multiple logs on a virtual cache

January 31, 2011

There is a virtual cache that I found today at a state park. The GC lists 5 different locations in the park that can be logged individually. So in theory it would be possible to log this same find 5 different times. I thought it was a bit odd, but then again the point is to take you to see 5 different things so it isn't really any different than putting 5 different virtuals in the park.

I was just curious about what other people thought.

1.1k · January 31, 2011

Sounds like five logs is OK as they are different locations. IMHO Having said that I have never done it. Also being a Virtual would seem to make it different then a normal multi. In the long run, if you feel OK logging five times go for it, I might.

Edited January 31, 2011 by captnemo

January 31, 2011

Cute Dog, If its listed as one cache then one log IMHO

There are a few Orienteering Virtual's that have over 20 locations but its just one cache so one log

Edited January 31, 2011 by sabrefan7

3k · January 31, 2011

My thoughts:

This one seems a bit complicated. If I were seeking this cache, I would likely look for all 5 locations, but log only one find, and a add few pictures (like you did).
This one reads kind of like an ALR ("PHOTOS REQUIRED FOR EACH POSTING"), but the CO doesn't seem to be enforcing the stated requirement.
I like the picture of Bodie.

edit: added missing word

Edited January 31, 2011 by cache_test_dummies

7k · January 31, 2011

one GC code = one found log.

Edited January 31, 2011 by dfx

1.7k · January 31, 2011

I don't see the issue with logging 5 logs, why are people so adamant about things like only log if you signed the log and such. It makes no sense.

1.7k · January 31, 2011

one GC code = one found log.

No it doesn't. If Groundspeak believed in that they would have programmed the website to only allow one find it log per cache. There's a reason why they allow you to log more then one find.

6.7k · January 31, 2011

It should have been five listings. One for each location. Being as it is one listing I would just log one found it. That is if I logged found its.

7k · January 31, 2011

one GC code = one found log.

No it doesn't. If Groundspeak believed in that they would have programmed the website to only allow one find it log per cache. There's a reason why they allow you to log more then one find.

One that I will never understand. Either you found it or you didn't, you can't find something twice (unless you take it with you and then lose it, heh).

Of course my above statement is personal opinion only. And of course it's also a virtual, which you can't really "find" (you can't find something that's not really there), so the whole discussion is kinda odd.

Edited January 31, 2011 by dfx

11.2k · January 31, 2011

one GC code = one found log.

What dfx said!

January 31, 2011

Bodie is passed out right now. It's been a peaceful evening, always good to wear down an Aussie.

I wondered why it wasn't just split into 5 different caches, but at the moment you can't really create anymore virtuals. I'm planning to get back up there so do the rest of them, but I don't know about logging them. If nothing else, I think you should just log one per visit.

4.2k · January 31, 2011

i'm with the "one GC code=one smilie" believers

what makes this cache any different than a multi? :unsure:

this subject has come up in a recent thread, and since some people choose to think the guidelines are vague about how many smilies you can log per cache i guess its all a matter of preference at the end of the day

i personally don;t see the point, except if you just want to artificially inflate your finds...the stats though will give it away though

my profile says "I've found 2545 caches (2545 distinct) since my first cache find on 05/18/2008"

would really bug me if it said "I've found 2545 caches (2400 distinct) since my first cache find on 05/18/2008"

Edited January 31, 2011 by t4e

18.9k · January 31, 2011

one GC code = one found log.

Thats my philosophy. Multi logging of the same cache seems like a cheesy practice and most cachers I know frown on the idea. But the system does allow it.

January 31, 2011

I don't see the issue with logging 5 logs, why are people so adamant about things like only log if you signed the log and such. It makes no sense.

In the OPs question, the cache in question is a virtual. No logs to sign.

I would log it only once, even if I visited more than one of the sites.

9.3k · January 31, 2011

one GC code = one found log.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does... to them. It also equals that to me.

Logging multiple finds on one GC # is cheesy, even though it can be done.

I see it as little different than logging finds on your own hides.

Sure, you can. But the rest of us will giggle about you behind your back.

If you hold a different opinion, that's OK.

So long as you don't try ordering our opinions about.

