Re-Finds

[+EvilTree]

What`s everyones thoughts on refinding and logging a cache that the CO has temp disabled and then moved to a new location, location is not close to original but in same area, it required reviewer coord change help.

 

Do you write a Note, Found Log or just dont even go find it?

Edited December 16, 2011 by EvilTree

[+The Blorenges]

If it's the same GC number then we wouldn't bother to go and hunt for it again. As far as we're concerned we've done that cache.

 

MrsB

[+TheLoneGrangers]

Having two smileys for one cache is cheating in my eyes, and I wouldn't re-find it, and you are only cheating yourself. Those are the rules I play by. If you feel its not wrong to log two smileys because it moved then do so.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

What`s everyones thoughts on refinding and logging a cache that the CO has temp disabled and then moved to a new location, location is not close to original but in same area, it required reviewer coord change help.

 

Do you write a Note, Found Log or just dont even go find it?

Same GC#, it's still the same cache. Diff GC#, new find.

Moving to a new location makes no difference -- IMHO.

 

Re-location because of muggle activity, construction, or flooding is pretty common. Go by the #, rather than location.

[+Walts Hunting]

One gc code = one find

[Pup Patrol]

I wouldn't log a "found it" for it, if it's the same GC code. I'm kind of a stickler for accuracy in our stats, so posting a "found it" log for the same GC code wouldn't be my thing.

 

I'm always curious why a cache gets to keep the same GC code, when such a major change in location has occurred. It just seems to me that the original cache should be archived and the new coords be published as a new cache. If it's that much of a move, it's not the same experience now, is it?

[+Isonzo Karst]

I'd probably never notice a cache like this. But if I did notice it, I might go find it again - if it's in an area I like to visit, I almost certainly would. Whether I logged that as second find would depend on whether the owner was inviting new finds on the cache page. If yes, then yes, if not, I'd probably be too lazy to ask. If I'd taken pics I wanted to post, I'd write a note, mostly likely.

 

It's moved over 528 feet, it's a new hunt.

 

Pup Patrol "I wouldn't log a "found it" for it, if it's the same GC code. I'm kind of a stickler for accuracy in our stats, so posting a "found it" log for the same GC code wouldn't be my thing."

 

Wouldn't your stats be more accurate if you did log a new find on a new hunt? or are you saying that, because it's got the same GC Code, you'd never hunt it? I guess the second.

I enjoy the activity enough that I'd not ignore a hunt just because of the GC Code, myself.

 

TheLoneGrangers, "Having two smileys for one cache is cheating in my eyes, and I wouldn't re-find it, and you are only cheating yourself."

 

How is logging a new find on a new location, "cheating"? If the cache owner archived the original listing and resubmitted the cache as a new one, it's EXACTLY the same cache hunt, but you'd log that, and consider logging the other some form of "cheating yourself"?

 

I find this all very peculiar.

[+EvilTree]

This one has a new Distance from the original GZ of 944.9 feet . The reason I noticed it was that it was archived disabled for a long time and just came back to life...

Edited December 16, 2011 by EvilTree

[+CanadianRockies]

I'm always curious why a cache gets to keep the same GC code, when such a major change in location has occurred. It just seems to me that the original cache should be archived and the new coords be published as a new cache. If it's that much of a move, it's not the same experience now, is it?

I have a puzzle cache that I had to move about one kilometre. The cache container was a rather obvious wooden box in plain sight, but you had to figure out how to get inside the box. At the new location is the same obvious wooden box in plain sight. The revised puzzle is essentially identical. And the trick to gain access didn't change. Since I felt it basically is the same experience, I didn't change the GC code.

Edited December 16, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+TheLoneGrangers]

I'd probably never notice a cache like this. But if I did notice it, I might go find it again - if it's in an area I like to visit, I almost certainly would. Whether I logged that as second find would depend on whether the owner was inviting new finds on the cache page. If yes, then yes, if not, I'd probably be too lazy to ask. If I'd taken pics I wanted to post, I'd write a note, mostly likely.

 

It's moved over 528 feet, it's a new hunt.

 

Pup Patrol "I wouldn't log a "found it" for it, if it's the same GC code. I'm kind of a stickler for accuracy in our stats, so posting a "found it" log for the same GC code wouldn't be my thing."

