, it works now.

It actually works fine, it let's people do what they want to do.

Is this not obvious to you?

 

Attempts to control other people are bound to fail, this is my opinion.

It works fine right now, this is a fact.

 

I realize that you have a desire to see your adopted rule enshrined, I cannot figure out any reason it should be and I can see lots of reasons why it shouldn't be. I still don't understand why you have a problem with the way it works now?

Why should all this extra code be written?

What reason do you have for demanding that other people change?

[+Miragee]

<snip> ReadyOrNot pointed out that Waymarking.com didn't let you log a visit to a waymark more than once. I replied that I thought this was wrong as in the early days of Waymarking it was clearly stated that it was called a "visit" and not a "find" to avoid the angst over someone logging more than once. The idea was you could report each visit to a waymark. It turned out the ReadyOrNot was right. Somewhere along the way, Groundspeak changed the Waymarking code to only allow one visit per waymark. To me this was the most stupid, idiotic idea I could think of. The idea turns Waymarking into a competition for who visited the most unique waymarks . <snip>

OT . . . Jeremy came into one of those threads in the Web Site Forum and said he was going to change that so you could log more than one Visit. I haven't "tested" that yet, but hope it is true because you can certainly "Visit" something more than once. You just can't "Find" something more than once, unless it moves, as occurs with those very few, grandfathered, "Moving caches."

[+Miragee]

As tozainamboku suggests in his post, there can be accomodations for moving caches and for Events that use the same page over and over again.

There is an accomodation already, it works now.

It actually works fine, it let's people do what they want to do.

Is this not obvious to you?

 

Attempts to control other people are bound to fail, this is my opinion.

It works fine right now, this is a fact.

 

I realize that you have a desire to see your adopted rule enshrined, I cannot figure out any reason it should be and I can see lots of reasons why it shouldn't be. I still don't understand why you have a problem with the way it works now?

Why should all this extra code be written?

What reason do you have for demanding that other people change?

Wow . . . there is a lot of angst in that post.

 

I'm sorry this subject upsets you so much . . . I'm not upset . . .

[+TrailGators]

<snip> ReadyOrNot pointed out that Waymarking.com didn't let you log a visit to a waymark more than once. I replied that I thought this was wrong as in the early days of Waymarking it was clearly stated that it was called a "visit" and not a "find" to avoid the angst over someone logging more than once. The idea was you could report each visit to a waymark. It turned out the ReadyOrNot was right. Somewhere along the way, Groundspeak changed the Waymarking code to only allow one visit per waymark. To me this was the most stupid, idiotic idea I could think of. The idea turns Waymarking into a competition for who visited the most unique waymarks . <snip>

OT . . . Jeremy came into one of those threads in the Web Site Forum and said he was going to change that so you could log more than one Visit. I haven't "tested" that yet, but hope it is true because you can certainly "Visit" something more than once. You just can't "Find" something more than once, unless it moves, as occurs with those very few, grandfathered, "Moving caches."

I'll vouch that he did say that and it makes sense. However, I seldom log places that I visit. Maybe if you could make your Waymarking logs looked more like a blog instead of being separate logs I might do it more. It would be cool to have a log blog with photos.

[+Sea Monkey]

I have no interest in the numbers. My geocaching experience is all about the adventure and the destination. I will spend hours investigating logs of different caches to determine if a cache is a real adventure, or just a hide at the neighborhood park just for the sake of hiding something. The only thing the cache container is to me is a place for me to leave toys for kids who love to find treasure, (I allways carry a toy). If the cache is the size of my fingernail and cleverly hid so that it takes 5 hours to find, i'm not interested in finding it. I will, however, go for the adventure and log it as a find. I was there. That's my game. I log it because I really enjoy looking back on my adventures of past years, reading what I did and viewing the pics that I uploaded to the log. If I was competing in a competition, yes I am a cheater, but I'm not. I havn't even looked for the ones in my area because I don't care about the numbers, and I have allready seen the neighborhood playground.

 

Happy caching, no matter what your game is. Just get out there and enjoy the fresh air.

