Can you claim a missing cache?

[+pjacko69]

A quick question to those in the know.

 

I visited No 7 Hemerdon, Headon Ramble GC2AHNJ, only to find that it had been torched by kids; there was a black hole and the charred blue square of the seal on the ground. This means that i had found the cache and its correct location which was confirmed by GPS.

 

I have found more recently at No. 7 Hemerdon (i keep checking) that the nearby Munzee has been ditched from its container and location which is slightly different to the cache, and replaced with a log, can i still claim it even though this the wrong location and container?

 

From what i am being told, i could have put a signed piece of paper on the spot of the black hole and claimed this as a find.

 

What i actually did was to make a note that the cache needed maintenance and didnt claim it as a find because i couldnt sign the log in a cache as the owner intended me to find it.

 

I also found at No 19 Hemerdon the cache was missing but a Munzee was nearby; i didnt claim find because there was no cache as the owner had intended. Subsequently, someone found the Munzee put a peice of paper in its container and claimed the cache! Surely not right?

 

Could you tell me what is correct please?

[+Bear and Ragged]

Munzee's are not part of Groundspeak/caching.

 

Claim a missing cache?

Well, you didn't find it, so no.

 

However, depending on your conscience, and the cache owner, you may be able to claim it as a find...

 

Edit to add:

Whilst you may feel you found the cache, and log as such, the cache owner may feel that you didn't and may delete the log as 'Bogus'.

 

Might be worth contacting the CO to see if they will allow the find log?

(If you feel you did find the cache and wish to log)

Edited June 5, 2012 by Bear and Ragged

[+Planet]

First off, Munzee has nothing to do with geocaching so you have to ask that on their website. Geocaching and Munzees are two different animals, two different websites, and generally discussing Munzee here isn't really accepted.

 

About the burnt cache, you didn't sign the log, so it's not really a find, but this is a situation where you would ask the Cache Owner if they will allow a find.

 

Adding a piece of paper, or another container, and claiming a find on a cache one can't find is a "throwdown" cache. This is not acceptable because how sure can one be that it was missing?

 

Don't confuse Munzees with caching, or mix the two together, because they are not one and the same game, at all.

 

What you actually did was the correct action.

 

Edited for typos.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Planet

[+NeecesandNephews]

<insert two page dissertation by Toz> <insert gratuitious mention of the words "puritan", "knickers in twist", "just a game" ect.>

 

If you didn't sign the log, I wouldn't claim a find. But that's just me. You will find differing opinions.

 

I don't exactly agree with the " contact the owner" responses either. That would be like me looking for a cache, finding something that could have been used for a cache, and emailing the Owner and asking if I could log a find, I mean, I was there... and I looked. How can you be certain you found the cache??? I wish I had all the smilie's for caches that I was sure my GPS put me right on top of. But I couldn't find.

 

Just my personal opinion. The final decision is really up to you , isn't it??

 

edit: speelin"

Edited June 5, 2012 by NeecesandNephews

[+kunarion]

A quick question to those in the know.

 

I visited No 7 Hemerdon, Headon Ramble GC2AHNJ, only to find that it had been torched by kids; there was a black hole and the charred blue square of the seal on the ground. This means that i had found the cache and its correct location which was confirmed by GPS.

 

I have found more recently at No. 7 Hemerdon (i keep checking) that the nearby Munzee has been ditched from its container and location which is slightly different to the cache, and replaced with a log, can i still claim it even though this the wrong location and container?

 

From what i am being told, i could have put a signed piece of paper on the spot of the black hole and claimed this as a find.

 

What i actually did was to make a note that the cache needed maintenance and didnt claim it as a find because i couldnt sign the log in a cache as the owner intended me to find it.

 

I also found at No 19 Hemerdon the cache was missing but a Munzee was nearby; i didnt claim find because there was no cache as the owner had intended. Subsequently, someone found the Munzee put a peice of paper in its container and claimed the cache! Surely not right?

 

Could you tell me what is correct please?

The cache you mention has been "found" by cachers for over two months since it was destroyed. The Cache Owner seems to let such finds stand, and has taken no further action after Needs Maintenance logs. The container was burned up. If there's any cache on the planet that's seriously overdue for a Needs Archived, this is it.

 

So it appears that the CO is MIA, or at least allowing any finds claimed, in which case, yes you may log it as a find.

 

And I would not even consider claiming a find on that. It's almost surreal seeing all those Finds, "someone set a fire here under the brush to burn up the the cache, thanks for the smilie!".

Edited June 5, 2012 by kunarion

[+Glenn]

A quick question to those in the know.

