False find - virtual cache

[+Toscouk]

lewisclan77 has logged a cache in the USA Karley's Cache the same day as my virtual cache Help! Peter's in the Rushes in England. The answer to my virtual cache question he gave included some additional information that is not available at cache site but is elsewhere on the internet. How do I proceed? Should I delete his entry?

I have been a geocache member since 2001 and have not had a problem like this before.

 

Toscouk

[+Sapience Trek]

I often log a bunch of caches I did over a period of time on the same day - I can't be bothered to remember the exact date if I'm logging a bunch of previous finds. I wouldn't delete the find.

[+Aiden's Cachers]

Could also be an armchair cache. If they answered it right it might as well stand. Some people will do anything for a smiley.

[+ncfinn]

Send him a personal letter and ask him to describe the virtual site in more detail.

[+ncfinn]

He/she has been quite busy, today he has found virtuals in the UK, Mexico, California and Michigan. Yesterday he found one in Antarctica.

This in addition to having found physical caches in California.

[+Thrak]

lewisclan77 has logged a cache in the USA Karley's Cache the same day as my virtual cache Help! Peter's in the Rushes in England. The answer to my virtual cache question he gave included some additional information that is not available at cache site but is elsewhere on the internet. How do I proceed? Should I delete his entry?

I have been a geocache member since 2001 and have not had a problem like this before.

 

Toscouk

 

I'd send him a note asking for clarification. As the cache owner you have the ability/right to delete logs you think are bogus. Some do that and others don't. It's really up to you how to proceed.

 

He's only been a member since March 27. Perhaps he doesn't understand how Virtual Caches work and thinks that you just answer the question for a "virtual" find.

 

[Edit]

I sent him a friendly hello note with a link to this thread. I think that, being a new cacher, he may simply not understand how virtual caches work.

Edited June 14, 2007 by Thrak

[+blindleader]

Since he has been logging virtuals all over the world, there's no doubt it isn't a case of delayed logging. I would email lewisclan and explain that you must actually visit the site of a virtual cache to log it. Delete the log if he doesn't respond.

 

This points up a little gotcha for the owners of virtual caches. Either strive to require information you know can be found only at the site (very difficult), or require a picture posted with the log showing the cacher at the site.

[+ShadowAce]

lewisclan77 has logged a cache in the USA Karley's Cache the same day as my virtual cache Help! Peter's in the Rushes in England. The answer to my virtual cache question he gave included some additional information that is not available at cache site but is elsewhere on the internet. How do I proceed? Should I delete his entry?

I have been a geocache member since 2001 and have not had a problem like this before.

 

Toscouk

 

I often remove logs from my caches that are false. I have had cachers post logs on my traditional caches but yet when I look at the logsheet they are not signed in. When I emailed I was told 'Hay, I dont remember the location, delete my log if you want' Turns out the person had logged a run of caches without ever visiting because they know most owners will not check.

 

Or as in the case of a recent email "The short answer is I cheated."

 

I have deleted logs on both of my virtual cache hides many times because people failed to complete the requirement and the answer of 'I live in XXX and cannot actually visit so I got the information from the internet" is not a valid reason to log my caches without visiting.

 

As the owner, it is you call. You delete the log if you feel they never visited the cache site because I can drive all over the area and say "I was within 30 feet, so I am logging your cache".

 

Of course others will chime in saying armchair caching is perfectly fine for virtuals, but they get upset when someone looks at the top of a mountain with binoculars and logs a find on the cache located at the summit.

 

So you make the call. Then you have to live with all the forum gods who will tell you why your choice was wrong, no matter which choice you made.

 

As the cache owner: From the guidelines:

Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

So if you feel the log is a bogus visit, the guidelines say you are supposed to delete it, but Groundspeak cares not who logs what or when as long as you the owner let it go. This is why so many bookmark lists point out the armchair caches so others can log them to inflate find counts.

[Keystone]

The geocache listing guidelines were updated in February of this year to make it even clearer that an actual visit to the site is required. And, the owner of a grandfathered virtual cache remains obligated to maintain their listing. An inactive owner who permits obvious armchair logging runs the risk of having their virtual cache archived. (So, yes, fake logging CAN hurt others -- the people who may have wanted to visit that archived virtual in person.)

 

It was very good of the OP to ask. It shows their attention to maintaining their virtual cache.