10.1k · January 31, 2011

i'm with the "one GC code=one smilie" believers

what makes this cache any different than a multi?

this subject has come up in a recent thread, and since some people choose to think the guidelines are vague about how many smilies you can log per cache i guess its all a matter of preference at the end of the day

i personally don;t see the point, except if you just want to artificially inflate your finds...the stats though will give it away though

my profile says "I've found 2545 caches (2545 distinct) since my first cache find on 05/18/2008"

would really bug me if it said "I've found 2545 caches (2400 distinct) since my first cache find on 05/18/2008"

To some of us, there are exceptions. A moving cache, for instance. I found it in New York City, then I found it again in Middletown, New Jersey. There were Unknown and Locationless caches with goals that changed. (Take a photo of the giant cat statue in Jersey City. Two months later, take a photo of this statue in New York City.) Those sorts, I have no problem with.

Other than that, I agree: 1 GC# = 1 Smiley

"I've found 2989 caches (2980 distinct) since my first cache find on 07/03/2004."

8.6k · January 31, 2011

This is a well-known moving Virtual cache in the UK - if you want to you can log it for multiply locations all around the place. It can also be retro-logged i.e. if you visit one of the survey monuments at a later date when the listed Virtual location has moved to another co-ordinate than that's OK too. Some cachers have done 20+ "Founds" for it. It's just an interesting oddity.

Log it once, log it 20 times... whatever your conscience allows! :lol:

"Ye ole survey monuments"

MrsB

6.7k · January 31, 2011

This is a well-known moving Virtual cache in the UK - if you want to you can log it for multiply locations all around the place. It can also be retro-logged i.e. if you visit one of the survey monuments at a later date when the listed Virtual location has moved to another co-ordinate than that's OK too. Some cachers have done 20+ "Founds" for it. It's just an interesting oddity.

Log it once, log it 20 times... whatever your conscience allows!

"Ye ole survey monuments"

MrsB

There are a few exceptions that most folks agree to. Attending a recurring event. Some of the old locationless caches. Finding moving caches after they have moved again. This one may be pushing it a bit. I mean a moving virtual? :rolleyes:

4.2k · January 31, 2011

I don't see the issue with logging 5 logs, why are people so adamant about things like only log if you signed the log and such. It makes no sense.

Why are some people so willing to take their free-wheeling "I'll play it my way" attitude and use it as a stick to beat up other players that don't see it that way?

I'd be willing to say that for most cachers, one listing = one found it. If somebody has a personal exception to that rule of thumb, then in most cases as long as that's okay with the CO, then there's no big reason for me to get upset or let it ruffle my feathers. I don't necessarily understand the logic, but whatever, duder.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Castle Mischief

4.2k · January 31, 2011

To some of us, there are exceptions. A moving cache, for instance. I found it in New York City, then I found it again in Middletown, New Jersey. There were Unknown and Locationless caches with goals that changed. (Take a photo of the giant cat statue in Jersey City. Two months later, take a photo of this statue in New York City.) Those sorts, I have no problem with.

Other than that, I agree: 1 GC# = 1 Smiley

"I've found 2989 caches (2980 distinct) since my first cache find on 07/03/2004."

that indeed can be viewed as an exception since you technically find it again and again in different location, although is still a matter of preference

there was a traveling cache originating in BC that made it to Ontario last year and funny enough it actually made it to two separate events that i happened to attend, however i logged it once only

38.2k · January 31, 2011

one GC code = one found log.

That is my feeling. I'd visit each location, then log one found it.

8.6k · January 31, 2011

This is a well-known moving Virtual cache in the UK - if you want to you can log it for multiply locations all around the place. It can also be retro-logged i.e. if you visit one of the survey monuments at a later date when the listed Virtual location has moved to another co-ordinate than that's OK too. Some cachers have done 20+ "Founds" for it. It's just an interesting oddity.

Log it once, log it 20 times... whatever your conscience allows!

"Ye ole survey monuments"

MrsB

There are a few exceptions that most folks agree to. Attending a recurring event. Some of the old locationless caches. Finding moving caches after they have moved again. This one may be pushing it a bit. I mean a moving virtual?

