Jump to content

Logging caches for my son


Recommended Posts

Hello all, I've been caching now for a few years. I really enjoy the activity as it gets the family out and about. I have logged only about 100 caches so far. My question is that I signed my oldest son up for his own account yesterday. He has been with me on roughly 50 of them. What is the etiquette on him logging these that he found under his name? Is it ok or should he start with what we find from here on out. Thanks for your help.

Link to post

Do it. I have been caching with my daughter for a few years now. She is thinking she should set up her own account and it would be so hard to figure out now with our almost 3000 finds to remember what ones she was at. Do it now and it is fine to do in my eyes.

Link to post

A friend of mine recently created a geocaching.com account, after having joined me on occasional geocaching trips for years. I gave him a list of the caches we had found together, and he logged them all, backdating the logs to the dates we actually found them, and mentioning that he had found them with me.

 

As others have indicated, this is perfectly acceptable.

Link to post

I would say get him to log each one he found, and when creating the log back date it to the date you found it together, then add something like "I found this Cambens, but logging it under my own name now I have my own account". That's exactly what I did for >300 caches when my wife got her own account and we had no problems.

Link to post

Just to give the other side, since it seems to be ignored: I considered my caching career to start when I got my account, so I never considered going back to log finds I made before that. As has been made clear already, it's OK if he wants to log them, I just ask what the point is. I had one cache in my neighborhood that I'd found earlier, and I finally went back to sign the log myself and claim the find a year later. Most of the finds were out of state where I've never been since, and I've never claimed those.

Link to post

Just to give the other side, since it seems to be ignored: I considered my caching career to start when I got my account, so I never considered going back to log finds I made before that. As has been made clear already, it's OK if he wants to log them, I just ask what the point is. I had one cache in my neighborhood that I'd found earlier, and I finally went back to sign the log myself and claim the find a year later. Most of the finds were out of state where I've never been since, and I've never claimed those.

This is a kid who's interested enough to have his own account.

Does there really need to be a point?

Link to post

Just to give the other side, since it seems to be ignored: I considered my caching career to start when I got my account, so I never considered going back to log finds I made before that. As has been made clear already, it's OK if he wants to log them, I just ask what the point is. I had one cache in my neighborhood that I'd found earlier, and I finally went back to sign the log myself and claim the find a year later. Most of the finds were out of state where I've never been since, and I've never claimed those.

I'm not sure I have a point. But I thought that was part of the game, having fun with the activity and seeing how many you can accrue through the years. I have no problem from him starting from the time we signed him up a few days ago. Since the site logs how many you find, I thought that it's part of the game.

Link to post

This is a kid who's interested enough to have his own account.

Does there really need to be a point?

That argument works equally well to justify him logging caches he's never been anywhere near. But I'm only saying that to reject the argument, not the conclusion. In this case he clearly has a legitimate case for claiming the finds if he wants to.

 

Since the site logs how many you find, I thought that it's part of the game.

First of all, let's be clear that I'm not objecting to logging the finds, I'm just pointing out that there are other ways to look at it. For example, the previous finds were your family acting as a team, and you signed your name only (I assume). Now that he has an account, he has a different identity and will start signing logs with his new name. One way to look at that is that caches he finds from now on are the only ones that were found by that new identity, leaving the ones identified as being found by the team as part of his previous caching life. If these caches are local, one bonus he that he can go out and relive finding those caches in order to claim them for his own.

 

The point is to have fun, so it's entirely up to him which way of looking at it is fun. I personally consider the fun in finding the caches, not in counting how many I've found, so that's why my personal attitude is to leave those caches as part of my previous caching life, perhaps discovering them anew in my new life.

Link to post

For example, the previous finds were your family acting as a team, and you signed your name only (I assume). Now that he has an account, he has a different identity and will start signing logs with his new name. One way to look at that is that caches he finds from now on are the only ones that were found by that new identity, leaving the ones identified as being found by the team as part of his previous caching life.

 

Perhaps if we were talking about a grown up couple who were no-longer going to be caching together I might agree with this. But for a kid, I assume he is still going to go caching with his family (at least for a few years), so the experience of finding his next cache under his new identity is going to be the same as the last one he did under the family name so back-logging them makes sense to me.