 

Since this is not a "Getting Started" issue, I am moving the thread to the "Geocaching Topics" forum.

[+Thrak]

The geocache listing guidelines were updated in February of this year to make it even clearer that an actual visit to the site is required. And, the owner of a grandfathered virtual cache remains obligated to maintain their listing. An inactive owner who permits obvious armchair logging runs the risk of having their virtual cache archived. (So, yes, fake logging CAN hurt others -- the people who may have wanted to visit that archived virtual in person.)

 

It was very good of the OP to ask. It shows their attention to maintaining their virtual cache.

 

Since this is not a "Getting Started" issue, I am moving the thread to the "Geocaching Topics" forum.

 

Oops - never mind

Edited June 14, 2007 by Thrak

[+tozainamboku]

Shouldn't the virtual cache be archived (or at least disabled until the owner can fix the problem) if people are able to log it without a visit?

 

The old guideline for virtual caches said

There should be one or more questions about an item at a location, something seen at that location, etc., that only the visitor to that physical location will be able to answer. The questions should be difficult enough that it cannot be answered through library or web research.

If someone can virtually log the virtual it seems that it no longer meets the guidelines.

[+C&C+COMPANY]

The geocache listing guidelines were updated in February of this year to make it even clearer that an actual visit to the site is required. And, the owner of a grandfathered virtual cache remains obligated to maintain their listing. An inactive owner who permits obvious armchair logging runs the risk of having their virtual cache archived. (So, yes, fake logging CAN hurt others -- the people who may have wanted to visit that archived virtual in person.)

 

When did this happen, never remembered that.....so GC.com has all right to do anything to our caches? Isn't the owner of the cache to make the decision on wheather or not it was a find

[+Kewaneh & Shark]

I have six virtuals and each one has questions for info that can be found on the internet, but I've tried to make sure that at least one question cannot be answered without a site visit. Most of my virts have the cacher look at a sign or plaque for the answers, but then I'll also ask them something like 'What is the name of the park is across the street?' or 'How many windows are on the backside of the building'. I've tried to come up with questions that make drive-bys difficult or impossible. I want the cacher to get out and look around. I also stress on the cache page that those are the important questions to answer. There may be a little wiggle room with some of the questions, but not so with the very site specific questions.

 

I've had cachers send all the answers but the important ones, and I've got many excuses as to why not all the answers are there. (One of my favorites had to be 'I couldn't answer that question because I couldn't see it from the car and it was raining.' That cacher logged 43 regular caches that day, and he didn't get a smiley from me.) I'll usually send them a note asking for the remaining answers letting them know that without it, the find is incomplete. I also like to look at the logs of other nearby caches for the same date. If that person was caching in the area, there should be other logs that show it.

 

To answer your question: if you don't think that lewisclan77 (or any cacher for that matter) has visited your virtual, but is claiming a find, ask them about it. If they can't provide proof to you that they were there, delete their log.

 

It's your cache, and your rules for logging a find on it. If a cacher does not want to play by your rules, or even Geocaching's rules for that matter, delete their log and don't worry about it.

 

- Kewaneh

[+Thrak]

The geocache listing guidelines were updated in February of this year to make it even clearer that an actual visit to the site is required. And, the owner of a grandfathered virtual cache remains obligated to maintain their listing. An inactive owner who permits obvious armchair logging runs the risk of having their virtual cache archived. (So, yes, fake logging CAN hurt others -- the people who may have wanted to visit that archived virtual in person.)

 

When did this happen, never remembered that.....so GC.com has all right to do anything to our caches? Isn't the owner of the cache to make the decision on wheather or not it was a find

 

As long as you are using the site owned by gc.com you are subject to whatever rules they make. It's their site.

[Mr.Yuck]

He/she has been quite busy, today he has found virtuals in the UK, Mexico, California and Michigan. Yesterday he found one in Antarctica.

This in addition to having found physical caches in California.

 

Aw, leave the poor noob alone. It's clear from his profile that he has a "goal" he's trying to reach.

 

Jeesh, that is one numbers obsessed newbie. Has over 40 hides too.