 

I visited No 7 Hemerdon, Headon Ramble GC2AHNJ, only to find that it had been torched by kids; there was a black hole and the charred blue square of the seal on the ground. This means that i had found the cache and its correct location which was confirmed by GPS.

 

I have found more recently at No. 7 Hemerdon (i keep checking) that the nearby Munzee has been ditched from its container and location which is slightly different to the cache, and replaced with a log, can i still claim it even though this the wrong location and container?

 

From what i am being told, i could have put a signed piece of paper on the spot of the black hole and claimed this as a find.

 

What i actually did was to make a note that the cache needed maintenance and didnt claim it as a find because i couldnt sign the log in a cache as the owner intended me to find it.

 

I also found at No 19 Hemerdon the cache was missing but a Munzee was nearby; i didnt claim find because there was no cache as the owner had intended. Subsequently, someone found the Munzee put a peice of paper in its container and claimed the cache! Surely not right?

 

Could you tell me what is correct please?

 

The correct answer is find the cache, sign the log, write about it online.

But, you asked in the forum and you'll get a multitude of answers.

This is Geocaching.com not Munzeeing.com. I'd ignore the Munzeeses as far as Geocaching is concerned. I believe that Munzees have their own website and are tracked there.

Geocaching doesn't have an official governing body for the "sport" and your find count is meaningless. However, we all have reputations. If someone wants to be known as a Geocacher that logs Munzees as Geocaches then that is ultimately between them and the CO or I guess he would be a MO (Munzee Owner).

[knowschad]

<insert two page dissertation by Toz> <insert gratuitious mention of the words "puritan", "knickers in twist", "just a game" ect.>

 

If you didn't sign the log, I wouldn't claim a find. But that's just me. You will find differing opinions.

 

I don't exactly agree with the " contact the owner" responses either. That would be like me looking for a cache, finding something that could have been used for a cache, and emailing the Owner and asking if I could log a find, I mean, I was there... and I looked. How can you be certain you found the cache??? I wish I had all the smilie's for caches that I was sure my GPS put me right on top of. But I couldn't find.

 

Just my personal opinion. The final decision is really up to you , isn't it??

 

edit: speelin"

Was the word, "entitlement" included in the "etc."?

[+Team Dennis]

I visited No 7 Hemerdon, Headon Ramble GC2AHNJ, only to find that it had been torched by kids; there was a black hole and the charred blue square of the seal on the ground. This means that i had found the cache and its correct location which was confirmed by GPS.

 

Assuming these were the remains of the cache then it is between you and the cache owner whether or not you log this as a find. Personally I would log it as a find **IF** the cache owner confirmed that what I found was indeed the remains of the cache and gave me his/her consent to log it as a find.

 

From what i am being told, i could have put a signed piece of paper on the spot of the black hole and claimed this as a find.

 

If you found the cache intact but it was missing a log then you could have put a new log in the container and signed it. But leaving a piece of paper at ground zero and calling it a find is neither a good idea or a generally accepted method of "finding" a cache.

 

What i actually did was to make a note that the cache needed maintenance and didnt claim it as a find because i couldnt sign the log in a cache as the owner intended me to find it.

 

Excellent! That is the exact way I would have handled it. Then I would wait a week or two and if the cache owner did not respond I would post a "Needs Archived" log.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Team Dennis

[+The A-Team]

The cache you mention has been "found" by cachers for over two months since it was destroyed. The Cache Owner seems to let such finds stand, and has taken no further action after Needs Maintenance logs. The container was burned up. If there's any cache on the planet that's seriously overdue for a Needs Archived, this is it.

This.

It's pretty clear by now that the CO has no intention of replacing it. They also have another cache that has a load of DNFs on it going back several months, but no word from them. A NA would start the process of getting rid of the listing, or at least give the CO a swift kick to remind them.

[+Trucker Lee]

If the cache is missing, how can you claim you found it?

[+NeecesandNephews]

<insert two page dissertation by Toz> <insert gratuitious mention of the words "puritan", "knickers in twist", "just a game" ect.>

 

If you didn't sign the log, I wouldn't claim a find. But that's just me. You will find differing opinions.

 

I don't exactly agree with the " contact the owner" responses either. That would be like me looking for a cache, finding something that could have been used for a cache, and emailing the Owner and asking if I could log a find, I mean, I was there... and I looked. How can you be certain you found the cache??? I wish I had all the smilie's for caches that I was sure my GPS put me right on top of. But I couldn't find.

 

Just my personal opinion. The final decision is really up to you , isn't it??

 

edit: speelin"

Was the word, "entitlement" included in the "etc."?

 

Thank you KC!! I forgot to add that one.

[+ChileHead]

The +1 isn't worth my integrity.