[+Miragee]

<snip> If the cache is the size of my fingernail and cleverly hid so that it takes 5 hours to find, i'm not interested in finding it. I will, however, go for the adventure and log it as a find. I was there. That's my game. I log it because I really enjoy looking back on my adventures of past years, reading what I did and viewing the pics that I uploaded to the log. If I was competing in a competition, yes I am a cheater, but I'm not. <snip>

Uh . . . Do I understand that you log a "Found it" for a difficult-to-find cache, even if you do not find it?

 

If you have "no interest in the numbers," if you don't find the cache, why don't you log it as a DNF? That still records your visit and lets others know it is either difficult to find . . . or not there. We recently looked for a cache where there had been several DNFs in a row, then someone logged a "Found it." Well, the cache wasn't there . . . however, we searched needlessly until we referred to more of the Past Logs in our Palm.

 

There is no shame in a DNF . . . sheesh, I have more than 230 of them . . . And, some of my DNF logs are more entertaining and descriptive of the adventure than my "Found it" logs.

[+tozainamboku]

 

Wow . . . there is a lot of angst in that post.

 

I'm sorry this subject upsets you so much . . . I'm not upset . . .

Well it does cause a lot of angst because you are suggesting a change from the status quo. The current system allows for multiple finds on a cache and it is up to the cache owner to decide if their cache should allow multiple finds. The was once a suggestion that a cache owner should have the option to disallow multiple finds on their cache. (Of course a cache owner already has this option by deleting multiple 'found it' logs, but the ideas was to have the system prevent these log if the owner selected the option). Your proposal takes away a capability that cache owners currently have. I don't doubt the some cache owners may abuse this feature, although so far I haven't seen a cache that invites cachers to "log this cache whenever you feel the need for another smiley". Most of the case are cache owners trying to make their caches a little more fun by allowing a find for each stage in a multi, giving an extra smiley for posting a funny picture of you at the cache, or allowing an extra log for each of the temporary caches hidden at an event.

 

I'm not sure why these "bonus" smileys are so distasteful to some people. It seems that many of the people who object to bonus smileys also object to additional logging requirement caches. They argue that as long as they find the cache and sign the log they are entitled to log a 'found it' without meeting any additional tasks spelled out on the cache page. Perhaps they wish that geocaching was a simple game. One with only the "three rules" which Dave Ulmer posted for the first cache.

 

What we actually have is a game with no real rules, and only a few guidelines to address the most serious issues. I don't see the "bonus" logs as a serious issue. Those who want to only claim one find per cache are free to not log the bonuses. Per a recent guideline change, caches with additional logging requirement should be listed as Unknown type, so that those who object to having to do an additional requirement will know to check the cache page before looking for the cache. This shows the use of the guidelines to address the issue of "purists" who were having logs deleted because they didn't know there was an additional requirement, while still allowing cache owners to have this type of cache. If someone claims the bonus their find count will be higher than someone who doesn't. I don't understand how this is different than the fact that some who can find a scuba cache gets a find I won't get, or that someone who solves a puzzle gets a find that someone that doesn't do puzzles won't get, or even that someone who choose to find 50 1/1 caches in lamppost gets 50 smileys while someone who hikes 10 miles to get one 3/4.5 cache gets one smiley.

[+Miragee]

 

Wow . . . there is a lot of angst in that post.

 

I'm sorry this subject upsets you so much . . . I'm not upset . . .

<snip>

I'm not sure why these "bonus" smileys are so distasteful to some people. It seems that many of the people who object to bonus smileys also object to additional logging requirement caches. They argue that as long as they find the cache and sign the log they are entitled to log a 'found it' without meeting any additional tasks spelled out on the cache page. Perhaps they wish that geocaching was a simple game. One with only the "three rules" which Dave Ulmer posted for the first cache.

