Jump to content

Is this acceptable?


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

....You don't know what I "feel a need for". You can't speak about what I "feel" or what I "need". I don't care about the numbers. What I care about is the completely honest record of my caching experience. Which if you're a person who is obsessed by the numbers, might happen to look as if it's about the find count - but in that case, it says something about you and nothing about me.

Really seriously - you think I'm in it for the numbers - me??? With 1100 finds in 9+ years of caching??

 

If the count really is an honest compilation of "finds" you made - I have to go back to asking why you won't log online find logs for each container in stages of a multicache (many I have seen contain logs with the next coords)

 

or

 

Your own caches that have moved from where you put them??

 

Do you really need another stat that badly or are you really having a hard time finding other caches worth searching for?

 

I agree with the blue dude.

Link to comment
You CAN find (aka revisit) a cache as many times as you like. It might even be a better adventure than the last time.
Right, I could revisit a cache and maybe enjoy it, but I can't find it again unless it's been moved or changed in such a way that I don't remember where it was hidden. Just like I can't find my car keys unless I've lost them (or one of the kids has hidden them). Otherwise I just remember where I set them down - no credit for "finding" them.
So what do you gain by claiming another Found it other than increasing your stat?
Keeping the record of my geocaching experiences exactly honest, with every FIND and DNF listed.
Does that extra oomph in your find count do something for you?
I don't care what my find count is. More than one thousand ? I guess. More than two thousand ? I don't know. Who cares. The count is worthless.
Just say no to multiple logging. Enjoy caching for the act of caching and log a find so that it's off your 'need to find' list.
Thanks so much for the advice. 'Fraid it doesn't apply to me, though, since I don't have a "need to find" list.

 

A lot of times on a multi, if I really like visiting the area, I'll do one leg and then leave. Then I get to come back and enjoy the trip to the next leg. and so on. I wouldn't assume that I get multiple finds for making more than one trip.
Glad to hear it. Neither would I. Log multiple finds for multiple trips to a multi, that is.

 

 

Nor would I claim a second find for having a bad memory.
How would you know ? If you had that bad of a memory that you didn't recognize the location, you'd probably not remember that you'd already logged it once before :lol: Sorry. If it did happen, it might not seem funny at the time. Might be a little scary to realize one's memory was slipping like that.

 

Or becuase it moved 200 feet. Do you really need another stat that badly or are you really having a hard time finding other caches worth searching for?

Wait a minute. Do YOU really need another stat so badly that you'll log the same old cache in its "new" incarnation 200 feet from the prior location just because it has a new GC# ? Or do YOU NOT go for it when the cache owner archives his old listing, picks up the old container, and moves it 200 feet to a spot he likes better, then gets a new GC# for the "new" cache listing ? Are you really having a that hard of a time finding caches worth searching for, that you would take a smiley on that moved-and-recycled cache ? Or are YOU NOT going for that recycle-but-newGC# cache ? Wait, what's the difference between my logging a smiley because I FIND the new HIDE (of the old GC#, moved and changed) and your logging a smiley because you FIND the new HIDE (of the old cache, moved and changed by virtue of a new GC#) ? Really. No. Difference.

 

I don't get it.

Link to comment

As far as I know there's no RULE that says you can't log a find on the cache for each stage of a multi you find,....

 

There is, it's that Groundspeak will allow the cache owner to delete all multiple Finds except for the one legitimate log. Just because it isn't enforced in all situations doesn't give you the permission to do it.

 

Right, it's up to the owner. If the owner of a multi allows multiple logs, say, totaling the number of stages found in the multi, then there's no rule against it.

 

But I can honestly say I've never seen a cacher post multiple finds on a multi like that, and it had never even occurred to me as a possibility until StarBrand said s/he thought it was my logic.

Link to comment

...

But I can honestly say I've never seen a cacher post multiple finds on a multi like that, and it had never even occurred to me as a possibility until StarBrand said s/he thought it was my logic.

Correction - I never said it was your logic. I simply asked why you draw the line there but draw it somewhere else with a "moved" cache? - when it very much so seems equivalent. Different containers (with or without logsheets) hidden in different locations and requiring separate efforts to locate - all with the same GC number.

 

By the way - I once moved one of my caches 30 or so feet with a new hide style - let me gaurantee you that I will delete your duplicate log on it (if it happened) and deprive you of that "honest" find record. What does that make me??