 

Wouldn't your stats be more accurate if you did log a new find on a new hunt? or are you saying that, because it's got the same GC Code, you'd never hunt it? I guess the second.

I enjoy the activity enough that I'd not ignore a hunt just because of the GC Code, myself.

 

TheLoneGrangers, "Having two smileys for one cache is cheating in my eyes, and I wouldn't re-find it, and you are only cheating yourself."

 

How is logging a new find on a new location, "cheating"? If the cache owner archived the original listing and resubmitted the cache as a new one, it's EXACTLY the same cache hunt, but you'd log that, and consider logging the other some form of "cheating yourself"?

 

I find this all very peculiar.

 

I should have been more clear, new GC code is a new cache. Same GC code then its cheating to me. If you don't think its cheating, then claim it again, its your rules. I am not calling others cheaters, only myself....and I don't cheat myself so I wouldn't do it

[+Mitragorz]

I wouldn't necessarily call it "cheating." Who would be cheated? Personally, I wouldn't log it again, but if someone did... Well I don't see a problem with it, and I certainly wouldn't call them a cheater. I don't know, I just don't see it as a big deal. If you want to log it again, go ahead. I could be wrong, but the only person to know would likely be you. Unless someone audited your log or the cache's logs.

 

As long as they have no problem having the duplicate find count being anything but zero, it couldn't bother me less! And if it were my cache, the more finds the better!

 

EDIT: TLG, I just saw your above post. I see what you meant!

Edited December 16, 2011 by Mitragorz

[+bflentje]

One gc code = one find

 

While I'd be reluctant to use the word cheat, I too follow the one GC = one find philosophy.

[+EvilTree]

Lets no go down the cheating path (not a discussion here) ... Just keep with the would you log it, put a note or not even bother re=finding it theme...

Edited December 16, 2011 by EvilTree

[knowschad]

This one has a new Distance from the original GZ of 944.9 feet .

 

The reason I noticed it was that it was archived for a long time and just came back to life...

 

Un-archived and moved 945 feet and it still has the same GC#? I've never heard of such a thing! Typlically, a reviewer would tell the cache owner to create a new cache. The reviewer had to be involved in both un-archiving, and in moving anything over 528 feet. This sure sounds odd.

[knowschad]

One gc code = one find

 

While I'd be reluctant to use the word cheat, I too follow the one GC = one find philosophy.

 

I just don't like the "You've found x caches (x-n distinct)" message in my stats.

[+Mitragorz]

All EvilTree said was that it was temporarily disabled, not archived. I don't own any caches, but the CO can do that without help from a reviewer, right? And make coordinate changes on his own?

[knowschad]

All EvilTree said was that it was temporarily disabled, not archived. I don't own any caches, but the CO can do that without help from a reviewer, right? And make coordinate changes on his own?

 

In the post that I was responding to, he said it had been archived. He may have meant "disabled", but I saw "archived".

 

You can't move coordinates that far by yourself. It takes a reviewer to move more than 528', I believe.

 

This one has a new Distance from the original GZ of 944.9 feet .

 

The reason I noticed it was that it was archived for a long time and just came back to life...

[Pup Patrol]

All EvilTree said was that it was temporarily disabled, not archived.

 

This one has a new Distance from the original GZ of 944.9 feet .

 

The reason I noticed it was that it was archived for a long time and just came back to life...

 

I don't own any caches, but the CO can do that without help from a reviewer, right? And make coordinate changes on his own?

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=201

 

6.9. Editing a Published Listing: Minor Change

 

You might wish to make minor changes to your cache page after it has been published. Your cache must still abide by the Guidelines.

 

To edit your listing, log in to your Geocaching.com account and display the listing. In the Navigation box in the upper right corner of the cache page, use the "edit listing" link. That will take you to the original cache report where you can edit the title, text, hint and cache size. You can also edit the difficulty and terrain ratings. You may wish to make adjustments after a few finds on a new cache, or if a cache container has been replaced.

 

Once you have made the changes, scroll to the bottom of the form and click the "submit changes" link and the two buttons:

 

Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache.

Yes. I have read and agree to the terms of use agreement.

 

You will find that you cannot change the cache type. Changing the cache type will retroactively alter the statistics of all previous finders, so we do not allow this field to be edited.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=76

 

6.10. Editing a Published Listing: Major Change.

 

If you need to change the coordinates beyond 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m), or change the type of cache, please contact your local reviewer. The reviewer will check the changes for adherence to the current guidelines and notify you when the changes have been made, or suggest that a new cache listing should be submitted. Please be sure to follow any instructions the reviewer may send you.

 

There is a link to the profile page of the reviewer that reviewed your cache listing in the bottom of your cache page (you must be logged in). If you email a reviewer and do not receive a reply within 72 hours, the reviewer account may be inactive and you will need to contact us at Groundspeak.

contact@geocaching.com

 

When you contact the reviewer or Groundspeak please provide the cache name and GC Code for the listing.

[Pup Patrol]

I just don't like the "You've found x caches (x-n distinct)" message in my stats.

 

That's exactly what I was trying to get across in my earlier post.

 

Again, it's the way I feel about my caching experience.

 

Do you write a Note, Found Log or just dont even go find it?

I probably wouldn't notice, and if I did, probably wouldn't bother going to find it.

 

What other people think or do, I have no idea and no interest.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[+uxorious]

All EvilTree said was that it was temporarily disabled, not archived. I don't own any caches, but the CO can do that without help from a reviewer, right? And make coordinate changes on his own?

 

In the post that I was responding to, he said it had been archived. He may have meant "disabled", but I saw "archived".

 

You can't move coordinates that far by yourself. It takes a reviewer to move more than 528', I believe.

 

This one has a new Distance from the original GZ of 944.9 feet .

 

The reason I noticed it was that it was archived for a long time and just came back to life...

 

I know of a local cache that has been moved over 1000 ft. Down a different path, in a new area, and a different hide, but still has the same GC number.

 

I have no idea why a CO would move a cache a couple hundred feet, and not archive it and start a new one. I think that is as bad as someone logging it as a found. If the cache owner can do that and feel good about themselves, then a finder should be able to log it and feel good about themselves.

 

That being said I will often go re-find a cache that has been moved a significant amount. Hunting for and finding new caches is what it is about for me. However, if it has the same GC number I just log it with a note, not a found.

 

As to the idea of cheating. This is generally a personal game, not a competition. If you decide how you want to play, then play that way every-time, it would be hard to say you were cheating. Just playing different.

 

edited to say, I somehow quoted the wrong post. However, you still get my point.

Edited December 16, 2011 by uxorious

[+captnemo]

I have a cache that I had to move over 528 feet due to muggles and the cache had gone missing twice. Had to go to the reviewer and explaing why I needed to move the cache. I wanted to keep the same GC # and name as the theme of the cache was the same and the reason to come there was the same.

 

To go back to the OP, I would not re-log a cache as then I would have one of those 1000 finds, wtih 999 distint finds stats. If someone was to re-log this cache I would care less as it is in a new location and that is the way the finder wants to play the game.

[+TheLoneGrangers]

All EvilTree said was that it was temporarily disabled, not archived. I don't own any caches, but the CO can do that without help from a reviewer, right? And make coordinate changes on his own?

 

In the post that I was responding to, he said it had been archived. He may have meant "disabled", but I saw "archived".

 

You can't move coordinates that far by yourself. It takes a reviewer to move more than 528', I believe.

 

This one has a new Distance from the original GZ of 944.9 feet .

 

The reason I noticed it was that it was archived for a long time and just came back to life...

 

I know of a local cache that has been moved over 1000 ft. Down a different path, in a new area, and a different hide, but still has the same GC number.

 

I have no idea why a CO would move a cache a couple hundred feet, and not archive it and start a new one. I think that is as bad as someone logging it as a found. If the cache owner can do that and feel good about themselves, then a finder should be able to log it and feel good about themselves.

 

That being said I will often go re-find a cache that has been moved a significant amount. Hunting for and finding new caches is what it is about for me. However, if it has the same GC number I just log it with a note, not a found.

 

As to the idea of cheating. This is generally a personal game, not a competition. If you decide how you want to play, then play that way every-time, it would be hard to say you were cheating. Just playing different.

 

edited to say, I somehow quoted the wrong post. However, you still get my point.

 

the cheating part is commented here is what I mean

[+EvilTree]

sorry about the confusion didnt mean to say archived it was temp disabled...

