More than one loggable container at GZ?

[+Bunya]

A question for the rule/guideline experts – or just for general discussion.

 

I know of caches where there are several “dummy” containers, but only one with a log sheet – I’m not concerned with that sort of hide.

 

Preamble: a geocacher recently had trouble finding one of my caches which was a bison tube hung 1.7m up in a tree and supposed to be an easy find. He eventually found it on the ground and said that he replaced it in the tree. When I went to check, I couldn’t find it, so put a new bison tube in the same spot I hid the original one. I’ve no idea how it ended up on the ground, as when I placed it the ring on the bison tube was put over a long upwards pointing twig. Cache creep perhaps?

So there are now (I assume) two containers at/near GZ.

 

This got me wondering. Is there anything in the rules/guidelines which rules out doing this deliberately? That is, can you hide a cache which consists of more than one container, each containing a log sheet, where the finder can just sign the first one they find?

If it is OK, has it been done and what is thought of the idea?

[+geocat_]

Maybe someone more familiar with the guidelines will help me out here as I could find nothing about this specifically. IMO you cannot have more than one actual container with a log. Dummy caches/decoys can be part of the hide but only one true cache with log should exist.

[+6NoisyHikers]

This is an interesting question. One potential situation might be this: One cache forty feet up a tree and another at the base of the tree - same coordinates. Not sure how you would D/T rate it, but I know if given the option, I'd make a try for the harder container

[+T.D.M.22]

There can only be one cache there...Intentionally putting multiple caches, allowing someone to log any one, is not in the spirit of the game-I mean if you don't want to look for the cache-why go geocaching. But at the same time if one appears to be missing and you put a new one out I wouldn't deny anyone a found it log if they found the old container-after all they DID find it, when you apparently couldn't.

[+K13]

1. Traditional Caches A traditional cache consists of at least a container and logbook and is located at the posted coordinates.

I would read this guideline as one container. (a=one)

 

 

 

[+Bunya]

... if one appears to be missing and you put a new one out I wouldn't deny anyone a found it log if they found the old container ...

I agree.

 

Traditional Caches A traditional cache consists of at least a container and logbook and is located at the posted coordinates.

I would read this guideline as one container. (a=one)

OK, but what about the "at least" in there? Someone could interpret that to allow more than one container!

[+T.D.M.22]

Depends on if you meant it this way or not

Traditional Caches A traditional cache consists of at least; -a container, and a logbook. The logbook muat be located at the posted coordinate

 

That's how I see it being meant, but ya I what you mean. They didn't put it that way...So I guess only TPTB(IF they decide to talk to us on here) can tell us what they intended.

[+tozainamboku]

This got me wondering. Is there anything in the rules/guidelines which rules out doing this deliberately? That is, can you hide a cache which consists of more than one container, each containing a log sheet, where the finder can just sign the first one they find?

If it is OK, has it been done and what is thought of the idea?

Good question. I would argue that there is nothing wrong with this. I can imagine a cache owner putting out a cache where you have to climb a tree. They may realize that not everyone can or wants to climb a tree, so they hide a second container that can be reached without climbing the tree. Now people who enjoy climbing trees can find the one in tree and other people can find the other cache.

 

Now I realize some people would argue that the tree cache is more difficult so it is unfair in someway to give the same smiley to someone who didn't climb. But I would bet that some of the same people would say if two cachers went as a group and only one of them climbed the tree, they could both log the cache.

 

I think the bigger issue, for some, would be that people who found both caches might log two "Found it" logs. That is sure to annoy the puritans. Perhaps someone might object if they found both caches and the cache owner would only allow one online find.

 

Unless a Groundspeak lackey cares to speak out, I can only speculate on the rationale for the container+log guideline. I believe the guideline was put in at the time virtual caches were grandfathered. People were hiding cache that were essentially virtuals. In some cases they argued that having someone sign the guest book or other existing log, made it a physical cache. In other cases they may have just gotten permission to tacked up a log sheet on bulletin board. TBTP wanted to have a simple definition of a physical cache as having a container to find with a log to sign in the container. I personally would not find a logsheet on a bulletin board objectionable if it was clearly labelled as the cache. But I suspect TBTP felt there should be something identifiable as the "cache" that you "open" to get to the log. It provides an easier way to describe geocaching to people who have not heard of it and reduces confusion for newbies.