 

What we actually have is a game with no real rules, and only a few guidelines to address the most serious issues. I don't see the "bonus" logs as a serious issue. Those who want to only claim one find per cache are free to not log the bonuses. Per a recent guideline change, caches with additional logging requirement should be listed as Unknown type, so that those who object to having to do an additional requirement will know to check the cache page before looking for the cache. This shows the use of the guidelines to address the issue of "purists" who were having logs deleted because they didn't know there was an additional requirement, while still allowing cache owners to have this type of cache. <snip>

I don't think "bonus" smilies are "distasteful," I just think it is silly. People say they don't care about the numbers, and then they log finds for caches they don't actually find . . .

 

I don't mind caches with "Additional Logging Requirements" and never have stated that. I think they can be fun and have done a few.

 

I agree with the new guidelines that puts them in the Unknown category, however, so that people get a "heads up" that they need to read the cache page, so they don't miss the ALR when they are traveling with just the coordinates in their GPSrs.

 

If someone claims the bonus their find count will be higher than someone who doesn't. I don't understand how this is different than the fact that some who can find a scuba cache gets a find I won't get, or that someone who solves a puzzle gets a find that someone that doesn't do puzzles won't get, or even that someone who choose to find 50 1/1 caches in lamppost gets 50 smileys while someone who hikes 10 miles to get one 3/4.5 cache gets one smiley.

I don't get this last part at all . . .

[+wavector]

Wow . . . there is a lot of angst in that post.

 

I haven't called anyone a cheater.

I haven't suggested that my practices be encoded in the website as rules that everyone has to follow.

I haven't questioned what people do nor have I suggested that they need to change to make me happy.

 

My post may represent angst to you but your suggestion that we proceed by controlling the way people geocache represents angst to me, adding a smiley to your suggestion doesn't make it angst free.

 

So before the website is rewritten to your specs perhaps you can explain why it should be done?

Why do you have a problem with the way it works now?

Why should this extra code be written?

What reason do you have for demanding that other people change?

 

I am asking these questions in my angst free zone where everyone can have fun geocaching. I will add a smiley and that should be proof that I am angst free.

[+LaTuFu]

A couple of thoughts are coming to mind as I read this thread, as well as the numerous other "this sport just ain't what it used to be" rants I've read recently.

 

Yep, new to this sport. Nope, not new to the "group dynamic" that occurs when people share a common interest.

 

There's always one group that sees itself as the guardian/mentor of the activity, another that is just there for the enjoyment, and another that does what they want within loose confines of the activity("the rebels"). It seems that its always the guardians who are furious with the rebels because they "just won't listen". Almost always fascinating to watch as an observer.

 

The other thought, a little closer to topic, seems to be that the heart of some of this argument lies not at "the numbers" but at the abuse thereof. I guess where I am having the hardest time grasping the issue is figuring out how the "abuse" spoils the enjoyment of the hobby for another cacher.

 

If I spend an afternoon with my son trying to find a few caches, my enjoyment will not be diminished if I were to find out that someone else logged this same cache as a double find. To each his own.

[+Miragee]

I wish I could remember the exact quote from briansnat about how the Forums are very different from Geocaching . . .

 

For the record, I have never called anyone a cheater. I just think it is silly to log "Attended" at an Event 78 times because there were a number of temporary caches there, especially since this is not a widespread practice, but is only accepted regionally. But, that's okay . . .

 

I think it is disrespectful to other cachers to log "Found it" on a cache you don't find. That is what the "DNF" choice is for in the dropdown list. That "Found it" can lead cachers to believe a missing cache is there.

 

If a cache owner wants to "grant" smilies for something extra, okay. But I think the granting of a "smilie" to someone who didn't find the cache is not right. A cache owner in Colorado offered the "smilie" to me for a cache I didn't find because I was back home. I declined . . .

 

These are my opinions. I don't expect my "opinions" are going to change the way things are done on GC.com, but that is what these Forums are for, expressing our personal opinions.

 

And, for the record, I don't care about the numbers, really, otherwise I wouldn't have spent six hours getting just one smilie last Thursday.

[+TrailGators]

I'm not sure why these "bonus" smileys are so distasteful to some people. It seems that many of the people who object to bonus smileys also object to additional logging requirement caches. They argue that as long as they find the cache and sign the log they are entitled to log a 'found it' without meeting any additional tasks spelled out on the cache page.