[+Roman!]

Can you say you found something you didn't find?

 

I suppose you could but wouldn't you just be lying to yourself?

Edited June 6, 2012 by Roman!

[+OZ2CPU]

READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=309

 

SNIP

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

 

----

 

if a cache is damaged, or NO logbook

you simply make a "Need Maintenance" where you explain what is the status of the cache.

[knowschad]

READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS:

 

http://support.Groun...=kb.page&id=309

 

SNIP

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

 

----

 

if a cache is damaged, or NO logbook

you simply make a "Need Maintenance" where you explain what is the status of the cache.

 

Oh, TOZ.... paging TOZ...

[+Chief301]

Messed up post...

Edited June 6, 2012 by Chief301

[+Chief301]

Adding a piece of paper, or another container, and claiming a find on a cache one can't find is a "throwdown" cache. This is not acceptable because how sure can one be that it was missing?

 

I don't think this is the same thing. If I couldn't find the container then a "throwdown" would be wrong. In the OP's case, there is pretty clear evidence that he found the container. Badly damaged, but found nonetheless. Don't many cachers advocate carrying spare logs and even containers to repair or replace damaged caches they find? This is not the same as a throwdown where you are assuming the cache is missing, even though it may just be a case of you not being able to find it. This cache is not missing, it is damaged.

[+SwineFlew]

Like this cache? http://coord.info/GCTR7D

 

I have to say this, when I was there, the coordinates was soft and all the tree were marked (getting ready for logging)

 

Right now, they are logging REALLY HEAVY in that general area.

[Pup Patrol]

Adding a piece of paper, or another container, and claiming a find on a cache one can't find is a "throwdown" cache. This is not acceptable because how sure can one be that it was missing?

 

No, just adding a piece of paper as a replacement log is not a "throw down". It's just what a lot of us do until the cache owner can get around to doing maintenance.

 

Replacing what a cacher considers to be a "missing" container is a throw down. A lot of people can't bear the fact that they very simply "did not find" the cache.

 

Lots of people have claimed a smiley by throwing down a new container and logging it as "found". You *can* do it.

 

You *can* mislead other cachers in thinking that the cache is still there to be found.

 

Or you could post a DNF, with a log explaining the situation, and warn other cachers while providing an accurate history of the cache.

 

Whether you should or not, it's up to you and the cache owner. Post enough NM logs, and eventually a reviewer will probably notice it. Post a NA log and get it over with more quickly.

 

 

B.

[+hzoi]

I found an ammo can in Florida that was the final to a puzzle cache. It had gotten torched by a controlled burn. The metal container was still intact, but the contents had been completely charred and/or melted. I don't think there's any real dispute that I found the cache. I was unable to sign the log that was inside, it being a blackened husk and all, so I left a blank sheet of paper, closed the lid back as best I could, put it back where I found it, and let the owner know the cache needed repair.

 

I think the difference between my situation and yours is that, though it was severely damaged, what I found was still an ammo can that, while leaky, was still capable of containing a log, whereas what you found was melted plastic not capable of containing anything. Were I you, I wouldn't log a find, but ultimately that's between you and the cache owner.

 

Put another way, I'd consider your situaton analogous to finding a film can lid but no log or film can. Evidence the cache was there? Sure, but it's no longer a cache, in my eyes.

[+DragonsWest]

I found a throw-down on Sunday in the Cleveland National Forest, but left a note rather than log a find -- if the CO will accept the throw-down as a replacement then I'll log a find, otherwise not. The problem with the original was it is placed in an area which may flood in winter and the original drift away and possibly sink elsewhere in the lake. Not a good place for a cache. The throw-down is a 35mm film can.

[+Chief301]

I found a throw-down on Sunday in the Cleveland National Forest, but left a note rather than log a find -- if the CO will accept the throw-down as a replacement then I'll log a find, otherwise not. The problem with the original was it is placed in an area which may flood in winter and the original drift away and possibly sink elsewhere in the lake. Not a good place for a cache. The throw-down is a 35mm film can.

 

In Arkansas last summer I was looking for a cache that had received numerous Fave points because of the clever container. When I got to the location I found a film can. Clearly this was not the container i was supposed to be looking for, right? I logged the find but I mentioned in my online log that someone must have tossed a throwdown and that's all I could find.

 

The CO emailed me to tell me that his original clever container had been muggled numerous times so he decided to replace it with a film can and cut his losses. So you never know.

[+tozainamboku]

READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS:

 

http://support.Groun...=kb.page&id=309

 

SNIP

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

 

----

 

if a cache is damaged, or NO logbook

you simply make a "Need Maintenance" where you explain what is the status of the cache.

