Should I log a find?

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Examples...

 

A Cache is hidden in the top of a tree with a high terrain rating, but the tree has toppled over in a storm, so I walked up and grabbed the Cache at eye level, it was rated 4*

 

A Cache was hidden on the face of a clif that requires climbing, but a rockslide had brought it down to the trail below, it was rated 5*

 

A Cache is hidden in the space between two buildings that requires the finder to squeeze into about 10-12 inches and mak your way to the container, but one of the buildings has been torn down, leaning the Cache burried under about 10 inches of broken masonry, but easy to walk to and find, it was rated 4*

 

Would you log a find on these Caches since you didn't find them in the intended way?

[+Chrysalides]

Sure. If the ISS is deorbited and the cache survives re-entry, and if I could get to where it crashed, I'd log it as well.

 

Then file a NM.

 

Edit to add : I'd explain the circumstances of my find. And if the CO takes issue with it, he / she can go ahead and delete it. A few might. I'd imagine most wouldn't care, provided I didn't cut down the tree / blow up the cliff face / tear down the building / shoot down the ISS.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Chrysalides

[+The red-haired witch]

Sounds like a find to me. Containers often fall from their "intended hide". I'm not going to not log a found because it was less camouflaged than it was supposed ot be. I've found a few caches in the hands of a geocacher who arrived just before me. I see no problem in logging those either.

 

I would only see an ethical problem there if you are the one who brought the tree or the building down to get at the cache more easily

[+stites1]

Sure. If the ISS is deorbited and the cache survives re-entry, and if I could get to where it crashed, I'd log it as well.

 

Then file a NM.

 

Edit to add : I'd explain the circumstances of my find. And if the CO takes issue with it, he / she can go ahead and delete it. A few might. I'd imagine most wouldn't care, provided I didn't cut down the tree / blow up the cliff face / tear down the building / shoot down the ISS.

 

 

If you shot down the ISS to get to the cache, I'd be all kinds of in favor of you claiming the smiley.

 

Just sayin'

[+larryc43230]

I've encountered something similar a few times. The most common example I run into is a well-hidden cache, with a high difficulty rating, that had been dislodged from its hiding place, sometimes by a critter that lived there, other times by the weather. I'm expecting to spend some serious time looking for it and discover it's lying in the open on the ground.

 

I log it as a find and describe the situation to the cache owner in my log. I leave it to the cache owner to keep or delete my find log; I've never had a find log deleted yet.

 

I also try to figure out where the cache is supposed to be hidden and rehide it appropriately if possible, but that can be tricky. I always recommend that the cache owner pay a maintenance visit and make sure the cache is back where it was intended to be. Of course, if the hiding place has been destroyed, as in the examples given by the OP, there's often not much that can be done about it other than a Needs Maintenance log.

 

--Larry

Edited May 17, 2010 by larryc43230

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Sounds like a find to me. Containers often fall from their "intended hide". I'm not going to not log a found because it was less camouflaged than it was supposed ot be. I've found a few caches in the hands of a geocacher who arrived just before me. I see no problem in logging those either.

 

I would only see an ethical problem there if you are the one who brought the tree or the building down to get at the cache more easily

I guess my real issue is if and when I ever decide to go for any challenges that requite these kinds of finds. It was rated a 4x4, so it would fill that spot on a grid, but it wasn't really that difficult. In the other hand, there are tons of logs from people who had someone else retreive the cache and bring it to them.

[+Chrysalides]

I guess my real issue is if and when I ever decide to go for any challenges that requite these kinds of finds. It was rated a 4x4, so it would fill that spot on a grid, but it wasn't really that difficult. In the other hand, there are tons of logs from people who had someone else retreive the cache and bring it to them.

Now that's a somewhat different situation. Just because you logged a cache doesn't mean that you need to use it as a qualifying cache for a challenge. If it doesn't feel right, don't use it.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I'm not aiming at any particular challenge cache, but I have been working on the classic 81 cache bookmarked list of all possible D/T combos.

I'm deliberately selecting those that were the most mis-rated. Just because I can. (except for the 4.5 difficulty caches, where I'll take what I can find ..)

 

As to your original question, sure. Tree climb cache on the ground, sure. I found it, I log it.

 

Heck, I've found caches as they were intended and found them easily, where others struggled. And I've struggled on some easy ones (I'm the ONLY cacher with a dnf on trail head trading cache, rated 1, with "too easy for a hint" as the hint......)

