Find Credit for Archived Cache

[+Rose Red]

Several geocachers that did not know that a Geocache was archived posted logs anyway that day and for a couple days after hopeing to get credit. Do they count as "Finds?"

[+Cardinal Red]

Several geocachers that did not know that a Geocache was archived posted logs anyway that day and for a couple days after hopeing to get credit. Do they count as "Finds?"

Yes, they count as finds. Some archived caches have been locked to prevent further logs.

But most archived caches are still available to backlog past finds.

[+J-Way]

Was the container still out in the field?

Did the cachers legitimately find the container and sign the log?

 

If the answer to both questions is "yes", then yes, they can log it as a find and claim "credit".

 

To take it to extremes, though, some so-called cachers actively try to identify long-archived caches by non-active hiders and try to boost their find count by logging false finds.

[+trainlove]

Yes.

 

Archived does not mean 'does not exist anymore'.

I've found many archived caches, that still exist.

 

It may be many months before the owner actually goes out into the field to remove his geo-liter.

And someone recently, in the last month, actually mistook 'archive' for 'temporarily disable' for all his caches. Well that wasn't accidently, he was trying to make a political point and failed.

Edited January 2, 2009 by trainlove

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Yes.

 

Archived does not mean 'does not exist anymore'.

I've found many archived caches, that still exist.

 

It may be many months before the owner actually goes out into the field to remove his geo-liter.

And someone recently, in the last month, actually mistook 'archive' for 'temporarily disable' for all his caches. Well that wasn't accidently, he was trying to make a political point and failed.

 

I think it's been well proven that his point didn't fail... and through continuous comments like these that express bitterness at his actions about his cache, his point keeps going last past the impact of his original action. That's clever activism.

[Keystone]

The topic is "Find Credit for Archived Cache."

 

/friendly warning

[+sbell111]

If they signed the logbook, they found the cache. Also, if they satisfied the owner to the point where the cache owner allows them to log a 'find', they may.

[+Renegade Knight]

If they signed the logbook, they found the cache. Also, if they satisfied the owner to the point where the cache owner allows them to log a 'find', they may.

 

All of the above. Plus teams change, tag alongs grow up and want to log their own finds and so on.

Logging archived caches is legit for a lot of reasons.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Well, they are finds it they found the cache. There is on cacher that has loged finds on some of my archived caches. But he never found the caches so I deleted the logs. How do I know he had not found the caches, because were caches that I have removed and I had the logs and his name was not in them. On a few of my archived caches I have posted in the note when I archived them that I would not allow any further found logs.

[+Harry Dolphin]

If the cache is still in place, and I sign the log, I claim the smiley! I don't generally search for archived caches, unless it's to rescue a Travel Bug. But that's usually only on caches that I've already found.

Case in point: I planned a trip to Maine to help my sister with the Maine DeLorme Challenge. Loaded up all the cache coordinates into my Gupy, and off we went. Third or second day out, we searched for a cache hidden under a tree. Well, ME DOT clear cut the area, but we found the cache anyway! Get to the motel, and log caches on WiFi, we found the cache had been archived the previous day, and listed as 'removed'. Nope. Still there! We signed the log, we logged it on-line. We got the smileys. (As did the cachers two weeks later...)

As I said, I would not actively search for an archived cache to log it. But, if I sign the log, you'd better believe I'm going to claim the smiley.

[+yawppy]

(Temp-Disabled, not archived) OK. not sure if this should be a start to a new topic, how ever I am going to tell the story and see what input I get back.

 

I recently went to TN for Thanksgiving. Being my first road trip as a cacher, I did a PQ along a route. It gave me a GPX file, which I placed on the GPS'r.

 

K I get near VA, and see a cache at a rest stop. I read the logs and it had a few DNF's, but it still was on the GPS'r. SO I go over to GZ, ( not far being in a rest stp. GZ contains 3 logical spots for a cache, a tree, , another tree, and the LPC. Well logic states the tree's just would not work for a cache, so it is under the Lamp cover, nope not there tho.

 

So here is what I did, I tend to carry several micros, (As do a few cachers) for an emergency hide, or in this case as a replacement. I really did not want to DNF a cache when it was obvious as to where it was placed. So I headed back to the cachemobile, grabbed a bottle cap micro, signed the log, and replaced it at the logical location. Got on the cell to log, and that is when I realized it had been Temp-Disabled (archived) for over a month or two, so I logged a find, and placed the notice as to what I had placed in the GZ area, placed it on my watch list.

 

Still have not heard from the cache owner, but fellow cachers were happy to have a cache to find.

 

Did a similar one yesterday, only one logical place, based on the cache owners clue, ( I am tall and have 3 holes, which one am I) I get to GZ, same situation as above.. so I did the same.

 

I logged both as finds, I figure if finders can replace a log book, w\can we not replace an obvious hide? Or am I in the wrong.

 

Any rate, the answer to the post is YES. As a newbie I have some archived hides, and folks have logged a find, and me vice versa. If you archive a cache listing, it still comes up in the PQ ( I use a CO 400t) , It does not show up as archived, I have seen several like this. Did a fresh PQ, loaded the GPX, get out to GZ, and go to log it on my cell from GZ, to find out it was Archived. Groundspeak should fix this, until then, it is a find as I see it, just may need a little TLC.

Edited January 3, 2009 by yawppy

[jholly]

Several geocachers that did not know that a Geocache was archived posted logs anyway that day and for a couple days after hopeing to get credit. Do they count as "Finds?"

 

Man, I sure hope so. I found a very famous archived mystery cache and logged it and got my simley.

 

Jim

[+Harry Dolphin]

OK. not sure if this should be a start to a new topic, how ever I am going to tell the story and see what input I get back.