[+EvilTree]

Thanks all for the comments.. I decided I am going to re find this cache see if its in a new part of the area i havent seen before, but not log as a find, instead I will write a note instead, I cache for the hunt and for me the exploration of unexplored areas and not really concerned about the numbers game, although I do go on FTF runs to change things up once in awhile... Not a offical game but between the local cachers in my area its a fun side activity.

[+Mitragorz]

All EvilTree said was that it was temporarily disabled, not archived. I don't own any caches, but the CO can do that without help from a reviewer, right? And make coordinate changes on his own?

 

In the post that I was responding to, he said it had been archived. He may have meant "disabled", but I saw "archived".

 

Fair enough. The first post in the tread was the one that stuck out in my head:

 

What`s everyones thoughts on refinding and logging a cache that the CO has temp disabled and then moved to a new location, location is not close to original but in same area, it required reviewer coord change help.

 

Do you write a Note, Found Log or just dont even go find it?

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Thanks all for the comments.. I decided I am going to re find this cache see if its in a new part of the area i havent seen before, but not log as a find, instead I will write a note instead, I cache for the hunt and for me the exploration of unexplored areas and not really concerned about the numbers game, although I do go on FTF runs to change things up once in awhile... Not a offical game but between the local cachers in my area its a fun side activity.

 

There are a lot of different circumstances that aren't explained here, so it's hard to answer this.

 

I'm not sure why someone who moved a cache that far wouldn't simply archive it and create a new cache, unless there it were part of a multi-cache, night cache, or something like that with a fairly complex field. If it's a puzzle and the puzzle is the same, just tweaked for the new location, then I wouldn't really think of any of those situations as new finds.

 

If it's a totally different container and a totally different hiding place, then it really seems like logging it would really be another find.

 

Maybe the CO just wants to keep a long history of good logs?

 

I don't think it really matters what you do, as you could've found 10 trivial caches in the time you've spent pondering this one... I guess you could always email the CO and ask his opinion of how you should treat this - he might want you to log it as a find. In which case, he should almost certainly have archived it and created a new cache - even if it's the same name and cache page with "V2.0" slapped on it... I am sure whatever the answer that he will feel happy you feel its worth revisiting, log or no.

[+Roman!]

Having two smileys for one cache is cheating in my eyes, and I wouldn't re-find it, and you are only cheating yourself. Those are the rules I play by. If you feel its not wrong to log two smileys because it moved then do so.

 

We have a local moving cache here and although I only found/logged it once the rule on the cache page states you may find it multiple times, just (i believe) 5 cachers have to find it in-between your finds. Some have logged this cache many multiple times over the years. Are they cheating? IMHO, they are not.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Roman!

[+TheLoneGrangers]

Having two smileys for one cache is cheating in my eyes, and I wouldn't re-find it, and you are only cheating yourself. Those are the rules I play by. If you feel its not wrong to log two smileys because it moved then do so.

 

We have a local moving cache here and although I only found/logged it once the rule on the cache page states you may find it multiple times, just (i believe) 5 cachers have to find it in-between your finds. Some have logged this cache many multiple times over the years. Are they cheating? IMHO, they are not.

 

And in thier eyes they aren't cheating, and I do not think they are cheating, because they are playing thier game, but everyone plays this game different. I would feel I was cheating myself, and wouldn't log it again.

[+tozainamboku]

The idea that it's cheating to log multiple finds on cache with the same GC number sounds like something only a puritan would argue. GC numbers are simply an artifact of the way geocaches are stored in the Geocaching.com database. While reviewers may sometimes encourage cache owners to archive an old cache page and create a new cache page if the new cache is substantially different they don't always do so. Conversely, while reviewers might refused to publish a cache if a cache owner has archived it just to re-publish it with a new GC code, they don't always catch this situation either. And there are the exceptions. A few grandfathered moving caches still exist. Common practice is to log these as found so long as someone has moved the cache to a new location since you last found it. There are a few grandfathered virtual caches that have multiple targets which you can log for each one you find. I believe there may be a few puzzles or multi caches that work this way as well. In addition there are some places where a recurring event keeps the same GC number. Most will log Attended each time they attend the event. And while it gives the puritans a fit, there are some locations where the practice is to log multiple attends on events for each temporary cache found.

 

I can understand that the OP would like to know what the rules are. Some people are concerned that they may commit a faux pas and look silly or dishonest. What bothers me, are the people who think they can make up rules and then tell others who don't follow these made up rules that they are cheating.

