Is it cheating?

[+Phil100]

Yesterday, on a days caching in Edinburgh, I attempted a multi - there's plenty of them in the centre! Having succesfully found the six waypoints and done the calculation, I arrived at the final location to find that although I could see the cache container it was completely out of my reach in a hole in a tree! Unfortunately, I was caching on my own so that I didn't have any one to "give me a bunk up", although I suppose I could have asked a passing muggle!!

 

As I had found all the waypoints and the final location, and could even see the cache, which was in plain view, I logged it as a "Found it". I sent a photograph of the cache to the cache owner who has now suggested that I cheated as retrieving the log "was part of the challenge" even though it was physically impossible for me.

 

I have edited my log to a "Did not find" even though I feel as though I did find it. Did I cheat? I would interested to know what others think.

[gold735uk]

i would have logged a DNF although would have been very disappointed to do so, i am new but the way i see it, no signature in log no find, best wishes, Cliff

[+Jonovich]

Yesterday, on a days caching in Edinburgh, I attempted a multi - there's plenty of them in the centre! Having succesfully found the six waypoints and done the calculation, I arrived at the final location to find that although I could see the cache container it was completely out of my reach in a hole in a tree! Unfortunately, I was caching on my own so that I didn't have any one to "give me a bunk up", although I suppose I could have asked a passing muggle!!

 

As I had found all the waypoints and the final location, and could even see the cache, which was in plain view, I logged it as a "Found it". I sent a photograph of the cache to the cache owner who has now suggested that I cheated as retrieving the log "was part of the challenge" even though it was physically impossible for me.

 

I have edited my log to a "Did not find" even though I feel as though I did find it. Did I cheat? I would interested to know what others think.

 

I think 'cheat' is a quite a strong word, but if part of the challenge is a physical one, then yes I think it would not be appropiate to log a find. I've several water based caches that can be seen from the footpath, but require a boat or waders to reach - I would not like someone to log a find if they just saw the cache container from the footpath and didn't attempt them. I do make exceptions for unsigned finds in the correct circumstances, I.E. Log book damp, pen been eaten by pet dog, an earthquake, a terrible flood, locusts, etc...

 

Jon.

[+BlueDeuce]

Cheating is a bit strong. The owner could have simply explained that retrieving the container and signing the logbook was part of the challenge and could you kindly try again.

Edited March 24, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+dino-irl]

I don't think I would have logged a find either but I'm so stubborn I would have gone back with something to allow me to get the cache out....chainsaw anyone?

[+The Blorenges]

Hi Phil, welcome to the forums.

 

It's generally accepted that to claim a "Found" on any physical cache the cacher should sign the logbook/strip. There are many caches hidden in difficult-to-get-at spots where part of the challenge is to actually get the cache in your hand even though you may be able to see its location from a few feet, or 50 yards, away. Having said that, the cache Terrain rating should reflect the fact that the cache may not be easy to retrieve: Walking the level (or not so level) pavements of Edinburgh may be 1.5 but if it was necessary to climb a tree I'd expect it to be maybe 2.5 or more.

 

Cache owners vary in how lenient they are about allowing/disallowing finds where the log is not signed. In this case the owner decided to be strict - Perhaps because he/she feels that to allow a log to stand where it has not actually been signed 'devalues' the smiley for those who did manage to do it all according to his wishes.

 

Anyway...

 

Next time remember your orange box

 

MrsB

[+Morton]

I recognize the description of the cache and just to clarify, you don't have to climb the tree. Getting hold of the cache is part of the challenge in the same way as it always is - in this case, especially as the location can be very busy.

 

I can see that it would be frustrating if your arms aren't long enough to reach, but I tend to subscribe to the conventional view that you have to have signed the logbook (well, maybe an exception if the cache is rusted shut or the logbook is missing, but certainly having the cache in your hands). I've used "implements" before now to get hold of elusive ones...

 

As a matter of interest, was the word "cheat" literally used?

 

Edited to add: Actually, now that I've read some of the past logs, perhaps it's higher up than I remember it being. Still a reach rather than a climb though.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Morton

[+Von-Horst]

I'd have to agree that it is DNF. That being said, I believe in geocaching rather than 'geologging' and if I find a cache where I cannot sign the logbook (if it is too wet or the cache is encased in ice or otherwise impossible to retrieve/open without damaging it) I will still happily claim the smiley....

 

Mike

[GermanSailor]

I have edited my log to a "Did not find" even though I feel as though I did find it. Did I cheat? I would interested to know what others think.

Well, cheating is quite a harsh word.