I think "so distasteful" is an exagerration. I for one simply think it is odd practice and it leads to placing and logging caches that ignore the guidelines that we all agree to follow. Don't you think that it's odd that people are logging over 50 temp caches at some events? People claim that "all" these temp caches comply with the guidelines, but do the math. 50+ caches would take up over five square miles if every temp cache was actually 528 feet apart. So I seriously doubt that those 50+ temp caches comply with the guidelines for minimum cache separation distance. They obviously violate the guidelines for cache permanence. I also have concerns as to what other guidelines they could violate since they are not reviewed. I also think the point brought up earlier is valid. This odd practice opens the door to further abuses. Pretty soon people will be logging plastic easter eggs hidden in their backyard. Who knows, maybe this is already happening....

 

P.S. I don't agree with the practice of logging bonus smileys and yet I don't have any issue with ALRs. I enjoy many of those caches. They are legit caches that are submitted and approved by reviewers. So I don't agree with your statement "many of the people who object to bonus smileys also object to additional logging requirement caches." I don't even see the coorelation...

[CoyoteRed]

1. Do you double log on the same cache and...

Our number of find logs equal the same number of unique caches we've found which are also published on this site.

 

2. How has your geo-ethics evolved or what are your own rules and limitations?

I used to think it's okay to log multiple logs on an event cache for the temporary caches, but the majority of folks I respect have said that's not the way to do it. One has to remember the find count as seen here on GC.com only reflects the number of "Found It" logs written. It has no real correlation to the actual number of caches one has found. In the beginning, I thought it did. I was wrong. Edited June 16, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[+TrailGators]

One has to remember the find count as seen here on GC.com only reflects the number of "Found It" logs written. It has no real correlation to the actual number of caches one has found. In the beginning, I thought it did. I was wrong.

It does for my finds! 1:1 Baby!

[+Green Bay Paddlers]

Coyote - I think you were right when you first started. Don't worry about what "people you respect" think. Do what you feel is right. A geocache is a geocache. It doesn't matter if it has a webpage or it doesn't. That's like saying a movie isn't a movie unless it's listed on IMDB.com. Log your caches as you see fit.

[+Miragee]

<snip> One has to remember the find count as seen here on GC.com only reflects the number of "Found It" logs written. It has no real correlation to the actual number of caches one has found. In the beginning, I thought it did. I was wrong.

Yes . . . one does have to remember that, unfortunately. A cache on one of my Bookmark Lists has been logged as "Found it" three times this afternoon as a cacher with the number '75' next to their name drops off Travel Bugs.

 

I wonder how many unique caches that number '75' really represents . . .

[+Renegade Knight]

Geocaching.com should only allow one found log per cache or one attended log per event to prevent cheating. The few cases, such as moving caches, where it makes sense to allow multiple finds should be handled by special code or if that is too difficult, then people should only use 'Found It' the first time they find these caches and use a 'Note' for subsequent finds.

I wish they would do this. It would end much of the needless angst and lay the groundwork for some clear and fundamental rules that everyone follows. The other option is to let people opt of of making their stats visible to anyone but themselves. The final option is to do nothing and gripe about this until hell freezes over...

Dadgum!!! I wish I hadn't typed those OPINIONS. Now they keep getting quoted as if they were my opinion. Please stop quoting me out of context.

That doesn't change that it's a good idea.

[+Renegade Knight]

... Don't worry about what "people you respect" think. ...

 

Those are the very people who's opinions do matter. At least in my world. They hold my respect for a reason.

 

FWIW: Coyote Red is one of the people I respect in this forum. We disagree on a number of issues. However when he takes time to lay out his thoughts I do read them and I do pay attention.

Edited June 16, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+CYBret]

Play the game your way...keep yourself honest....at the end of the day it's just a box and a smiley...to thine own self be true...that's all that matters.

 

Bret

[Mr.Yuck]

A couple of thoughts are coming to mind as I read this thread, as well as the numerous other "this sport just ain't what it used to be" rants I've read recently.