Link to comment

<snip>

 

Intersting mindset. This further reinforces my belief that the numbers mean absolutely nothing. People logging caches on power trails they did not find, caches they have found previously,ect... it all adds up to ... what... exactly?? Nothing. I guess I don't get people who place such a high importance on the numbers when they might not represent anything at all.

 

Well, all except for the little confusion where you say people logging "caches they have found previously". In the case we're discussing, no, it's NOT a CACHE that they have found previously, it's a GC# - which for whatever reason - the CO has kept while changing the cache to one they have NOT found previously. The GC# is not synonymous with the cache itself. You know, the map is not the territory. The #label is not the same as the actual cache searching-and-finding experience, and that experience is what is supposed to count in this game.

 

And I would NOT log a new find on a second GC# where all that changed was the GC# itself, where the original cache was archived and the CO put a replacement cache in the same place and published it as a new cache, even recycling the wording of the original listing with a little note about the replacement. Why would I ? Just because it's a new number, it's still the same old cache, and I already found that exact cache once before under its old number. I can remember exactly where it was and I can just walk right up and pull it out of the spot I remember. That's not a FIND, That's a numbers game - which apparently people think is legitimate because, after all, it does have a new GC#. But it's not a new FIND as far as the searching-and-finding experience goes, and I won't log it as one.

 

It's pretty simple.

When you don't know exactly where something is and you look for it and find it, you should log it as a find.

When you don't know exactly where something is and you look for it and you don't find it, you should log it as a DNF.

When you do know exactly where something is because you found it once before in that exact same spot, you should not log it at all (even if the cache owner - for whatever reason) has turned it into a new listing with a new GC#).

 

I am not going to turn this into a debate so let me just say, I read and understand your beliefs as you have posted them to both me and Starbrand.

I just don't agree with them.

Meaning, I don't agree with your logic, not whether or not you actually think the way you have stated.

Your position could justify thousands of "finds" in your stats, as containers break, get replaced, get muggled, ect. I mean, applying your logic, i would be finding a "new" cache.

In my opinion logging a second find on a cache which has recently had a broken or leaking container replaced (which fits into your logic) is pretty much pointless to anyone but myself. And I can't imagine finding any kind of meaning in that smiley.

But hey... its your game and your numbers, if you find meaning in doing that... power to you.

 

That's a really really scummy thing for you to say, implying that I would log a maintenance/replacement container in the exact same hide location as a "second find". That's not what we're discussing in this thread - which is a cache owner who has chosen to move his cache location a significant distance and has changed the hide significantly without getting a new GC# - and it's nothing like anything I said for you to distort into your scummy implication.

 

You owe me an apology.

 

For the record though, as previously mentioned, were I a cache owner and you logged such a second find on my cache I would delete it posthaste, as would I expect any CO to do to mine if I logged in that fashion.

For the record, I agree that you have the right to delete second "finds" on your own caches - but again, that's not what we're talking about in this thread - which is a cache owner who has chosen to create a "new" hide without getting a new GC# and who has even invited previous cachers to find it and log it again as finds.

Link to comment

You know it strikes me, that the biggest reason that the numbers don't matter in any meaningful way is that we have collectively allowed so many "Do want you want as long as the guidelines don't forbid it" offshoots of logging that no matter how much any of us do/don't want to compare numbers - we just can't.

 

And that is just a fact.

Link to comment

....For the record, I agree that you have the right to delete second "finds" on your own caches - but again, that's not what we're talking about in this thread - which is a cache owner who has chosen to create a "new" hide without getting a new GC# and who has even invited previous cachers to find it and log it again as finds.

 

For the record - this thread's opening post mentioned nothing about whether or not an owner had invited new logs after the move.

Link to comment

<snip>

 

Intersting mindset. This further reinforces my belief that the numbers mean absolutely nothing. People logging caches on power trails they did not find, caches they have found previously,ect... it all adds up to ... what... exactly?? Nothing. I guess I don't get people who place such a high importance on the numbers when they might not represent anything at all.

 

Well, all except for the little confusion where you say people logging "caches they have found previously". In the case we're discussing, no, it's NOT a CACHE that they have found previously, it's a GC# - which for whatever reason - the CO has kept while changing the cache to one they have NOT found previously. The GC# is not synonymous with the cache itself. You know, the map is not the territory. The #label is not the same as the actual cache searching-and-finding experience, and that experience is what is supposed to count in this game.

