Jump to content

Is there cheating in geocaching ?


Recommended Posts

I placed a cache recently that was too close to the final of a puzzle I probably would never solve on my own. So, I have approximate coordinates! I am eventually going to go out and look for that cache. And when I find it, I am going to log it. Because I found it!

 

I have "Found" ten caches this way, place a cache in an area, list it for publication and if it fails because a "Puzzle cache" is near by go look for it.

Link to comment

I have my doubts if this geocacher actually visited ALL his posted finds.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=528c58fc-2986-441a-beb9-776856863cec

 

pyxis.praha

 

I recently noticed he posted finds prior to the original published date.

 

On 1/1/2010

http://coord.info/GCZCMW

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCZCHA

http://coord.info/GC218GA

 

Not sure what you are getting at. The first two were published before the user's log date. GCZCMW published on 2006-11-15 and GCACHA published on 2006-11-15

 

The last one was off by two weeks, but appears to have been transferred in some way from one user account to another, before the questioned log date. They're all earthcaches. I can't see the CO letting the log remain without proper submission of information.

 

On a side note, have a look at the guy's gallery -- he's not smiling in any of the pictures of himself. Hard to tell if he's having fun or not.

Link to comment

I have my doubts if this geocacher actually visited ALL his posted finds.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=528c58fc-2986-441a-beb9-776856863cec

 

pyxis.praha

 

I recently noticed he posted finds prior to the original published date.

 

On 1/1/2010

http://coord.info/GCZCMW

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCZCHA

http://coord.info/GC218GA

 

Not sure what you are getting at. The first two were published before the user's log date. GCZCMW published on 2006-11-15 and GCACHA published on 2006-11-15

 

The last one was off by two weeks, but appears to have been transferred in some way from one user account to another, before the questioned log date. They're all earthcaches. I can't see the CO letting the log remain without proper submission of information.

 

On a side note, have a look at the guy's gallery -- he's not smiling in any of the pictures of himself. Hard to tell if he's having fun or not.

 

If you read the text in the log by pyxis.praha for GC218GA, it doesn't seem to have any relation to the EarthCache in question.

Link to comment

I have my doubts if this geocacher actually visited ALL his posted finds.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=528c58fc-2986-441a-beb9-776856863cec

 

pyxis.praha

 

I recently noticed he posted finds prior to the original published date.

 

On 1/1/2010

http://coord.info/GCZCMW

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCZCHA

http://coord.info/GC218GA

 

Not sure what you are getting at. The first two were published before the user's log date. GCZCMW published on 2006-11-15 and GCACHA published on 2006-11-15

 

The last one was off by two weeks, but appears to have been transferred in some way from one user account to another, before the questioned log date. They're all earthcaches. I can't see the CO letting the log remain without proper submission of information.

 

On a side note, have a look at the guy's gallery -- he's not smiling in any of the pictures of himself. Hard to tell if he's having fun or not.

 

If you read the text in the log by pyxis.praha for GC218GA, it doesn't seem to have any relation to the EarthCache in question.

 

It does not. And there doesn't seem to be any nearby caches for which this one could be mistaken. There is no picture in the log as required by the listing. The CO hasn't logged in since October 2011. Interestingly, there is a log on 2010-02-08 indicating that this cache was transferred to the CO from geoawareHQ, like the others. Weird.

Edited by frinklabs
Link to comment

Illegal access to a cache, has nothing to do with the right to log a find,

if you personally sign the log book, you found it, PERIOD

it dont matter at all how many laws you broke.

Bad acting will sooner or later give the person who do it

a fine and a bad reputation,

it is also not good for geocaching in general,

we need as a world wide group of people who share a fun game,

to have a good reputation, so we can continue to play, and not ignore anyone.

Both hiders and seekers should think a little bit about this.

Link to comment

I think the thread starter means cheating,

like GAME cheating, logging a cache as found, in case some one dot not personally sign a log book

or a virtual, not posting pictures or answering the questions and all this,

it is very easy to find caches where such bad and wrong behavior could very easyly go on undetected,

dead or inactive CO's dont delete logs, and they newer complain and they dont go out and check

a log book..

 

can we do something about this ?

most likely not ?

can me make alot of noise ? ask Groundspeak to close and lock caches ?

should we care ?

who are they cheating ?

are we all playing the came game with each other ?

or are we all playing OWN game, just for our self ?

Link to comment

Is there ?

 

Yep, its called going into park areas to get the FTF when the park is closed.

 

Other than that, none that I know of around here.

 

Does this mean that the other thread, where the quoted team talked about going out in the rain for all those FTF's at 4:00 AM were on a trail that is closed dusk to dawn? Somehow, I don't remember them mentioning anything about that point. :laughing:

 

Yeah, going into parks outside posted hours for an FTF always causes drama. Way back in 2005 in my area, we had a couple of then n00b FTF fanatics that would run out at any and all hours, and after all sorts of nasty note postings on cache pages, our much smaller at the time local Geocaching community came to a "gentlemen's agreement", and everyone complied. Of course one of those cachers is long gone, and the other rarely goes out for FTF's anymore, so the new generation of hounds seems to reverting back to that behavior. A few isolated incidents though, I don't remember seeing any huge drama last few years.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

I'm sorry. I know how badly English.

Program through which I have already made ​​my logoval several different errors. It was not my intention deception. I'm trying to errors.

Forgive my mistake

 

For my part, you are forgiven!

So easy to make mistakes with new software, eh?

I see you have deleted your weird log, so all is well.

 

Happy Geocaching!

 

And, smile for the camera sometimes. ^_^

Link to comment

I'm sorry. I know how badly English.

Program through which I have already made ​​my logoval several different errors. It was not my intention deception. I'm trying to errors.

Forgive my mistake

For my part, you are forgiven!

So easy to make mistakes with new software, eh?

I see you have deleted your weird log, so all is well.

