Jump to content

How many caches have you logged as a found when the CO gave you permission?


Coldgears
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I'm curious. I've only done this once as no other CO's ever gave me permission too. But the one time I did it is for an offset where i found the memorial and couldn't find the actual hide. The CO said to just log it as he only wanted people to see the first stage... I wonder how much people with 1,000's of finds do this!

Link to comment

I've only done it once. The CO had seen us that day out and about in the area caching. The cache had gone missing but we did a thorough search. The same owner had given me permission on another one but I lived right near that one and wasn't comfortable just logging it found without finding it. The other one was further away and not possible to quickly revisit.

Link to comment

Like several others, unless I sign the log I don't "claim" a find. Offers have been extended when reporting a dnf and signs the cache is either missing or destroyed. We try to keep things simple, 1 GC # = 1 find and the log (for physical caches) must be signed; the location for a virtual or earthcache must be visited.

Link to comment

I find the response in this thread very... Odd. In the philly region most people log finds with CO permission if it goes missing, even if it's a huge terrain challenge (climbing a tree) and it's going to be replaced. People do it if they find most of the stages. People around here all know each other, most of the hides are from about 5 different people with 100+ hides each. All of them are cool about things and don't care. They all do it on each other caches.

 

I guess it's a regional thing. :grin:

Edited by Coldgears
Link to comment

Probably a couple. Not all.

 

My opinion is that while TPTB and their volunteer monitoring flunkies tend to over control and go rules crazy, ultimately the pass/fail criteria is set by the cache 'owner' as they are the ones who put the brainpower into the creativity that makes hides (and the sport) what it is.

 

I did not claim one now-disabled cache in Tacoma last summer when I got my fingers on the micro that was jammed into the hiding place enough to describe its location, shape, and (after creative use of a mirror) color to the owner, who told me to go ahead and claim it. Can't really explain why I didn't log that one as a find. Must have been phase of the moon or something....

 

(update - I might add that in all cases I was talking about, the owner 'offered' it to me without me asking, after I logged a DNF and emailed where I was, what I was looking for (or found), etc. in order to notify them that there was a possibility the cache was a goner...)

Edited by vds
Link to comment

I've never asked a CO for permission to log a find when I didn't find it....Why on earth would I want to do that! I didn't find it, I'm not claiming a find....easy peasy!!

 

Now - I do have a list of caches that I need to take someone with me cause I know where the cache is and I'm too $%^^ short to reach it and too old to be climbing on rails, up trees etc. Just because I can see the cache doesn't mean that I can log it. No signed log = no smilie!!

 

I've also got a couple of caches on my ignore list because I know that another cacher replaced a missing cache with a throwdown so he could claim a find. I consider that throwdown to be kinda smelly!!

 

I also have a list of my DNF's that I wear proudly like a collection of war wounds...I've earned every darn one of them. And I fully expect that I will leave a trail of DNF's all over the countryside as I go hunting for caches....oh well!!

Link to comment

We've had a few CO's email us on a DNF or NM to let us know we can log the missing cache. Our standard response is we'll visit and log the cache after it is back up and running again.

 

It's nice when it's offered. It shows a genuine concern for the cacher and we definitely appreciate it.

Link to comment

Never, I usually offer them a hint if they sound like they searched for a while from the DNF log.

 

Okay, so why would you accept the offer if you wouldn't offer it yourself.

I was hesitant to at first. Then I realized I really didn't want to go back to a parking lot to search in a small pine next to an active bee hive. I personally feel as though I found enough by doing the first stage. I feel as though you are acting like a did something that was against the rules, I didn't ask the cache owner if I could log it as a find. He offered it to me and I felt as though it was a find, it doesn't really affect you... I'd rather not pursue this further, last time I did that with you it escalated into a hue arguement ruining a perfectly good discussion. (It was partly my fault too.)

 

I'm going to sleep ya'll I'm taking a day trip to Central Park, New York. Gotta be ready!

Link to comment

Never, I usually offer them a hint if they sound like they searched for a while from the DNF log.

 

Okay, so why would you accept the offer if you wouldn't offer it yourself.