 

Now, cache owners are told to delete bogus found logs. A cache owner who believes that there is a rule of one find per GC number is likely to delete multiple finds on their cache. My hope is that most of these cache owners would have archived the original cache page if they were making a significant change in their hide, so this should never come up. But if a cache owner were to delete a second found log, my guess it that Groundspeak would tell you to find some other way to track your finds and let the cache owner enforce his imaginary rule. One can always post a note to share their experience when they find a new cache that happens to have the same GC number as a cache they already found.

Edited December 16, 2011 by tozainamboku

[kanchan]

Having two smileys for one cache is cheating in my eyes, and I wouldn't re-find it, and you are only cheating yourself. Those are the rules I play by. If you feel its not wrong to log two smileys because it moved then do so.

 

We have a local moving cache here and although I only found/logged it once the rule on the cache page states you may find it multiple times, just (i believe) 5 cachers have to find it in-between your finds. Some have logged this cache many multiple times over the years. Are they cheating? IMHO, they are not.

Another example may be challenge caches (I'm not talking about Geocaching Challenges here). I'm aware of a challenge cache that explicitly allows cachers to log multiple finds for multiple accomplishments of the challenge (even without "finding" the cache multiple times).

[+castagnari]

Personaly I wouldn't re-log it as a find,

 

But I would go re-find it if i was in the area, (just so I knew where it had moved to)

And maybe post a note on the cache to that effect

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Having two smileys for one cache is cheating in my eyes, and I wouldn't re-find it, and you are only cheating yourself. Those are the rules I play by. If you feel its not wrong to log two smileys because it moved then do so.

 

We have a local moving cache here and although I only found/logged it once the rule on the cache page states you may find it multiple times, just (i believe) 5 cachers have to find it in-between your finds. Some have logged this cache many multiple times over the years. Are they cheating? IMHO, they are not.

 

And in thier eyes they aren't cheating, and I do not think they are cheating, because they are playing thier game, but everyone plays this game different. I would feel I was cheating myself, and wouldn't log it again.

 

There was a moving cache in DFW - Dapper Dan's Treasure Chest. It was only available for a FTF, and it moved, and each time the hide was WILDLY different. The FTF prize was generally worth real money ($20-$50, more once or twice), and people went nuts trying to find this thing. Some of the locations and puzzles involved were extremely difficult - anyone who found this more than once DESERVED more than one smiley, imo. The last one I participated in, the coordinates sent you to the middle of an empty soccer field. That's it - that's all you got. There was no place within 100 yards of the target coords to hide *anything*. Another one I tried for involved a needle in a haystack tiny micro embedded in a tree. They were all wildly different. (And under current rules, there is NFW many of them would've been allowed today - although as a one time, one off, they were completely awesome.) BTW, if Dapper Dan undershot the difficulty a little bit, a find was still non-trivial because of the "It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world" winner take all rush for the find. (There are good reasons this type of hide isn't allowed any longer, it was really fun, but had a high potential to be disruptive if lots of people started doing this, and people sometimes sought the cache when it was inactive and not actually present.)

 

At the other end of the extreme though, let's imagine the cache is a LPC at Walmart. The change to the cache is to move it to another corner of the parking lot, 1000 feet away. Is that a different cache? Is it really a different cache if you archive it and rename it WMTLPCV2? Hell, is it really a different cache if you simply move it to another lamp post at say, Target, instead? Are you really doing anything finding this one as opposed to the dozens of other identically placed caches in the area?

 

That's why this question is hard to answer in the abstract.

 

I guess my feeling is that if I went to the new location, and it took me more than 10-15 minutes to find it (or even to walk to it), I'd likely log a find. (I probably wouldn't, in reality, but I'd consider it anwyay.) If I walked up to it and it was obvious where the cache was hidden because it was essentially the same as before, or took less time to find than my car keys, I definitely wouldn't log a second find. (That's just my opinion though - nothing special about that.) But then again, given the proliferation of really trivial caches that one can find, I'm not really sure if any of this makes any difference. The implicit assumption that you, you know, have to actually look a bit or exert some effort for stuff to find it has been eroded pretty seriously.

