Multiple finds on same cache

[+sbell111]

This is a discussion forum where you....eh.....discuss things. I'm still interested in hearing why a cache that lets people log 12 smileys is more fun than a cache that only lets them log one smiley. Call it curiosity. Call it trying to see things from someone else's perspective.

Well, perhaps it is exactly the same amount of fun. Perhaps, it is incrementally better because each stage seems like more of an individual adventure. Either way, why does it matter. The cache owners who allow this and the cache seekers who take advantage of the offer all like it and it doesn't affect anyone else, why does it matter?

Why does it matter if someone that has placed one of these answers the question? I told you I was curious. All this dodging and squirming makes it seem like the question hit a nerve.

If anyone is squirming, it is you.

 

You ask questions and I answer them. I ask questions, and you avoid them.

I'm not squirming one bit. I'm just waiting for a credible answer.

Instead of merely insulting my position, perhaps you could explain why you believe that my position isn't credible. Also, perhaps, you could answer the questions in above posts that you chose to sidestep.

[+TrailGators]

This is a discussion forum where you....eh.....discuss things. I'm still interested in hearing why a cache that lets people log 12 smileys is more fun than a cache that only lets them log one smiley. Call it curiosity. Call it trying to see things from someone else's perspective.

Well, perhaps it is exactly the same amount of fun. Perhaps, it is incrementally better because each stage seems like more of an individual adventure. Either way, why does it matter. The cache owners who allow this and the cache seekers who take advantage of the offer all like it and it doesn't affect anyone else, why does it matter?

Why does it matter if someone that has placed one of these answers the question? I told you I was curious. All this dodging and squirming makes it seem like the question hit a nerve.

If anyone is squirming, it is you.

 

You ask questions and I answer them. I ask questions, and you avoid them.

I'm not squirming one bit. I'm just waiting for a credible answer.

Instead of merely insulting my position, perhaps you could explain why you believe that my position isn't credible. Also, perhaps, you could answer the questions in above posts that you chose to sidestep.

The intention wasn't to insult you. The fact is that you have not placed a cache like this so how would you know why it would be more fun to place a cache that lets people log your 12 stage multi 12 times instead of once? I think you are guessing. That's why I wanted to hear the answer from someone that has actually done it. However, if you log multicaches more than once then perhaps you could explain the joy that it brings to you personally. That may bring me some insight into this....

 

Anyhow, it would be nice to hear some other opinions besides yours....

[+sbell111]

This is a discussion forum where you....eh.....discuss things. I'm still interested in hearing why a cache that lets people log 12 smileys is more fun than a cache that only lets them log one smiley. Call it curiosity. Call it trying to see things from someone else's perspective.

Well, perhaps it is exactly the same amount of fun. Perhaps, it is incrementally better because each stage seems like more of an individual adventure. Either way, why does it matter. The cache owners who allow this and the cache seekers who take advantage of the offer all like it and it doesn't affect anyone else, why does it matter?

Why does it matter if someone that has placed one of these answers the question? I told you I was curious. All this dodging and squirming makes it seem like the question hit a nerve.

If anyone is squirming, it is you.

 

You ask questions and I answer them. I ask questions, and you avoid them.

I'm not squirming one bit. I'm just waiting for a credible answer.

Instead of merely insulting my position, perhaps you could explain why you believe that my position isn't credible. Also, perhaps, you could answer the questions in above posts that you chose to sidestep.

The intention wasn't to insult you. The fact is that you have not placed a cache like this so how would you know why it would be more fun to place a cache that lets people log your 12 stage multi 12 times instead of once? I think you are guessing. That's why I wanted to hear the answer from someone that has actually done it. However, if you log multicaches more than once then perhaps you could explain the joy that it brings to you personally. That may bring me some insight into this....

 

Anyhow, it would be nice to hear some other opinions besides yours....

People who own caches like that have explained why in this very thread.

 

Perhaps you could spend a moment to answer my questions now.

[+TrailGators]

People who own caches like that have explained why in this very thread.

I checked the entire thread and I did not see any answer to that specific question other than yours. So let's let some others have a crack at it..

[+Miragee]

People who own caches like that have explained why in this very thread.

I checked the entire thread and I did not see any answer to that specific question other than yours. So let's let some others have a crack at it..

If you are looking for an answer from me, I'll just say you are asking the wrong question.

 

I did not place my cache because it was "more fun" to do it that way.

 

Let me repeat my previous reply, bolding the important parts:

I don't think one cache, placed to overcome a unique situation, is going to set some kind of precedent for an area, opening it up to Multi-logging abuse.

 

As for a reason someone would do that, on my cache, I state it clearly:

I think this is a fair accommodation, since the caches would still be there to be found, if the Park had not changed their Geocaching policy and removed the containers.

Geocaching is supposed to be about having fun. Each cacher can create and place the kind of caches they want to. If the cache has been Reviewed, is within the Guidelines, and has been Published, I don't understand why another cacher would want the cache to be changed.

Since other local cachers have emailed me stating they like the way I created my cache, I don't know why you continue to have a problem with this.

[+TrailGators]

As for a reason someone would do that, on my cache, I state it clearly:

I think this is a fair accommodation, since the caches would still be there to be found, if the Park had not changed their Geocaching policy and removed the containers.