Next up...consider fixing most of your webcam "finds." Groundspeak feels it's cheating to claim a smiley if you simply post a picture taken with your own camera (or if you fail to post a picture at all).

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Groundspeak feels it's cheating to claim a smiley if you simply post a picture taken with your own camera (or if you fail to post a picture at all).

I don't think I've ever heard anyone from Groundspeak call this cheating. At the most they may refer to the guidelines for logging a webcam to pont out where it says "A webcam cache can only be logged with a photograph taken from the webcam associated with the cache page." Perhaps there are cases where a webcam cache owner has invited logs from your own camera if you can't access the webcam and Groundspeak has archived the cache due to the owner shirking maintenance duties or because the webcam is no longer available.

 

While there are guidelines for when to log finds for all types of caches, the cache owner is generally given quite a bit of leeway in accepting found logs. IMO, the guidelines exist not to prevent some puritanical definition of cheating, but to prevent cache owners from deleting legitimate finds.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Groundspeak feels it's cheating to claim a smiley if you simply post a picture taken with your own camera (or if you fail to post a picture at all).

I don't think I've ever heard anyone from Groundspeak call this cheating. At the most they may refer to the guidelines for logging a webcam to pont out where it says "A webcam cache can only be logged with a photograph taken from the webcam associated with the cache page."

You say "violate guidelines," and I say "cheat." Meanwhile, Merriam-Webster says to "cheat" is "to violate rules dishonestly."

 

Perhaps there are cases where a webcam cache owner has invited logs from your own camera if you can't access the webcam and Groundspeak has archived the cache due to the owner shirking maintenance duties or because the webcam is no longer available.

 

While there are guidelines for when to log finds for all types of caches, the cache owner is generally given quite a bit of leeway in accepting found logs. IMO, the guidelines exist not to prevent some puritanical definition of cheating, but to prevent cache owners from deleting legitimate finds.

IMO, the guidelines exist not only to prevent cache owners from deleting legitimate finds but also to allow encourage cache owners to delete bogus finds.

 

According to the Groundspeak guidelines:

 

As the owner of your cache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache listing. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate.

Which explains why Groundspeak has, in fact, archived caches due to their owners shirking maintenance duties.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Groundspeak feels it's cheating to claim a smiley if you simply post a picture taken with your own camera (or if you fail to post a picture at all).

I don't think I've ever heard anyone from Groundspeak call this cheating. At the most they may refer to the guidelines for logging a webcam to pont out where it says "A webcam cache can only be logged with a photograph taken from the webcam associated with the cache page."

You say "violate guidelines," and I say "cheat." Meanwhile, Merriam-Webster says to "cheat" is "to violate rules dishonestly."

I didn't say violate guidelines. I think the evidence is pretty clear that if a cache owner allows an occasional find because some had technical difficulties accessing a webcam that Groundspeak won't get involved. If someone posts a log on webcam and states they took a picture with their cell phone because they had trouble accessing the webcam, I can't see where they did anything dishonestly. All I see is where a cache owner could delete their log, if they so choose, because the logging guideline was not met.

 

If you can show me where a Groundspeak lackey has posted that this is cheating, I'd like to see it.

Link to comment

If you can show me where a Groundspeak lackey has posted that this is cheating, I'd like to see it.

If I can show you where Groundspeak says it violates the guidelines unless a webcam cache is "logged with a photograph taken from the webcam associated with the cache page," then would that suffice?

 

I'm not saying that Groundspeak archives every cache where bogus logs are found. I'm just saying Groundspeak considers it to be a guidelines violation (i.e. cheating) if a geocacher uses their own camera (or entirely omits a photograph) to claim a smiley on a webcam cache.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Webcam caches obviously require webcam photos for a valid log.

Anything else certainly violates the spirit of the webcam! :angry:

 

But, I thought this thread was about 'photo-logging' what was supposed to be a Traditional cache that is apparently missing and has an inattentive owner with a defective maintenance plan for their vacation cache.

I'll have to agree that intent of a webcam is to go the location and capture an image on the webcam to show you were there. Just as the intent for a physical cache is to find the cache and if at all possible to sign the log. What I object to is calling people who log finds otherwise cheaters or imply that they are deliberately dishonest.

 

The fact is that for some people geocaching is not about signing logs or capturing pictures. For them the geocache is about going out and discovering new places. Ideally, the DNF log would "count" just same as a find for these people. They can say "I discovered a place geocaching, and although I didn't find the cache container or wasn't able to capture a webcam photo, I had fun and felt I accomplished something". Many cache owners have the same attitude. It's not important to them whether someone found their cache, only whether or not they got to discover a new place. They don't see a Found log as being bogus just because the "guideline" was not followed to the letter. A bogus log would be one where the person didn't even go to the location.

 

Unfortunately, IMO, Groundspeak has had to move further in the direction of defining in the guidelines what they think a find is. It use to be the case that Groundspeak rarely got involved in disputes over logging. However some cache owners began to create all sorts of additional requirements and deleted logs that the finders felt were legitimate. And on the other hand there were cache owners who were allowing finds that offended TPTB enough that they felet they had to step in (e.g. armchair logging of virtuals, or turning a missing physical cache into a virtual instead of maintaining it). The logging guidelines set limits on both what logs cache owners can delete and on what logs they can allow. From the evidence I see, however, it seems that Groundspeak does not label it as cheating when a cacher who made an honest attempt claims something as found because they feel the reason they couldn't find the cache or take the photo was out of their control, and they don't take sanctions against cache owners who let these logs stand.

Link to comment

Just as the intent for a physical cache is to find the cache and if at all possible to sign the log. What I object to is calling people who log finds otherwise cheaters or imply that they are deliberately dishonest.

 

I think "cheaters" is harsh, also. However, the "if at all possible" is something you made-up, right?

