FTF, CoFTF

[+walkinbyfaith]

A cacher email my boyfriend about some FTFs we had earlier this month. We cache together, but have 2 different profiles so we can keep track of the ones that we find on our own. They mentioned that there can only be 1 FTF and that one of us has to be 2nd. They weren't the CO of the cache in question, nor had they even found the cache before. From my experience, I have seen many group coFTFs. I know that even geocaching.com does not count FTFs, so is there really anything wrong with coFTFs?

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Is it FTF week on the forum schedule?

 

Seriously, no, as long as the Co and CoFTFers are copacetic with it, ignore sour grapes from others.

 

It's supposed to be a "fun, light activity" (I think I read that somewhere).

[+walkinbyfaith]

Thats what I thought. We can't seem to understand why they would go out of their way just to tell us it's not allowed. We had never heard of such a thing.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Some people are just wound too tight, I reckon.

[+SwineFlew]

Wow, another FTF thread? I swear that there's something is in the water!

 

Its allowed. I share my FTF with anyone thats with me. Its to be a fun game.

Edited August 30, 2012 by SwineFlew

[+Glenn]

FTF isn't officially recognized so you can make up whatever you want to make up. I've seen people claim second, third, fourth, etc. to find. I've seen people claim FTF with a dog, FTF wearing a blue bandanna, FTF while chewing gum, FTF in the nude, etc. Just today I was the FTF on a replacement cache.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

FTF isn't officially recognized so you can make up whatever you want to make up. I've seen people claim second, third, fourth, etc. to find. I've seen people claim FTF with a dog, FTF wearing a blue bandanna, FTF while chewing gum, FTF in the nude, etc. Just today I was the FTF on a replacement cache.

 

Here ya go http://coord.info/GC1A29V

 

has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, though...just like your post.

[+The_Incredibles_]

FTFs can be shared. Among 2 or many cachers. We do that alot in our area.

[+Don_J]

I'd be tempted to write back and ask him what concern it was of his, but in the end, I'd probably just chuckle and ignore him. It does seem a bit odd that someone other than the cache owner would take the time to complain to you about it.

[+Planet]

Edit your logs to say "co-FTF". That shows you shared it.

[+plumbrokeacres]

I always share FTF with anyone I'm with when the cache is found

[+ChileHead]

Don't bother saying anything about FTF in your log. Nothing good comes of it.

[+pnpure]

FTF isn't officially recognized so you can make up whatever you want to make up. I've seen people claim second, third, fourth, etc. to find. I've seen people claim FTF with a dog, FTF wearing a blue bandanna, FTF while chewing gum, FTF in the nude, etc. Just today I was the FTF on a replacement cache.

 

Here ya go http://coord.info/GC1A29V

 

has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, though...just like your post.

Oooh, oooh! I'm going to log "FTF from my living room." on this one. No one else has posted an arm chair log yet, so I can. (and even if they had, I'd still be first from my living room) :laughing:

[+emmett]

.

 

If you are with another on an FTF quest for a multi and you both find at least one stage first, then a co-FTF makes sense. If it is a single stage cache, only one person can find it "first." For others to claim co-FTF seems silly. On other recently posted FTF threads, everyone seems to acknowledge that the FTF quest is a competition. As a result, the also rans should not complain if they get beat. Why should this be any different with a group? Whether you all arrive together or not, whoever finds the cache first is the FTF. Whether it is ten seconds later or ten days later, second is never first.

 

.

[+redsox_mark]

.

 

If you are with another on an FTF quest for a multi and you both find at least one stage first, then a co-FTF makes sense. If it is a single stage cache, only one person can find it "first." For others to claim co-FTF seems silly. On other recently posted FTF threads, everyone seems to acknowledge that the FTF quest is a competition. As a result, the also rans should not complain if they get beat. Why should this be any different with a group? Whether you all arrive together or not, whoever finds the cache first is the FTF. Whether it is ten seconds later or ten days later, second is never first.

.