I know... it's been pushing the Boundary of Geocaching Acceptance for many, many years now. Just when you think you've forgotten all about it it sneaks up onto a high hill near to an event and there you are... Once again you have to make the choice - "Do I go up there, get the numbers and log another Found? Or shall I put it behind me, ignore it, safe in the knowledge that it will soon move off to another part of the country and to annoy some other cacher who's try to clear his nearest-to-home radius?"

We are made of stern stuff and I'm pretty sure we've only logged it once but have added notes on other occasions when it's been in our area.

MrsB

Edited January 31, 2011 by The Blorenges

2.5k · January 31, 2011

one GC code = one found log.

No it doesn't. If Groundspeak believed in that they would have programmed the website to only allow one find it log per cache. There's a reason why they allow you to log more then one find.

One that I will never understand. Either you found it or you didn't, you can't find something twice (unless you take it with you and then lose it, heh).

Of course my above statement is personal opinion only. And of course it's also a virtual, which you can't really "find" (you can't find something that's not really there), so the whole discussion is kinda odd.

When it was published, the reviewer must not of had a problem with it so why should there be any question about it? I hope the thread starter emailed the cache owner and told him that they enjoyed his virtual cache but I am going to make it a heated topic on the forums cause I don't think it is right. :laughing:

1.2k · January 31, 2011

Yes you can.

Now should you?

Well why do we log finds:

1) To keep a record of which cache you found so you don't keep searching for the same ones over and over.

2) To share your experience with other cachers including the owner

Now why would I log multiple finds? Well it could satisfy #2 but that could also be done by a note. So the only reasons I can think of are:

1) Ignorance: not knowing about the note log,, not realizing that stages of a multi or temporary caches at an event do not count.

2) Monkey see, monkey do: logging stages of a multi or temporary caches at an event do not count

3) To inflate your find count.

IMHO I don't think you should log muliple Found It logs on one cache unless:

1) It's a moving cache that allows multiple finds

2) Those old locationless ones that changed.

In the case described I would use a note feature to share my experience finding the other 4 options.

1.4k · January 31, 2011

there was a traveling cache originating in BC that made it to Ontario last year and funny enough it actually made it to two separate events that i happened to attend, however i logged it once only

If I ever see that one again I'd log it as a note, just like when I visit a fixed cache a second time.

I wish the site had a "Found Again" or "Revisit" log type for that.

19k · January 31, 2011

one GC code = one found log.

No it doesn't. If Groundspeak believed in that they would have programmed the website to only allow one find it log per cache. There's a reason why they allow you to log more then one find.

Groundspeak doesn't make the rules for Geocaching. Geocachers do.

6.5k · January 31, 2011

I generally go with the one gc#=one find crowd. But there are a few occasion where the CO's wishes override that limit. This appears to be one of them. Moving caches found in different locations would be another. There were also a few moving target Locationless Caches that were fun to chase down that I logged multiple finds on. I've got no problem looking myself in the eye in the mirror and feeling good about my numbers, you should do what allows you to do the same.

Edited January 31, 2011 by wimseyguy

8k · January 31, 2011

The multiple logs are not big issue I have with the cache in the OP. Instead here's a cache from 2002, that shows problems that lead to changes in the virtual cache guidline in the following years. Yet the creativity of this "outside of the box" cache could also be pointed to by the "bring back virtuals" crowd an example of why virtuals should be brought back with fewer restrictions.

The cache is in a state park that apparently allows physical caches. However the NC State Parks had (or have) a very restrictive policy requiring a $30 permit and that caches must be moved every three months to prevent the formation of spur trails. The State Parks policy was (or is) to encourage virtual caches in place of physical caches, and the permit fee is waived in the case of virtual caches.

In order to not deal with the permit issues, the cache owner has chosen to place a virtual cache. The posted coordinateds are for the visitors center, and the verification that you "found" this building is to post a picture of yourself in front of it. In fact I'm not even sure what is at the posted coordinates now as it seem a new visitors center has been built since the cache was published. Possible later virtual cache guidelines would have considered a park visitor center both too large and not "wow" enough to be a cache. But apparently that was the case when this cache was hidded as well, so to make the cache more "wow", and additional requirement to do one of five "reverse" caches in parks. You must go to one of five features in the park (six are listed but the text refers to five) and post the GPS coordinates and a photo from the location. You don't use the GPS to find the locations, instead you use a trail map. These locations (a waterfall, a mountain top, some campgrounds, and some scenic views) would probably not have made good virtuals in an of themselves. They may be "cool" places to visit, but there is really nothing to "find" there except to enjoy the beauty of the location. However, in this cache you do need to use the GPS to record the coordinate. Finally there is a request to do CITO and take another picture of the trash you collected.