 

I recently went to TN for Thanksgiving. Being my first road trip as a cacher, I did a PQ along a route. It gave me a GPX file, which I placed on the GPS'r.

 

K I get near VA, and see a cache at a rest stop. I read the logs and it had a few DNF's, but it still was on the GPS'r. SO I go over to GZ, ( not far being in a rest stp. GZ contains 3 logical spots for a cache, a tree, , another tree, and the LPC. Well logic states the tree's just would not work for a cache, so it is under the Lamp cover, nope not there tho.

 

So here is what I did, I tend to carry several micros, (As do a few cachers) for an emergency hide, or in this case as a replacement. I really did not want to DNF a cache when it was obvious as to where it was placed. So I headed back to the cachemobile, grabbed a bottle cap micro, signed the log, and replaced it at the logical location. Got on the cell to log, and that is when I realized it had been archived for over a month or two, so I logged a find, and placed the notice as to what I had placed in the GZ area, placed it on my watch list.

 

Still have not heard from the cache owner, but fellow cachers were happy to have a cache to find.

 

Did a similar one yesterday, only one logical place, based on the cache owners clue, ( I am tall and have 3 holes, which one am I) I get to GZ, same situation as above.. so I did the same.

 

I logged both as finds, I figure if finders can replace a log book, w\can we not replace an obvious hide? Or am I in the wrong.

 

It doesn't matter on how many threads you ask the question (per message board guidelines, you should only ask the question once...), If you didn't find the cache, you didn't find the cache. That seems fairly simple. If the cache has been archived, and removed by the owner (or archived by the owner because the cache is missing), I find it incomprehensilbe that you would replace, AND claim a find on it. The cache is missing. It has been archived. That doesn't even merit a DNF. To claim that you found it, when you did not, is something that I will never understand. YOU DIDN'T FIND IT!

[+roundnround we go]

Any rate, the answer to the post is YES. As a newbie I have some archived hides, and folks have logged a find, and me vice versa. If you archive a cache listing, it still comes up in the PQ ( I use a CO 400t) , It does not show up as archived, I have seen several like this. Did a fresh PQ, loaded the GPX, get out to GZ, and go to log it on my cell from GZ, to find out it was Archived. Groundspeak should fix this, until then, it is a find as I see it, just may need a little TLC.

 

In my opinion archived is archived. Find it or not it was archived for a reason you shouldn't be able to log it as a find.

 

When doing your PQ if you mark the "is active " tab you will not get the archived and disabled caches in your PQ.

[+JohnnyVegas]

OK. not sure if this should be a start to a new topic, how ever I am going to tell the story and see what input I get back.

 

I recently went to TN for Thanksgiving. Being my first road trip as a cacher, I did a PQ along a route. It gave me a GPX file, which I placed on the GPS'r.

 

K I get near VA, and see a cache at a rest stop. I read the logs and it had a few DNF's, but it still was on the GPS'r. SO I go over to GZ, ( not far being in a rest stp. GZ contains 3 logical spots for a cache, a tree, , another tree, and the LPC. Well logic states the tree's just would not work for a cache, so it is under the Lamp cover, nope not there tho.

 

So here is what I did, I tend to carry several micros, (As do a few cachers) for an emergency hide, or in this case as a replacement. I really did not want to DNF a cache when it was obvious as to where it was placed. So I headed back to the cachemobile, grabbed a bottle cap micro, signed the log, and replaced it at the logical location. Got on the cell to log, and that is when I realized it had been archived for over a month or two, so I logged a find, and placed the notice as to what I had placed in the GZ area, placed it on my watch list.

 

Still have not heard from the cache owner, but fellow cachers were happy to have a cache to find.

 

Did a similar one yesterday, only one logical place, based on the cache owners clue, ( I am tall and have 3 holes, which one am I) I get to GZ, same situation as above.. so I did the same.

 

I logged both as finds, I figure if finders can replace a log book, w\can we not replace an obvious hide? Or am I in the wrong.

 

Any rate, the answer to the post is YES. As a newbie I have some archived hides, and folks have logged a find, and me vice versa. If you archive a cache listing, it still comes up in the PQ ( I use a CO 400t) , It does not show up as archived, I have seen several like this. Did a fresh PQ, loaded the GPX, get out to GZ, and go to log it on my cell from GZ, to find out it was Archived. Groundspeak should fix this, until then, it is a find as I see it, just may need a little TLC.

 

I would have deleted your find, you did not find the cache, your not finding the cache does not mean it was not there. I had a cacher place a lame micro were I had a full sized cache placed, I deleted his log and he called at home to complain that I was *(&()($ with his numbers. Even if the cache is missing it is not up to the person that is looking for the cache to place one in it's place if they think it is missing

 

Looking at the number of your cache finds my guess the cache may still be there hidden in a style that you have not seen before.

Edited January 3, 2009 by JohnnyVegas

[jholly]

]

In my opinion archived is archived. Find it or not it was archived for a reason you shouldn't be able to log it as a find.

 

Your welcome to your opinion, but I suspect if you "found" a certain archived mystery cache in Seattle you would log it.

 

Jim

[+edscott]

OK. not sure if this should be a start to a new topic, how ever I am going to tell the story and see what input I get back.

 

I recently went to TN for Thanksgiving. Being my first road trip as a cacher, I did a PQ along a route. It gave me a GPX file, which I placed on the GPS'r.

 

K I get near VA, and see a cache at a rest stop. I read the logs and it had a few DNF's, but it still was on the GPS'r. SO I go over to GZ, ( not far being in a rest stp. GZ contains 3 logical spots for a cache, a tree, , another tree, and the LPC. Well logic states the tree's just would not work for a cache, so it is under the Lamp cover, nope not there tho.