 

From the last newsletter:

1) Bring a Pen - There are few rules in the game. But one rule is that you need to sign the logbook.
Link to comment

Just as the intent for a physical cache is to find the cache and if at all possible to sign the log. What I object to is calling people who log finds otherwise cheaters or imply that they are deliberately dishonest.

 

I think "cheaters" is harsh, also. However, the "if at all possible" is something you made-up, right?

 

From the last newsletter:

1) Bring a Pen - There are few rules in the game. But one rule is that you need to sign the logbook.

 

If you knowingly log a find on a cache you know you never found then you cheated, plain and simple and that happens a lot, so yes, there is a lot of cheating in Geocaching.

Link to comment

From the last newsletter:

1) Bring a Pen - There are few rules in the game. But one rule is that you need to sign the logbook.

If Groundspeak actually says this in the newsletter and the intent is that if you forgot a pen and you didn't sign the log book you can't log your find online, then the puritans have won. :mad:

 

Thank you Groundspeak for sucking the last bit of belief that I had that this is just a game and the the online logs are there to share your experiences with other. I have just logged my last online log. I will continue to find geocaches. I will record what I found privately in my personal database but no cache owner or other geocacher will ever know if I found the cache or even if I searched and DNF'd it.

 

The "rule" was fine when it was a "rule" meaning that as a general rule you should sign the log. But when they are telling cache owners to delete online finds because someone forgot a pen, or they lost their pen, or it wouldn't write in the wet log, or whatever else then, IMO, they have gone too far. This is supposed to be fun, and I've had a few times when I had pen problems or couldn't sign the log and I'm sure as not am going to go puritan and decide not to count the find or to delete the of someone who logs one of my cache where the same thing happens. I hope that a Groundspeak lackey can clarify what was meant in the last newsletter. AND YES MY KNICKERS ARE IN A TWIST RIGHT NOW.

Link to comment

From the last newsletter:

1) Bring a Pen - There are few rules in the game. But one rule is that you need to sign the logbook.

If Groundspeak actually says this in the newsletter and the intent is that if you forgot a pen and you didn't sign the log book you can't log your find online, then the puritans have won. :mad:

 

Thank you Groundspeak for sucking the last bit of belief that I had that this is just a game and the the online logs are there to share your experiences with other. I have just logged my last online log. I will continue to find geocaches. I will record what I found privately in my personal database but no cache owner or other geocacher will ever know if I found the cache or even if I searched and DNF'd it.

 

The "rule" was fine when it was a "rule" meaning that as a general rule you should sign the log. But when they are telling cache owners to delete online finds because someone forgot a pen, or they lost their pen, or it wouldn't write in the wet log, or whatever else then, IMO, they have gone too far. This is supposed to be fun, and I've had a few times when I had pen problems or couldn't sign the log and I'm sure as not am going to go puritan and decide not to count the find or to delete the of someone who logs one of my cache where the same thing happens. I hope that a Groundspeak lackey can clarify what was meant in the last newsletter. AND YES MY KNICKERS ARE IN A TWIST RIGHT NOW.

 

I've forgotten a pen several times but always found a way to leave my mark on the log, how dare them have 1 rule they expect you to follow.

Link to comment

If you knowingly log a find on a cache you know you never found then you cheated, plain and simple and that happens a lot, so yes, there is a lot of cheating in Geocaching.

I doubt this happens a lot.

 

There are certainly people who are immature and post find logs on things they never searched for. I put them in the same class and pretending to be Manti Te'os girlfriend online and then pretending to die of cancer. Online anonymity is a magnet for dishonesty.

 

There are people who didn't sign a log. Perhaps they couldn't sign for some good reason or prehaps they are aware they did not find the cache, but for some other reason believe that a Found log online is appropriate. Certainly, some of the reasons were silly and far-fetch, but seldom were these people being dishonest, actually providing the information in the online log as to what actually happened. Often they would begin with "Logging this found with permission of the cache owner".

 

I have a great deal of difficulty with the perception of these people as cheaters. After all, I don't view the find count as a score. So if someone has an unusual definition of Found It it wasn't something to get my knickers in a twist over. It used to be that I could point to what Jeremy or another Groundspeak principal has posted to back up this view.

 

Lately, Groundspeak has been having lackeys update guidelines and sending out newsletters; perhaps with the same "rules" as there has always (or nearly always) been, but which now emphasize writing in the log is a way that fortifies a puritan view of the online Found log.

 

I understand the need to make a simple description of what geocaching is. Normally one looks for a cache, finds the cache, writes in the log book, perhaps makes a trade or moves a trackable, and finally logs about it online. It is also reasonable to state when using a Found It log you should have found the cache, as others use this to decide what caches to look for. Some have complained that a false Found It log has caused them to waste gas or time, by searching where they might not have otherwise. While I'm not convinced that this is that great of a problem, I can see Groundspeak wanting to reduce the number of found logs that are made for caches that might in fact be missing.

 

What I don't see a need for is to call people cheaters who actually found the cache, but were unable to sign the log for a good reason. Cache owners should be allowed to decided if a finder who did not sign has a good reason. A unyielding puritanical rule is not appropriate for a fun, light game with no real score. IMO, it is irresponsible to post there is a rule that you need to sign the log book. A better description would be:

 

1) Bring a Pen - If you have not signed the physical log, the cache owner may delete your online Found It logs if they feel your log is bogus.

Link to comment

If you knowingly log a find on a cache you know you never found then you cheated, plain and simple and that happens a lot, so yes, there is a lot of cheating in Geocaching.

I doubt this happens a lot.

 

There are certainly people who are immature and post find logs on things they never searched for. I put them in the same class and pretending to be Manti Te'os girlfriend online and then pretending to die of cancer. Online anonymity is a magnet for dishonesty.

 

There are people who didn't sign a log. Perhaps they couldn't sign for some good reason or prehaps they are aware they did not find the cache, but for some other reason believe that a Found log online is appropriate. Certainly, some of the reasons were silly and far-fetch, but seldom were these people being dishonest, actually providing the information in the online log as to what actually happened. Often they would begin with "Logging this found with permission of the cache owner".

 

I have a great deal of difficulty with the perception of these people as cheaters. After all, I don't view the find count as a score. So if someone has an unusual definition of Found It it wasn't something to get my knickers in a twist over. It used to be that I could point to what Jeremy or another Groundspeak principal has posted to back up this view.

 

Lately, Groundspeak has been having lackeys update guidelines and sending out newsletters; perhaps with the same "rules" as there has always (or nearly always) been, but which now emphasize writing in the log is a way that fortifies a puritan view of the online Found log.

 

I understand the need to make a simple description of what geocaching is. Normally one looks for a cache, finds the cache, writes in the log book, perhaps makes a trade or moves a trackable, and finally logs about it online. It is also reasonable to state when using a Found It log you should have found the cache, as others use this to decide what caches to look for. Some have complained that a false Found It log has caused them to waste gas or time, by searching where they might not have otherwise. While I'm not convinced that this is that great of a problem, I can see Groundspeak wanting to reduce the number of found logs that are made for caches that might in fact be missing.

 

What I don't see a need for is to call people cheaters who actually found the cache, but were unable to sign the log for a good reason. Cache owners should be allowed to decided if a finder who did not sign has a good reason. A unyielding puritanical rule is not appropriate for a fun, light game with no real score. IMO, it is irresponsible to post there is a rule that you need to sign the log book. A better description would be:

 

1) Bring a Pen - If you have not signed the physical log, the cache owner may delete your online Found It logs if they feel your log is bogus.

 

Based on your rule I could create a cache in Canada and let someone from Australia log it as a find from their sofa down under and no one could do anything about it. I guarantee this would be abused.

 

By this 1 simple rule both the Geocaching community and GS have some control to prevent abuse based on a collective agreement of what is acceptable.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment
A better description would be:

 

1) Bring a Pen - If you have not signed the physical log, the cache owner may delete your online Found It logs if they feel your log is bogus.

I really thought by now someone (a jailhouse lawyer maybe) would post the difference between must and need, thinking that need still left it open to the CO. :laughing:

 

Must means that you are required to do it.

Need means it must be done because something depends on it being done.

- Many of the problems in this thread and others could have been solved by simply signing the log.

And, "1) Bring a Pen - There are few rules in the game. But one rule is that you need to sign the logbook" fits.

Link to comment

From the last newsletter:

1) Bring a Pen - There are few rules in the game. But one rule is that you need to sign the logbook.

If Groundspeak actually says this in the newsletter and the intent is that if you forgot a pen and you didn't sign the log book you can't log your find online, then the puritans have won. :mad:

 

Thank you Groundspeak for sucking the last bit of belief that I had that this is just a game and the the online logs are there to share your experiences with other. I have just logged my last online log. I will continue to find geocaches. I will record what I found privately in my personal database but no cache owner or other geocacher will ever know if I found the cache or even if I searched and DNF'd it.

 

The "rule" was fine when it was a "rule" meaning that as a general rule you should sign the log. But when they are telling cache owners to delete online finds because someone forgot a pen, or they lost their pen, or it wouldn't write in the wet log, or whatever else then, IMO, they have gone too far. This is supposed to be fun, and I've had a few times when I had pen problems or couldn't sign the log and I'm sure as not am going to go puritan and decide not to count the find or to delete the of someone who logs one of my cache where the same thing happens. I hope that a Groundspeak lackey can clarify what was meant in the last newsletter. AND YES MY KNICKERS ARE IN A TWIST RIGHT NOW.

 

If you're not having fun, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Link to comment

It’s not always possible to sign a log.

 

In my part of the country one can make physical contact with the container and not be able to sign it. I have seen a few caches frozen in place and any attempt to dislodge it would damage it. In this case I would think the CO would not mind the finder logging the find ,rather than risk damaging the container.

Link to comment

A1: - I forgot a pen so I didn't sign the logbook but I marked this cache as found.

A2: - My pen wasn't working but...

A3: - The logbook was full but...

A4: - It was wet...

A5: - I failed to open the rusty lid...

A6: - I failed to get the container out of its hiding place because it was frozen...

A7: - ...or because someone was approaching...

A8: - I found a pile of burned plastic that once was a container...

A9: - I found the hiding place, the box has gone, so I took a photo of myself...

A10: - It was too dark / It was raining heavily / My kids were crying ...

... etc.

 

Meeting with such logs/requests (as a CO) I feel that these people kindly offer me to choose between a) becoming a bastard who doesn't believe good people, deletes logs and is naturally against real fun of the game, or B) supporting the idea that caches may be logged as found without fulfilling one of the main conditions of the game - to sign logbooks and that Groundspeak policy may be omitted "in certain conditions". It is not between a CO and a cache hunter (as some people used to say) because it's usually public.

 

The less problematic I believe would be for a cache hunter not to mark the cache as found. After all, it could be your 1,349 geocache. Will it really be so painful to have "only" 1,348 finds?

Edited by -CJ-
Link to comment

From the last newsletter:

1) Bring a Pen - There are few rules in the game. But one rule is that you need to sign the logbook.

If Groundspeak actually says this in the newsletter and the intent is that if you forgot a pen and you didn't sign the log book you can't log your find online, then the puritans have won.

 

a6892db6-ca57-40c6-a6d1-845b20982a58.jpg

Link to comment

It’s not always possible to sign a log.

 

In my part of the country one can make physical contact with the container and not be able to sign it. I have seen a few caches frozen in place and any attempt to dislodge it would damage it. In this case I would think the CO would not mind the finder logging the find ,rather than risk damaging the container.

 

Or you could come back when the log is accessible. I've done that many times.

Link to comment

From the last newsletter:

1) Bring a Pen - There are few rules in the game. But one rule is that you need to sign the logbook.

If Groundspeak actually says this in the newsletter and the intent is that if you forgot a pen and you didn't sign the log book you can't log your find online, then the puritans have won. :mad:

 

Thank you Groundspeak for sucking the last bit of belief that I had that this is just a game and the the online logs are there to share your experiences with other. I have just logged my last online log. I will continue to find geocaches. I will record what I found privately in my personal database but no cache owner or other geocacher will ever know if I found the cache or even if I searched and DNF'd it.

 

The "rule" was fine when it was a "rule" meaning that as a general rule you should sign the log. But when they are telling cache owners to delete online finds because someone forgot a pen, or they lost their pen, or it wouldn't write in the wet log, or whatever else then, IMO, they have gone too far. This is supposed to be fun, and I've had a few times when I had pen problems or couldn't sign the log and I'm sure as not am going to go puritan and decide not to count the find or to delete the of someone who logs one of my cache where the same thing happens. I hope that a Groundspeak lackey can clarify what was meant in the last newsletter. AND YES MY KNICKERS ARE IN A TWIST RIGHT NOW.

 

First time in a long time I've been happy with Groundspeak. That is the way I have read the guidelines since the beginning. I can't stand all the excuses in life these days. I agree that an owner shouldn't delete a log, because the "finders" shouldn't give the CO cause. If you don't fulfill the rules of the game, just don't claim a find, unfortunately, so many have excuses for not signing and many are constantly attempting to justify them and CO's are left to monitor their logs. You know what they say about excuses, although the same can be said about opinions. I'm just glad the wording came out so that it is harder to twist the meaning, even though I still think it was clear enough before.

Edited by M 5
Link to comment

Based on your rule I could create a cache in Canada and let someone from Australia log it as a find from their sofa down under and no one could do anything about it. I guarantee this would be abused.

 

By this 1 simple rule both the Geocaching community and GS have some control to prevent abuse based on a collective agreement of what is acceptable.

1. In my previous response, I've already indicated that I don't think couch potato logging of caches you've never even looked for is acceptable. I'm simply arguing that cache owners should be reasonable in accepting logs because someone forgot a pen.

 

2. A "rule" that you must sign the log is not necessary to prevent cache owners from allowing couch potato logs or other "abuse" of the logs. Grounspeak has other guidlines that come in to play for such "abuse".

 

3. I personally don't have a problem with a cache owner in Canada allowing someone in Australia to log the cache. I find it rather silly, since I don't see the value in getting a smiley for this. However, I understand that Groundspeak has decided that they do consider couch potato logs and a few other things "abuse" and they have guidelines to allow them to archive caches if owners continue to allow or promote such logs.

 

Physical caches must contain a log. IMO, so long as someone in Canada could go an find your cache and sign the log, I don't care who posts a find on it. However, Groundspeak does agree that certain logs are not legitmate and has made owners delete these logs or archived the cache if the owner was inviting such logs. What Grounspeak has not done is taken any action against cache owners who allow a Find when someone found the cache but was unable to sign the log for some reason. It would be silly for them to try and enforce such rules, and, IMO, even worse to have the puritans posting NA every time they saw a cache owner allow such a find.

... AND YES MY KNICKERS ARE IN A TWIST RIGHT NOW.

 

If you're not having fun, you have no one to blame but yourself.

A good night's sleep let me get my underwear in a more comfortable position.

 

From time to time Groundspeak has updated guidelines, change the wording of "rules" on the website, or posted remarks in their newsletter or blog that I have objected to. While the concept that you are supposed to sign the log when you find a cache is OK, what I object to anything that makes this a requirement for posting an online Found log. Grounspeak may wish to allow cache owner to delete logs when the physical log is not signed, but I would find it silly for them to try and prevent cache owners from allowing an online find where someone was unable to sign the log for a reason the cache owner deems acceptable.

 

The main objection I have is that often the simple wording that Groundspeak chooses to use gives the impression that the puritan definition of "found" is the official stance. This results in threads like this purporting that there is rampant cheating in geocaching, when in fact there is relatively little outright dishonesty.

 

Some people may use to anonymity of the internet to post logs for caches the never looked for. Others may take advantage of cache owners' offers of free smiley points because they mistakenly belive these are worth something. Cache owners may make these offers for a variety of reasons. Some may just like getting logs from all over the world, some may think that these logs will also bring more favorite votes for their cache, and others may be trying to recreate a cache type (virtual, ALR, etc.) that is no longer publishable. Groundspeak has guidelines that allow them to deal with such "abuses".

 

What happens in most cases is that someone finds a cache but forgets a pencil or couldn't sign the log for some other reason. The cache owner fully believes the cache was found and the finder intended to sign the log. By giving instructions that cache owners might interpret as meaning they they cannot accept the log, I believe that Grounspeak is doing a disservice. It would be better, in my opinion, for Grounspeak to encourage owners to be more forgiving and let these logs stand. Geocaching is supposed to be a fun, light game. There is no official score, no trophy, and no leaderboard. The online log is meant to share the experience and record the caches you have found. To me a rule that states you may not log a cache you have found if you forgot a pen or if it stopped working does not promote a fun, light activity.

 

I will grant that by giving cache owners leeway to accept find logs, that some will tell people that it's OK to log a find when they didn't find the cache. If the cache owner is allowing these logs as a way to avoid maintenance, the guideline already allow for the cache to be disabled by a reviewer until it is replaced, and archived (and even locked) if the cache owner does not fix the issue.

 

It may be that some dishonest people use the "I forget my pen" as an attempt to claim a bogus find. In my experience this is rare, and when it happens there is other evidence that the log is bogus (perhaps logs in diverse geographic areas in one day, or forgetting a pen everyday for an extended period).

The less problematic I believe would be for a cache hunter not to mark the cache as found. After all, it could be your 1,349 geocache. Will it really be so painful to have "only" 1,348 finds?

I don't think that the find count has anything to do with it. The puritans keep bring up this point and it just weakens there argument. Why get your knickers in a twist over someone else's defintion of "Found"?

 

When people object to someone posting a find on a cache they didn't find, I have no problem calling the log "bogus". When someone sees a cache in a tree and decides not to climb the tree (or use some other method to retrieve the cache), I have no objection to a cache owner deleting the found log - it is obvious they meant for the cache to be retrieved.

 

But when someone has found the cache and retrieved it but can't find their pen or find a logsheet that is soaking wet, they found the cache. When they log online they choose "Found It" because they found the cache. Many do so without even mentioning that they didn't sign the log, and few cache owners will bother the check logs. The problem begins when someone honestly reports that they didn't sign the physical. Even when they offer other proof that they found the cache, a cache owner using the puritan definition that "find" = "signing log" deletes a log that they felt was legitimate. Groundspeak may support the cache owner who deleted the log in this case. However, I'm fairly sure that Grounspeak, despite what some lackey writes in a newsletter, does not object to cache owners who reasonably allow such logs to stand. My guess it that when someone has found the cache, Grounspeak would prefer that logs aren't deleted. They allow it simply because it is the easiest way to deal with true bogus logs. A cache owner can check the logbook if they think a log is illegitimate and delete logs if the logbook is not signed.

Link to comment

The main objection I have is that often the simple wording that Groundspeak chooses to use gives the impression that the puritan definition of "found" is the official stance. This results in threads like this purporting that there is rampant cheating in geocaching, when in fact in my opinion there is relatively little outright dishonesty.

There, I fixed it for you. I don't know how you could possibly know for a fact that there is relatively little outright dishonesty.

 

By the way, have you ever considered that Groundspeak's (as well as many geocachers') attitude towards bogus finds might be one reason there isn't more outright dishonesty than there currently is (whatever that level might be)? If Groundspeak took the position that any claimed smiley should stand as long as the cache owner accepts it, then I suspect we'd see a lot more bogus finds.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

The main objection I have is that often the simple wording that Groundspeak chooses to use gives the impression that the puritan definition of "found" is the official stance. This results in threads like this purporting that there is rampant cheating in geocaching, when in fact in my opinion there is relatively little outright dishonesty.

There, I fixed it for you. I don't know how you could possibly know for a fact that there is relatively little outright dishonesty.

 

By the way, have you ever considered that Groundspeak's (as well as many geocachers') attitude towards bogus finds is one reason why there isn't more outright dishonesty than there currently is? If Groundspeak took the position that any claimed smiley should stand as long as the cache owner accepts it, then I suspect we'd see a lot more bogus finds.

Glad to hear what you suspect would be the case.

 

Perhaps you are right and the world is full of people who think getting more smileys for things they didn't find is fun.

 

My guess is that for most people going out and finding caches is what's fun. Posting logs online is a chore, somewhat made easier with field notes and GSAK macros. Certainly some people are disappointed if they DNF a cache and are more than willing to accept a cache owners permission to treat that DNF as a find "because the cache wasn't there". I have to say that I find such logs bizzare. But aside from cache owners doing this to avoid doing maintenace, I find that it doesn't bother me that much. If I can still go look for the cache (and sometimes even find it stil in place) then I'm happy and having fun.

 

The fact is that most people at some point in their caching career find a cache but they've misplace their pencil or were unable to sign for some other reason. If they want to be puritans and not lot the find online they're certainly entitled. But forcing the puritan definition on everyone is only going to sour a lot of people on geocaching. At the very least it will encourage people to log TFTC instead of honestly reporting that the log was too wet to write in or they had lost their pencil.

 

A personal experience-

 

I recently went to look for an urban hide. I arrived in the parking lot and opened the glove compartment to get a pen. After all I'm a geocacher so I always have pens in the glove compartment. But none was there. After a bit of cursing, I got out and found the cache. Then I drove 1/2 mile to Walgreen's and bought a package of pens and drove back to the cache I had already found to sign the log.

 

I was really pissed off now. The puritans had even convinced me that siging the log was so important that I did something totally irrational. I drove an extra mile and wasted 15 minutes I could've have spent geocaching to buy some pens and come back and sign the stupid log. I know the cache owner and I'm pretty sure he was not going to doubt that I found the cache or delete my log, even the the cache had several DNFs from people who were fooled by the excellent camouflage. But the constant harping in forum had trained even me.

 

Fortunately most geocachers I know don't spend time in the forums. Most don't read the newsletter. They go out and look for caches and log their finds online. Some even intentionally don't bother signing nano cache logs because of the effort to get the logs out and then to roll them up and put them back. They're avoiding the frustration of dealing with logs that are hard to access and for the most part the owners of these caches are happy that the logs won't fill up as fast. The puritans can cry "cheater" all they want. They can interpret Groundspeak statements as "proof" that they are correct. But the reality is that people log these finds and nobody but a few vocal puritans care.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

The fact is I suspect that most people at some point in their caching career find a cache but they've misplace their pencil or were unable to sign for some other reason. If they want to be puritans and not lot the find online they're certainly entitled. But forcing the puritan definition on everyone is only going to sour a lot of people on geocaching.

There, I fixed it for you.

 

While I sign every physical log that I claim a smiley for, as a cache owner I don't demand that everyone follow my standard. I've let plenty of "I forgot my pen" smileys remain.

 

But I also draw the line and delete what I consider to be bogus "finds." I've deleted smileys for people who admit they never spotted the cache ("it must be missing"), people who found one of my caches while also finding a dozen others scattered across the globe that same day, people who found a Challenge Cache's physical container but didn't complete its requirements, etc.