 

And I would NOT log a new find on a second GC# where all that changed was the GC# itself, where the original cache was archived and the CO put a replacement cache in the same place and published it as a new cache, even recycling the wording of the original listing with a little note about the replacement. Why would I ? Just because it's a new number, it's still the same old cache, and I already found that exact cache once before under its old number. I can remember exactly where it was and I can just walk right up and pull it out of the spot I remember. That's not a FIND, That's a numbers game - which apparently people think is legitimate because, after all, it does have a new GC#. But it's not a new FIND as far as the searching-and-finding experience goes, and I won't log it as one.

 

It's pretty simple.

When you don't know exactly where something is and you look for it and find it, you should log it as a find.

When you don't know exactly where something is and you look for it and you don't find it, you should log it as a DNF.

When you do know exactly where something is because you found it once before in that exact same spot, you should not log it at all (even if the cache owner - for whatever reason) has turned it into a new listing with a new GC#).

 

I am not going to turn this into a debate so let me just say, I read and understand your beliefs as you have posted them to both me and Starbrand.

I just don't agree with them.

Meaning, I don't agree with your logic, not whether or not you actually think the way you have stated.

Your position could justify thousands of "finds" in your stats, as containers break, get replaced, get muggled, ect. I mean, applying your logic, i would be finding a "new" cache.

In my opinion logging a second find on a cache which has recently had a broken or leaking container replaced (which fits into your logic) is pretty much pointless to anyone but myself. And I can't imagine finding any kind of meaning in that smiley.

But hey... its your game and your numbers, if you find meaning in doing that... power to you.

 

That's a really really scummy thing for you to say, implying that I would log a maintenance/replacement container in the exact same hide location as a "second find". That's not what we're discussing in this thread - which is a cache owner who has chosen to move his cache location a significant distance and has changed the hide significantly without getting a new GC# - and it's nothing like anything I said for you to distort into your scummy implication.

 

You owe me an apology.

 

For the record though, as previously mentioned, were I a cache owner and you logged such a second find on my cache I would delete it posthaste, as would I expect any CO to do to mine if I logged in that fashion.

For the record, I agree that you have the right to delete second "finds" on your own caches - but again, that's not what we're talking about in this thread - which is a cache owner who has chosen to create a "new" hide without getting a new GC# and who has even invited previous cachers to find it and log it again as finds.

 

Are we still talking about this????

Friend I don't know you , but let me be clear about one thing... I don't owe you jack nothin". You come into someone elses thread with your bizarre theories about what a find is supposed to be which I don't think anyone concurs with. I apply the exact logic you use to support your theory and you get miffed??? Are you for real?? This has to be some kind of prank. No one is that clueless.

"Scummy" thats rich coming from you!! :laughing:

Edited by NeecesandNephews
Link to comment

You owe me an apology.

 

I'm sorry.

 

well, umm, gee, thanks, I guess.

 

Kinda coming from the wrong person, since you're not the one who owes anyone an apology, but considering the scummy treatment I've been given, I guess I'll have to take the apologies where I can get them. So, yeah, thanks for being a nice person !

Link to comment

You owe me an apology.

 

I'm sorry.

 

well, umm, gee, thanks, I guess.

 

Kinda coming from the wrong person, since you're not the one who owes anyone an apology, but considering the scummy treatment I've been given, I guess I'll have to take the apologies where I can get them. So, yeah, thanks for being a nice person !

 

Sorry - if you think I have been scummy. I just want to understand your logic.

 

You say the experience matters - not the the find numbers or GC numbers. Yet you draw the line in similar circumstances on multis and have tried to twist the move issue to only caches where the owner invited further logging.

 

You have stated that you want an honest record of finds yet concur that owners can alter that record.

 

You say the find count is irrelevent to anything and that it should be an honest record of all your finds.

 

What I want to know, is why you draw the line at owner's inviting finds and at multilogging stages of multis but not elsewhere?? Help me understand..........I don't right now.

 

I assume, at this moment, that the difference is just your own personal view of a count.

Link to comment

... bizarre theories about what a find is supposed to be which I don't think anyone concurs with.

 

Evidence:

 

I would not do it, though I have a few friends who would do it. A few folks also log Groundspeak twice because it technically moved.

 

There's a cache near us that was moved a decent distance form the original location. The CO actually put a note in the cache listing encouraging old finders to relook and log another find. I'd have no problem on this kind of a situation

 

I have 6 or 7 caches that I have logged twice, the shortest move was about a 1/4 mile the furthest was over 10 miles.