 

So here is what I did, I tend to carry several micros, (As do a few cachers) for an emergency hide, or in this case as a replacement. I really did not want to DNF a cache when it was obvious as to where it was placed. So I headed back to the cachemobile, grabbed a bottle cap micro, signed the log, and replaced it at the logical location. Got on the cell to log, and that is when I realized it had been archived for over a month or two, so I logged a find, and placed the notice as to what I had placed in the GZ area, placed it on my watch list.

 

Still have not heard from the cache owner, but fellow cachers were happy to have a cache to find.

 

Did a similar one yesterday, only one logical place, based on the cache owners clue, ( I am tall and have 3 holes, which one am I) I get to GZ, same situation as above.. so I did the same.

 

I logged both as finds, I figure if finders can replace a log book, w\can we not replace an obvious hide? Or am I in the wrong.

 

Any rate, the answer to the post is YES. As a newbie I have some archived hides, and folks have logged a find, and me vice versa. If you archive a cache listing, it still comes up in the PQ ( I use a CO 400t) , It does not show up as archived, I have seen several like this. Did a fresh PQ, loaded the GPX, get out to GZ, and go to log it on my cell from GZ, to find out it was Archived. Groundspeak should fix this, until then, it is a find as I see it, just may need a little TLC.

 

Wow never thought of that.. I should carry a barrel of film containers.. and never have another DNF!!!

 

Edit... I just remembered someone else that used to do that. Caused a lot of confusion as people didn't know which box was the real one and which was the fake.

Edited January 3, 2009 by edscott

[+Parabola]

Here's what I do when I archive a cache if it wasn't missing or needed maintance. I will leave the container for 2 week's even up to a month before I go and remove it. But I do go and pick the container up. But that let's the people that don't update there cache info everyday a chance to still find it.

 

I've done it too, not updated for a few day's then go after finding a cache and find out it's archived. I will usually ask the owner since I did find it and signed the log book if it's ok if I log my find. I have yet to find an owner that has had a problem with that.

 

But this is my reasoning for leaving a cache out after I archive it for a little while. Just to give those using a week old PQ and caching from it a chance.

 

Now if you're logging a archived cache that has been archived year's ago, that you've never found, then that's a no-no and should be looked down apon.

 

They are left open to let those that don't get time to log them for a while time to do so. If you are having problem's with a person "claiming a find" on a archived cache that they never found and you are the cache owner, you can contact your reviewer and have the cache "locked" so no-one can try and post a find on it.

[+edscott]

Here's what I do when I archive a cache if it wasn't missing or needed maintance. I will leave the container for 2 week's even up to a month before I go and remove it. But I do go and pick the container up. But that let's the people that don't update there cache info everyday a chance to still find it.

 

I've done it too, not updated for a few day's then go after finding a cache and find out it's archived. I will usually ask the owner since I did find it and signed the log book if it's ok if I log my find. I have yet to find an owner that has had a problem with that.

 

But this is my reasoning for leaving a cache out after I archive it for a little while. Just to give those using a week old PQ and caching from it a chance.

 

Now if you're logging a archived cache that has been archived year's ago, that you've never found, then that's a no-no and should be looked down apon.

 

They are left open to let those that don't get time to log them for a while time to do so. If you are having problem's with a person "claiming a find" on a archived cache that they never found and you are the cache owner, you can contact your reviewer and have the cache "locked" so no-one can try and post a find on it.

 

Yes I should have done that today. I disabled a cache for some maintenance today then went over and brought it home to clean and paint and then replace in a slightly different spot. Two hours later someone logged a DNF. In this case they can go back in a few days and get it, but I still feel bad that they missed the find today.

Edited January 3, 2009 by edscott

[+Cardinal Red]

Wow never thought of that.. I should carry a barrel of film containers.. and never have another DNF!!!

 

Edit... I just remembered someone else that used to do that. Caused a lot of confusion as people didn't know which box was the real one and which was the fake.

 

used to do that? When did they stop? I saw it done once in a group caravan. Some cachers logged it. I didn't.

[+007BigD]

Does anyone know the recourses for attempting to log a cache such as a Locationless? For instance if you asked permission of the owner OR they were no longer active.

 

I only "assume" you COULD log it if you wanted to, just a matter of what anybody would do if/when it was noticed, such as a reviewer. Id say they'd probably just delete it, but I couldnt tell ya. A person could backdate it and it would probably go unoticed for awhile...Just wonderin what they would do in the event of a recent locationless find?

 

Just Hypothetically thinking

Edited January 3, 2009 by 007BigD

[+Parabola]

 

Yes I should have done that today. I disabled a cache for some maintenance today then went over and brought it home to clean and paint and then replace in a slightly different spot. Two hours later someone logged a DNF. In this case they can go back in a few days and get it, but I still feel bad that they missed the find today.

If you are planning on pulling a cache for maintance and know about it ahead of time you might post a not with your intent so a person can read that in the log's and they may skip it for the time being. But I wouldn't feel too bad. You did nothing wrong. You disabled it, when out, got it, took it home fixed it up, then went back out and put it back. Nothing wrong with that.

 

I had one today I looked for and I'm using a week old PQ and come to find out it was disable for maintance yesterday. Yes, I was just wasting time there looking for it but it was my own fault for not updating my PQ, and not looking the caches up before I headed out. It happen's. No biggy. I'll head back out as soon as it's enabled. I don't see this as the cache owner's falut at all. I'm just happy the owner is taking care of his/her caches, and not leaving it up to the rest of the geo-world to do so for them.

[+Glenn]

OK. not sure if this should be a start to a new topic, how ever I am going to tell the story and see what input I get back.

 

I recently went to TN for Thanksgiving. Being my first road trip as a cacher, I did a PQ along a route. It gave me a GPX file, which I placed on the GPS'r.

