Logging caches you helped hide

[+Opalblade]

I've come across some logs saying they helped hide the cache owner container and are now logging the find (not as a FTF, just later). Is this common?

 

And would your opinion differ on a very easy to find big old regular cache (anyone would find it) versus a difficult to find tiny cache?

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Hmmmmmm........

Not their cache, they don't claim FTF, I don't see why they shouldn't take the find.

Personally, I wouldn't log it as such.

 

Apparently, I ain't them!

[+cycler48]

I've come across some logs saying they helped hide the cache owner container and are now logging the find (not as a FTF, just later). Is this common?

 

And would your opinion differ on a very easy to find big old regular cache (anyone would find it) versus a difficult to find tiny cache?

 

If I helped someone hide a cache, I wouldn't log it as a find. Of course, I'm not interested in numbers ... just adventures.

[+bittsen]

I've come across some logs saying they helped hide the cache owner container and are now logging the find (not as a FTF, just later). Is this common?

 

And would your opinion differ on a very easy to find big old regular cache (anyone would find it) versus a difficult to find tiny cache?

 

Not something I would do, nor something I would stress over.

 

I can't see why it would matter to anyone.

[+Minimike2]

I have logged 3-4 caches that way. Of course my entire help was standing where the kids told me to get the coordinates for them, not actually hiding the cache.

[+cw1710]

Why not log it? It adds the number and, more importantly, it takes it out of your list of caches that you havent found so it doesnt pop up in your pocket queries or in your closest to home list. You could always add it to the ignore list but why would you? The main thing is dont log it as FTF.

[+trailsailor]

All caching is local! I have observed that there are different ways of viewing this depending on locale. In my area, the unwritten rule goes something like this: If you were present when the cache was hidden you are welcome to log it as a find but only after you have returned to the cache on a separate visit. May not seem like a big deal but if the cache involves a 10-mile hike then you can see that it can be a big deal. And don't even think of trying to claim a FTF, that would earn you instant 'jerk' status around here and you would be roundly pilloried at any and all geocacher gatherings!

[+Isonzo Karst]

Common, yes.

 

Entirely between the CO and the logger. If "present at the hide" logs are on the listing, apparently it's good by the CO.

 

I don't need to have any opinion of it whatever the circumstances.

[+HouseOfDragons]

I've done this but rather than find it myself (which is silly as I'd know exactly where it is), I send the smaller members of the team out on their own with the GPSr. They don't often get the chance to cache alone. Never log it as a FTF though.

Edited December 8, 2009 by HouseOfDragons

[Clan Riffster]

In this, (as in so many aspects of the game not addressed by the guidelines), I reckon the best answer is, "It Depends".

 

For instance, several years ago, I helped my eldest daughter create a multi cache. I was present throughout every aspect of the hide, and didn't feel comfortable logging it as a find, since I didn't have to hunt for it. Now she's in college out of state, and I'm the designated maintainer. I was out in that patch of woods a few months ago, scouting a potential future hide, and I had no clue where the final or any of the stages were. If I have to do maintenance, I'll have to locate all the stages in order to locate the final. At that point, (if it ever comes), I'll likely log it as a find.

 

A similar example occurred just last week. I was kayaking with some caching friends, going after an aquatic hide, when one of our group broke away, paddled out of site and hid a cache. When he caught up to us, he gave us the coords, asking us to beta test it. We did, and signed the log as beta testers. It has since been published, and once the FTF has been grabbed, I'll log it as a find.

 

For me, I guess the key element is the hunt. If I have to use coords to hunt for a cache, I have no qualms about logging it as a find, even if I were present when it was hidden. If I know exactly where it is, there would be no "hunt", and I wouldn't feel comfortable logging it as a find.

[+Castle Mischief]

I helped hide this cache. I haven't logged a "found it" as yet. I've considered sending the kids out with the GPSr to see if they could find it and claiming a find then.

 

I really don't care if somebody else does this. It doesn't affect me one way or another. As for claiming FTF, well that really only matters to the other people that might have wanted to be FTF. Most folks around here won't log as FTF on a cache they helped hide, out of consideration for folks that place value on FTF. I tend to agree that this is just the more polite thing to do.

