Logging an adopted cache

[+Gan Dalf]

I understand the general consensus is that if you've logged a cache as found that you've adopted from another owner, prior to having adopted it, that it is prefectly acceptable to keep your found it log after you've adopted it. I own a cache myself that matches that circumstance. What about adopting your own cache out and then logging a find afterwards, even if you actually did go out and sign the log?

 

I don't know, it seems a little suspsect to me, like the bad toupee analogy in knowschad's signature. I know, I know, "play the game your way and don't worry about what others do" but if there is an opinion on logging your own cache then I would imagine that people might have opinions on this as well. I'm just curious to see what others think.

[+GeoBain]

Cheesy. But some people like cheese.

[+The Blorenges]

We had a cache. It's a very nice cache. When I placed it 5 years ago I wanted it to be a bit of a challenge to get to it.

 

"This final part involves climbing and scrambling over granite rock close to the sea. It is NOT safe for children or adults with dodgy knees/hips/ankles! Please do not attempt this cache in windy, stormy weather or when conditions may be icy underfoot."

 

About 18 months ago we adopted it over to a younger, fitter cacher in the area... MrB can no longer get to the cache and I wouldn't trust my own knees and hips to manage it except under excellent weather conditions...

 

But if I manage to do the scramble to that cache again next summer I'll be logging it!

 

MrsB

[+Lil Devil]

I don't care how others play the game, but I will point and laugh when I see someone has done this. And I have seen it.

[TheCacheSeeker]

I also have a cache that I adopted that the original CO logged as found, after visiting it. I agree that it's somewhat strange. I say it's similar to logging your own cache.

[+SwineFlew]

I don't care how others play the game, but I will point and laugh when I see someone has done this. And I have seen it.

 

If you dont care, you wouldnt point and laugh. And its rude to point at people. *sarcasm*

[+Lil Devil]

I don't care how others play the game, but I will point and laugh when I see someone has done this. And I have seen it.

 

If you dont care, you wouldnt point and laugh. And its rude to point at people. *sarcasm*

OK, I do care. But I'm not going to let it affect me. Other than to get me to point and laugh. I'm not going to get upset or lose sleep, however. Better?

[+soonerdg]

If someone places a cache I don't think going back to sign the log after they've adopted it to someone else would really be a find. I mean, they placed it. They know where it's at! How does one claim to "find" something when they already know where it's hidden. The reverse of that stated in the OP seems ok as they would have found the cache before they adopted it. When they hunted the cache the didn't already know the location.

Edited December 19, 2011 by soonerdg

[+SwineFlew]

I don't care how others play the game, but I will point and laugh when I see someone has done this. And I have seen it.

 

If you dont care, you wouldnt point and laugh. And its rude to point at people. *sarcasm*

OK, I do care. But I'm not going to let it affect me. Other than to get me to point and laugh. I'm not going to get upset or lose sleep, however. Better?

 

Maybe!

[+Gan Dalf]

I also have a cache that I adopted that the original CO logged as found, after visiting it. I agree that it's somewhat strange. I say it's similar to logging your own cache.

Interesting coincidence...

[TheCacheSeeker]

I also have a cache that I adopted that the original CO logged as found, after visiting it. I agree that it's somewhat strange. I say it's similar to logging your own cache.

Interesting coincidence...

[+baloo&bd]

How does one "find" something when they know where it is?

[+The A-Team]

How does one "find" something when they know where it is?

Agreed. My personal take is that logging an adopted-out cache would, in general, be bad form. The one case where I could see it being OK would be if the new owner were to change how and where the cache is hidden. If it's still hidden how and where you originally hid it, though, I wouldn't log it.

[+thebruce0]

I think perhaps it depends on the hide. If the fun of the cache is the experience to get there, rather than the difficulty in 'finding' it at gz, then one would in essence be doing everything any other cacher does; as per The Blorenges comment above. I don't see a problem with it. Now if it's an LPC or some such, it could be a little more cheesy. Challenge caches are often logged by their owners as well, if the challenge itself is something the CO hasn't yet done, or is just very difficult. Claiming FTF on it though - that's just rude

But publishing a challenge, waiting a while, completing the challenge, then logging it - I don't see a problem with that.

Being unable to maintain a quality cache, adopting it out to someone, then at some point returning to visit the cache and log it - I don't see a problem with that.

And really, what does it matter to anyone anyway?

*shrug*

[+CanadianRockies]

I think perhaps it depends on the hide. If the fun of the cache is the experience to get there, rather than the difficulty in 'finding' it at gz, then one would in essence be doing everything any other cacher does; as per The Blorenges comment above. I don't see a problem with it. Now if it's an LPC or some such, it could be a little more cheesy.

Where do you draw the line between a "getting there" cache and a "finding it" cache? Generally, I like to keep things simple. So I've never found a cache that I've hidden (or helped hide).

Edited December 20, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+thebruce0]

Right, and as there are no rules, really, where you draw the line is up to you. I don't have a hard and fast rule myself, but if I were ever to 'find' my own cache, whether adopted or not, it wouldn't be a generic cache (though my 'line' would be less stringent if it were adopted vs still owned by me). I haven't yet logged a find on my own cache, so I can't say from personal experience. The closest I've come is my 5/5 puzzle cache. But as half that cache is a puzzle, which I created, I don't think I'll ever consider logging it myself. Were it a 5/5 that was, say, rated entirely for the trek TO gz, I might consider it after some time (but mainly if I were to adopt it out) because in that case, the requirements of the cacher - whether the owner or not - might well be the same, in order lay a hand on the container.

That, at least, is the same guideline I'd apply to a challenge cache, or anyone that published a challenge cache.

But again, that's just me.

Edited December 20, 2011 by thebruce0

[+Harry Dolphin]

I've seen it done. Cacher moved away. CAme back for a visit. And looged his former caches. Are you really that desperate?!? That definitely lowers our opinion of such a geocacher. Integrity?? Nope. None to be found.

[+SwineFlew]

Something to think about, what if the CO moved the cache or change the size after you adopted it out? Thats a whole different find.

[GOF and Bacall]

Really? You actually want to log a "find" on a cache you yourself hid? I'll be standing over there with the others who are pointing and laughing.

[GOF and Bacall]

Something to think about, what if the CO moved the cache or change the size after you adopted it out? Thats a whole different find.

 

If it is a whole different find then it should have been archived and a new page created for the new caching experience. Either it is a new cache or it isn't.

[+Cardinal Red]

Something to think about, what if the CO moved the cache or change the size after you adopted it out? Thats a whole different find.

 

What would just changing the size have to do with it? And I wouldn't buy the lame excuse that the coordinates had changed either. What you need to change to make it a legitimate find is the GC code. Period.

[+SwineFlew]

Really? You actually want to log a "find" on a cache you yourself hid? I'll be standing over there with the others who are pointing and laughing.

 

And at the same time, someone will laugh at you for logging caches you found with a friend that found it long ago. I see that happen all the time. They didnt really make the find, they got someone to show them the cache. Its ok to log those.

[+SwineFlew]

Something to think about, what if the CO moved the cache or change the size after you adopted it out? Thats a whole different find.

 

If it is a whole different find then it should have been archived and a new page created for the new caching experience. Either it is a new cache or it isn't.

 

Well, take that to work with this cache. Its a whole different find now since its not the same size. And now they cant put it in a hole in the ground.

Edited December 21, 2011 by SwineFlew

[+DanOCan]

Would I do it? Probably not.

Would another cacher who does it change my opinion of that person? No.

 

Let me rephrase that -- if the original owner went back and visited the cache he once owned then I don't care. If he assumed he knows where it is and logged an armchair Find? That's when I join the pointing and laughing group.

[AZcachemeister]

If (and when) I ever adopt out any (and/or all) of my caches, it will be because I am too old and decrepit to maintain them. Thus, a re-visit to sign the log would be out of the question.

 

If someone else wants a big flashing arrow pointing at their find-count saying QUESTIONABLE, then who am I to care?

[TheCacheSeeker]

Something to think about, what if the CO moved the cache or change the size after you adopted it out? Thats a whole different find.

What if the CO didn't touch the position at all???

[+Gan Dalf]

I would not adopt out a cache for any reason other than I moved or I just can't maintain it myself anymore. To just adopt it out because you don't want to deal with it but are otherwise perfectly capable of maintaing it yourself, and then to log it after doing that is suspect in my mind.

[GOF and Bacall]

Something to think about, what if the CO moved the cache or change the size after you adopted it out? Thats a whole different find.

 

If it is a whole different find then it should have been archived and a new page created for the new caching experience. Either it is a new cache or it isn't.

 

Well, take that to work with this cache. Its a whole different find now since its not the same size. And now they cant put it in a hole in the ground.

 

I've already said I thought it was time to let that one go. It's over. Close the lid, drop it the hole, and toss in a hand full of dirt.

[+Sins DS]

We have one adopted cache, that we picked up after a NA was posted on it. The original CO had moved, and the second CO didn't have time to fix it.

 

The original cache was a great idea, and we really wanted to find it, but found out it was probably somewhere under a pile of tornado-twisted trees, and completely lost. Since it was about to be archive, we arranged to adopt it to keep at least the idea alive. We rebuilt it as best we could from what 2+ year old information we had, and reactivated it in a slightly different location.

 

I would love to have the original or second CO come by, and let us know what they think of our update, and would have no trouble with them logging the find.

[GOF and Bacall]

We have one adopted cache, that we picked up after a NA was posted on it. The original CO had moved, and the second CO didn't have time to fix it.

 

The original cache was a great idea, and we really wanted to find it, but found out it was probably somewhere under a pile of tornado-twisted trees, and completely lost. Since it was about to be archive, we arranged to adopt it to keep at least the idea alive. We rebuilt it as best we could from what 2+ year old information we had, and reactivated it in a slightly different location.

 

I would love to have the original or second CO come by, and let us know what they think of our update, and would have no trouble with them logging the find.

 

That cache should have been archived. The new cache deserves a new cache page.

[TheCacheSeeker]

I think I know the cache in question. The new CO hasn't changed the position or size.

 

Well, if the new CO didn't change the position at all, the hide is still originally the old CO's idea, so he hid it. Logging it would be like logging your own cache.

[+Sins DS]

 

That cache should have been archived. The new cache deserves a new cache page.

 

We thought about letting it archive, and putting a new one on the spot, but wanted to keep one of the old ones alive. The spirit of the original cache was maintained, and it wasn't moved far from the original position. If we ever do find the original container, we'll probably try to salvage it, and return the cache to as original as possible. Either way, since it's legal to both adopt caches and change coordinates, we don't see that we changed it in a way that made it a "new" cache. If you feel differently, please feel free to let any caches you find in a similar situation archive, and create a new page.

 

I was merely suggesting this as a reason it wouldn't be inappropriate for the original CO to "find" his old cache.

[+ArcherDragoon]

I have one that I changed the size, container and location...I was fine with the original owner finding it...took her a couple years after I adopted it...but, it was fine with me.

[+The Jester]

How does one "find" something when they know where it is?

I always find this a 'strange' arguement. What about a finder that comes back after a DNF (say on a velcro'd micro where he 'found' the velcro only) and logs a find on the replaced container? He "finds" the cache at the place he "knows" where it will be.

[+cx1]

How does one "find" something when they know where it is?

I always find this a 'strange' arguement. What about a finder that comes back after a DNF (say on a velcro'd micro where he 'found' the velcro only) and logs a find on the replaced container? He "finds" the cache at the place he "knows" where it will be.

I find it a strange argument as well.

Several local cache owners hide their caches pretty much the exact same way every time they put one out.

So I can 'know' where the cache will be from reading the new cache placement notification.

Once I arrive at the coordinates have I then 'found' anything or just confirmed what I already 'knew'?

[+paleolith]

One reason this is a conflict is because gc.com has no way to distinguish hider from current owner, much less to keep links to all historical owners. (I know of one cache which is on its fourth owner, although in that case all adopters found it before adopting it.) So you hide a cache, it's a good one and a lot of people like it, you move and have someone else adopt it. It no longer shows up in your profile -- if you let it be archived then it's still in your profile, but if you try to keep it going by adopting it out then you lose all links to it!

 

So one way logging a find is a way to keep a link from your record to a cache which you hid.

 

Edward

[+Gan Dalf]

One reason this is a conflict is because gc.com has no way to distinguish hider from current owner, much less to keep links to all historical owners. (I know of one cache which is on its fourth owner, although in that case all adopters found it before adopting it.) So you hide a cache, it's a good one and a lot of people like it, you move and have someone else adopt it. It no longer shows up in your profile -- if you let it be archived then it's still in your profile, but if you try to keep it going by adopting it out then you lose all links to it!

 

So one way logging a find is a way to keep a link from your record to a cache which you hid.

 

Edward

Not sure I understand this point... Couldn't you just watchlist it after you've adopted it out and then always have access to what is going on with it?

Edited December 24, 2011 by FobesMan