Asking for proof?

[+Delta68]

99% of the time, if one team signs the log book on behalf of another team no one cares.

However, if the cache is hard to get to and this fact is reflected in the terr-diff rating, would it be acceptable to ask for proof (photograph for example) that at least one member of the team actually reached the cache?

 

Or is there a better way?

Edited April 18, 2008 by Delta68

[+Pengy&Tigger]

99% of the time, if one team signs the log book on behalf of another team no one cares.

However, if the cache is hard to get to and this fact is reflected in the terr-diff rating, would it be acceptable to ask for proof (photograph for example) that at least one member of the team actually reached the cache?

 

If you're asking after the log was made, then no it's not reasonable to ask for photo proof.

 

If you want to do it for future logs, then the cache would have to be a mystery cache rather than a traditional, since you would have extra logging requirements. With traditional caches many people hunt with just co-ords rather than fully reading the page, since for that type of cache all you need to do is sign the logbook.

[+Delta68]

Perfect!

It was going to be an Unknown requiring 'Special Equipment' anyway.

 

Thanks

[+jerryo]

99% of the time, if one team signs the log book on behalf of another team no one cares.

However, if the cache is hard to get to and this fact is reflected in the terr-diff rating, would it be acceptable to ask for proof (photograph for example) that at least one member of the team actually reached the cache?

 

Why would you want to do that? I have a cache that requires photographic proof but that’s only so no one tries to do it without safety gear. If there’s another cacher in the vicinity at the same time and they want to log the find, then that’s fine by me even if they don’t actually descend the rope themselves.

[NickPick]

It's really a matter of trust, and I think hope that most cachers wouldn't log the cache as 'found' unless they've actually found the container and signed the log.

 

Proof (such as a photo) would be an 'additional logging requirement'. If it's your cache, then it's your prerogative to insist on additional proof. If you're going to do this, then the Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines page states that the cache should be listed as a Mystery cache.

 

I wouldn't think that it's a great problem. If someone has logged the cache, chances are that they were there.

[Lumphammer]

I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask for proof - I know of several occasions where people have 'bottled out' of a harder cache, but have had there name put on the log by fellow cachers and have then claimed a find.

 

This is not acceptable IMO, some caches are deliberately hard and are not suitable for all. It is not fair and de-values the achievement of the cachers that have made the effort to do cache when these lightweights claim finds.

[+FollowMeChaps]

I though geocaching was all about having fun.

 

If some choose to log caches they have not actually completed then who are they cheating? Only themselves.

 

Anyway, how far do you go? I did a few caches last w/e in the company of other geocachers. We went out as a group and all searched on arrival but only one of us actually found the box. Does this mean that only they can log it? I have one or two caches of my own that require an adventurous excursion on the route. If some in the party don't do the exciting bit for whatever reason I'm not going to stop them from logging it - we all play the game, our own way; and it is only a game after all .

 

Back on topic: If you want to request a photo as proof then by all means ask for one - but don't get wound up if not all do, some may not even have the technology.

[+scottpa100]

I've got a Traditional cache on the summit of Snowdon. It wasn't until I changed the requirement that it was an absolute necessary requirement to sign the log book that I stopped getting nonsensical logs on the cache page. The summit can be a very busy place and people were finding bits of litter in the shapes of tubs and logging a find assuming it was the cache.....

 

Yes - its all a game. But this is one on top the highest piece of land in England & Wales. Surely people want to prove that they were there?!

[Lumphammer]

 

If some choose to log caches they have not actually completed then who are they cheating? Only themselves.

 

 

They are cheating the cachers who have risen to the challenge and in some cases overcome some real fears to get to the cache.

[+keehotee]

They are cheating the cachers who have risen to the challenge and in some cases overcome some real fears to get to the cache.

How? So if my wife and I both cached as "keehotee", and she (for the sake of argument) completed a puzzle cache that involved knitting, how is that going to demonstrate that I've overcome my completely irrational and totally ficticious fear of yarn?

 

This could all be sorted if, when you joined GC, you were issued with a stamp with a unique id number on it. No stamp in the book, no find! This would also prevent all those husband and wife teams from splitting up and finding caches in different parts of the country at the same time on the same day. They could also be biometrically encoded, so that if the cache police catch you out and about they could verify that you actually were the owner of the stamp....and the caches could be fitted with a transmitter that watermarked the stamp, so that when you sat down at home to log your finds, and put the stamp in it's socket, it would automatically verify your attendance at the cache!

 

But at the end of the day, it's only a game, and there's nothing to win or lose. If you're logged at a cache that you didn't find, who are you cheating? Personally, the days when I was impressed by huge numbers of finds are long gone - and if somebody wants to log that they found one of my caches when they haven't, well they're the only ones to have lost out on anything!