[+DanOCan]

I would log a Find in any of those situatioins and never give it a second thought.

[+The Blorenges]

This debate is relevant to something that occurred recently, in a place far, far away...

 

Cache in tree. High up. Very high up. About 80ft, I think. Professional tree-climber does the business, retrieves cache and brings it down to you at ground level.

 

Do you sign the log and claim a find?

 

"The tallest tree in the forest."

 

MrsB

[+WRASTRO]

This debate is relevant to something that occurred recently, in a place far, far away...

 

Cache in tree. High up. Very high up. About 80ft, I think. Professional tree-climber does the business, retrieves cache and brings it down to you at ground level.

 

Do you sign the log and claim a find?

 

"The tallest tree in the forest."

 

MrsB

I faced a similar issue at a cache nearby that was at the top of a very flimsy 50' ladder attached to the side of a tree. I chose to post notes both times I visited the cacheand others climbed. I was not willing to do what was necessary to retrieve the container so I did not log a find. Easy choice for me.

[+AuntieWeasel]

I don't know how many of my finds were a result of walking up on another cacher standing with the cache writing a log. I take the smiley. I sign the book, I take the smiley.

 

I certainly wouldn't break someone's hide to sign the book, but if circumstances broke it for me...

[+Harry Dolphin]

Would you log a find on these Caches since you didn't find them in the intended way?

 

Isn't requiring a cache to be found in the intended way considered an ALR?

 

Would I log them? Probably. Would I log MrsB.'s Tallest tree? Nope. Would I use them for a Fizzy Challenge? Probably not.

 

I have had some discussions with mystery cache owners concerning 'the intended method.' Okay. I miffed a couple of cache owners. One was quite surprised that it was even possible to brute force the mystery cache. Hee hee hee. But I found it, so I'm taking credit for it. Was it 'the intended method?' Well, no. But I did find it!

[+tomfuller & Quill]

I got an FTF on a terrain 3 cache today. I explained in my log that the terrain is correct if you walk up the steep road. I drove within 100 feet in 4WD low range. Of course I logged it.

In 2006 I spent 13 hours hiking in and out of a steep canyon to get a 5/5 that was supposed to be accessed by boat. I worked harder for that one than anyone who came by boat.

[+Chrysalides]

I spent 1 hour once bushwhacking through a forest to get to a cache that I later found out I could have driven to within 100 feet of. I made a 2 terrain into a 4 terrain. Should I have logged the find?

[+wolfslady]

This debate is relevant to something that occurred recently, in a place far, far away...

 

Cache in tree. High up. Very high up. About 80ft, I think. Professional tree-climber does the business, retrieves cache and brings it down to you at ground level.

 

Do you sign the log and claim a find?

 

"The tallest tree in the forest."

 

MrsB

 

 

I saw this and was interested so I read that entire log. I think it's interesting that the owner posted a note saying they could not attend the event in question while it was being discussed and then after everyone one had logged the find tried to shame them for doing so. The proper time to have objected was during the planning discussion. In my opinion they used a tool (the climber) to retrieve the cache. So they used their heads instead of their strength. They overcame the challenge of getting to the cache in their own way. More power to them. I also noticed in most if not all of the back logs one person did the climbing (and often signed the log for everyone while the cache was still at the top) and there was never a question posed by the owner as rather or not they could claim the find. In this case it looks like the cache was actually lowered to the ground for everyone to actually “find” it. Kind of late in the game to give people grief over how they log it.

 

 

I also noticed that owner never responded to maintenance logs and that the maintenance was eventually preformed by others. If you are not willing to climb up and fix it as needed than you shouldn’t complain when others find away around doing the same thing. What if someone had made a really long tool to grab the cache from only half way up the tree? If I had a trained monkey and had it climb up and bring the cache down and then back up would anyone argue that I could log it? What if they did indeed bring a cherry picker and lift each cacher up to the box? Should we allow the owner to say that you have to climb the tree to claim the prize.

