do you visit caches more than once?

[luvmyfam444]

Whats the etiquette in this? Or the point? unless of course you're taking someone new....

[+River Cacher]

Whats the etiquette in this? Or the point? unless of course you're taking someone new....

I do if Trackables are sitting there to long or it has one I really want or can help it with its goal.

I go Caching with a lot of diffent people so I do end up going to some of the same ones.

I do not log them more then once.

I also go to mine alot to check on them.

[+.Icarus.]

Ive visited the same cache when im showing someone new to the hobby and want to make sure they get a good experience from it.

 

Also can be re-visted to drop pff a travel bug or geo-coin

 

Icarus

[+J-Way]

Whats the etiquette in this? Or the point? unless of course you're taking someone new....

- If a cache I've previously found near my house or work has a string of DNF's I'll stop by to check on it as a courtesy to the owner, posting a note as to its condition.

- I'll sometimes drop off a TB I've picked up on a work or vacation trip at a local cache I've already found.

- As already stated, sometimes I'll re-visit a cache if it has a travel bug that I can help along.

- I used to collect geocoin icons, so I would stop to "Discover" new coins.

- I've stopped by caches I've already found while showing a non-cacher what the game's about.

 

But please note that additional visits should be logged as a "Note", "Needs Maintenance", or "Needs Archived". Not as a "Found it". If you log additional "Found It" logs it adds to your find count, but you didn't actually find any additional caches. And some cache stats programs call this out, something like "xxx finds on xyy unique caches".

[+Buggheart]

Only if I'm introducing someone to geocaching or like today when my mom came out to my side of town to cache and I stood there while she searched for some that I've already found.

[4wheelin_fool]

Whats the etiquette in this? Or the point? unless of course you're taking someone new....

 

I do it frequently if the cache is in a good location, or just taking another cacher to the spot. Just post a note commenting on the condition of the cache would be fine.

[+uktim]

 

But please note that additional visits should be logged as a "Note", "Needs Maintenance", or "Needs Archived". Not as a "Found it". If you log additional "Found It" logs it adds to your find count, but you didn't actually find any additional caches. And some cache stats programs call this out, something like "xxx finds on xyy unique caches".

 

IMO you can log a second visit however you like. You're the only person that has a genuine interest in your own log count and should be able to utilise the log system however you like to enhance your enjoyment of caching.

[+J-Way]

But please note that additional visits should be logged as a "Note", "Needs Maintenance", or "Needs Archived". Not as a "Found it". If you log additional "Found It" logs it adds to your find count, but you didn't actually find any additional caches. And some cache stats programs call this out, something like "xxx finds on xyy unique caches".

IMO you can log a second visit however you like. You're the only person that has a genuine interest in your own log count and should be able to utilise the log system however you like to enhance your enjoyment of caching.

This is technically true, but don't be surprised if some cache owners delete duplicate "Found It" logs. I would if I noticed it (I don't exactly go through and audit each and every log). Cache owners set all rules for logging finds.

 

There are dozens of ways to pad find counts without actually finding caches, but I'm not letting you use my caches to do it.

[luvmyfam444]

Thanks for the info! I had no idea about how to log those - so thanks for the help!

[+uktim]

But please note that additional visits should be logged as a "Note", "Needs Maintenance", or "Needs Archived". Not as a "Found it". If you log additional "Found It" logs it adds to your find count, but you didn't actually find any additional caches. And some cache stats programs call this out, something like "xxx finds on xyy unique caches".

IMO you can log a second visit however you like. You're the only person that has a genuine interest in your own log count and should be able to utilise the log system however you like to enhance your enjoyment of caching.

This is technically true, but don't be surprised if some cache owners delete duplicate "Found It" logs. I would if I noticed it (I don't exactly go through and audit each and every log). Cache owners set all rules for logging finds.

 

There are dozens of ways to pad find counts without actually finding caches, but I'm not letting you use my caches to do it.

 

You're being rather judgemental in assuming thats it's got anything to do with "padding find counts". A find count id a personal record. Does it do you as a cache owner any harm if someone counts their cache visits in a different manner to your definition of correct? Why do you feel the need to do such a petty thing?

 

The find count should only be of interest to the cacher concerned, if anyone else feels deceived by it they should get life and stop judging oithers by arbitrary numbers

[+The Blorenges]

In post #4 J-Way has politely explained the generally accepted convention of logging a first visit to any cache as a 'found it' and any subsequent visits as 'a note'.

 

In my experience, I would say that at least 95% of the cases of cachers putting a second 'found it' log on a cache is down to the inexperience of fairly new cachers. When this has happened on any of our caches I've always emailed the cacher concerned, pointing out this generally accepted convention and have explained how to change their second log to a 'note' if they wish to do so. In every case the cacher has changed their log and very often a nice email response comes back - "Thanks for the explanation... we didn't realise that... etc."

 

You're being rather judgemental in assuming thats it's got anything to do with "padding find counts". A find count id a personal record. Does it do you as a cache owner any harm if someone counts their cache visits in a different manner to your definition of correct? Why do you feel the need to do such a petty thing?

 

If I ever have one where they don't change the log, I would let it stand, it's not a big deal to me as a cache owner.

 

The find count should only be of interest to the cacher concerned, if anyone else feels deceived by it they should get life and stop judging oithers by arbitrary numbers

 

IMO, "the find count" of any geocaching team is an indication of the experience of the cacher concerned - hence my response above to any fairly new geocachers (e.g. under 20 finds) as stated above.

 

MrsB

[dadinup]

I revisited a cache today [not mine] to pull and repair it. The damage to it had been commented on several times back in July, dang, did that thing stink and all paper products were far beyond recovery. I'll replace it this weekend with a fresh log and a new set of playing cards, close to the house, easy to do, but I won't enter it as a new find, simply maintaince.

Edited October 14, 2008 by dadinup

[+LeonW]

Thanks dadinup!

[+LeonW]

But please note that additional visits should be logged as a "Note", "Needs Maintenance", or "Needs Archived". Not as a "Found it". If you log additional "Found It" logs it adds to your find count, but you didn't actually find any additional caches. And some cache stats programs call this out, something like "xxx finds on xyy unique caches".

IMO you can log a second visit however you like. You're the only person that has a genuine interest in your own log count and should be able to utilise the log system however you like to enhance your enjoyment of caching.

This is technically true, but don't be surprised if some cache owners delete duplicate "Found It" logs. I would if I noticed it (I don't exactly go through and audit each and every log). Cache owners set all rules for logging finds.

 

There are dozens of ways to pad find counts without actually finding caches, but I'm not letting you use my caches to do it.

 

You're being rather judgemental in assuming thats it's got anything to do with "padding find counts". A find count id a personal record. Does it do you as a cache owner any harm if someone counts their cache visits in a different manner to your definition of correct? Why do you feel the need to do such a petty thing?

 

The find count should only be of interest to the cacher concerned, if anyone else feels deceived by it they should get life and stop judging oithers by arbitrary numbers

 

Not on my watch, no Sir!

[ao318]

I also have revisited for the same reasons mentioned. I also go back to a lot of the caches I have already found with my two daughters. They usually can only go out during the weekends and I can go out most anytime. So I have found many caches in my area twice but have only logged them once, the first time I found them.

[+J-Way]

You're being rather judgemental in assuming thats it's got anything to do with "padding find counts". A find count id a personal record. Does it do you as a cache owner any harm if someone counts their cache visits in a different manner to your definition of correct? Why do you feel the need to do such a petty thing?

"Judgmental"? Possibly. I personally agree with the majority of cachers in the concept of 1 cache = 1 find. Also, I believe you must actually find the cache and sign the physical log (and not claim a find because you found bits of broken container, or found a hole where the cache used to be), but that's another topic.