 

Oh, TOZ.... paging TOZ...

It was totally unnecessary to revive this old thread just to get the meaning of the guidelines wrong.

 

Frankly, this thread was about whether you should post a find if you didn't find the cache. The OP says that someone found a nearby game piece from another website and decided that if they left a log there, and signed it, they could log it as found online.

 

One problem I have with the association of signing a log with the ability to log a find online, is that it leads to behavior like this. You know you didn't find the cache but since you found some sort of container, yet if you put a piece of paper in it and call that a log you log online that you found the cache? This is no different then leaving a throw down, except that most of the people who do that have some idea the cache was missing. Here some one took the first thing they found didn't even check the write up or other logs to see if it matched. They just left a new log sheet. Cause they've been told that "If you sign the log sheet you can claim a find."

 

You might find a container that exactly matches the description and perhaps has additional markings that confirm this is the cache but the log sheet is missing. So I wouldn't say you should never leave a new log if the log is missing. But I would at least try to stick to claiming a find only if you're pretty sure you found the cache.

 

However, even if I was the cache owner, I probably wouldn't be too bothered by one person claiming a find because they found something else. I'd probably post a note indicating that this was not my cache and asking future finders not to log a find if they only found the munzee. That might embarrass the person enough for them to change their find to a note, but it really doesn't matter to me.

[knowschad]

I have to say this, when I was there, the coordinates was soft and all the trees were marked

Woof!

[JohnX]

If what you found was was clearly the remains of a burnt cache I would simply wait a day or so to see if someone posts about it and then log it as a find. Who is to say cache was burnt when you found it? The log book you signed clearly burnt up with the cache.

[+Lady Loki]

If what you found was was clearly the remains of a burnt cache I would simply wait a day or so to see if someone posts about it and then log it as a find. Who is to say cache was burnt when you found it? The log book you signed clearly burnt up with the cache.

.......

.... really? I mean, /really/?

[+ras_oscar]

I once searched in the woods for a container that was listed as an ammo box under a UPS. I found a UPS, and under the UPS was a rectangular depression the same size and shape as an ammo can. Did I log a find? I think not.

[MisterEFQ]

If what you found was was clearly the remains of a burnt cache I would simply wait a day or so to see if someone posts about it and then log it as a find. Who is to say cache was burnt when you found it? The log book you signed clearly burnt up with the cache.

 

No you don't do that. You be honest and post a DNF because you Did Not Find the cache.

 

A smiley means nothing if you didn't find the cache.

[+SwineFlew]

If what you found was was clearly the remains of a burnt cache I would simply wait a day or so to see if someone posts about it and then log it as a find. Who is to say cache was burnt when you found it? The log book you signed clearly burnt up with the cache.

 

No you don't do that. You be honest and post a DNF because you Did Not Find the cache.

 

A smiley means nothing if you didn't find the cache.

Not if you got 30k plus finds and logged the webcam cache without a webcam.

 

The Devil made me say that.

[+Legochugglers]

From a CO's point of view I have occasionally been contacted by a cacher that had reported that they felt they had found the remains of one of my caches. In one particular case they had found the hollowed out piece of wood which matched the clue and they described it exactly. I went and checked and they were absolutely right and I repaired and replaced the container/log. I noticed that they had recorded their visit as a DNF so I contacted them and told them that they could amend the log to a find as in my opinion they had visited the area, found what they needed to find and it was (partially) down to me that they did not have a log to sign.

 

We both went away happy.

[AZcachemeister]

If what you found was was clearly the remains of a burnt cache I would simply wait a day or so to see if someone posts about it and then log it as a find. Who is to say cache was burnt when you found it? The log book you signed clearly burnt up with the cache.

 

No you don't do that. You be honest and post a DNF because you Did Not Find the cache.

 

A smiley means nothing if you didn't find the cache.

Not if you got 30k plus finds and logged the webcam cache without a webcam.

 

The Devil made me say that.

 

Once you get to 30K, you DESERVE to get every cache you try for.

[7rxc]

>Once you get to 30K, you DESERVE to get every cache you try for.

 

At very least you ought to be ABLE to find every cache you try for!

 

Doug 7rxc

[+Don_J]

From a CO's point of view I have occasionally been contacted by a cacher that had reported that they felt they had found the remains of one of my caches. In one particular case they had found the hollowed out piece of wood which matched the clue and they described it exactly. I went and checked and they were absolutely right and I repaired and replaced the container/log. I noticed that they had recorded their visit as a DNF so I contacted them and told them that they could amend the log to a find as in my opinion they had visited the area, found what they needed to find and it was (partially) down to me that they did not have a log to sign.