 

 

As for the original post: I’d log them in each case and post a note. Not sure I’d use them in a challenge, but maybe. How much effort did you use and is there another cache you can use in the area. Is it cheating in the spirit of the challenge. I’ve heard there are 5/5’s that are “liars” caches. If I drove 50+ miles to one ready to do my best to meet whatever challenge they were going to give me only to find that it was super easy, am I going to feel bad about logging it? No I’m going to take my smiley with a smile. Why should I feel bad about it? I don’t’ feel bad when I move a cache a few feet to make it easier for my 2 ¾ year old to see or pick up either. Although I usually give every effort to let him find it as is and I always put in the logs if I temporally moved it at all. Mostly I’ve done that for one’s that were in a tangle of thorns or not safe in some other way or because it was under so much stuff that he couldn’t identify it. No I don't feel like I cheated. I feel like I gave him a little help. Less than a lot of people who cache as a group seem to give others, but I don't hand him the cache until he spots it. And if it's 5 feet up in a tree I don't make/let him climb to it. Even though I'd guess he would be thrilled to climb 20 feet or more if he could get a grip or had a ladder. I'd also ask how far the cache had moved from GZ. With a tree that fell over it would be pretty easy to make a guess at where it had been and where it ended up. With a rock slide it might not be so clear. But do what your heart tells you is right and fair. If I ever put one up in a tree feel free to have a party and hire a guy to bring it down if you need to.

[+thedeadpirate]

Would you log a find on these Caches since you didn't find them in the intended way?

I can honestly say 100% that I would not log a find.

 

*** I'm not saying anyone else shouldn't.

Edited May 18, 2010 by GeoBain

[+bittsen]

Examples...

 

A Cache is hidden in the top of a tree with a high terrain rating, but the tree has toppled over in a storm, so I walked up and grabbed the Cache at eye level, it was rated 4*

 

A Cache was hidden on the face of a clif that requires climbing, but a rockslide had brought it down to the trail below, it was rated 5*

 

A Cache is hidden in the space between two buildings that requires the finder to squeeze into about 10-12 inches and mak your way to the container, but one of the buildings has been torn down, leaning the Cache burried under about 10 inches of broken masonry, but easy to walk to and find, it was rated 4*

 

Would you log a find on these Caches since you didn't find them in the intended way?

 

Are you serious?

If someone hands me a 5/5 I will log it as a find.

 

What else would I do? Say, "no, that's OK. Go ahead and put it back and I will go find it when nobody is around".

 

Dude, it's just a hobby, not a "you are going to hell if you don't follow the rules to the letter" thing.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Examples...

 

A Cache is hidden in the top of a tree with a high terrain rating, but the tree has toppled over in a storm, so I walked up and grabbed the Cache at eye level, it was rated 4*

 

A Cache was hidden on the face of a clif that requires climbing, but a rockslide had brought it down to the trail below, it was rated 5*

 

A Cache is hidden in the space between two buildings that requires the finder to squeeze into about 10-12 inches and mak your way to the container, but one of the buildings has been torn down, leaning the Cache burried under about 10 inches of broken masonry, but easy to walk to and find, it was rated 4*

 

Would you log a find on these Caches since you didn't find them in the intended way?

 

Are you serious?

If someone hands me a 5/5 I will log it as a find.

 

What else would I do? Say, "no, that's OK. Go ahead and put it back and I will go find it when nobody is around".

 

Dude, it's just a hobby, not a "you are going to hell if you don't follow the rules to the letter" thing.

I guess that's why my question is really geared toward hearing each persons ideas on what they would do for themselves. I already know what I have done, but thought it would make an interesting discussion.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

Examples...

 

A Cache is hidden in the top of a tree with a high terrain rating, but the tree has toppled over in a storm, so I walked up and grabbed the Cache at eye level, it was rated 4*

 

A Cache was hidden on the face of a clif that requires climbing, but a rockslide had brought it down to the trail below, it was rated 5*

 

A Cache is hidden in the space between two buildings that requires the finder to squeeze into about 10-12 inches and mak your way to the container, but one of the buildings has been torn down, leaning the Cache burried under about 10 inches of broken masonry, but easy to walk to and find, it was rated 4*

 

Would you log a find on these Caches since you didn't find them in the intended way?

 

Yes, they're legit finds.

 

I found one where the cache was on a small island in a pond. I happened to be in the area in winter and just walked across the ice. Owner then caught on and disabled it until spring to maintain difficulty.

[+briansnat]

Examples...

 

A Cache is hidden in the top of a tree with a high terrain rating, but the tree has toppled over in a storm, so I walked up and grabbed the Cache at eye level, it was rated 4*

 

A Cache was hidden on the face of a clif that requires climbing, but a rockslide had brought it down to the trail below, it was rated 5*

 

A Cache is hidden in the space between two buildings that requires the finder to squeeze into about 10-12 inches and mak your way to the container, but one of the buildings has been torn down, leaning the Cache burried under about 10 inches of broken masonry, but easy to walk to and find, it was rated 4*

 

Would you log a find on these Caches since you didn't find them in the intended way?