 

I wouldn't have logged a "found-it", just because I saw the geocache. Doing so, most of the T5 tree-climbing caches could be logged as found it.

 

In the end, it's up to the owner. Best thing is, to go there again and actually sign the logbook.

 

What about the terrain rating and the description of said geocache? Does it reflect the height?

 

GermanSailor

[team tisri]

Yesterday, on a days caching in Edinburgh, I attempted a multi - there's plenty of them in the centre! Having succesfully found the six waypoints and done the calculation, I arrived at the final location to find that although I could see the cache container it was completely out of my reach in a hole in a tree! Unfortunately, I was caching on my own so that I didn't have any one to "give me a bunk up", although I suppose I could have asked a passing muggle!!

 

As I had found all the waypoints and the final location, and could even see the cache, which was in plain view, I logged it as a "Found it". I sent a photograph of the cache to the cache owner who has now suggested that I cheated as retrieving the log "was part of the challenge" even though it was physically impossible for me.

 

I have edited my log to a "Did not find" even though I feel as though I did find it. Did I cheat? I would interested to know what others think.

 

I'd say it depends on the rating of the cache. If the difficulty and terrain are at the bottom of the range that suggests the cache is about being relatively easy to find and retrieve, in which case I personally regard it as fair game to provide evidence you were there if something specific prevents you getting the cache.

 

If the difficulty and terrain are high that suggests that the idea is that the cache is supposed to be difficult to reach and the challenge is to not only find it but also retrieve it. I've "found" a cache rated 4.5/4.5 in the sense I could see it from 50 feet away but with a terrain that high it's clear you need to actually retrieve it to claim it.

 

If the cache is high enough that you need to climb to retrieve it then assuming the terrain isn't listed as being 1 I'd say it's fair to require you actually retrieve it in order to sign it. If the cache page doesn't make it clear (either with the ratings or the text, or ideally both) that retrieving it isn't a trivial task it might be worth asking the owner to clarify - I'd be irritated if I did all the stages of a multi only to find something like that preventing me from grabbing the final stage.

[+Phil100]

I recognize the description of the cache and just to clarify, you don't have to climb the tree. Getting hold of the cache is part of the challenge in the same way as it always is - in this case, especially as the location can be very busy.

 

I can see that it would be frustrating if your arms aren't long enough to reach, but I tend to subscribe to the conventional view that you have to have signed the logbook (well, maybe an exception if the cache is rusted shut or the logbook is missing, but certainly having the cache in your hands). I've used "implements" before now to get hold of elusive ones...

 

The opinion of the people that have responded agree that I should have logged it as a DNF and as I indicated, I have changed my log accordingly. I have learned something from this incident and will certainly bear it in mind in future.

 

As a matter of interest, was the word "cheat" literally used?

 

The wording was: "Well it is part of the challenge - read the logs how other people have

solved the problem. But if you want to cheat I am not going to stop you."

 

The cache is described as "A pleasant walk around ... " and the terrain rating is 1.5, no suggestion that any physical activity, other than walking, was required.

 

I have read through the previous logs and other than comments about the height and helping others to reach it, there was nothing to indicate "how other people have solved the problem".

[+Phil100]

 

I wouldn't have logged a "found-it", just because I saw the geocache. Doing so, most of the T5 tree-climbing caches could be logged as found it.

 

What about the terrain rating and the description of said geocache? Does it reflect the height?

 

GermanSailor

If it had been a "T5 tree climbing cache" I would certainly not have logged a find! It was described as a T1.5 "pleasant walk"!!

[team tisri]

 

I wouldn't have logged a "found-it", just because I saw the geocache. Doing so, most of the T5 tree-climbing caches could be logged as found it.

 

What about the terrain rating and the description of said geocache? Does it reflect the height?

 

GermanSailor

If it had been a "T5 tree climbing cache" I would certainly not have logged a find! It was described as a T1.5 "pleasant walk"!!

 

With a terrain of 1.5 I'd expect it to be within reach from the ground without climbing anything. Probably not reachable from a wheelchair but not requiring anything unusual to get at it. If there's something natural nearby that can serve as a step you may need to step up onto it but I wouldn't expect anything more than that to be needed.

 

Sounds like either you missed where it was (or an easier way to get at it) or the terrain might need to be higher.

[+currykev]

Log as a FIND.

Add a note that you didn't have a pen (or it ran out).

There's plenty of cachers that log this way. I have multiple proof of this on my caches.

Or log a DNF.

Or don't log.

Or write a note.

So many choices. No one but you will know the truth!

[+Fuchsiamagic]

If the cache is physically challenging in any way and the setter requires the log-book to be signed in order for the smiley to be claimed, they should say so on the cache page, then there's no argument!