Edited April 18, 2008 by keehotee

[+Pengy&Tigger]

I've got a Traditional cache on the summit of Snowdon. It wasn't until I changed the requirement that it was an absolute necessary requirement to sign the log book that I stopped getting nonsensical logs on the cache page.

 

I wouldn't have thought you should have to point this out to people. Signing the log isn't exactly an additional requirement that people should be surprised to discover.

[+JeremyR]

Since it's a puzzle anyway, I see no reason why asking for a photo would be a problem, but of course, unless you know all the visitors personally, how do you validate that such a person in a photo really is the same person who claimed the find and not some random muggle who was walking past?

 

I had a log on a multi of mine that suggested that the final wasn't really worth the effort of visiting and that people shouldn't bother. I simply posted a note in reply, stating that if I learned that anyone had logged a find without actually reaching the final location, I would delete their log without notice. I haven't needed to do so yet but if I ever do, they can't say they were not warned.

 

I think that's the nub of the matter - at the end of the day, it's your cache, and your responsibility to maintain the integrity of the listing so if you suspect someone didn't get there, you can ask for proof and/or delete the log if it matters that much to you. You might not make a new friend by doing so but it's entirely your prerogative...

Edited April 18, 2008 by JeremyR

[Lumphammer]

They are cheating the cachers who have risen to the challenge and in some cases overcome some real fears to get to the cache.

How? So if my wife and I both cached as "keehotee", and she (for the sake of argument) completed a puzzle cache that involved knitting, how is that going to demonstrate that I've overcome my completely irrational and totally ficticious fear of yarn?

 

 

I was not talking about either families that cache under a one caching name or about puzzle cahes those are topics for another discussion.

 

Just that if cacher does not complete a cache - then why should they log it.

your suggestion of using biometrics could be the answer, I think I may write to my MP and see if I can get the issue raised in parliament. We need some positive action to clean up this sport/hobby and legislation may be the only answer.

Perhaps these cheats may think twice before fraudulently claiming finds if they were faced with stiff penalties.

[+Donmoore]

I think it is fair enough to put any kind of restrictions on your own cache. I personally have stated on one of mine that you need to swap items with something of the same or greater value. the only reason I did this is because most people don't, even though the majority of people should know to do this.

 

If you want a picture then put it as a requirement and delete any logs which don't.

 

Different people have different views of this 'Game, sport, hobbie, competition......' as we all know. some people are just out for the numbers and nothing else counts even getting to the cache itself. I personally like seeing these new places I have never been to, so not getting to the cache is a bit pointless.

[+fat bloke]

99% of the time, if one team signs the log book on behalf of another team no one cares.

However, if the cache is hard to get to and this fact is reflected in the terr-diff rating, would it be acceptable to ask for proof (photograph for example) that at least one member of the team actually reached the cache?

 

Or is there a better way?

 

Being honest

[+careygang]

It's all far too much to worry about. The fact is that a lot of people do not have a camera with them and there are so many other things about caching practices that bug fellow cachers that this pales into insignificance.

 

You can set the caches the way you want; but it doesn't mean people will cache them the way you want!

[+maxkim]

I think it is fair enough to put any kind of restrictions on your own cache. I personally have stated on one of mine that you need to swap items with something of the same or greater value. the only reason I did this is because most people don't, even though the majority of people should know to do this.

 

If you want a picture then put it as a requirement and delete any logs which don't.

 

Different people have different views of this 'Game, sport, hobbie, competition......' as we all know. some people are just out for the numbers and nothing else counts even getting to the cache itself. I personally like seeing these new places I have never been to, so not getting to the cache is a bit pointless.

Sorry but have to say if someone changed the signing rules after I had found a cache then I would resign it as it stood. GC has always stood by the grandfathered attitude... just a thought.

[+scottpa100]

Sorry but have to say if someone changed the signing rules after I had found a cache then I would resign it as it stood. GC has always stood by the grandfathered attitude... just a thought.

 

I changed the rules on my Snowdon cache afterwards (well... rules - just the enforcement that the log book MUST be signed!). However, I let all previous logs to the date that I amended the cache description stand.

All subsequent logs after that date all must much with details in the log book....

 

Mwhahahahahahaha (that's an evil laugh typed out for uninitiated)

[+careygang]

Sorry but have to say if someone changed the signing rules after I had found a cache then I would resign it as it stood. GC has always stood by the grandfathered attitude... just a thought.

 

I changed the rules on my Snowdon cache afterwards (well... rules - just the enforcement that the log book MUST be signed!). However, I let all previous logs to the date that I amended the cache description stand.

All subsequent logs after that date all must much with details in the log book....

 

Mwhahahahahahaha (that's an evil laugh typed out for uninitiated)

 

What I always wonder about are the caches that state that the log must be signed etc etc etc, but the owner is a prolific cache placer. The only way they could ever check them all is to go around every month, swapping out the log books and taking them home to cross check.

It is a nice idea that an owner would do this, but it's just not practical for many owners.