 

I guess the reality is that the fact that you'd need a GPS to find the new location argues that another find should be allowed. Kind of a messy situation.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

The idea that it's cheating to log multiple finds on cache with the same GC number sounds like something only a puritan would argue. GC numbers are simply an artifact of the way geocaches are stored in the Geocaching.com database.

 

On the other hand, it doesn't seem right to log the same LPC at Walmart every week when you buy your groceries. I think most people would feel this wasn't the intention of this game, or at least was kind of a pointless exercise. It would be nice if there were clarity on this though.

[+addisonbr]

I just don't like the "You've found x caches (x-n distinct)" message in my stats.

Me either.

 

I wouldn't log it for a second smiley myself, but I do have a cache that gets multiple logs from a caching couple that comes through the area about once a year. Each time they do, they visit the cache, and each time they visit the cache, they log it as a find. They aren't prolific numbers cachers; fewer than 100 smileys according to gc.com. They always leave nice logs and often photos. I am totally cool with it.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I just don't like the "You've found x caches (x-n distinct)" message in my stats.

 

I expect that's part of the reaction here - ie, the one find per GC Code thing. It doesn't matter to me, as I've had fewer distinct caches then finds from the beginning of my caching. I have bunches of finds on some of the Locationless scavenger hunt caches, and it used to be common for owners to move hides and invite re-finds. I'm not concerned with how this looks, or with the difference between finds and distinct caches.

[+briansnat]

I'm in the one GC number one found it log brigade. Even if the cache owner moved the cache and invited repeat logs I would log a note for my second visit.

 

"Moving caches" used to be fairly common before they were banned. Moving caches could move all over your state or all over the country. You could find the same container in NY one day and it would be in MD a day later.

 

I had multiple finds on the one moving cache in my area and eventually went back and changed all but the first find to notes.

[vagabond]

As Brian probably remembers, in the beginning caches could be moved any distance without a problem I have 5 or 6 that I've logged twice, the the nearest one is a little over a 1/4 mile the others stretch all the way out to almost 18 miles as the crow flies

[+popokiiti]

And another in the one GC # = I find camp. If I was in the area, I might check the new location out and write a note - if I found it!

[+BlueDeuce]

I suppose I could make a case for the fact that re-searching for some of the caches I found six years ago would be just as difficult today, but considering that my PQs exclude previously found caches, it wouldn't ever be an issue.

[+threenow24]

One gc code = one find

 

While I'd be reluctant to use the word cheat, I too follow the one GC = one find philosophy.

I happened to notice you logged "Lair"(GC5D2D) twice. Find #319 on 4/11/2006, and find #1667 on 3/29/2008, when you mention having found it before

[+Roman!]

Having two smileys for one cache is cheating in my eyes, and I wouldn't re-find it, and you are only cheating yourself. Those are the rules I play by. If you feel its not wrong to log two smileys because it moved then do so.

 

We have a local moving cache here and although I only found/logged it once the rule on the cache page states you may find it multiple times, just (i believe) 5 cachers have to find it in-between your finds. Some have logged this cache many multiple times over the years. Are they cheating? IMHO, they are not.

 

And in thier eyes they aren't cheating, and I do not think they are cheating, because they are playing thier game, but everyone plays this game different. I would feel I was cheating myself, and wouldn't log it again.

 

I think to not have my distinct count = my find count would drive me nuts but I believe one person logged the moving cache 9 times and if I ever talked about numbers with that person I would not even bring the multilogs up as each find was a new and distinct find. On the other hand if that person logged a regular non moving cache 9 times I'd consider it cheating.

[+DanOCan]

Having found moving caches and attended events that recycled the same cache page every month, I got over the "1 Find per GC code" thing long ago. Frankly I never understood why someone would think finding a cache that moved and/or has a different style container but the same GC code "cheating" yet someone could archive a cache and then publish a new one and keep the exact same location and container and call it a new Find just because the GC code is different.

 

Anyway, to the OP question...

 

I likely would never even see that the cache has been moved since once the GC code is marked as Found I exclude it from my PQs -- with the exception of the aforementioned moving caches in my local area.

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't see how any cheating could occur if there is nothing to be won.

 

There were a couple of cachers near here that moved and archived their caches. Other cachers in the area relisted the containers as a tribute. They were all the same containers in the same spot, only with different GC#s. Several people went back and relogged them.