 

If a cache has been moved,then you have to search to find it again,so it qualifies as a new find as far as I am concerned! To each their own,but I have no problem in logging a new find in this situation!

 

If a cache has been moved such that I could legitimately find it again without already knowing where it was, then I'd have no problem logging another find on it, since I don't care about what number it is. At all. I honestly don't understand why anyone would have a problem with this.

 

And there are more, but that's enough to prove you're wrong.

 

So you're evidently wrong about this second-find idea being a "bizarre theory" which not anyone concurs with ... and you can stick your fingers in your ears and go LaLaLa or you can admit you were wrong, I don't care. I find your churlish words boring and as soon as I'm finished typing these paragraphs, you're on my ignore list. Best wishes to you -- elsewhere !

 

Ladies and gentlemen whom I've quoted, thanks for expressing reasonable ideas about when/how second finds are justified -- sorry if my quoting you happens to bring undesirable attention from NeecesandNephews as a side-effect -- I sincerely hope it doesn't -- and happy caching, everyone, everywhere.

Link to comment

Ladies and gentlemen whom I've quoted, thanks for expressing reasonable ideas about when/how second finds are justified --

 

I have yet to log a cache that would I have to explain to any cache owner why I am claiming a Found it. I find the cache - I sign the log book. If I use "the effort involved" to justify claiming a second find on the same cache I suppose I could justify anything.

Link to comment

Help me understand..........I don't right now.

 

 

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I know better than to try to "help you understand" again after the last times.

 

Guess now you'll never know. Ah, what a tragedy. :lol:

 

But for the record - if you read the posts - you can see "scummy" is only addressed to that NeesesandNephews crack about me, which was an order of magnitude more insulting than your ".misunderstandings". Once less thing for you to worry about, if that's any consolation ....

Edited by hotshoe
Link to comment

Ladies and gentlemen whom I've quoted, thanks for expressing reasonable ideas about when/how second finds are justified --

 

I have yet to log a cache that would I have to explain to any cache owner why I am claiming a Found it. I find the cache - I sign the log book. If I use "the effort involved" to justify claiming a second find on the same cache I suppose I could justify anything.

 

Well, I think you're wrong in your idea about "justify anything", but at least you're reasonable about it ! :lol:

Edited by hotshoe
Link to comment

... bizarre theories about what a find is supposed to be which I don't think anyone concurs with.

 

Evidence:

 

I would not do it, though I have a few friends who would do it. A few folks also log Groundspeak twice because it technically moved.

 

There's a cache near us that was moved a decent distance form the original location. The CO actually put a note in the cache listing encouraging old finders to relook and log another find. I'd have no problem on this kind of a situation

 

I have 6 or 7 caches that I have logged twice, the shortest move was about a 1/4 mile the furthest was over 10 miles.

 

If a cache has been moved,then you have to search to find it again,so it qualifies as a new find as far as I am concerned! To each their own,but I have no problem in logging a new find in this situation!

 

If a cache has been moved such that I could legitimately find it again without already knowing where it was, then I'd have no problem logging another find on it, since I don't care about what number it is. At all. I honestly don't understand why anyone would have a problem with this.

 

And there are more, but that's enough to prove you're wrong.

 

So you're evidently wrong about this second-find idea being a "bizarre theory" which not anyone concurs with ... and you can stick your fingers in your ears and go LaLaLa or you can admit you were wrong, I don't care. I find your churlish words boring and as soon as I'm finished typing these paragraphs, you're on my ignore list. Best wishes to you -- elsewhere !

 

Ladies and gentlemen whom I've quoted, thanks for expressing reasonable ideas about when/how second finds are justified -- sorry if my quoting you happens to bring undesirable attention from NeecesandNephews as a side-effect -- I sincerely hope it doesn't -- and happy caching, everyone, everywhere.

 

I'm crushed!:( Please excuse me while I go slit my wrists.

Link to comment

Ladies and gentlemen whom I've quoted, thanks for expressing reasonable ideas about when/how second finds are justified --

 

I have yet to log a cache that would I have to explain to any cache owner why I am claiming a Found it. I find the cache - I sign the log book. If I use "the effort involved" to justify claiming a second find on the same cache I suppose I could justify anything.