 

For me logging the cache is all about keeping a record of what I did and where I went, so in years to come should this kid look back at his first find and think "That was the first one I logged on my own, but I'd found loads before but don't remember where they were because I never logged them", our would it be better if he backlogs his finds and can look at all those earlier finds and remember that he did those before he got his own name?

Link to post

For example, the previous finds were your family acting as a team, and you signed your name only (I assume). Now that he has an account, he has a different identity and will start signing logs with his new name. One way to look at that is that caches he finds from now on are the only ones that were found by that new identity, leaving the ones identified as being found by the team as part of his previous caching life.

 

He may have a different identity but he is the same person.

 

The questions I ask:

 

Was he participating in the search for the cache?

If he had had an account at that time, would he have been able to log the find?

 

If yes, I see no reason why he cannot claim it.

 

Claiming also provides stats about their caching life.

 

The same thing happens when a caching couple break up. One or both of them may have to go back and log with a new name. The argument about identity could be used here also but the individuals may be proud of their accomplishments and may wish the website to show them.

Link to post

Since the majority feel that it's acceptable to back log, that is what we're doing. Heck I know for a lot of them I gave him my GPS and he took over leading us and finding the cache. The only thing I would do was fill out the log book and place it back at the exact spot he found it. I didn't mean to stir up any trouble by asking this question, I am just trying to educate myself as I see there are many different views on how to handle different situations. Thanks for your help and input everyone. We found 4 caches yesterday as a family and did our first night cache. Really cool and the kids loved it

Link to post

Sure it's okay to backlog, depends on what he wants.

 

Personally I think writing the online log is part of the game, but this aspect is disappearing slowly.

First you search for a cache, then you find one, you log it in the field and the game ends by writing an online log.

 

So I don't see why a child who isn't able to write his/her own log should have an account, if he isn't doing/able to do that last part. As soon as a kid is willing and able to write a log, he/she can fully play the game and can start logging on their own (if they want) with their own account.

 

But really, that's just my opinion, we don't have any children, so we have no experience with what they actually want. I just see geocaching accounts made for babies because their parents find it fun to log the caches for them when they are carried along on a caching trip. So by the time this baby really knows what geocaching is he will already have thousands of finds, all kinds of challenges done etc. Don't think this (then former) baby will be interested in that account, since he won't remember anything about it and has no personal attachment/feeling/memories when reading logs he didn't write himself.

Link to post

Did HE sign the logbook?!?!?!?

 

If he didn´t he shouldn´t log them, even if he accompanied you as a muggle.

 

One of the basic rules of geocaching is: "Find the cache. Sign the log." If no log was signed he shouldn´t log them online.

 

This is my opinion, following the rules of the game... but you can do whatever you want... I´ve seen things much worse than that! <_<

Link to post

Did HE sign the logbook?!?!?!?

 

If he didn´t he shouldn´t log them, even if he accompanied you as a muggle.

 

One of the basic rules of geocaching is: "Find the cache. Sign the log." If no log was signed he shouldn´t log them online.

 

This is my opinion, following the rules of the game... but you can do whatever you want... I´ve seen things much worse than that! <_<

 

I haven't chimed in on this yet, but this response just got my goat. I totally disagree with this point of view and do completely agree with the majority. I do agree that it is silly to have accounts for babies; the way I would put it is that if he was old enough to participate in the hunt then he should be able to have the find on his account.

Link to post

[...]the way I would put it is that if he was old enough to participate in the hunt then he should be able to have the find on his account.

I respect your opinion, just don´t agree with it... And I´m giving a own example:

 

"My wife sometimes goes with me geocaching but she doesn´t like to adventure in the woods so, in some cases she stays like 50m-100m from the actual cache place. I look for the cache, sometimes I find it, others I don´t but could she say that she had found the cache with me? I always show her the cache in my hand, raising it in the air and saying: Found it! But she never signed any log. In all the caches she was with me, touching the cache and looking at it from close range, I log my name and hers."

 

What is the "FOUND IT" distance limit? Touching it...5m...10m...50m...100m...200m... staying at home and following the search via webcam? For me is signing the logbook as the rules put it!

 

But you can interpret the rules the way you want! In my caches, if I can´t see a user´s signature or stamp in the physical logbook, I delete the online log. B)

Link to post

Did HE sign the logbook?!?!?!?