 

When cache owners adopt an attitude of "anything goes," then geocaching becomes a little less like geocaching...at least to me. Personally, I'm glad Groundspeak (and many cache owners) draw the line at some point. And from what I've seen, Groundspeak (and the vast majority of cache owners) don't force your "Puritan" definition.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

From the last newsletter:

1) Bring a Pen - There are few rules in the game. But one rule is that you need to sign the logbook.

If Groundspeak actually says this in the newsletter and the intent is that if you forgot a pen and you didn't sign the log book you can't log your find online, then the puritans have won. :mad:

 

Thank you Groundspeak for sucking the last bit of belief that I had that this is just a game and the the online logs are there to share your experiences with other. I have just logged my last online log. I will continue to find geocaches. I will record what I found privately in my personal database but no cache owner or other geocacher will ever know if I found the cache or even if I searched and DNF'd it.

 

The "rule" was fine when it was a "rule" meaning that as a general rule you should sign the log. But when they are telling cache owners to delete online finds because someone forgot a pen, or they lost their pen, or it wouldn't write in the wet log, or whatever else then, IMO, they have gone too far. This is supposed to be fun, and I've had a few times when I had pen problems or couldn't sign the log and I'm sure as not am going to go puritan and decide not to count the find or to delete the of someone who logs one of my cache where the same thing happens. I hope that a Groundspeak lackey can clarify what was meant in the last newsletter. AND YES MY KNICKERS ARE IN A TWIST RIGHT NOW.

 

Without this rule geocaching would degrade into a joke.

 

If you log a cache stating you didn't have a pen but found it a CO has the right to delete your log, will he? No because for the most part this is considered OK by the geocaching community.

If you are group caching and someone signs the log for you the CO has the right to delete your log, will he? No because for the most part this is considered OK by the geocaching community.

If you are the driver on a power trail and log the caches the CO has the right to delete your logs, will he? No because for the most part this is considered OK by the geocaching community.

If you pull over beside a gaurdrail and your friend jumps out, finds and signs the log the CO has the right to delete your log, will he? No because for the most part this is considered OK by the geocaching community.

If you drive your frien to the bottom of a mountain and he then hikes to the top while you wait in the car and he signs you in and you log it as found CO has the right to delete your log, will he? Probably yes because for the most part this is not considered OK by the geocaching community.

 

Without this power given to the CO geocaching would be nothing more than armchair loggers making up the bulk of the finds.

 

Thanks to this simple rule we as a community get to decide what is and is not acceptable to claim a find.

 

So if you're bitching that you have to sign every cache or else, relax.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

Without this rule geocaching would degrade into a joke.

{snip}

I don't buy that you need a rule for people to know what a bogus find is or isn't.

 

In the part that I snipped you list all sorts of cases where you would not delete the log of someone who didn't actually sign the physical log. So it seems this really isn't a rule. Instead you give us one example that you would consider bogus - dropping someone off at the bottom of a mountain and having them hike to the top and sign your name.

 

I suspect that cache owners will consider different logs bogus depending on their personal opinions and the nature of the cache. Cache owners are given the responsibility to maintain the quality of log on their cache page and to delete logs that are bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. Nowhere does is say "a log is bogus if the physical log is not signed". Instead cache owners can for the most part decided what is acceptable.

 

In fact the guidelines for logging of physical cache actual are nearly the opposite. Rather than indicating that no signature in the physical log makes the online log bogus, the guidelines indicate that if the physical log is signed that an online found log is not to be considered bogus. The guideline was added at the time that cache owners were told they they could not have additional requirements for logging finds online. In general, if the physical log is signed the online find cannot be deleted. (Of course an inappropriate log that violate the TOUs for the website can and should be deleted).

 

It boggles my mind how this is turned around so often. Since the signature serves as some proof of the cache being found, the lack of a signature is somehow proof of the log being bogus. :huh:

 

I think what bothers some people is when I express my personal opinion that we are just playing a silly game. So I don't get upset when cache owners allow someone to log a find when a friend went out an found the cache and wrote their name in log or when they didn't find anything but cache owner tells them to log a find anyway. If someone wishes to use the Found log in some unintended way it just makes them look silly. The "points" they get this way don't mean anything. I find no need to use the word cheater.

 

There are cases when these logs may cause confusion for others searching for the cache. There may be cases where a cache owner is allowing logs in order to avoid doing maintenance. I'd rather see the indignation of the forum aimed at these cases rather that getting upset because the "score" is wrong.

 

I also understand that Groundspeak wants to present geocaching as an outdoor activity - so Groundspeak has made it clear that couch potato logs and a few other practices are not tolerated. I don't share their view that geocaching suffers great harm from these practices, but I respect their decision here. I would however find it much more difficult to accept if Groundspeak was all of a sudden going to police logs that, as you put it, for the most part are considered OK by the geocaching community.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

It’s not always possible to sign a log.

 

In my part of the country one can make physical contact with the container and not be able to sign it. I have seen a few caches frozen in place and any attempt to dislodge it would damage it. In this case I would think the CO would not mind the finder logging the find ,rather than risk damaging the container.

 

Or you could come back when the log is accessible. I've done that many times.

 

Define "could". When I've seen cache owners give permission to log a found it log on a cache which the physical log was not signed it's often because while the finder "could" come back when the log is accessible, most reasonable cache owners would required someone to travel a long distance to go back to the exact location just so that they could write their name on a piece of paper. In one case I was given permission to log a find on a cache that is over 9000 miles from where I live. I supposed that I *could* go back when the log is accessible only a puritan cache owner would insist someone do that.

Link to comment

It’s not always possible to sign a log.

 

In my part of the country one can make physical contact with the container and not be able to sign it. I have seen a few caches frozen in place and any attempt to dislodge it would damage it. In this case I would think the CO would not mind the finder logging the find ,rather than risk damaging the container.

