Retrospective finding of Earchcaches

[+Eclectic Penguin]

I have an earth cache, placed last year, where people have fulfilled all the required photo request (which I don't view as compulsory if its obvious the person has visited) and answered the required question.

 

However, its obvious from some logs that the visit was a number of years prior to the Earthcache being placed. Is this allowed? If it is, am I able to amend the requirements to state that a visit must be contemporary to the placing of the Earthcache?

 

Further to this, is it acceptable to place a time limit (say 2 months) between visiting the Earthcache and logging the find to prevent armchair historical caching?

Edited March 25, 2010 by Eclectic Penguin

[+Arby Gee]

IMO, if someone completes the requirements of an Earthcache they ought to be able to log it, no matter when they visited it. I suppose you could put a time restriction on it for future logs, but why would you want to? If someone's already been there and done that, why make them do it again?

[+ZSandmann]

The Earth is millions of years old. The item you are focusing on has been there for a long time, people have visited it if its notible. Honestly, I'd have no problems with someone logging mine as long as they met the log criteria. But it is your cache, and thus, your choice.

[+HoustonControl]

I got an FTF on an earthcache that way. I visited a spot with the intention of listing it as an earthcache -- took pictures, read the informational plaque, made measurements, etc. When I got home and began the process of listing it, I saw that someone had beaten me to it by a couple of days. Luckily, I had all the needed info. My earthcache plans were quashed, but the FTF kinda made up for it!

[+Jeep_Dog]

If someone could remember details of the location from times past, I'd be impressed. I ask questions that cannot be found on a google search, so for someone to remember specific features would be impressive. To avoid an armchair phone-a-friend log (providing they don't have a photo), I'd reply with a "back up" question from the list I've got.

 

Then, if everything was kosher, let them log away.

 

Definitely would not put a time limit on the cache. If they met the requirements since it has been established, why would you limit the time? There's a period in my caching career where I didn't do online logs most of the time - some day I may go back and get them added. I can certainly understand if someone didn't "get around to it" for a few months.

 

Anyhoo, I'm sitting here in Kuwait staring at the sand and memorizing it in the event someone in the future established an earthcache here....

[+CanadaKate]

Once I became a geocacher, I realized that I'd already been to some earthcaches far from home but I never thought of trying to claim them now. Instead, my feeling was "oh, darn! if I'd only known about caching then". I'm sure I'll be back someday.

 

CanadaKate

[+tronador]

Not sure if this is the right thread but I would also like your opinion of cachers backdating Earthcaches to a date before it was published. That is: the cacher has been to the site but some 5 years before the earthcache was published.

 

I own the Earthcache Mt Kinabalu GC1B1K1 . Yesterday I had a relatively new cacher with less than 100 finds try to claim this cache. All the answers to the questions were wrong and he couldn't provide the photos that i requested. I explained that armchair caching was not acceptable and that i didn't accept backdated logs.

He replied and asked why his log was being deleted and then proceed to relog, three more times, the last with todays date. He seemed totally oblivious to the reason behind an earthcache, he just wanted the find ( its a 5/5) because he had been there at some point in his travels. ohmy.gif

 

I don't believe this is in the spirit of geocaching. Am I being too harsh???? BUT what about all the cachers who have completed this the correct way, climbed the mountain and stopped to find the answers along the way???

 

Your opinions are welcome.

[+Sioneva]

Not sure if this is the right thread but I would also like your opinion of cachers backdating Earthcaches to a date before it was published. That is: the cacher has been to the site but some 5 years before the earthcache was published.

 

I own the Earthcache Mt Kinabalu GC1B1K1 . Yesterday I had a relatively new cacher with less than 100 finds try to claim this cache. All the answers to the questions were wrong and he couldn't provide the photos that i requested. I explained that armchair caching was not acceptable and that i didn't accept backdated logs.

He replied and asked why his log was being deleted and then proceed to relog, three more times, the last with todays date. He seemed totally oblivious to the reason behind an earthcache, he just wanted the find ( its a 5/5) because he had been there at some point in his travels. ohmy.gif

 

I don't believe this is in the spirit of geocaching. Am I being too harsh???? BUT what about all the cachers who have completed this the correct way, climbed the mountain and stopped to find the answers along the way???

 

Your opinions are welcome.

 

If all the answers are wrong, and it was obvious he hasn't done the work for the earthcache, I would do what you did, and delete the log. I've let a wrong answer or two slip by, but not all wrong answers, and just because he was there in the past doesn't mean he gets to log a cache...

[+narcissa]

Not sure if this is the right thread but I would also like your opinion of cachers backdating Earthcaches to a date before it was published. That is: the cacher has been to the site but some 5 years before the earthcache was published.

 

I own the Earthcache Mt Kinabalu GC1B1K1 . Yesterday I had a relatively new cacher with less than 100 finds try to claim this cache. All the answers to the questions were wrong and he couldn't provide the photos that i requested. I explained that armchair caching was not acceptable and that i didn't accept backdated logs.

He replied and asked why his log was being deleted and then proceed to relog, three more times, the last with todays date. He seemed totally oblivious to the reason behind an earthcache, he just wanted the find ( its a 5/5) because he had been there at some point in his travels. ohmy.gif

 

I don't believe this is in the spirit of geocaching. Am I being too harsh???? BUT what about all the cachers who have completed this the correct way, climbed the mountain and stopped to find the answers along the way???

 

Your opinions are welcome.

 

I would absolutely delete that log. Simply visiting the site does not meet the requirements of the Earthcache. Wrong answers, no pictures, no find.

 

I try to be generous with people about my logging requirements - one of my Earthcaches requires people to draw something on a map, and some people are just way too computer-challenged to handle that. If they do the other portions and write to me about it, I'll let it go. But answers that are entirely wrong and show nothing but the desire for a cheap find? No.

 

Some of my Earthcache logging requirements are open-ended questions, and some people come up with better responses than others. As long as the cacher is on the right track and seems to be demonstrating some effort, I let it go.

[+tronador]

Thanks for all your responses. I don't feel so mean now. But as I explained to him an earth cache is meant to be an educational experience, I too could back date lots of earth caches cause I have travelled extensively but I visited these places before I geocached so I don't do this as it's not in the spirit of geocaching.

[+Indotguy]

I always log my geocache or earthcache finds in a timely manner (same day) and therefore do not have an issue with expecting others to log my caches in a similar fashion (at least within a week) unless they inform me of a legitimate reason for a belated log. I've considered placing a time limit for logging (a month or two) on my own geocaches and earthcaches but as of yet have not. I am not one to delete logs unscrupulously but I have deleted a couple of them which where logged over a year after being found. I believe a time limit on logging is reasonable.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Once I became a geocacher, I realized that I'd already been to some earthcaches far from home but I never thought of trying to claim them now. Instead, my feeling was "oh, darn! if I'd only known about caching then". I'm sure I'll be back someday.

 

CanadaKate

 

Certainly something that I've never considered either! Find cache. Fulfill requirements. Get smiley. Sounds like armchair EarthCaching to me.

[+Jeep_Dog]

BUT what about all the cachers who have completed this the correct way, climbed the mountain and stopped to find the answers along the way???

 

Your opinions are welcome.

 

A re-post of something I posted a further up the page -

 

If someone could remember details of the location from times past, I'd be impressed. I ask questions that cannot be found on a google search, so for someone to remember specific features would be impressive. To avoid an armchair phone-a-friend log (providing they don't have a photo), I'd reply with a "back up" question from the list I've got.

 

Then, if everything was kosher, I'd let them log to their heart's desire...

[+Lostby7]

BUT what about all the cachers who have completed this the correct way, climbed the mountain and stopped to find the answers along the way???

 

Your opinions are welcome.

 

A re-post of something I posted a further up the page -

 

If someone could remember details of the location from times past, I'd be impressed. I ask questions that cannot be found on a google search, so for someone to remember specific features would be impressive. To avoid an armchair phone-a-friend log (providing they don't have a photo), I'd reply with a "back up" question from the list I've got.

 

Then, if everything was kosher, I'd let them log to their heart's desire...

Questions from a "back-up" list are not questions which have been approved by Geoaware (or the other reviewers) and therefore are not allowed to be required...I'd be ticked if someone started asking me other questions about the site. Tread lightly if you are going down that path. I understand that in order to get to that point the finder must have botched some portion of the requirements....which leaves you with the option of a deletion or trying to figure out if there were actually there; not sure what the best way to approach this is...maybe just allowing a bit more leeway. Yet at the same time I too have deleted more than one log from folks who just can’t seem to follow directions.

[+narcissa]

I find that a simple, friendly "What were you doing in the area?" makes most armchair loggers run for the hills.

[+geodarts]

There are many areas where I have been (and may never return to) that have since been incorporated into earthcaching, but I would never consider trying to log them (assuming I knew the answers) any more than I would log a traditional or virtual in that situation.

 

Still, I do not have a hard and fast rule. One person was able to log an earthcache before it was published because they had contemplated developing one at that location. I had no problem with that, particularly because the earthcache had been submitted to the agency for approval several months before he or she visited the area. However, another visitor to the area wanted to log it, but could not answer the questions. I appreciated why they requested to log it, but it felt like it was stretching things a bit in that situation.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Erickson

[Narnian Rockhound]

I too have logged an EarthCache, where I went there before it was created, but, like another user above, it was just a short while before it was created and I was planning on creating one there myself. Someone else just beat me to it.

 

In general I don't see anything wrong with people logging things that they've been to prior to them being ECs, but they've got to be able to answer all the questions and do whatever is necessary for the logging requirements. If someone can't answer ANY of the questions correctly, then they didn't really accomplish the whole point of the EC, that is to learn something about the site.

 

I would also encourage people to not put a time limit on logs. I've got a couple that I was at a year ago and just haven't gotten around to logging them. I've also got some cacher friends of mine who were at a cache with me, but who haven't logged it yet. Maybe they'll get around to it, maybe not, but why make it more difficult and cause people frustration? Who does it really benefit? Forcing a logging time limit It would only encourage people to lie about the date when they visited.

 

I know we all want to keep the armchair ECers from logging our stuff. But I think it's worse to make ECs too rigid that good people get too frustrated with it and just give up. I know several geocachers who've given up on ECs because some of them are just too complicated to log. I think the new requirements will help that by removing the unnecessarily stringent requirements that some EC owners have used.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Narnian Rockhound

[+TerraViators]

I have an earth cache, placed last year, where people have fulfilled all the required photo request (which I don't view as compulsory if its obvious the person has visited) and answered the required question.

 

However, its obvious from some logs that the visit was a number of years prior to the Earthcache being placed. Is this allowed? If it is, am I able to amend the requirements to state that a visit must be contemporary to the placing of the Earthcache?

 

Further to this, is it acceptable to place a time limit (say 2 months) between visiting the Earthcache and logging the find to prevent armchair historical caching?

Is it possible to log a find prior to your membership date??

[+lachupa]

I missed out on one just last week. I was there, but its a cavern so it isn't like the handy GPS will do anything for you. When we got home I was nosing around and discovered that it was an earthcache. Oh well will make sure to check from now on.

[+narcissa]

I have an earth cache, placed last year, where people have fulfilled all the required photo request (which I don't view as compulsory if its obvious the person has visited) and answered the required question.

 

However, its obvious from some logs that the visit was a number of years prior to the Earthcache being placed. Is this allowed? If it is, am I able to amend the requirements to state that a visit must be contemporary to the placing of the Earthcache?

 

Further to this, is it acceptable to place a time limit (say 2 months) between visiting the Earthcache and logging the find to prevent armchair historical caching?

Is it possible to log a find prior to your membership date??

 

Yes, it is. I'm not sure how far back you can back-date them, but it's useful for people who split off from a group account, or people who tagged along with someone else before getting into it.

 

I think this probably falls under owner discretion. For my part, I'd probably just post a note if I noticed an Earthcache site I'd visited as a non-cacher.

[toczygroszek]

According to traditional geocaching - can I log a find of a cache if I've seen the container 2 months ago on a shelf in a shop?

It's nothing else than armchair log. In that way I can log many Earthcaches and with dates in 20. century, but I think this game is not about that. If you've visited this site before, You've been at nice and interesting spot, not at Earthcache.

[+narcissa]

According to traditional geocaching - can I log a find of a cache if I've seen the container 2 months ago on a shelf in a shop?

It's nothing else than armchair log. In that way I can log many Earthcaches and with dates in 20. century, but I think this game is not about that. If you've visited this site before, You've been at nice and interesting spot, not at Earthcache.

 

This comparison fails, because physical geocaches require you to sign a logbook.

 

I don't think there's anything in Groundspeak's guidelines or the Earthcache.org submission guidelines that expressly tells Earthcache owners to delete back-dated logs. Ultimately, it comes down to a matter of personal caching ethics between the person logging the find, and the owner of the cache.

 

This is another one of those issues that can be addressed/avoided with rigorous on-site logging tasks. Even a simple measurement - a temperature, a bearing, elevation - may throw off someone who's just looking for an easy armchair log.