[+Gushoneybun]

To me caching is finding the cache and signing the logbook. To my mind as you did not sign the book it should not be a found log.

 

 

If it had been me I would have either written a note, saying I will be back or just stored the coordinates for the cache until next able to actually get it.

 

 

It does sound like the terrain needs raising a little, sadly many cachers will just post their log without giving feedback on attributes or D/T settings, or giving a little more insight into how they got on with the cache. Logs to me should be a way of feeding back to the owner what the finder thought of the experience.

 

 

I know I have solved caches in the past but been able to get the container due to its location, muggles or bad adding up . I have returned to a few and have the final coordinates stored for others when I am next in the area, including a cache in Florida

[+Morton]

The wording was: "Well it is part of the challenge - read the logs how other people have

solved the problem. But if you want to cheat I am not going to stop you."

Hmm, well, perhaps "cheat" wasn't a great word to use. But I wouldn't take it to heart. It means different things at different times - if I cheat at golf I've done a very bad thing, whereas if I cheat on my current alleged diet then there's no lack of morality involved.

 

Cheers

Richard

[+Simply Paul]

I think I'd have logged with a note, asking the owner to consider letting me upgrade it to a find as I'd been able to see the cache, but not reach it, when the cache page and terrain rating failed to say there might be a struggle involved at the end of the walk. Many a time I've been glad of my walking pole when it comes to caches up trees... Cheat might be a bit strong, but many people are passionate about caching and a part of that is 'observance of the conventions', I suppose. Don't take it personally. Keep calm and carry on, as the posters say

[Puppy Socks]

 

Add a note that you didn't have a pen (or it ran out).

There's plenty of cachers that log this way. I have multiple proof of this on my caches.

 

If you don't sign the log, you ain't found the cache!

 

But as a responsible cache setter, you shouldn't imply a Pleasant Walk then go ending a multi which has a low Terrain rating with something more than a stretch.

[+dino-irl]

The cache is described as "A pleasant walk around ... " and the terrain rating is 1.5, no suggestion that any physical activity, other than walking, was required.

What was the "difficulty" rating? It sounds like the terrain rating was fine and from your OP it was indeed a pleasant walk around but the difficulty rating may suggest different when it comes to finding/retrieving the cache?

 

[+Phil100]

The cache is described as "A pleasant walk around ... " and the terrain rating is 1.5, no suggestion that any physical activity, other than walking, was required.

What was the "difficulty" rating? It sounds like the terrain rating was fine and from your OP it was indeed a pleasant walk around but the difficulty rating may suggest different when it comes to finding/retrieving the cache?

 

It was D2/T1.5

[+dino-irl]

The cache is described as "A pleasant walk around ... " and the terrain rating is 1.5, no suggestion that any physical activity, other than walking, was required.

What was the "difficulty" rating? It sounds like the terrain rating was fine and from your OP it was indeed a pleasant walk around but the difficulty rating may suggest different when it comes to finding/retrieving the cache?

 

It was D2/T1.5

D2 is probably correct as this is from the Clayjar rating system:

 

Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

I guess it's also very subjective too though

 

One thing is you'll never get a consensus on this so go with what makes you feel best. If you want to log the find the owner has given you that option but if you want the satisfaction of beating the cache placement go back better prepared, retrieve the cache and sign the log. At the end of the day there are no cast iron rules in this game, you're not in competition with anyone and you have the right to play how you wish.

 

[+Moote]

It certainly sounds like the terrain is incorrect, you should be a little annoyed if that is the case.

 

Maybe you could have a go at doing a Diff/Terr rating using the Groundspeak recommended Clay Jar system

[+dino-irl]

It certainly sounds like the terrain is incorrect, you should be a little annoyed if that is the case.

 

Maybe you could have a go at doing a Diff/Terr rating using the Groundspeak recommended Clay Jar system

Terrain is about getting to the cache, difficulty is about finding (and I suppose retrieving) the cache:

 

* Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

** Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

*** Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

**** Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

***** Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

According to that the cache is probably rated correctly for terrain but it's a very subjective system as I said in a post above.

[+Moote]

Just looking at all available Multi-Caches in a 20 mile area of Edinburgh, there is not one which suggests it's up a tree with, a Diff / Terr you have given' maybe it has been moved!

[+MBFace]

The hint says it all? (gnyy crbcyr unir na nqinagntr)

 

However - looking at previous logs this cache seems to have moved up and down a bit over the years (and changed container too). When we were there I think it may have been at ground level. It was definitely the same D/T as now and there wasn't a hint.