 

I found it, so yes I would log a find.

[+Team Cotati]

Yes, of course.

 

No matter how some people try, this stuff simply is not rocket science.

[4wheelin_fool]

If the cache location was changed by an act of nature, then I'd log it and write what happened. If I was out group caching and someone else found it then I'd log it. However, if the cache was intended to be a phyisical challenge, and only one person completed the challenge while everyone else gathered around with their inkpens out, then I would not, and consider it pretty cheesy. I have found a cache which required climbing equipment, and I noticed a log from a muggle who said they were retrieving it for a cacher (they may have even signed for the cacher, I don't remember exactly) but I thought that was extremely cheesy.

[+The Blorenges]

If the cache location was changed by an act of nature, then I'd log it and write what happened... However, if the cache was intended to be a phyisical challenge, and only one person completed the challenge while everyone else gathered around with their inkpens out, then I would not, and consider it pretty cheesy...

 

Yep, that just about sums up my feelings.

 

I'm very happy to accept the fact that I can't have a find on every cache. If it's obviously set to be a hard physical challenge (like that very high tree climbing one that I linked in my previous post) then I wouldn't accept it handed to me on a plate. I have climbed a tree for a cache but it was only about 10 - 12 ft up and I reckon that's my safe limit! I have pushed myself and done two or three 4/5*T caches in caves (you can't fall out of caves). I enjoy watching a number of high T caches in various countries but I know when certain caches are not within my do-ability range.

 

MrsB

[+StarBrand]

Found the cache at the coordinates and signed the log??

 

Sure - why not log it?

[+GeoGeeBee]

Fundamentalists are boring.

 

It doesn't matter if they are religious fundamentalists, libertarian fundamentalists, or cache-logging fundamentalists.

[+BlueDeuce]

I spent 1 hour once bushwhacking through a forest to get to a cache that I later found out I could have driven to within 100 feet of. I made a 2 terrain into a 4 terrain.

 

Or when you spend an hour looking for a 1.5 that should have taken 2 minutes.

 

It all evens out. I'd log it.

Edited May 18, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+JL_HSTRE]

If you found it, it's a find.

 

If the tree it's on has fallen, the rock wall it was on had a rockslide, etc etc then it's also a needs maintenance.

[drewmm]

I think it boils down to why you log things. I do it both so I can see how many I've found and so that I can easily keep track of which ones I don't want to go back to.

 

So, if you found something in a situation like in the OP...do you want to go back and find it again when it's hidden correctly? Don't log it. Are you satisfied with your find and don't want to go back again? Log it.

[+wimseyguy]

I would log a Find in any of those situatioins and never give it a second thought.

+1 In fact sometimes this is the only way I can 'find' a puzzle cache.

 

But I wouldn't bring a chainsaw, explosives, or anything else that would create these situations so that I might log the cache.

[+mountainman38]

If you shot down the ISS to get to the cache, I'd be all kinds of in favor of you claiming the smiley.

 

Just sayin'

 

Since the ISS, like other satellites orbiting our earth, is in a self-sustaining orbital pattern, how exactly would one go about "shooting it down"?

 

You can shoot it so full of holes it looks like a cheese grater, and it ain't gonna fall anywhere -- you'll just have a nicely orbiting cheese grater.

[+mountainman38]

I guess my real issue is if and when I ever decide to go for any challenges that requite these kinds of finds. It was rated a 4x4, so it would fill that spot on a grid, but it wasn't really that difficult. In the other hand, there are tons of logs from people who had someone else retreive the cache and bring it to them.

 

I don't bother to go for most caches, unless they're challenging. I recently went for a 3.5/1.5 cache because of it's rating. When I got there, the bison tube was lying on the ground at the base of a large tree. I suspect it was supposed to be lodged in the bark, so that's where I put it back.

 

I felt cheated, because finding a cache lying on the ground isn't what I consider fun geocaching. I logged it anyway, with an explanation of how I found it. I also emailed the CO with a picture of where I stuck the bison tube, but never heard back.

 

People who have others retrieve difficult caches for them need to find a new hobby.