 

While I don't care much about FTFs myself, and I see the logic in only one can find it first, I don't find co-FTF to be "silly".

Multiple finders are generally working together. Here's a real example situation: I arrive at GZ, and another cacher is there looking for the cache. He tells me where he has looked already. So I look in other places, and I happen to be the one who finds it. The fact that the other cacher narrowed down the search area contributed to the cache; in my view that FTF is as much his as mine.

[+walkinbyfaith]

.

 

If you are with another on an FTF quest for a multi and you both find at least one stage first, then a co-FTF makes sense. If it is a single stage cache, only one person can find it "first." For others to claim co-FTF seems silly. On other recently posted FTF threads, everyone seems to acknowledge that the FTF quest is a competition. As a result, the also rans should not complain if they get beat. Why should this be any different with a group? Whether you all arrive together or not, whoever finds the cache first is the FTF. Whether it is ten seconds later or ten days later, second is never first.

 

.

 

How can there be a second when the two are caching together and you find it together? My boyfriend and I, as I mentioned, have two profiles so we can track the ones we find when we are not together. But, for the most part we find them together. There is no first or 2nd. We race to be the FTF as a team, not separate. We arrive in the same car, we search together. How then can we be a first and second?

 

Even on the caches in question, by some cacher who had nothing to do with the caches, the other "Groups" that were out and about who were FTF on two, that we weren't, claimed co-FTF with eachother.

 

So if my family was out caching, we'd have to be Finds 1 through 5 and not just FTF??? Makes no sense.

[schattentanz]

 

So if my family was out caching, we'd have to be Finds 1 through 5 and not just FTF??? Makes no sense.

 

Yes and no.

 

You all found it together, so all would be tied for first. The next cacher who comes along would then be 6th.

[Pup Patrol]

A cacher email my boyfriend about some FTFs we had earlier this month. We cache together, but have 2 different profiles so we can keep track of the ones that we find on our own. They mentioned that there can only be 1 FTF and that one of us has to be 2nd. They weren't the CO of the cache in question, nor had they even found the cache before. From my experience, I have seen many group coFTFs. I know that even geocaching.com does not count FTFs, so is there really anything wrong with coFTFs?

 

Some people have nothing better to do with their time than to pick at other people. It's none of their business. Sounds like a bunch of sour grapes, really. Ignore them.

 

Lots of cachers claim co-FTF's. Either they go out hunting together, or it's a happy circumstance that the FTF hounds converge at the same location at the same time. It's not surprising, since they probably all have notifications set up so they can race for FTF. They end up being the first to find the cache together. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

Honestly, I am amazed at how people will stick their nose into other people's business with this game. If you're not doing something illegal, I don't see why someone should harass you like that.

 

B.

[+lamoracke]

There was a cache I've done which had about 30 CoFTFers, its supposed to be fun.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=5495883c-fc50-4ea7-9b5a-e3872c8ae79a

 

Personally I am happy to share with anyone who is at GZ with me.

[+rosebud55112]

Why would someone complain about the definition of 'first' if they are not also going to be pedantic about the definition of 'find'? After all, whoever found it probably handed it to the other to sign, so the second person shouldn't get a find at all.

 

Ignore people like this, in geocaching and elsewhere. Your life will be better for it.

[+the4dirtydogs]

Thats what I thought. We can't seem to understand why they would go out of their way just to tell us it's not allowed. We had never heard of such a thing.

Because some cachers think if you don't play like them then you're in the wrong. Some will even email you and tell you that you're playing wrong. This happened to us once and I emailed him back and told him to pound sand, and stick it where the sun doesn't shine and a few other things. Never heard from him again.

 

We share FTFs with anyone thats with us on the hunt.

Edited August 30, 2012 by the4dirtydogs

[+Don_J]

.

 

If you are with another on an FTF quest for a multi and you both find at least one stage first, then a co-FTF makes sense. If it is a single stage cache, only one person can find it "first." For others to claim co-FTF seems silly. On other recently posted FTF threads, everyone seems to acknowledge that the FTF quest is a competition. As a result, the also rans should not complain if they get beat. Why should this be any different with a group? Whether you all arrive together or not, whoever finds the cache first is the FTF. Whether it is ten seconds later or ten days later, second is never first.