 

Gerri (five feet and half an inch)

Edited March 24, 2010 by MBFace

[+Morton]

It certainly sounds like the terrain is incorrect, you should be a little annoyed if that is the case.

 

Maybe you could have a go at doing a Diff/Terr rating using the Groundspeak recommended Clay Jar system

It gives me terrain=2 or 2.25, depending on how I estimate the distance (I don't quite remember). There isn't a question for "what percentage of the adult population can reach it without standing on something?" - maybe there should be. But look, this is all getting a bit silly; whether it was rated 1.5, or 2, or 2.5 probably wouldn't have made any difference to the OP's decision to do the cache, and while I understand that it would be frustrating to find it was too high to reach I don't see how you'd warn about that without introducing spoilers.

 

Lest anyone think I don't know what it's like - I once did a very long and complicated cache (it took me several hours) only to discover that to get the final, I'd have to go along a narrow walkway beside a quay, and if I'd tripped I'd have fallen into the water. I can't swim, so I just didn't think it was safe and I never got the cache. I was annoyed to say the least, but I was annoyed by my bad luck rather than by the fact I hadn't been warned - most people can swim, it's perfectly safe if you can, and you can't warn everybody about everything.

 

I think the real heat here is all around the word "cheat", which I still maintain should be read as "cheat at a crossword" rather than "cheat at cards". In other words, not a moral judgement, but an indication that a purist would say you haven't completed the task. Maybe not the ideal word to choose - but none of us chooses the ideal word all the time.

 

Cheers

Richard

 

(Edited for a typo)

Edited March 24, 2010 by Morton

[+Shiggaddi]

The other week, I went out with my Mum and sister and walked about half a mile along a pleasant footpath to find a cahe. Upon finding it easily, I found that I had left my pen back at the car. Since I had the cache in my hands I just got my Mum to take a photo of me holding the cache as proof that I had been there and attached with my log. I also took the travel bug in the cache. I feel that those actions were enough for proof that I had found it. The cache owner hasn't objected.

 

Had it been a case of the cache had been muggled from the obvious hiding place, or it was out of reach, then I would have logged a DNF. Had there been another issue, such blocked access on the way but in hindsight I should have approached from another direction, then I don't log anything.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Shiggaddi

[+Phil100]

It certainly sounds like the terrain is incorrect, you should be a little annoyed if that is the case.

 

Maybe you could have a go at doing a Diff/Terr rating using the Groundspeak recommended Clay Jar system

 

I think the real heat here is all around the word "cheat", which I still maintain should be read as "cheat at a crossword" rather than "cheat at cards". In other words, not a moral judgement, but an indication that a purist would say you haven't completed the task. Maybe not the ideal word to choose - but none of us chooses the ideal word all the time.

 

Cheers

Richard

 

(Edited for a typo)

 

Richard you are quite right. It isn't about the "rating" in fact I think that D2/T1.5 is about right for the cache, particularly if you are of the "taller inclination"! I wasn't suggesting that "tree climbing" was called for but at about 5ft 4ins I found that my reach was about a foot short. I suppose that I could have tried taking a run at the tree and tried scrambling up, or looking for a stick and poking it out of the hole but then I would have been left with the problem of getting it back. Incidentally, I did note that one "finder" found it lying on the ground so someone may have had difficulty in replacing it - or, perhaps one of the local grey (boo!) squirrels chucked it out of its "nut store"!

 

What really p****d me off was the suggestion that I was cheating. Having found all the waypoints, succesfully calculated the final location and found the cache, albeit not had it in my hand and signed the log, I thought that had done sufficient to justify a "Found it". I now know different and would, in future, log as a DNF and log why.

 

I think that enough has probably been said about this. I asked a question and I got the answer: it should not have been logged as a find. I have learned from this and would be happy to draw a line under the matter. Next time I go to Edinburgh I will be armed with a walking pole with a bit of "Bluetack" on the end and sign the log - or would that be cheating!!

[+FantasyRaider]

i would have logged a DNF although would have been very disappointed to do so, i am new but the way i see it, no signature in log no find, best wishes, Cliff

 

But would you still feel this way if once the cache was in your hand you were unable to log because the log was soggy?

Saying no signature .... no find is a bit crazy when you look at it?

 

I was up a tree not long ago, I could see the cache, could take a brilliant picture of it!

But i was scared of going that extra 10 feet on a thin looking branch.

 

That to me is kinda cheating ..... so I did go that extra few feet although my old heart was beating loud (I'm too old for this tree climbing lark) and i grabbed the cache! (then had to get back down)

 

What i mean is:

saying no signature, no find is a bit too black & white isn't it?

