Jump to content

Logging your own caches?


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

Ok, I'm not a new cacher but I honestly don't know the rules on this, I've noticed cachers logging their own caches as found. How is that possible, you didn't exactly find the cache now eh? What exactly are the rules on this?

Link to comment

I don't believe there's actually a guideline against it (someone can correct me if I'm wrong), but it's in extremely poor taste in my opinion.

 

One situation to consider though is that the cache owner may have adopted the cache from someone else, and logged it as a find before they owned it... I have one like that. I logged it as a find before I ended up adopting it from another cache owner.

Link to comment

From the Groundspeak Knowledge Books... not really a "rule" but...

 

5.5. Logging My Own Cache

 

Can I log a find on my own cache? What about when I go back to visit?

 

It is considered "bad form" to log a find on your own cache, no matter when you do it. The same is true if you re-visit another traditional cache (for example to place or retrieve a travel bug). Use the "post a note" log option to record your visit in these circumstances.

 

In either case, you're not "finding" a cache because you already know where it is. Save the smiley face for use when you've truly discovered a hidden cache.

Link to comment

Ok, I'm not a new cacher but I honestly don't know the rules on this, I've noticed cachers logging their own caches as found. How is that possible, you didn't exactly find the cache now eh? What exactly are the rules on this?

 

i dont do it and i dont like it when outers do but it is up to who ever

Link to comment

There aren't any rules, just social norms. Around here, logging a find on your own cache will make you a laughing stock (unless it's an event, or a cache you found and then adopted).

 

I think that says it.

 

I did it just a few weeks ago. :o

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...2b-8d6ec34d6bbc

 

I would normally consider it a cheesy way to boost numbers. However, since I used a second name it did not impact my regular find count. Since the other finds are valid, using the other account is actually negatively impacting my regular find count anyhow. If you want to make me a laughingstock for doing it, go right ahead. :D

 

I also threw down a cache and logged a find. :o

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...44-5c89a4b91f75

 

Since I had found it before, when I made a second visit I was positive that it was missing and was able to replace it with an identical keyholder in the same location. The find only indicates that the cache has been replaced and found recently, so my regular numbers are not illegally boosted in any way either. :D

 

 

It's not about the numbers anyhow. Perhaps I should use the other account to log more regular caches so my find count does not get too high... :wacko:

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Caches that were "found", later to be adopted by one of the finders is somewhat common, and is not incorrect.

 

I would guess it depends on whether or not one wishes to be "proper". :)

 

Maybe too, they might not actually understand the concept of a find (or don't really care)! B)

The 1st cache we ever found we later adopted and are now the owners, we consider that to be a valid find.

 

Now, a local cacher moved out town and adopted out all his caches.

Another cacher (the adoptee) mentioned he hasn't yet found the caches he now owns.

So though he now owns the cache , would his 'find' be valid ??

Link to comment

Caches that were "found", later to be adopted by one of the finders is somewhat common, and is not incorrect.

 

I would guess it depends on whether or not one wishes to be "proper". :)

 

Maybe too, they might not actually understand the concept of a find (or don't really care)! B)

The 1st cache we ever found we later adopted and are now the owners, we consider that to be a valid find.

 

Now, a local cacher moved out town and adopted out all his caches.

Another cacher (the adoptee) mentioned he hasn't yet found the caches he now owns.

So though he now owns the cache , would his 'find' be valid ??

 

Absolutely.

Link to comment

 

I also threw down a cache and logged a find. B)

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...44-5c89a4b91f75

 

Since I had found it before, when I made a second visit I was positive that it was missing and was able to replace it with an identical keyholder in the same location. The find only indicates that the cache has been replaced and found recently, so my regular numbers are not illegally boosted in any way either. :blink:

 

Why not just post a note that you replaced the cache? :)

Link to comment

It never occurred to me to log finds on my own caches. I didn't even think it was possible. :)

 

I know people who log 'Beta Finder', usually after someone else has the legit First to Find, on a cache which was hidden by someone in their hiking group.