 

We both went away happy.

 

I was looking for urban caches one day and it was clear that two of them were missing. I posted my DNfs and reported what I had (not) found. The kind gentleman that owned them went out the next day, confirmed that they were missing and replaced them. He emailed me and said that he had written my name at the top of the new logs and to go ahead an log the finds. I did so, more to not offend him and his efforts than to simply get my smileys. All he really did was save me some gas and time as it would have been real simple to drive back to the area, or simply wait until I was in that area again. It's not how I normally do things, but I really didn't see the harm.

 

We have another cacher that likes to hide caches with one of the QR thingies next to it. He hid one and the stars aligned so that I could go and try to get a FTF without too much effort. I found the QR but couldn't find the cache. I posted my DNF and put a watch on the cache. After about fifteen finds, I went and looked again and found it. It only had five signatures on the logsheet. The other ten only found the QR code from the other game, but I guess that was good enough for them to log the geocache. Some things just leave me shaking my head. I did post this info in my found log and made it clear that if I played the same way, I could have claimed the FTF.

[+Markwell]

The kind gentleman that owned them went out the next day, confirmed that they were missing and replaced them. He emailed me and said that he had written my name at the top of the new logs and to go ahead an log the finds. I did so, more to not offend him and his efforts than to simply get my smileys. All he really did was save me some gas and time as it would have been real simple to drive back to the area, or simply wait until I was in that area again. It's not how I normally do things, but I really didn't see the harm.

Really? Well, it doesn't harm me. But if *I* did it I certainly wouldn't feel good about it.

 

I did so, more to not offend him and his efforts...

In that situation I would tell the owner "Thanks. But because you took the time to replace the cache as you wanted it to be, I'll take the time and head out there again and find what you really wanted me to find. Then I'll claim the smiley."

[+NeecesandNephews]

I am starting to get a much clearer understanding of how the higher number cachers managed to get there. Trust me when I say, it is not at all surprising.

[+JJnTJ]

I am starting to get a much clearer understanding of how the higher number cachers managed to get there. Trust me when I say, it is not at all surprising.

You're calling all "higher number" cachers dishonest?

Edited June 10, 2012 by JJnTJ

[+Don_J]

The kind gentleman that owned them went out the next day, confirmed that they were missing and replaced them. He emailed me and said that he had written my name at the top of the new logs and to go ahead an log the finds. I did so, more to not offend him and his efforts than to simply get my smileys. All he really did was save me some gas and time as it would have been real simple to drive back to the area, or simply wait until I was in that area again. It's not how I normally do things, but I really didn't see the harm.

Really? Well, it doesn't harm me. But if *I* did it I certainly wouldn't feel good about it.

 

I did so, more to not offend him and his efforts...

In that situation I would tell the owner "Thanks. But because you took the time to replace the cache as you wanted it to be, I'll take the time and head out there again and find what you really wanted me to find. Then I'll claim the smiley."

 

Which would be telling him that he, putting my name in his logbook, in his cache, wasn't good enough for ME. Because, it's all about ME. Thing is, I did feel good. I guess that it's because I have the ability to bend and adjust to what's going on around me and not try to apply a rigid set of rules to everything.

[+Markwell]

Yep - you got me. I guess I have a rigid set of ethics. Thanks for not taking it personally, and for not pursuing a personal attack at me and my rigid ethics.

[+Glenn]

Which would be telling him that he, putting my name in his logbook, in his cache, wasn't good enough for ME. Because, it's all about ME. Thing is, I did feel good. I guess that it's because I have the ability to bend and adjust to what's going on around me and not try to apply a rigid set of rules to everything.

I notice that you are a cache owner. You wouldn't mind if I used my ability to bend and adjust to log a few of your caches from a couple of states away. I promise to put my best effort in. I'll spend a couple minutes walking in the general direction of your caches then a couple more minutes looking around where ever I end up. I may even drop a replacement container and post the new coords in my Found It log.

[+tozainamboku]

The kind gentleman that owned them went out the next day, confirmed that they were missing and replaced them. He emailed me and said that he had written my name at the top of the new logs and to go ahead an log the finds. I did so, more to not offend him and his efforts than to simply get my smileys. All he really did was save me some gas and time as it would have been real simple to drive back to the area, or simply wait until I was in that area again. It's not how I normally do things, but I really didn't see the harm.

Really? Well, it doesn't harm me. But if *I* did it I certainly wouldn't feel good about it.

 

I did so, more to not offend him and his efforts...

In that situation I would tell the owner "Thanks. But because you took the time to replace the cache as you wanted it to be, I'll take the time and head out there again and find what you really wanted me to find. Then I'll claim the smiley."

