Jump to content

Right cache, wrong container.


Popo5525

Recommended Posts

For all the fussing that goes on about other people false achievements somehow degrading their own real ones, it's a little surprising to see so many people defending poor behaviour.

A person follows the arrow to ground zero. At that location, he finds a container with a log inside. He signs the log and replaces the container where he found it. He then submits an online 'find' log to record his experience. That isn't 'poor behavior'. It's geocaching.

Link to comment

Same story all over!

 

Ok, lets think together:

 

The CO goes and check the cache and sees that his container is there but people have been signing a throwdown.

 

This is what the OP asked our opinion about!

 

If I can read correctly, the OP says:

 

The problem is, this is NOT the container, nor the location, of the cache I placed. There have been multiple finds since I hid this, but only a handful actually found the real thing. What's worse, I found the original container broken.

 

So, it is clear the geocache was there, but people have not been finding it but another container (not the geocache) in a different place that the OP placed it.

 

Basically is a situation like this:

 

1. I place a cache 3 meters high in a tree.

2. A "fellow geocacher" goes there, can´t find the geocache and places a throwdown at the base of the tree.

3. The next geocachers don´t even have to climb the tree since there is a new container at the base of the tree.

 

Do you really think the next geocachers, that found the "base of the tree container" are "entitled" to say "Found it"?

Edited by JPreto
Link to comment

That is not at all the same thing as most people would not confuse a gatorade lid for a geocache, but would certainly confuse an actual container with a logbook inside for a geocache.

 

Either way, it's garbage that I didn't put there, and it's not the geocache. If your log isn't in my logbook, you didn't find the cache. Take it up with the losers who put out garbage at other people's caches if you don't like it.

 

I too do not want anyone throwdowning at one of my cache sites and i'd certainly try to find out who did it and delete their log. At the same time, i would not punish other finders for unknowingly signing the throwdown log.

 

Deleting a false log isn't punishment. It is a factual correction. They didn't find the cache.

 

I understand that some cache owners are more lenient about fraudulent logging than others, and that is their choice.

 

The key word Mudfrogs post is unknowingly. There are many scenarios where somone might unknowingly sign the log in a cache which was a through down and logically assume it was the real cache. If I'm looking for a cache, have followed my GPS to GZ, and find a container which has a size which match cache listing, I'm going to sign the log, replace the cache, and go one to the next one. I'm not going to continue searching for another container the site because all evidence would indicate that I found the real cache. I read pretty much all the cache descriptions, but I don't scroll through all the logs. Even if I found the cache with only one signature in the log book it may be impossible for me to tell if it was a throwdown or you had replaced the cache or just replaced the log sheet. If you deleted my find the first thing I would do is submit a request to GS to have me log re-instated (and I don't even care about the numbers). The second thing I would do is put all your caches on my ignore list (and I don't even use an ignore list).

 

 

Link to comment

Maybe the idea behind the suggestion for Challenge Stars is in play here.

 

Challenge Stars have been proposed to account for the fact that if you find the challenge cache you cannot log a find online unless you also have also attained the associated geocaching related challenge. The literalists are disturbed the meaing of the words "Found It" are somehow corrupted. After all you found the container the cache owner hid and you signed the physical log in the container. You 'Found It'. Yet you cannot say you 'Found It' by using the appropriate online log for that.

 

Similarly here we have an argument that if you found something other than the cache that the cache owner hid you have not 'Found It' so you must not use the 'Found It' log.

 

I suggest we have throwdown stars. If you find a throwdown, you log a 'Found the throwdown' log and get points for finding a throwdown. Similar point can be given for leaving a throwdown, as well as for finding a decoy, a letterbox, a sticker with a QR code, or even a piece of cammo tape that obviously came from the cache that the animals have chewed up.

 

Then literalists can rest assured that the 'Found It' log is only used when their definition of find is met and other people can earn their WIGAS points however they like. :mmraspberry:

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

If I'm looking for a cache, have followed my GPS to GZ, and find a container which has a size which match cache listing, I'm going to sign the log, replace the cache, and go one to the next one. I'm not going to continue searching for another container the site because all evidence would indicate that I found the real cache. I read pretty much all the cache descriptions, but I don't scroll through all the logs. Even if I found the cache with only one signature in the log book it may be impossible for me to tell if it was a throwdown or you had replaced the cache or just replaced the log sheet. If you deleted my find the first thing I would do is submit a request to GS to have me log re-instated (and I don't even care about the numbers). The second thing I would do is put all your caches on my ignore list (and I don't even use an ignore list).

 

We are different geocachers... This is just an example of a situation like the one you describe!