 

Well, I think you're wrong in your idea about "justify anything", but at least you're reasonable about it ! :lol:

 

All in all, I'd go caching with you. And if you were looking to find a cache you've found before just so you could claim another Found it, I'd roll my eyes and probably give you a hard time, and then we'd move on to another cache.

 

Happy Caching!

Link to comment

If a cache has been moved,then you have to search to find it again,so it qualifies as a new find as far as I am concerned! To each their own,but I have no problem in logging a new find in this situation!

I guess as long as you don't mind seeing something like this on your stats year after year after year:

 

You've found 5361 caches (5320 distinct)

 

That is from my own stats. When I was new at this, some cachers told me that it was OK (and even normal) to log my temp caches at those events. Which meant logging the event multiple times. Now, I don't think that makes me a bad person. :) But in hindsight, I'd sure prefer if it said 5320 out of 5320.

Link to comment

Ladies and gentlemen whom I've quoted, thanks for expressing reasonable ideas about when/how second finds are justified --

 

I have yet to log a cache that would I have to explain to any cache owner why I am claiming a Found it. I find the cache - I sign the log book. If I use "the effort involved" to justify claiming a second find on the same cache I suppose I could justify anything.

 

Well, I think you're wrong in your idea about "justify anything", but at least you're reasonable about it ! :lol:

 

All in all, I'd go caching with you. And if you were looking to find a cache you've found before just so you could claim another Found it, I'd roll my eyes and probably give you a hard time, and then we'd move on to another cache.

 

Happy Caching!

 

Thanks, BlueDeuce. I loved Iowa the last time I was there and changed my travel plans to stay an extra day ... wish it could have been more.

 

Get in touch if you're heading for the West Coast and we'll look for some high mountains and some caches neither of us have found.

Link to comment

If a cache has been moved,then you have to search to find it again,so it qualifies as a new find as far as I am concerned! To each their own,but I have no problem in logging a new find in this situation!

I guess as long as you don't mind seeing something like this on your stats year after year after year:

 

You've found 5361 caches (5320 distinct)

 

That is from my own stats. When I was new at this, some cachers told me that it was OK (and even normal) to log my temp caches at those events. Which meant logging the event multiple times. Now, I don't think that makes me a bad person. :) But in hindsight, I'd sure prefer if it said 5320 out of 5320.

 

Oh, that's the good kind of problem to have - because it's solvable. You can delete those multiple logs, even on archived caches, as long as the cache page hasn't been locked (which most aren't).

Link to comment

Help me understand..........I don't right now.

 

 

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I know better than to try to "help you understand" again after the last times.

 

Guess now you'll never know. Ah, what a tragedy. :lol:

 

But for the record - if you read the posts - you can see "scummy" is only addressed to that NeesesandNephews crack about me, which was an order of magnitude more insulting than your ".misunderstandings". Once less thing for you to worry about, if that's any consolation ....

 

So your not going to explain the difference?? You keep stating it to be an obvious one. I just don't see it that way.......

Link to comment

If a cache has been moved,then you have to search to find it again,so it qualifies as a new find as far as I am concerned! To each their own,but I have no problem in logging a new find in this situation!

I guess as long as you don't mind seeing something like this on your stats year after year after year:

 

You've found 5361 caches (5320 distinct)

 

That is from my own stats. When I was new at this, some cachers told me that it was OK (and even normal) to log my temp caches at those events. Which meant logging the event multiple times. Now, I don't think that makes me a bad person. :) But in hindsight, I'd sure prefer if it said 5320 out of 5320.

I am feeling pretty pure right now. :P

 

You've found 2936 caches (2936 distinct) since your first cache find on 12/26/2003.

 

You can undoubtedly call me all sorts of bad names but you certainly can't claim I don't walk the walk. ;)

Link to comment

If a cache has been moved,then you have to search to find it again,so it qualifies as a new find as far as I am concerned! To each their own,but I have no problem in logging a new find in this situation!

I guess as long as you don't mind seeing something like this on your stats year after year after year:

 

You've found 5361 caches (5320 distinct)

 

That is from my own stats. When I was new at this, some cachers told me that it was OK (and even normal) to log my temp caches at those events. Which meant logging the event multiple times. Now, I don't think that makes me a bad person. :) But in hindsight, I'd sure prefer if it said 5320 out of 5320.

I am feeling pretty pure right now. :P

 

You've found 2936 caches (2936 distinct) since your first cache find on 12/26/2003.