 

If he didn´t he shouldn´t log them, even if he accompanied you as a muggle.

 

One of the basic rules of geocaching is: "Find the cache. Sign the log." If no log was signed he shouldn´t log them online.

 

This is my opinion, following the rules of the game... but you can do whatever you want... I´ve seen things much worse than that! <_<

While that's superficially true, it's also a very commonly accepted practice (at least in the UK) if a large group of cachers have teamed up for a day out they will invent a team name to sign in the logs rather than putting every individual name in the logs and they will write the online log stating "signed as Team Tuesday" or similar, I don't see the OP's son's case as being any different.

 

Also all those caches which my missus has found with me since she got her own account have her name written in the logbook, but I wrote it for her in almost every case so technically she hasn't signed more than 2 or 3 logs :ph34r:

Link to post

I log my name and hers.

 

What is the "FOUND IT" distance limit? Touching it...5m...10m...50m...100m...200m... staying at home and following the search via webcam? For me is signing the logbook as the rules put it!

 

But you can interpret the rules the way you want! In my caches, if I can´t see a user´s signature or stamp in the physical logbook, I delete the online log. B)

 

On the one hand you say you log her name, and then say signing is the criteria for logging a find, but you wife didn't sign the logs you did, so technically she shouldn't get the finds.

 

I realise you're discussing hypothetically here, but if any cache owner decides to delete the find of a young kid who's getting enthusiastic about caching just because he didn't write his name in the book several months/years ago then they're pretty pathetic in my opinion.

Link to post

I log my name and hers.

 

What is the "FOUND IT" distance limit? Touching it...5m...10m...50m...100m...200m... staying at home and following the search via webcam? For me is signing the logbook as the rules put it!

 

But you can interpret the rules the way you want! In my caches, if I can´t see a user´s signature or stamp in the physical logbook, I delete the online log. B)

 

On the one hand you say you log her name, and then say signing is the criteria for logging a find, but you wife didn't sign the logs you did, so technically she shouldn't get the finds.

 

I realise you're discussing hypothetically here, but if any cache owner decides to delete the find of a young kid who's getting enthusiastic about caching just because he didn't write his name in the book several months/years ago then they're pretty pathetic in my opinion.

+1

Link to post

On the one hand you say you log her name, and then say signing is the criteria for logging a find, but you wife didn't sign the logs you did, so technically she shouldn't get the finds.

 

So, when you cached with another person you never wrote that person´s name on the logbook? You always hand out the logbook for that person to sign?

 

Just let me put it this way:

 

- the caches she touches or helps me find the cache, get involved in the search, I log: "JPreto & Cinthia"

- all the other caches I find I just log "JPreto"

 

One day, if she wants, she can create her own geocaching profile and backlog these caches... again, if she chooses so. Or if I want to create a profile called "JPreto & Cinthia" for the Team, I could also do that with no problem.

 

If your way to teach a kid to geocaching is by "cheating the rules" and saying "smiles are important" then go ahead. I wouldn´t support my kid to do that since he was actually a muggle when he saw me geocaching.

 

Again, it´s a matter of opinion, I´m just giving mine... and you give yours... but rules are rules!

Link to post

Did HE sign the logbook?!?!?!?

 

If he didn´t he shouldn´t log them, even if he accompanied you as a muggle.

 

One of the basic rules of geocaching is: "Find the cache. Sign the log." If no log was signed he shouldn´t log them online.

 

This is my opinion, following the rules of the game... but you can do whatever you want... I´ve seen things much worse than that! <_<

While that's superficially true, it's also a very commonly accepted practice (at least in the UK) if a large group of cachers have teamed up for a day out they will invent a team name to sign in the logs rather than putting every individual name in the logs and they will write the online log stating "signed as Team Tuesday" or similar, I don't see the OP's son's case as being any different.

 

Also all those caches which my missus has found with me since she got her own account have her name written in the logbook, but I wrote it for her in almost every case so technically she hasn't signed more than 2 or 3 logs :ph34r:

Agreed.

The few times I've ever cached in a group, we invented a name for the cache log with an explanation in the online log.

Many people cache in groups in this area it seems and a group name frees log space.

- 'Course that could change if the CO didn't mind replacing logs weekly...