 

Yep, new to this sport. Nope, not new to the "group dynamic" that occurs when people share a common interest.

 

There's always one group that sees itself as the guardian/mentor of the activity, another that is just there for the enjoyment, and another that does what they want within loose confines of the activity("the rebels"). It seems that its always the guardians who are furious with the rebels because they "just won't listen". Almost always fascinating to watch as an observer.

 

Well, you're not observing very well, are you? Who's furious? Is anyone here furious? I think This Post should be pinned at the top of this forum. If anyone is furious, it's the people spewing terms like "witch hunt" about. This is a discussion of geocaching, in a forum dedicated to, uh, geocaching. It always seems to get twisted into people on one side of the argument being "angst-ridden", and everyone just takes the ball and runs with it. Go ahead and log your event in Wisconsin 68 times. I have a wife, two children, a mortgage, and a garden to tend to, and I couldn't care less. But it doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

[+Renegade Knight]

...There's always one group that sees itself as the guardian/mentor of the activity, another that is just there for the enjoyment, and another that does what they want within loose confines of the activity("the rebels"). It seems that its always the guardians who are furious with the rebels because they "just won't listen". Almost always fascinating to watch as an observer.

 

The other thought, a little closer to topic, seems to be that the heart of some of this argument lies not at "the numbers" but at the abuse thereof. I guess where I am having the hardest time grasping the issue is figuring out how the "abuse" spoils the enjoyment of the hobby for another cacher.

 

If I spend an afternoon with my son trying to find a few caches, my enjoyment will not be diminished if I were to find out that someone else logged this same cache as a double find. To each his own.

 

Rebel here. AKA Wolf. The Guardians are the Sheep Dogs per forum lore. I haven't done an exact count but I have the feeling that more wolves are actually saying "one log" than sheep dogs. The sheep dogs are saying "maybe it's silly but, whatever floats your boat". But there is still a good mix of both on both sides of the issue.

 

To a large extent the abuse of logging won't impact your enjoyment or anyone elses enjoyment of caching. The thing is geocaching isn't a private activity. It's very much a public thing with the logs and caches for everone to see. The public nature (which is important) is why most of us strive for common ground on the basics. If someone uses an aluminum hiking stick and someone else carbon figer it really doesnt' matter. Logging practices do matter. It's a large part of what binds us as a community.

[+TrailGators]

...There's always one group that sees itself as the guardian/mentor of the activity, another that is just there for the enjoyment, and another that does what they want within loose confines of the activity("the rebels"). It seems that its always the guardians who are furious with the rebels because they "just won't listen". Almost always fascinating to watch as an observer.

 

The other thought, a little closer to topic, seems to be that the heart of some of this argument lies not at "the numbers" but at the abuse thereof. I guess where I am having the hardest time grasping the issue is figuring out how the "abuse" spoils the enjoyment of the hobby for another cacher.

 

If I spend an afternoon with my son trying to find a few caches, my enjoyment will not be diminished if I were to find out that someone else logged this same cache as a double find. To each his own.

 

Rebel here. AKA Wolf. The Guardians are the Sheep Dogs per forum lore. I haven't done an exact count but I have the feeling that more wolves are actually saying "one log" than sheep dogs. The sheep dogs are saying "maybe it's silly but, whatever floats your boat". But there is still a good mix of both on both sides of the issue.

 

To a large extent the abuse of logging won't impact your enjoyment or anyone elses enjoyment of caching. The thing is geocaching isn't a private activity. It's very much a public thing with the logs and caches for everone to see. The public nature (which is important) is why most of us strive for common ground on the basics. If someone uses an aluminum hiking stick and someone else carbon figer it really doesnt' matter. Logging practices do matter. It's a large part of what binds us as a community.

Well said.

[+Miragee]

A couple of thoughts are coming to mind as I read this thread, as well as the numerous other "this sport just ain't what it used to be" rants I've read recently.

 

Yep, new to this sport. Nope, not new to the "group dynamic" that occurs when people share a common interest.