 

http://coord.info/GLE2KRYR

 

First I found the green container which is a throwdown but I keept searching for the correct container and found it!

 

So, what to do with the logs on the green container, that is a throwdown...

 

But if you want yet another example you have this:

 

http://coord.info/GLE2KVMH

 

As my log says, the cache was always there but many people just either logged another logbook or didn´t log at all...

 

In both cases none of the bogus logs were deleted meaning that the CO clearly don´t follow Groundspeak recommendations.

 

Am I the only one to see this?

Edited by JPreto
Link to comment

We are different geocachers... This is just an example of a situation like the one you describe!

 

http://coord.info/GLE2KRYR

 

First I found the green container which is a throwdown but I keept searching for the correct container and found it!

For people like you with the supernatural ability to detect on sight that a container is a throwdown, I feel you should be required by law to use this ability for every cache you attempt, and failure to do so will be considered fraud and your log will be deleted. I will be contacting Groundspeak to have a Help Center or Geocaching 101 article created to outline this law.

 

For the rest of humanity who isn't blessed with this ability, we can only determine that a cache resides at GZ. Please go easy on us. We just want to live in peace.

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

We are different geocachers... This is just an example of a situation like the one you describe!

 

http://coord.info/GLE2KRYR

 

First I found the green container which is a throwdown but I keept searching for the correct container and found it!

For people like you with the supernatural ability to detect on sight that a container is a throwdown, I feel you should be required by law to use this ability for every cache you attempt, and failure to do so will be considered fraud and your log will be deleted. I will be contacting Groundspeak to have a Help Center or Geocaching 101 article created to outline this law.

 

For the rest of humanity who isn't blessed with this ability, we can only determine that a cache resides at GZ. Please go easy on us. We just want to live in peace.

 

:laughing:

 

I don't see him claiming you need a supernatural ability to detect that a container is a throwdown. If you see someone has left a throwndown, or find something that doesn't quite fit the description of the cache, you might keep searching for the original cache. But certainly you can't be expected to find the original all the time (even if is there). That is why we object to the person leaving the throwdown claiming a supernatural power to know the cache is missing. I think what he is suggesting is that if he were to log a find on something that turned out not to be the cache, he would expect the cache owner do delete his log. In fact, he seems to feel that a cache owner who fails to delete his log (or at least to notify him that he found something that is not the cache) is doing him a disservice - since by his definition his log was bogus. (Note that this is different than narcissa's claim that a cacher who unknowingly logs a find on a throwdown is fradulent).

 

I have on several occasions found the original cache where a cache owner had left a replacement when they couldn't find their own cache. In some (but not all) cases I also found the replacement cache. Here is where you need supernatural ability. Does the cache owner want you log the original cache or the replacement? If you find both, does the cache owner want you to remove one and if so which one? Literalism can only take you so far. At some point you play the game as best you can.

Link to comment

I don't see him claiming you need a supernatural ability to detect that a container is a throwdown. If you see someone has left a throwndown, or find something that doesn't quite fit the description of the cache, you might keep searching for the original cache. But certainly you can't be expected to find the original all the time (even if is there). That is why we object to the person leaving the throwdown claiming a supernatural power to know the cache is missing.

In the above case it was simple: logbook in German! Nothing supernatural... And I put in bold the cases where you should, plain and simple log a DNF!

 

I think what he is suggesting is that if he were to log a find on something that turned out not to be the cache, he would expect the cache owner do delete his log. In fact, he seems to feel that a cache owner who fails to delete his log (or at least to notify him that he found something that is not the cache) is doing him a disservice - since by his definition his log was bogus. (Note that this is different than narcissa's claim that a cacher who unknowingly logs a find on a throwdown is fradulent).

Of course!!! If I know it´s a amno box and I find a 35mm film I will log a find because there are some COs that don´t update the cache page (I always complain about this, maybe another reason for them not to like my attitudes) but the CO has the power to (and for me he really should) delete my log if I found a throwdown instead of the real cache.

Link to comment

So, it is clear the geocache was there, but people have not been finding it but another container (not the geocache) in a different place that the OP placed it.

 

Basically is a situation like this:

 

1. I place a cache 3 meters high in a tree.

2. A "fellow geocacher" goes there, can´t find the geocache and places a throwdown at the base of the tree.

3. The next geocachers don´t even have to climb the tree since there is a new container at the base of the tree.

 

Do you really think the next geocachers, that found the "base of the tree container" are "entitled" to say "Found it"?

 

Yes. Unless the listing specifically states that the cache is in the tree, how is someone to know they found the wrong cache. In the case of decoy caches, the decoy does not contain a logbook. In the case of throwdowns, there is a logbook and a cacher has no way of knowing he found the wrong cache.