I've gotten the same offer from the same gentleman but unlike Don, I didn't take his offer. But when you have a couple in their eighties who are geocaching because they enjoy it and are having fun, it's a bit silly to make a fuss over when to log a find or not. These people are almost old enough to have worn knickers as children. If they don't let their knickers get in a twist over someone else's definition of a find, I certainly not one to get my knickers in a twist over it.

 

I can understand Don accepting his offer out of respect just as much as someone else deciding not to accept the offer.

 

Yep - you got me. I guess I have a rigid set of ethics. Thanks for not taking it personally, and for not pursuing a personal attack at me and my rigid ethics.

puritan!

[+CanadianRockies]

I did so, more to not offend him and his efforts...

In that situation I would tell the owner "Thanks. But because you took the time to replace the cache as you wanted it to be, I'll take the time and head out there again and find what you really wanted me to find. Then I'll claim the smiley."

I can understand Don accepting his offer out of respect just as much as someone else deciding not to accept the offer.

If politely declining someone's offer is a sign of disrespect, then I disrespect lots of people.

[+NeecesandNephews]

I am starting to get a much clearer understanding of how the higher number cachers managed to get there. Trust me when I say, it is not at all surprising.

You're calling all "higher number" cachers dishonest?

 

Define "dishonest".

 

I have yet (but I have not been here for years, nor am I a world traveller) to see any high number cacher(s) who either frequent the forums, or are the topic of discussion in the forums, who does not practice some form of "questionable" logging, cache dropping, leapfrogging, ect., as opposed to the commonly accepted "method" of - [ YOU personally FIND the cache,(not some remnant), YOU sign the log (not someone on "your team") YOU return it to the location it was hidden in (not pass it on to the next person sitting in the car)

 

Define "high number". I know cachers with less that 500 finds and a number of them are not genuine.

 

I know cachers with finds in the low thousands and every one of them is legit. But I have yet to meet a cacher with the tens of thousands of finds who does not freely ADMIT questionable logging. Feel free to point one out.

 

I am not the King of caching, the rulemaker, the absolute ruler of the cache universe, so no one has to answer to me, nor am I calling then anything!!

You want to call it "dishonest"? That is your name for it. I am ok with that. You want to call it whatever, its a free country.

 

However... it was YOU that tried to twist my words and say I am calling ALL high number cachers dishonest, when in fact I called none such.

I said I was starting to understand. I never said it was dishonest. (despite what my opinion of it might be)

As I have stated in other posts, in other topics " I personally believe the "play the game any way you want to" philosophy is the biggest load of crap ever perpetrated on the caching public. Such a philosophy can only breed chaos and discontent.

 

Call whoever you choose, whatever you want, but don't put words in my mouth, or try to read between my lines of type. I will show you the same courtesy.

[+JJnTJ]

Sheesh. What was the point of your post, then? It reads like a standard (albeit subtle) insinuation. Your follow-up post makes it pretty clear you look down on "questionable" logging. You did NOT use the word "dishonest", but it seems you used a lot of words to say it without saying it.

 

You didn't include a qualifier like "a few" or "some" or "many" in your statement, "...a much clearer understanding of how the higher number cachers...".

 

But I have yet to meet a cacher with the tens of thousands of finds who does not freely ADMIT questionable logging.

 

How many cachers with tens of thousands of finds have you talked with? I haven't looked at the stats lately, but there are quite a few of 10k+ cachers; I think there are about a dozen in my general area. Certainly hundreds worldwide. If you've talked with most of them, then maybe you could make generalizations about them with some sort of credibility.

 

I can understand you wanting to have it both ways; it's nice to broadly insinuate and become indignant when someone uses plainer language to connect the dots you've laid out.

Edited June 10, 2012 by JJnTJ

[+NeecesandNephews]

Sheesh. What was the point of your post, then? It reads like a standard (albeit subtle) insinuation. Your follow-up post makes it pretty clear you look down on "questionable" logging. You did NOT use the word "dishonest", but it seems you used a lot of words to say it without saying it.

 

You didn't include a qualifier like "a few" or "some" or "many" in your statement, "...a much clearer understanding of how the higher number cachers...".

 

But I have yet to meet a cacher with the tens of thousands of finds who does not freely ADMIT questionable logging.

 

How many cachers with tens of thousands of finds have you talked with? I haven't looked at the stats lately, but there are quite a few of 10k+ cachers; I think there are about a dozen in my general area. Certainly hundreds worldwide. If you've talked with most of them, then maybe you could make generalizations about them with some sort of credibility.

 

I can understand you wanting to have it both ways; it's nice to broadly insinuate and become indignant when someone uses plainer language to connect the dots you've laid out.

