LeapFrogging and Container Swapping

8k · February 23, 2011

What part of the guidelines does it violate?

Why... the guideline that says that you must sign the paper log if you're going to log online, of course. Since the containers are moved and swapped out all the time, there is no way for the cache owner to prove that you signed the log, so of course, the only option would be to delete your online log.

What powertrail cache owner do you know who is checking the physical log and deleting finds if the log is not signed?

If the cache owner is not willing to perform basic maintenance on his caches, they should be archived. Basic maintenance includes deleting bogus logs.

That is going to depend on what the cache owner thinks is a bogus log, not what GeoGeeBee thinks.

By now everyone knows that I don't believe there is any guideline that says a cache owner must delete an online find if the physical log is not signed. The main reason I feel this way is because there are reasonable excuses for a name not being in a log: pen stopped working, the log was wet, just forgot. Add to that: the cache went missing before the owner could check the log or some cacher replaced a full log for the owner and took the old log. This is supposed to be a fun game and a strict insistance on checking log books doesn't go well with what I see as a basically fun activity. You can delete a log that appears bogus, but if you have no reason to doubt that the cache was found it's probably better just to let someone's find stand.

Now of the two activities, I would probably find leapfrogging more bothersome. These are people taking credit for a cache they never found. If you divide your group into two or more teams and each looks for just some of the caches, it would seem each group only found some of the caches. However, as others have noted, this activity doesn't affect other users and leaves the caches and logs intact in their place.

I see container swapping as a silly way to spend less time at each cache and therefore find caches at a faster rate. While not everyone's cup of tea, this is one reason some people do these powertrails - to set personal records for most caches in thes least time. Here they find every cache, and what's more they have signed the physical log of each cache. While they have moved the cache and log to a different location, they have left an identical container in place for the next cacher to find. However, I find this practice silly, since it can be improved on. If the cache owner agrees, there is no need to sign the log. Since the cache owner presumably isn't going to check logs if they allow the cache swapping method, they are certainly not going to check logs if you find the cache, pick it up, then put it back in place without even opening it or signing the log. This method would certainly be faster than the cache swap method. I really have trouble understanding why the power loggers are taking the time to exchange each cache with one in which they have a log with their name in it. Unless of course these power cachers are really puritans.

19k · February 23, 2011

That is going to depend on what the cache owner thinks is a bogus log, not what GeoGeeBee thinks.

By now everyone knows that I don't believe there is any guideline that says a cache owner must delete an online find if the physical log is not signed. The main reason I feel this way is because there are reasonable excuses for a name not being in a log: pen stopped working, the log was wet, just forgot. Add to that: the cache went missing before the owner could check the log or some cacher replaced a full log for the owner and took the old log. This is supposed to be a fun game and a strict insistance on checking log books doesn't go well with what I see as a basically fun activity. You can delete a log that appears bogus, but if you have no reason to doubt that the cache was found it's probably better just to let someone's find stand.

I agree 100% with you on there being reasonable excuses for a name not being on a log. You mention many of them. Powercaching/cache moving, etc is not among the reasons you list. I don't check my logs either, but I will not accept that the physical log should not be signed under reasonable conditions.

I see container swapping as a silly way to spend less time at each cache and therefore find caches at a faster rate. While not everyone's cup of tea, this is one reason some people do these powertrails - to set personal records for most caches in thes least time. Here they find every cache, and what's more they have signed the physical log of each cache. While they have moved the cache and log to a different location, they have left an identical container in place for the next cacher to find. However, I find this practice silly, since it can be improved on. If the cache owner agrees, there is no need to sign the log. Since the cache owner presumably isn't going to check logs if they allow the cache swapping method, they are certainly not going to check logs if you find the cache, pick it up, then put it back in place without even opening it or signing the log. This method would certainly be faster than the cache swap method. I really have trouble understanding why the power loggers are taking the time to exchange each cache with one in which they have a log with their name in it. Unless of course these power cachers are really puritans.

That takes us back to my question: when does a cache become part of a powertrail, and therefore subject to special logging exceptions?

3.1k · February 23, 2011

I would not join a team that swaps containers/logs. IMHO, that is not geocaching. One of the basic rules of geocaching is "return the geocache to its original location".