I was hesitant to at first. Then I realized I really didn't want to go back to a parking lot to search in a small pine next to an active bee hive. I personally feel as though I found enough by doing the first stage. I feel as though you are acting like a did something that was against the rules, I didn't ask the cache owner if I could log it as a find. He offered it to me and I felt as though it was a find, it doesn't really affect you... I'd rather not pursue this further, last time I did that with you it escalated into a hue arguement ruining a perfectly good discussion. (It was partly my fault too.)

 

I'm going to sleep ya'll I'm taking a day trip to Central Park, New York. Gotta be ready!

 

Yes, we are peers, and as a peer let me say BBBBBBBPPPPPTTTTTTTHHHHHHH! on your Not Found cache.

 

Isn't it fun discussing this in public? :grin:

Link to comment

I'd say about 5 or 6 cache owners have offered to let me log a find on a cache that I couldn't find. I declined each time because I didn't find the cache. I really can't grasp the concept of logging finds on caches that you can't find. I don't see the point.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

There was a cache we found that was frozen solid in its location. Such is life when caching in winter.

 

I posted our experience as a note, not a DNF, on the cache page:

 

Well, I found the cache, but it was frozen solid in place, so I couldn't retrieve it to sign the log.

 

The cache owner emailed us to say we could log it as a "found". We said, that's ok, we'll be back when it thaws to sign the log. And that's what we did.

Link to comment

I find the response in this thread very... Odd. In the philly region most people log finds with CO permission if it goes missing, even if it's a huge terrain challenge (climbing a tree) and it's going to be replaced. People do it if they find most of the stages. People around here all know each other, most of the hides are from about 5 different people with 100+ hides each. All of them are cool about things and don't care. They all do it on each other caches.

 

I guess it's a regional thing. B)

Regional thing? In geocaching context I thought we were practically neighbors. Is it really that screwed up in Philly? It does happen outside Philly, but it's not nearly as bad as you seem to think is normal.

 

The two offers I've had I never solicited the owner for hints or anything.

You make it sound like doing this is wrong?

Yes. In my opinion it is wrong.

 

Okay, so why would you accept the offer if you wouldn't offer it yourself.

I was hesitant to at first. Then I realized I really didn't want to go back to a parking lot to search in a small pine next to an active bee hive. I personally feel as though I found enough by doing the first stage. I feel as though you are acting like a did something that was against the rules, I didn't ask the cache owner if I could log it as a find. He offered it to me and I felt as though it was a find, it doesn't really affect you... I'd rather not pursue this further, last time I did that with you it escalated into a hue arguement ruining a perfectly good discussion. (It was partly my fault too.)

 

I'm going to sleep ya'll I'm taking a day trip to Central Park, New York. Gotta be ready!

Sounds like that cache should have gone in your IGNORE column. Not in your FOUND column. If you don't want to "pursue this further" here, lets take it to SEPAG. You seem to think you will enjoy overwhelming support over there. I challenge that theory. My theory is that most cachers in Southeast PA log legitimate finds and do NOT look for lame rationalization to pump their numbers.

Link to comment

I'd say about 5 or 6 cache owners have offered to let me log a find on a cache that I couldn't find. I declined each time because I didn't find the cache. I really can't grasp the concept of logging finds on caches that you can't find. I don't see the point.

 

I think this is pretty common, owners offering you a find. I believe I've turned down 3 or 4 over the years. I suppose I'd never have a problem seeing an "owner gave permission to log" find log, whether it be somewhat lame (found the hiding spot of a missing cache, owner is too lazy to replace), or very legitimate, such as pictures posted to the cache page of a frozen cache. If the owner says to do it, I imagine most people are going to do it.

Link to comment

There was a cache that was one of a series. Each cache in the series had a letter taped inside the lid, and after you found all the letters, you could then find the final.

 

I found the lock n lock container, with the letter on the lid, laying open on the ground and empty. There was no doubt this was the cache, even though there was no log book, and all the contents were gone. I logged a DNF and the owner told me to go ahead and change it to a find. (I now carry at least a scrap of paper, to add a log when one is missing. B) ) I changed it and never felt bad about it .

 

However, if I hadn't found the container, just the spot, I wouldn't have logged a find, even with permission.

 

We really do all play this a little different. For me, if I can see the container and can touch it, but cannot sign the log because of a problem with the cache, that's good enough for me.

Link to comment

 

Regional thing? In geocaching context I thought we were practically neighbors. Is it really that screwed up in Philly? It does happen outside Philly, but it's not nearly as bad as you seem to think is normal.

 

Sounds like that cache should have gone in your IGNORE column. Not in your FOUND column. If you don't want to "pursue this further" here, lets take it to SEPAG. You seem to think you will enjoy overwhelming support over there. I challenge that theory. My theory is that most cachers in Southeast PA log legitimate finds and do NOT look for lame rationalization to pump their numbers.

 

I'm in NW Philly--a newbie with 19 finds--but I wouldn't log a cache as found unless I signed the log. For me, it's about the adventure and the hunt. If I don't find the cache, or it's missing, no biggie--I'll just go back. If I can't go back, I'll look for another cache. But I'm not taking the smiley unless I sign the log.

Link to comment

We've had this offer 5 times and we have always appreciated it. We also always turn the offer down for the same reasons others have said. If we didn't sign the log we didn't make the find. Caches come up missing all the time and that's just part of the game. If the CO does their job and fixes the cache, and they will if they went to the trouble to offer a find, then we will come back and try again when we can.

Link to comment

Once, on a virtual.

On one I had to count some things on a monument and I got my count wrong. The monument is just down the street and the CO let me slide. Funny, I drive past this thing every day and I got this very obvious count wrong. Though the CO let me log it, I've been back to it a dozen times since then and gotten the count right.

 

One other, another virtual, had you count the stairs to the top of an observation tower. There were multiple staircases and I swear they had a different number of stairs. I went up and down them twice (about 5 stories high) counting before the tour bus was leaving and sent in all the counts. The CO never objected.

 

I haven't had it happen with a physical cache.

Link to comment

I've had several offers from good hearted cachers letting me know that it was ok to log a find on their caches even though i didn't actually find them. Nice gestures yes,, but not something i would ever take them up on. It's just not my definition of what constitues a find.

 

I don't have a problem with others doing it though!

Link to comment

OK, (deep sigh)

 

Big confessions time.

 

I recently found the log and not the cache. We put it into a bison we had and left it where the clue seemed to indicate and emailed the owner and told him. He said we could log it so we did.

 

Once I found the lid of a lock and lock with the name of the cache on it. It had been used for target practice and was full of holes. the rest of the cache was gone.

 

I probably shouldn't have, but I didn't know what else to do with the container lid, because I wanted to leave it so others would know what happened (many don't read the logs and many caches don't get disabled for some time) so I signed the lid and put it in the stump where it belonged. I emailed the owner on that one.

I found it and signed it. Sigh. Maybe I shouldn't have, I don't know.

Well it's just a game anyway. It's not something I normally do.

 

Those were my only two incidents.

 

So now I'll get jumped on for being immoral no doubt.

 

My black dark secrets.

Link to comment

We only logged one so far that we actually didn't find. We read before we left that the cache was missing and we looked closely at the spoiler photos of where it should be. The spot was obvious so we took a micro out with us on our visit to some other caches in the area. We found the exact spot of the original cache and placed the micro there with a logbook (with our name in it as replacers, not finders). I only logged it because we had found the exact place of the original to put the new cache. The original CO has been inactive for a few months but should he ever get back to me I would be happy to change the log. I guess it's a bit like logging your own cache as a find except this was us trying to be helpful by replacing an inactive user's missing cache.

Link to comment

I find the response in this thread very... Odd. In the philly region most people log finds with CO permission if it goes missing, even if it's a huge terrain challenge (climbing a tree) and it's going to be replaced. People do it if they find most of the stages. People around here all know each other, most of the hides are from about 5 different people with 100+ hides each. All of them are cool about things and don't care. They all do it on each other caches.

 

I guess it's a regional thing. B)

 

To me, this makes no sense. If the cache is missing (or "goes missing"), then you (or anyone else) could not have "found" it. Arriving at the location where the is (or is supposed to be or used to be) is not "finding" the cache ... to me anyway.

 

Virtuals are no longer permitted to be listed on the Geocaching.com website. So the cache owner "giving permission" to log the cache once the cacher indicates that they have gone to the "cache site" seems in contrast with the Geocaching Cache Guidelines.

Link to comment

I find the response in this thread very... Odd. In the philly region most people log finds with CO permission if it goes missing, even if it's a huge terrain challenge (climbing a tree) and it's going to be replaced. People do it if they find most of the stages. People around here all know each other, most of the hides are from about 5 different people with 100+ hides each. All of them are cool about things and don't care. They all do it on each other caches.

 

I guess it's a regional thing. B)

 

To me, this makes no sense. If the cache is missing (or "goes missing"), then you (or anyone else) could not have "found" it. Arriving at the location where the is (or is supposed to be or used to be) is not "finding" the cache ... to me anyway.

 

Virtuals are no longer permitted to be listed on the Geocaching.com website. So the cache owner "giving permission" to log the cache once the cacher indicates that they have gone to the "cache site" seems in contrast with the Geocaching Cache Guidelines.

 

I've seen a number of instances where the owner turned the cache into a de facto virtual by encouraging searchers to log a find on a missing cache. They were simply too lazy to get out there and replace it.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

If I didn't sign the log, then I didn't find it. Seems odd to claim a find even with owner permission. I just don't get it.

 

I did a numbers run in Nashville years back and there were quite a few that we looked for that were missing (or we just sucked.) On many of these, there was a cacher ahead of us that left a caching geocard at the area to prove they were there even though they didn't find the cache. Of course, they logged the caches as finds and would post something like "Didn't find the cache, but found the hiding spot and left my card as proof". Odd. Just odd.

Link to comment

I've had 2 CO give me permission to claim the find. One was on a payphone, I sat awhile looking at the cache but someone was having a LONG conversation on the phone. The other, I was in the right location per CO, just didn't find the cache, presumed missing but couldn't be verified before I left the area.

 

I chose NOT to log either as a find. I want my name on the log in my nice red sharpie:) If I log as a find, I won't remember to go back later to really sign the log.

Link to comment

I have to add, if the situation was that I had my grubby little hands on the container, but for some reason couldn't actually sign the log (can't open container, log too wet, my ink pen ran dry, log was too full, etc) I would mark as a find with CO permission. If I didn't ever actually physically find the container, I wouldn't log as a find, I'd wait and go back another time.

Link to comment

If the owner says to do it, I imagine most people are going to do it.

I don't know about "most" but I know *a lot* of people won't. This reminded me of on one cacher's justification, "I only claimed a find because the owner WANTED me too." Yeah, like the owner would be really upset if you logged a DNF. I've had many owners offer me a find on missing caches. I even had one owner write my name in the log book of the replacement cache! I signed in for myself when I returned to find the cache. I've accepted one offer. The cache had been a magnetized nano stuck to a screw in a tree. The screw was still there. Why did I accept this one? I don't know. It's the flaw in my zen garden.

Link to comment

Twice I logged a find without signing the log with CO permission. Both times I found the cache, and had it in my hands but could not sign the log for reasons I won't repeat as I've said them many times on other threads. Both times I provided explanation and evidence that the find was not "bogus".

 

I have been offered to log a find once on a cache which I posted a DNF, after the CO verified that the cache was indeed missing. I respectfully declined. I have never logged a find for a physical cache which I did not have in my hands.

 

Not quite the same.. but recently I was doing a complex multi-stage puzzle cache, and I could not find the third stage. I phoned the CO and he met me at the sight and verified that the stage was missing. He offered to give me the information that was provided by this stage, which I accepted so I could continue with the cache. (He later decided to remove this stage, so future hiders don't need to find it anyway).

Link to comment

If I didn't sign the log, then I didn't find it. Seems odd to claim a find even with owner permission. I just don't get it.

 

I don't log a find just because a cache owner gives me permission. I realize everyone plays by different rules but the only reason for playing this way is to wrack up your score.