.

 

While I don't care much about FTFs myself, and I see the logic in only one can find it first, I don't find co-FTF to be "silly".

Multiple finders are generally working together. Here's a real example situation: I arrive at GZ, and another cacher is there looking for the cache. He tells me where he has looked already. So I look in other places, and I happen to be the one who finds it. The fact that the other cacher narrowed down the search area contributed to the cache; in my view that FTF is as much his as mine.

 

For those that insist of applying Mr. Spock type logic to every aspect of Geocaching, this should be pretty simple. If the cache was found through a cooperative effort, then it only seems logical that it would be a labeled a cooperative FTF.

[Andronicus]

Like others have mentioned, you can make up your own rules, there are no official ones.

 

Personaly, I only clame FTF if I find it first. On at least one cache my daughter found the cache first, and I didn't claim FTF or co-FTF. Infact my log bemones how I was beaten by my own (then) 9 year old daughter. But that is just me. I think most people will do the co-FTF thing if they are present, and I don't mind if others with me do the same.

 

Just this morning another cacher walked up just as I was pulling the cache out of it hidding spot for a FTF. Did he claim a co-FTF? I don't know. I don't really care. If he didn't, then he plays like I do. If he did clame co-FTF, good on him for a fun FTF where he got to meet up with another cacher for a nice chat.

[+frinklabs]

Like others have mentioned, you can make up your own rules, there are no official ones.

 

Personaly, I only clame FTF if I find it first. On at least one cache my daughter found the cache first, and I didn't claim FTF or co-FTF. Infact my log bemones how I was beaten by my own (then) 9 year old daughter. But that is just me. I think most people will do the co-FTF thing if they are present, and I don't mind if others with me do the same.

 

Just this morning another cacher walked up just as I was pulling the cache out of it hidding spot for a FTF. Did he claim a co-FTF? I don't know. I don't really care. If he didn't, then he plays like I do. If he did clame co-FTF, good on him for a fun FTF where he got to meet up with another cacher for a nice chat.

 

I am down with this -- I have had a few offers of co-FTF that I have declined.

 

In fact, just last evening I was at a newly-published PMO cache with some others. They laid hands on it first so they're the FTF. They allege to be co-FTF with me in their log, and the CO has put my name on the page as co-FTF but I will not be adding this cache to my list of FTFs

 

Its enough to have met some new faces as there are (inexplicably) few events in my area code, for some reason.

 

I have also lost FTF to my daughter, which also cost me cash money:

 

[Andronicus]

...Its enough to have met some new faces as there are (inexplicably) few events in my area code, for some reason....

A little off topic, but try hosing your own event. I always do a Halloween event at my house.

eg http://coord.info/gc34zzq

[+Don_J]

Like others have mentioned, you can make up your own rules, there are no official ones.

 

Personaly, I only clame FTF if I find it first. On at least one cache my daughter found the cache first, and I didn't claim FTF or co-FTF. Infact my log bemones how I was beaten by my own (then) 9 year old daughter. But that is just me. I think most people will do the co-FTF thing if they are present, and I don't mind if others with me do the same.

 

Just this morning another cacher walked up just as I was pulling the cache out of it hidding spot for a FTF. Did he claim a co-FTF? I don't know. I don't really care. If he didn't, then he plays like I do. If he did clame co-FTF, good on him for a fun FTF where he got to meet up with another cacher for a nice chat.

 

Funny, I claim co-FTF all the time, but in those two examples, I wouldn't even consider it. First example, why steal a 9 yr old's glory? second example, it wasn't a cooperative effort. Like most issues discussed on these forums, it's not a black and white issue for me. The actual circumstances dictate how I'll respond.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I would edit both logs to add STF in addition to the FTF.

[+walkinbyfaith]

I would edit both logs to add STF in addition to the FTF.