[+ThirstyMick]

Looks like in this case the assumption is right, but I just wanted to make the point that sometimes when I go to log a virtual that I did in fact visit, I'll realize that I answered a slightly different question than was asked b/c I had scrawled down a slightly re-worded or simplified version of the question in my notes that I brought to the cache. In those cases i have googled for more info, to clarify or confirm what I wrote down was what was intended. Especially if im logging it 4 or 5 days later and the memory is foggy... Also there have been a few cases where the virtual fascinated me (that was the point of virtuals, right?) and I had to research more when I got home. So before deleting a log that has too much info; I'd probably send an email...

 

but again, in this case, antarctica,..alright...

Edited June 14, 2007 by ThirstyMick

[+wavector]

The geocache listing guidelines were updated in February of this year to make it even clearer that an actual visit to the site is required. And, the owner of a grandfathered virtual cache remains obligated to maintain their listing. An inactive owner who permits obvious armchair logging runs the risk of having their virtual cache archived. (So, yes, fake logging CAN hurt others -- the people who may have wanted to visit that archived virtual in person.)

 

When did this happen, never remembered that.....so GC.com has all right to do anything to our caches? Isn't the owner of the cache to make the decision on wheather or not it was a find

 

The cache owner is in complete control of the cache page and signed an agreement with this listing service to have the cache listed. By allowing Finds that do not meet the listing requirements the cache owner has abrogated the agreement and this listing service will delist the cache. The Finds will still be valid Finds and to the best of my knowledge this listing service will not modify the record as it stands, they will not delete Finds that have been allowed by the owner. The two issues are separate and the listing service is not encroaching upon the cache owner's rights in de-listing the cache so much as exercising their own rights to ensure that all listings meet the requirements outlined in the listing agreement.

 

The cache owners allows the Finds but the Finds cause the cache to fail in meeting the listing guidelines, the listing service is not exercising any control over the cache.

[+Thrak]

I sent the user the following email:

=============================================================================

Hi.

 

I see that you are a relatively new cacher and am wondering if you are aware of how Virtual Caches are supposed to work. I direct your attention to this thread on the geocaching.com forums: LINK

I have a feeling that this is all a simple mistake and would like to let you know before someone gets all excited and upset.

=============================================================================

 

I received the following reply:

=============================================================================

well the virtuals Ive logged in places around the world are ones that said I could log them from any where

=============================================================================

 

Sigh............................

 

[Edited because the link in the email - which works fine - is being truncated here so I'm replacing it with the word LINK]

Edited June 14, 2007 by Thrak

[Mr.Yuck]

I sent the user the following email:

=============================================================================

Hi.

 

I see that you are a relatively new cacher and am wondering if you are aware of how Virtual Caches are supposed to work. I direct your attention to this thread on the geocaching.com forums:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...=0#entry2915753

I have a feeling that this is all a simple mistake and would like to let you know before someone gets all excited and upset.

=============================================================================

 

I received the following reply:

=============================================================================

well the virtuals Ive logged in places around the world are ones that said I could log them from any where

=============================================================================

 

Sigh............................

 

I see two on the list of his virtual finds, that are known to "allow" internet finds. (Certainly not the one in the UK referenced by the OP) There are several grandfathered virts that allow internet finds, and they seem to be most common in Germany. Of course I ain't sayin' no more, as this thread could very possibly result in the end of them.

[+FunnyNose]

I always strive to post a picture of myself that was unmistakably taken at the posted coordinates even if it not required.

 

Example 1

Example 2

 

I would remove his find..

[+wimseyguy]

I know the character amount was increased for profiles, but isn't there an emoticon quota? There should be....

 

and if he feels good about seeking out the armchair virts to log in order to reach his goal, I cannot wait to seek out his quality hides next year.

[+ThirstyMick]

I always strive to post a picture of myself that was unmistakably taken at the posted coordinates even if it not required.

 

Example 1

Example 2

 

I would remove his find..

 

I'm jealous !!

[+C&C+COMPANY]

The geocache listing guidelines were updated in February of this year to make it even clearer that an actual visit to the site is required. And, the owner of a grandfathered virtual cache remains obligated to maintain their listing. An inactive owner who permits obvious armchair logging runs the risk of having their virtual cache archived. (So, yes, fake logging CAN hurt others -- the people who may have wanted to visit that archived virtual in person.)