[+briansnat]

I wouldn't log a find on a cache that I helped hide. I know where it is so it seems silly to do so. Some people feel differently. Goodie for them.

Edited December 8, 2009 by briansnat

[+StarBrand]

I wouldn't log a find on a cache that I helped hide. I know where it is so it seems silly to do so. Some people feel differently. Goodie for them.

ditto

[+wimseyguy]

I wouldn't log a find on a cache I helped place. It's called 'found it'. How can you say you found something if you know where it is already? Those go on my ignore list, and often the watchlist too as I do want to see who is having fun finding them.

[+Road Rabbit]

Where's the challenge in that? If numbers are all you're after, take up golf.

[+DanOCan]

If I actually help hide it (ie: pick a place, develop the puzzle, add swag or the container, etc) then I would not log it as a Find because I consider myself a co-owner in that case.

 

If I just happened to be present when someone else hid one of their caches then I will log it as a Find, but only on a subsequent visit. If it is too much of a hike and I never get back there? Oh well, nothing says I need to find every cache in existence.

 

Those are my personal rules -- other people will have different opinions as to how they want to play.

[sdarken]

Like several aspects of geocaching, there are probably regional norms.

 

Around here it's normal for people to log finds on caches when they have been present when the cache was hidden. In those cases, the normal process is to wait for at least 3 other finders to log a find first so as not to upset anybody that cares about FTF / STF / TTF stats.

 

It's not really a numbers issue. More to do with having a sea of smilies on the geocaching maps and not having unfound caches appearing in lists and queries.

 

When I go caching with a group I log finds on caches that other people physically find before me. I dont see a great deal of difference between that and logging a find on a cache that I see being placed. In neither case do I actually find anything.

[+trailsailor]

When I go caching with a group I log finds on caches that other people physically find before me. I dont see a great deal of difference between that and logging a find on a cache that I see being placed. In neither case do I actually find anything.

 

Good point.

[Mr.Yuck]

Like several aspects of geocaching, there are probably regional norms.

 

Around here it's normal for people to log finds on caches when they have been present when the cache was hidden. In those cases, the normal process is to wait for at least 3 other finders to log a find first so as not to upset anybody that cares about FTF / STF / TTF stats.

 

It's not really a numbers issue. More to do with having a sea of smilies on the geocaching maps and not having unfound caches appearing in lists and queries.

 

 

Apparently then, it's a regional thing that no one in your area knows about the ignore list feature?

 

Just messing wit 'ya. Yes, I agree, if people are going to do this, they probably don't want to tick off the FTF minded people.

[+Minimike2]

I have just over 200 finds. I can walk right up to each and every one of them tomorrow, without fail. I suppose a 'senior moment' will hit me soon enough and I can forget a few. I get the coordinates nailed down for the kids without ever seeing the cache or the hide. I do wait to physically find it until it has been found by others.

[+Team Cotati]

Where's the challenge in that? If numbers are all you're after, take up golf.

 

Further it is ceesey and immature. Some folk do that sort of thing, some don't.

[+Wooden Cyclist]

I have helped my son hide three caches. I won't log a find on any of them because it doesn't seem like the right thing to do. That's just my personal feeling. If someone else feels OK about doing it then there is nothing wrong with it.

[Clan Riffster]

It's called 'found it'. How can you say you found something if you know where it is already?

What if you don't know where it is? Do you pretend you do so you can keep the cache on your ignore list?

[+Team Cotati]

I have helped my son hide three caches. I won't log a find on any of them because it doesn't seem like the right thing to do. That's just my personal feeling. If someone else feels OK about doing it then there is nothing wrong with it.

 

If it is not the right thing to do, then it is wrong. Just because someone thinks that it is ok does not change that.

[+bittsen]

I have helped my son hide three caches. I won't log a find on any of them because it doesn't seem like the right thing to do. That's just my personal feeling. If someone else feels OK about doing it then there is nothing wrong with it.

 

If it is not the right thing to do, then it is wrong. Just because someone thinks that it is ok does not change that.

 

Sorry to disagree but there is no black and white line here. Since there are no laws for geocaching, you can only do something unpopular, not necessarily "wrong" (governmental and property laws aside).