I've seen that quotation in other threads regarding this issue. It comes from Groundspeak's "Getting Started" web page: "7. Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location." The instructions are simplified steps for how to find your first cache and certainly aren't intended to apply to all caches and all situations.

Signing the logbook, for example, wouldn't make sense for a virtual cache, Earthcache, or webcam cache. And if you interpret "the geocache" to literally be the same container you found at the coordinates, then that would rule out ever doing certain field maintenance on behalf of the cache owner.

I've replaced broken and missing containers with new containers, and I don't think I've violated any guidelines. If the cache owner has no problem with cache swapping and the cache sizes are the same, then I don't think swapping violates any basic rule of geocaching.

3.1k · February 23, 2011

... I see container swapping as a silly way to spend less time at each cache and therefore find caches at a faster rate. While not everyone's cup of tea, this is one reason some people do these powertrails - to set personal records for most caches in thes least time. Here they find every cache, and what's more they have signed the physical log of each cache....

That takes us back to my question: when does a cache become part of a powertrail, and therefore subject to special logging exceptions?

I'm not sure there is any need for special power trail logging exceptions. Container swapping could take place for any caches where the owner allows it and they are swapped for the same sized container.

I doubt many owners would allow it except for caches they consider to be part of a power trail, but that's a determination they can make for themselves without anyone having to define what a power trail is.

Also, I doubt many cachers would use container swapping except on caches they consider to be part of a power trail. Saving a few seconds is unlikely to be a significant consideration except when you're going for a personal one-day record. Once again, no universal definition of power trail is required.

19k · February 23, 2011

... I see container swapping as a silly way to spend less time at each cache and therefore find caches at a faster rate. While not everyone's cup of tea, this is one reason some people do these powertrails - to set personal records for most caches in thes least time. Here they find every cache, and what's more they have signed the physical log of each cache....

That takes us back to my question: when does a cache become part of a powertrail, and therefore subject to special logging exceptions?

I'm not sure there is any need for special power trail logging exceptions. Container swapping could take place for any caches where the owner allows it and they are swapped for the same sized container.

OK... so its all about what the cache owner is willing to allow. Gotcha.

A challenge for you: create and submit a cache. State clearly on the cache page that anybody anywhere in the world is free to log it online. Its a free-for-all armchair cache. A free number. Please let me know when it gets published... I want to log it.

18.9k · February 23, 2011

When it is up to the cache owner to set the logging rules (or lack thereof) and the movement rules and the container swapping rules and swag rules (or lack of swag) then I'm not real sure your playing Geocaching anymore. Its starting to sound like something else.

7.4k · February 23, 2011

Any cache owner who allows/encourages this shameful, inconsiderate behaviour should have all of his/her caches archived and be prohibited from placing more.

Groundspeak has already created branch sites that seem to cater to almost nobody. Perhaps they should invent a new game - an offshoot of geocaching where all you have to do is drive down a deserted road and toss garbage out the window of the car at regular intervals.

3.1k · February 23, 2011

... I see container swapping as a silly way to spend less time at each cache and therefore find caches at a faster rate. While not everyone's cup of tea, this is one reason some people do these powertrails - to set personal records for most caches in thes least time. Here they find every cache, and what's more they have signed the physical log of each cache....

That takes us back to my question: when does a cache become part of a powertrail, and therefore subject to special logging exceptions?

I'm not sure there is any need for special power trail logging exceptions. Container swapping could take place for any caches where the owner allows it and they are swapped for the same sized container.

OK... so its all about what the cache owner is willing to allow. Gotcha.

I never said it's all about what the cache owner is willing to allow. But there are lots of situations where cache owners have flexibility over what is and is not allowed. I suggested that this might be one of those situations. If you disagree, then please explain why you disagree rather than misinterpret my comments.

7.4k · February 23, 2011

...there are lots of situations where cache owners have flexibility over what is and is not allowed.

[ citation needed ]

3.1k · February 23, 2011

When it is up to the cache owner to set the logging rules (or lack thereof) and the movement rules and the container swapping rules and swag rules (or lack of swag) then I'm not real sure your playing Geocaching anymore. Its starting to sound like something else.