 

You can undoubtedly call me all sorts of bad names but you certainly can't claim I don't walk the walk. ;)

 

Let us guess - you got a GPS for Christmas that year, didn't you ! :D

Link to comment

Unbelievable. After all this back and forth , I check the stats of our debate opponent and find - 1968 finds (1967 distinct).

You made all this fuss over one smiley??? And start name-calling when you can't support your position??

What a drama queen.

Like I said... unbelievable.

I apologize if my criticism of your "theory" offended you. I still believe it is "bizzare" and if you can't accept a differing opinion, the Forums might not be the best placxe for you.

Link to comment

If a cache has been moved,then you have to search to find it again,so it qualifies as a new find as far as I am concerned! To each their own,but I have no problem in logging a new find in this situation!

I guess as long as you don't mind seeing something like this on your stats year after year after year:

 

You've found 5361 caches (5320 distinct)

 

That is from my own stats. When I was new at this, some cachers told me that it was OK (and even normal) to log my temp caches at those events. Which meant logging the event multiple times. Now, I don't think that makes me a bad person. :) But in hindsight, I'd sure prefer if it said 5320 out of 5320.

I am feeling pretty pure right now. :P

 

You've found 2936 caches (2936 distinct) since your first cache find on 12/26/2003.

 

You can undoubtedly call me all sorts of bad names but you certainly can't claim I don't walk the walk. ;)

 

Let us guess - you got a GPS for Christmas that year, didn't you ! :D

Well maybe. Tried for a cache today that was in the same parking lot as one of the ones we found our first day out back at the end of 2003. Got chased away by a security guard today. A couple of finds and an archive. :(

 

But I think you must admit I walk the walk. No?

Link to comment

 

I am feeling pretty pure right now. :P

 

You've found 2936 caches (2936 distinct) since your first cache find on 12/26/2003.

 

Tried for a cache today that was in the same parking lot as one of the ones we found our first day out back at the end of 2003. Got chased away by a security guard today. A couple of finds and an archive. :(

 

But I think you must admit I walk the walk. No?

Yes, you do. Not hard to admit it.

 

Too bad about the security guard. And the archived cache. Can't win 'em all.

Edited by hotshoe
Link to comment

I'm curious. If the cache owner moved the cache 200 ft. and kept the same listing, just exactly how do all you "previous finders" learn that it has moved, offering you the chance to log it again? (assuming you are of that mindset)

I don't make it a habit to rehunt caches I already have a smiley on.:blink:

 

I get instant notifications when new caches are published and also when a previously published cache has been enabled. IF a CO disabled a cache, moved it 200 ft., then reenabled it I'd see the notification. If I followed the link to the cache page I'd likely see the last log from the CO indicating why they moved it.

Link to comment

You know what I find bizarre?

 

The one find per GC crowd sees finding a cache that has moved 300 feet a second time as pure evil and numbers padding, yet going back and finding the EXACT SAME cache a second time just because the owner archived the first listing and the relisted it with a new number is perfectly OK.

 

Maybe it's because I come from an area with several grandfathered moving caches and where we had a recurring event that recycled the same cache page every month that I just don't see the world the same way.

 

(But logging multiple smileys for a single multi cache? That's just wrong. You found a single Multi, not six. A stage of a multi cache is NOT a cache by itself and thus counts for nothing. I'm still trying to figure out why the comparison between finding a moved Traditional and a single unchanged Multi came into play in the first place.)

 

(Same thing with claiming a second Find on a Traditional where the container had been replaced. Huh? I didn't see anyone advocating that practice either.)

 

C'mon people -- apply a little common sense and realize there is no stock answer for every situation. I'm done with this thread now as it just continues to be the same people on both sides repeating the same things over and over.

Edited by DanOCan
Link to comment

Searched for this topic because last night a nearby cache was re listed (same GC#), but 450 ft from it's original location.

 

I'm planning to go and find the cache on it's new location. I want to find it again because to me having "found"

a cache means I know where it is. Now that it has moved I actually don't know where it is.

 

So assuming I find it, it definitely is a "new find". Same as the old cache was archived and someone else would

have posted a new cache in the same park a few hundred feet away..I also would go and find that.

 

Now about the logging and about my stats... it's a game... it's not important.... so I will probably log a new "found".. but when it turns out it is a sensitive matter to the CO and he wants it removed..that's cool with me... I will remove it and post a note instead.

 

cheers

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...