 

If I can't sign the log I take a picture of it in my hand instead ...... is that not a find?

 

If there is no way on this earth a short-arse like me can reach a cache .... then i take loads of pics of the cache and appeal to the CO's better nature!

am i cheating?

[+The Baggster]

Do COs check the logs tally with the recorded finds and query any differences?

 

I'm about to hide my first cache and I may, out of curiosity have a look, but I wouldn't want to think that I had to reconcile the two records.

[+Morton]

Do COs check the logs tally with the recorded finds and query any differences?

You can if you want to. Very few bother. It's certainly not seen as a responsibility that the cache owner has.

 

Cheers

Richard

[+Cairngorm]

Do COs check the logs tally with the recorded finds and query any differences?

You can if you want to. Very few bother. It's certainly not seen as a responsibility that the cache owner has.

I just tonight met a cacher with 147 hides, who had read my recent log on an urban hide and said he checks on that cache every day.

[GerritS]

Ok for me it would of been a photo and a nice email to cache owner explaining why... Then being refused, I would write an honest cache log perhaps:

 

"Completed the walk, which took me to (little of interest/ some interesting historic sites/ a list of street names/ what ever you feel appropriate) found the GZ and found that unless you have got the arms of a gorilla or the reach of a yeti you cannot reach the cache. As I did not have ether and could see no appropriate implements for retrieve to hand the cache was out of my reach.

 

It seems for those of us who are vertical challenged a photo of the cache is considered cheating... So a DNF for me."

 

I am sure some people will read some of my logs and think not very nice thoughts, but if its a box beside a road will little reason for existence I will say it as it is...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...2f-6d1a8fb4ae1e

 

This one is quite sad the church has an interesting history, the church is very proactive in the community and the cache setters do not even mention any of it...

 

Or am I wrong?

[+Teuchters]

I know which cache this is and have actually done it. It has been in place since 2005 and there are plenty of DNF logs that record that the cacher couldn't retrieve the cache for a number of reasons - such as being too short or too many muggles.

 

Some cachers have even had multiple attempts on different days until managing to get the log signed. In fact I would even go as far to say that about 50% of the logs mention some sort of difficulty one way or another. This doesn't make the cache intrinsically difficult to retrieve but may require a visit when it is less obvious in terms of attracting attention.

 

For the cache owner to allow one person to claim the smiley by not actually signing could mean setting a precedent?

[+Von-Horst]

Do COs check the logs tally with the recorded finds and query any differences?

You can if you want to. Very few bother. It's certainly not seen as a responsibility that the cache owner has.

 

Cheers

Richard

 

It depends on how seriously/harshly the Cache Owner takes this I suppose ;

 

clicky linky

 

"Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

 

For me its a game and its about having fun and going places. If a cache is waaaay up a tree, then part of the fun and challenge is in getting to the cache. If the cache is merely at a height off the ground that is easy for tall people and impossible for short people then deleting logs because some people cannot reach it seems to take away from the fun and be a little on the harsh side.

 

Mike

Edited March 26, 2010 by Von-Horst

[+Morton]

"Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

Yep, but I don't think that's meant to imply you have to actually check with the logbook in the cache - which is what the post I replied to was asking about. I think it's just saying that you're expected to delete obvious spam, armchair logging, and so on.

[+Amberel]

Terrain is about getting to the cache, difficulty is about finding (and I suppose retrieving) the cache

Minor disagreement with what I think you mean by that.

 

For me:

 

Difficulty is how hard it is to locate, assuming you don't know where it is.

 

Terrain is how hard it is to get to and retrieve, even if you already know where it is.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+dino-irl]

Terrain is about getting to the cache, difficulty is about finding (and I suppose retrieving) the cache

Minor disagreement with what I think you mean by that.

 

For me:

 

Difficulty is how hard it is to locate, assuming you don't know where it is.

 

Terrain is how hard it is to get to and retrieve, even if you already know where it is.

 

Rgds, Andy

It depends how you interpret the ratings system:

 

Difficulty rating:

* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

** Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

 

Terrain rating:

* Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

** Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

*** Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

**** Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

***** Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

I think you can argue that a cache that is easy to get to and find but difficult to retrieve can be classed with a higher Difficulty or Terrain rating.

[+eaglegale]

No signature = no find?

 

In the days before easy access to digital cameras/camera phones a way proving that you've found a cache, the paper log was the only method - but nowadays that's not the case.

 

Recently I didn't find a particular cache, so recorded it as a DNF. I went back a couple of days later and found it - but had left my pen behind (the cache has no pen), so I recorded it as found on the website, but noted that I hadn't signed the log. I don't have a problem with recording a cache as found under those circumstances.