I suspect plenty of people thought the same thing when event caches came into existence, and GPS Adventure mazes, and Wherigo, and webcams.

19k · February 23, 2011

When it is up to the cache owner to set the logging rules (or lack thereof) and the movement rules and the container swapping rules and swag rules (or lack of swag) then I'm not real sure your playing Geocaching anymore. Its starting to sound like something else.

I suspect plenty of people thought the same thing when event caches came into existence, and GPS Adventure mazes, and Wherigo, and webcams.

Webcams: no longer allowed (grandfathered)

GPS Adventure Mazes: created by Groundspeak, I believe.

Wherigo: created by Groundspeak and Garmin

Event caches: I don't know the history of that one, but one in four isn't too good. Try again?

19k · February 23, 2011

A challenge for you: create and submit a cache. State clearly on the cache page that anybody anywhere in the world is free to log it online. Its a free-for-all armchair cache. A free number. Please let me know when it gets published... I want to log it.

By the way, I offer up this challenge to anybody that claims that logging the physical cache is up to the cache owner entirely. Toz? SBell111? You guys up to my challenge?

3.1k · February 23, 2011

...there are lots of situations where cache owners have flexibility over what is and is not allowed.

[ citation needed ]

For instance, Groundspeak seems to allow cache owners a certain latitude over how many smileys people can log on a single cache. I've encountered several of these during my travels. Here's one example.

3.1k · February 23, 2011

When it is up to the cache owner to set the logging rules (or lack thereof) and the movement rules and the container swapping rules and swag rules (or lack of swag) then I'm not real sure your playing Geocaching anymore. Its starting to sound like something else.

I suspect plenty of people thought the same thing when event caches came into existence, and GPS Adventure mazes, and Wherigo, and webcams.

Webcams: no longer allowed (grandfathered)

GPS Adventure Mazes: created by Groundspeak, I believe.

Wherigo: created by Groundspeak and Garmin

Event caches: I don't know the history of that one, but one in four isn't too good. Try again?

All four prove my point, which is that just because some people think certain things aren't really geocaching doesn't necessarily mean they aren't really geocaching to others.

7.4k · February 23, 2011

...there are lots of situations where cache owners have flexibility over what is and is not allowed.

[ citation needed ]

For instance, Groundspeak seems to allow cache owners a certain latitude over how many smileys people can log on a single cache. I've encountered several of these during my travels. Here's one example.

"lots"

February 23, 2011

Any cache owner who allows/encourages this shameful, inconsiderate behaviour should have all of his/her caches archived and be prohibited from placing more.

Groundspeak has already created branch sites that seem to cater to almost nobody. Perhaps they should invent a new game - an offshoot of geocaching where all you have to do is drive down a deserted road and toss garbage out the window of the car at regular intervals.

I totally agree with the first part!

The second part... it seems Groundspeak has already invented a game that closely resembles what you describe. Except you just drive by and log garbage. Its called "Power Trail Caching".

7.4k · February 23, 2011

When it is up to the cache owner to set the logging rules (or lack thereof) and the movement rules and the container swapping rules and swag rules (or lack of swag) then I'm not real sure your playing Geocaching anymore. Its starting to sound like something else.

I suspect plenty of people thought the same thing when event caches came into existence, and GPS Adventure mazes, and Wherigo, and webcams.

Webcams: no longer allowed (grandfathered)

GPS Adventure Mazes: created by Groundspeak, I believe.

Wherigo: created by Groundspeak and Garmin

Event caches: I don't know the history of that one, but one in four isn't too good. Try again?

All four prove my point, which is that just because some people think certain things aren't really geocaching doesn't necessarily mean they aren't really geocaching to others.

Wherigo geocaches have a physical geocache at the end.

GPS Adventure Maze exists to teach people about geocaching.

Geocaching events bring geocachers together (and usually have a logbook).

The glorified littering that comprises these so-called "power trails" isn't comparable. It's just horrible and inconsiderate.

19k · February 23, 2011

When it is up to the cache owner to set the logging rules (or lack thereof) and the movement rules and the container swapping rules and swag rules (or lack of swag) then I'm not real sure your playing Geocaching anymore. Its starting to sound like something else.