 

K I get near VA, and see a cache at a rest stop. I read the logs and it had a few DNF's, but it still was on the GPS'r. SO I go over to GZ, ( not far being in a rest stp. GZ contains 3 logical spots for a cache, a tree, , another tree, and the LPC. Well logic states the tree's just would not work for a cache, so it is under the Lamp cover, nope not there tho.

 

So here is what I did, I tend to carry several micros, (As do a few cachers) for an emergency hide, or in this case as a replacement. I really did not want to DNF a cache when it was obvious as to where it was placed. So I headed back to the cachemobile, grabbed a bottle cap micro, signed the log, and replaced it at the logical location. Got on the cell to log, and that is when I realized it had been archived for over a month or two, so I logged a find, and placed the notice as to what I had placed in the GZ area, placed it on my watch list.

 

Still have not heard from the cache owner, but fellow cachers were happy to have a cache to find.

 

Did a similar one yesterday, only one logical place, based on the cache owners clue, ( I am tall and have 3 holes, which one am I) I get to GZ, same situation as above.. so I did the same.

 

I logged both as finds, I figure if finders can replace a log book, w\can we not replace an obvious hide? Or am I in the wrong.

 

Any rate, the answer to the post is YES. As a newbie I have some archived hides, and folks have logged a find, and me vice versa. If you archive a cache listing, it still comes up in the PQ ( I use a CO 400t) , It does not show up as archived, I have seen several like this. Did a fresh PQ, loaded the GPX, get out to GZ, and go to log it on my cell from GZ, to find out it was Archived. Groundspeak should fix this, until then, it is a find as I see it, just may need a little TLC.

 

Wow never thought of that.. I should carry a barrel of film containers.. and never have another DNF!!!

 

Edit... I just remembered someone else that used to do that. Caused a lot of confusion as people didn't know which box was the real one and which was the fake.

 

It gets even better than that for those who don't want to follow the Geocaching guidelines. <sarcasm> You can break almost every guideline! Are no more caches allowed in an area due to the cache saturation rule. Just find an archived cache in that area and drop a replacement cache and log it. Can't place a cache in an area used to not be off limits but now is off limits. Just find an archived cache in the area and drop a replacement cache and log it. Let your friends know about the placement too. After all it won't be you that gets the call when the land manager finds out that the cache is back. This practice would even buffer you from having to pay if the bomb squad gets called. It will be the owner of the archived cache that gets the bill and not you. </sarcasm>

 

Yea, I can see quite a few problems with this practice. <sarcasm> But the way many of the arguments go here is that the chances of this happening is very small, so why bother doing anything about it. Just ignore it. Play your game how you want to play it and let others play it how they want to play it. Who cares if there is some sub-game using the archived cache listing. It doesn't hurt you does it? If something doesn't directly affect you then you opinion doesn't matter. </sarcasm>

[+trainlove]

Does anyone know the recourses for attempting to log a cache such as a Locationless? For instance if you asked permission of the owner OR they were no longer active.

I do believe all those are not just archived but 'locked' from further logging activity. Not sure about all of them but one i just looked at says "The listing has been locked and is not accepting new log entries."

It's impossible to log a locked cache or a locked travel bug.

[AZcachemeister]

Does anyone know the recourses for attempting to log a cache such as a Locationless? For instance if you asked permission of the owner OR they were no longer active.

I do believe all those are not just archived but 'locked' from further logging activity. Not sure about all of them but one i just looked at says "The listing has been locked and is not accepting new log entries."

It's impossible to log a locked cache or a locked travel bug.

 

Well, TPTB SAID they were going lock them all!

[+Don_J]

(Temp-Disabled, not archived) OK. not sure if this should be a start to a new topic, how ever I am going to tell the story and see what input I get back.

 

I recently went to TN for Thanksgiving. Being my first road trip as a cacher, I did a PQ along a route. It gave me a GPX file, which I placed on the GPS'r.

 

K I get near VA, and see a cache at a rest stop. I read the logs and it had a few DNF's, but it still was on the GPS'r. SO I go over to GZ, ( not far being in a rest stp. GZ contains 3 logical spots for a cache, a tree, , another tree, and the LPC. Well logic states the tree's just would not work for a cache, so it is under the Lamp cover, nope not there tho.

 

So here is what I did, I tend to carry several micros, (As do a few cachers) for an emergency hide, or in this case as a replacement. I really did not want to DNF a cache when it was obvious as to where it was placed. So I headed back to the cachemobile, grabbed a bottle cap micro, signed the log, and replaced it at the logical location. Got on the cell to log, and that is when I realized it had been Temp-Disabled (archived) for over a month or two, so I logged a find, and placed the notice as to what I had placed in the GZ area, placed it on my watch list.

 

Still have not heard from the cache owner, but fellow cachers were happy to have a cache to find.

 

Did a similar one yesterday, only one logical place, based on the cache owners clue, ( I am tall and have 3 holes, which one am I) I get to GZ, same situation as above.. so I did the same.

 

I logged both as finds, I figure if finders can replace a log book, w\can we not replace an obvious hide? Or am I in the wrong.

 

Any rate, the answer to the post is YES. As a newbie I have some archived hides, and folks have logged a find, and me vice versa. If you archive a cache listing, it still comes up in the PQ ( I use a CO 400t) , It does not show up as archived, I have seen several like this. Did a fresh PQ, loaded the GPX, get out to GZ, and go to log it on my cell from GZ, to find out it was Archived. Groundspeak should fix this, until then, it is a find as I see it, just may need a little TLC.

 

This cache

and This cache, as well as This cache demonstrate why your practice is flawed. The confusion caused by this continues to this day.