 

Perhaps if the idea is to not confuse newbies there should be only one container. However, I will point out there is often more than one container because of situations like the OP describes or because a cache was place near an older archived cache that is still there or there is a letterbox or piece from another game nearby. I would think intentional multiple containers would be no more confusing than any of these situations.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

... if one appears to be missing and you put a new one out I wouldn't deny anyone a found it log if they found the old container ...

I agree.

 

Traditional Caches A traditional cache consists of at least a container and logbook and is located at the posted coordinates.

I would read this guideline as one container. (a=one)

OK, but what about the "at least" in there? Someone could interpret that to allow more than one container!

"...of at least a container..." I read as being nothing short of a container, not a reference to more than one container.

[+dprovan]

"...of at least a container..." I read as being nothing short of a container, not a reference to more than one container.

Well, of course that's what was intended, but if someone's going to split hairs saying by saying "a" must mean "one", I think a reasonable response to that argument is that "at least a" therefore must mean "at least one".

 

Anyway, I can't see any reason that anyone would want to prohibit multiple containers. It's unlikely that anyone working on the guidelines ever considered the possibility, so there's no reason to think that any careful scrutiny of the words will reveal the intention to either allow them or disallow them. But what harm would they be? I'm actually not even thinking of these complicated scenarios involving an alternative to a cache in a tree. My example is a cache making a joke: several real caches hidden around one decoy. The first interesting use of a decoy I've ever thought of.

[+ras_oscar]

My interpretation of the guideline is that a "cache" must consist of a container and a physical log book. There can be other things but its not a cache if you are required, for instance, to sign the container. As to duplicate containers, that would violate the 528 foot separation rule. Furthermore, if someone searches around GZ they are likely to find the "easier" cache, sign the log and move on without even being aware that the harder container was there. I did arrive at GZ once and find 2 containers. I searched and found a key hide under a picnic table. Signed the log and reached under to return it, only to have my fingertips discover yet another container. Perhaps one was a throw down placed when owner removed the original temporarailly for maintenance. Perhaps a muggle took the first one, the CO replaced it and then the muggle realized what a geocache is and returned the original. Don't know. Just posted the experinece on my found it log and moved on. (only claimed one smiley)

[+Isonzo Karst]

Is there anything in the rules/guidelines which rules out doing this deliberately? That is, can you hide a cache which consists of more than one container, each containing a log sheet, where the finder can just sign the first one they find?

 

I see no reason why you couldn't do this, assuming all the cache containers can be described by the same set of coords.

 

I've seen this set up, very big container full of film cans (thousands of film cans), you were supposed to open them until you found one with a log on pink paper. I believe it started with only one can with log, but too many people gave up on it, so he did many film cans with pink log. ( Of course, some people will just add logs to film cans....though this evidently doesn't happen much). That container burnt and wasn't replaced.

 

As to duplicate containers, that would violate the 528 foot separation rule.

 

Not applicable, that applies to different listings. This is about the same cache listing.

[AZcachemeister]

I can recall at least one recent incident where there were two containers at the 'same location'.

Apparently someone DNFed and the owner replaced without even checking. Bot 'hides' were fairly obvious rock piles, and at first I hesitated thinking one was a decoy and I wanted to get the correct one first. Nope, both containers had logs with signatures! We signed them both, but only logged one find 'cause, well...we're puritans ya know.

 

I had a cache with two containers once. One container was in an easy to find location, and had room for trades. The one with the log was much smaller, and harder to locate. I clearly stated on the cache page 'No sign log, no find cache', 'cause, well...I'm a puritan ya know.

 

It would be strange if someone deliberately put out several containers with logs and said 'Find any one or all of the five containers near the listed co-ordinates, all of them have logs.'

 

I just now recalled a cache where several decoys were scattered around, and the CO asked finders to state how many were found in the online log...not as an ALR, just for fun.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

"...of at least a container..." I read as being nothing short of a container, not a reference to more than one container.

Well, of course that's what was intended, but if someone's going to split hairs saying by saying "a" must mean "one", I think a reasonable response to that argument is that "at least a" therefore must mean "at least one".

You are absolutely correct on this point... and we have seen examples of that, many times.

 

A container within a container.