I suspect plenty of people thought the same thing when event caches came into existence, and GPS Adventure mazes, and Wherigo, and webcams.

Webcams: no longer allowed (grandfathered)

GPS Adventure Mazes: created by Groundspeak, I believe.

Wherigo: created by Groundspeak and Garmin

Event caches: I don't know the history of that one, but one in four isn't too good. Try again?

All four prove my point, which is that just because some people think certain things aren't really geocaching doesn't necessarily mean they aren't really geocaching to others.

How on earth does that prove your point? :blink:

Two were created by Groundspeak for their own business reasons. One is not allowed by Groundspeak. One, I don't know the history of. That proves your point that " things aren't really geocaching doesn't necessarily mean they aren't really geocaching to others"? Sorry, but your logic escapes me.

1.4k · February 23, 2011

just because some people think certain things aren't really geocaching doesn't necessarily mean they aren't really geocaching to others.

That works both ways: just because some people think certain things are really geocaching doesn't necessarily mean they are really geocaching to others. And the vast majority of people here don't think Cache Swapping is geocaching. It's way closer to Waymarking as the container is irrelevant (not the same one or a throwdown).

As for Leapfrogging, other than giving Signal nightmares, that's up to the finders. If they can live with knowing they actually only found 50% of the caches but claimed 100%, well that's between them and their friends.

Personally, I wouldn't do Leapfrogging or Cache Swapping.

7k · February 23, 2011

All four prove my point, which is that just because some people think certain things aren't really geocaching doesn't necessarily mean they aren't really geocaching to others.

Actually the controversy itself disproves your point. If it's not geocaching to the vast majority of involved people, then it's not geocaching.

1.5k · February 23, 2011

Actually the controversy itself disproves your point. If it's not geocaching to the vast majority of involved people, then it's not geocaching.

Actually, If it's not geocaching to the vast majority of involved people, then it's not geocaching to the vast majority of involved people.

7k · February 23, 2011

Actually, If it's not geocaching to the vast majority of involved people, then it's not geocaching to the vast majority of involved people.

Which effectively means that it's not geocaching. A minority cannot change the meaning of a word.

February 23, 2011

What part of the guidelines does it violate?

Why... the guideline that says that you must sign the paper log if you're going to log online, of course. Since the containers are moved and swapped out all the time, there is no way for the cache owner to prove that you signed the log, so of course, the only option would be to delete your online log.

What powertrail cache owner do you know who is checking the physical log and deleting finds if the log is not signed?

If the cache owner is not willing to perform basic maintenance on his caches, they should be archived. Basic maintenance includes deleting bogus logs.

That is going to depend on what the cache owner thinks is a bogus log, not what GeoGeeBee thinks.

By now everyone knows that I don't believe there is any guideline that says a cache owner must delete an online find if the physical log is not signed. The main reason I feel this way is because there are reasonable excuses for a name not being in a log: pen stopped working, the log was wet, just forgot. Add to that: the cache went missing before the owner could check the log or some cacher replaced a full log for the owner and took the old log. This is supposed to be a fun game and a strict insistance on checking log books doesn't go well with what I see as a basically fun activity. You can delete a log that appears bogus, but if you have no reason to doubt that the cache was found it's probably better just to let someone's find stand.

Now of the two activities, I would probably find leapfrogging more bothersome. These are people taking credit for a cache they never found. If you divide your group into two or more teams and each looks for just some of the caches, it would seem each group only found some of the caches. However, as others have noted, this activity doesn't affect other users and leaves the caches and logs intact in their place.

I see container swapping as a silly way to spend less time at each cache and therefore find caches at a faster rate. While not everyone's cup of tea, this is one reason some people do these powertrails - to set personal records for most caches in thes least time. Here they find every cache, and what's more they have signed the physical log of each cache. While they have moved the cache and log to a different location, they have left an identical container in place for the next cacher to find. However, I find this practice silly, since it can be improved on. If the cache owner agrees, there is no need to sign the log. Since the cache owner presumably isn't going to check logs if they allow the cache swapping method, they are certainly not going to check logs if you find the cache, pick it up, then put it back in place without even opening it or signing the log. This method would certainly be faster than the cache swap method. I really have trouble understanding why the power loggers are taking the time to exchange each cache with one in which they have a log with their name in it. Unless of course these power cachers are really puritans.

