Logging your own Caches

[+The Busy Bee]

I'm curious if you are allowed to log your own cache, a cache that you have put out?

[+dfx]

you're allowed to, but it's considered bad form. People will laugh at you.

[+addisonbr]

There's nothing in the rules that says you can't. Most folks in this forum would tell you that it's not the norm. Many frown upon it.

 

May I ask why you're interested? One of the reasons given by folks asking the question, is that they'd like to have their own caches stop showing up on maps and in PQs, etc. There are a number of tools that can help with that that don't involve logging your own cache as a find - the maps usually have an option to hide owner caches (hopefully the new Beta maps will include that feature soon), there is an "Ignore" list that will keep caches out of PQs and other places, and so on. If there's another reason, maybe a workaround that doesn't involve logging your own cache can be identified.

[+Ms.Scrabbler]

Why would you want to do that?

[+dfx]

There's nothing in the rules that says you can't. Most folks in this forum would tell you that it's not the norm. Many frown upon it.

 

Which also applies to logging an event cache many many times to up your numbers BTW. Hint hint.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

There's nothing in the rules that says you can't. Most folks in this forum would tell you that it's not the norm. Many frown upon it.

 

May I ask why you're interested? One of the reasons given by folks asking the question, is that they'd like to have their own caches stop showing up on maps and in PQs, etc. There are a number of tools that can help with that that don't involve logging your own cache as a find - the maps usually have an option to hide owner caches (hopefully the new Beta maps will include that feature soon), there is an "Ignore" list that will keep caches out of PQs and other places, and so on. If there's another reason, maybe a workaround that doesn't involve logging your own cache can be identified.

Your own caches show up as stars on the GC maps and there's a handy checkbox to not show your own hides.

 

If you mean third party mapping software, just leave your finds out of your pocket queries and you'll be fine.

 

There is no good reason to log your own cache as a find. Even if someone moves it and you have to hunt for it, that's just part of maintaining your cache.

[+BCandMsKitty]

For some interesting reading and a complete answer to your question, go HERE and type in "logging your own cache" including the quotation marks.

 

In short, it is generally considered bad form.

[+BCandMsKitty]

SNIP

 

There is no good reason to log your own cache as a find.

 

I would beg to disagree. I hide all of our caches and MsKitty usually doesn't even know I'm doing it (she's at work and I'm on a day off). A couple of times she wanted to find the new cache, and she searched for it with no input from me, at all. She found it all on her own, and just try to tell her she doesn't get the smiley for it! YOU tell her.. you don't have to live with her! Of course, I get it too, so I guess it is half wrong.

we always make a note of the situation in our log, and I don't think it matters to anyone except those that are overly concerned about the numbers. Our numbers record certainly isn't threatening to anyone!

Edited January 26, 2011 by BC & MsKitty

[+Team GPSaxophone]

SNIP

 

There is no good reason to log your own cache as a find.

 

I would beg to disagree. I hide all of our caches and MsKitty usually doesn't even know I'm doing it (she's at work and I'm on a day off). A couple of times she wanted to find the new cache, and she searched for it with no input from me, at all. She found it all on her own, and just try to tell her she doesn't get the smiley for it! YOU tell her.. you don't have to live with her! Of course, I get it too, so I guess it is half wrong.

we always make a note of the situation in our log, and I don't think it matters to anyone except those that are overly concerned about the numbers. Our numbers record certainly isn't threatening to anyone!

You don't have to share the same account.

[+BCandMsKitty]

True, but it seems a waste to have a "sock" account for only 3 or 4 (I think) finds.

 

I sorta agree. There is no good reason to log your own cache, but there are reasons!

[+Team GPSaxophone]

True, but it seems a waste to have a "sock" account for only 3 or 4 (I think) finds.

 

I sorta agree. There is no good reason to log your own cache, but there are reasons!

My wife has only cached without me a few times, but she has her own account for those times. My daughter has her own account and signs the logbook but rarely logs online.