 

At least for me, it's not about the numbers (I don't treat the find count as a score). It's about which type of log entry best fits (in my view) the caching experience I am logging. Sorry to bring up this example again, but in one case I found the cache, had it in my hands, but was attacked by wasps before I could sign. In a location I was unlikely to return to in future. Sure, I could have logged DNF, and many of you would have logged DNF (or maybe a note). But to me I found it, and a found log was (to me) the most appropriate log type.

Link to comment

I find the response in this thread very... Odd. In the philly region most people log finds with CO permission if it goes missing, even if it's a huge terrain challenge (climbing a tree) and it's going to be replaced. People do it if they find most of the stages. People around here all know each other, most of the hides are from about 5 different people with 100+ hides each. All of them are cool about things and don't care. They all do it on each other caches.

 

I guess it's a regional thing. :angry:

 

To me, this makes no sense. If the cache is missing (or "goes missing"), then you (or anyone else) could not have "found" it. Arriving at the location where the is (or is supposed to be or used to be) is not "finding" the cache ... to me anyway.

 

Virtuals are no longer permitted to be listed on the Geocaching.com website. So the cache owner "giving permission" to log the cache once the cacher indicates that they have gone to the "cache site" seems in contrast with the Geocaching Cache Guidelines.

Let's imagine a cache that has only just gone missing. A seeker looks all over for it without success. He contacts the cache owner who gives him a hint to the hide location. The seeker guesses the location and explains that he looked there very carefully. The cache owner certainly knows that the seeker would have found the cache, had it not been missing. He charitably offers to allow a 'find'.

 

This cache owner has merely offered a kindness to a fellow geocacher. The seeker can choose to take the cache owner up on his offer or not. No guidelines have been broken.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I'm going to sleep ya'll I'm taking a day trip to Central Park, New York. Gotta be ready!

Sounds like that cache should have gone in your IGNORE column. Not in your FOUND column. If you don't want to "pursue this further" here, lets take it to SEPAG. You seem to think you will enjoy overwhelming support over there. I challenge that theory. My theory is that most cachers in Southeast PA log legitimate finds and do NOT look for lame rationalization to pump their numbers.

Completely right. I was offered it, I didn't look for it. In fact, everyone who does it here was offered it. Nobody wants to log lame finds. It's really only a small subset of cachers here that do it. One that I don't really want to be part of. This was just a one-time deal. I completly agree, I gurantee the majority would agree with you!

Link to comment
Virtuals are no longer permitted to be listed on the Geocaching.com website. So the cache owner "giving permission" to log the cache once the cacher indicates that they have gone to the "cache site" seems in contrast with the Geocaching Cache Guidelines.

Let's imagine a cache that has only just gone missing. A seeker looks all over for it without success. He contacts the cache owner who gives him a hint to the hide location. The seeker guesses the location and explains that he looked there very carefully. The cache owner certainly knows that the seeker would have found the cache, had it not been missing. He charitably offers to allow a 'find'.

 

This cache owner has merely offered a kindness to a fellow geocacher. The seeker can choose to take the cache owner up on his offer or not. No guidelines have been broken.

I think both are right. A lot comes down to intent. The cache that was recently published in North Korea was a case where it felt like the CO, in "giving permission" to people to log online without signing the log, was backdooring the guidelines regarding virtuals. But the "kindness" scenario you are describing seems very different to me and I'd agree that no guidelines were broken there.

Link to comment

I've done it twice...

 

The first was a cache the remains of which I found while I was travelling. They were in the right place and I recovered it as best I could (but there was no log) and I info'd the owner via a DNF log. Since I was from out of town and wasn't likely to be coming back the CO granted me the find anyway.

 

The other was a cache that I found but could not extract the log. I was getting eaten up by fire ants. The owner took pity on me and told me to go ahead and claim the find after I had logged a DNF. We know each other so he knows I wasn't BSing about having actually found it.

Link to comment

None. I've had several offers, but it just didn't jibe with my idea of a "find".

 

Same here.

 

Double ditto.

 

I have have logged a "Found It" on two that I could not put pen to paper, but I did have the cache in my hand and I did in fact find it. Nothing in the description indicated that part of the challenge of those two involded opening the container, they were just stuck- one frozen shut. I took a picture that proved I had it in my hand and posted it to the log.

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 0
×
×
  • Create New...