Now that Groundspeak has redone, and clarified, the guidelines, it is clear that you have to sign the log before you can claim it online. Although I thought it was plenty clear with the old wording. It gave some of you guys more wiggle room than the way it's worded now.

Edited February 23, 2011 by M 5

1.5k · February 23, 2011

Actually, If it's not geocaching to the vast majority of involved people, then it's not geocaching to the vast majority of involved people.

Which effectively means that it's not geocaching. A minority cannot change the meaning of a word.

It's also not a democracy.

3.1k · February 23, 2011

All four prove my point, which is that just because some people think certain things aren't really geocaching doesn't necessarily mean they aren't really geocaching to others.

Actually the controversy itself disproves your point. If it's not geocaching to the vast majority of involved people, then it's not geocaching.

Actually, it doesn't. If a majority of U.S. citizens believed President Obama is a Muslim who was not born in the United States, would that mean he is a Muslim who was not born in the United States?

19k · February 23, 2011

All four prove my point, which is that just because some people think certain things aren't really geocaching doesn't necessarily mean they aren't really geocaching to others.

Actually the controversy itself disproves your point. If it's not geocaching to the vast majority of involved people, then it's not geocaching.

Actually, it doesn't. If a majority of U.S. citizens believed President Obama is a Muslim who was not born in the United States, would that mean he is a Muslim who was not born in the United States?

I don't care which side of that argument you are on (and I think we are on the same side)... it does not belong here, even as an example to make your point.

7k · February 23, 2011

It's also not a democracy.

Actually, it doesn't. If a majority of U.S. citizens believed President Obama is a Muslim who was not born in the United States, would that mean he is a Muslim who was not born in the United States?

Both correct, but both missing the point. Language more works like the stock market, or any other market for that matter. The price for a certain item is not defined by any particular entity, but rather determined by the average price for it globally. You can still have a minority of individuals selling it for much more or much less than the average, but those don't largely influence the global price. The same applies to the meaning of words.

3.1k · February 23, 2011

just because some people think certain things aren't really geocaching doesn't necessarily mean they aren't really geocaching to others.

That works both ways: just because some people think certain things are really geocaching doesn't necessarily mean they are really geocaching to others. And the vast majority of people here don't think Cache Swapping is geocaching. It's way closer to Waymarking as the container is irrelevant (not the same one or a throwdown).

As for Leapfrogging, other than giving Signal nightmares, that's up to the finders. If they can live with knowing they actually only found 50% of the caches but claimed 100%, well that's between them and their friends.

Personally, I wouldn't do Leapfrogging or Cache Swapping.

A vast majority of people here don't think leapfrogging is geocaching, but that doesn't mean it isn't geocaching. I wouldn't do it, but I agree with you. If others want to do it and log all the caches individually, then...meh.

3.3k · February 23, 2011

just because some people think certain things aren't really geocaching doesn't necessarily mean they aren't really geocaching to others.

That works both ways: just because some people think certain things are really geocaching doesn't necessarily mean they are really geocaching to others. And the vast majority of people here don't think Cache Swapping is geocaching. It's way closer to Waymarking as the container is irrelevant (not the same one or a throwdown).

As for Leapfrogging, other than giving Signal nightmares, that's up to the finders. If they can live with knowing they actually only found 50% of the caches but claimed 100%, well that's between them and their friends.

Personally, I wouldn't do Leapfrogging or Cache Swapping.

A vast majority of people here don't think leapfrogging is geocaching, but that doesn't mean it isn't geocaching. I wouldn't do it, but I agree with you. If others want to do it and log all the caches individually, then...meh.

I feel compelled to disagree. Insert your favorite civil rights argument here and see if your opinion is the same.

19k · February 23, 2011

A vast majority of people here don't think leapfrogging is geocaching, but that doesn't mean it isn't something geocaching. I wouldn't do it, but I agree with you.

With that minor edit, I can agree with what you say.