I'm just trying to understand. Would if not be fair if it were a normal multi? Like I said I'm just trying to understand....

 

I understand that banning caching in the park isn't fair to us. However, you've essentially created a bunch of virtual caches to replace some great traditionals. Since the site won't list virtuals you brought virtuals back by allowing them all to be logged on your multicache. It seems like if the site wanted virtuals then they would have allowed them. It sure sounds like a loophole to me. What about the other 300 archived caches out there?

Edited May 5, 2008 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

People who own caches like that have explained why in this very thread.

I checked the entire thread and I did not see any answer to that specific question other than yours. So let's let some others have a crack at it..

Apparently, you didn't read the thread very well.

 

BTW, are you ever going to answer my questions? Demanding answers to your questions but not answering those of others is not very effective communications.

[+sbell111]

As for a reason someone would do that, on my cache, I state it clearly:

I think this is a fair accommodation, since the caches would still be there to be found, if the Park had not changed their Geocaching policy and removed the containers.

I'm just trying to understand. Would if not be fair if it were a normal multi? Like I said I'm just trying to understand....

 

I understand that banning caching in the park isn't fair to us. However, you've essentially created a bunch of virtual caches to replace some great traditionals. Since the site won't list virtuals you brought virtuals back by allowing them all to be logged on a multicache. It seems like if the site wanted virtuals then they would have allowed them. It sure sounds like a loophole to me. What about the other 300 archived caches out there?

The cache owner wanted it that way. The cache seekers have enjoyed it. It doesn't violate the guidelines in any way. It affects no other cachers in any way.

 

Why does it bother you so much?

Edited May 5, 2008 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Why does it bother you so much?

The only thing bothering me right now is you. I've repeatedly said that I'm trying to understand...

[+sbell111]

Why does it bother you so much?

The only thing bothering me right now is you. I've repeatedly said that I'm trying to understand...

Yes, and it clearly bothers you based both on your number of posts and your incendiary remarks. I'm merely trying to figure out why it bothers you so greatly.

[+TrailGators]

Why does it bother you so much?

The only thing bothering me right now is you. I've repeatedly said that I'm trying to understand...

Yes, and it clearly bothers you based both on your number of posts and your incendiary remarks. I'm merely trying to figure out why it bothers you so greatly.

Since you seem to like falsely speaking for me why don't you tell everyone? I can't get a word in edgewise.... Edited May 5, 2008 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

Why does it bother you so much?

The only thing bothering me right now is you. I've repeatedly said that I'm trying to understand...

Yes, and it clearly bothers you based both on your number of posts and your incendiary remarks. I'm merely trying to figure out why it bothers you so greatly.

Since you seem to like falsely speaking for me why don't you tell everyone? I can't get a word in edgewise....

You are far and away the most active poster in this topic.

 

Apparently, you are not having a problem getting your word in. I wish that you would use those words to respond to my reasonable questions.

Edited May 5, 2008 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Why does it bother you so much?

The only thing bothering me right now is you. I've repeatedly said that I'm trying to understand...

Yes, and it clearly bothers you based both on your number of posts and your incendiary remarks. I'm merely trying to figure out why it bothers you so greatly.

Since you seem to like falsely speaking for me why don't you tell everyone? I can't get a word in edgewise....

You are far and away the most active poster in this topic.

 

Apparently, you are not having a problem getting your word in.

You are just trying to be disruptive. Back on the ignored users you go! Edited May 5, 2008 by TrailGators

[+BlueDeuce]

Okay, I think we've reached the You - No You stage.

[+TrailGators]

Bumping this post to try to get this thread back on topic....

 

As for a reason someone would do that, on my cache, I state it clearly:

I think this is a fair accommodation, since the caches would still be there to be found, if the Park had not changed their Geocaching policy and removed the containers.

I'm just trying to understand. Would if not be fair if it were a normal multi? Like I said I'm just trying to understand....

 

I understand that banning caching in the park isn't fair to us. However, you've essentially created a bunch of virtual caches to replace some great traditionals. Since the site won't list virtuals you brought virtuals back by allowing them all to be logged on your multicache. It seems like if the site wanted virtuals then they would have allowed them. It sure sounds like a loophole to me. What about the other 300 archived caches out there?

[+sbell111]

Why does it bother you so much?

The only thing bothering me right now is you. I've repeatedly said that I'm trying to understand...

Yes, and it clearly bothers you based both on your number of posts and your incendiary remarks. I'm merely trying to figure out why it bothers you so greatly.

Since you seem to like falsely speaking for me why don't you tell everyone? I can't get a word in edgewise....

You are far and away the most active poster in this topic.

 

Apparently, you are not having a problem getting your word in.

You are just trying to be disruptive. Back on the ignored users you go!

I guess that makes ignoring questions even easier.

[+TrailGators]

Bumping this post to try to get this thread back on topic....

 

As for a reason someone would do that, on my cache, I state it clearly:

I think this is a fair accommodation, since the caches would still be there to be found, if the Park had not changed their Geocaching policy and removed the containers.

I'm just trying to understand. Would if not be fair if it were a normal multi? Like I said I'm just trying to understand....

