Logging a find on a cache

[+Mudfrog]

Reading the recent "Angel Cache" thread got me to thinking.

 

One of the replies had this to say:

 

The question is whether I can log the cache as found after all or not?

 

Can and Should are going to be two different answers from me. The system allows you to, so yes you CAN. You didn't find anything, you placed a cache. I say you SHOULD NOT log a find. Once I'm king of everything, I'll make that a rule and not an opinion

 

This is something i got to thinking about. Say i replace a muggled cache with the owner's permission. I agree wholeheartedly that i did not find the cache on that trip and therefore shouldn't log the find. Sounds easy at first glance. But afterwards, i then realize that it's a viable cache that keeps showing up on my radar. I can ignore it of course but then i get to thinking that going back out later and getting it sounds logical too. But then that sounds kinda silly too since the only thing different is that i went back at a later time. Then on top of that, what if that same cache goes missing again and then get's replaced by the owner or someone else. Logging it then sounds semi-logical since i wasn't the one that rehid it this time.

 

My head hurts now.

 

Comments, suggestions?

[AZcachemeister]

I guess it depends on your motivation for replacing the container.

 

Did you do it so you could get the smiley?

 

Did you do it to help out your fellow cacher (who possibly had issues preventing them from doing it themselves)?

 

I have had cachers offer to replace my containers, but have asked them not to...I'd rather do it myself.

[+Viajero Perdido]

This gives me an excuse for a return visit, at which time I feel justified in logging a find.

 

So what if it's another hike. I like hikes.

 

That's my rule set anyway. It works for me.

[+Totem Clan]

I've replaced two caches over the years.

 

The first was an old cache that the owner no longer cared about. I had found it over 5 years before moving back here. In that time it had been replaced with a throw-down twice. At one time there were two containers on the site. I ask the reviewer what to do after I the owner gave no responce. I was told to put it on my watch list and take care of it. I replaced it with the correct size container. Later it had to be archive because it turns out it was on school property without premission.

 

The second one I looked for and DNFed. Later that week I spoke with the owner at an event and he confirmed where and what the cache was and that it was missing. He couldn't get to it for about 3 weeks. I was going to there the next day and had the container to replace it. He told me to swap it out and log it as a find. A few weeks later he checked on it and said it was in the right place.

 

Those are two out-of-the-norm cases. Otherwise I would never replace a cache.

[+tozainamboku]

My head hurts now.

 

Comments, suggestions?

Straighten out your knickers. Twisted knickers have been shown to cause headaches.

[+dprovan]

Although you did not find the container that the CO hid, you did find the container that is now the official container for the hide. The CO hid the cache, not you, and you placing the CO approved replacement container doesn't change that. Now if you don't want to claim the hide for whatever reasons, I'm not going to say you're wrong or try to talk you out of it, but I think it's completely logical to claim the find. And that's before considering the fact that you've just done the CO a favor, and he'd probably be glad to reward you with a find regardless of the logic.

 

When I read the "angel cache" thread, I was thinking this would be an appropriate use of the term, although it didn't sound like that's how it was being used.

 

Note that this isn't the case for a throw-down when such a container hasn't been made official by the CO's blessings.

[+RaNa2009]

Easy. Do not replace a cache that you do not own. Never. Post a NA.

Problem solved.

[+Don_J]

Reading the recent "Angel Cache" thread got me to thinking.

 

One of the replies had this to say:

 

The question is whether I can log the cache as found after all or not?

 

Can and Should are going to be two different answers from me. The system allows you to, so yes you CAN. You didn't find anything, you placed a cache. I say you SHOULD NOT log a find. Once I'm king of everything, I'll make that a rule and not an opinion

 

This is something i got to thinking about. Say i replace a muggled cache with the owner's permission. I agree wholeheartedly that i did not find the cache on that trip and therefore shouldn't log the find. Sounds easy at first glance. But afterwards, i then realize that it's a viable cache that keeps showing up on my radar. I can ignore it of course but then i get to thinking that going back out later and getting it sounds logical too. But then that sounds kinda silly too since the only thing different is that i went back at a later time. Then on top of that, what if that same cache goes missing again and then get's replaced by the owner or someone else. Logging it then sounds semi-logical since i wasn't the one that rehid it this time.

 

My head hurts now.

 

Comments, suggestions?

 

Do we really need two threads?

I just answered this exact question in the other thread. I log the cache as found. I understand that others don't and some, think that it's silly. It's the way that it's usually done around here. It's the way that I was taught seven years ago when I started. It's what I do.

[+Don_J]

I guess it depends on your motivation for replacing the container.

 

Did you do it so you could get the smiley?

 

Did you do it to help out your fellow cacher (who possibly had issues preventing them from doing it themselves)?

 

I have had cachers offer to replace my containers, but have asked them not to...I'd rather do it myself.

 

My motivation is both, with helping the other cacher first and foremost. If he declines my offer, then during the hike, I'll look for the cache and if necessary, post a DNF and try to give him any info that can help.

[+briansnat]

Reading the recent "Angel Cache" thread got me to thinking.

 

One of the replies had this to say:

 

The question is whether I can log the cache as found after all or not?

 

Can and Should are going to be two different answers from me. The system allows you to, so yes you CAN. You didn't find anything, you placed a cache. I say you SHOULD NOT log a find. Once I'm king of everything, I'll make that a rule and not an opinion

 

This is something i got to thinking about. Say i replace a muggled cache with the owner's permission. I agree wholeheartedly that i did not find the cache on that trip and therefore shouldn't log the find. Sounds easy at first glance. But afterwards, i then realize that it's a viable cache that keeps showing up on my radar. I can ignore it of course but then i get to thinking that going back out later and getting it sounds logical too. But then that sounds kinda silly too since the only thing different is that i went back at a later time. Then on top of that, what if that same cache goes missing again and then get's replaced by the owner or someone else. Logging it then sounds semi-logical since i wasn't the one that rehid it this time.

 

My head hurts now.

 

Comments, suggestions?

 

I would put that cache on my ignore list and move on.

[+Mudfrog]

Easy. Do not replace a cache that you do not own. Never. Post a NA.

Problem solved.

