YOSM

[+simplysup]

Say I visit a trigpoint today, that hasn't been a YOSM yet. I log it at trigpointing.co.uk, as is my wont. If this survey point is *later* chosen as a YOSM cache site, can I retro-log it, stating I found it on today's date and using the info I garnered today?

[+Mad H@ter]

I've always understood this to be no.

In fact I've recently just revisited a trigpoint to claim it as a YOSM, it was added to YOSM a week after my previous visit

[+Gushoneybun]

I've always understood this to be no.

This is how I have understood it to be, as well.

[+Wavvy]

I tried logging a trig that appeared as a YOSM some time after I'd actually found it. My log was deleted.

[+Pharisee]

Now contrary to the previous posters, I believe that that you can log a survey monument that has recently gained YOSM status as 'Found'... provided that you visited it after the YOSM cache was created... ie you visited it the monument after March 2002.

 

I expect Brian (Outforthehunt) will be along soon to adjudicate.

[+Bear and Ragged]

I've always refrained from logging YOSM as found, if I've visited the trig previously, and it is then made a YOSM.

 

Why?

Statistics.

 

It doesn't half mess 'em up if you add in YOSM's to an earlier 'found' date.

All your Milestone Caches are going to change!

[+agentmancuso]

Now contrary to the previous posters, I believe that that you can log a survey monument that has recently gained YOSM status as 'Found'... provided that you visited it after the YOSM cache was created... ie you visited it the monument after March 2002.

 

 

That's correct.

 

There's an article on logging YoSM caches in Issue 2 of the GAGB newsletter Seeker, April 2011

[+simplysup]

There's an article on logging YoSM caches in Issue 2 of the GAGB newsletter Seeker, April 2011

 

I knew I'd seen something addressing this issue recently, I just couldn't remember where!

 

Thanks everyone for your replies.

 

Nigel

[outforthehunt]

I have had issues with retrospective logs on the YOSM cache. I have deleted some logs and allowed others and still haven't come to terms with what is fair as I get emails both for and against. So I guess it's a good time to open the discussion on what you think is fair. Certainly no logs before the cache was created will be allowed. The cache wasn't created to increase log finds.I was having some concerns with that when I started to get so many retrospective logs.I'm open for any feedback on what the majority think is fair.

Brian

[+lodgebarn]

I have had issues with retrospective logs on the YOSM cache. I have deleted some logs and allowed others and still haven't come to terms with what is fair as I get emails both for and against. So I guess it's a good time to open the discussion on what you think is fair. Certainly no logs before the cache was created will be allowed. The cache wasn't created to increase log finds.I was having some concerns with that when I started to get so many retrospective logs.I'm open for any feedback on what the majority think is fair.

Brian

Currently all my visits have been new ones, although I have visited quite a few others before but mostly before the cache start date. I think if I had the evidence that I had visited a new YOSM within the timescales (e.g. dated photo, Trig UK Log) I would consider logging but ideally would visit again anyway.

[+The Patrician]

I think if I had the evidence that I had visited a new YOSM within the timescales (e.g. dated photo, Trig UK Log) I would consider logging but ideally would visit again anyway.

 

I confess to adding my visit to the top of Ben Nevis after the event, but I had photos, dates, etc. so I added that with a reasonably clear conscience. I've also been to at least one other, the Old Man of Coniston, but can't find any photographic or other evidence of my visit there so I haven't claimed that one.

 

Now for the begging letter, would Mr outforthehunt please consider a YOSM on the Isle of Arran as I'm going there later in the year?

[+The_Street_Searchers]

My view is that you should only be able to log an OSM once it has been there

 

I often walk down footpaths and think "that would be a good place for a cache" if one is then put there I still need to go and find it before I claim the

 

Why should this excellent cache be any different?

[+Andy33]

My view is that a Trig should only be logged as a YOSM from the date it becomes one and no retrospective logs should be allowed.

 

Just my view

 

Andy

[+Pharisee]

Apart from a couple of local pillars that I passed 'by accident', I didn't start bagging trig points until May 2003. I was on my annual pike fishing holiday to Loch Awe on the west coast of Scotland... The fishing was terrible, I done all the local caches so I started visiting the local pillars. Carra Duagh and Beinn Chaorach, to name but two, stick in my mind as being harder to reach than most. While neither of them, or any of the others I did up there (apart from Ben Nevis) have YOSM status, should Brian choose to give it to them at some point in the future, I would like to think that I could log them as 'Found'. They involved a considerable outlay in effort which was rewarded with some great views and a good deal of self satisfaction. Given my current level of physical fitness, it's very unlikely that I would ever revisit those pillars again.