[+sbell111]

There are a number of perfectly valid reasons to log your own caches as finds. If you believe that it is appropriate, do it. Don't worry about those who prefer to criticize.

[+sbell111]

True, but it seems a waste to have a "sock" account for only 3 or 4 (I think) finds.

 

I sorta agree. There is no good reason to log your own cache, but there are reasons!

My wife has only cached without me a few times, but she has her own account for those times. My daughter has her own account and signs the logbook but rarely logs online.

Some couples prefer to keep a joint account while others prefer separate ones. Neither is wrong. Edited January 26, 2011 by sbell111

[+StarBrand]

If you adopted the cache and then find it later (or had found it before) - ok. Your Event - log as attended.

 

If you hid it - there is nothing to stop you from logging a find on it but it is kind of a cheesy practice - after all, you already knew where it was. A "found it" log seems to not apply. Most cachers frown upon the idea.

[+cx1]

Just make sure you sign the physical log. Otherwise you (as cache owner) would need to delete your (the finder) log. Otherwise that would be favoritism.

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

Here's my 2¢ take on it, for whatever it's worth.

 

My wife (momof6furrballs) and I share her account for all of our hides and finds. I don't log anything on this account. There are a couple that she has hid on her own, likewise the same for myself. I have never logged a "find" on hers, nor has she on mine. It's just the way we do it. We consider her account as the "team" account.

 

We have adopted a few caches from people that have moved away. We found them prior to us adopting them. Therefore in that case, they show up as us finding "our own" caches. I see no problem with that.

 

As for the rest of our hides, we wouldn't think about logging them as finds. It's tacky and in our opinion, not honest. I know that some would, and some that actually do (for whatever their reason is). That's their business, and I won't rag on them for it. But hey... if we need more smiles THAT bad, we'll just go out and find some for real. We don't need to artificially inflate our numbers with our own caches.

[GOF and Bacall]

Logging a cache you hid is a cheesy thing to do. There are, however, no rules against it. So if you want to be cheesy go ahead and log 'em. It ain't gonna bring down civilization.

[AZcachemeister]

If you adopted the cache and then find it later (or had found it before) - ok. Your Event - log as attended.

 

If you hid it - there is nothing to stop you from logging a find on it but it is kind of a cheesy practice - after all, you already knew where it was. A "found it" log seems to not apply. Most cachers frown upon the idea.

 

Well put, and about what I would say...

 

except to mention that folks will point and laugh at you when you walk into the next event in your area.

 

(well probably not, but they will want to)

 

(maybe)

[+John in Valley Forge]

How about an event? If I organize an event (I am considering one in the spring), is it just as cheesy to log it as a find (attended)?

[+SwineFlew]

Its your own cache and log it if you want.

[GOF and Bacall]

How about an event? If I organize an event (I am considering one in the spring), is it just as cheesy to log it as a find (attended)?

 

If you hide a cache you know where it is so "finding" it is silly. If you host an event you are, barring the unforeseen forces of fate, expected to attend. Log accordingly if you wish.

 

There are no hard rules governing these things. But there are the normal conventions. Most people don't log their own hides. Some don't log their own events. Nobody is going to access you're account and delete all your finds if don't follow these things to the letter. Heck, unless you point it out few will even notice. So be honest with yourself. Do what you think is right and hold your head high.

[+briansnat]

How about an event? If I organize an event (I am considering one in the spring), is it just as cheesy to log it as a find (attended)?

 

It is an "attended", not a "found it". I don't log them because I listed the event. That is my personal ethic. I know of other cachers who feel the same way. On the other hand, many event owners log attendeds for their own events. They attended the event so logging an attended is not inaccurate and harms nobody. Decide for yourself which way you want to go.

[+paleolith]

If you hide a cache you know where it is so "finding" it is silly.

But if it's a challenge cache, then satisfying the prerequisites is the hard part, and you have to go through the same process as others.