 

The groups after us already logged STF and TTF. The person who e-mailed us wasn't the CO or did they even find the cache. We are just going to leave it alone now.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I would edit both logs to add STF in addition to the FTF.

 

The groups after us already logged STF and TTF. The person who e-mailed us wasn't the CO or did they even find the cache. We are just going to leave it alone now.

 

I was being obnoxious. The guy that contacted you was a dork and I would have done the above to add fuel to the fire.

[+jellis]

I've been to many group FTFs where there would be from 20 to 100 FTFr. I've even seen a cache that everyone can be FTF because the log was an etch a sketch. You wipe out the previous logger and you are now the new FTFr.

[+Mycena]

I have been thinking about the same thing for a few days now. When we started caching, my boyfriend and I would sometimes go out seperately. However, now we do all our caches together. If we are FTF, STF or TTF, we both log FTF, STF or TTF. The reasoning behind it is that we worked as a team. In addition we consider it to be fair to the folllowing cachers who then still have a chance to get a podium spot.

 

If we arrive at a cache and another cacher/team is also there, the FTF will go to the team that finds the cache first. The other team will take STF. We have no problem not being first. Part of the fun of racing for the FTF is actually the higher chance of meeting other cachers

[+4wheeler]

There is only one person who makes the rules for your geocaching and that is YOU. Everyone else can make their own rules but they only apply to themselves.

[+poblob14]

I've seen people claim FTF with a dog, FTF wearing a blue bandanna, FTF while chewing gum, FTF in the nude, etc.

Now I want to go out tonight and be the FTF with a nude dog wearing a blue bandana while chewing gum.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Only one person can be first. The second person is second. But there are no rules, so you can claim whatever you want!

[+emmett]

Why would someone complain about the definition of 'first' if they are not also going to be pedantic about the definition of 'find'? After all, whoever found it probably handed it to the other to sign, so the second person shouldn't get a find at all.

 

Ignore people like this, in geocaching and elsewhere. Your life will be better for it.

 

This is an excellent point ... in a group, there can be only one FTF, and as for the others, they are not co-FTF, or 2TF, 3TF, 4TF, etc., they should post DNFs. With such straightforward simplicity, yes, our lives will be better. Alright now, what is the next problem to solve?

[+emmett]

.

 

If you are with another on an FTF quest for a multi and you both find at least one stage first, then a co-FTF makes sense. If it is a single stage cache, only one person can find it "first." For others to claim co-FTF seems silly. On other recently posted FTF threads, everyone seems to acknowledge that the FTF quest is a competition. As a result, the also rans should not complain if they get beat. Why should this be any different with a group? Whether you all arrive together or not, whoever finds the cache first is the FTF. Whether it is ten seconds later or ten days later, second is never first.

.

 

While I don't care much about FTFs myself, and I see the logic in only one can find it first, I don't find co-FTF to be "silly".

Multiple finders are generally working together. Here's a real example situation: I arrive at GZ, and another cacher is there looking for the cache. He tells me where he has looked already. So I look in other places, and I happen to be the one who finds it. The fact that the other cacher narrowed down the search area contributed to the cache; in my view that FTF is as much his as mine.

 

I understand your point but I have to say, when searching with a group, caches are often found by one cacher in a spot that had been checked previously by another who missed it. What then? I realize this is no big deal, but for me, if I did not find it first, I don't think I ever claimed co-FTF.

 

Now, on to another topic that is far more compelling, let me point out that certain years come to mind as I ponder your identify since we apparently share a common affliction, you know ... 1918, 1946, 1967, 1975, 1986 (#$@&^%!), 2004, 2007, and of course there are other years that come to mind ... 1972, 1978, 2003 (&%$#*&@!), 2011 (&^%$#@&^%!!). In light of 2012 (&^%$#*^%$@#*&!!!), may I suggest at least a temporary name change, or perhaps maybe you can replace the red with black until there is light visible at the end of the tunnel?

 

.

[+gururyan]

Next cache I find I'm going to log it as 483TF!