Logging the same cache twice or more

[jep]

I don't know if this has been raised a topic before. If so please direct me to the discussion.

 

I have noticed that some cachers logs multiple visits to the same cache as multiple finds. What is the general rule, if any? Is the number next to the username supposed to show that you e.g. found one cache 10 times or 10 different caches?

 

First I thought that multiple finds to the same cache counted as one but that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

I myself like to keep track on how many caches I found so if I visit one of the caches I already logged as a find I log it as a note.

 

Just a thought

 

/Jep

[+erik88l-r]

In my opinion the sport of geocaching is all about the hunt, and you log a "find" and are awarded a smiley face for your efforts when you're successful.

 

Once you've found something you know where it is, so there's no hunt involved and no logical reason to log it as a find. That's why there's the option of logging it as a "note". I see that used often when cache owners want to document doing maintenance on their cache or someone revisits a cache to trade travelers.

 

~erik~

[+infosponge]

If you re-visit the cache, it should be posted as a note rather than a find.

The exception is if the cache has been re-located significantly and the cache owner will allow re-finds...this is essentially a new cache.

Ultimately, it's up to the cache owner to enforce whatever rules s/he sees fit, though.

[+BruceS]

In general I feel a cache should be logged as a find once however there are exceptions. Moving caches usually specify how many times they have to be moved before it can be found again. Caches that the owner has relocated and have indicated that it has been relocated and can be refound.

[+Olar]

I would not really do that but had a couple of cases recently where I thought it might be justified. One of my caches was moved by someone and subsequently re-hidden by a cacher who happened to find it 100 metres from it original location. He described its hiding place in an email to me. I took a run out to check on it and had a heck of a time finding it. It was close to original but well hidden.

The other was this weekend checking a cache I placed in early spring (no foliage). I almost had to fire-up my GPS unit in order to find it. Didn't recognize the hiding spot with all the new leaves and bushes.

Keep on caching, Olar

 

[+KYtrex]

I have found an urban micro-cache twice. The first time was the original location. It went missing and was relocated (version 2.0) I looked for this one but it went missing before anyone found it. The cache owner checked on it, verified it's disappearance and deleted my "no find" and relocated it again (version 3.0). I "found" it and logged it online, with the owners permission for the second "find". Since then, it has been relocated again (version 4.0) and I am going to hunt it again as soon as I can get back to the area. Before I log it again, I will make sure it is still o.k. with the owner. Each search has been a totally new and interesting location. The only thing that stayed the same was the name of the cache and the container type.

 

I hope this hasn't been too confusing It has been an interesting cache to watch.

 

KYtrex

-----------------

A "Buckeye" is just a "Hillbilly" that ran out of money on the way to Michigan

[+Markwell]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olar:

...had a couple of cases recently where I thought it might be justified.

---

 

I did it with Photographer's Cache II. For those that haven't followed the series, they are moving virtual caches that the finder moves to a new location with coordinates and a clue.

 

I had originally placed the cache in California at the termination of the Pony Express. Glenn95630 logged the cache and moved it to his old apartment in Chicago. I went and found his old apartment in Chicago. I had never been there before, but I did find the virtual location. So yes, I claimed it as a find.

 

Now, if someone moves Photographer's Cache II back into my area, I'll probably try for it again, but not at Glenn95630's old apartment.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

[+Jamie Z]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KYtrex:

The cache owner checked on it, verified it's disappearance and deleted my "no find" and relocated it again (version 3.0).

---

Why the heck would he do that? If you didn't find it, it's a no-find... the owner shouldn't delete your no-find just because you had some back luck searching that day. Tsk, tsk.

 

Jamie

[+KYtrex]

Jamie Z,

 

I think it was to avoid confusion. He has only deleted my "didn't find" logs on a couple of caches that were missing but replaced. My "didn't find" logs were not deleted on caches that were still there. I later went back and found them. All my logs were left intact on those caches.

 

KYtrex

-----------------

A "Buckeye" is just a "Hillbilly" that ran out of money on the way to Michigan

[skydiver]

I not passing judgement, or implying anything with this link ... just offering a simple example of how some cachers log multiple times.

 

---------------------------------------

Friends don't let friends NOT geocache.

---------------------------------------

[+Jamie Z]

I guess he wasn't happy about something.