 

I understand that banning caching in the park isn't fair to us. However, you've essentially created a bunch of virtual caches to replace some great traditionals. Since the site won't list virtuals you brought virtuals back by allowing them all to be logged on your multicache. It seems like if the site wanted virtuals then they would have allowed them. It sure sounds like a loophole to me. What about the other 300 archived caches out there?

[+sbell111]

Let's pop back to the hypothetical.

 

A cacher creates a multi. Each stage has a log and the final location is a big box of trinkets.

 

The cache owner allows cachers to log just one find for the final location or log a find for each stage.

 

Why should I care about this practice. The multilogging clearly only affects me if I choose to multilog the cache.

Edited May 5, 2008 by sbell111

[+tozainamboku]

Bumping this post to try to get this thread back on topic....

 

As for a reason someone would do that, on my cache, I state it clearly:

I think this is a fair accommodation, since the caches would still be there to be found, if the Park had not changed their Geocaching policy and removed the containers.

I'm just trying to understand. Would if not be fair if it were a normal multi? Like I said I'm just trying to understand....

 

I understand that banning caching in the park isn't fair to us. However, you've essentially created a bunch of virtual caches to replace some great traditionals. Since the site won't list virtuals you brought virtuals back by allowing them all to be logged on your multicache. It seems like if the site wanted virtuals then they would have allowed them. It sure sounds like a loophole to me. What about the other 300 archived caches out there?

Looks to me like Miragee's multi is an attempt to get around the fact that virtual caches are no longer listed on Geocaching.com (either that or a blatant agenda cache to protest the decision by the superintendent of Anza Borrego Desert State Park to ban caching in that park). She couldn't hide twelve virtual caches so she is allowing people to use her page to log visit to 12 locations inside the park in addition to her cache. These don't seem to be related to her cache in any way. I personally think this is an end run around the guidelines and if allowed this would present a new way to place caches that are in violation of the guidelines. Just place another cache that is published and invite people to use that cache page to log the unpublishable cache. It sounds like the suggestion I made when I proposed the Wow! Waymarking category two and a half years ago

In order to get credit on geocaching.com for your "find" you may post a find to the following geocache: GC????

[+TrailGators]

Bumping this post to try to get this thread back on topic....

 

As for a reason someone would do that, on my cache, I state it clearly:

I think this is a fair accommodation, since the caches would still be there to be found, if the Park had not changed their Geocaching policy and removed the containers.

I'm just trying to understand. Would if not be fair if it were a normal multi? Like I said I'm just trying to understand....

 

I understand that banning caching in the park isn't fair to us. However, you've essentially created a bunch of virtual caches to replace some great traditionals. Since the site won't list virtuals you brought virtuals back by allowing them all to be logged on your multicache. It seems like if the site wanted virtuals then they would have allowed them. It sure sounds like a loophole to me. What about the other 300 archived caches out there?

Looks to me like Miragee's multi is an attempt to get around the fact that virtual caches are no longer listed on Geocaching.com (either that or a blatant agenda cache to protest the decision by the superintendent of Anza Borrego Desert State Park to ban caching in that park). She couldn't hide twelve virtual caches so she is allowing people to use her page to log visit to 12 locations inside the park in addition to her cache. These don't seem to be related to her cache in any way. I personally think this is an end run around the guidelines and if allowed this would present a new way to place caches that are in violation of the guidelines. Just place another cache that is published and invite people to use that cache page to log the unpublishable cache. It sounds like the suggestion I made when I proposed the Wow! Waymarking category two and a half years ago

In order to get credit on geocaching.com for your "find" you may post a find to the following geocache: GC????

 

Bingo! Finally somebody gets it! I never thought about the agenda clause possibly applying here. The other problem with this idea besides logging 12 virtuals is that it ignores the request of the park officials. There are over 4000 sensitive areas in the park. So the park officials asked us to submit earthcaches and virtuals (waymarks) to them for approval so they could make sure that they were not near one of these sensitive spots. By bypassing the park officials, we are not letting them do their jobs of ensuring these areas remain protected. So we are blowing any chance we had of getting traditionals back into the park someday. If we act like a bunch of renegades then there's no way that will ever happen. Plus what is to stop the park officials from asking Groundspeak to not publish any earthcaches or waymarks in the park anymore to prevent this renegade behavior? Is it that hard to do what the park officials asked us to do? I think we all need to set our anger and dissappointment aside before someone makes a bad situation worse. Edited May 5, 2008 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

The other problem with this idea besides logging 12 virtuals is that it ignores the request of the park officials. There are over 4000 sensitive areas in the park. So the park officials asked us to submit earthcaches and virtuals (waymarks) to them for approval so they could make sure that they were not near one of these sensitive spots. By bypassing the park officials, we are not letting them do their jobs of ensuring these areas remain protected. So we are blowing any chance we had of getting traditionals back into the park someday. If we act like a bunch of renegades then there's no way that will ever happen. Plus what is to stop the park officials from asking Groundspeak to not publish any earthcaches or waymarks in the park anymore to prevent this renegade behavior? Is it that hard to do what the park officials asked us to do? I think we all need to set our anger and dissappointment aside before someone makes a bad situation worse.

