Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
JimHegs

Previously visited Earthcaches

Recommended Posts

Looking for a ruling on this: I unknowingly visited and Earthcache a few months before I started Geocaching. I visited the exact place of the geocache, I talked with my kids about the geography of the area, I can answer the CO's questions, and even took a picture of the family on the sign that I need to email to the CO for validation.

 

Is this a cache I can Log? My initial thought is no since I wasn't playing "the Game" at the time of my visit but the game isn't so much about the rules as it is the learning and experiencing so I'm just not sure.

 

Any opinions? are the official guidelines on this?

 

-

Edited by JimHegs

Share this post


Link to post

Looking for a ruling on this: I unknowingly visited and Earthcache a few months before I started Geocaching. I visited the exact place of the geocache, I talked with my kids about the geography of the area, I can answer the CO's questions, and even took a picture of the family on the sign that I need to email to the CO for validation.

 

Is this a cache I can Log? My initial thought is no since I wasn't playing "the Game" at the time of my visit but the game isn't so much about the rules as it is the learning and experiencing so I'm just not sure.

 

Any opinions? are the official guidelines on this?

 

-

 

From an ethical prospective I personally wouldn't claim the find.

Share this post


Link to post

If you visited the area and have the information I think it would be OK to send the owner a note and ask him/her their thoughts on logging the cache. Clearly you are on the fence about it, so let the owner decide.

Share this post


Link to post

I say go ahead and log the find. If you have proof of a visit (your picture) and you can correctly answer the questions, I'd say that you have completed the logging tasks.

Share this post


Link to post

Road trip.......go back to the site and enjoy it all over again and get some other caches in the area while you're there.

 

If it were me, I wouldn't log it. The smilie isn't that important to me. The dated log and doing things right....is important (but that's me).

Share this post


Link to post

I say go ahead and log the find. If you have proof of a visit (your picture) and you can correctly answer the questions, I'd say that you have completed the logging tasks.

 

I would log it. And on the "you have proof of a visit"; even this is not needed. One of our earth caches was just archived by the reviewer because we asked for proof (of any kind) that you actually visited the site. This was reason enough to archive the cache without any communication with us. In short: anwers to questions are needed, proof of a visit is not, and may not even be requested by the CO (or the EC will be archived).

 

So: if you can answer the questions, this is enough, at least according to the reviewers.

Share this post


Link to post

Ultimately, it's the cache owner's decision whether or not to allow you to log it. Penultimately (Is that a word? Well, it is now), it's your decision whether or not to ask the cache owner whether it's OK to log it.

 

Many earth caches and virtual caches used to specifically state that old vacation finds weren't acceptable and required photos with you holding a GPSr as proof you visited the location after the cache was published. On the other hand, I have come across virtual and earth caches that did allow such visits, as long as you could satisfy the logging requirements.

 

When you boil down earth caching, at the end of the day its purpose is to take you someplace, teach you a lesson about it, and give you a "found it" log for your participation. I allowed a log on our EC at Grand Caverns, Virginia, from a guy who used to be a tour guide in that cavern and knew it inside and out. That's the only time it's come up directly.

 

Honestly, whether I'd log it or not might depend on where it was and the likelihood of me getting back to that location. I could qualify right now for earth caches on Stone Mountain and Panola Mountain outside Atlanta, but I could hop in the car right now and revisit both of those caches before sunset if I really wanted to. But if someone published another EC on Iwo Jima, a place I visited in December for four hours and will likely never visit again, I'd be reeeeaaaaallllly tempted to ask the CO if it would be OK to log a find.

Share this post


Link to post
Penultimately (Is that a word? Well, it is now)

 

Agreed, as long as you don't say irregardless, alot, or disorientated (they are not words)

Share this post


Link to post

Ultimately, it's the cache owner's decision whether or not to allow you to log it.

 

No, it isn't it. If the logging requirements have been fulfilled, he has no choice and needs to accept the log.

Asking for photos showing a date is by the way not any longer guideline-conforming.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Ultimately, it's the cache owner's decision whether or not to allow you to log it.

 

No, it isn't it. If the logging requirements have been fulfilled, he has no choice and needs to accept the log.

Asking for photos showing a date is by the way not any longer guideline-conforming.

 

Cezanne

 

Looking for a ruling on this: I unknowingly visited and Earthcache a few months before I started Geocaching.

Given the 1st sentence of the original entry for this topic I would have to disagree with the above entry. Many on this site have shown objection to others who bend the rules of this “game”. The simple fact of the matter is that in this case, the ”find” had taken place prior to a cachers involvement in the “game”. So what we have here is an issue of honesty and ethics as to the timing of the “find”, not a simple matter of fulfilling requirements, picture or not. If, we are to play this “game” should we not play it fairly? I for one would not risk my integrity for a simple “smiley”.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that a person should not log an EarthCache unless that visited the site to DO the EarthCache.