February 23, 2011

I don't know how anyone can say swapping and leapfrogging are geocaching. Not the hobby I started. I guess next time you supporters are driving around town and see someone geocaching, you can just yell out the window for them to sign your name and count it when you get home. Seems pretty much the same to me. I really don't even see the opposing viewpoint at all.

Edited February 23, 2011 by M 5

1.5k · February 23, 2011

Both correct, but both missing the point. Language more works like the stock market, or any other market for that matter. The price for a certain item is not defined by any particular entity, but rather determined by the average price for it globally. You can still have a minority of individuals selling it for much more or much less than the average, but those don't largely influence the global price. The same applies to the meaning of words.

I'm with you, I don't agree with leapfrogging or container swapping. It's not something I would do. But...geocaching is an individual activity and there are a lot of ways to play it. How they play it is between the CO, the cacher, and to some extent Groundspeak. The leapfrogging and container swapping doesn't affect me or my caching.

But as I said before, I don't care for those two practices. It's not MY geocaching, but it's theirs.

3.1k · February 23, 2011

It's also not a democracy.

Actually, it doesn't. If a majority of U.S. citizens believed President Obama is a Muslim who was not born in the United States, would that mean he is a Muslim who was not born in the United States?

Both correct, but both missing the point. Language more works like the stock market, or any other market for that matter. The price for a certain item is not defined by any particular entity, but rather determined by the average price for it globally. You can still have a minority of individuals selling it for much more or much less than the average, but those don't largely influence the global price. The same applies to the meaning of words.

If a majority of people misuse the word "peruse," that doesn't change the meaning of the word. Eventually, it might result in a change.

If a majority of people here decided that events aren't geocaching, that wouldn't mean they aren't geocaching. Eventually, it might result in a change.

7k · February 23, 2011

A vast majority of people here don't think leapfrogging is geocaching, but that doesn't mean it isn't geocaching.

Actually it does, within this community. Expand to the rest of the world and you got your answer.

7k · February 23, 2011

If a majority of people misuse the word "peruse," that doesn't change the meaning of the word. Eventually, it might result in a change.

If a majority of people here decided that events aren't geocaching, that wouldn't mean they aren't geocaching. Eventually, it might result in a change.

Bingo. So once we get a majority that thinks leapfrogging and swapping is geocaching, we might eventually see a change. Until then, it isn't.

7.9k · February 23, 2011

I would most likely never get involved in a situation where this question would even apply.

However, some folks seem to enjoy grease-trap flavored ice-cream, so let them have at it.

19k · February 23, 2011

I would most likely never get involved in a situation where this question would even apply.

However, some folks seem to enjoy grease-trap flavored ice-cream, so let them have at it.

I think your signature says a lot about the subject at hand:

If three people call you an a**, put on a saddle. --Sicilian Proverb

8k · February 23, 2011

A challenge for you: create and submit a cache. State clearly on the cache page that anybody anywhere in the world is free to log it online. Its a free-for-all armchair cache. A free number. Please let me know when it gets published... I want to log it.

By the way, I offer up this challenge to anybody that claims that logging the physical cache is up to the cache owner entirely. Toz? SBell111? You guys up to my challenge?

I'm not sure that the reviewers would allow a cache that invites armchair logging. Groundspeak has indicated that they don't approve of couch potato logging at least for virtual caches and have been known to archive virtuals that where a cache owner has either allowed couch potato logs or has been negligent in deleting them - the Four Windows cache for example. It is Groundspeak's prerogative to decide whether or not they will list certain caches. What Groundspeak has repeated over and over again, it that they are not interested in being the log police. They leave decisions for determining whether a log is bogus or not up to the cache owner.

At the time of the couch potato memo I posted that I felt this was an unnecessary action on the part of Groundspeak. For what ever reason however they decided that they would now police caches were there were many couch potato logs and force cache owners to delete these or risk having their cache archived.

With the exception of no longer allowing logs to be deleted for not fulfilling an ALR, there have been no other changes to Groundspeak's long standing policy of allowing cache owners to police their own cache pages. So far cache owners can allow multiple attends on events, finds when the log is not signed, extra finds for doing a special task, finds for leaving a throw down replacement, and finds for caches with containers swapped. It is certainly possible if enough people make a stink in the forums or vote for a change in the feedback that Groundspeak will decide these logs are an abuse of the website. If so, this will be another unfortunate decision that moves geocaching further away from a non-competive fun activity to some game with strict rules for logging finds scoring points. At some point, I may end up archiving my hides because I'm not interested in enforcing stupid rules. I may end up not logging my finds and keeping track some other way as well.