[+*mouse*]

I don't like the idea of retrospective logging either if I'm honest and I wouldn't do it myself. To my mind you should visit the coordinates with the express intention of finding the cache (be that physical or virtual). If you visit a trig because you like to bag trigs and then it later becomes an YOSM, you still visited that trig because it was a trigpoint IYSWIM. It's about intent for me.

 

But at the end of the day it's no skin off my nose if someone wants to play the game differently - I will only ever log YOSM once and not retrospectively. Others like to chase it around and have logged it dozens of times. Who's to say I'm right or their wrong or vice versa?

[+lodgebarn]

Now for the begging letter, would Mr outforthehunt please consider a YOSM on the Isle of Arran as I'm going there later in the year?

 

We have no plans to visit again in the near future but it would certainly get my support. There are some great tops on Arran and it is probably the biggest island in the UK without one!

[+agentmancuso]

My view is that you should only be able to log an OSM once it has been there

 

I often walk down footpaths and think "that would be a good place for a cache" if one is then put there I still need to go and find it before I claim the

 

Why should this excellent cache be any different?

 

For the rather obvious reason that the trig was present at the time of visiting, unlike the hypothetical tupperware.

[+simplysup]

As I started the thread, I'd like to add my vote. My preference would be that a monument only becomes findable as a YOSM cache once it has been designated as such. Retrospective logs of monuments previously visited, before it was so designated, should not be allowed. However, as it is outforthehunt's cache, I'm happy to accept whatever judgement he makes; just keep the cache alive and kicking please

[+The_Street_Searchers]

My view is that you should only be able to log an OSM once it has been there

 

I often walk down footpaths and think "that would be a good place for a cache" if one is then put there I still need to go and find it before I claim the

 

Why should this excellent cache be any different?

 

For the rather obvious reason that the trig was present at the time of visiting, unlike the hypothetical tupperware.

 

The post by Mouse better captures what I was trying to say

 

I don't like the idea of retrospective logging either if I'm honest and I wouldn't do it myself. To my mind you should visit the coordinates with the express intention of finding the cache (be that physical or virtual). If you visit a trig because you like to bag trigs and then it later becomes an YOSM, you still visited that trig because it was a trigpoint IYSWIM. It's about intent for me.

 

It has to be about the intent.

[+Pharisee]

The post by Mouse better captures what I was trying to say

 

I don't like the idea of retrospective logging either if I'm honest and I wouldn't do it myself. To my mind you should visit the coordinates with the express intention of finding the cache (be that physical or virtual). If you visit a trig because you like to bag trigs and then it later becomes an YOSM, you still visited that trig because it was a trigpoint IYSWIM. It's about intent for me.

 

It has to be about the intent.

 

I agree... the intent is to visit the survey monument. Does it make any difference whether it has YOSM status or not? No, of course not. If Brian confers YOSM status on it, it makes no physical difference to the monument at all. Before or after, there is no tupperware box so the intention is still to visit the monument. I think it's a bit daft to say the intention is different after it becomes a YOSM cache and to suggest that you have to visit it again in order to claim a YOSM point.

[+Gushoneybun]

My view is that you should only be able to log an OSM once it has been there

 

I often walk down footpaths and think "that would be a good place for a cache" if one is then put there I still need to go and find it before I claim the

 

Why should this excellent cache be any different?

 

For the rather obvious reason that the trig was present at the time of visiting, unlike the hypothetical tupperware.

 

Going on this reply what about Earthcaches? What if you visit a location take some photos then it later becomes an Earthcache, a search on Google may well reveal the required answers, would you log it?

 

I am not overall fussed either way what others do as caching is what you want it to be, but I would not log the YOSM retrospectively, but can see the reason for the Ben Nevis log by The Patrician.

[+The Patrician]

I am not overall fussed either way what others do as caching is what you want it to be, but I would not log the YOSM retrospectively, but can see the reason for the Ben Nevis log by The Patrician.

 

The Ben Nevis YOSM had been published before I went up there, I didn't know that it was a YOSM when I went there (if you see what I mean). So I went there after it was published, touched it, photographed it, collapsed across it and claimed it!

[+Gushoneybun]

I am not overall fussed either way what others do as caching is what you want it to be, but I would not log the YOSM retrospectively, but can see the reason for the Ben Nevis log by The Patrician.

 

The Ben Nevis YOSM had been published before I went up there, I didn't know that it was a YOSM when I went there (if you see what I mean). So I went there after it was published, touched it, photographed it, collapsed across it and claimed it!

Well done for getting up there, I would certainly have done the same in this case.

[+lodgebarn]

My view is that you should only be able to log an OSM once it has been there

 

I often walk down footpaths and think "that would be a good place for a cache" if one is then put there I still need to go and find it before I claim the

 

Why should this excellent cache be any different?

 

For the rather obvious reason that the trig was present at the time of visiting, unlike the hypothetical tupperware.