I have never been to that particular park, but since 'park' is in the name, I assume that people are allowed to go there. Therefore, the only difference between a geocacher and a regular park visitor is the presence of a cache box. Since there is no cache boxes at the locations, that is no longer a problem that the land manager has to be concerned about.

 

Also, it has long been held that a multi can have virtual locations within a park that doesn't allow physical caches, as long as it has a final location (outside the park) with a log book. This cache is no different.

Edited May 5, 2008 by sbell111

[Mushtang]

In reading this thread it sounds to me like the OP has changed his mind after understanding that some people don't mind multi-logging and some do.

 

Other folks, however, have once again picked up the pitchforks and torches and are trying to have changes made that won't affect how they play the game, but will keep others from enjoying their version.

 

"Those poor souls obviously are playing wrong, not the way we think they're supposed to play. So we have to make sure they're having fun the way we want them to have fun instead of letting them have fun the way they want. If we don't save them from themselves they'll never get it right."

[+TrailGators]

Other folks, however, have once again picked up the pitchforks and torches and are trying to have changes made that won't affect how they play the game, but will keep others from enjoying their version.

Instead of demonizing contrary opinions to yours, why don't you look at one of the actual caches in question and see what you think.

 

Keep in mind that:

1) Agendas are not allowed

2) New virtuals are not allowed

3) The park has stated that they will allow earthcaches and virtuals but have asked geocachers to get approval so they can make sure that the ec/virtual is not on top of an archaelogical site or some other sensitive area that they don't want a bunch of people directed to. This seems like a reasonable request to me.

 

Is it possible for you to be objective and provide some feedback on this?

Edited May 5, 2008 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

Other folks, however, have once again picked up the pitchforks and torches and are trying to have changes made that won't affect how they play the game, but will keep others from enjoying their version.

Instead of demonizing contrary opinions to yours, why don't you look at one of the actual caches in question and see what you think.

 

Keep in mind that:

1) Agendas are not allowed

The only agenda that I can find is 'Hey! Let's go visit these cool locations!'

 

I was under the impression that you favored caches with that agenda.

2) New virtuals are not allowed

The final location has a container with a physical log. It is not a virtual cache.

3) The park has stated that they will allow earthcaches and virtuals but have asked geocachers to get approval so they can make sure that the ec/virtual is not on top of an archaelogical site or some other sensitive area that they don't want a bunch of people directed to. This seems like a reasonable request to me.

Multicaches with 'virtual' stages that are within a park that doesn't allow physical caches have long been acceptable. If these locations are in areas that the park allows regular visitors to attend, there is no reason for the park to need to approve our visiting the spots.

Is it possible for you to be objective and provide some feedback on this?

How's that? Edited May 5, 2008 by sbell111

[Mushtang]

Other folks, however, have once again picked up the pitchforks and torches and are trying to have changes made that won't affect how they play the game, but will keep others from enjoying their version.

Instead of demonizing contrary opinions to yours, why don't you look at one of the actual caches in question and see what you think.

 

Keep in mind that:

1) Agendas are not allowed

The only agenda that I can find is 'Hey! Let's go visit these cool locations!'

 

I was under the impression that you favored caches with that agenda.

2) New virtuals are not allowed

The final location has a container with a physical log. It is not a virtual cache.

3) The park has stated that they will allow earthcaches and virtuals but have asked geocachers to get approval so they can make sure that the ec/virtual is not on top of an archaelogical site or some other sensitive area that they don't want a bunch of people directed to. This seems like a reasonable request to me.

Multicaches with 'virtual' stages that are within a park that doesn't allow physical caches have long been acceptable. If these locations are in areas that the park allows regular visitors to attend, there is no reason for the park to need to approve our visiting the spots.

Is it possible for you to be objective and provide some feedback on this?

How's that?

I wouldn't have even seen TG's reply if you hadn't quoted it. But you did a good job of replying.

 

I'm not sure why he thinks multicaches are not allowed to have stages without containers, which Miragee calls "virtual stages" on her cache, but they're perfectly fine. As you said, as long as there's a container at the end it's okay.

 

But isn't this post about multiple finds on the same cache, and not about 1) Agendas, 2) Virtuals, 3) A park's policy on geocaches, or 4) Miragee's solution to a cache issue? Is it possible for TrailGators to stay on topic?

 

Whether or not a cache owner wants to allow people to log their cache multiple times is up to them. TPTB don't have a problem with it and it's not against the guidelines. It's just something we get to hear in the forums from time to time when someone new comes along and decides it's best for everyone else to play their way.

[+TrailGators]

I'm not sure why he thinks multicaches are not allowed to have stages without containers, which Miragee calls "virtual stages" on her cache, but they're perfectly fine. As you said, as long as there's a container at the end it's okay.

I never said that virtual stages of a multicache were not allowed. However, if you individually log them then they become virtual caches which are no longer allowed. I like virtuals but as Toz said I think we should not be doing an "end around" to circumvent the intentions of the guidelines. Edited May 5, 2008 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

I'm not sure why he thinks multicaches are not allowed to have stages without containers, which Miragee calls "virtual stages" on her cache, but they're perfectly fine. As you said, as long as there's a container at the end it's okay.