I have,in fact, deleted bogus logs on my caches. They generally occur when some [self-censored so I don't get a suspension] on this forum posts bogus logs to indicate they disagree with me on some topic. I have never seen any so-called "numbers cheater" log a bogus find on my caches. If a finder who didn't sign the log for some reason that was acceptable to me, that is sufficient to log a find online. I give all cache owners the respect to decide what is acceptable to them. Current guidelines may be interpreted to mean that physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed and the cache owner can not delete these for failure to perform some other requirement the cache owner has.

Now that Groundspeak has redone, and clarified, the guidelines, it is clear that you have to sign the log before you can claim it online. Although I thought it was penty clear with the old wording. It gave some of you guys more wiggle room than the way it's worded now.

The reorganized guidelines did not change the meaning of the phrase "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed." If anything the new exception for challenge caches that is called out, should make it clear that context of this statement has to do with cache owner's ability to delete logs for other reasons. There is nothing in guideline requiring caches owners to delete logs just because the log is not signed or the cache was moved or whatever. Logs that appear to be that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate should be deleted. However there is no definition of of these terms. There was once a thread in this forum that discussed couch potato logs in association with certain virtual caches and an indication that Groundspeak considers these bogus. IMO, a bad decision, but nonetheless one which TPTB have chosen to make. I await their next decision on what is bogus and celebration that the puritans are sure to have when it is made.

PS. I note that while I believe the couch potato decision was bad, most of the people who have posted in this thread believe the the decision not to explicitly call out power trails in the guidelines was a bad decision. So let's just all agree. Groundspeak can make some bad decisions.

February 23, 2011

If the guidelines say that "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.", then the opposite would also be true. They can't be logged as found if the physical log is not signed. :anibad:

19k · February 23, 2011

A challenge for you: create and submit a cache. State clearly on the cache page that anybody anywhere in the world is free to log it online. Its a free-for-all armchair cache. A free number. Please let me know when it gets published... I want to log it.

By the way, I offer up this challenge to anybody that claims that logging the physical cache is up to the cache owner entirely. Toz? SBell111? You guys up to my challenge?

I'm not sure that the reviewers would allow a cache that invites armchair logging.

Exactly. That is my challenge. To see if they will allow it for physical caches when they expressly disallow it for virtual caches. For that matter, they no longer allow caches that can be signed on the outside... they must be a container for a log. That in itself says a mouthful, in my opinion.

Groundspeak does allow some leniency, as do most cache owners. We are, for the most part, reasonable people. But caches are intended to contain logs, and the only purpose that I can see for those logs is to be signed.

38.2k · February 23, 2011

just because some people think certain things aren't really geocaching doesn't necessarily mean they aren't really geocaching to others.

That works both ways: just because some people think certain things are really geocaching doesn't necessarily mean they are really geocaching to others. And the vast majority of people here don't think Cache Swapping is geocaching. It's way closer to Waymarking as the container is irrelevant (not the same one or a throwdown).

As for Leapfrogging, other than giving Signal nightmares, that's up to the finders. If they can live with knowing they actually only found 50% of the caches but claimed 100%, well that's between them and their friends.

Personally, I wouldn't do Leapfrogging or Cache Swapping.

A vast majority of people here don't think leapfrogging is geocaching, but that doesn't mean it isn't geocaching. I wouldn't do it, but I agree with you. If others want to do it and log all the caches individually, then...meh.

I think the essential element of geocaching is hunting geocaches. If you aren't actually hunting a geocache then how is that geocaching?

Edited February 23, 2011 by briansnat

3.1k · February 23, 2011

I think the essential element of geocaching is hunting geocaches. If you aren't actually hunting a geocache then how is that geocaching?

Most events simply involve going to GPS coordinates (or even a specified address), but they usually don't involve much hunting. To some, this means events aren't really geocaching. To others, they are. Those who don't consider events to be geocaching aren't forced to claim smileys if they do opt to attend.

