Jump to content

Logging an adopted cache


Gan Dalf
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment

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! :D

 

MrsB

Link to comment
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? :P

Link to comment

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 by soonerdg
Link to comment
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? :P

 

Maybe! :laughing::laughing:

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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 :P

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*

Link to comment

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 by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

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 by thebruce0
Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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. :blink: Its ok to log those. :blink:

Link to comment

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. :blink::blink::blink: 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 by SwineFlew
Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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. <_<

Link to comment

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. :blink::blink::blink: 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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

 

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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'?

Link to comment

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

Link to comment

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 by FobesMan
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 2
×
×
  • Create New...