 

Connecting the dots you are laying out really "appears" you are just trolling. Sorry if that is to general for you. Find some one else to play with.

[+tozainamboku]

As I have stated in other posts, in other topics " I personally believe the "play the game any way you want to" philosophy is the biggest load of crap ever perpetrated on the caching public. Such a philosophy can only breed chaos and discontent.

I certainly don't want you to think that I think you can "play the game any way you want." That's what makes this particular topic challenging. I personally don't log a find online unless I find the cache. To me the idea that you can post an online log saying the cache is there when you found nothing, makes no sense to me.

 

On the other hand, as I've stated elsewhere, I'm not so bothered with someone finds the cache but was unable for some good reason to sign the physical log in the cache. The log may be missing, or it may be to wet to write on, or you pen stopped working. What I disagree with are those who have invented a rule making a find equivalent to signing the physical log. While there are good reasons for signing the physical log, I'm not about to concede that being able to log a find online is not one of them.

 

However, the rules are even simpler that this. Groundspeak will rarely, if ever, police logs. (I say rarely because there have been cases where a bogus logger - someone who is simply posting find logs for caches they never attempted - has had their account lock and the bogus log were deleted). Instead, Groundspeak has given the responsibility for maintaining the quality of online log to the cache owner. Now, there have been some cache owners who felt they could make up rules and delete any log they wanted. So the guidelines have been changed to limit this power. Under these guidelines, a cache owner can, if he or she wants, delete logs if the physical log wasn't signed.

 

The guidelines for cache ownership say nothing about whether a cache owner can allow a log if someone did not find the cache. Similarly, a cache owner can choose to allow find if the cache (or the remains of the cache) was found but there was no log to sign or the log was not signed for some reason.

 

The good thing is that while a cache owner can email you or post on the cache page that you can change a DNF or a note to a find, they can't force you to do this. (In some cases though, by refusing to log the find you open yourself to ridicule from others. Believe it or not, I have been called a "puritan" for refusing to change a DNF to a find).

 

Here is my interpretation the rules for logging of physical caches:

 

1) You shouldn't log a find online unless your are comfortable with that definition of a find.

2) A cache owner can delete your online log if their definition of a find includes signing the physical log and you didn't sign the log.

3) The cache owner cannot delete a log for failing to meet additional requirements beyond signing the physical log.

4) The cache owner is not required to include signing the physical in their definition nor are they required to post what their definition is. You take the risk that cache owner might delete your log if you didn't sign the physical log.

 

Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com. There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find.

 

It's very hard for me to see any cheating in a game whose object is to have fun and not to find the most caches. If someone has fun finding a lot of caches and they comply with the rules for logging physical cache (as interpreted by me - but let's not bicker over that) they are certainly playing the game within the "rules". If their logs honestly reflect what transpired, they are not, IMO, dishonest.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Toz rest assured none of what I posted was directed at you. You and I have had this discussion on many threads, and I have to feel we have reached what could loosely be described as "agreement".

 

I am not so anal that I am going to condemn everything or everyone who does not follow the "guidelines" as I interpret them. Nor am I going to accuse anyone of "cheating" or being "dishonest".

 

You and I know what a find is. I have agreed with you several times about the cache owners right to be anal, or not be. Nowhere is it etched in stone that there are never any extenuating circumstances.

Even the cacher and cache owner in the OP can agree to what is or isn't a find as it was described.

 

The comment I made in post 35 was generalizing, but in defense of that comment, I have found many cachers have a pretty liberal view on how the game is played. Its not necessarily the way I play it, and it helps me better understand how some might rack up quick numbers. I could up my find count by quite a few smileys if I played that way.

 

I also love the way comments can be "seized" upon and made out to be something they are not. I am amazed someone can read the tone and inflection of my typing so well!!!

 

Bottom line is... it doesn't make a rats behind what I think about how someone else caches. Who am I??? I don't understand why anyone would give my words so much weight. If you feel the need to impress me with your numbers (for some unknown reason) and you throw out say, 15,000, don't be surprised if I am not impressed. If you really feel the need to impress me, show me you are able to keep from compromising your integrity for a simple yellow icon. Which opens yet another question of what is integrity.

These comments are not directed at you Toz, but again, just generalizing.

 

I am not going to go on and on over a simple comment. Thanks as always for posting Toz, as I appreciate your contributions to the forums and to the game. No matter if we see eye to eye or not.

 

 

And let it be known ( to clear up any mistaken assumptions) when I use the words "many, few, most, ect. " it is in reference to the small circle of the caching world I travel in, or read about. Hope that does not add new fodder for someone to jump on and critique.