 

Incidentally, you kept calling that "arbitrary number" a "find count". So which is it, a "find count", or a "cache visit count"? Every cacher I personally know calls it a "find count".

 

No, it doesn't do me any harm if you decide to claim to "find" my caches every time you drive nearby (well, other than clogging up my inbox). I couldn't care less how many total "finds" or "cache visits" you have, nor do I care what you think of my number of "finds". But TPTB at Groundspeak, in their wisdom, have decreed multiple times that the cache owner has the ultimate authority in setting logging requirements for owned caches. I have set the logging requirements for all my caches to be 1) Find the cache (or visit the site for my virtual or earthcaches); and 2) sign the physical log (or fulfill all virtual or earthcache requirements). Also, only one find per cacher.

 

Finally, I don't aggressively audit the online logs vs. the physical logs. If I do happen to spot a double log (it's happened a grand total of twice), I send a polite email asking why. Once it was someone who had forgotten they had already logged (she asked me to delete it for her) and once it was someone who didn't know they could post a "Note" for a TB drop (he changed it). I probably have other multiple logs that I just haven't noticed on my two older and easier geocaches, but I don't care.

 

The find count should only be of interest to the cacher concerned, if anyone else feels deceived by it they should get life and stop judging oithers by arbitrary numbers

I'll take your comments under advisement, once I figure out how to "get life".

[+mfamilee]

do you visit caches more than once?

We visit caches more than once if we were never able to find them the 1st or 2nd time.

[+ThePachecos]

I visit them if I know they are high traffic caches to drop off new tb's

[+uxorious]

If the cache owner needs to relocate the cache, and moves it a significant distance, it is fun to go find it again. I will go look for it, but will post a note, and not a find, if it is the same CG#.

 

Like others have said, I will also return to a cache if I want to take someone else caching. If I enjoyed finding it, then it is fun to show it to someone else. (They can log it, I'll just post a note.)

[+George1]

Sure, why not, especially if it's a Great Cache location.

 

Here's a picture of the group from last February that visited a great cache. Seven of the eleven had already been there. We sent out a large email inviting anyone that wanted to go, just for the heck of it. It was cold, snow on the ground, and a 2 mile walk to get there and all these people were dying to go.

 

We had a great time with some great friends. Hot dogs and marshmallows over an open fire are always great. There was also wine, cheese, crackers and other assorted food and drinks. We have a great bunch of friends that are Cachers. We just enjoyed getting together, sitting around a fire, and talking. That's the best thing I have found about Geocaching. Friends.

 

[+Cowboy Camper]

I have gone to caches more than once.

 

I'll post a DNF log if true, and post a Found It log when I actually do find it.

 

I posted a double find once when going back to fetch a TB. I've since learned about posting Notes instead of Found, so I corrected it.

 

I'll also consider checking up on some that were pretty soggy. If still in a wet condition, I now know that I can post a NM log that sends an Attribute to the cache owner so that he/she can go and check up on it.

 

Either way, there are the proper logs for each visit. I have no interest at all in 'padding' a Find Count. What's the point in padding a find count for anyone else's opinion? (who cares?) And what's the point in padding your own find count for yourself? If you do that, you're only lying to yourself.

[+Cowboy Camper]

I revisited a cache today [not mine] to pull and repair it. The damage to it had been commented on several times back in July, dang, did that thing stink and all paper products were far beyond recovery. I'll replace it this weekend with a fresh log and a new set of playing cards, close to the house, easy to do, but I won't enter it as a new find, simply maintaince.

 

Hmm...

 

What's the etiquette on taking a cache and maintaining or servicing it myself?

 

I suppose the best thing to do would be to post a NM log. Then make an offer to the owner that I can help and maintain it for him/her in that log?

 

Anyone else have any thoughts or knowledge on this type of scenario? I'd love to help with some caches that are in my area. For now, I consider myself too much of a Newbie to actually Hide one of my own.