Edited May 18, 2010 by mountainman38

[+mountainman38]

....I have had some discussions with mystery cache owners concerning 'the intended method.' Okay. I miffed a couple of cache owners. One was quite surprised that it was even possible to brute force the mystery cache. Hee hee hee. But I found it, so I'm taking credit for it. Was it 'the intended method?' Well, no. But I did find it!

 

There is a cacher here in town who archived one of his mystery caches because someone was trying to brute-force a solution to it. Fortunately I found it before that, because it was a good puzzle.

 

At first I thought I'd be irritated if someone didn't find the solution to my puzzles on their own, but it's turned out that my feelings are very similar to what I've seen Clan Riffster post: I'm strict with how I find/solve/log caches, but don't really mind much how others do it.

 

When I went to check on one of my puzzle caches recently, I saw that someone had signed the log book, but never logged the find. I emailed the cacher and found out that this person hadn't solved the puzzle, but had been along with the person who did, for the find. I said I hoped the cacher had had fun with the cache, and suggested that the they go ahead and log a find -- which they did.

 

I had fun making the puzzle and hiding the cache, and if they have fun finding it, even though they didn't solve the puzzle, then everybody wins!

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

 

At first I thought I'd be irritated if someone didn't find the solution to my puzzles on their own, but it's turned out that my feelings are very similar to what I've seen Clan Riffster post: I'm strict with how I find/solve/log caches, but don't really mind much how others do it.

 

I think I feel about the same. Recently it was revealed to me by two different Cache owners that they had Puzzle Caches hidden in locations that I was able to identify by their descriptions, I knew exactly where they were, but didn't want to log the finds until I solved their puzzle. On the other hand, if someone figures out a way to find one of my puzzles by their own method, well...that's like a whole other puzzle then, isn't it?

[+bittsen]

If you shot down the ISS to get to the cache, I'd be all kinds of in favor of you claiming the smiley.

 

Just sayin'

 

Since the ISS, like other satellites orbiting our earth, is in a self-sustaining orbital pattern, how exactly would one go about "shooting it down"?

 

You can shoot it so full of holes it looks like a cheese grater, and it ain't gonna fall anywhere -- you'll just have a nicely orbiting cheese grater.

 

All you need do is slow it's momentum. It will come down all by itself.

 

BTW, it's not in a self-sustaining orbital pattern. It has the capability to speed up and slow down to keep it from flying off into space or degrading orbit to eventually fall to earth.

[+mountainman38]

All you need do is slow it's momentum. It will come down all by itself.

 

BTW, it's not in a self-sustaining orbital pattern. It has the capability to speed up and slow down to keep it from flying off into space or degrading orbit to eventually fall to earth.

 

Thanks for piquing my interest enough to go do some research. Makes sense that orbits have to be maintained.

 

I guess if the ISS was shot full of holes, it might degrade it's orbit slightly.

[+bittsen]

All you need do is slow it's momentum. It will come down all by itself.

 

BTW, it's not in a self-sustaining orbital pattern. It has the capability to speed up and slow down to keep it from flying off into space or degrading orbit to eventually fall to earth.

 

Thanks for piquing my interest enough to go do some research. Makes sense that orbits have to be maintained.

 

I guess if the ISS was shot full of holes, it might degrade it's orbit slightly.

 

Yes, without the control a satellite might just drift off into space like the moon is.

You do know that the moon's orbit is such that it's getting farther and farther away every year, right?

[+mountainman38]

.........Yes, without the control a satellite might just drift off into space like the moon is.

You do know that the moon's orbit is such that it's getting farther and farther away every year, right?

 

I did not know that. When I first read that, I thought about panicking, but after reading this decided it wasn't worth the effort.

 

I especially liked this part: "The tidal bulges produced on Earth by the Moon are not centered at the point on Earth's surface directly below the Moon, but are shifted ahead of the Moon because of Earth's faster spin rate. The gravitational force of the excess mass in this displaced bulge pulls on the Moon, slightly increasing its orbital velocity."

 

So the moon is causing itself to speed up, thus moving to a higher and higher orbit. Not very good planning.....

[4wheelin_fool]

People who have others retrieve difficult caches for them need to find a new hobby.

 

It's a step up from couch potato caching, more like plain potato caching. If they have the CO's permission, then it's sweet potato caching. If it's a bunch of micros, then I'd call it tater tot caching...

[+hukilaulau]

 

People who have others retrieve difficult caches for them need to find a new hobby.