Or you could come back when the log is accessible. I've done that many times.

Define "could". When I've seen cache owners give permission to log a found it log on a cache which the physical log was not signed it's often because while the finder "could" come back when the log is accessible, most reasonable cache owners would required someone to travel a long distance to go back to the exact location just so that they could write their name on a piece of paper. In one case I was given permission to log a find on a cache that is over 9000 miles from where I live. I supposed that I *could* go back when the log is accessible only a puritan cache owner would insist someone do that.

I think GOF and Bacall were writing from the cache finder's perspective, not the cache owner's. As you noted, many cache owners will allow "Found it" logs when the cache log is not signed but was inaccessible. But every cache finder has the option of not claiming smileys for those caches. They can come back when the log is accessible, or they can simply accept that they aren't going to log a "Found it" for every cache that is out there.

 

Except in cases where the cache's physical log has been signed, the cache owner's view of what is acceptable should be treated by finders as a minimum threshold. For example, just because an owner is okay with you claiming a smiley for a cache that you log from your armchair, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be an acceptable "find" for you.

Link to comment

Common sense has generally worked with this game and will continue to work.

 

I don't think the Groundspeak newsletter is announcing a new rule that requires you to sign with a pen. I have lost my pen on hikes or found that it would not work. That is why leaves are green. And sometimes I use pencils instead.

 

I don't think that the Groundspeak newsletter precludes other ways to indicate you were there apart from a personal signature. The knowledge book points out that many cachers have stamps, stickers, or punchers that leave "signature marks" in the page.

 

I don't think that the Groundspeak newsletter defines a signature. A "next to find" once wrote that he did not see my name but the previous finder had written a letter with a scrawl. The CO was a friend who had often witnessed me scrawling my signature so that was readily clarified. My user name has changed so these days I commonly initial a logbook, but it is still my signature.

 

I don't think that the Groundspeak newsletter defines "you" as a singular entity. If there are 12 of us on a group hike we use a group name. I hope that most cachers in a large group would do the same when finding one of my caches.

 

In short, I don't think it changes or imposes any new burden. If it did, I probably would also be required to verify each signature against an online log to ensure that the rules are being followed. And life is far too short to ever contemplate doing that.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

Except in cases where the cache's physical log has been signed, the cache owner's view of what is acceptable should be treated by finders as a minimum threshold. For example, just because an owner is okay with you claiming a smiley for a cache that you log from your armchair, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be an acceptable "find" for you.

Nobody can be forced to log a find online. Despite the "rule" that Groundspeak has to "log your experience at www.geocaching.com", many people never leave an online log. Just because a cache owner says "Go ahead and log this" doesn't mean you have to.

 

I contend that the "rules of geocaching" are not meant to be "must-do's" but rather instructions for newbies, explaining what experienced geocachers consider the standard things to do when you find a cache. There are of course all sorts of special circumstances (unwritten rules) that you have to deal with: forgetting pens, finding the remains of a destroyed cache, the log book is missing or full, the cache is frozen in ice after a blizzard, muggles are preventing you from retrieving the cache, a swarm of wasps is keeping you from reaching the cache, etc. Groundspeak isn't going to list all the situations and say what you should do. In many cases, there is no consensus even among experienced geocachers. Sometimes there are local community norms and these differ from place to place. Groundspeak has always trusted the cache owner and finder to work out what to do when some special situation occurs. Only when the dispute can't be resolved might they look to the "rules" to resolve it.

Link to comment

...

I contend that the "rules of geocaching" are not meant to be "must-do's" but rather instructions for newbies, explaining what experienced geocachers consider the standard things to do when you find a cache...

 

I reckon you're bang on the money there!

It is a game based on generalizations, with norms for all of us to follow. As users of the geocaching.com listing service for geocaches, we are asked to follow rules and laws that apply to existing rules and laws for hides and finds. Other than that, the gameplay is ours to "police" ourselves. As it is how geocaching.com was founded, the actual geocaches and listings are ours to maintain once they pass muster with a volunteer reviewer.

 

Therein is the joy of individualism with this game. It is a way that the game is very much ours, and not Groundspeak's. I think the problem starts when we all start looking at this "game" as something with unbending rules. But, not unlike "house rules" for a game of cards, dice or beerpong, there are going to be variations on the enforcement of normative rules like "must sign the logbook to claim a find on my cache". Some hold this as a bottom line, others let it go.

 

This is why I laugh when I see "cache police" thrown around--we are all cache police, but some people just don't like being told that their "house rules" aren't accepted by whoever they are at odds with. So, guidelines are in place to help guide the possible insertion of geocaching.com's authority on the matter. We all look to "them" for rulings on issues, but the fact is that we are all supposed to be working together to make the game better. The idea is to follow the guidelines that make the flow of the game happen. The only reason we have these guidelines is because of the feedback given by us, and the work of the founders and early adopters to create some kind of framework for the game of "gps stash hunting".

 

So, I think we all can agree on the theoretical "cheating" definition, but clearly there are those that use wiggle room to get free of the norms and "house rules" we all might have. Others choose not to use the room afforded to us with the generalized guidelines to wiggle free, and instead to stay within a more narrow interpretation of the guidelines. I do think that most of us are pretty likely to adhere to the narrower definition, and not to the willy-nilly, anything goes, push the limits guideline interpretation.

Link to comment

I've always equated geocaching with things like recreational golfing and running where you don't do it in a competition with others. You are competing against yourself. In golf, you try to get a better score on each round you play, but there are plenty of opportunities to give yourself mulligans and that sort of thing. But, you know if you don't score yourself right. You're not hurting the golf course owners, you're just kidding yourself on something you haven't really accomplished. Running is similar in that you compete with yourself to get a faster time on a distance.

 

Geocaching is the same. We don't compete against others, so however someone "cheats" it's only against theirselves.

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...