 

If you want to find it again, go ahead. Why would it be anyone's business?

[jshepherd1102]

Is it a big deal to re-find something that has technically moved? I'd add notes maybe?

 

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

 

There's hundreds of caches located in the beautiful Pike County, Kentucky. Check out www.tourpikecounty.com

Edited December 19, 2011 by jshepherd1102

[+Harry Dolphin]

I think to not have my distinct count = my find count would drive me nuts but I believe one person logged the moving cache 9 times and if I ever talked about numbers with that person I would not even bring the multilogs up as each find was a new and distinct find. On the other hand if that person logged a regular non moving cache 9 times I'd consider it cheating.

 

I have no problems with my count being different. One was a moving cache that I found twice - 75 miles apart. Then there were the Photographers Caches, where the goal changed. And there were Locationless Cashes where the goal changed. But that was long ago, and they're all gone. There are First Mnday Events where the cach number doens't change. I might consider logging them more than once, if I went to them.

But, no. I would not log a physical cache with the same number twice. o matter how fr it moved.

[Mr.Yuck]

One gc code = one find

 

While I'd be reluctant to use the word cheat, I too follow the one GC = one find philosophy.

I happened to notice you logged "Lair"(GC5D2D) twice. Find #319 on 4/11/2006, and find #1667 on 3/29/2008, when you mention having found it before

 

Is this serious?

 

Anywho, the review process used to be less tight. I kid you not, in like 2004 or 2005, I saw a traditional changed to a 4 leg multi under the same GC number. And the original hiding spot for the traditional was abandoned, not even used in the multi. Yes, you'd better believe I have two logs on it. But as I say, they've tightened that stuff all up, and in the modern environment, I would not log twice on the same GC number, even if it was moved 200 feet or what not.

[+ArcherDragoon]

I have and am not afraid to admit it. The cache was rehidden 3/10ths of a mile from the original location...a new container size was used and it was hidden in a new way. The CO himself contacted me and let me know (he contacted all previous finders). I don't see a problem with it...but that is just my opinion...

[+ArcherDragoon]

One gc code = one find

 

While I'd be reluctant to use the word cheat, I too follow the one GC = one find philosophy.

I happened to notice you logged "Lair"(GC5D2D) twice. Find #319 on 4/11/2006, and find #1667 on 3/29/2008, when you mention having found it before

I sure hope there was a point you were trying to make here...I doubt one just happens to notice such details...

 

I don't see this "fact" in anyway changing the meaning and opinion of bflentje own habits.

[+TK7464]

I have only 1 that I have found twice and that is Groundspeak HQ GCK25B (UKNOWN CACHE) I first went there in 2009 when I-5 was flooded and got stranded in the Seattle area for a couple of days. Fast forward to 2010 I was in Seattle area covering for a vacationing employee and had some time to go back it was then I found out that they moved from downtown Seattle to a new location but the UNKNOWN CACHE portion of the remained at the original location in the middle of a lake. So when I went to the new location of GSHQ I considered it a different final location. And from my understanding but I could be wrong they already outgrew that 2nd location and are moving nearby again so if I go back again and it is a different location I'll log it again. But as far as going back to another cache I just write a note for my visit.

[+threenow24]

One gc code = one find

 

While I'd be reluctant to use the word cheat, I too follow the one GC = one find philosophy.

I happened to notice you logged "Lair"(GC5D2D) twice. Find #319 on 4/11/2006, and find #1667 on 3/29/2008, when you mention having found it before

I sure hope there was a point you were trying to make here...I doubt one just happens to notice such details...

 

I don't see this "fact" in anyway changing the meaning and opinion of bflentje own habits.

I was merely pointing out I'd seen a cache with two "found" logs from someone who said they follow "one GC code= one find philosopy", so his statement wasn't totally correct ~ it wasn't intended as a slam against bflentje in any way (well ok, maybe a little, but I've read many a bflentje post here and on the MnGCA forums and am sure he can handle it ).

And finally, yes, I do notice such details. I'd found "G-O Metrodome" recently and in going through the cache listing happened to notice KB has two logged finds on it. Trust me, I couldn't care less how people play the game, being able to cache however you want is one of the great things about this hobby/sport/sickness, whatever you want to call it. As Fleetwood Mac said, "Go Your Own Way"!

Edited December 21, 2011 by threenow24