 

I'm not going to post a NA on a cache just because i can't find it. I wouldn't do it even if i somehow know for a fact that it was missing. Imo, a NM log would be the first step. A NA can be posted at a later time if need be.

[+Mudfrog]

Reading the recent "Angel Cache" thread got me to thinking.

 

One of the replies had this to say:

 

The question is whether I can log the cache as found after all or not?

 

Can and Should are going to be two different answers from me. The system allows you to, so yes you CAN. You didn't find anything, you placed a cache. I say you SHOULD NOT log a find. Once I'm king of everything, I'll make that a rule and not an opinion

 

This is something i got to thinking about. Say i replace a muggled cache with the owner's permission. I agree wholeheartedly that i did not find the cache on that trip and therefore shouldn't log the find. Sounds easy at first glance. But afterwards, i then realize that it's a viable cache that keeps showing up on my radar. I can ignore it of course but then i get to thinking that going back out later and getting it sounds logical too. But then that sounds kinda silly too since the only thing different is that i went back at a later time. Then on top of that, what if that same cache goes missing again and then get's replaced by the owner or someone else. Logging it then sounds semi-logical since i wasn't the one that rehid it this time.

 

My head hurts now.

 

Comments, suggestions?

 

I would put that cache on my ignore list and move on.

 

I've got one that we replaced, with the owner's permission and appreciation, on ignore now. I logged my dnf on it. I'm definitely not into smiley count and i certainly have no trouble logging dnfs. On the otherhand, it seems kinda silly to drive by this active cache months or even a year later and not just stop and sign the log.

 

This is one of those things that isn't a big deal, i'm just kinda curious as to what others might do in a situation like this.

[+RaNa2009]

Easy. Do not replace a cache that you do not own. Never. Post a NA.

Problem solved.

 

I'm not going to post a NA on a cache just because i can't find it. I wouldn't do it even if i somehow know for a fact that it was missing. Imo, a NM log would be the first step. A NA can be posted at a later time if need be.

 

Of cause not. But you would not replace the cache just because you can't find it either, wouldn't you? Of cause I meant before you feel the urge to replace the cache: Don't. It's not yours. If the owner hasn't maintained it until then, he most probably will not maintain your throwdown.

 

Post a NA.

Again: Problem solved.

Edited December 3, 2012 by RaNa2009

[+redsox_mark]

Although you did not find the container that the CO hid, you did find the container that is now the official container for the hide. The CO hid the cache, not you, and you placing the CO approved replacement container doesn't change that. Now if you don't want to claim the hide for whatever reasons, I'm not going to say you're wrong or try to talk you out of it, but I think it's completely logical to claim the find. And that's before considering the fact that you've just done the CO a favor, and he'd probably be glad to reward you with a find regardless of the logic.

 

When I read the "angel cache" thread, I was thinking this would be an appropriate use of the term, although it didn't sound like that's how it was being used.

 

Note that this isn't the case for a throw-down when such a container hasn't been made official by the CO's blessings.

 

I agree with this. It seems the logical answer to me.

 

Easy. Do not replace a cache that you do not own. Never. Post a NA.

Problem solved.

 

Well that also a solution. And in many cases that would be the best action. But I disagree with "never". For example an active owner who is currently injured or unwell.

[+larryc43230]

I've got one that we replaced, with the owner's permission and appreciation, on ignore now. I logged my dnf on it. I'm definitely not into smiley count and i certainly have no trouble logging dnfs. On the otherhand, it seems kinda silly to drive by this active cache months or even a year later and not just stop and sign the log.

 

This is one of those things that isn't a big deal, i'm just kinda curious as to what others might do in a situation like this.

Not far from where I live, there's a very nice, and pretty much unknown, park along a very pretty creek. One of the first caches I ever found was in that park. About a year and a half ago, a new two-stage multi cache was hidden in the park. I found the first stage fairly quickly, but knew something was amiss as soon as I arrived at GZ for the final stage. I found an item that was alluded to in the hint, but no cache container. It was fairly obvious that the cache itself was missing.

 

I logged my DNF, and sent a private message to the CO giving them the details about what I'd found. Since I live less than a mile from the park, I also offered to replace the final stage if it was OK with the CO. I got permission, replaced the cache, and was thanked by the CO for my help.

 

There was no way I could claim a Find on that cache; as far as I'm concerned, it's illogical for me to find something when I was the one who hid it. But the cache kept appearing in my pocket queries, taunting me. I decided to add it to my Ignore List.

 

Since I now had an indirect stake in the cache, I also added it to one of my Bookmark Lists called "Monitored Caches". It's been fun to read the logs of recent finders.

 

This way, the cache doesn't appear in lists of caches I want to find, but I can keep up with the latest activity.

 

After another year or so, a cacher logged a DNF, stating in her log that she wasn't able to find Stage 1. Stage 1 is supposed to be easy, so I checked things out, and learned that the first stage is gone now. I once again sent the CO a private message and offered to help, but this time I got no reply. I added a Needs Maintenance log in hopes that that would spur the CO to take action. Sadly, after my NM log and several DNFs, one of the local reviewers has disabled the cache. I'm still hoping the CO will do something (they logged into the site yesterday, so they're still around), but it's not looking good. It would be easy for me to replace the Stage 1 cache, but I won't without the CO's permission.

 

--Larry

[+RaNa2009]

I've got one that we replaced, with the owner's permission and appreciation, on ignore now. I logged my dnf on it. I'm definitely not into smiley count and i certainly have no trouble logging dnfs. On the otherhand, it seems kinda silly to drive by this active cache months or even a year later and not just stop and sign the log.

 

This is one of those things that isn't a big deal, i'm just kinda curious as to what others might do in a situation like this.

Not far from where I live, there's a very nice, and pretty much unknown, park along a very pretty creek. One of the first caches I ever found was in that park. About a year and a half ago, a new two-stage multi cache was hidden in the park. I found the first stage fairly quickly, but knew something was amiss as soon as I arrived at GZ for the final stage. I found an item that was alluded to in the hint, but no cache container. It was fairly obvious that the cache itself was missing.

 

I logged my DNF, and sent a private message to the CO giving them the details about what I'd found. Since I live less than a mile from the park, I also offered to replace the final stage if it was OK with the CO. I got permission, replaced the cache, and was thanked by the CO for my help.