So regardless of whether you log this cache once or five times (or six times), there is a question as to whether this is really caching or just and elaborate way(mark) to share the trails and the beauty of this state park. I suspect that people who enjoy hiking would like this cache. While your are not finding anything, so it could be argued that you are not geocaching, the requirement to get the coordinates with your GPS makes use of a GPS integral to do this cache. That may be enough for some people to say that it is geoaching.

To me it is a great example of why it is impossible to define what a virtual cache is in a way that will satisfy everyone. (narcissa can stop reading here) I will point out that there there are Waymarking categories for all of the locations listed in this cache (well, except for buildings that were formerly a visitors center) as well as a guided tour category for putting several waymarks together for someone to visit.

6.7k · January 31, 2011

The multiple logs are not big issue I have with the cache in the OP. Instead here's a cache from 2002, that shows problems that lead to changes in the virtual cache guidline in the following years. Yet the creativity of this "outside of the box" cache could also be pointed to by the "bring back virtuals" crowd an example of why virtuals should be brought back with fewer restrictions.

The cache is in a state park that apparently allows physical caches. However the NC State Parks had (or have) a very restrictive policy requiring a $30 permit and that caches must be moved every three months to prevent the formation of spur trails. The State Parks policy was (or is) to encourage virtual caches in place of physical caches, and the permit fee is waived in the case of virtual caches.

In order to not deal with the permit issues, the cache owner has chosen to place a virtual cache. The posted coordinateds are for the visitors center, and the verification that you "found" this building is to post a picture of yourself in front of it. In fact I'm not even sure what is at the posted coordinates now as it seem a new visitors center has been built since the cache was published. Possible later virtual cache guidelines would have considered a park visitor center both too large and not "wow" enough to be a cache. But apparently that was the case when this cache was hidded as well, so to make the cache more "wow", and additional requirement to do one of five "reverse" caches in parks. You must go to one of five features in the park (six are listed but the text refers to five) and post the GPS coordinates and a photo from the location. You don't use the GPS to find the locations, instead you use a trail map. These locations (a waterfall, a mountain top, some campgrounds, and some scenic views) would probably not have made good virtuals in an of themselves. They may be "cool" places to visit, but there is really nothing to "find" there except to enjoy the beauty of the location. However, in this cache you do need to use the GPS to record the coordinate. Finally there is a request to do CITO and take another picture of the trash you collected.

So regardless of whether you log this cache once or five times (or six times), there is a question as to whether this is really caching or just and elaborate way(mark) to share the trails and the beauty of this state park. I suspect that people who enjoy hiking would like this cache. While your are not finding anything, so it could be argued that you are not geocaching, the requirement to get the coordinates with your GPS makes use of a GPS integral to do this cache. That may be enough for some people to say that it is geoaching.

To me it is a great example of why it is impossible to define what a virtual cache is in a way that will satisfy everyone. (narcissa can stop reading here) I will point out that there there are Waymarking categories for all of the locations listed in this cache (well, except for buildings that were formerly a visitors center) as well as a guided tour category for putting several waymarks together for someone to visit.

Totally off topic. Take it over to the thread debating virtual cache guidelines. Here we be discussing the multiple logging aspect.

January 31, 2011

This is a well-known moving Virtual cache in the UK - if you want to you can log it for multiply locations all around the place. It can also be retro-logged i.e. if you visit one of the survey monuments at a later date when the listed Virtual location has moved to another co-ordinate than that's OK too. Some cachers have done 20+ "Founds" for it. It's just an interesting oddity.

Log it once, log it 20 times... whatever your conscience allows!

"Ye ole survey monuments"

MrsB

There are a few exceptions that most folks agree to. Attending a recurring event. Some of the old locationless caches. Finding moving caches after they have moved again. This one may be pushing it a bit. I mean a moving virtual?

I know... it's been pushing the Boundary of Geocaching Acceptance for many, many years now. Just when you think you've forgotten all about it it sneaks up onto a high hill near to an event and there you are... Once again you have to make the choice - "Do I go up there, get the numbers and log another Found? Or shall I put it behind me, ignore it, safe in the knowledge that it will soon move off to another part of the country and to annoy some other cacher who's try to clear his nearest-to-home radius?"

We are made of stern stuff and I'm pretty sure we've only logged it once but have added notes on other occasions when it's been in our area.

MrsB

As a slightly totaly off topic aside ,...... If When we get souveniers here in the UK, and they are done by county, anyone who has logged YOSM will suddenly get a LOT of useless pretty little pictues on their profile

8k · January 31, 2011

The multiple logs are not big issue I have with the cache in the OP. Instead here's a cache from 2002, that shows problems that lead to changes in the virtual cache guidline in the following years. Yet the creativity of this "outside of the box" cache could also be pointed to by the "bring back virtuals" crowd an example of why virtuals should be brought back with fewer restrictions.

The cache is in a state park that apparently allows physical caches. However the NC State Parks had (or have) a very restrictive policy requiring a $30 permit and that caches must be moved every three months to prevent the formation of spur trails. The State Parks policy was (or is) to encourage virtual caches in place of physical caches, and the permit fee is waived in the case of virtual caches.

In order to not deal with the permit issues, the cache owner has chosen to place a virtual cache. The posted coordinateds are for the visitors center, and the verification that you "found" this building is to post a picture of yourself in front of it. In fact I'm not even sure what is at the posted coordinates now as it seem a new visitors center has been built since the cache was published. Possible later virtual cache guidelines would have considered a park visitor center both too large and not "wow" enough to be a cache. But apparently that was the case when this cache was hidded as well, so to make the cache more "wow", and additional requirement to do one of five "reverse" caches in parks. You must go to one of five features in the park (six are listed but the text refers to five) and post the GPS coordinates and a photo from the location. You don't use the GPS to find the locations, instead you use a trail map. These locations (a waterfall, a mountain top, some campgrounds, and some scenic views) would probably not have made good virtuals in an of themselves. They may be "cool" places to visit, but there is really nothing to "find" there except to enjoy the beauty of the location. However, in this cache you do need to use the GPS to record the coordinate. Finally there is a request to do CITO and take another picture of the trash you collected.

So regardless of whether you log this cache once or five times (or six times), there is a question as to whether this is really caching or just and elaborate way(mark) to share the trails and the beauty of this state park. I suspect that people who enjoy hiking would like this cache. While your are not finding anything, so it could be argued that you are not geocaching, the requirement to get the coordinates with your GPS makes use of a GPS integral to do this cache. That may be enough for some people to say that it is geoaching.

To me it is a great example of why it is impossible to define what a virtual cache is in a way that will satisfy everyone. (narcissa can stop reading here) I will point out that there there are Waymarking categories for all of the locations listed in this cache (well, except for buildings that were formerly a visitors center) as well as a guided tour category for putting several waymarks together for someone to visit.

Totally off topic. Take it over to the thread debating virtual cache guidelines. Here we be discussing the multiple logging aspect.

Ok. Did you know that on Waymarking you can only log one visit to a waymark? (Except if the the waymark is listed in multiple categories, they you can log one visit for each category, and you don't even have to come back multiple times to do it.) :huh: :blink: <_<

6.7k · January 31, 2011

Waymarking

2.6k · January 31, 2011

i'm with the "one GC code=one smilie" believers

what makes this cache any different than a multi?

this subject has come up in a recent thread, and since some people choose to think the guidelines are vague about how many smilies you can log per cache i guess its all a matter of preference at the end of the day

i personally don;t see the point, except if you just want to artificially inflate your finds...the stats though will give it away though

my profile says "I've found 2545 caches (2545 distinct) since my first cache find on 05/18/2008"

would really bug me if it said "I've found 2545 caches (2400 distinct) since my first cache find on 05/18/2008"

To some of us, there are exceptions. A moving cache, for instance. I found it in New York City, then I found it again in Middletown, New Jersey. There were Unknown and Locationless caches with goals that changed. (Take a photo of the giant cat statue in Jersey City. Two months later, take a photo of this statue in New York City.) Those sorts, I have no problem with.