I never said that virtual stages of a multicache were not allowed. However, if you individually log them then they become virtual caches which are no longer allowed. I like virtuals but as Toz said I think we should not be doing an "end around" to circumvent the intentions of the guidelines.

The guidelines allow multi-logging. Logging each stage of a multicache has been a subset of multilogging for as long as long as multicaches have existed.

 

At the end of the day, the site recognizes that a 'find' is an agreement between cache owner and cache seeker. This practice does not violate the guidelines.

Edited May 5, 2008 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

I never said that virtual stages of a multicache were not allowed. However, if you individually log them then they become virtual caches which are no longer allowed. I like virtuals but as Toz said I think we should not be doing an "end around" to circumvent the intentions of the guidelines.

I apologize. I didn't give your post the attention that it deserves.

 

I should have noted that ever since virtuals have been declared verboten, It has been acceptable to create a multi that includes intermediary virtual stages at the locations that don't allow 'real' caches. The only difference between all of those and the cache that you are drubbing is the fact that the cache owner allows for multilogging of the cache. I should also note that TPTB have always found that whether a cache is multilogged, or not, is the decision of the cache owner. Even though Jeremy may or may not believe that this practice is 'silly', it is in no way abusive.

 

Further, I believe that you owe Miragee an apology.

Edited May 5, 2008 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Further, I believe that you owe Miragee an apology.

An apology for what? I never attacked her unlike some people that attacked us for discussing this. It's funny how some want people to hide anything and yet those same people attack people in the forum because they want certain discussions silenced. That seems like a double standard to me...

[+sbell111]

Further, I believe that you owe Miragee an apology.

An apology for what? I never attacked her unlike some people that attacked us for discussing this. It's funny how some want people to hide anything and yet those same people attack people in the forum because they want certain discussions silenced. That seems like a double standard to me...

If you believe that you have been personally attacked in violation of the guidelines, you should report the post to a moderator. Otherwise, you could start a thread to discuss the issue.

 

As for your attacking of Miragee, I believe that that way in which you have posted has been out of line.

Edited May 5, 2008 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

I never said that virtual stages of a multicache were not allowed. However, if you individually log them then they become virtual caches which are no longer allowed. I like virtuals but as Toz said I think we should not be doing an "end around" to circumvent the intentions of the guidelines.

I apologize. I didn't give your post the attention that it deserves.

 

I should have noted that ever since virtuals have been declared verboten, It has been acceptable to create a multi that includes intermediary virtual stages at the locations that don't allow 'real' caches. The only difference between all of those and the cache that you are drubbing is the fact that the cache owner allows for multilogging of the cache. I should also note that TPTB have always found that whether a cache is multilogged, or not, is the decision of the cache owner. Even though Jeremy may or may not believe that this practice is 'silly', it is in no way abusive.

The bottom line is that those waypoints are essentially virtual caches the way they are being used in this case. Evidentally hiders can now create new virtuals and let people "log" these new virtual caches under the guise of packaging these actual new virtual caches inside a multi. I guess I thought the site wanted all caches to have a "logbook," but maybe I've misunderstood their intentions.

Edited May 5, 2008 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

I never said that virtual stages of a multicache were not allowed. However, if you individually log them then they become virtual caches which are no longer allowed. I like virtuals but as Toz said I think we should not be doing an "end around" to circumvent the intentions of the guidelines.

I apologize. I didn't give your post the attention that it deserves.

 

I should have noted that ever since virtuals have been declared verboten, It has been acceptable to create a multi that includes intermediary virtual stages at the locations that don't allow 'real' caches. The only difference between all of those and the cache that you are drubbing is the fact that the cache owner allows for multilogging of the cache. I should also note that TPTB have always found that whether a cache is multilogged, or not, is the decision of the cache owner. Even though Jeremy may or may not believe that this practice is 'silly', it is in no way abusive.

The bottom line is that those waypoints are essentially virtual caches the way they are being used in this case. Evidentally hiders can now create new virtuals and let people "log" these new virtual caches under the guise of packaging these actual new virtual caches inside a multi. I guess I thought the site wanted all caches to have a "logbook," but maybe I've misunderstood their intentions.

With multicaches, only the final location is required to have a logbook.

[+tozainamboku]

I never said that virtual stages of a multicache were not allowed. However, if you individually log them then they become virtual caches which are no longer allowed. I like virtuals but as Toz said I think we should not be doing an "end around" to circumvent the intentions of the guidelines.

I apologize. I didn't give your post the attention that it deserves.

 

I should have noted that ever since virtuals have been declared verboten, It has been acceptable to create a multi that includes intermediary virtual stages at the locations that don't allow 'real' caches. The only difference between all of those and the cache that you are drubbing is the fact that the cache owner allows for multilogging of the cache. I should also note that TPTB have always found that whether a cache is multilogged, or not, is the decision of the cache owner. Even though Jeremy may or may not believe that this practice is 'silly', it is in no way abusive.

The bottom line is that those waypoints are essentially virtual caches the way they are being used in this case. Evidentally hiders can now create new virtuals and let people "log" these new virtual caches under the guise of packaging these actual new virtual caches inside a multi. I guess I thought the site wanted all caches to have a "logbook," but maybe I've misunderstood their intentions.