 

There was no way I could claim a Find on that cache; as far as I'm concerned, it's illogical for me to find something when I was the one who hid it. But the cache kept appearing in my pocket queries, taunting me. I decided to add it to my Ignore List.

 

Since I now had an indirect stake in the cache, I also added it to one of my Bookmark Lists called "Monitored Caches". It's been fun to read the logs of recent finders.

 

This way, the cache doesn't appear in lists of caches I want to find, but I can keep up with the latest activity.

 

After another year or so, a cacher logged a DNF, stating in her log that she wasn't able to find Stage 1. Stage 1 is supposed to be easy, so I checked things out, and learned that the first stage is gone now. I once again sent the CO a private message and offered to help, but this time I got no reply. I added a Needs Maintenance log in hopes that that would spur the CO to take action. Sadly, after my NM log and several DNFs, one of the local reviewers has disabled the cache. I'm still hoping the CO will do something (they logged into the site yesterday, so they're still around), but it's not looking good. It would be easy for me to replace the Stage 1 cache, but I won't without the CO's permission.

 

--Larry

 

Which IMHO proves my point: throw downs are evil.

 

It's tempting, I can understand that - if you do it for the smiley on the map (if you do it for the +1 on your find count it's pathetic). But it's a short term solution with problems all over.

 

• You teach the owner the wrong lesson. "Hey, I don't need to maintain my cache. At some point, someone will place a throw down."
  
• You never can be sure, that the cache is really missing. Chances are we now have two containers in place. I don't even want to think about consequences regarding logged in TBs....
  
• Somewhen the logbook will need to be replaced - who is going to do that?
  

 

It may take some time, but logging a NA after the usual series of DNFs and NM logs is the proper solution. Either the owner will maintain his cache and you can legitimately find it or the cache is archived, it will not haunt you anymore and there is room for a new one.

 

The universe is watching us and will slap us all in the face if we try to trick it.

 

Just my two cents...

[+larryc43230]

Which IMHO proves my point: throw downs are evil.

Just to be completely clear: My story did not involve placing a throw down cache. I received permission in advance from the CO to replace the final stage of that cache. When I failed to get permission to replace Stage 1, I didn't throw down a cache, I entered a Needs Maintenance log.

 

I agree that throw down caches are evil. And confusing. And cheating. And infuriating. Clear enough?

 

--Larry

[+Mudfrog]

Easy. Do not replace a cache that you do not own. Never. Post a NA.

Problem solved.

 

I'm not going to post a NA on a cache just because i can't find it. I wouldn't do it even if i somehow know for a fact that it was missing. Imo, a NM log would be the first step. A NA can be posted at a later time if need be.

 

Of cause not. But you would not replace the cache just because you can't find it either, wouldn't you? Of cause I meant before you feel the urge to replace the cache: Don't. It's not yours. If the owner hasn't maintained it until then, he most probably will not maintain your throwdown.

 

Post a NA.

Again: Problem solved.

 

We seem to be on the same page for the most part. There are times when i sometimes feel that i can help but i would never dream of replacing someone elses cache unless i got the go ahead directly from them and knew exactly where it needed to be placed.

 

I also agree that i'm not gonna replace for an owner who doesn't maintain his cache. Still, even if i knew this, i would not automatically log a NA. The logs that had come in before my dnf experience, number of dnfs, need maintenances, etc, would determine whether i needed to place a needs archived on the cache.

 

You're right in that a throwdown should never be, well, threw down. I'm not talking throw down in this case.

There are certain instances where i can be helpful to an owner by getting with them and maintaining or replacing a cache for them.

[4wheelin_fool]

The proper thing to do, would be to have the owner transfer the cache to you via the adoption process, and for you to post an Owner Maintenance note to keep your Owner Maintenance stats correct. Once you transfer it back, then you could post a find on it during another visit, or post a find at that time if you were with someone else and they hid the new cache while you had your back turned. Or, you could decide that it's just a silly issue of semantics and post a note, and then a year later go over your notes and change it to a find when no one is watching. In the end, its entirely up to you, and the consensus in the forums will always be different than what actually happens in your area.

[+dprovan]

There was no way I could claim a Find on that cache; as far as I'm concerned, it's illogical for me to find something when I was the one who hid it.

It's fine to me if that's the way you want to look at it. In my opinion, you didn't hide the cache. The CO hid the cache. You replaced it where he hid it, which in my mind is something else entirely.

 

So I consider logging the find perfectly logical. And, frankly, even if I didn't consider it legitimate, I'd solve the problem of the unfindable cache by logging a find, anyway, before I'd ignore it. I'd leave it up to the CO to decided if my find should stand.

 

This sounds like a cache you definitely want to show up in your lists, since you're ready, willing, and able to maintain it again if you see it disabled. Ignoring it sounds like the one thing you don't want to do.

Edited December 3, 2012 by dprovan

[Andronicus]

Easy. Do not replace a cache that you do not own. Never. Post a NA.

Problem solved.

2 summers ago, a cache owner found out I was planning to hike up to a benchmark that was about 30m from his cache. He asked if I could replace his cache, as it appeared a bear had destroyed it. Sure. I made the 6h hike, found some cache remains, and replaced the cache, and logged the find.

 

My rule is a cache near the city, I will let the CO deal with. Back country caches, I will do whatever I can to help out with maintanence. I know I sure would appriciate if others did the same for me!

[+captnemo]

Interesting topic!

 

Back in April 2010, a friend placed a cache which due to a poor contianer soon needed maintaince. Several logs noted the poor condition and my friend told me he just didn't have time right then to fix it. So I wnet out and found that it was prety much gone, only a toy car remained and some pieces of plastic. So I replaced it and logged it as a find, and to to honest didn't think anything might be wrong untill I read this post. After thinking about it now, I did find it (what was left of it anyway) so my find stands.

 

On 3/20/11 I adoped the cache as my friend had moved out of the area. The cache has over 300 finds and I maintain it.