Other than that, I agree: 1 GC# = 1 Smiley

"I've found 2989 caches (2980 distinct) since my first cache find on 07/03/2004."

Also in the early days caches were allowed to be moved,

This is my record

I've found 4940 caches (4933 distinct) since my first cache find on 02/17/2001.

the shortest was moved about a quarter mile the longest was about ten miles.

So there are exceptions

7k · January 31, 2011

Totally off topic. Take it over to the thread debating virtual cache guidelines. Here we be discussing the multiple logging aspect.

On the plus side, he didn't say the P word. :lol:

January 31, 2011

I don't really buy that this is find padding since there are 5 distinct "finds" involved. It's not the same thing as going to the same spot 5 times and getting a smiley for it.

7k · January 31, 2011

I don't really buy that this is find padding since there are 5 distinct "finds" involved. It's not the same thing as going to the same spot 5 times and getting a smiley for it.

What about logging 5 smilies for a 5-stage multi then? That's 5 different locations too, and you also found something 5 times.

Edited January 31, 2011 by dfx

2.6k · January 31, 2011

I don't really buy that this is find padding since there are 5 distinct "finds" involved. It's not the same thing as going to the same spot 5 times and getting a smiley for it.

What about logging 5 smilies for a 5-stage multi then? That's 5 different locations too, and you also found something 5 times.

If the CO wants to allow it, then it is up to the finder to decide for themselves whether or not to take the extra finds. I don't see the problem.

19k · January 31, 2011

Totally off topic. Take it over to the thread debating virtual cache guidelines. Here we be discussing the multiple logging aspect.

On the plus side, he didn't say the P word.

Did you actually read the entire post? Nawww... you must just searched for that word, right?

7k · January 31, 2011

Did you actually read the entire post? Nawww... you must just searched for that word, right?

I thought that was obvious. Explains why I only posted after GOF commented that it was off-topic, because I wouldn't know myself.

6.7k · January 31, 2011

Did you actually read the entire post? Nawww... you must just searched for that word, right?

I thought that was obvious. Explains why I only posted after GOF commented that it was off-topic, because I wouldn't know myself.

I'm usually the first to point out that a conversation is not a static entity. That it grows and evolves. But this was just another dissertation dragged in out of the blue to forward his own agenda. It probably wasn't my place to point it out but it just irked me.

1.2k · January 31, 2011

There is a virtual cache that I found today at a state park. The GC lists 5 different locations in the park that can be logged individually. So in theory it would be possible to log this same find 5 different times. I thought it was a bit odd, but then again the point is to take you to see 5 different things so it isn't really any different than putting 5 different virtuals in the park.

I was just curious about what other people thought.

Look Out...It Is Going To Eat Your Leg!!!

:yikes: :yikes: :yikes:

20.7k · January 31, 2011

I don't really buy that this is find padding since there are 5 distinct "finds" involved. It's not the same thing as going to the same spot 5 times and getting a smiley for it.

What about logging 5 smilies for a 5-stage multi then? That's 5 different locations too, and you also found something 5 times.

If the CO wants to allow it, then it is up to the finder to decide for themselves whether or not to take the extra finds. I don't see the problem.

+1

3.3k · January 31, 2011

There is a virtual cache that I found today at a state park. The GC lists 5 different locations in the park that can be logged individually. So in theory it would be possible to log this same find 5 different times. I thought it was a bit odd, but then again the point is to take you to see 5 different things so it isn't really any different than putting 5 different virtuals in the park.

I was just curious about what other people thought.

A lot of people have a one cache, one smiley rule. Not me. We have a virtual like that here with over 500 locations spread all over the province. I have logged 70 smileys. Others are over 400. It really is personal preference.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Andronicus

2.2k · February 1, 2011

I've logged our moving survey cap cache (GC43F3) more than 200 times. I logged a monthly event that recycled the same cache page multiple times. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for logging the same GC code more than one time.