 

There's always one group that sees itself as the guardian/mentor of the activity, another that is just there for the enjoyment, and another that does what they want within loose confines of the activity("the rebels"). It seems that its always the guardians who are furious with the rebels because they "just won't listen". Almost always fascinating to watch as an observer.

Well, you're not observing very well, are you? Who's furious? Is anyone here furious? I think This Post should be pinned at the top of this forum. If anyone is furious, it's the people spewing terms like "witch hunt" about. This is a discussion of geocaching, in a forum dedicated to, uh, geocaching. It always seems to get twisted into people on one side of the argument being "angst-ridden", and everyone just takes the ball and runs with it. Go ahead and log your event in Wisconsin 68 times. I have a wife, two children, a mortgage, and a garden to tend to, and I couldn't care less. But it doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

I bolded another section of your post because that is what I noticed in this post.

 

Somehow those of us who think it is silly to log an Event as Attended multiple times for temporary caches get labeled as controlling and demanding, when all we are doing is having a discussion . . .

 

Now, logging a "Found it" for a cache someone doesn't find is another subject, as is repeated "Found it" logs to drop off TB's . . .

[+TrailGators]

All this talk reminds me of something I learned a long time ago in school: Everything tends toward increasing entropy (randomness and disorder). What used to be a simple game with simple rules is even becoming a mess.

[Mr.Yuck]

Please remember, we are from Wisconsin, the land time forgot and nobody really understands. We all drive an old pick-up and we only get to go caching after we milk our cows. It's all hillbillies and hoedowns in these parts.

 

I've been to California a few times and I must say there are a lot of things you guys do differently. The least of these would have nothing to do with geocaching. Miller Lite was on the premium list at the bars I visited in the LA area some 12 years ago. If you think any Miller beer product is a "premium" beer, and a fair price for a hotel room sized condo is $500,000.00 then I feel sorry for you and I understand the anger.

 

I've only cached in five states and guess what? I've seen different caching practices on these topics in each of the states. Unfortunately, none were the same and none were identical to that which seems to be the practice out in the land of TV and movie stars. How is Paris doing?

 

I checked out event logs from 6 events in 6 states and found 3 that allowed logging of temps as attends and 3 that did not. That's three additional states, two in which I've caches and one where I have not, that allow this practice. That's 50%. Now, my sample size is a little small. What do you think I'd find if I looked into the practices of each state?

 

I think my Green Bay colleague may be referring to certain variant of "multi." There are a few around but you don't see them very often because they become too hard to maintain. You have say....18 stages. Each "stage" cache is miles/counties from the next. Each stands alone. Each is in a unique location. Each has its very own GC#. Some of the stages are standard caches. Some of the stages are traditional multi-caches. Some of the stages are puzzle caches. Each has a log.

 

You obtain a clue from each of the caches, compile the data, and solve for the location of a "mystery" cache that might be another 30 miles away. It is more of a series of caches with a mystery cache at the end for those who choose to find all of the "stages." You only need to find the stages if you want to find the mystery cache.

 

I just wanted to clarify before the next "cheessehead" gets sniped by another "bash WI" thread.

 

Naw, who would bash Wisconsin? Who doesn't love Cheese? I've been to LaCrosse several times, but long before geocaching existed. Beautiful area, much more "hilly" than I expected, it's probably a great area for geocaching. You really need to do something about that persistant tick problem though. []

 

Although I say no one is bashing Wisconsin, I'm reminded of a newbie from Wi. who started a thread within the last year (can't find it unfortunately) asking about "multi-cache logging ettiquette", i.e whether or not you could log a find for each stage of a multi. Everyone was like, "of course not, what the heck are you talking about"? A handful of pretty ordinary short multi's were linked to, with the owners inviting multiple finds for each stage, as well as traditional caches inviting a 2nd find for "bonus virtuals" such as emailing information off of a historical plaque near the cache. I'm just sayin'

 

Yes, it's regional, and there are all sorts of regional differences reported all the time, no need to go into them in detail. As far as mulit-logging of events, I personally am familiar with events (that I wanted to attend, but didn't), in Pa., W.V., and N.Y. all within the last 4 months, that all permitted multiple logs for temporary caches. Of course it wasn't 68 of them.