 

I've logged finds on both of the challenge caches I put out. (One was my work alone; the other was a collaboration with Don_J.) I wasn't even close to being FTF on either one. No one has laughed at me, or cast aspersions on my caching ethics, or questioned my IQ, for having done so. On the contrary, the usual comment is "thanks".

 

I have not logged finds on any of the other caches I placed. However, I'm considering logging finds on two caches which I placed but then adopted out to others, since GS doesn't track "placed" and "owns" separately. But the only reason would be to keep the numbers straight. Somehow I haven't gotten around to it.

 

Which is to say what a couple of others have said, that there can be reasons to do it.

 

Edward

[+redsox_mark]

I've not logged any of the caches I've set, and I don't plan to (I don't want to be laughed at). But I recently had a situation where I did think about it...

 

One of my hides (which should have been an easy find) had a couple of DNFs, so I went to check it out. Sure enough, it wasn't there. I temporarily disabled the cache with plan to replace it. A couple days later I got an email from the last person to find it. They said it was a difficult hide and very well hidden, and that they did not believe it could have possibly been muggled. From their description of the hide, the cache had significantly migrated, and now was very hard to access unless you are very tall (which I am not!).

 

By this time I had already prepared a new container. But armed with a hint from the last finder, I returned to see if I could find the original cache. I looked for 30 minutes and couldn't find it, so I placed the new container. But before leaving, I decided to have one last look, and try to get myself up higher. Sure enough, I found the original cache! I rehid it in my easier intended place, signed the log (stating I had returned the cache to the correct location) and took the spare container home.

 

In this case, I did actually "find" the cache, and in fact it took more time and effort than the majority of finds I've had.

 

But I don't want to be "cheesy", so I did not log a find; simply did an "Enable Listing".

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I've not logged any of the caches I've set, and I don't plan to (I don't want to be laughed at). But I recently had a situation where I did think about it...

 

One of my hides (which should have been an easy find) had a couple of DNFs, so I went to check it out. Sure enough, it wasn't there. I temporarily disabled the cache with plan to replace it. A couple days later I got an email from the last person to find it. They said it was a difficult hide and very well hidden, and that they did not believe it could have possibly been muggled. From their description of the hide, the cache had significantly migrated, and now was very hard to access unless you are very tall (which I am not!).

 

By this time I had already prepared a new container. But armed with a hint from the last finder, I returned to see if I could find the original cache. I looked for 30 minutes and couldn't find it, so I placed the new container. But before leaving, I decided to have one last look, and try to get myself up higher. Sure enough, I found the original cache! I rehid it in my easier intended place, signed the log (stating I had returned the cache to the correct location) and took the spare container home.

 

In this case, I did actually "find" the cache, and in fact it took more time and effort than the majority of finds I've had.

 

But I don't want to be "cheesy", so I did not log a find; simply did an "Enable Listing".

 

I wouldn't have logged a find either. However, I would have posted a owner maintenance or note log which included what you had to go through to find and rehide the container rather than just renabling the listing. That was part of the cache history and perhaps it might be a message to others that think hiding someone elses cache in a "better" place that such a practice causes problems not only for future finders but the cache owner as well.

[+redsox_mark]

I wouldn't have logged a find either. However, I would have posted a owner maintenance or note log which included what you had to go through to find and rehide the container rather than just renabling the listing. That was part of the cache history and perhaps it might be a message to others that think hiding someone elses cache in a "better" place that such a practice causes problems not only for future finders but the cache owner as well.

 

Thanks - actually I did record my experience as part of the "Enable Listing" log.

My Log

[+Team GPSaxophone]

How about an event? If I organize an event (I am considering one in the spring), is it just as cheesy to log it as a find (attended)?

You aren't attending the event, you're hosting it. You already get "credit" in your stats for the hide, so why double-dip and get credit for attending too?

[+briansnat]

If you hide a cache you know where it is so "finding" it is silly.

But if it's a challenge cache, then satisfying the prerequisites is the hard part, and you have to go through the same process as others.