Similarly, some would argue that many virtuals, Earthcaches, webcams, CITO, and GPS Adventure Mazes don't involve much hunting, either. While many people still consider these to be part of geocaching, others don't. That's okay, too.

That's one of the things I really like about geocaching. It's generally flexible enough to allow me to enjoy the parts of it that I like while letting others shape it into the kind of activity that they prefer.

3.1k · February 23, 2011

If the guidelines say that "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.", then the opposite would also be true. They can't be logged as found if the physical log is not signed.

You might want to double-check your logic on that one.

You can become president of the United States if you are elected. That doesn't mean you cannot become president of the United States if you are not elected. Gerald Ford, for example.

1.4k · February 23, 2011

Most events simply involve going to GPS coordinates (or even a specified address), but they usually don't involve much hunting. To some, this means events aren't really geocaching. To others, they are. Those who don't consider events to be geocaching aren't forced to claim smileys if they do opt to attend.

And when a power trail of events pops up somewhere you can just go to the coordinates on all of them. :anibad:

But right now they're all listed as traditionals which means the should be treated as all other traditionals.

20.7k · February 23, 2011

If the cache owner is not willing to perform basic maintenance on his caches, they should be archived. Basic maintenance includes deleting bogus logs.

The problem is, there is no rule that directs cache owners on how they MUST make the determination of whether a cache is bogus. No cache owner has ever been required to compare the physical logs to the online logs and delete all online logs that do not correlate to the physical logs.

20.7k · February 23, 2011

Most events simply involve going to GPS coordinates (or even a specified address), but they usually don't involve much hunting. To some, this means events aren't really geocaching. To others, they are. Those who don't consider events to be geocaching aren't forced to claim smileys if they do opt to attend.

And when a power trail of events pops up somewhere you can just go to the coordinates on all of them.

But right now they're all listed as traditionals which means the should be treated as all other traditionals.

How are they not treated like other traditional caches?

20.7k · February 23, 2011

I've heard a lot of opinions, but nobody has tried yet to answer what I think may be the most important issue of this whole debate (see above). When does it become OK to swap caches and/or to leapfrog finds?

Until TPTB choose to draw a hard line, teh answer to this question is "When the cache owner believes that it is OK".

20.7k · February 23, 2011

That takes us back to my question: when does a cache become part of a powertrail, and therefore subject to special logging exceptions?

A cache is a cache, regardless of whether it is part of a power trail. Whether any cache is subject to 'special logging exceptions' is a determination made by the cache owner unless and until TPTB make a rule that states otherwise.

20.7k · February 23, 2011

Actually, If it's not geocaching to the vast majority of involved people, then it's not geocaching to the vast majority of involved people.

Which effectively means that it's not geocaching. A minority cannot change the meaning of a word.

At the end of the day, this is a game that only involves two people; the cache owner and the cache seeker. In general, if these two people agree that a find is made, then it can be logged online and TPTB will do nothing about it. If I'm not mistaken, the only time TPTB have taken a stand on this issue was with pocket caches.

2.1k · February 23, 2011

If the cache owner is not willing to perform basic maintenance on his caches, they should be archived. Basic maintenance includes deleting bogus logs.
The problem is, there is no rule that directs cache owners on how they MUST make the determination of whether a cache is bogus. No cache owner has ever been required to compare the physical logs to the online logs and delete all online logs that do not correlate to the physical logs.

But with all this swapping, a cache owner CANNOT determine that a log is bogus.

Suppose a cacher in Germany logs "Greetings from Germany" on 100 of the caches in your power trail. Being a conscientious cache owner, you delete them. He appeals to Groundspeak. You can't prove he didn't log them, since you have no way of knowing where the logs he allegedly signed are now located. You have to allow the log, even if he's never been within a thousand miles of your caches.

Once you have created a situation where it is impossible to verify the logs, you are no longer playing the same game as the rest of us. Why even bother to sign the log, if it's impossible to verify anyway?

Why even bother to place the log, if you aren't going to be able to use it to verify finds? And if the only thing in the container is the useless log, why bother with the container? The whole thing is an exercise in pointlessness.

LeapFrogging and Container Swapping

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