 

I have replaced caches for friends after confirming with them the exact details of the hide, and I have replaced caches for strangers that I had previously found and can absolutely confirm is missing. I'm talking about older ammo can hides, six miles up a mountain trail with an owner that hasn't logged on in three years, not LPCs. I would never presume that it was my duty to replace a cache for a total stranger, especially when I am a stranger to the area. I take the DNF and go onto the next one. On my last trip to Vegas, I stopped along the highway and DNFed two micro caches that should have been obvious. I could have resorted to your practice, and had two more smilies. As it is, both caches have been found, after my DNF. I just wasn't good enough on that particular day to find them. That does not give me the right to "replace" them.

 

You asked specifically, "Am I wrong?". And I'll answer, absolutely. You do not have the right to replace someone's cache without their permission.

[+wimseyguy]

Wow we now have three different questions to answer in one thread, but I am only going to get one post count for my answers.

 

To the OP-if you found the cache and signed the log, then you get the credit for the find. In very rare cases a cache listing may be locked, and you won't be able to log your find.

 

To yawppy-yes you are wrong for dropping angel/replacement caches without the express permission of the cache owner. You didn't find a cache, log your DNF and move on. It isn't a failure on your part if there isn't a cache there to find, nor is there any shame in posting a DNF log to a cache that is there you didn't find. It's a simple recording of a moment in the cache and seekers history.

 

To 007BigD-the LC's were all locked when they were archived by TPTB. You cannot post a log on one any longer.

 

Now who do I see about getting the extra 2 credits on my post count?

[+Glenn]

Wow we now have three different questions to answer in one thread, but I am only going to get one post count for my answers.

 

[superfluous information removed]

 

Now who do I see about getting the extra 2 credits on my post count?

 

Do it the same way you would claim extra finds on the same cache and just make two more posts in the thread. I suggest the use of TFTT (Thanks For The Topic) and no other text in each of the extra posts.

[+ventura_kids]

We try to follow the rules/guidelines and keep it simple.

If you find a cache and sign the logsheet....then you get a smiley.

If you don't find a cache....log a sad face.

Anything different is called "cheating".

[+Rockin Roddy]

We try to follow the rules/guidelines and keep it simple.

If you find a cache and sign the logsheet....then you get a smiley.

If you don't find a cache....log a sad face.

Anything different is called "cheating".

 

Cheating...who??

[+wavector]

We try to follow the rules/guidelines and keep it simple.

If you find a cache and sign the logsheet....then you get a smiley.

If you don't find a cache....log a sad face.

Anything different is called "cheating".

 

You are welcome to log a Found on one of my caches and I would gladly delete it just so you would understand that you simply have no way to get a smiley. It is really simple, you get a smiley when I allow your claim to stand, that is how it actually works. I find it incredible that you claim to have found thousands of caches and haven't figured out this very simple fact.

New geocachers often miss this simple fact because people are sure that a smiley is the result of some proper action, it isn't. If a geocache owner tells you that you can log a find then you can, any other test is simply false. I know you think that I am wrong but I would be happy to show you how it really works. <--- Look a smiley.

 

I have geocaches where I don't allow finds at certain times of the year, or at certain times of the day. I don't give a fig if the seeker has a Ventura Kids seal of approval and they applied your "keep it simple" philosophy and followed your rules exactly to ensure they weren't "cheating" right down to finding the log and signing it, I still delete their find and tell them they have to revisit - what I don't do is call them cheaters.

 

When a geocache owner determines that a log is fine, it is fine, regardless of any opinion that you hold that others are "cheaters" because they don't geocache in the fashion you choose.

If a cacher thinks that the smilies are worth something they might see others as cheaters.

No smiley is worth anything, a lot of smilies don't mean that a geocacher is honest, a lack of smilies doesn't indicate dishonesty, geocaching isn't about the numbers, it is about fun.

 

Publicy calling others "cheaters" reflects on you, not on them.

If a log has no negative impact for other searchers it is fine by me.

 

When a geocacher drops off a TB in one of my geocaches and they log it correctly as being there and they use the Found log type to indicate they Found the geocache where it was supposed to be they are fine. They are geocaching correctly even if they have done that ten, a hundred or a thousand times.

 

When you publicly label others as "cheaters" you are detracting from the fun that others take in this activity.

Edited January 4, 2009 by wavector

[+Rockin Roddy]

We try to follow the rules/guidelines and keep it simple.

If you find a cache and sign the logsheet....then you get a smiley.

If you don't find a cache....log a sad face.

Anything different is called "cheating".

 

You are welcome to log a Found on one of my caches and I would gladly delete it just so you would understand that you simply have no way to get a smiley. It is really simple, you get a smiley when I allow your claim to stand, that is how it actually works. I find it incredible that you claim to have found thousands of caches and haven't figured out this very simple fact.

New geocachers often miss this simple fact because people are sure that a smiley is the result of some proper action, it isn't. If a geocache owner tells you that you can log a find then you can, any other test is simply false. I know you think that I am wrong but I would be happy to show you how it really works. <--- Look a smiley.

 

I have geocaches where I don't allow finds at certain times of the year, or at certain times of the day. I don't give a fig if the seeker has a Ventura Kids seal of approval and they applied your "keep it simple" philosophy and followed your rules exactly to ensure they weren't "cheating" right down to finding the log and signing it, I still delete their find and tell them they have to revisit - what I don't do is call them cheaters.

 

When a geocache owner determines that a log is fine, it is fine, regardless of any opinion that you hold that others are "cheaters" because they don't geocache in the fashion you choose.

If a cacher thinks that the smilies are worth something they might see others as cheaters.

No smiley is worth anything, a lot of smilies don't mean that a geocacher is honest, a lack of smilies doesn't indicate dishonesty, geocaching isn't about the numbers, it is about fun.