 

I've logged finds on both of the challenge caches I put out. (One was my work alone; the other was a collaboration with Don_J.) I wasn't even close to being FTF on either one. No one has laughed at me, or cast aspersions on my caching ethics, or questioned my IQ, for having done so. On the contrary, the usual comment is "thanks".

 

I have not logged finds on any of the other caches I placed. However, I'm considering logging finds on two caches which I placed but then adopted out to others, since GS doesn't track "placed" and "owns" separately. But the only reason would be to keep the numbers straight. Somehow I haven't gotten around to it.

 

Which is to say what a couple of others have said, that there can be reasons to do it.

 

Edward

 

There are two parts to a challenge cache, fulfilling the challenge and finding the actual cache. It is quite possible for someone to who has fulfilled the challenge to be unable to find the actual cache. Because you hid it you know where it is and have a significant advantage over others.

 

If you log them it hurts nobody. Go for it. But to justify it because you fulfilled the challenge is disingenuous. If you hide a puzzle cache you've obviously solved the puzzle, which is the hard part. Do you log a find on those?

[+sbell111]

Whether finding the physical cache in a challenge cache presents a 'significant challenge' would depend entirely on what the container is and how it is placed. Certainly, an ammo can sitting next to a tree would not be such a 'significant challenge'.

[Pup Patrol]

Thanks - actually I did record my experience as part of the "Enable Listing" log.

My Log

 

Then the next finder posts 2 separate "found it" logs.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[+dfx]

You aren't attending the event, you're hosting it. You already get "credit" in your stats for the hide, so why double-dip and get credit for attending too?

 

But we don't care about the numbers, do we?

IMO it's not about "getting credit", it's about using the right log type. If you see yourself as an attendant in addition to being the host, you log an "attended", otherwise you don't. That's the only way it makes sense to me.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

You aren't attending the event, you're hosting it. You already get "credit" in your stats for the hide, so why double-dip and get credit for attending too?

 

But we don't care about the numbers, do we?

IMO it's not about "getting credit", it's about using the right log type. If you see yourself as an attendant in addition to being the host, you log an "attended", otherwise you don't. That's the only way it makes sense to me.

If you're driving a car, you are not a passenger. Same goes for hosting events or attending.

[+EvilTree]

IMHO stats mean nothing... its how you play the game!

 

I agree that logging your own hide as a find is bad form, as you didn’t find it... you knew where it was... you put it there... But I do think logging your own event is different and is o.k, as it is a "attended" not a "find" and most host attend their own events.

Edited January 28, 2011 by EvilTree

[4wheelin_fool]

It shouldnt matter if you log your own finds because the numbers dont mean anything.

 

But if you are logging them, then it means that they do matter to you.

 

If they matter to you, then they could matter to other people who are in some kind of competition with you because their numbers mean something to them.

 

However, the same cachers who consider it cheesy will also tell you that the numbers dont mean anything.

 

Hope that helps! :

 

Added-

 

I logged this cache under my own account, but it had no effect on my numbers at all.

I also left a $10 bill in there about 8 months ago, which it is still there.

Edited January 28, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

[+narcissa]

I'm curious if you are allowed to log your own cache, a cache that you have put out?

 

You can if you want to. Some people will make a fuss over it because they think they're in competition with everybody else and are obsessed with "cheating," but their opinions don't matter.

Edited January 28, 2011 by narcissa

[+niraD]

You aren't attending the event, you're hosting it. You already get "credit" in your stats for the hide, so why double-dip and get credit for attending too?

And yet, those who hosted a 10-10-10 event didn't get the 10-10-10 souvenir unless they also logged an Attended for their own event (or qualified for the souvenir some other way). Merely hosting a 10-10-10 event was not sufficient.

 

If you're driving a car, you are not a passenger. Same goes for hosting events or attending.