 

Going on this reply what about Earthcaches? What if you visit a location take some photos then it later becomes an Earthcache, a search on Google may well reveal the required answers, would you log it?

 

Interesting, I heard rumours that people may have set up earthcaches without even visiting the spot so I don't see why us seekers shouldn't have the same privilege . Personally I feel I wouldn't log without another visit and the same for the YOSM cache. I do think it is fundamentally the same issue.

Edited June 20, 2011 by lodgebarn

[+Mad H@ter]

My view is that you should only be able to log an OSM once it has been there

 

I often walk down footpaths and think "that would be a good place for a cache" if one is then put there I still need to go and find it before I claim the

 

Why should this excellent cache be any different?

Agreed

[+The Patrician]

A slight problem with YOSM is that only its latest incarnation shows on PQs, the geocaching map, etc. (I know it has its own dedicated website with downloads of previous positions, but I don't always have this to hand). It's possible to get all the info on a trig point to enter into trigpointinguk.com and then find out that it is a YOSM as well after you've got back home, or even a week, month, year later. Where you draw the line on claiming it is, I suppose, up to you (and of course the CO).

[+agentmancuso]

I agree... the intent is to visit the survey monument. Does it make any difference whether it has YOSM status or not? No, of course not. If Brian confers YOSM status on it, it makes no physical difference to the monument at all. Before or after, there is no tupperware box so the intention is still to visit the monument. I think it's a bit daft to say the intention is different after it becomes a YOSM cache and to suggest that you have to visit it again in order to claim a YOSM point.

 

Exactly. There's no harm in revisiting trigs - I do it all the time, YoSM or not - but it seems to me to be very bizarre to pretend not to have visited something that you have, er, actually visited.

[+Amberel]

I'm open for any feedback ...

I'm a hardliner - I think it should only be logged once, and only if you visit the point while it is the current "active" location.

 

Rgds, Andy

[outforthehunt]

Thank you for the input. As with most things there are different views on what is acceptable and fair. This cache and my Brass Cap cache were created to promote geocaching and to get people out to areas they would not normally go to. Some cachers didn't like the idea of not finding a Tupperware box filled with toys in it at the end of the hunt but YOSM and Cap hunters are more interested in the hike,view and sometimes the history of what is at the end of the hunt. It shows up in your logs as you could just send me the information I require and put "found it" in your log find. I see a great deal of effort with your log postings and pictures and appreciate the effort. I think for now I'll sit on the fence a bit longer as I agree with both sides. One example of retrospective logging that I think adds to the cache page are the ones described by John "They involved a considerable outlay in effort which was rewarded with some great views and a good deal of self satisfaction."

As with the Ben Nevis hikes. I recognize the effort put into some of the hikes and really don't expect you to have to head back up there again. I also think that after reading some of these logs and viewing the pictures it may encourage others to try some of these hikes.

I have deleted some logs. Some justified and some may have been in the grayish area and not justified it's hard sometimes to decide what was fair. Sorry if you were one of the unfair choices.

 

"Isle of Arran" No problem. Maybe send me a note just before heading out.

 

Still looking for feedback

[+Maple Leaf]

I logged the YOSM in 2008 (Harrogate Mega - when the YOSM cache was actually at the Brimham Rocks Trig). I am not planning to log it again - even if I visit a trig that currently (or previously) has been nominated a YOSM. Personally, I don't see the point of logging it several times.

 

However, I will log all trigs/FBM etc that I visit on www.trigpointinguk.com

Edited June 20, 2011 by Maple Leaf

[+The Patrician]

Many YOSMs are in wild, wonderful places miles from civilisation which take hours to walk to. Personally I'd rather spend a day getting another YOSM on top of a rain-lashed, wind-blown hill than any number of town centre micros. If the weather happens to be good it's even more satisfying! I have no hesitation in logging it more than once.

Edited June 20, 2011 by The Patrician

[+Amberel]

Many YOSMs are in wild, wonderful places miles from civilisation which take hours to walk to. Personally I'd rather spend a day getting another YOSM on top of a rain-lashed, wind-blown hill than any number of town centre micros. If the weather happens to be good it's even more satisfying! I have no hesitation in logging it more than once.

I think maybe that's missed the point? You can go on a great walk, and log your trigpoints on the trigpointing web site. But this is a geocaching web site.

 

Logging it once is logging a virtual cache, and virtual caches are, by definition, not caches. I can't say I'm keen on virtuals at all, though I have done one or two, including YOSM (once, and when it was "active"). But logging it lots of times is even more remote from geocaching than logging a "normal" virtual.

 

I'm not in any way suggesting that visiting survey monuments isn't a great past-time, or that the places it takes you are preferable to town centres, just that having visited one, logging it on a survey monument web site is more appropriate than logging it on a geocaching web site.

 

Rgds, Andy