 

When did this happen, never remembered that.....so GC.com has all right to do anything to our caches? Isn't the owner of the cache to make the decision on wheather or not it was a find

 

The cache owner is in complete control of the cache page and signed an agreement with this listing service to have the cache listed. By allowing Finds that do not meet the listing requirements the cache owner has abrogated the agreement and this listing service will delist the cache. The Finds will still be valid Finds and to the best of my knowledge this listing service will not modify the record as it stands, they will not delete Finds that have been allowed by the owner. The two issues are separate and the listing service is not encroaching upon the cache owner's rights in de-listing the cache so much as exercising their own rights to ensure that all listings meet the requirements outlined in the listing agreement.

 

The cache owners allows the Finds but the Finds cause the cache to fail in meeting the listing guidelines, the listing service is not exercising any control over the cache.

 

Much better answer thanks wavector

[+Toscouk]

Thanks for all the replies.

 

Having emailed the offender this was the reply.....

 

I'm sorry about the confusion,I found this cache on a list of caches to log from home.Along with the ones I,ve logged elsewhere.I,m sure others have logged this without visiting the site, I just gave too much info.If you would like to delete my log thats OK

 

I`m quite scrupulous when it comes to logs on this virtual as I do not like geocache cheats.

I intend to adjust the question so the answer can only be by a visit and not by a web search.

 

Regards to you all

Toscouk

Edited June 14, 2007 by Toscouk

[+Thrak]

Sounds like he is using a list compiled by someone else. That list is a problem. The guy still seems to think that what he is doing is fine due to the list when, obviously, it is NOT fine.

[Mr.Yuck]

Sounds like he is using a list compiled by someone else. That list is a problem. The guy still seems to think that what he is doing is fine due to the list when, obviously, it is NOT fine.

 

Well, it must not be a geocaching.com bookmark list. The OP's virtual cache is not on any "armchair virtual" bookmark lists. And Bliss Park Virtual in Michigan, also found by the user in question, is not on any bookmark lists at all!!

Edited June 14, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[Pto]

Sounds like he is using a list compiled by someone else. That list is a problem. The guy still seems to think that what he is doing is fine due to the list when, obviously, it is NOT fine.

 

This cache is on 10 different bookmark lists.....

 

" Einfach schön" Bookmark list

 

"google Caches"[ /url]

 

Couch Caching bookmark list

 

 

Some people seem to enjoy doing these- I guess someone better jump in and ruin thier fun

Edited June 14, 2007 by Pto

[Clan Riffster]

Of course others will chime in saying armchair caching is perfectly fine for virtuals, but they get upset when someone looks at the top of a mountain with binoculars and logs a find on the cache located at the summit.

I assume you have some evidence to support such nonsense? It's been my experience that those folks who are anal particular about the logs to their virts, are also anal particular about the finds on their traditionals. The reverse seems to also be true. Those folks who are laid back about their virts, tend to be laid back about their traditionals. So, who are these "others"?

 

If someone can virtually log the virtual it seems that it no longer meets the guidelines.

Looks like an SBA is warranted. Guideline violations are one of my pet peeves, and, (IMHO), the single greatest detriment to this game. Any cache that violates the guidelines should be archived immediately, with prejudice. If folks can't be bothered to read the guidelines prior to submitting a hide, perhaps they shouldn't be hiding?

[Mr.Yuck]

Sounds like he is using a list compiled by someone else. That list is a problem. The guy still seems to think that what he is doing is fine due to the list when, obviously, it is NOT fine.

 

This cache is on 10 different bookmark lists.....

 

" Einfach schön" Bookmark list

 

"google Caches" /url]

 

Couch Caching bookmark list

 

 

Some people seem to enjoy doing these- I guess someone better jump in and ruin thier fun

 

I thnk the moderator, cache reviewer, guy from Post no. 9 made it clear this is abuse of the system that does hurt others. The whole thread is the result of an old timer from 2001 who rarely sets foot in the forums coming here to ask a question (or for help, I guess). So at least there is no original intent on ruining anyone's fun.

Edited June 14, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[SlytherinAlex]

 

Couch Caching bookmark list

 

Some people seem to enjoy doing these- I guess someone better jump in and ruin thier fun

One of my virtuals was on this list at one time. I changed the question of the cache page and added a line that Armchair Geocaching was not allowed for that caches.

 

a.

[+Knight2000]

Tell him to just go to events like everyone else.