I own a 7-passenger van. The only legal way to get 7 passengers in the van is to count the driver as one of the passengers.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

You aren't attending the event, you're hosting it. You already get "credit" in your stats for the hide, so why double-dip and get credit for attending too?

And yet, those who hosted a 10-10-10 event didn't get the 10-10-10 souvenir unless they also logged an Attended for their own event (or qualified for the souvenir some other way). Merely hosting a 10-10-10 event was not sufficient.

 

If you're driving a car, you are not a passenger. Same goes for hosting events or attending.

I own a 7-passenger van. The only legal way to get 7 passengers in the van is to count the driver as one of the passengers.

When referring to the capacity of a vehicle it is normal to count everyone as a "passenger" much the same way as counting the "host" of an event when counting the total number of people there as the number in attendance. When you're actually operating the vehicle, you are not a passenger anymore. Likewise, when you are hosting an event you aren't merely attending it.

[+StarBrand]

You aren't attending the event, you're hosting it. You already get "credit" in your stats for the hide, so why double-dip and get credit for attending too?

And yet, those who hosted a 10-10-10 event didn't get the 10-10-10 souvenir unless they also logged an Attended for their own event (or qualified for the souvenir some other way). Merely hosting a 10-10-10 event was not sufficient.

 

If you're driving a car, you are not a passenger. Same goes for hosting events or attending.

I own a 7-passenger van. The only legal way to get 7 passengers in the van is to count the driver as one of the passengers.

When referring to the capacity of a vehicle it is normal to count everyone as a "passenger" much the same way as counting the "host" of an event when counting the total number of people there as the number in attendance. When you're actually operating the vehicle, you are not a passenger anymore. Likewise, when you are hosting an event you aren't merely attending it.

 

Listing the even under your name isn't necessarily the same thing as "hosting" the event. At least to me. How do you define "hosting an event". In some cases I used coordinates provided by others and just sat and ate some food along with everybody else there.

[+Mudfrog]

You aren't attending the event, you're hosting it. You already get "credit" in your stats for the hide, so why double-dip and get credit for attending too?

 

But we don't care about the numbers, do we?

IMO it's not about "getting credit", it's about using the right log type. If you see yourself as an attendant in addition to being the host, you log an "attended", otherwise you don't. That's the only way it makes sense to me.

 

On events: I do care about my numbers and therefore try use the right log types. It doesn't matter if i hosted the event or not,,, If i was there, then i "attended" it just like everyone else who was there. There's no double dipping going on, just me keeping my stats correct as i see it.

 

On caches: Yes there are times when having a "found log" on your cache might be appropriate. Adopting one that you had already found for example. I really can't think of any other time when it might be justified.

[+narcissa]

On caches: Yes there are times when having a "found log" on your cache might be appropriate. Adopting one that you had already found for example. I really can't think of any other time when it might be justified.

 

Explain why somebody else needs to justify their finds to you.

[+wascalley wabbit]

I have noticed it more and more in my area most of them are new cachers but some of the older cachers have gone back in and have logged their own caches.I made a mistake one time and e mailed a newby and tried to explain that it was not standard practice he unloaded on me with why don't you mind your own business you jerk!!So I quit being the local geo\police and now just mind my own business!!

I sure don't understand it!!

[+paleolith]

There are two parts to a challenge cache, fulfilling the challenge and finding the actual cache. It is quite possible for someone to who has fulfilled the challenge to be unable to find the actual cache. Because you hid it you know where it is and have a significant advantage over others.

In cases where finding the final really is a significant part of the entire challenge, I'll agree with you. In the cases of challenge caches whose pages I've read (and I'm sure you've read a lot more than I have), this has not been the case. Despite one DNF on one of my challenges, I think finding the final is a very small part of the total effort. And no one has commented on my finding my own challenge cache, certainly not anyone who has also found it or made significant progress toward meeting the requirements.

 

If you log them it hurts nobody. Go for it. But to justify it because you fulfilled the challenge is disingenuous. If you hide a puzzle cache you've obviously solved the puzzle, which is the hard part. Do you log a find on those?