 

Publicy calling others "cheaters" reflects on you, not on them.

If a log has no negative impact for other searchers it is fine by me.

 

When a geocacher drops off a TB in one of my geocaches and they log it correctly as being there and they use the Found log type to indicate they Found the geocache where it was supposed to be they are fine. They are geocaching correctly even if they have done that ten, a hundred or a thousand times.

 

When you publicly label others as "cheaters" you are detracting from the fun that others take in this activity.

 

Yep...something I've learned here in these forums!

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

We try to follow the rules/guidelines and keep it simple.

If you find a cache and sign the logsheet....then you get a smiley.

If you don't find a cache....log a sad face.

Anything different is called "cheating".

 

There will be cache owners who'll disagree with you based on their own insecurities, blow what little you've said way out of proportion and cry about their own fabricated hidden meanings in your post. Just let them run themselves in circles until they take their naps. I whole-heartedly agree with you.

 

When you've found the cache, log a find.

When you've not found the cache, log a DNF.

 

The term "cheating" is emotive on the forum but a lot is emotive on the forum.

[+wavector]

We try to follow the rules/guidelines and keep it simple.

If you find a cache and sign the logsheet....then you get a smiley.

If you don't find a cache....log a sad face.

Anything different is called "cheating".

 

There will be cache owners who'll disagree with you based on their own insecurities, blow what little you've said way out of proportion and cry about their own fabricated hidden meanings in your post. Just let them run themselves in circles until they take their naps. I whole-heartedly agree with you.

 

When you've found the cache, log a find.

When you've not found the cache, log a DNF.

 

The term "cheating" is emotive on the forum but a lot is emotive on the forum.

 

You are also welcome to come and log a few of my caches!

You will find my caches when I allow you to find them not when you have "whole heartedly" followed the Ventura Kids "simple" method for getting smilies. You can squawk all you want and it won't change a thing.

 

We found a cache when we were on holidays in British Columbia, it was our only find on that trip and when we arrived home the cache owner had Archived the cache because he couldn't find it. I logged my Find on the archived cache and never thought about it again, the cache owner let it stand.

Apparently the cache owner had decided that I must be an armchair logger and he decided I was a "cheater" but he never deleted the log nor did he take the time to call me a "cheater", he just thought I was a "cheater".

When he went back to replace the cache he found the original container, it hadn't been moved it was just really well hidden because I do that, I want to ensure that the next seeker enjoys the cache hunt.

 

He was chagrined to find my signature in the logbook and the items I had listed as trades in the cache. He took the time to send me a letter and it made him happy.

It might be argued that he would have been doing better if he had just deleted the log and publicly called me a cheater. Since you apparently wholeheartedly agree with labeling people as cheaters put yourself in his shoes when he did find the Archived cache with my log, I suppose he could just choose to say nothing and make himself a "liar" at that point.

 

But feel free to apply the Ventura Kids simple method of getting smileys and feel free to call others cheaters in the forum and in public, there are a lot of people who have control issues.

 

Try not to detract from the fun others take in this activity.

Do not negatively impact others who may be searching for the cache.

Respect the wishes of the cache owner.

 

That is the simple way to get smilies.

Edited January 4, 2009 by wavector

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Try not to detract from the fun others take in this activity.

 

Bingo!

[+wavector]

Try not to detract from the fun others take in this activity.

 

Bingo!

 

We aren't playing Bingo here but I understand your excitement if that is a regular occupation for you.

 

You seem to feel that this guideline is the one directing others to label people as cheaters?

Maybe you can explain how calling people cheaters is "not detracting from the fun that others take in this activity"?

I don't understand that and I am sure I am not alone.

 

Under the O - nothing.

[+Glenn]

Try not to detract from the fun others take in this activity.

Ditto!

[Clan Riffster]

If you find a cache and sign the logsheet....then you get a smiley.

If you don't find a cache....log a sad face.

Agreed

 

what I don't do is call them cheaters.

Agreed.

 

For the Riffster Clan, the practice of logging finds, DNFs, etc seems pretty simple. No need for complications. However, I don't consider the standards I apply to myself to be handed down from on high. I've seen some logging methods on my caches which caused me to scratch my head, but I would never consider the person whose logging type differs from mine to be a "cheater". I've never deleted a find from one of my caches, and, other than someone plopping out a new cache because they couldn't find my existing one, I couldn't imagine doing so.

[+geomann1]

If you find a cache and sign the logsheet....then you get a smiley.

If you don't find a cache....log a sad face.

Agreed

 

what I don't do is call them cheaters.

Agreed.

 

For the Riffster Clan, the practice of logging finds, DNFs, etc seems pretty simple. No need for complications. However, I don't consider the standards I apply to myself to be handed down from on high. I've seen some logging methods on my caches which caused me to scratch my head, but I would never consider the person whose logging type differs from mine to be a "cheater". I've never deleted a find from one of my caches, and, other than someone plopping out a new cache because they couldn't find my existing one, I couldn't imagine doing so.

 

There are a rare few out there of whom I would say have a "poetic concept of reality" (to avoid the term cheater), in that I have had caches logged as found when they were disabled because the cache is no longer there. I just let it slide because its really not my problem and its not hurting anyone. What matters to me is how I play the game.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Try not to detract from the fun others take in this activity.

 

Bingo!

 

We aren't playing Bingo here but I understand your excitement if that is a regular occupation for you.

 

You seem to feel that this guideline is the one directing others to label people as cheaters?

Maybe you can explain how calling people cheaters is "not detracting from the fun that others take in this activity"?

I don't understand that and I am sure I am not alone.

 

Under the O - nothing.