- a container for camouflage containing a container keeping things dry and secure;

- a container which contains 50+ film canisters, but of course, only one log sheet within one of those;

- and lets' not forget the ubiquitous baggie as being a container, also;

- others that currently elude my slowing thought processes...

[+The Jester]

"...of at least a container..." I read as being nothing short of a container, not a reference to more than one container.

Well, of course that's what was intended, but if someone's going to split hairs saying by saying "a" must mean "one", I think a reasonable response to that argument is that "at least a" therefore must mean "at least one".

Arguments like this have lead us to laws that are unreadable due to having to define every word, and then definitions of the words in the definition, and then definitions ...

 

And lawsuits are still filed over what was meant.

 

Do we really want that for geocaching?

[+CanadianRockies]

I've seen this set up, very big container full of film cans (thousands of film cans), you were supposed to open them until you found one with a log on pink paper. I believe it started with only one can with log, but too many people gave up on it, so he did many film cans with pink log. ( Of course, some people will just add logs to film cans....though this evidently doesn't happen much). That container burnt and wasn't replaced.

There's a cache near us called "Shooting Fish in a Barrel." The big container holds perhaps a couple dozen plastic fish. Each fish contains a log. So, choosing the right one is "as easy as shooting fish in a barrel." We gave it a favorite point.

[+unabowler]

I found a cache once which has two signable logs: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC3C79F. This cache was dedicated to a husband and wife team, I gather, who have a considerable height difference. I've also known of caches which had a throw-down, and then the original cache turns up.

[+dprovan]

"...of at least a container..." I read as being nothing short of a container, not a reference to more than one container.

Well, of course that's what was intended, but if someone's going to split hairs saying by saying "a" must mean "one", I think a reasonable response to that argument is that "at least a" therefore must mean "at least one".

Arguments like this have lead us to laws that are unreadable due to having to define every word, and then definitions of the words in the definition, and then definitions ...

I assume you're talking about the original argument -- "a container" means exactly one container -- not my extension of it which was essentially making the same point you are.

 

I'd say that even mentioning the possibility of multiple containers in the guidelines would be an increase in complexity without any benefit at all, so the very fact that we're scouring the guidelines for a ruling is the kind of thinking that leads to unreadable laws.

[+Kacher82]

I've seen this set up, very big container full of film cans (thousands of film cans), you were supposed to open them until you found one with a log on pink paper.

I've seen one like this, only the log wasn't in any of the film cans. There was an Altoids tin screwed to the bottom of the bucket.

 

I was thinking I saw a cache listing in the Rochester, MN area, involving two containers, both in a tree, but one way higher than the other. I couldn't find the listing in my GSAK database just now.

[+Ruddles1325]

I found a cache today after a lot of searching. The previous signature in the log was 3 months ago. Whn i got home and logged it I realised there had been a DNF and the CO had placed a new container just yesterday. So i had missed the new container and found the old one.... Now there are two containers. I can't quite believe the CO coldn't find her own cache, maybe it had wandered...

[+worstcaster]

I found one with two containers once. They were both micros approximately 3" apart with the same style camo. I signed both logs and logged one found it online.

[+cerberus1]

Here is a very cool one with three containers.

You sign the log at whatever level you're comfortable with.

Now that I reminded myself, gotta hit it this year.

[+BlackRose67]

I just now recalled a cache where several decoys were scattered around, and the CO asked finders to state how many were found in the online log...not as an ALR, just for fun.

 

We have one like that here. It's a bird house neighbourhood themed cache. There are single, double, and triple "occupancy" birdhouses at the GZ.

 

35mm film cans represent the occupants, but only 1 of the 20 film cans has the log, the other 19 just have something inside to indicate you picked the wrong one.

Most people indicate in their log how many they had to open before they found the log. It took me 17 tries before I found the log.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I know of a multi that at the final stage there are two containers. One, well hidden, is the final with the log book. The second container is more obvious, and contains the coordinates back to stage 1.

 

If you are paying attention, you realize something is up. If not, you are going in circles!

[AZcachemeister]

I know of a multi that at the final stage there are two containers. One, well hidden, is the final with the log book. The second container is more obvious, and contains the coordinates back to stage 1.

 

If you are paying attention, you realize something is up. If not, you are going in circles!

 

That is just mean and evil!

 

I think I'm gonna have to use the idea.