With multicaches, only the final location is required to have a logbook.

The question is whether there are any guidelines as to what can be a virtual stage of a multi. Clearly one can have a cacher go to a virtual stage to gather information that is needed to find the physical cache. It seems you can also have a virtual stage that exists simply as an additional logging requirement - in order to log the multi (which could in actuality be a simple traditional cache) you need to visit the virtual site and take a picture.

 

By offering the option to log an extra find for each virtual stage does this become simply a ploy to get virtual caches listed on Geocaching.com? It seems to me that by allowing multiple logs you can get around many of the GC.com guidelines. For example, you can get around the cache permanence guidelines by allowing multiple attended logs for events where you have hidden temporary caches.

Edited May 5, 2008 by tozainamboku

[Mushtang]

The question is whether there are any guidelines as to what can be a virtual stage of a multi. Clearly one can have a cacher go to a virtual stage to gather information that is needed to find the physical cache. It seems you can also have a virtual stage that exists simply as an additional logging requirement - in order to log the multi (which could in actuality be a simple traditional cache) you need to visit the virtual site and take a picture.

That's the way I see it too. Nobody is having new virtuals approved to make a multicache, Miragee is using old archived caches. This is no different than using information on a 100 year old monument somewhere.

 

However, I think the question should actually be, are multiple finds on a cache okay? Anyone questioning what Miragee is using for a stage of her cache is way off topic, and should start their own thread instead of continuing to hijack this one.

 

By offering the option to log an extra find for each virtual stage does this become simply a ploy to get virtual caches listed on Geocaching.com? It seems to me that by allowing multiple logs you can get around many of the GC.com guidelines. For example, you can get around the cache permanence guidelines by allowing multiple attended logs for events where you have hidden temporary caches.

Indeed. TPTB have stated pretty clearly that they don't have a problem with multi logging. A temp cache at an event, extra smilies for a cache that was moved, an extra smiley for each stage of a multi, are all ways in which people may want to allow people to log. Just because we wouldn't want to log that way doesn't mean it shouldn't be okay for someone else to. Edited May 5, 2008 by Mushtang

[+sbell111]

I never said that virtual stages of a multicache were not allowed. However, if you individually log them then they become virtual caches which are no longer allowed. I like virtuals but as Toz said I think we should not be doing an "end around" to circumvent the intentions of the guidelines.

I apologize. I didn't give your post the attention that it deserves.

 

I should have noted that ever since virtuals have been declared verboten, It has been acceptable to create a multi that includes intermediary virtual stages at the locations that don't allow 'real' caches. The only difference between all of those and the cache that you are drubbing is the fact that the cache owner allows for multilogging of the cache. I should also note that TPTB have always found that whether a cache is multilogged, or not, is the decision of the cache owner. Even though Jeremy may or may not believe that this practice is 'silly', it is in no way abusive.

The bottom line is that those waypoints are essentially virtual caches the way they are being used in this case. Evidentally hiders can now create new virtuals and let people "log" these new virtual caches under the guise of packaging these actual new virtual caches inside a multi. I guess I thought the site wanted all caches to have a "logbook," but maybe I've misunderstood their intentions.

With multicaches, only the final location is required to have a logbook.

The question is whether there are any guidelines as to what can be a virtual stage of a multi. Clearly one can have a cacher go to a virtual stage to gather information that is needed to find the physical cache. It seems you can also have a virtual stage that exists simply as an additional logging requirement - in order to log the multi (which could in actuality be a simple traditional cache) you need to visit the virtual site and take a picture.

 

By offering the option to log an extra find for each virtual stage does this become simply a ploy to get virtual caches listed on Geocaching.com? It seems to me that by allowing multiple logs you can get around many of the GC.com guidelines. For example, you can get around the cache permanence guidelines by allowing multiple attended logs for events where you have hidden temporary caches.

It's no different than the 'bonus' caches that have been around forever.

[+TrailGators]

I never said that virtual stages of a multicache were not allowed. However, if you individually log them then they become virtual caches which are no longer allowed. I like virtuals but as Toz said I think we should not be doing an "end around" to circumvent the intentions of the guidelines.

I apologize. I didn't give your post the attention that it deserves.

 

I should have noted that ever since virtuals have been declared verboten, It has been acceptable to create a multi that includes intermediary virtual stages at the locations that don't allow 'real' caches. The only difference between all of those and the cache that you are drubbing is the fact that the cache owner allows for multilogging of the cache. I should also note that TPTB have always found that whether a cache is multilogged, or not, is the decision of the cache owner. Even though Jeremy may or may not believe that this practice is 'silly', it is in no way abusive.

The bottom line is that those waypoints are essentially virtual caches the way they are being used in this case. Evidentally hiders can now create new virtuals and let people "log" these new virtual caches under the guise of packaging these actual new virtual caches inside a multi. I guess I thought the site wanted all caches to have a "logbook," but maybe I've misunderstood their intentions.

With multicaches, only the final location is required to have a logbook.

The question is whether there are any guidelines as to what can be a virtual stage of a multi. Clearly one can have a cacher go to a virtual stage to gather information that is needed to find the physical cache. It seems you can also have a virtual stage that exists simply as an additional logging requirement - in order to log the multi (which could in actuality be a simple traditional cache) you need to visit the virtual site and take a picture.