ETA-clarification

Edited June 10, 2012 by NeecesandNephews

[+Don_J]

Yep - you got me. I guess I have a rigid set of ethics. Thanks for not taking it personally, and for not pursuing a personal attack at me and my rigid ethics.

 

I'm sorry if you took that as a personal attack, truly I am, because it was the furthest thing from my mind and certainly not my intention. Like I said in my post, this is not how I normally do things. I was presented with a unique situation that I handled how I saw fit. This is a man in his 80's that went out of his way to accommodate me, unsolicited. I honestly feel that it would have been rude to decline his offer, and like I said, I saw no harm in doing so accepting it. I feel that my ethics are intact. It's not like I'm running around taking pictures of myself at Webcams caches with my own camera or any of those other silly things.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Don_J

[+Don_J]

Which would be telling him that he, putting my name in his logbook, in his cache, wasn't good enough for ME. Because, it's all about ME. Thing is, I did feel good. I guess that it's because I have the ability to bend and adjust to what's going on around me and not try to apply a rigid set of rules to everything.

I notice that you are a cache owner. You wouldn't mind if I used my ability to bend and adjust to log a few of your caches from a couple of states away. I promise to put my best effort in. I'll spend a couple minutes walking in the general direction of your caches then a couple more minutes looking around where ever I end up. I may even drop a replacement container and post the new coords in my Found It log.

 

Wow. I think you are confused. None of that has anything to do with what I'm talking about. Have you looked for any of my caches that were missing? Did I replace those caches, put your name on the log and offer that you log a find online? No, I didn't think so, because I wouldn't do that.

[+Glenn]

Which would be telling him that he, putting my name in his logbook, in his cache, wasn't good enough for ME. Because, it's all about ME. Thing is, I did feel good. I guess that it's because I have the ability to bend and adjust to what's going on around me and not try to apply a rigid set of rules to everything.

I notice that you are a cache owner. You wouldn't mind if I used my ability to bend and adjust to log a few of your caches from a couple of states away. I promise to put my best effort in. I'll spend a couple minutes walking in the general direction of your caches then a couple more minutes looking around where ever I end up. I may even drop a replacement container and post the new coords in my Found It log.

 

Wow. I think you are confused. None of that has anything to do with what I'm talking about. Have you looked for any of my caches that were missing? Did I replace those caches, put your name on the log and offer that you log a find online? No, I didn't think so, because I wouldn't do that.

 

Of course it does. You are talking about bending and adjusting the rules to fit a situation. I am talking about the same thing.

I have a situation. I'm too far away to physically find your caches. If I bend the rules to fit that situation then I can log finds on your caches. It isn't any different than bending any of the other rules.

[+Don_J]

Which would be telling him that he, putting my name in his logbook, in his cache, wasn't good enough for ME. Because, it's all about ME. Thing is, I did feel good. I guess that it's because I have the ability to bend and adjust to what's going on around me and not try to apply a rigid set of rules to everything.

I notice that you are a cache owner. You wouldn't mind if I used my ability to bend and adjust to log a few of your caches from a couple of states away. I promise to put my best effort in. I'll spend a couple minutes walking in the general direction of your caches then a couple more minutes looking around where ever I end up. I may even drop a replacement container and post the new coords in my Found It log.

 

Wow. I think you are confused. None of that has anything to do with what I'm talking about. Have you looked for any of my caches that were missing? Did I replace those caches, put your name on the log and offer that you log a find online? No, I didn't think so, because I wouldn't do that.

 

Of course it does. You are talking about bending and adjusting the rules to fit a situation. I am talking about the same thing.

I have a situation. I'm too far away to physically find your caches. If I bend the rules to fit that situation then I can log finds on your caches. It isn't any different than bending any of the other rules.

 

Okay, if you want to equate driving 36 in a 35 zone to reckless driving, go ahead. I'm not going to play that game. You obviously think that I was rationalizing the situation to meet my needs, when the exact opposite is true. You can take a vow of honesty but when your wife asks. "Does my butt look big", you don't answer, "as big as a buffalo's", even if it's true.

 

If any of you can live your lives in perfect black and white, my hats off to you. I live in a world filled with many shades of gray. As an example, if I'm driving 70 on the interstate and I overcome a big rig going 69, I'm not going to drive next to him for two miles until I'm finally by. To do so is dangerous for both of us and it backs up traffic which becomes more dangerous. I'm going to speed up until I can safely pull back in front of him the readjust my speed back to the speed limit. By breaking the rule for fifteen seconds, I create a safer situation for everyone in the area. Are you that guy that backs up traffic for miles because you refuse to bend a rule?