 

Glad to see that you relaxed your stance in later posts to condone people having fun in their own way. For some, the "fun" is the social aspect of going out with a group of friends on an adventure. I love to read their logs and have no problem with them claiming finds. And I'm glad they don't find a new hobby. This group of people is much more interesting than it would be if it were only people who could climb trees and cliffs.

Edited May 19, 2010 by hukilaulau

[+mountainman38]

 

People who have others retrieve difficult caches for them need to find a new hobby.

 

Glad to see that you relaxed your stance in later posts to condone people having fun in their own way. For some, the "fun" is the social aspect of going out with a group of friends on an adventure. I love to read their logs and have no problem with them claiming finds. And I'm glad they don't find a new hobby. This group of people is much more interesting than it would be if it were only people who could climb trees and cliffs.

 

Relaxed my stance? Not sure what exactly you're referring to by that.

 

If one person solves a puzzle, and someone goes along with them for the ride, I can understand to a certain extent. If that person just got the solution from someone else and claimed a find, that's pretty crass and shows a lack of character.

 

By the same token -- getting someone else to climb a tree so a whole herd of people can sign a log is ridiculous. What's the point of putting it up a tree, then? Just set it on the ground and let everyone sign away. No -- these people will still claim the high terrain rating find, even though they did nothing to warrant their find.

 

As I've stated before, I'm definitely in favor of ALR's. Since it's up to each of us individually how and where we place caches, we should be able to say what's necessary for claiming a find on them.

 

It seems a lot of folks feel entitled to not be excluded from anything, so we have to enable them by not actually requiring them to do any difficult tasks to claim a smilie for a difficult cache. This does not make sense.

 

You say this group of caching people is much more interesting than it would be if only comprised of those who can climb trees and cliffs. While that may be, it's not a valid reason for allowing people to let others get a cache and then sign the log. By that reasoning, NASA would be a lot more interesting if they didn't set such high standards for the astronauts. If you can't climb a tree/cliff, don't claim a find on a cache there! Good grief.

 

If I place a cache with a high terrain rating, I will expect people to actually do the work to get it.

[drewmm]

 

People who have others retrieve difficult caches for them need to find a new hobby.

 

Glad to see that you relaxed your stance in later posts to condone people having fun in their own way. For some, the "fun" is the social aspect of going out with a group of friends on an adventure. I love to read their logs and have no problem with them claiming finds. And I'm glad they don't find a new hobby. This group of people is much more interesting than it would be if it were only people who could climb trees and cliffs.

 

Relaxed my stance? Not sure what exactly you're referring to by that.

 

If one person solves a puzzle, and someone goes along with them for the ride, I can understand to a certain extent. If that person just got the solution from someone else and claimed a find, that's pretty crass and shows a lack of character.

 

By the same token -- getting someone else to climb a tree so a whole herd of people can sign a log is ridiculous. What's the point of putting it up a tree, then? Just set it on the ground and let everyone sign away. No -- these people will still claim the high terrain rating find, even though they did nothing to warrant their find.

 

As I've stated before, I'm definitely in favor of ALR's. Since it's up to each of us individually how and where we place caches, we should be able to say what's necessary for claiming a find on them.

 

It seems a lot of folks feel entitled to not be excluded from anything, so we have to enable them by not actually requiring them to do any difficult tasks to claim a smilie for a difficult cache. This does not make sense.

 

You say this group of caching people is much more interesting than it would be if only comprised of those who can climb trees and cliffs. While that may be, it's not a valid reason for allowing people to let others get a cache and then sign the log. By that reasoning, NASA would be a lot more interesting if they didn't set such high standards for the astronauts. If you can't climb a tree/cliff, don't claim a find on a cache there! Good grief.

 

If I place a cache with a high terrain rating, I will expect people to actually do the work to get it.

 

Do you see geocaching as a competition?

[+mountainman38]

Do you see geocaching as a competition?

 

I see geocaching as part of my life. As such, I do it the same way I do other things -- responsibly. If I say I got a 5/5 cache on top of a 300 foot high cliff by climbing a multi-pitch 5.10 route to get there, then you can believe that I did the climb, not someone else who brought it down for me.

 

Why do you ask? Do you think people should get credit for something they didn't do? Because it's a game, and not your job, or a class project? What's the difference? Honesty is honesty.

[drewmm]

Do you see geocaching as a competition?

 

I see geocaching as part of my life. As such, I do it the same way I do other things -- responsibly. If I say I got a 5/5 cache on top of a 300 foot high cliff by climbing a multi-pitch 5.10 route to get there, then you can believe that I did the climb, not someone else who brought it down for me.