[GOF and Bacall]

I have helped my son hide three caches. I won't log a find on any of them because it doesn't seem like the right thing to do. That's just my personal feeling. If someone else feels OK about doing it then there is nothing wrong with it.

 

If it is not the right thing to do, then it is wrong. Just because someone thinks that it is ok does not change that.

 

It occurs to me that the inverse position is just as true.

[+doc68]

I personally see no problem in logging it as a find at all. My theory is simple, if you were willing to put the work into hiding, setting it up, writing it up, maintaining it, the list goes on. Therefore, I see no problem in logging it. I do personally wait until at least 10 or so people have found the cache, that way the people that are in dire love/need of having a FTF, STF, etc.. all have a chance to log the cache.

[+tozainamboku]

My theory is simple, if you were willing to put the work into hiding, setting it up, writing it up, maintaining it, the list goes on. Therefore, I see no problem in logging it.

This of course has no meaning the puritan. There are five choices when you leave on a cache you do not own: "Found It", "Didn't Find It", "Write Note", "Needs Maintenance", and "Needs Archive". The puritan will say each of these log types tells you exactly when you should use it. Does the cache need maintenance? - then log a Needs Maintenance. Is there a problem that should be brought to the attention of a reviewer that might result in the cache being archived? - then log a Needs Archive. If you searched for the cache and did not find it, then log a Didn't Find It. To the puritan "Found It" means you found the cache and to the puritan finding a cache means looking for it with out having seen exactly where and how it was hidden and signing the log when you find it. This leaves "Write Note" which is a catch-all where you can write how you helped hide the cache.

 

There are two problems.

 

One is the puritan definition of find. Most people don't have a problem when a group of cachers find a cache and once the first person in the group finds the cache the hunt stops and everyone signs the log and logs a "Found It" online. Other than the first person in the group everyone else pretty much signed the log after without finding the cache. And of course there is the Phone-A-Friend, where you have a previous finder telling you over the phone exactly where the cache is hidden. Most puritans realize it would be folly to say that people who used a phone-a-friend shouldn't log a "Found It". What if you visit the cache site with owner doing a maintenance visit. Suppose he lets you look for a while, then gets bored and retrieves the cache himself. Do you not get to log the cache a found because the owner went a got it while you were looking? What if the owner hides the cache while your back is turned and then he says "OK, now find it"? Why in this case have you found the cache but if you saw the owner hide it you haven't? Since no one but the owner and those who were there know the exact circumstances of a beta find, one would be hard pressed to prove that the person who was with owner didn't actually find the cache or at least participated as much in the find as a group find, phone-a-friend, or return visit with the owner or a previous finder.

 

The second problem is that the online "Found It" doesn't just mean you have found the cache. It actually marks the cache in the website so it doesn't show up in your searches. Now, it's true that Premium Members can add the cache to their ignore list, so they don't have to use the "Found It" log this way, but basic members don't have this option and it has become standard usage of the log for many anyhow. They log a "Found It" when they have "completed" this geocache, whatever completed means to them. Most of the time, once some finds a cache they feel this is complete and will mark it that way with a found it log. However some will log a find on a cache they were present hiding because they have completed the cache. They're not going to come back later and look for it, since they already know where it its. They simply sign the physical log and then log "Found It" online, citing the ALR guideline "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

[+sbell111]

Common, yes.

 

Entirely between the CO and the logger. If "present at the hide" logs are on the listing, apparently it's good by the CO.

 

I don't need to have any opinion of it whatever the circumstances.

+1

[+hairball45]

I helped my wife hide a handicapped accessible cache from her power chair. I guess I could take the smiley, but it just seems cheesy to me, so it can just sit on my page as not being found. Maybe some day I'll add it to my ignore list.

hairball

[+Moose Mob]

They were at the location, they signed the logbook, why not?

[+maggi101]

Where's the challenge in that? If numbers are all you're after, take up golf.

 

Meh. I don't really care where anyone elses 644 comes from, versus their 643. As such, I think that what Road Rabbit had to say on the matter can be applied to caring about others numbers, as well.