Link to post

On the one hand you say you log her name, and then say signing is the criteria for logging a find, but you wife didn't sign the logs you did, so technically she shouldn't get the finds.

 

So, when you cached with another person you never wrote that person´s name on the logbook? You always hand out the logbook for that person to sign?

 

Just let me put it this way:

 

- the caches she touches or helps me find the cache, get involved in the search, I log: "JPreto & Cinthia"

- all the other caches I find I just log "JPreto"

 

One day, if she wants, she can create her own geocaching profile and backlog these caches... again, if she chooses so. Or if I want to create a profile called "JPreto & Cinthia" for the Team, I could also do that with no problem.

 

If your way to teach a kid to geocaching is by "cheating the rules" and saying "smiles are important" then go ahead. I wouldn´t support my kid to do that since he was actually a muggle when he saw me geocaching.

Again, it´s a matter of opinion, I´m just giving mine... and you give yours... but rules are rules!

- If a family goes out together geocaching, none of them are muggles...

Link to post
While that's superficially true, it's also a very commonly accepted practice (at least in the UK) if a large group of cachers have teamed up for a day out they will invent a team name to sign in the logs rather than putting every individual name in the logs and they will write the online log stating "signed as Team Tuesday" or similar, I don't see the OP's son's case as being any different.
That's pretty common here in California too. There are plenty of caches that I've found where the name on the log is "Karl's Krew" or "GBA Kayakers" or "GBA ECR" rather than "niraD". Even when the name "niraD" appears on the log, it may have been someone else in the group that wrote it.

 

Even when I was the one who first found the cache, I may not have even touched the cache or the log. Often, the last person in the group to find the cache is the one who retrieves it, and the one who retrieves it is the one who replaces it (to minimize cache migration). While I'm writing the GC code on my personal sig token and marking the cache as found in my field notes, someone else in the group may be signing the log.

Link to post

The revival of this thread caused me to reread some comments, and that brought up one thing I wanted to say:

 

Perhaps if we were talking about a grown up couple who were no-longer going to be caching together I might agree with this. But for a kid, I assume he is still going to go caching with his family (at least for a few years), so the experience of finding his next cache under his new identity is going to be the same as the last one he did under the family name so back-logging them makes sense to me.

This makes sense, but one thing I'd contest is the idea that this makes more sense "for a kid". One of the reasons I brought up the idea of not logging the past finds is that logging past finds makes the find count seem like the important part of the game. Not that I think he'll be a juvenile delinquent otherwise, but I prefer stressing to this impressionable youngster the new finds he'll be able to log with his brand new account. He has the important parts of the old finds, the memories and pleasure, whether he logs them again or not.

 

Oh, which reminds me of one other little thing that I think others have mentioned: the title of the thread is "Logging caches for my son", and I definitely discourage that. If he wants to log the old caches with his new account, I don't mind if he does (although I'd still say, "Why bother?") But if you log them with his account, I don't see the point at all. It's just padding his numbers, however legitimate the padding is.

Link to post

Just to give the other side, since it seems to be ignored: I considered my caching career to start when I got my account, so I never considered going back to log finds I made before that. As has been made clear already, it's OK if he wants to log them, I just ask what the point is. I had one cache in my neighborhood that I'd found earlier, and I finally went back to sign the log myself and claim the find a year later. Most of the finds were out of state where I've never been since, and I've never claimed those.

 

One point could be to keep caches he's previously found from appearing as not found on his cache map, and if he ever decides to get a premium account he can eliminate caches he already found from his PQs.

Link to post

Just to give the other side, since it seems to be ignored: I considered my caching career to start when I got my account, so I never considered going back to log finds I made before that. As has been made clear already, it's OK if he wants to log them, I just ask what the point is. I had one cache in my neighborhood that I'd found earlier, and I finally went back to sign the log myself and claim the find a year later. Most of the finds were out of state where I've never been since, and I've never claimed those.

 

One point could be to keep caches he's previously found from appearing as not found on his cache map, and if he ever decides to get a premium account he can eliminate caches he already found from his PQs.

+1

Link to post

One possible solution not proposed is to take your son and go 're-find' the caches in question. He will then have the joy of finding and logging the caches on his own, with his new account. His sig name will be on the paper log, so there can be no confusion about whether he found them, and you get the fun of standing back and letting him show you 'how it's done'. :)

Link to post

[...]the way I would put it is that if he was old enough to participate in the hunt then he should be able to have the find on his account.