[+OZ2CPU]

if a cache is most likely missing, info I get BEFORE I access the cache site,

I kindly ask the CO, if he like my help to replace it or not,

(I only do this if cache is worth saving, or specially if I know the CO)

if he say YES, I can put a new container, and log it as found as a little thank you,

offcourse I did not find it, but placed it, but that is how I do it,

I feel i deserve that little easy smily for my work and help

and also now I dont need to find it again another time in the future,

if I replace it and just log a note, then a few years later when I access this area again,

the cache will pop up as unfound, so I will seek it, and maybe find it very easy to find, since I know where it is anyway,

so to awoid this extra double visit, I choose to log it as found the first visit, most CO2 friendly.

 

if a CO say NO !! ok clearly he want to handle it him self, and I must wait until he fixes it,

 

if he say nothing at all for a long time, it is time to post a NA

 

YOU CAN NOT PLACE A NEW CONTAINER WITHOUT CO PERMISSION, IF NOTHING AT ALL IS FOUND

but this happen all the time..

several examples exist, of several caches at SAME location, with SAME GC code in it,

co is only aware of ONE of them, I think the record is over 3 :-)

I sometimes find two caches at same location.

 

YOU CAN PUT A NEW LOG INTO A CACHE YOU FIND THERE..

this happen all to little

 

YOU CAN FIX REPAIR IMPROVE SWAP CONTAINERS INTO BETTER QUALITY MORE WATER TIGHT IF YOU SEE A CLEAR NEED

but this almost newer happen.. only a real friend seem to help out another friend..

a strainger dont help another strainger.. wierd..

Edited December 3, 2012 by OZ2CPU

[+BlueDeuce]

There was no way I could claim a Find on that cache; as far as I'm concerned, it's illogical for me to find something when I was the one who hid it.

It's fine to me if that's the way you want to look at it. In my opinion, you didn't hide the cache. The CO hid the cache. You replaced it where he hid it, which in my mind is something else entirely.

 

So I consider logging the find perfectly logical. And, frankly, even if I didn't consider it legitimate, I'd solve the problem of the unfindable cache by logging a find, anyway, before I'd ignore it. I'd leave it up to the CO to decided if my find should stand.

 

This sounds like a cache you definitely want to show up in your lists, since you're ready, willing, and able to maintain it again if you see it disabled. Ignoring it sounds like the one thing you don't want to do.

 

I've never logged a cache that required this much justification.

[+BlueDeuce]

This is one of those things that isn't a big deal, i'm just kinda curious as to what others might do in a situation like this.

 

For me, there's a point when I go from finding a viable cache to providing support. Just did a cache just the other day that was completely full of water. I don't consider that a working cache as the owner wanted me to find it. I posted a NM and if they fix it I'll go back and sign the logbook.

Edited December 3, 2012 by BlueDeuce

[+OZ2CPU]

>Just did a cache just the other day that was completely full of water.

>I don't consider that a working cache as the owner wanted me to find it.

>I posted a NM and if they fix it I'll go back and sign the logbook.

 

WHY did you not pour out the water, add a new dry log book,

put a nice big piece of bark on top, so no new water can go in ?

why not be a friend ?

 

it is also not illegal to pick up liter from the parking lot !

ok it might not be your job to do so, others might have a job like this,

but if they clearly do not perform their job, it is not illegal for us to help out a bit..

[+Manville Possum]

I call them "throw downs". If you can't find my geocache, log a DNF.

I also have accepted that this is getting more common, and it's a numbers thing. If my cache log is wet or full and you want to leave a new one, that's fine. You can even take the old wet stinky log with you.

[+BlueDeuce]

>Just did a cache just the other day that was completely full of water.

>I don't consider that a working cache as the owner wanted me to find it.

>I posted a NM and if they fix it I'll go back and sign the logbook.

 

WHY did you not pour out the water, add a new dry log book,

put a nice big piece of bark on top, so no new water can go in ?

why not be a friend ?

 

it is also not illegal to pick up liter from the parking lot !

ok it might not be your job to do so, others might have a job like this,

but if they clearly do not perform their job, it is not illegal for us to help out a bit..

 

 

It's a bucket in the guys front yard that I was the very next finder after he fixed it... for getting wet.

 

Your why not be a friend idea - aka maintain an ownerless cache is hardly friendly to the community.

 

If you can't maintain a working cache it NA.

 

Now of course I could have claimed a find but that would require me to say anything other than I signed the logbook.

 

None of my finds require a explanation.

Edited December 3, 2012 by BlueDeuce

[+larryc43230]

This sounds like a cache you definitely want to show up in your lists, since you're ready, willing, and able to maintain it again if you see it disabled. Ignoring it sounds like the one thing you don't want to do.

I wrote that I decided to place the cache on my Ignore List. That's not the same as pretending it doesn't exist, it simply prevents it from being included in pocket queries. I obviously didn't intend to ignore the cache in the usual sense, because I added it to my Monitored Caches bookmark list, and I have that list set up to notify me when there's activity.

 

I know perfectly well where the cache is (or at least was, since its status is now in question). As a result, I can't really find it in the usual sense, so I choose to not log it as a find.

 

I attend my share of geocaching events, but I've never logged one as "Attended." As I've mentioned before in other posts, I have trouble with the concept of adding a smiley simply for showing up at the local pizza parlor. I already knew where the pizza parlor was. I log a nice note thanking the organizers for the event.

 

When I first started caching, I stuck to looking for real containers that had been hidden for me to search for. I also decided to log a Find only if I was able to retrieve the cache and sign the log. That excludes virtual caches, event "caches" and any cache I didn't really have to look for (as in the example in my previous post).

 

It's all in the manifesto on my profile page, for anyone who's interested.

 

--Larry

[+BlueDeuce]

 

It's all in the manifesto on my profile page, for anyone who's interested.

 

--Larry

 

Whoa, hold on a sec. You find and log working caches? You rebel.

[+larryc43230]

Whoa, hold on a sec. You find and log working caches? You rebel.

A rebel without a clue.

 

--Larry

[+BlueDeuce]

Whoa, hold on a sec. You find and log working caches? You rebel.

A rebel without a clue.

 

--Larry

 

Nah, you don't seem like a "I signed the logbook before I put it there myself" type.

 

Happy caching.

[+Mudfrog]

This is one of those things that isn't a big deal, i'm just kinda curious as to what others might do in a situation like this.

 

For me, there's a point when I go from finding a viable cache to providing support. Just did a cache just the other day that was completely full of water. I don't consider that a working cache as the owner wanted me to find it. I posted a NM and if they fix it I'll go back and sign the logbook.

 

I would try to repair a cache (dry out and replace the log) that i found in this condition. It would get a NM posted on it if i couldn't make satisfactory repairs. As far as logging, i kinda see what you're saying about the cache not being found in the shape the owner intended. I'd still log it as found since i did actually find the cache.

[+WarNinjas]

I have done this a couple of times but only if I know the cacher and he/she is still active. If I can call and talk to them and see the cache is missing and I happen to have the container needed why not. I would also log a smiley for replacing it. I have done this for ones I see DNFs on. If I didn't know the cacher and couldn't talk with them I wouldn't do it. Then it is a DNF. I also wouldn't do this for a cacher that is not active. That cache probibly needs to be archived.

-WarNinjas

[+Don_J]

This sounds like a cache you definitely want to show up in your lists, since you're ready, willing, and able to maintain it again if you see it disabled. Ignoring it sounds like the one thing you don't want to do.

I wrote that I decided to place the cache on my Ignore List. That's not the same as pretending it doesn't exist, it simply prevents it from being included in pocket queries. I obviously didn't intend to ignore the cache in the usual sense, because I added it to my Monitored Caches bookmark list, and I have that list set up to notify me when there's activity.

 

I know perfectly well where the cache is (or at least was, since its status is now in question). As a result, I can't really find it in the usual sense, so I choose to not log it as a find.

 

I attend my share of geocaching events, but I've never logged one as "Attended." As I've mentioned before in other posts, I have trouble with the concept of adding a smiley simply for showing up at the local pizza parlor. I already knew where the pizza parlor was. I log a nice note thanking the organizers for the event.

 

When I first started caching, I stuck to looking for real containers that had been hidden for me to search for. I also decided to log a Find only if I was able to retrieve the cache and sign the log. That excludes virtual caches, event "caches" and any cache I didn't really have to look for (as in the example in my previous post).

 

It's all in the manifesto on my profile page, for anyone who's interested.

 

--Larry

 

I find it interesting that you apply such a strict literal meaning to the word "find", yet such a casual one to the word "ignore". How can you ignore something that you are monitoring?

 

I guess I'm a bit of the opposite. My ignore list is for caches that I truly want to ignore. Usually caches that I disapprove of and have no interest in looking for.

[+-CJ-]

My rule is a cache near the city, I will let the CO deal with. Back country caches, I will do whatever I can to help out with maintanence. I know I sure would appriciate if others did the same for me!

 

I agree. It depends on situation. I admire people with strong principles (who used to say "I never..." or "I always..." or "This is the main rule in my life..." ) but for me it depends on situation. When I'm in the heart of a big city and fail to find a micro/nano I will just log DNF. Even if the cache was really muggled - well, the location is very popular, someone (if not the CO, and maybe far more experienced then me) will come tomorrow or next week, so the cache won't be lost/forgotten for half a year. When I hike to some remote location and find a cache missing I will try to contact the CO (normally if a cache has some problems that are mentioned on its webpage I contact the CO in advance). If the CO is not accessible at the moment I will most probably replace the cache.

 

In our country most caches can be described as remote. COs have to travel several hours or more to get to their caches. And (sadly) geocaching is not much popular around here. So, the main rule is pretty simple: do everything you can to keep the cache in the game. Moreover (and this is really important) local caches have detailed descriptions and photohints. "Throwdown" rarely happens here. However when our folks start hunting caches in big cities at geocaching.com I used to warn them against making quick decisions.

 

It's definitely not about smileys for me. It is for the other local community members to see that if you help to maintain such a remote cache it is better than just to pass by. Since I understand that the situation in many developed countries with thousands of caches and strong geocaching communities is different, I will play differently and tell about this difference to my playing mates.

 

Let me drop one more notice to this discussion. If John just logs DNF for some missing cache he still has his chance to go back one day to search for this cache and log it as found. If Jane helped to maintain the cache she still logs DNF but has no opportunity to log it as found in future. (Until the cache is not muggled/replaced by someone else). So, to log DNF seems to be in all ways easier and wiser than to do any maintenance. Again, good for locations that are frequently visited with many other caches around and strong geocaching communities. Not so good for remote locations that take hours (or even days) to reach, when there are not so many caches and cachers in the country.

Edited December 4, 2012 by -CJ-

[+larryc43230]

I find it interesting that you apply such a strict literal meaning to the word "find", yet such a casual one to the word "ignore". How can you ignore something that you are monitoring?

My personal caching ethic determines the way I use the terms "Find" and "DNF". My definitions work for me, they don't violate any "official" guidelines that I know of, and they fit comfortably in my world view.

 

How I use Groundspeak's implementation of the "Ignore List" is purely a matter of convenience. If I hadn't mentioned how I use the Ignore List in my post, no one would ever know, and no one would ever care. It has nothing whatever to do with my personal caching ethic, or anyone else's. The Ignore List is simply a technical tool I can use behind the scenes to manage the data as I feel fit.

 

Apples and oranges.

 

--Larry

[+Totem Clan]

I find it interesting that you apply such a strict literal meaning to the word "find", yet such a casual one to the word "ignore". How can you ignore something that you are monitoring?

 

I guess I'm a bit of the opposite. My ignore list is for caches that I truly want to ignore. Usually caches that I disapprove of and have no interest in looking for.

I agree with the premiss of what you are saying. You can't ignore (little i) something and watch it too, but on GC.com you can Ignore (big I) a listing and have it on your watch list.

 

There's a cache my daughter hid that I have on my Ignore list so it does show in my PQs but it's on my Watch list so I can see the activties at it.

[+Mudfrog]

I find it interesting that you apply such a strict literal meaning to the word "find", yet such a casual one to the word "ignore". How can you ignore something that you are monitoring?

 

I guess I'm a bit of the opposite. My ignore list is for caches that I truly want to ignore. Usually caches that I disapprove of and have no interest in looking for.

I agree with the premiss of what you are saying. You can't ignore (little i) something and watch it too, but on GC.com you can Ignore (big I) a listing and have it on your watch list.

 

There's a cache my daughter hid that I have on my Ignore list so it does show in my PQs but it's on my Watch list so I can see the activties at it.

 

I have not used the ignore feature on caches i didn't like. Those caches are ones that i have already found and therefore don't ever show up again in my queries.

 

I do use the ignore feature on caches that i helped hide though since i don't wish to see them in a query of caches i'm interested in finding. These sometimes go on my watchlist as well...

[+larryc43230]

I have not used the ignore feature on caches i didn't like.

I use the Ignore List for a variety of reasons, including the one I discussed in my previous posts.

 

I no longer climb trees, so any cache requiring tree-climbing goes on the list.

 

I put unsolved puzzle caches that aren't field puzzles on the Ignore List, since there's no point in those caches showing in my GPSr until I know where to look for them. I also maintain a bookmark list of all the Unsolved Puzzle Caches in my area, to remind myself of which ones I need to work on.

 

I also include a whole lot of caches that I don't like on the Ignore List. These include ultra-high-stealth caches, simply because they're the opposite of fun for me. Oh, and playground caches. I'm a 63-year-old male who usually caches solo. Hanging around a playground frequented by young kids and their parents makes me extremely uncomfortable, so I choose not to look for any caches in or near playgrounds.

 

The last time I looked, my Ignore List comprised a total of about 800 caches.

 

Those caches are ones that i have already found and therefore don't ever show up again in my queries.

I'm curious: Why don't you simply uncheck the "I Have Found" box on the Pocket Query creation page?

 

--Larry

 

Edited to add stuff about playground caches.

Edited December 4, 2012 by larryc43230

[+Don_J]

I find it interesting that you apply such a strict literal meaning to the word "find", yet such a casual one to the word "ignore". How can you ignore something that you are monitoring?

 

I guess I'm a bit of the opposite. My ignore list is for caches that I truly want to ignore. Usually caches that I disapprove of and have no interest in looking for.

I agree with the premiss of what you are saying. You can't ignore (little i) something and watch it too, but on GC.com you can Ignore (big I) a listing and have it on your watch list.

 

There's a cache my daughter hid that I have on my Ignore list so it does show in my PQs but it's on my Watch list so I can see the activties at it.

 

I'm just playing with words. I've seen, "how can you find something that you hid", or, "how can you find something if you know where it is", posted here so many times that it's nauseating. I find my car keys every morning, right where I left them. Hopefully, I'll find my car right were I parked it. The thing is, I find these things without have to search for them. If someone has a cache in hand without the effort of searching for it and decides that they don't want to log a find, great. I don't care. Just don't try to tell me that it has to do with ethics and that yours are somehow higher than others, and then ask silly questions.

 

What really gets me are the ones that want to use the word find in it's strictest literal form, right to the point that they search for a cache, find a cache and hold it in their hands, take the cap off and find that for whatever reason they can't sign the log. All of a sudden it's no longer a find?

 

How can you un-find something that you just found?

[+Mudfrog]

I have not used the ignore feature on caches i didn't like.

I use the Ignore List for a variety of reasons, including the one I discussed in my previous posts.

 

I no longer climb trees, so any cache requiring tree-climbing goes on the list.

 

I put unsolved puzzle caches that aren't field puzzles on the Ignore List, since there's no point in those caches showing in my GPSr until I know where to look for them. I also maintain a bookmark list of all the Unsolved Puzzle Caches in my area, to remind myself of which ones I need to work on.

 

I also include a whole lot of caches that I don't like on the Ignore List. These include ultra-high-stealth caches, simply because they're the opposite of fun for me. Oh, and playground caches. I'm a 63-year-old male who usually caches solo. Hanging around a playground frequented by young kids and their parents makes me extremely uncomfortable, so I choose not to look for any caches in or near playgrounds.

 

The last time I looked, my Ignore List comprised a total of about 800 caches.

 

Those caches are ones that i have already found and therefore don't ever show up again in my queries.

I'm curious: Why don't you simply uncheck the "I Have Found" box on the Pocket Query creation page?

 

--Larry

 

Edited to add stuff about playground caches.

 

Lingering a bit off topic but,, I don't usually know a cache is carpy, in my opinion, until i've looked for and found it. Therefore i don't tend to have any caches ignored that i feel are carpy. There's no need to do anyting further since I check the "That I Haven't Found" box when i run a query for caches i'm interested in finding.

[+Mudfrog]

I find it interesting that you apply such a strict literal meaning to the word "find", yet such a casual one to the word "ignore". How can you ignore something that you are monitoring?

 

I guess I'm a bit of the opposite. My ignore list is for caches that I truly want to ignore. Usually caches that I disapprove of and have no interest in looking for.

I agree with the premiss of what you are saying. You can't ignore (little i) something and watch it too, but on GC.com you can Ignore (big I) a listing and have it on your watch list.

 

There's a cache my daughter hid that I have on my Ignore list so it does show in my PQs but it's on my Watch list so I can see the activties at it.

 

I'm just playing with words. I've seen, "how can you find something that you hid", or, "how can you find something if you know where it is", posted here so many times that it's nauseating. I find my car keys every morning, right where I left them. Hopefully, I'll find my car right were I parked it. The thing is, I find these things without have to search for them. If someone has a cache in hand without the effort of searching for it and decides that they don't want to log a find, great. I don't care. Just don't try to tell me that it has to do with ethics and that yours are somehow higher than others, and then ask silly questions.

 

What really gets me are the ones that want to use the word find in it's strictest literal form, right to the point that they search for a cache, find a cache and hold it in their hands, take the cap off and find that for whatever reason they can't sign the log. All of a sudden it's no longer a find?

 

How can you un-find something that you just found?

 

I think it comes from the guidelines listed on gc.com. They state, and i quote:

 

"What are the rules of geocaching?

 

1.If you take something from the geocache (or "cache"), leave something of equal or greater value.

2.Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3.Log your experience at www.geocaching.com."

 

They seem pretty easy to understand but there always seems to be different interpretations of them. If a person follows all three, then signing the log and logging online would be needed to complete the find.

[+Don_J]

I find it interesting that you apply such a strict literal meaning to the word "find", yet such a casual one to the word "ignore". How can you ignore something that you are monitoring?

 

I guess I'm a bit of the opposite. My ignore list is for caches that I truly want to ignore. Usually caches that I disapprove of and have no interest in looking for.

I agree with the premiss of what you are saying. You can't ignore (little i) something and watch it too, but on GC.com you can Ignore (big I) a listing and have it on your watch list.

 

There's a cache my daughter hid that I have on my Ignore list so it does show in my PQs but it's on my Watch list so I can see the activties at it.

 

I'm just playing with words. I've seen, "how can you find something that you hid", or, "how can you find something if you know where it is", posted here so many times that it's nauseating. I find my car keys every morning, right where I left them. Hopefully, I'll find my car right were I parked it. The thing is, I find these things without have to search for them. If someone has a cache in hand without the effort of searching for it and decides that they don't want to log a find, great. I don't care. Just don't try to tell me that it has to do with ethics and that yours are somehow higher than others, and then ask silly questions.

 

What really gets me are the ones that want to use the word find in it's strictest literal form, right to the point that they search for a cache, find a cache and hold it in their hands, take the cap off and find that for whatever reason they can't sign the log. All of a sudden it's no longer a find?

 

How can you un-find something that you just found?

 

I think it comes from the guidelines listed on gc.com. They state, and i quote:

 

"What are the rules of geocaching?

 

1.If you take something from the geocache (or "cache"), leave something of equal or greater value.

2.Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3.Log your experience at www.geocaching.com."

 

They seem pretty easy to understand but there always seems to be different interpretations of them. If a person follows all three, then signing the log and logging online would be needed to complete the find.

 

Try doing #2 in a nano.

[+tozainamboku]

I find it interesting that you apply such a strict literal meaning to the word "find", yet such a casual one to the word "ignore". How can you ignore something that you are monitoring?

 

I guess I'm a bit of the opposite. My ignore list is for caches that I truly want to ignore. Usually caches that I disapprove of and have no interest in looking for.

I agree with the premiss of what you are saying. You can't ignore (little i) something and watch it too, but on GC.com you can Ignore (big I) a listing and have it on your watch list.

 

There's a cache my daughter hid that I have on my Ignore list so it does show in my PQs but it's on my Watch list so I can see the activties at it.

 

I'm just playing with words. I've seen, "how can you find something that you hid", or, "how can you find something if you know where it is", posted here so many times that it's nauseating. I find my car keys every morning, right where I left them. Hopefully, I'll find my car right were I parked it. The thing is, I find these things without have to search for them. If someone has a cache in hand without the effort of searching for it and decides that they don't want to log a find, great. I don't care. Just don't try to tell me that it has to do with ethics and that yours are somehow higher than others, and then ask silly questions.

 

What really gets me are the ones that want to use the word find in it's strictest literal form, right to the point that they search for a cache, find a cache and hold it in their hands, take the cap off and find that for whatever reason they can't sign the log. All of a sudden it's no longer a find?

 

How can you un-find something that you just found?

 

I think it comes from the guidelines listed on gc.com. They state, and i quote:

 

"What are the rules of geocaching?

 

1.If you take something from the geocache (or "cache"), leave something of equal or greater value.

2.Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3.Log your experience at www.geocaching.com."

 

They seem pretty easy to understand but there always seems to be different interpretations of them. If a person follows all three, then signing the log and logging online would be needed to complete the find.

I tried to ignore when my knickers were in a twist but it was just too uncomfortable.

 

The rules above are not in any guidelines (as in "it's in the guidelines that you can only log a find online if you signed the physical log"). The "rules" are in the Geccaching 101 section and are simply a description of one way to play the game. They originally came from the instructions Dave Ulmer had in his Usenet post describing the first geocache. The basic idea is to find a cache - in Dave's "rules" once you found the cache you could take something, leave something, and write about it in the logbook in the cache. For many years these were the instructions on Geocaching.com. There was no mention of online logging at all. When the rules were changed, the trading rules were combined to encourage trading up (and to make it clear, to those who didn't already understand, that trading was optional). The write in the was left as is. No details about signing your name, using your Geocaching.com handle, or anything else. My interpretation is that writing in the log is just as optional as trading, however it should be clear that it can be used as one way to verify that you did find the cache. Finally, they added a "rule" to log your experience online. It does not say "Log your find online". I think it's clear that Groundspeak intends that you log your DNFs as well as your finds. Many people choose never to log online, yet nobody says they're cheating.

 

There is no rule that says an online find requires first signing the physical log. There is no definition of find that makes something "unfound" because the log was not signed.

 

A better way to state the rules is as follows:

 

After you find the cache:

1. If you take something, try to leave something of greater or equal value.

2. Sign your name in the logbook and leave a comment if there is room. Signing your name provides evidence that you found the cache.

 

Whether or not you find the cache, you are invited to log your experience on Geocaching.com. Note that cache owners are told to delete logs that appear to bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. If you have signed the physical log in the cache you will have a better chance to convince a cache owner that you did indeed find the cache.

[+Totem Clan]

I tried to ignore when my knickers were in a twist but it was just too uncomfortable.

 

The rules above are not in any guidelines (as in "it's in the guidelines that you can only log a find online if you signed the physical log"). The "rules" are in the Geccaching 101 section and are simply a description of one way to play the game. They originally came from the instructions Dave Ulmer had in his Usenet post describing the first geocache. The basic idea is to find a cache - in Dave's "rules" once you found the cache you could take something, leave something, and write about it in the logbook in the cache. For many years these were the instructions on Geocaching.com. There was no mention of online logging at all. When the rules were changed, the trading rules were combined to encourage trading up (and to make it clear, to those who didn't already understand, that trading was optional). The write in the was left as is. No details about signing your name, using your Geocaching.com handle, or anything else. My interpretation is that writing in the log is just as optional as trading, however it should be clear that it can be used as one way to verify that you did find the cache. Finally, they added a "rule" to log your experience online. It does not say "Log your find online". I think it's clear that Groundspeak intends that you log your DNFs as well as your finds. Many people choose never to log online, yet nobody says they're cheating.