 

Attempting to log a site because they have been there in the past, even if they can answer the logging questions, is, in my opinion, the same as armchair logging .

 

As others have said, it is a game. It has rules. You should follow them. Not following them is cheating.

Share this post


Link to post

What date do you use to log the cache?

*Todays* date, or when you were there?

If you backdate the find, it can mess up your milestones...

Personally I'd re-visit to log it. (Maybe, possibly... )

Share this post


Link to post

I think that a person should not log an EarthCache unless that visited the site to DO the EarthCache.

 

You seem to have a different idea about "doing an EC" than I do have. For me doing an EC means going to the location,

looking at it and learning something there which enables me to answer the questions asked.

If I did accomplished all this, I did an EC.

 

Attempting to log a site because they have been there in the past, even if they can answer the logging questions, is, in my opinion, the same as armchair logging .

 

I do not agree at all with this comparison.

 

As others have said, it is a game. It has rules. You should follow them. Not following them is cheating.

 

I have never encountered a rule saying that I need to be a cacher already to be allowed to find a cache.

I have found several caches by coincidence without having in mind to find a cache at all and I know several

people who became cachers by finding a cache by coincidence. Other accompany for months or even years cachers as muggles and only much later decide to log online all the caches they have found in the past even if they had not been members at gc.com back then. This is a well accepted acceptance.

 

If you wish to have a rule that one is not allowed to log an EC if one has visited it before one became a cacher or

before the EC got listed, please include this into the guidelines. Until this is not part of the guidelines, it is not

ok to refer to cachers who act differently than you have in mind cheaters.

 

Personally, I even would suggest to use the date of the real visit for the log, and you will have to add a whole set of new rules in order to be correct when you refer to what I would do as cheating.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

IMO, if you are interested in an area and go there to learn its lessons, then you have done that which EarthCaches were created for. Timing is less important than knowledge gained and demonstrated. As EC owners it is our responsibility to poke people to learn something about a feature and to confirm whether or not that lesson was learned. To me the lesson learned is important, not when they learned it.

 

In as far as armchair logging goes, that is why we go to great lengths to develop very specific questions which should not be searchable by means other than a visit.

Share this post


Link to post
Attempting to log a site because they have been there in the past, even if they can answer the logging questions, is, in my opinion, the same as armchair logging .

 

It shouldn't matter when the person visited the EC site. If they actually visited and can answer the questions correctly, they deserve to log the find.

 

That is anything but armchairing...the person actually did visit the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Attempting to log a site because they have been there in the past, even if they can answer the logging questions, is, in my opinion, the same as armchair logging .

 

It shouldn't matter when the person visited the EC site. If they actually visited and can answer the questions correctly, they deserve to log the find.

 

That is anything but armchairing...the person actually did visit the site.

 

Yep - you may be right. I was thinking of the example of a person saying 'well I have been to the Grand Canyon so I can log all the EC there!' I feel that doing something like that would not be in the spirit of the game. For example I have been to almost every EC site in Iceland, but I have not logged them - as many were established after I visited the sites. For me its an ethics call...and each person has to play that call themselves. If it is so very important for a person to log an EC because they can rather than because they follow the game, then so be it.

 

The whole object of the logging tasks is to have the person learn something by visiting the site - not to prove they were there. Clever logging tasks can, however, do both of those.

 

Maybe its more an issue that the logging tasks are not strong enough if a person can do them when they visited the site without even knowing an EC existed there?

 

I would leave the final call up to the EC owner...

Share this post


Link to post

The whole object of the logging tasks is to have the person learn something by visiting the site - not to prove they were there.

 

I fully agree. However, if one has been at a location, can prove it and is able to answer the question by fair means (not by asking other visitors), then I feel that

a log is legitimate and personally, I even would use the correct date of the visit back in the past.

 

As the cacher who asked the question started caching only very recently, it is very likely that the EC he has visited a few months ago already existed when he visited the location. So even this condition you mention would have been fulfilled.

 

Maybe its more an issue that the logging tasks are not strong enough if a person can do them when they visited the site without even knowing an EC existed there?

 

I'd say not necessarily. For example, I have visited some places where I have taken many photographs and looking at my own photographs I would easily be able to reproduce what I cannot remember any longer. I guess the only logging tasks that would really require a new visit are tasks where some experiment has to be conducted on the site.

 

I even know several cases where cachers took photographs and notes in advance because they have been sure that over the time some EC will show there. The typical questions non geologists can come up with at most locations are not that diverse.

 

BTW: Personally, I would prefer if someone who has already visited an EC location and is able to fulfill the logging requirements by fair means is allowed to log an EC instead of having that person revisiting the location just for the sake of doing an EC there in the way conforming to your personal idea about logging ECs. One of the reasons why I appreciate ECs is that one involved aspect is to treat nature respectfully. Every unnecessary car drive that is avoided is something I am happy about. I'd feel very bad to learn that someone drives 100km or even more just to revisit an EC location to be entitled to log.