 

Why do you ask? Do you think people should get credit for something they didn't do? Because it's a game, and not your job, or a class project? What's the difference? Honesty is honesty.

 

I doubt people are "[saying they] got a 5/5 cache on top of a 300 foot high cliff by climbing a multi-pitch 5.10 route to get there." If they are indeed saying that, we wouldn't have any reason not to believe them (assuming their name was actually on the log.) I was under the impression that we were discussing people who log a "Found it!" and say "so-and-so climbed up and brought it down, we all signed it."

 

Yes, they're logging a find. But they're not lying about what they did, unless you consider the "Found it!" log to be itself asserting that they in fact went to the location it was hidden rather than just signing the cache.

 

Maybe that's what "Found it!" means to you. If it does, all power to you. But unless you see geocaching as a competition, why do you care how many "Found it!"s people log?

 

People attempt caches with all different types of aids. Some people think it's unsportsman-like to drive to urban caches, and will only do them via bike. Some people think it's cheating to use satellite maps to help narrow down the location, others use them all the time to help find caches. Some people might think it's cheating to cache as part of a large group, others may rarely actually find the difficult cache and just sign it after it's found by one member of their group.

 

All of these situations could probably be covered by rules or guidelines, and would be if this were a competition. But unless you see it as a race to the most smilies, I just can't understand why you would care what other people mean when they log a cache as found.

 

Be honest to yourself about what "found" means. But that doesn't mean other people need to think about it the same way you do.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

 

People who have others retrieve difficult caches for them need to find a new hobby.

 

Glad to see that you relaxed your stance in later posts to condone people having fun in their own way. For some, the "fun" is the social aspect of going out with a group of friends on an adventure. I love to read their logs and have no problem with them claiming finds. And I'm glad they don't find a new hobby. This group of people is much more interesting than it would be if it were only people who could climb trees and cliffs.

 

Relaxed my stance? Not sure what exactly you're referring to by that.

 

If one person solves a puzzle, and someone goes along with them for the ride, I can understand to a certain extent. If that person just got the solution from someone else and claimed a find, that's pretty crass and shows a lack of character.

 

By the same token -- getting someone else to climb a tree so a whole herd of people can sign a log is ridiculous. What's the point of putting it up a tree, then? Just set it on the ground and let everyone sign away. No -- these people will still claim the high terrain rating find, even though they did nothing to warrant their find.

 

As I've stated before, I'm definitely in favor of ALR's. Since it's up to each of us individually how and where we place caches, we should be able to say what's necessary for claiming a find on them.

 

It seems a lot of folks feel entitled to not be excluded from anything, so we have to enable them by not actually requiring them to do any difficult tasks to claim a smilie for a difficult cache. This does not make sense.

 

You say this group of caching people is much more interesting than it would be if only comprised of those who can climb trees and cliffs. While that may be, it's not a valid reason for allowing people to let others get a cache and then sign the log. By that reasoning, NASA would be a lot more interesting if they didn't set such high standards for the astronauts. If you can't climb a tree/cliff, don't claim a find on a cache there! Good grief.

 

If I place a cache with a high terrain rating, I will expect people to actually do the work to get it.

 

Do you see geocaching as a competition?

I do... I see it as a competition between myself and any challenges that have been set befor me by other players. Am I competing against other players, No.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Just in an effort to steer this back on topic, and away from any impending arguements, let's take a moment to read the OP again, and try to discuss how each of OURSELVES would handle the situations, not how we feel that OTHERS should or why they should. Please feel free to present other scenarios where you would have to come to a personal decision on whether to log a find or something different, but please, let's try our best to stay away from the arguements of what other players should do. Above all the rules, guidelines and everything else, I beleive that each of us plays this game to OUR OWN standards, and that's what I'm asking about...how do you apply YOUR OWN standards to YOURSELF?

Examples...

 

A Cache is hidden in the top of a tree with a high terrain rating, but the tree has toppled over in a storm, so I walked up and grabbed the Cache at eye level, it was rated 4*

 

A Cache was hidden on the face of a clif that requires climbing, but a rockslide had brought it down to the trail below, it was rated 5*

 

A Cache is hidden in the space between two buildings that requires the finder to squeeze into about 10-12 inches and mak your way to the container, but one of the buildings has been torn down, leaning the Cache burried under about 10 inches of broken masonry, but easy to walk to and find, it was rated 4*

 

Would you log a find on these Caches since you didn't find them in the intended way?

