You guys are right in line with our thinking on this matter. I'd call logging an EarthCache that you didn't truly visit (after it was published, and after knowing about its existence) "cheesy" as well! Good descriptor. The one part that's a bit off is "even the CO can't reject your find as long as it meets the requirement" -- the CO can reject a find; it's still up to them. I just think they'd be more likely to allow the find if the cache were at least in place already, vs. a find claimed before the cache was even published. But in either case, the person didn't "really do the EarthCache", in the true sense, so the CO can use their discretion. Hopefully I'm not muddying the waters more, and I'll just step back now Thanks for the thoughtful discussion on this. Hopefully, when it's happening out there, people are being reasonable about it, on both sides. --Matt