 

Your failure to understand simple and obvious concepts is not an unusual circumstance. I don't recall anybody calling anyone cheaters. There was a vague notion of "cheating" that was mentioned once but, as usual, no one insulted anyone before your antagonistic comments twisted what was said.

 

Waymarkers often play a form of Bingo using the grid, however it's also a casual term to denote that someone has said something right. Most individuals who have American English as a first language are familiar with this usage. I had used it with an additional unspoken implication that you ought to apply what you've said to yourself. Having to teach you the application of the word "bingo" does help explain why you repeatedly fail to understand simple concepts. I'll take this under consideration for all of your posts, especially with the seemingly random antagonistic and insulting personal attacks against people, and message others to consider this shortcoming before engaging you in an empty discussion.

[+wavector]

Anything different is called "cheating".

 

I whole-heartedly agree with you.

 

empty discussion.

 

Bingo!

 

Under the O = something.

[+wavector]

I've never deleted a find from one of my caches...

 

Your being agreeable today!

 

I cannot comprehend this statement but maybe I am missing something.

 

On caches that I have placed in time restricted areas I make it very clear that I will delete any log that violates the times. I do this because those finding the cache are detracting from the fun that others might take in this activity in a very real way. By undermining the desires of park/land managers and land owners who have placed the restrictions they are impacting all geocachers negatively.

I delete the log and then I politely explain that the park manager has placed restrictions on the allowable times for all activities. I would not invite a geocacher who violated time restrictions to relog but it has never happened so I suppose I might be tested.

 

When a geocacher leaves the tracking code of a travel bug in the log of a geocache I own I delete it immediately, I don't wait. I send a cut and paste email and politely invite them to relog the cache using the public tracking number of the travel bug they placed in my cache, I even go look up the public code for them! I explain that the travel bug owner depends upon the cache owner to protect the number engraved on the tag of the Travel Bug.

 

When a geocacher leaves a Found log on one of my caches and they have not found the cache (ie stage of a multicache, in the right area) I delete the log. I invite them to return and find the cache and I explain that the Found log they left is negatively impacting the next searcher by indicating the cache is there when it might not be there. I thank them for visiting my cache.

 

When a geocacher comes and visits one of my geocaches and leaves a log that said "Found your cache but had no pencil to sign the log" I don't care. I don't expect such logs from cachers who have high find counts but I wouldn't care regardless. It is their record. You can't make anyone take geocaching seriously, it is a game. If people don't care about "find counts" and "numbers" you cannot make them. Any attempt to impress upon them the gravity and seriousness of geocaching is likely to fail.

All you can do is drive them away from this activity.

 

When a geocacher visits my cache a third or fourth time to place a travel bug they are helping along and they use the Found log to record that visit they are geocaching correctly. People have a hard time wrapping their head around this very simple concept. If a visitor to a cache of mine was helping and having fun doing something they enjoyed and they received an email from anyone that caused them to quit I would be an appalled cache owner.

 

When I log an Archived cache I am doing that because I found the cache and it is my record. I expect the owner understands that and I cannot help what they think but I do know that if they recognize that a Find is worth exactly nothing then they will never really care about my logs and they won't be accusing anyone of "cheating". An archived cache being found could cause issues. In the case of the archived cache that I logged my log wasn't newer than the archive, it pre-dated it. To the cache owner it probably just looked like I was jumping on the chance to log a cache in British Columbia. If I found a cache and then found out it had been archived I really could see a cache owner deleting my log so others wouldn't search for the archived cache, I wouldn't care but I would expect that the cache owner would allow a log that pre-dated his archiving in case I cared.

 

I am not sure what I would have done if the cache owner deleted my log and called me a "cheater" because he couldn't find the log book. The whole issue is avoidable by understanding that finding a geocache is equal to exactly nothing, it certainly isn't some simple set of steps that involves paper and containers, situations abound and it is a potential minefield. This thread is an example of that minefield and I am glad the OP was a veteran of this type of conversation. If that was an introdcution to the guidelines then I would hate to see the invitation to come on out and have some fun.

 

And geocaching is a lot of fun!

[Clan Riffster]

Your being agreeable today!

I stole some of Vinny's meds. They work really well...

 

I cannot comprehend this statement but maybe I am missing something.

I probably should have included a qualifier or three. It's true that I have never deleted a find. It's true that I've seen some rather, uh, unique logs on my caches that, were the situation reversed, I would not have logged as a find. However, to date, (knock on forehead), no one has put me in a predicament such as you've described. If, (when), that happens, I may have to edit my claim and hit the "Delete" button. Till then, I will live cache & let live cache.

 

Why? Because, as you pointed out, geocaching is a lot of fun.

[+ventura_kids]

We try to follow the rules/guidelines and keep it simple.

If you find a cache and sign the logsheet....then you get a smiley.

If you don't find a cache....log a sad face.

Anything different is called "cheating".

 

Now this is funny..... (I'm quoting myself).

 

Perhaps I should clarify by adding some additional facts (as if this could simplify anything)...

I've never learned anything from the forums.

I haven't deleted any logs on my caches.

I've never called anyone "cheater" (my title as the number one non-cheating full-time working geocacher only speaks of me... if you have more finds than me, and feel it is pointed towards you....shame, shame)

but I digress...

 

Perhaps I should have written it like this:

We try to follow the rules/guidelines and keep it simple.

If WE find a cache and sign the logsheet....then WE get a smiley.

If WE don't find a cache....WE log a sad face.

Anything different WE would call US "cheating".

 

feel better?

 

Here.....let me give an example (this will certainly help clarify )

 

WE are searching for a cache under the only lampost in the area.

The name of the cache is Under a Lampost (just a made up name for example purposes)

WE call the owner, and he confirms the cache was under the lampost.

SO....WE log a smiley face.