[DannyCaffeine]

If it was my cache I would not be mad, so go right ahead. I'd be happy it was still there after the damage.

 

And seeing people find my caches (well only 1 at the moment) makes me happy.

[+power69]

Sure. If the ISS is deorbited and the cache survives re-entry, and if I could get to where it crashed, I'd log it as well.

it'd probably burn up on re-entry to atmosphere so chances are you wouldn't find it.

[+mountainman38]

I doubt people are "[saying they] got a 5/5 cache on top of a 300 foot high cliff by climbing a multi-pitch 5.10 route to get there." If they are indeed saying that, we wouldn't have any reason not to believe them (assuming their name was actually on the log.) I was under the impression that we were discussing people who log a "Found it!" and say "so-and-so climbed up and brought it down, we all signed it."

 

Yes, they're logging a find. But they're not lying about what they did, unless you consider the "Found it!" log to be itself asserting that they in fact went to the location it was hidden rather than just signing the cache.

 

Maybe that's what "Found it!" means to you. If it does, all power to you. But unless you see geocaching as a competition, why do you care how many "Found it!"s people log?

 

People attempt caches with all different types of aids. Some people think it's unsportsman-like to drive to urban caches, and will only do them via bike. Some people think it's cheating to use satellite maps to help narrow down the location, others use them all the time to help find caches. Some people might think it's cheating to cache as part of a large group, others may rarely actually find the difficult cache and just sign it after it's found by one member of their group.

 

All of these situations could probably be covered by rules or guidelines, and would be if this were a competition. But unless you see it as a race to the most smilies, I just can't understand why you would care what other people mean when they log a cache as found.

 

Be honest to yourself about what "found" means. But that doesn't mean other people need to think about it the same way you do.

 

You've got some good points there. This isn't a competition, and when people are honest about how they got a cache, I guess it's up to them as to the method.

 

The reason I don't like it when people don't get a cache in the manner intended by the CO is that when someone else does, they have the same cache credit as the person gets who didn't do the hard work. As you said, though, it's not a competition.

 

When I started caching, I had the impression that people played the game the same, and got credit for equal effort. I'm starting to see that obviously there are lots of different kinds of people, and they play the game in a way that they enjoy.

 

I'll just keep doing things the way I think is right, and be proud of what I've done. To each his own!

[4wheelin_fool]

 

People who have others retrieve difficult caches for them need to find a new hobby.

 

Glad to see that you relaxed your stance in later posts to condone people having fun in their own way. For some, the "fun" is the social aspect of going out with a group of friends on an adventure. I love to read their logs and have no problem with them claiming finds. And I'm glad they don't find a new hobby. This group of people is much more interesting than it would be if it were only people who could climb trees and cliffs.

 

Relaxed my stance? Not sure what exactly you're referring to by that.

 

If one person solves a puzzle, and someone goes along with them for the ride, I can understand to a certain extent. If that person just got the solution from someone else and claimed a find, that's pretty crass and shows a lack of character.

 

By the same token -- getting someone else to climb a tree so a whole herd of people can sign a log is ridiculous. What's the point of putting it up a tree, then? Just set it on the ground and let everyone sign away. No -- these people will still claim the high terrain rating find, even though they did nothing to warrant their find.

 

As I've stated before, I'm definitely in favor of ALR's. Since it's up to each of us individually how and where we place caches, we should be able to say what's necessary for claiming a find on them.

 

It seems a lot of folks feel entitled to not be excluded from anything, so we have to enable them by not actually requiring them to do any difficult tasks to claim a smilie for a difficult cache. This does not make sense.

 

You say this group of caching people is much more interesting than it would be if only comprised of those who can climb trees and cliffs. While that may be, it's not a valid reason for allowing people to let others get a cache and then sign the log. By that reasoning, NASA would be a lot more interesting if they didn't set such high standards for the astronauts. If you can't climb a tree/cliff, don't claim a find on a cache there! Good grief.

 

If I place a cache with a high terrain rating, I will expect people to actually do the work to get it.

 

Do you see geocaching as a competition?

I do... I see it as a competition between myself and any challenges that have been set befor me by other players. Am I competing against other players, No.

 

I don't compete, I do it for fun.

 

However when I see many profiles full of charts and graphs of find counts and terrain levels, it's fairly evident that many others do compete. If they are waving their find count around like a banner and then having someone else retrieve the caches for them....