 

By offering the option to log an extra find for each virtual stage does this become simply a ploy to get virtual caches listed on Geocaching.com? It seems to me that by allowing multiple logs you can get around many of the GC.com guidelines. For example, you can get around the cache permanence guidelines by allowing multiple attended logs for events where you have hidden temporary caches.

Again I agree with you. It is a clearly a ploy. By the way, it is not possible to discuss multi-logging without examining what is being logged, so this is completly relevant to this topic.

[+sbell111]

I never said that virtual stages of a multicache were not allowed. However, if you individually log them then they become virtual caches which are no longer allowed. I like virtuals but as Toz said I think we should not be doing an "end around" to circumvent the intentions of the guidelines.

I apologize. I didn't give your post the attention that it deserves.

 

I should have noted that ever since virtuals have been declared verboten, It has been acceptable to create a multi that includes intermediary virtual stages at the locations that don't allow 'real' caches. The only difference between all of those and the cache that you are drubbing is the fact that the cache owner allows for multilogging of the cache. I should also note that TPTB have always found that whether a cache is multilogged, or not, is the decision of the cache owner. Even though Jeremy may or may not believe that this practice is 'silly', it is in no way abusive.

The bottom line is that those waypoints are essentially virtual caches the way they are being used in this case. Evidentally hiders can now create new virtuals and let people "log" these new virtual caches under the guise of packaging these actual new virtual caches inside a multi. I guess I thought the site wanted all caches to have a "logbook," but maybe I've misunderstood their intentions.

With multicaches, only the final location is required to have a logbook.

The question is whether there are any guidelines as to what can be a virtual stage of a multi. Clearly one can have a cacher go to a virtual stage to gather information that is needed to find the physical cache. It seems you can also have a virtual stage that exists simply as an additional logging requirement - in order to log the multi (which could in actuality be a simple traditional cache) you need to visit the virtual site and take a picture.

 

By offering the option to log an extra find for each virtual stage does this become simply a ploy to get virtual caches listed on Geocaching.com? It seems to me that by allowing multiple logs you can get around many of the GC.com guidelines. For example, you can get around the cache permanence guidelines by allowing multiple attended logs for events where you have hidden temporary caches.

Again I agree with you. It is a clearly a ploy. By the way, it is not possible to discuss multi-logging without examining what is being logged, so this is completly relevant to this topic.

Perhaps you could also share your thoughts of the hypothetical cache I offered in post 118. You might also answer some of those questions that you dodged, if you choose.

[+sbell111]

It is a clearly a ploy. ...

I think that you are correct. It is a ploy. Miragee's trying to trick people into enjoying a local park that doesn't allow caching.

 

Shameful.

[+TrailGators]

I never said that virtual stages of a multicache were not allowed. However, if you individually log them then they become virtual caches which are no longer allowed. I like virtuals but as Toz said I think we should not be doing an "end around" to circumvent the intentions of the guidelines.

I apologize. I didn't give your post the attention that it deserves.

 

I should have noted that ever since virtuals have been declared verboten, It has been acceptable to create a multi that includes intermediary virtual stages at the locations that don't allow 'real' caches. The only difference between all of those and the cache that you are drubbing is the fact that the cache owner allows for multilogging of the cache. I should also note that TPTB have always found that whether a cache is multilogged, or not, is the decision of the cache owner. Even though Jeremy may or may not believe that this practice is 'silly', it is in no way abusive.

The bottom line is that those waypoints are essentially virtual caches the way they are being used in this case. Evidentally hiders can now create new virtuals and let people "log" these new virtual caches under the guise of packaging these actual new virtual caches inside a multi. I guess I thought the site wanted all caches to have a "logbook," but maybe I've misunderstood their intentions.

With multicaches, only the final location is required to have a logbook.

The question is whether there are any guidelines as to what can be a virtual stage of a multi. Clearly one can have a cacher go to a virtual stage to gather information that is needed to find the physical cache. It seems you can also have a virtual stage that exists simply as an additional logging requirement - in order to log the multi (which could in actuality be a simple traditional cache) you need to visit the virtual site and take a picture.

 

By offering the option to log an extra find for each virtual stage does this become simply a ploy to get virtual caches listed on Geocaching.com? It seems to me that by allowing multiple logs you can get around many of the GC.com guidelines. For example, you can get around the cache permanence guidelines by allowing multiple attended logs for events where you have hidden temporary caches.

Again I agree with you. It is a clearly a ploy. By the way, it is not possible to discuss multi-logging without examining what is being logged, so this is completly relevant to this topic.

Perhaps you could also share your thoughts of the hypothetical cache I offered in post 118. You might also answer some of those questions that you dodged, if you choose.

I'm not the least bit interested in your fictional example since none of those exist near me. We only have one multi-logging cache in my area and that is the one that I am discussing. Edited May 5, 2008 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

It is a clearly a ploy. ...

I think that you are correct. It is a ploy.

Two can play that game! I think that you are correct. It is a ploy. Now virtuals are back because you can log 12 new ones in San Diego...