 

There is no rule that says an online find requires first signing the physical log. There is no definition of find that makes something "unfound" because the log was not signed.

 

A better way to state the rules is as follows:

 

After you find the cache:

1. If you take something, try to leave something of greater or equal value.

2. Sign your name in the logbook and leave a comment if there is room. Signing your name provides evidence that you found the cache.

 

Whether or not you find the cache, you are invited to log your experience on Geocaching.com. Note that cache owners are told to delete logs that appear to bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. If you have signed the physical log in the cache you will have a better chance to convince a cache owner that you did indeed find the cache.

I won't log a find if I can't get my hands on the log. That's just my rule for my caching. When comes to others I have to agree with Toz. I don't understand why, if someone physically found the cahce, some other cacher would claim it was not a find JUST because they didn't put some ink on a piece of paper.

I'm not a fan of, "Hey man, you cache your way and I'll cache mine," but I am a big fan of simple logic. Sadly many folks seem to be lacking in that area.

[4wheelin_fool]

There are caches hidden in trees that require climbing equipment, due to no lower branches. A harness, ascender, grigri, and arborist slingshot among other items helps. I just did a few this weekend, one of which was 60 -70 feet up (6 floors) and discovered that there had previously been logs in which people had claimed finds, as well as FTF, by just spotting it from the ground.

 

When this occurs, the very spirit of the hide is diminished. I suppose the verbiage should be altered to specify that once a cache is recorded as being logged in the field, then it can be recorded as being logged online. "Finding" a cache is not really good enough, as recording a find online should be duplication of the finds recorded in the cache.

 

Geocaching is just a silly game. Recording bogus online finds without a corresponding field find without the COs permission makes it much sillier.

Edited December 6, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Mudfrog]

I find it interesting that you apply such a strict literal meaning to the word "find", yet such a casual one to the word "ignore". How can you ignore something that you are monitoring?

 

I guess I'm a bit of the opposite. My ignore list is for caches that I truly want to ignore. Usually caches that I disapprove of and have no interest in looking for.

I agree with the premiss of what you are saying. You can't ignore (little i) something and watch it too, but on GC.com you can Ignore (big I) a listing and have it on your watch list.

 

There's a cache my daughter hid that I have on my Ignore list so it does show in my PQs but it's on my Watch list so I can see the activties at it.

 

I'm just playing with words. I've seen, "how can you find something that you hid", or, "how can you find something if you know where it is", posted here so many times that it's nauseating. I find my car keys every morning, right where I left them. Hopefully, I'll find my car right were I parked it. The thing is, I find these things without have to search for them. If someone has a cache in hand without the effort of searching for it and decides that they don't want to log a find, great. I don't care. Just don't try to tell me that it has to do with ethics and that yours are somehow higher than others, and then ask silly questions.

 

What really gets me are the ones that want to use the word find in it's strictest literal form, right to the point that they search for a cache, find a cache and hold it in their hands, take the cap off and find that for whatever reason they can't sign the log. All of a sudden it's no longer a find?

 

How can you un-find something that you just found?

 

I think it comes from the guidelines listed on gc.com. They state, and i quote:

 

"What are the rules of geocaching?

 

1.If you take something from the geocache (or "cache"), leave something of equal or greater value.

2.Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3.Log your experience at www.geocaching.com."

 

They seem pretty easy to understand but there always seems to be different interpretations of them. If a person follows all three, then signing the log and logging online would be needed to complete the find.

I tried to ignore when my knickers were in a twist but it was just too uncomfortable.

 

The rules above are not in any guidelines (as in "it's in the guidelines that you can only log a find online if you signed the physical log"). The "rules" are in the Geccaching 101 section and are simply a description of one way to play the game. They originally came from the instructions Dave Ulmer had in his Usenet post describing the first geocache. The basic idea is to find a cache - in Dave's "rules" once you found the cache you could take something, leave something, and write about it in the logbook in the cache. For many years these were the instructions on Geocaching.com. There was no mention of online logging at all. When the rules were changed, the trading rules were combined to encourage trading up (and to make it clear, to those who didn't already understand, that trading was optional). The write in the was left as is. No details about signing your name, using your Geocaching.com handle, or anything else. My interpretation is that writing in the log is just as optional as trading, however it should be clear that it can be used as one way to verify that you did find the cache. Finally, they added a "rule" to log your experience online. It does not say "Log your find online". I think it's clear that Groundspeak intends that you log your DNFs as well as your finds. Many people choose never to log online, yet nobody says they're cheating.

 

There is no rule that says an online find requires first signing the physical log. There is no definition of find that makes something "unfound" because the log was not signed.

 

A better way to state the rules is as follows:

 

After you find the cache:

1. If you take something, try to leave something of greater or equal value.

2. Sign your name in the logbook and leave a comment if there is room. Signing your name provides evidence that you found the cache.

 

Whether or not you find the cache, you are invited to log your experience on Geocaching.com. Note that cache owners are told to delete logs that appear to bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. If you have signed the physical log in the cache you will have a better chance to convince a cache owner that you did indeed find the cache.

 

Just to be clear, i was not trying to get a debate started about what constitutes a find. I was simply stating that some cachers may have read the 2nd set of bolded words above and then try to follow them to the letter. This might be one of the reasons why they won't claim a find on a cache they hold in their hand but for whatever reason, can't sign the log.

[+Totem Clan]

There are caches hidden in trees that require climbing equipment, due to no lower branches. A harness, ascender, grigri, and arborist slingshot among other items helps. I just did a few this weekend, one of which was 60 -70 feet up (6 floors) and discovered that there had previously been logs in which people had claimed finds, as well as FTF, by just spotting it from the ground.

 

When this occurs, the very spirit of the hide is diminished. I suppose the verbiage should be altered to specify that once a cache is recorded as being logged in the field, then it can be recorded as being logged online. "Finding" a cache is not really good enough, as recording a find online should be duplication of the finds recorded in the cache.

 

Geocaching is just a silly game. Recording bogus online finds without a corresponding field find without the COs permission makes it much sillier.

Without a doubt.

When someone says you can't claim a log on a cache you held in your hand because you didn't put some ink on the log, the spirit of the game is dimineished.

[petercacher307]

I would ask the CO if i had permission to log it as a find.