[+FamilyDNA]

Tell him to just go to events like everyone else.

Actually, that won't work around here. (The cacher in question is in my area.) Events in this area are logged once per cacher in attendance.

[+Harry Dolphin]

ThirstyMick: Ignore the bird. He's just showing off.

 

I applaud the originator for maintaining his cache properly! Delete the log.

Unfortunately, many Virtual Caches are not maintained. One that I know of has an autoresponse "Congratulations. You have found it" no matter what answer you have given. Another asks "What name is on the plaque attached to the building?" Umm... There hasn't been a plaque there for at least three years. Someone stole it. Yet another was in an area closed off by the Secret Service for at least six months. Didn't stop people from finding it. (Requirement has since been changed.)

[+ke6n]

I'm getting rather ticked by people who think they can log finds on a virtual that our "team" has adopted. When this happens I send a contact message to the logger asking for the information that they should have emailed to me BEFORE they logged the cache. I'm nice about it and explain that without this information I have no way to verify that they have actually visited the cache. I also let them know that if they don't supply the information their log will be deleted.

 

Some reply, some don't even bother and when I check, I can see that they've been doing more caching since I sent the contact message. So, away their log goes. I send them another contact message explaining that their log has been deleted because they failed to supply the required information and I copy their log message back to them.

 

I guess what really gets me are the people who just ignore my polite message asking for the required information. I'm thinking that if they don't even have the courtesy to send some sort of reply, maybe I shouldn't feel that I have to give them the courtesy of further explanations when I delete and inclusion of their then deleted log back to them.

[+benh57]

I'm getting rather ticked by people who think they can log finds on a virtual that our "team" has adopted. When this happens I send a contact message to the logger asking for the information that they should have emailed to me BEFORE they logged the cache.

 

I don't think the email should have to come in 'BEFORE' the log. Emailing before, and then waiting for a reply from the owner (which generally may never come) is a bit too much to ask.

 

I usually log, then email right after.

[+hydnsek]

I'm getting rather ticked by people who think they can log finds on a virtual that our "team" has adopted. When this happens I send a contact message to the logger asking for the information that they should have emailed to me BEFORE they logged the cache.

 

I don't think the email should have to come in 'BEFORE' the log. Emailing before, and then waiting for a reply from the owner (which generally may never come) is a bit too much to ask.

 

I usually log, then email right after.

Ditto - so that I don't forget either one, and to keep my logs in order. So far no problems doing it that way.

[+LewisClan77]

MAN...a whole thread over me

HE HE

[Mushtang]

MAN...a whole thread over me

HE HE

I see on your profile that you have a goal to reach 1000 finds by Geowoodstock VI.

 

It looks like you've found a way to make sure that happens. Congratulations on having such impressive find numbers!!

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

He/she has been quite busy, today he has found virtuals in the UK, Mexico, California and Michigan. Yesterday he found one in Antarctica.

This in addition to having found physical caches in California.

In light of the emerging information, it appears that the cacher in question is logging these virtuals as armchair caches. In case the OP was not aware of this, owners of some famous old virtual caches allow armchair finds, and some even encourage them; some armchair caches are very popular and a few are downright famous. In fact, if you do a search on the forums on armchair caches, you will find entire threads devoted to the topic of armchair caches, with long lists of all known armchair caches. Of course, these are older caches where the owner has explicitly approved armchair find logs. If the OP, as the cache owner, does not wish to allow armchair logs, all you need to do is delete any find logs which appear to be armchair logs, and perhaps put a note on the cache listing page explicitly stating that you do not allow armchair finds.

 

P.S. Late addendum: Please also see the note from the WhiteUrkel above, wherein he links to a recent post from Keystone (reviewer), who states clearly that guidelines were re-worded in 2007 to specify that an actual visit to a cache site (including virtual cache sites) is required in order to log a find.

Edited July 9, 2007 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+LewisClan77]

MAN...a whole thread over me

HE HE

I see on your profile that you have a goal to reach 1000 finds by Geowoodstock VI.

 

It looks like you've found a way to make sure that happens. Congratulations on having such impressive find numbers!!

The 3 or 4 armchair caches are not in any way going to help me towards my goal.

[+ke6n]

I'm getting rather ticked by people who think they can log finds on a virtual that our "team" has adopted. When this happens I send a contact message to the logger asking for the information that they should have emailed to me BEFORE they logged the cache.