I respect your opinion, just don´t agree with it... And I´m giving a own example:

 

"My wife sometimes goes with me geocaching but she doesn´t like to adventure in the woods so, in some cases she stays like 50m-100m from the actual cache place. I look for the cache, sometimes I find it, others I don´t but could she say that she had found the cache with me? I always show her the cache in my hand, raising it in the air and saying: Found it! But she never signed any log. In all the caches she was with me, touching the cache and looking at it from close range, I log my name and hers."

 

What is the "FOUND IT" distance limit? Touching it...5m...10m...50m...100m...200m... staying at home and following the search via webcam? For me is signing the logbook as the rules put it!

 

But you can interpret the rules the way you want! In my caches, if I can´t see a user´s signature or stamp in the physical logbook, I delete the online log. B)

 

I cache with my wife and we have separate accounts. When I'm with her I usually sign the log and sign it as 'BrianSnat and Skigirl", once in a while she signs it and signs the same way. But in both cases we're both standing over the cache. About 70 percent of the time my wife actively participates in the hunt and the other 30 percent she sits back and lets me go make the find while she watches. If she does that I simply sign my name and she doesn't log those online.

 

I do the same thing when I'm geocaching with a group. If I'm at the tail end of the group and the cache is already out and being signed when I get there, I won't log a find. Same if I'm standing around chatting while others are engaged in the hunt. I don't log those.

 

So my wife and I don't set a "distance limit", it's a participation standard.

Link to post

Just to give the other side, since it seems to be ignored: I considered my caching career to start when I got my account, so I never considered going back to log finds I made before that. As has been made clear already, it's OK if he wants to log them, I just ask what the point is. I had one cache in my neighborhood that I'd found earlier, and I finally went back to sign the log myself and claim the find a year later. Most of the finds were out of state where I've never been since, and I've never claimed those.

One point could be to keep caches he's previously found from appearing as not found on his cache map, and if he ever decides to get a premium account he can eliminate caches he already found from his PQs.

But my point is more fundamental: should he think of himself as having already found these caches as an individual just because he found them in the team? If yes, then marking them found makes sense. But if he wants to find them again in his new role as an independent cacher, then it's the exact opposite of what he wants to do.

 

One possible solution not proposed is to take your son and go 're-find' the caches in question. He will then have the joy of finding and logging the caches on his own, with his new account. His sig name will be on the paper log, so there can be no confusion about whether he found them, and you get the fun of standing back and letting him show you 'how it's done'. :)

My claim remains that found caches not logged as found on the new account are not a problem that needs to be solved, but the idea of going back with his son to refind them is one of several interesting possibilities that are eliminating by marking them found without leaving the house. But there's no need for the OP specifically to take his son back to those caches that the son can get to on his own. And that suggests another interesting possibility: the son taking his friends to introduce them to caching. He could do that for caches he's already marked found, of course, but he might find it more fun to use that as a way to find the caches under his own identity. In fact, for those caches that are local, the record of refound caches might be an interesting way to track the son's range as he grows up and becomes more mobile and independent.

Link to post
Oh, which reminds me of one other little thing that I think others have mentioned: the title of the thread is "Logging caches for my son", and I definitely discourage that. If he wants to log the old caches with his new account, I don't mind if he does (although I'd still say, "Why bother?") But if you log them with his account, I don't see the point at all. It's just padding his numbers, however legitimate the padding is.

Sure, the thread title is "Logging caches for my son", but within the very first post reads, "What is the etiquette on him logging these that he found under his name?"

Edited by cerberus1
Link to post

All three of my kids have well over 1000 finds each but none of them actually want an account.

 

If they did and there was still some way to remember all the caches each one did I have them log them as they were a part if the finds.

Link to post

We have a team account. When it's just me, I log as "Christian (one third of hzoi)." When it's all of us, I log, "Christian, Kelly, and Carey (hzoi)." Wife will likely never have her own account, but if daughter wants one, simplest thing in the world to run a search through the logs in GSAK.

 

I've started bookmarking ones she's done with me just in case, I may keep it up or I may not.

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...