[+TrailGators]

Please remember, we are from Wisconsin, the land time forgot and nobody really understands. We all drive an old pick-up and we only get to go caching after we milk our cows. It's all hillbillies and hoedowns in these parts.

 

I've been to California a few times and I must say there are a lot of things you guys do differently. The least of these would have nothing to do with geocaching. Miller Lite was on the premium list at the bars I visited in the LA area some 12 years ago. If you think any Miller beer product is a "premium" beer, and a fair price for a hotel room sized condo is $500,000.00 then I feel sorry for you and I understand the anger.

 

I've only cached in five states and guess what? I've seen different caching practices on these topics in each of the states. Unfortunately, none were the same and none were identical to that which seems to be the practice out in the land of TV and movie stars. How is Paris doing?

 

I checked out event logs from 6 events in 6 states and found 3 that allowed logging of temps as attends and 3 that did not. That's three additional states, two in which I've caches and one where I have not, that allow this practice. That's 50%. Now, my sample size is a little small. What do you think I'd find if I looked into the practices of each state?

 

I think my Green Bay colleague may be referring to certain variant of "multi." There are a few around but you don't see them very often because they become too hard to maintain. You have say....18 stages. Each "stage" cache is miles/counties from the next. Each stands alone. Each is in a unique location. Each has its very own GC#. Some of the stages are standard caches. Some of the stages are traditional multi-caches. Some of the stages are puzzle caches. Each has a log.

 

You obtain a clue from each of the caches, compile the data, and solve for the location of a "mystery" cache that might be another 30 miles away. It is more of a series of caches with a mystery cache at the end for those who choose to find all of the "stages." You only need to find the stages if you want to find the mystery cache.

 

I just wanted to clarify before the next "cheessehead" gets sniped by another "bash WI" thread.

 

Naw, who would bash Wisconsin? Who doesn't love Cheese? I've been to LaCrosse several times, but long before geocaching existed. Beautiful area, much more "hilly" than I expected, it's probably a great area for geocaching. You really need to do something about that persistant tick problem though. [ ]

 

Although I say no one is bashing Wisconsin, I'm reminded of a newbie from Wi. who started a thread within the last year (can't find it unfortunately) asking about "multi-cache logging ettiquette", i.e whether or not you could log a find for each stage of a multi. Everyone was like, "of course not, what the heck are you talking about"? A handful of pretty ordinary short multi's were linked to, with the owners inviting multiple finds for each stage, as well as traditional caches inviting a 2nd find for "bonus virtuals" such as emailing information off of a historical plaque near the cache. I'm just sayin'

 

Yes, it's regional, and there are all sorts of regional differences reported all the time, no need to go into them in detail. As far as mulit-logging of events, I personally am familiar with events (that I wanted to attend, but didn't), in Pa., W.V., and N.Y. all within the last 4 months, that all permitted multiple logs for temporary caches. Of course it wasn't 68 of them.

LaCrosse is a cool town. I used to go to Octoberfest there almost every year when I lived up in Eau Claire back in the 80s. The people up there were very nice. I later moved to Roscoe, Ill and became a FIB. People were very nice there too. Anyhow, this odd practice won't change my mind about that. It's just my opinion that when you log that you "Attended" an event it means just that and nothing more.

[+TrailGators]

Please remember, we are from Wisconsin, the land time forgot and nobody really understands. We all drive an old pick-up and we only get to go caching after we milk our cows. It's all hillbillies and hoedowns in these parts.

 

I've been to California a few times and I must say there are a lot of things you guys do differently. The least of these would have nothing to do with geocaching. Miller Lite was on the premium list at the bars I visited in the LA area some 12 years ago. If you think any Miller beer product is a "premium" beer, and a fair price for a hotel room sized condo is $500,000.00 then I feel sorry for you and I understand the anger.

 

I've only cached in five states and guess what? I've seen different caching practices on these topics in each of the states. Unfortunately, none were the same and none were identical to that which seems to be the practice out in the land of TV and movie stars. How is Paris doing?