In our log WE say "confirmed with owner that the cache is missing".

 

note: Be careful you don't attack me in your answer unless you make it generic (you could get a time out )

[+va griz]

You will find my caches when I allow you to find them

 

Just out of honest curiosity: Are you saying you have to give the cacher permission before they look for your cache or saying that a cache owner has the ability to delete any log for any reason?

 

If the later, I think you will find that everybody here already agrees with that statement, no matter if they think it is right or wrong. But at least to me, your statement comes across the other way. Darn the written word and its difficulty in discerning the finer points of meaning!

[+sbell111]

We try to follow the rules/guidelines and keep it simple.

If you find a cache and sign the logsheet....then you get a smiley.

If you don't find a cache....log a sad face.

Anything different is called "cheating".

 

Now this is funny..... (I'm quoting myself).

 

Perhaps I should clarify by adding some additional facts (as if this could simplify anything)...

I've never learned anything from the forums.

I haven't deleted any logs on my caches.

I've never called anyone "cheater" (my title as the number one non-cheating full-time working geocacher only speaks of me... if you have more finds than me, and feel it is pointed towards you....shame, shame)

but I digress...

 

Perhaps I should have written it like this:

We try to follow the rules/guidelines and keep it simple.

If WE find a cache and sign the logsheet....then WE get a smiley.

If WE don't find a cache....WE log a sad face.

Anything different WE would call US "cheating".

 

feel better?

 

Here.....let me give an example (this will certainly help clarify )

 

WE are searching for a cache under the only lampost in the area.

The name of the cache is Under a Lampost (just a made up name for example purposes)

WE call the owner, and he confirms the cache was under the lampost.

SO....WE log a smiley face.

In our log WE say "confirmed with owner that the cache is missing".

 

note: Be careful you don't attack me in your answer unless you make it generic (you could get a time out )

Answer? To what? Your only question was 'Feel better?'.

Edited January 6, 2009 by sbell111

[+wavector]

Anything different is called "cheating". ...

...Be careful you don't attack me in your answer

 

The standard that people adopt is based upon their own approach to geocaching.

Your standards are not the standards of every member of the community.

Your suggesting that others who do not adhere to your practices are doing something called "cheating".

Problems arise when I publicy accuse you of "cheating" or I publicly deem your practices "cheating".

You can describe your approach to the hunt without branding other practices as "cheating".

According to the standards of someone you are clearly a cheater, as am I, all of us are.

If you have ever logged a Locationless cache there are people who think you are a cheater.

If you have ever gone on a group cache hunt and haven't independently found each cache yourself there are people who think you are a cheater.

If you have ever logged one of your own events with an Attended log there are people who think you are a cheater.

If you have ever found a moving cache twice and logged it as the owner instructed there are people who think you are a cheater.

If you have ever logged more than one target on a multi-target cache there are people who think you are a cheater.

If you have ever attended a monthly event that uses a recycled cache page, there are people who think you are a cheater.

If you have ever logged a Virtual cache there are people who think you are a cheater.

If you have ever logged an event cache multiple times for finding temporary event caches there are people who think you are a cheater.

I could go on but I hope you get the idea, everyone is a cheater to someone.

I don't need your analysis of any of these situations.

 

Here is an actual log I copied from a cache - "Found it...what fun. No pencil there though, so did not write in log book.Thank you for this cache."

 

You say "cheating"

I say "having fun".

 

My standard is a lot simpler than yours.

 

Do not try and detract from the fun that others take in this activity. (ie. Don't throw the word "cheating" out when describing practices that others find acceptable.)

Do not negatively impact the next person seeking the cache.

Respect the wishes of the cache owner.

 

Those are pretty simple guidelines.

When you publicly call the practices that others find acceptable "cheating" you are endorsing the idea that it is acceptable to call others "cheaters". It isn't. This is my opinion. You can defend your right to call practices that others deem acceptable "cheating" if you wish but I still feel that it reflects very poorly on you.

 

I would not say this to just anyone either if that makes you feel any better. New readers need to know that your enjoyment of numbers and your unabashed joy in finding "lots" of caches is a hallmark of the fun you find in this activity. I can see your happiness and I am happy for you. If you cannot see the happiness in that log that I posted then you are not looking.

[+wavector]

You will find my caches when I allow you to find them

 

Just out of honest curiosity: Are you saying you have to give the cacher permission before they look for your cache or saying that a cache owner has the ability to delete any log for any reason?

 

If the later, I think you will find that everybody here already agrees with that statement, no matter if they think it is right or wrong. But at least to me, your statement comes across the other way. Darn the written word and its difficulty in discerning the finer points of meaning!

 

I have been changed by the opinions I have seen expressed here, I have learned.

Geocaching continues to grow and I hope it isn't ever going to be the "competitive shuttle run" that some people desire. Geoaching is not a grail for many, it is a simple way to get out and enjoy the fresh air. It is a chance to go and walk around with your family, friends or even just your dog. It is an adventure you choose to have.

 

So what I am really saying is not that you need to write ahead to get permission or that I can delete the logs on my caches, I am saying that I see every log on my caches and I know they are there, I accept them.

If a log doesn't meet someone's standards that is fine because it is my cache.

 

Knowing that there are many many types of seekers and allowing that they can all have fun is the role that I choose as a cache owner. I would never delete the log of any geocacher unless I could explain exactly why I was doing that and who was affected by their action, but I can assure you, the logs are seen and I do allow each and every one of them.

 

I cannot convince anyone that geocaching is serious.

I do not want the "cheating" label publicly applied to visitors to my geocaches when they do not have pencils to sign the log.

My standards are really simple.

When you find my caches I hope you have fun.

 

Finding a geocache is equal to exactly nothing, but it is fun.