[+sbell111]

Perhaps you could also share your thoughts of the hypothetical cache I offered in post 118. You might also answer some of those questions that you dodged, if you choose.

I'm not the least bit interested in your fictional example since none of those exist near me. We only have one multi-logging cache in my area and that is the one that I am discussing.

Two thoughts:

 

First, I thought you were ignoring me.

 

Second, this thread isn't about the specific cache that TrailGators wishes to demonize. It is about the general practice of double logging caches and whether or not the site will program out the ability to do so. You don't get to decide what the thread's topic.

 

Sorry.

Edited May 5, 2008 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

It is a clearly a ploy. ...

I think that you are correct. It is a ploy.

Two can play that game! I think that you are correct. It is a ploy. Now virtuals are back because you can log 12 new ones in San Diego...

It has always been acceptable to create a multi that shares locations that would previously be the subject of virts. I'm sure that you can find 100 threads regarding this. Edited May 5, 2008 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Second, this thread isn't about the specific cache that TrailGators wishes to demonize. It is about the general practice of double logging caches and whether or not the site will program out the ability to do so. You don't get to decide what the thread's topic.

Sorry.

Attacking me again? When you are losing you always resort to Ad Hominems. You two also seem to love using hyperboles. Is the truth not poignant enuogh for either of you to make your points? Anyhow, I don't recall doing anything close to demonizing. I was simply discussing an actual multi-log cache that was created to allow new virtuals to be logged on this site. Will the TPTB eventually program out the ability for people to do this? I doubt it. Will the TPTB tell the admins not to approve caches like this? That is up to TPTB. We can only state reasons why or why they should or should not do that. So this is all relevant.

[+TrailGators]

It is a clearly a ploy. ...

I think that you are correct. It is a ploy.

Two can play that game! I think that you are correct. It is a ploy. Now virtuals are back because you can log 12 new ones in San Diego...

It has always been acceptable to create a multi that shares locations that would previously be the subject of virts. I'm sure that you can find 100 threads regarding this.

You missed the key word!

[+sbell111]

Second, this thread isn't about the specific cache that TrailGators wishes to demonize. It is about the general practice of double logging caches and whether or not the site will program out the ability to do so. You don't get to decide what the thread's topic.

Sorry.

Attacking me again?

I haven't made a single attack. In fact, I've very politely answered your questions and asked you several of my own. If you would only do me the service of responding in kind...

When you are losing you always resort to Ad Hominems. You two also seem to love using hyperboles. Is the truth not poignant enuogh for either of you to make your points? Anyhow, I don't recall doing anything close to demonizing.

Perhaps you could go back and read your posts.

I was simply discussing an actual multi-log cache that was created to allow new virtuals to be logged on this site. Will the TPTB eventually program out the ability for people to do this? I doubt it. Will the TPTB tell the admins not to approve caches like this? That is up to TPTB. We can only state reasons why or why they should or should not do that. So this is all relevant.

Have you given any reasons as to why multilogging should never be allowed? Discussing one specific cache doesn't speak to this. You have to be willing to discuss all reasons the multilogging is embraced and what the affects of these logs are. You have been unwilling to do this. Instead, you only have been willing to discuss one tiny example of the practice.

[+sbell111]

It is a clearly a ploy. ...

I think that you are correct. It is a ploy.

Two can play that game! I think that you are correct. It is a ploy. Now virtuals are back because you can log 12 new ones in San Diego...

It has always been acceptable to create a multi that shares locations that would previously be the subject of virts. I'm sure that you can find 100 threads regarding this.

You missed the key word!

Multilogging caches is a separate issue from virts. You can try to squish the two issues together, but you only serve to muddy the waters.

[+TrailGators]

You have to be willing to discuss all reasons the multilogging is embraced and what the affects of these logs are. You have been unwilling to do this. Instead, you only have been willing to discuss one tiny example of the practice.

If we can't agree on "one" why should we move on to discussing many? Edited May 5, 2008 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

You have to be willing to discuss all reasons the multilogging is embraced and what the affects of these logs are. You have been unwilling to do this. Instead, you only have been willing to discuss one tiny example of the practice.

If we can't agree on "one" why should we move on to discussing many?

Simply to avoid trying to wrap them all up in one minor issue.

 

If you are trying to have them banned, as the original post suggested, you cannot make the assumption that the one specific cache that you are grinding your axe against is representative of all caches that allow multiple logging.

[+TrailGators]

You have to be willing to discuss all reasons the multilogging is embraced and what the affects of these logs are. You have been unwilling to do this. Instead, you only have been willing to discuss one tiny example of the practice.

If we can't agree on "one" why should we move on to discussing many?

Simply to avoid trying to wrap them all up in one minor issue.

 

If you are trying to have them banned, as the original post suggested, you cannot make the assumption that the one specific cache that you are grinding your axe against is representative of all caches that allow multiple logging.

Now I am trying to get them banned? Can you do me a favor and let me speak for myself. I don't need people like you putting words in my mouth...

 

The example I gave is relevant. I am not grinding any axe, I am trying to understand it. I think that cache has some issues as Toz and I already pointed out.

[+BlueDeuce]

Holy carp, this is the same show I was watching last night.

Edited May 5, 2008 by BlueDeuce