 

I checked out event logs from 6 events in 6 states and found 3 that allowed logging of temps as attends and 3 that did not. That's three additional states, two in which I've caches and one where I have not, that allow this practice. That's 50%. Now, my sample size is a little small. What do you think I'd find if I looked into the practices of each state?

 

I think my Green Bay colleague may be referring to certain variant of "multi." There are a few around but you don't see them very often because they become too hard to maintain. You have say....18 stages. Each "stage" cache is miles/counties from the next. Each stands alone. Each is in a unique location. Each has its very own GC#. Some of the stages are standard caches. Some of the stages are traditional multi-caches. Some of the stages are puzzle caches. Each has a log.

 

You obtain a clue from each of the caches, compile the data, and solve for the location of a "mystery" cache that might be another 30 miles away. It is more of a series of caches with a mystery cache at the end for those who choose to find all of the "stages." You only need to find the stages if you want to find the mystery cache.

 

I just wanted to clarify before the next "cheessehead" gets sniped by another "bash WI" thread.

 

Naw, who would bash Wisconsin? Who doesn't love Cheese? I've been to LaCrosse several times, but long before geocaching existed. Beautiful area, much more "hilly" than I expected, it's probably a great area for geocaching. You really need to do something about that persistant tick problem though. [ ]

 

Although I say no one is bashing Wisconsin, I'm reminded of a newbie from Wi. who started a thread within the last year (can't find it unfortunately) asking about "multi-cache logging ettiquette", i.e whether or not you could log a find for each stage of a multi. Everyone was like, "of course not, what the heck are you talking about"? A handful of pretty ordinary short multi's were linked to, with the owners inviting multiple finds for each stage, as well as traditional caches inviting a 2nd find for "bonus virtuals" such as emailing information off of a historical plaque near the cache. I'm just sayin'

 

Yes, it's regional, and there are all sorts of regional differences reported all the time, no need to go into them in detail. As far as mulit-logging of events, I personally am familiar with events (that I wanted to attend, but didn't), in Pa., W.V., and N.Y. all within the last 4 months, that all permitted multiple logs for temporary caches. Of course it wasn't 68 of them.

LaCrosse is a cool town. I used to go to Octoberfest there almost every year when I lived up in Eau Claire back in the 80s. The people up there were very nice. I later moved to Roscoe, Ill and became a FIB. People were very nice there too. Anyhow, this odd practice won't change my mind about that. It's just my opinion that when you log that you "Attended" an event it means just that and nothing more.

[+DanOCan]

The people who boil things down to "one Find per GC number" might be oversimplifying things. I just finished entering 14 logs for the same GC number: 11 finds and 3 DNFs. It is a grandfathered traveling Virtual (GC43F3) and is one of the most cherished "local" caches around. It is designed to be found multiple times because each survey marker is a unique hunt in a unique location. My 14 logs today represent 14 unique hunts spread out over 12 hours and 600+ kilometers.

 

I also have logged the same event more than once. It was an event that happened on the last Thursday of the month, every month for 15 straight months. The cache page was recycled each month, only the date and description were changed. I logged that event 12 different times.

 

So, no one will ever convince me that people who have multiple finds on a GC number are always wrong.

 

My other ethics:

 

-- I have logged a cache that I owned but only because I adopted it before finding it for the first time so when I went to check it out it was a legitimate find...never been there before, never seen the cache before.

 

-- Any return trip to a cache is a Note, not a second Find.

 

-- I will not log a Find on any cache where I was with the owner when it was hidden.

 

-- I do not believe in pocket caches or armchair caches

 

-- I will log my DNF if I feel I gave the hunt adequate time. If I am rushed and can't give it a good effort I will log my visit as a Note so the cache owner knows someone visited the location.

 

-- I will only log a trackable if I actually get to handle it.

 

-- I have logged Finds on caches where I could not sign the log because of maintenance issues.

 

-- I have found puzzles when I have not done all the solving work myself.

 

Hey, that's my summary of me. Some may agree, some may not but there is nothing I can do about that.