 

I've adopted a cache and haven't actually logged the find on it. I figure just because I hauled it all the way out there and hid it (after a thorough scouring for the the original cache) didn't justify a find. Now, when I do hike all the way back out there for a checkup I feel I've earned a find. Guess it's just my mind set, seasoned by a dose of Ninjo and Giri (Personal Honor vs. Duty), thanks to Stan Sakai. B)

Link to comment

 

 

It's not about the numbers anyhow. Perhaps I should use the other account to log more regular caches so my find count does not get too high... :blink:

 

judging from your stats i think its time you quit the game, looks like you found all the caches on this planet and than some :)B)

Link to comment
How is that possible, you didn't exactly find the cache now eh?

Actually, on occasion, that's exactly what happens, don'tcha know.

 

Example # 1: I adopted some caches from a friend of mine. Most I've found when they belonged to him, but a couple I have not. When I do eventually locate those caches I have not found before, I will be logging a find on a cache I own.

 

Example # 2: I was supposed to be part of a group, hiding caches for an event, but at the last minute, life intervened. In my best whiny, snively voice, I begged them to hide at least one cache in a swamp. Not only did they hide one in a swamp, they sent me the coords and had me type it up, sight unseen. When I went out there to lay hands on it, I logged a find on a cache I own.

Link to comment

 

I also threw down a cache and logged a find. :blink:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...44-5c89a4b91f75

 

Since I had found it before, when I made a second visit I was positive that it was missing and was able to replace it with an identical keyholder in the same location. The find only indicates that the cache has been replaced and found recently, so my regular numbers are not illegally boosted in any way either. :blink:

 

Why not just post a note that you replaced the cache? :)

 

Perhaps it is part of a sociology experiment. I am not gaining any finds in my actual profile. I previously found it, so I definitely know that it was missing. If it is causing a disturbance, perhaps we can discuss your feelings about it. Progress is not possible without deviation from

the norm. :o

Link to comment

 

 

It's not about the numbers anyhow. Perhaps I should use the other account to log more regular caches so my find count does not get too high... :o

 

judging from your stats i think its time you quit the game, looks like you found all the caches on this planet and than some :):blink:

 

It says 42 million finds which would imply that I found every cache 42 times, but I haven't.

There are many that I haven't found, and others that I have found thousands of times. :o

My short term memory allows me to consider a find for every second that I hold a cache. :blink:

Link to comment

There aren't any rules, just social norms. Around here, logging a find on your own cache will make you a laughing stock (unless it's an event, or a cache you found and then adopted).

 

I think that says it.

 

I did it just a few weeks ago. :)

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...2b-8d6ec34d6bbc

 

I would normally consider it a cheesy way to boost numbers. However, since I used a second name it did not impact my regular find count. Since the other finds are valid, using the other account is actually negatively impacting my regular find count anyhow. If you want to make me a laughingstock for doing it, go right ahead. :blink:

 

I also threw down a cache and logged a find. :D

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...44-5c89a4b91f75

 

Since I had found it before, when I made a second visit I was positive that it was missing and was able to replace it with an identical keyholder in the same location. The find only indicates that the cache has been replaced and found recently, so my regular numbers are not illegally boosted in any way either. :)

 

 

It's not about the numbers anyhow. Perhaps I should use the other account to log more regular caches so my find count does not get too high... :mad:

 

You deserve a find on the Radiosonde after making it through that swampy hell.

Link to comment

There aren't any rules, just social norms. Around here, logging a find on your own cache will make you a laughing stock (unless it's an event, or a cache you found and then adopted).

 

I think that says it.

 

I did it just a few weeks ago. :)

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...2b-8d6ec34d6bbc

 

I would normally consider it a cheesy way to boost numbers. However, since I used a second name it did not impact my regular find count. Since the other finds are valid, using the other account is actually negatively impacting my regular find count anyhow. If you want to make me a laughingstock for doing it, go right ahead. :blink:

 

I also threw down a cache and logged a find. :D

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...44-5c89a4b91f75

 

Since I had found it before, when I made a second visit I was positive that it was missing and was able to replace it with an identical keyholder in the same location. The find only indicates that the cache has been replaced and found recently, so my regular numbers are not illegally boosted in any way either. :)

 

 

It's not about the numbers anyhow. Perhaps I should use the other account to log more regular caches so my find count does not get too high... :mad:

 

You deserve a find on the Radiosonde after making it through that swampy hell.