 

I don't think the email should have to come in 'BEFORE' the log. Emailing before, and then waiting for a reply from the owner (which generally may never come) is a bit too much to ask.

 

I usually log, then email right after.

Ditto - so that I don't forget either one, and to keep my logs in order. So far no problems doing it that way.

You're both reading more into what I wrote than what I wrote. I never said a reply from me was necessary to log it. Since people have been not so diligent in emailing the answers, I was hoping that asking for the email first before filling out the log would help along those lines. If I wanted to require a reply from me to OK their logging of the find, however, I'd be perfectly within my rights. I'm not that anal, though.

[+Toscouk]

Have had another suspect false find this time by Prospector69

 

have sent email thus...

 

Hi,

I am sorry but I do not think you have visited Help! Peter's in the Rushes. (S Notts) in person because you have also logged 3 caches in another country on the same day. I do know that it is possible to find answer elsewhere on the internet. Virtual caches are NOT armchair caches. I have deleted your entry.

[+Allanon]

Have had another suspect false find this time by Prospector69

 

have sent email thus...

 

Hi,

I am sorry but I do not think you have visited Help! Peter's in the Rushes. (S Notts) in person because you have also logged 3 caches in another country on the same day. I do know that it is possible to find answer elsewhere on the internet. Virtual caches are NOT armchair caches. I have deleted your entry.

Unfortunately, it's probably going to happen.

 

Thank you for being vigilant!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Shouldn't the virtual cache be archived (or at least disabled until the owner can fix the problem) if people are able to log it without a visit?

 

The old guideline for virtual caches said

There should be one or more questions about an item at a location, something seen at that location, etc., that only the visitor to that physical location will be able to answer. The questions should be difficult enough that it cannot be answered through library or web research.

If someone can virtually log the virtual it seems that it no longer meets the guidelines.

 

There isn't anything in the online logging mechanism that would prevent anyone from logging any cache they want. A cache owner can't stop someone from logging their cache, virtual or otherwise. They can only delete the log if it doesn't meet the guidelines.

 

There was another recent thread which referred to a cache which had over 8000 logs. It was a virtual which described a hypothetical building and the logging requirement was to provide an answer as to where that building would be located. Not only was there no requirement to visit the location of this hypothetical building, but a GPS isn't required to answer the question and log the cache. That kind of cache is probably one of the primary reasons that new virtual caches were banned.

[+Toscouk]

Exberg has logged my virtual Help! St Peters in the Rushes, he has not emailed me with the answer, I note he has logged virtuals in UK Ukraine Turkey and Egypt in the last few days. I aim to delete his log as he appears to be an armchair geocacher, is this still the correct action?

 

Tosouk

[+Bear and Ragged]

Exberg has logged my virtual Help! St Peters in the Rushes, he has not emailed me with the answer, I note he has logged virtuals in UK Ukraine Turkey and Egypt in the last few days. I aim to delete his log as he appears to be an armchair geocacher, is this still the correct action?

 

Tosouk

 

Yes.

Or you could play fair, and give him a chance to email the answer!

[+narcissa]

Exberg has logged my virtual Help! St Peters in the Rushes, he has not emailed me with the answer, I note he has logged virtuals in UK Ukraine Turkey and Egypt in the last few days. I aim to delete his log as he appears to be an armchair geocacher, is this still the correct action?

 

Tosouk

 

Yes, delete it. Armchair logs and inaction by owners are a leading cause of virtuals being archived.

[+Chokecherry]

Is there a way to edit the cache page and change a question so that they would have to visit the site and thusly making it difficult for people who didn't visit to answer the questions?

[+humboldt flier]

He/she has been quite busy, today he has found virtuals in the UK, Mexico, California and Michigan. Yesterday he found one in Antarctica.

This in addition to having found physical caches in California.

Hmmmmmmmmm Buzz Lightyear and he / she sure get around !!!!!!!!!!

[+DragonsWest]

He/she has been quite busy, today he has found virtuals in the UK, Mexico, California and Michigan. Yesterday he found one in Antarctica.

This in addition to having found physical caches in California.

Hmmmmmmmmm Buzz Lightyear and he / she sure get around !!!!!!!!!!

 

So that's who found my Personal Teleportation Device!!