Jump to content

Ethics ?


pokerace

Recommended Posts

There is a local cacher that has adopted several abandoned caches.Some he has moved a few feet and posted new coords. others he reactivated after they were archived. Now I have found most of these cache

over a year ago.

what I would like to know is would it be ethical to find these cache again and log a find.

Link to comment

I'd say, kinda depends on what you're after when it comes to caching. Or rather, cache finding.

If you enjoy the challenge of finding them, by all means punch in the new coords & go look for them. Should be some fun in that - if you can be happy with it. After all, isn't THAT what caching is supposed to be about?

 

If OTOH you're looking for the numbers.....sorry Charlie! And after all, isn't that what's it's supposed to be NOT all about? Nobody does that.....not for the numbers. Nobody.

 

~*

 

 

 

 

\ yeah, right!

Link to comment

I wouldn't do it. Found it already. A revisit would be logged as a note. But in the end it's between you and the owner and what feels right to you.

A related question, if I may:

 

Earlier this week, I went after a newly-published cache in a small town south of where I live. I realized when I parked the car that I'd been to this park in the past, and the closer I got to GZ the more I got a feeling of deja vu. It turned out that I had found a previous cache in that park more than two years before, and it had since been archived. In the meantime, someone had hidden a new cache, with a new GC number, in almost exactly the same spot as the archived cache.

 

I felt a bit guilty about logging a find, since I had been there before, but I claimed a find anyway because it technically was a new cache. One reason I claimed a find was to remove the cache from future pocket queries. I could also have just put it on my Ignore List, but that didn't seem right. My Ignore List is intended to include caches I simply don't care to go after (like ultra-stealth urban micros, which are no fun for me).

 

Would you claim a find under these circumstances?

 

--Larry

Link to comment

For me personally - one GC number equals 1 and only 1 find log.

 

Technically you can relog finds on a particular listing to your Heart's content but I use the above rule.

I follow that for the most part. The other day, I used INATN.com for the first time and was confused why I had 295 logs on 294 unique caches. Once I checked, I remembered -- it was a case where for whatever reason, the hider had recycled his cache page for a new hide. The new hide had zero connection with the old one -- completely different container, new and different location (large container in a small park vs regular container in a bush in a parking lot). New city, for that matter. I'm fine with that.

 

Edit: I suppose I should continue that thought and answer the OP. I probably would not relog those.

 

Another edit: to Larry, logging that seems fine to me.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

I wouldn't do it. Found it already. A revisit would be logged as a note. But in the end it's between you and the owner and what feels right to you.

A related question, if I may:

 

Earlier this week, I went after a newly-published cache in a small town south of where I live. I realized when I parked the car that I'd been to this park in the past, and the closer I got to GZ the more I got a feeling of deja vu. It turned out that I had found a previous cache in that park more than two years before, and it had since been archived. In the meantime, someone had hidden a new cache, with a new GC number, in almost exactly the same spot as the archived cache.

 

I felt a bit guilty about logging a find, since I had been there before, but I claimed a find anyway because it technically was a new cache. One reason I claimed a find was to remove the cache from future pocket queries. I could also have just put it on my Ignore List, but that didn't seem right. My Ignore List is intended to include caches I simply don't care to go after (like ultra-stealth urban micros, which are no fun for me).

 

Would you claim a find under these circumstances?

 

--Larry

 

Yes

Link to comment

I wouldn't do it. Found it already. A revisit would be logged as a note. But in the end it's between you and the owner and what feels right to you.

A related question, if I may:

 

Earlier this week, I went after a newly-published cache in a small town south of where I live. I realized when I parked the car that I'd been to this park in the past, and the closer I got to GZ the more I got a feeling of deja vu. It turned out that I had found a previous cache in that park more than two years before, and it had since been archived. In the meantime, someone had hidden a new cache, with a new GC number, in almost exactly the same spot as the archived cache.

 

I felt a bit guilty about logging a find, since I had been there before, but I claimed a find anyway because it technically was a new cache. One reason I claimed a find was to remove the cache from future pocket queries. I could also have just put it on my Ignore List, but that didn't seem right. My Ignore List is intended to include caches I simply don't care to go after (like ultra-stealth urban micros, which are no fun for me).

 

Would you claim a find under these circumstances?

 

--Larry

 

New cache, new GC number, probably a new container, a new owner and slightly different hiding spot. Sure I'd log a find.

Link to comment
There is a local cacher that has adopted several abandoned caches.Some he has moved a few feet and posted new coords. others he reactivated after they were archived. Now I have found most of these cache

over a year ago.

what I would like to know is would it be ethical to find these cache again and log a find.

Sometimes, when a cache owner moves a cache, he welcomes cachers to log it again, if they wish. Sometimes, cache owners do not wish people to relog it. How does the current owner of these caches feel about the issue? If he thinks that relogging is OK, it is. If he doesn't, it isn't.

 

I don't see this as an ethical question, at all.

Link to comment

 

....Earlier this week, I went after a newly-published cache in a small town south of where I live. I realized when I parked the car that I'd been to this park in the past, and the closer I got to GZ the more I got a feeling of deja vu. It turned out that I had found a previous cache in that park more than two years before, and it had since been archived. In the meantime, someone had hidden a new cache, with a new GC number, in almost exactly the same spot as the archived cache.

 

I felt a bit guilty about logging a find, since I had been there before, but I claimed a find anyway because it technically was a new cache. One reason I claimed a find was to remove the cache from future pocket queries. I could also have just put it on my Ignore List, but that didn't seem right. My Ignore List is intended to include caches I simply don't care to go after (like ultra-stealth urban micros, which are no fun for me).

 

Would you claim a find under these circumstances?....

 

I had a similar experience. I found a cache and commented along with several other finders that come fall when the leaves fall off, the cache would more or less be right out in the open. The CO saw the logic here and archived this cache and rehid it in a new location about a 100 yards away with a new GC number. I found it in the new location and logged a new find (same cache container and even same log book).

 

New/different GC number = new find. Same GC number even if moved a few feet = not new find. I probably wouldn't even try to find it again in that circumstance.

Link to comment

New cache, new GC number, probably a new container, a new owner and slightly different hiding spot. Sure I'd log a find.

 

ayep.

 

This happened to me for real a couple of months ago. I thought the new cache was "close" to an old one I found 3 years prior, and when I checked this out out of curiosity, I found it's probably in the same hiding spot! Forgive me for not remembering in the field. :laughing:This is the old archived cache, and a "find all nearby caches" search from that cache page will show a newer cache listed as "here", if anyone is really interested.

Link to comment

New/different GC number = new find. Same GC number even if moved a few feet = not new find. I probably wouldn't even try to find it again in that circumstance.

I must be nice to be able to determine if you found something based on whether it had a unique ID in some database somewhere and not need to think about whether there is really a new cache to find or not.

 

We've had some caches where the cache owner has archived a cache then discovered that the original container was still there and rather than going through the hassle of getting the cache unarchived, simply relisted the exact same cache with a new GC number. I guess it's OK if you go by the new GC number rule - you can log this cache again. We've had times where someone completed redid a cache and recycled the cache page. It's a new container, in a new spot, hidden in a different manner, but it has the same GC number and cache name. Sorry you've found it already, doesn't matter that this is a new experience that silly cache owner recycled the cache page so no logging this one. And there are caches where the cache was changed from a puzzle to traditional. Same cache but not a puzzle. One person did this when the reviewer would change the cache type if you asked - so it has the same GC number. Another person did this recently and the reviewer told them to archive the old cache page and submit a new one. It has a new GC number. So you can log the newer one but not the older one. :laughing:

 

Here's what I would do.

  1. Do I feel comfortable logging this again?
  2. Does the cache owner say it's OK to log this again?

If the answer to both of these questions is yes then log it, otherwise don't log it.

Link to comment

New/different GC number = new find. Same GC number even if moved a few feet = not new find. I probably wouldn't even try to find it again in that circumstance.

I must be nice to be able to determine if you found something based on whether it had a unique ID in some database somewhere and not need to think about whether there is really a new cache to find or not.

In the case I asked about, it was a new container, hidden by a different cacher than the one who hid the original. The location, though, was similar if not identical (I couldn't remember if the spot was exactly the same; I've found too many small caches in the hollows of trees in local parks in the meantime :laughing: ).

 

--Larry

Link to comment

There is a local cacher that has adopted several abandoned caches.Some he has moved a few feet and posted new coords. others he reactivated after they were archived. Now I have found most of these cache

over a year ago.

what I would like to know is would it be ethical to find these cache again and log a find.

 

Just the fact that you are asking should be your answer :laughing:

Link to comment

One listing/one find. I personally would not claim another find on a cache I found before. For any reason.

 

Looks like (according to itsnotaboutthenumbers.com) I have 2 non-unique finds. Now these two happened years ago, and our current reviewer would never let it fly, but I've seen, in the most extreme case, a traditional cache turned 4-leg multi with the same GC number. And the original tupperware hiding spot was abandoned, and not even used in the multi! I'll not be turning in my Puritan membership card over that one. :laughing:

 

As far as the original post, is this adoptive owner "offering" re-finds on these caches? If they are, the system will certainly allow you to log a second find. It's all up to you.

 

Come to think of it, owners offering re-finds for moved caches was more common in the past, but I rarely see it any more. Could just be my area though.

Link to comment
There is a local cacher that has adopted several abandoned caches.Some he has moved a few feet and posted new coords. others he reactivated after they were archived. Now I have found most of these cache over a year ago.

what I would like to know is would it be ethical to find these cache again and log a find.

It depends on how much of a change the cache is and whether the new cache owner will allow it.

 

Moving caches (and event caches) are pretty much the reason this site counts logs and not unique caches in your find count. This site also allows caches to be moved, without restriction, to another spot within 528' for various reasons. (I encourage owners to move a cache due to any negative environmental impact.) Therefore, it would seem logical to me that if a cache is moved, the owner allows it, and you're comfortable with it, then sure log it as another find.

 

Me, I don't care about find counts, so I'd probably wouldn't. I've revisited caches simply to find them again. If I post anything, it's a note. ...unless, of course, there's a need for one of the other log types; needs maintenance, SBA, etc.

Link to comment
I felt a bit guilty about logging a find, since I had been there before, but I claimed a find anyway because it technically was a new cache. One reason I claimed a find was to remove the cache from future pocket queries.

 

...

 

Would you claim a find under these circumstances?

I'd probably use the same criteria as logging any cache: was it worth my time? If so, I'd log it. If not, I'd ignore it.

 

In the end, the biggest thing is do you want to claim a find on a cache that you found? It's up to you.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...