 

Jamie

[+Web-ling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KYtrex:

 

A "Buckeye" is just a "Hillbilly" that ran out of money on the way to Michigan

---

 

Why on earth would a Buckeye even WANT to go to Michigan?

 

[+KYtrex]

Web-Ling,

 

You asked for it! I was born in Ohio. My mom was from Kentucky. She went to Ohio to get a job. Most other people from my neighborhood(in OH) were from Ky also. They went to OH for a job. My sister was born in OH. She went to Michigan to get a job. She met her husband in Michigan. He was from Kentucky. He also went there to get a job. Many other people in their neighborhood(in MI) were from KY also. I now live in Kentucky. Many of the people in my "neck of the woods"(KY neighborhood) have family that live in either Ohio or Michigan.

 

My observation....many people from Kentucky headed out to Michigan to work for GM. Some of them ran out of money along the way. They ended up staying in Ohio and working there, hence my saying "A 'Buckeye' is just a 'Hillbilly' that ran out of money on the way to Michigan!"

 

 

P.S. Just read your profile. I'd be willing to bet you've got some kin folk down here.

[+Kevin & Susan]

We are in complete agreement as to one cache/one happy face. However, here's a few caches we claimed double for (and took some heat on) because the single cache page was split into multiple caches, all with their own coordinates listed, each with it's own log book and trades, and none of them required you to find one in order to find the other(s).

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=11186

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=11184

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=10969

The last one was made up of two new caches and three older caches, combined into another, separate cache---Even though the older three caches still exist with their own GC#'s. (We had already found those previously, so didn't claim them again

[+st_richardson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by infosponge:

If you re-visit the cache, it should be posted as a note rather than a find.

The exception is if the cache has been re-located significantly and the cache owner will allow re-finds...this is essentially a new cache.

Ultimately, it's up to the cache owner to enforce whatever rules s/he sees fit, though.

---

 

This is the only reason I can see to justify multiple finds.

[+ATVcache]

there are cache's that don't have coordinates to find, but a specific object that must be found, (Such as a yellow Jeep)a picture taken of the object and posted with the coordinates of where it was found in order to log the cache. In this case the hunt for the cache can be repeated over and over without going to the same place twice.

[+sbukosky]

I've been on a hunt where I had to find 14 tags, each leading to the next, just to log one find. On some other offset caches, the page says to log each station as a find. Another one had five seperate caches in a half mile area. Five easy finds. Today I found the first stage of an offset cache. The next stage is some miles away. After doing all the stations and finding the final cache, I get to log one find. Does anyone see a need for a better system here?

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

[+The Cheeseheads]

I debated allowing someone to log finding the first three stations of Gee, I'm a Tree! as a find, and logging the final cache as another.

 

I decided against it because

• It's listed as a multicache, so you know going in that there's going to be a lot of hunting involved
• The difficulty is marked at a 5 for a reason. The first three are not all that difficult, so being able to log those in would diminish the difficulty somewhat

 

I would say that it's up to the cache owner to decide. The Entwive's Tumor is a two-stage multi, and we were allowed to log it twice. In fact after I logged it in once after I found it, i got an email from the owner reminding me to add a second log. His choice. Fine by me!

 

[+sbukosky]

In past discussions, many people say that the number found doesn't matter. It's the experience that counts. I like both! There is a certain satisfaction in seeing the found number rise. It is a means of recognition for time spent at the hobby, just as motorcyclists boast of how many miles they ride or pilots have a certain number of flying hours logged or ham radio operators have contacts logged and so on. I'd like to see the finds changed to a points system. Using Gee I'm a Tree for example, there is no question that it is more demanding than a virtual cache. While someone is spending a day on a single multi-cache, someone else is driving from virtual to virtual, adding up the finds and maybe never getting out of their car. I lost interest in benchmark hunting because the numbers of finds are not posted. Also I don't have a digital camera. Do the same to conventional caches and imagine all the howling, mine included! Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about multi-caches. I've made one myself and it's only a one-log hunt. I do think that we might slow down a bit, enjoy the hunt experience and burn less gasoline knowing that our multi-cache with a high difficulty rating yields more points than a half dozen virtual caches. Oh, I do also have some virtual caches too.

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin