Jump to content

Hypothetical question


ORKY99
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

HI, first time poster but have lurked the forums for awhile. Quick question. Let's say you notice a cache that you've found has been archived due to the owners moving away from the area. You contact them about adoppting their cache and it's agreed upon that they'll turn ownership over to you and allow you to adopt their cache. OK, here's the actual part of the question. You put the cache back out and activate it with a nice military coin from the previous owners for the new owners as a FTF proze for the newly activated cache. Is it wrong for someone who has previously found the cache under the previous CO's to go out and claim a FTF on the new CO's? I hope I've explained this easy enough so you understand what I'm asking.

Link to comment

HI, first time poster but have lurked the forums for awhile. Quick question. Let's say you notice a cache that you've found has been archived due to the owners moving away from the area. You contact them about adoppting their cache and it's agreed upon that they'll turn ownership over to you and allow you to adopt their cache. OK, here's the actual part of the question. You put the cache back out and activate it with a nice military coin from the previous owners for the new owners as a FTF proze for the newly activated cache. Is it wrong for someone who has previously found the cache under the previous CO's to go out and claim a FTF on the new CO's? I hope I've explained this easy enough so you understand what I'm asking.

 

If it's the same cache - yeah, that's wrong. You shouldn't "find" the same cache twice.

 

If it's a new cache that happens to be in the same location as an archived cache then it's fair game because... it's a new cache.

Link to comment
If it's the same cache - yeah, that's wrong. You shouldn't "find" the same cache twice.

 

If it's a new cache that happens to be in the same location as an archived cache then it's fair game because... it's a new cache.

 

Of course that bears the question: when is a cache the same cache as another? What if it's the same container, same contents, same log book, all in the same location, it just gets a new listing and a new GC code? Is that a new cache or still the same cache?

Link to comment

HI, first time poster but have lurked the forums for awhile. Quick question. Let's say you notice a cache that you've found has been archived due to the owners moving away from the area. You contact them about adoppting their cache and it's agreed upon that they'll turn ownership over to you and allow you to adopt their cache. OK, here's the actual part of the question. You put the cache back out and activate it with a nice military coin from the previous owners for the new owners as a FTF proze for the newly activated cache. Is it wrong for someone who has previously found the cache under the previous CO's to go out and claim a FTF on the new CO's? I hope I've explained this easy enough so you understand what I'm asking.

 

If it's the same cache - yeah, that's wrong. You shouldn't "find" the same cache twice.

 

If it's a new cache that happens to be in the same location as an archived cache then it's fair game because... it's a new cache.

 

Same cache, same name, just new owners.

Link to comment
If it's the same cache - yeah, that's wrong. You shouldn't "find" the same cache twice.

 

If it's a new cache that happens to be in the same location as an archived cache then it's fair game because... it's a new cache.

 

Of course that bears the question: when is a cache the same cache as another? What if it's the same container, same contents, same log book, all in the same location, it just gets a new listing and a new GC code? Is that a new cache or still the same cache?

 

When you adopt, I dont think the GC code changes. When you log the cache in-line under the new CO's it's the same log as the previous CO's.

Link to comment
If it's the same cache - yeah, that's wrong. You shouldn't "find" the same cache twice.

 

If it's a new cache that happens to be in the same location as an archived cache then it's fair game because... it's a new cache.

 

Of course that bears the question: when is a cache the same cache as another? What if it's the same container, same contents, same log book, all in the same location, it just gets a new listing and a new GC code? Is that a new cache or still the same cache?

 

New GC code = new cache

Link to comment
When you adopt, I dont think the GC code changes. When you log the cache in-line under the new CO's it's the same log as the previous CO's.

Right, but you said that the cache is archived now? You cannot adopt out archived caches and you cannot have caches unarchived for the purpose of adoption. It's an unfortunate rule they have.

 

New GC code = new cache

I can't quite agree with that.

Link to comment

Did you literally adopt it - some GC code & same cache page? Then no it should not be logged again by those who already found it.

 

If you just took the old container and created a new cache listing at the same spot with the blessing of the old CO then it's technically a new cache, even if functionally it's pretty much the same.

Link to comment

As an aside (not really)...

 

You cannot adopt an archived cache. It must be active to adopt it. Geocaching.com will not activate it because you want to adopt it.

Being an archived cache, it technically does not exist anymore. Put a new one there (and submit for review, etc., etc.)

 

So the question of finding it "twice" is moot!

 

EDIT to add: Un-archival of a cache is a rare happening, very rare.

Edited by Gitchee-Gummee
Link to comment

Is it wrong for someone who has previously found the cache under the previous CO's to go out and claim a FTF on the new CO's?

 

"Wrong" is not quite how I'd describe it, but a bit impolite perhaps. Technically the FTF was done under the previous owners of the Listing. You have merely performed maintenance on the cache and included some nice items for the next finder. That's a very polite thing to do, I might add.

 

A minor "nit", but the Listing you Adopted was merely Disabled, not Archived. As stated above, Archived Listings are not generally Adoptable.

 

Have fun with the cache!

Link to comment

Thanks for the quick answers. I was mistaken in my original post. The cache was merely disabled not archived and then adopted by us. The newbie in me, hopefully I'll get those beginner mistakes out quickly. So to answer those that asked, yes, same GC code, same virtual log, same cache.

Link to comment
New GC code = new cache

I can't quite agree with that.

I won't use the p-word, but some people like to have black and white rules to deal with the issue. The GC code is a simple black and white rule they can use for deciding if it's a new cache. While dfx can't quite agree with this definition, he probably realizes there is no right answer for the hypothetical case of the OP or for any of the following case.

 

1. A cache is archived. A new cacher hides another cache in the same spot, using a new but similar container hidden in a similar fashion. He calls the new cache <original name> Redux. Is this a new cache?

 

2. A cache owner moves the cache a certain distance after it is muggled. The hide uses a different container and the hiding style has changed but the GC code remains the same. Is this a new cache?

 

3. A cacher archives his cache. He then reuses the same container in the same hiding spot but it is now the final of a puzzle (or visa versa, the owner changes a puzzle to a traditional) Is this a new cache?

Link to comment

Thanks for the quick answers. I was mistaken in my original post. The cache was merely disabled not archived and then adopted by us. The newbie in me, hopefully I'll get those beginner mistakes out quickly. So to answer those that asked, yes, same GC code, same virtual log, same cache.

So it wasn't a hypothetical question? :unsure:

Link to comment

Thanks for the quick answers. I was mistaken in my original post. The cache was merely disabled not archived and then adopted by us. The newbie in me, hopefully I'll get those beginner mistakes out quickly. So to answer those that asked, yes, same GC code, same virtual log, same cache.

So it wasn't a hypothetical question? :unsure:

Apparently not. Had I thought it not, I would've looked as Touchstone did, and would have responded differently.

 

But... hey, learning the terminology is part of the game, isn't it?

Link to comment

Thanks for the quick answers. I was mistaken in my original post. The cache was merely disabled not archived and then adopted by us. The newbie in me, hopefully I'll get those beginner mistakes out quickly. So to answer those that asked, yes, same GC code, same virtual log, same cache.

So it wasn't a hypothetical question? :unsure:

 

never know who reads these and I'm not trying to get anybody PO'ed at me. We have a second cache from the same couple that we've adopted and replaced and are ready to enable. Just wondering now if we should put something in the description of this stating something to discourage previous finders from logging this again? And it's not necesarily the fact someone logged this twice Ieven though I don;t think they get any credit thorugh GC'ing for it). It's more a matter as there was a pretty neat coin in there for the "new owner" FTF'ers that was put in there by the original CO as kind of a goodbye gift, hello to the new CO type thing.

Link to comment

Thanks for the quick answers. I was mistaken in my original post. The cache was merely disabled not archived and then adopted by us. The newbie in me, hopefully I'll get those beginner mistakes out quickly. So to answer those that asked, yes, same GC code, same virtual log, same cache.

So it wasn't a hypothetical question? :unsure:

Apparently not. Had I thought it not, I would've looked as Touchstone did, and would have responded differently.

 

But... hey, learning the terminology is part of the game, isn't it?

 

yes it is, and there's a lot of it to learn when you first start out, lol. :D

Link to comment

 

never know who reads these and I'm not trying to get anybody PO'ed at me. We have a second cache from the same couple that we've adopted and replaced and are ready to enable. Just wondering now if we should put something in the description of this stating something to discourage previous finders from logging this again? And it's not necesarily the fact someone logged this twice Ieven though I don;t think they get any credit thorugh GC'ing for it). It's more a matter as there was a pretty neat coin in there for the "new owner" FTF'ers that was put in there by the original CO as kind of a goodbye gift, hello to the new CO type thing.

A note actually is unnecessary, as the cache still carries the same GC number.

They would get credit for another "find" but their stats would reflect a differing number of unique finds. That actually is quite common.

 

Nobody is going to get PO'd at you, for this adoption, or the post. Adoption is a good thing, in geocaching or otherwise.

Edited by Gitchee-Gummee
Link to comment

I'm not sure what FTF or new cache has anything to do with leaving a coin in a cache and the next person coming along and taking it. It was there and so were they and they took it.

 

FTF might seem like a side game, but it's not. Nor are there any regulations.

 

It's the fact that they had already logged this cache previously under the previous CO's and then logged it again when we enabled it as the cache adopters.

Link to comment

I'm not sure what FTF or new cache has anything to do with leaving a coin in a cache and the next person coming along and taking it. It was there and so were they and they took it.

 

FTF might seem like a side game, but it's not. Nor are there any regulations.

 

It's the fact that they had already logged this cache previously under the previous CO's and then logged it again when we enabled it as the cache adopters.

 

If it's the same cache listing I can address them claiming another found it. Them taking the prize is much tougher if they aren't willing to respond.

Link to comment

I'm not sure what FTF or new cache has anything to do with leaving a coin in a cache and the next person coming along and taking it. It was there and so were they and they took it.

 

FTF might seem like a side game, but it's not. Nor are there any regulations.

 

It's the fact that they had already logged this cache previously under the previous CO's and then logged it again when we enabled it as the cache adopters.

 

If it's the same cache listing I can address them claiming another found it. Them taking the prize is much tougher if they aren't willing to respond.

 

Like I said earlier, I'm not trying to call anyone out (whether it seems that way or not) I'm just trying to figure out a away for this not to happen in the future. My wife and I both agreed that we thought it strange that a previous finder logged this for a second time. The coin in actuality was meant for the next finder of the cache after enabling, thus being the FTF for us as owners after adopting.

Link to comment

HI, first time poster but have lurked the forums for awhile. Quick question. Let's say you notice a cache that you've found has been archived due to the owners moving away from the area. You contact them about adoppting their cache and it's agreed upon that they'll turn ownership over to you and allow you to adopt their cache. OK, here's the actual part of the question. You put the cache back out and activate it with a nice military coin from the previous owners for the new owners as a FTF proze for the newly activated cache. Is it wrong for someone who has previously found the cache under the previous CO's to go out and claim a FTF on the new CO's? I hope I've explained this easy enough so you understand what I'm asking.

Hide your own in the spot[pick up any remains of the old cache]

archived caches can't be adopted and won't be unarchived for the purpose of adoption.

Link to comment

There is nothing wrong with someone revisiting a cache. And once you place something in the cache it is fair game for trade. If you want to give something to a particular cacher (like the next to post their first found it log to the cache page) you would be better off handing it to them at the next local event.

 

Now, about adopting a cache. I would rather see the cache archived and a new one be created in the area. Not a copy of the original but new, unique cache. Something to give those who found the old cache a new experience. There are very few caches that I think should be kept going forever. Just a little food for thought.

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 0
×
×
  • Create New...