 

Your example with Iceland is probably not a typical one. As the typical situation where cachers will like to log an EC where they have already been are ECs not too far from their home so that these caches show up in their regular search for caches.

 

 

I would leave the final call up to the EC owner...

 

I'd like to know which part of the guidelines entitles the EC owner to decide on this. If the answers are not perfect, then it's of course an issue to be handled by the cache owner.

If there exists a rule that enforces that one is only allowed to log ECs that one has visited after one has opened up a gc.com account, please direct us to this rule.

 

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

For me its an ethics call...and each person has to play that call themselves. If it is so very important for a person to log an EC because they can rather than because they follow the game, then so be it.

 

I would have to agree that the bottom line, in this situation, is one of ethics. Either you is, or you ain't! The cacher logging the find should NOT however "force" the CO into a position were the CO has to make a judgement call on the ethics of his/her own cache. If so, why the the heck bother w/setting one up in the first place. I will never be convinced that someone could win at a game, prior to playing that very same game. Any child would tell you this is cheating! Thus, timing is everything... If someone is so desperate for a "smiley" let them pull this on another type of cache. The bottom line is that as the CO I would view this as cheating and remove the log.

Speaking of "ethics"... I retired from the PA DEP this past June. The other day I received a letter telling me I MUST, as a matter of law, fill out and submit both the Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics forms for last year {thank God for the last time}. So, retiring after nearly 30 years of protecting the environment you hopefully will understand my immovable stance on both ethics and compliance...

Share this post


Link to post

I will never be convinced that someone could win at a game, prior to playing that very same game. Any child would tell you this is cheating!

 

I guess already this shows a major difference between your point of view and mine, I do not regard visiting physical geocaches and even less Earthcaches as playing a game. For me there are no winners and losers in Earthcaching. The goal of an EC for me is to visit an Earth science location and to learn something there.

 

If someone visited an EC after he became a geocacher, but just sends in the same answers as a caching friend and has even not bothered with the logging tasks at all, this conflicts with my personal EC ethics. If someone has visited the location before becoming a geocacher, but is able to fulfill all logging tasks on his own, then a log is in full compliance with my idea of EC ethics.

 

As I have mentioned before, if I happen to find a cache by coincidence, I log my find online and mention how I found the cache. Like in the EC case I do not regard this as cheating as I did everything which is required for a log, did not apply any unfair approach and mentioned what I did in my log. What counts for me is the result and that is obtained by fair means, and not whether everything around the result has been planned in this manner beforehand.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

If someone visited an EC after he became a geocacher, but just sends in the same answers as a caching friend and has even not bothered with the logging tasks at all, this conflicts with my personal EC ethics. If someone has visited the location before becoming a geocacher, but is able to fulfill all logging tasks on his own, then a log is in full compliance with my idea of EC ethics.

Since neither of these situations are explicitly spelled out in the guidelines, it comes down to personal ethics, which will differ among individuals.

 

Some would argue that getting the EC answers from a friend is no different than phoning a friend for help in finding a traditional cache. But it would conflict with your personal ethics and mine.

 

You feel it's okay to log a find for an EC if you can answer its questions, even if you visited it before you knew it was an EC (or even before it was an EC). For me, this conflicts with my personal ethics. I have traveled extensively throughout North America, and I probably could log another 100 ECs if wanted. Many of them would look strange, however, with dates going back decades. (More FTFs! Yay!) But that's just not the way I choose to complete ECs.

Share this post


Link to post

Looking for a ruling on this: I unknowingly visited and Earthcache a few months before I started Geocaching. I visited the exact place of the geocache, I talked with my kids about the geography of the area, I can answer the CO's questions, and even took a picture of the family on the sign that I need to email to the CO for validation.

 

Is this a cache I can Log? My initial thought is no since I wasn't playing "the Game" at the time of my visit but the game isn't so much about the rules as it is the learning and experiencing so I'm just not sure.

 

Any opinions? are the official guidelines on this?

 

-

I'm a bit of a puritan when it comes to logging finds, however in the case you described I would have no problem with you logging a find on my Earthcache. You went to the spot. You saw what I want to show you. You answered my questions. You even have photo proof. That would be a find in my book. Just because the date of the find was before you made an account does make it any less of a find.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a bit of a puritan when it comes to logging finds

 

Do you have a buckled hat? You're not a proper puritan without one.

 

f91480d6-b8a7-49f3-906a-0c16331036bd.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a bit of a puritan when it comes to logging finds

 

Do you have a buckled hat? You're not a proper puritan without one.

 

f91480d6-b8a7-49f3-906a-0c16331036bd.jpg

:laughing:

 

...and the shoes to match.

:laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...