Creating a puzzle is seldom the same thing as solving it. When you create a puzzle, you know the answer, but you didn't solve it. (If I had set up challenges whose requirements I had already met, I probably would not have logged finds on them. In fact, in both cases a lot of other cachers had a large head start on me.)

 

Creating a cache can take a lot of effort to do well. This applies to traditional caches as well as the more complex types, including puzzles and challenges. The time to create a cache includes the time to set up a puzzle or challenge. I have not used the time spent setting up or maintaining a cache (including the puzzle or challenge) as a reason to log a find.

 

If you were to figure out a way to set up a puzzle cache where even you did not know initially how to solve the puzzle, and solving the puzzle were a great deal more difficult than finding the physical cache, that would be an ... interesting ... situation. But I'm not aware of such a case and have trouble even imagining such a case. I don't recall anything in the guidelines requiring a puzzle to be solvable, but the parallel with challenge caches is the requirement to show that the challenge is doable. Mathematically speaking, it's possible to pose a problem which one knows is solvable but which one does not know how to solve. In real-world terms (well, in geocaching), I don't think this is practical. Heck, it would be difficult to assign a difficulty rating to such a puzzle.

 

So I don't think it's the same thing at all.

 

OTOH, if anyone logs a find on their own cache, I don't care. I'm aware of one cache on which the owner has logged several finds -- each time he goes back to check on it. Hey, he's checking on it! (Or was at the time; he may be gone now.) Good enough for me -- and better than I see with a lot of caches. So despite the amount I've written here, I see the issue as a tempest in a teapot.

 

Edward

[+hzoi]

We started out in Germany, and logging the events you hosted was standard practice in the Rhein-Main region. It was the same when we were in central Virginia, and it's the same here in the Alabama River Region. So, we do it, and we're going to keep doing it. (Now all we need to do is get off our butts and host a local event.)

[+Sagefox]

I have posted a few Found Its on our cache pages to adjust for problems with other found caches. One cache was moved to Alaska after we found it. This didn't matter much until the statistical programs came into being and it messed with our farthest North and West stats. I changed that find to a note and posted a find on one of our archived caches and included the text of the Alaska Found It log.

 

We solved the team hind/find problem by opening a separate account for my wife's few finds of our caches that I hid.

[+Avernar]

One cache was moved to Alaska after we found it. This didn't matter much until the statistical programs came into being and it messed with our farthest North and West stats.

There's another topic where you can post the GC number of traveling caches and have them excluded from the stats and suvis: Caches to Exclude from Statistics and Souvenirs

[+Sagefox]

One cache was moved to Alaska after we found it. This didn't matter much until the statistical programs came into being and it messed with our farthest North and West stats.

There's another topic where you can post the GC number of traveling caches and have them excluded from the stats and suvis: Caches to Exclude from Statistics and Souvenirs

 

Yes, I know about that topic and MTB already helped us with a Netherlands cache problem. The Alaska cache is not a true traveling cache. It moved once many years ago and then stayed put so it has lots of legitimate Alaska finds.

[+Sorarse]

I recently replaced a cache that had gone missing at the request of the CO as they have now moved out of the area and are finding it difficult to maintain. It didn't feel right logging a find on the cache even though it isn't mine, so I didn't.

 

There's no way that I would log a find on any of my own caches. After all, it's not like I actually 'found' it.

[+caccbag]

We could increase our find count by about 20% if we logged our caches. But why would we? What type of log wouold you use..."Found it!". Well, you didn't find it - you planted it. There was no challenge, no game, no uncertaintity. It is not a "find"...it is a placement. That being said, teh rules do allow it, so if one person wants to do it, no stopping them. I just wouldn;'t consider it a "find".

 

(once I added a note to one of our caches. Few months later found I had accidentally listed it as "Found". I immediately corrected it to a "note". Screwed up some of our milestone logs, but I was more embarassed that we had listed one of our own as found by us to care)