If I came across the Virtual mentioned by the OP, I would log one find for each location I visited. I would have no qualms about it. I also won't try and convince someone who insists on adhering to the 1 Find per GC number method.

February 1, 2011

I don't really buy that this is find padding since there are 5 distinct "finds" involved. It's not the same thing as going to the same spot 5 times and getting a smiley for it.

What about logging 5 smilies for a 5-stage multi then? That's 5 different locations too, and you also found something 5 times.

If the CO wants to allow it, then it is up to the finder to decide for themselves whether or not to take the extra finds. I don't see the problem.

If the CO wanted to allow five finds for five stages, then perhaps they should have listed five traditional caches instead of a multi. But, that's just my opinion, I guess..

9.2k · February 1, 2011

As a slightly totaly off topic aside ,...... If When we get souveniers here in the UK, and they are done by county, anyone who has logged YOSM will suddenly get a LOT of useless pretty little pictues on their profile

OT

It's on the GS list of caches that do not count for souvenirs...

On Topic.

I'd only log the OP's cache in question once.

(But I've logged YOSM twice -so far!)

3.3k · February 1, 2011

I don't really buy that this is find padding since there are 5 distinct "finds" involved. It's not the same thing as going to the same spot 5 times and getting a smiley for it.

What about logging 5 smilies for a 5-stage multi then? That's 5 different locations too, and you also found something 5 times.

If the CO wants to allow it, then it is up to the finder to decide for themselves whether or not to take the extra finds. I don't see the problem.

If the CO wanted to allow five finds for five stages, then perhaps they should have listed five traditional caches instead of a multi. But, that's just my opinion, I guess..

It's not a multi, it's a virtual.

6.7k · February 1, 2011

I don't really buy that this is find padding since there are 5 distinct "finds" involved. It's not the same thing as going to the same spot 5 times and getting a smiley for it.

What about logging 5 smilies for a 5-stage multi then? That's 5 different locations too, and you also found something 5 times.

If the CO wants to allow it, then it is up to the finder to decide for themselves whether or not to take the extra finds. I don't see the problem.

If the CO wanted to allow five finds for five stages, then perhaps they should have listed five traditional caches instead of a multi. But, that's just my opinion, I guess..

It's not a multi, it's a virtual.

The question asked someplace in those quotes was "What about logging 5 smilies for a 5-stage multi then?" so it was a multi they were talking about.

3.3k · February 1, 2011

I don't really buy that this is find padding since there are 5 distinct "finds" involved. It's not the same thing as going to the same spot 5 times and getting a smiley for it.

What about logging 5 smilies for a 5-stage multi then? That's 5 different locations too, and you also found something 5 times.

If the CO wants to allow it, then it is up to the finder to decide for themselves whether or not to take the extra finds. I don't see the problem.

If the CO wanted to allow five finds for five stages, then perhaps they should have listed five traditional caches instead of a multi. But, that's just my opinion, I guess..

It's not a multi, it's a virtual.

The question asked someplace in those quotes was "What about logging 5 smilies for a 5-stage multi then?" so it was a multi they were talking about.

I guess my point is that this is turning into a apples and oranges thing.

Anyway, considering that all 5 locations of this virtual are located in the same park (as far as I can tell), I would likely only log 1 find. But as DanOCan and the Orange guy said, there is no hard and fast rule. Just whatever feels right with you. As long as you feel that it is a seperate find, and not padding your stats then great.

By the way, what is worse? Logging 5 finds for 5 locactions of this virtule, or logging 1000 finds for 1000 "caches" that are not really hidden, and are all 161m away from eachother.

10.2k · February 1, 2011

I don't really buy that this is find padding since there are 5 distinct "finds" involved. It's not the same thing as going to the same spot 5 times and getting a smiley for it.

Well, I have seen a few multi-virtuals. There's one about 2 miles from my house, actually. I sort of forgot about it, seeing as I did it in 2003. This one here is a non-issue though. The cache owner is clearly offering finds for all 5 locations. I personally would log it only once, but anyone who wants to log 5 finds for this particular cache is OK in my book. I would say any other cache page I've personally seen offering multiple finds are lamo number pumping schemes. Most of these have been in Ohio, not that that means anything.

multiple logs on a virtual cache

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment