Group cache logging, who gets credit?

[+Vater_Araignee]

Now, how about this scenario: if a handicapped cacher goes to ground zero, but it turns out that he can't quite make it to the cache because there's too much brush on the side of the road for his wheelchair to take on, but he can see the ammo can, should he not get that find simply because his wife had to physically grab the cache? What if the cache is in a pinecone in a tree and it's just out of his reach, should he not log that find either because someone who grabbed it that could reach it?

He found it, he got it in his hand, and he signed the log book. It is his find.

 

I don't care if a person is just a head with an arm growing out of it and logs my cache saying "Finally I logged my 10,000 cache, I can die happy" and then promptly dies and wills me a video of the scenario, if his name isn't in that logbook I'm deleting the find. I wouldn't dare treat a differently abled person as if they where special, it is rude and nobody is special.

 

My thought on this scenario is that if the cache is rated 1 or noted to be handicapped accessible then a nice little note to the cache owner is in order to straighten out the ratings. Other wise caches are assumed to not be handicapped accessible.

Scrap the T & D concept of 1 = indication of handicap accessibility, it does not. Only the attribute indicates it, and even then it is for the lowest common denominator.

A cache hanging 8' off the ground on a security fence next to a sidewalk is a 1/1 but it is not necessarily handicap accessible.

Flip side, I have a cousin that can wheel himself directly to the areas of my caches, get out of his chair and lay hands on both of them. One is a 2.5/3.5 the other is a 2.3/3. He is incapable of opening one of the containers because he cant unscrew the lid. He also understands that no name in the logbook results in a deleted online log.

Should I say one is handicap accessible and the other is not? Nope. This is also why I will never use the attribute.

 

Like I say "Name in the log", descriptions and pictures don't cut it, I give no quarter because they would be virts otherwise.

[+Chokecherry]

Now, how about this scenario: if a handicapped cacher goes to ground zero, but it turns out that he can't quite make it to the cache because there's too much brush on the side of the road for his wheelchair to take on, but he can see the ammo can, should he not get that find simply because his wife had to physically grab the cache? What if the cache is in a pinecone in a tree and it's just out of his reach, should he not log that find either because someone who grabbed it that could reach it?

He found it, he got it in his hand, and he signed the log book. It is his find.

 

I don't care if a person is just a head with an arm growing out of it and logs my cache saying "Finally I logged my 10,000 cache, I can die happy" and then promptly dies and wills me a video of the scenario, if his name isn't in that logbook I'm deleting the find. I wouldn't dare treat a differently abled person as if they where special, it is rude and nobody is special.

 

My thought on this scenario is that if the cache is rated 1 or noted to be handicapped accessible then a nice little note to the cache owner is in order to straighten out the ratings. Other wise caches are assumed to not be handicapped accessible.

Scrap the T & D concept of 1 = indication of handicap accessibility, it does not. Only the attribute indicates it, and even then it is for the lowest common denominator.

A cache hanging 8' off the ground on a security fence next to a sidewalk is a 1/1 but it is not necessarily handicap accessible.

Flip side, I have a cousin that can wheel himself directly to the areas of my caches, get out of his chair and lay hands on both of them. One is a 2.5/3.5 the other is a 2.3/3. He is incapable of opening one of the containers because he cant unscrew the lid. He also understands that no name in the logbook results in a deleted online log.

Should I say one is handicap accessible and the other is not? Nope. This is also why I will never use the attribute.

 

Like I say "Name in the log", descriptions and pictures don't cut it, I give no quarter because they would be virts otherwise.

 

I based my opinion on this on the knowledge book (which everyone wants newbies to read and then utilize).

 

The page pertaining to this situation is: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?p....page&id=82

 

And so my understanding then after coming to the forum is that in fact that groundspeaks guidelines on cache ratings is wrong then? They clearly state that a cache rated at 1 for terrain is handicapped accessible...

[+thedeadpirate]

I based my opinion on this on the knowledge book (which everyone wants newbies to read and then utilize).

 

The page pertaining to this situation is: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?p....page&id=82

 

And so my understanding then after coming to the forum is that in fact that groundspeaks guidelines on cache ratings is wrong then? They clearly state that a cache rated at 1 for terrain is handicapped accessible...

I understand what Vater is saying, but please continue to reserve 1 star terrain rating for handicap accessible.

 

*** This post is based on the experience of a handicap cacher.

[+Chokecherry]

I intend to reserve it for handicap accessible. And I look at 1.5 basically as semi-accessible with some limitations on being able to reach the container. But I clearly understand 1 start to be accessible.

 

I've run into numerous issues with terrain ratings and basically look for 1 or 1.5 for my mom who has issues with mobility and I have seen some wildly difficult terrain for 1.5 and 1 for extremely difficult to reach caches. Understandably that's not terrain when placing them but we have no difficulty rating for actual placement. So I guess I just was taking the recommendations here in the knowledge book too literally. In theory I could rate a cache a 1 because you can roll up on it easily but then place it an impossible to get position. I don't agree with that kind of manipulation of the terrain rating.

[+ohioyeti]

Wow,

Thanks to everyone for really discussing this one, a lot more came out of it than I expected.

1. I have no issues with people caching as a group, if someone finds it, and everyone else was there and was helping, that is fine. I cache with a group of people all the time, and have no problem with this.

2. A few people brought up a good point that I did like like. They were talking about distance. If only one person climbs the steep hill, and everyone else waits at the bottom do the get credit? I guess what I am trying to say is if the person who set up the cache meant for you to have more of a experience by doing a sort of challenge, should only people completing the challenge get the credit?

Over all I do not care what other people do, and what they get out of this experience. But I was doing a tree cache with a friend. The cache was easily 40 feet up in a tree, when I got down he said "did you sign my name" and I said NO, your a bum, if you want credit for the cache you should have to climb the tree, not just watch. He has claimed the cache online, and our feud continues! This post has only raised more questions for us to argue about.......Anyway, thanks again for all your input.

[+dorqie]

I often cache with a friend of mine. when we find a cache, we both sign the log. I make most of the actual finds, but that's because I'm quicker to volunteer to go into some of the more sketchy hidie-holes.

But we both contributed to the find, even if it was only one of us who actually reached in and got it, because there are more steps to caching than the actual retrieval.