 

It's odd how storms and lots of rain can alter an area so much. The first 3 times I went in there I was wearing shorts and sneakers and had no problems. The last time I was in hip waders and it was rough.

Link to comment

I just wonder who takes the time to notice such things? It would never occur to me to check if someone logged their own cache, why on earth would I care?

 

I don't think anyone "checks". You just kind of see it while reading logs. Mostly I've seen it done during maintenance visits. Sometimes intentional, sometimes not. :blink:

Link to comment

Whether there is a guideline or not is unimportant. You cannot find something that you already know where it is.

 

And besides, logging a find on your own geocache hide is cheesy at best.

 

Okay, so what if when I go to perform maintenance on my own cache, I find out that it isn't where it is supposed to be. So I then have to find it. I can log that, right?

 

[i'm of course kidding...but I did see a log like that.]

Link to comment

I just wonder who takes the time to notice such things? It would never occur to me to check if someone logged their own cache, why on earth would I care?

 

I don't think anyone "checks". You just kind of see it while reading logs. Mostly I've seen it done during maintenance visits. Sometimes intentional, sometimes not. :laughing:

 

The only times I've noticed it were A) Reading a log page before the hunt. Newbie checks on cache and adds a TB, and does it through a Found It log. That's newbie error.

B ) Cacher who moved out of state and adopted out his caches. Made a return visit, and logged all his previously-owned caches. That's just cheap and beneath contempt.

Link to comment

Whether there is a guideline or not is unimportant. You cannot find something that you already know where it is.

 

And besides, logging a find on your own geocache hide is cheesy at best.

 

Okay, so what if when I go to perform maintenance on my own cache, I find out that it isn't where it is supposed to be. So I then have to find it. I can log that, right?

 

[i'm of course kidding...but I did see a log like that.]

 

Or how about this? I got bonked on the head and now I have amnesia and can't remember where any of the caches I found were located? Is it okay to log a find on them if I go out and find them again?

 

That makes about as much sense as some of the reasons some come up with the rationalize adding another "Found It" log on a cache they've previously found or on a cache in which they hid themselves.

Link to comment

Sometimes you do not have any other choice. I placed a temporary virtual cache right near my armchair, to which I gave a top rating, and then found it 10,000 times. However, the only way to log it is to go to one of my own caches and record all my finds there. The other good thing about it was that it was not a micro and no one was tempted to urinate in it.

 

I think I was able to respond to at least five fairly recent threads through this one post. Conservation pays!

Edited by Erickson
Link to comment

We have a local cacher who has logged a find on every single one of his caches. The logs all read "My Cache." His defence is that it costs him money to put the caches out...up to $40 CDN. Many of his caches are nanos - and I didn't realise they were gold-plated! :laughing:

Each to their own, I guess...but it is considered "bad form." I logged a find on a cache that has both our names attached to it, but I didn't know it's location until I hunted it down. Even so, that still rankled/felt odd so the others will remain unfound by me.

Link to comment

We have a local cacher who has logged a find on every single one of his caches. The logs all read "My Cache." His defence is that it costs him money to put the caches out...up to $40 CDN. Many of his caches are nanos - and I didn't realise they were gold-plated! :laughing:

Each to their own, I guess...but it is considered "bad form." I logged a find on a cache that has both our names attached to it, but I didn't know it's location until I hunted it down. Even so, that still rankled/felt odd so the others will remain unfound by me.

 

Okay, I'm clearly confused. I understand that the caches cost money. But I thought that the unspoken and unwritten rule on the guidance of the concept was that for every dollar you have in a cache, you are allowed an equivalent number of "found it" logs. Or did I get that vague rumor wrong from my dog? :(

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...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...