Link to comment

That is not at all the same thing as most people would not confuse a gatorade lid for a geocache, but would certainly confuse an actual container with a logbook inside for a geocache.

 

Either way, it's garbage that I didn't put there, and it's not the geocache. If your log isn't in my logbook, you didn't find the cache. Take it up with the losers who put out garbage at other people's caches if you don't like it.

Technically you are completely correct. However, I think you are being heartless.

Link to comment

The key word Mudfrogs post is unknowingly. There are many scenarios where somone might unknowingly sign the log in a cache which was a through down and logically assume it was the real cache. If I'm looking for a cache, have followed my GPS to GZ, and find a container which has a size which match cache listing, I'm going to sign the log, replace the cache, and go one to the next one. I'm not going to continue searching for another container the site because all evidence would indicate that I found the real cache. I read pretty much all the cache descriptions, but I don't scroll through all the logs. Even if I found the cache with only one signature in the log book it may be impossible for me to tell if it was a throwdown or you had replaced the cache or just replaced the log sheet. If you deleted my find the first thing I would do is submit a request to GS to have me log re-instated (and I don't even care about the numbers). The second thing I would do is put all your caches on my ignore list (and I don't even use an ignore list).

 

See, if it happened to me, I'd accept the correction and consider returning to find the actual geocache. I would be embarrassed if I discovered I had signed some garbage that was left near the cache. Of course, I do take time to read the logbook when I find a cache. This came in handy over the summer when I found what I thought was a cache, noticed that the logs were sparse compared to online, and then searched a little further to find the actual cache.

 

I understand that some geocachers interpret a deleted log as a grave insult, but it's just a factual correction of the cache logs. You have to find the actual geocache, not a piece of garbage that someone left nearby.

 

I'm all in favour of geocachers making generous use of the ignore feature. We all benefit when geocachers make use of the available features to be more selective about the caches they find. Not all geocaches are for all people.

Link to comment

Technically you are completely correct. However, I think you are being heartless.

 

Again, considering the amount of crying that goes on in this forum at the mere idea of someone falsely logging a cache, I continue to be a little dismayed at the number of you excusing these false logs.

 

Once again for those at the back - a deleted log is merely a correction of the online record. If you didn't find the cache, the online logs should not say you did. That is all. Any further interpretation of that correction is your own choice and not my problem. While it's unfortunate that some people choose to place emotional value on those logs, it's not relevant.

Link to comment

Technically you are completely correct. However, I think you are being heartless.

 

Again, considering the amount of crying that goes on in this forum at the mere idea of someone falsely logging a cache, I continue to be a little dismayed at the number of you excusing these false logs.

 

If I had my way, throwdowns would be expressly forbidden and cachers who perpetually use them would incur some type of temporary ban or better yet have their stats hidden from public view. But I don't see the point of deleting unsuspecting cachers' found logs.

 

But it's obvious that some take a very narrow view of this and as a CO that is their prerogative.

 

It won't affect me one way or the other.

 

As long as you don't mind a lot of nasty e emails, delete away.

 

I prefer to keep playing this as a fun diversion. In that vain I will not delete logs unnecessarily.

Link to comment

Well there's just too much crying over NAs and deleted logs these days anyhow. I had a few cachers throw a temper tantrum because my cache was missing and I wouldn't award them a find for arriving at GZ. I can see both sides here, and one takes much more guts than the other.

For me, one case is facing the problem... another is looking away from the problem!

Link to comment

Well there's just too much crying over NAs and deleted logs these days anyhow. I had a few cachers throw a temper tantrum because my cache was missing and I wouldn't award them a find for arriving at GZ. I can see both sides here, and one takes much more guts than the other.

 

This is a very really problem. I am constantly running into people who feel that they're "owed" a find log because they simply visited GZ. People in our local community are almost looked down upon for posting NA or deleting bogus logs, like we're the bad guy because we're ruining people's fun. Well, they're ruining my fun by sand bagging my cache.

Link to comment

The key word Mudfrogs post is unknowingly. There are many scenarios where somone might unknowingly sign the log in a cache which was a through down and logically assume it was the real cache. If I'm looking for a cache, have followed my GPS to GZ, and find a container which has a size which match cache listing, I'm going to sign the log, replace the cache, and go one to the next one. I'm not going to continue searching for another container the site because all evidence would indicate that I found the real cache. I read pretty much all the cache descriptions, but I don't scroll through all the logs. Even if I found the cache with only one signature in the log book it may be impossible for me to tell if it was a throwdown or you had replaced the cache or just replaced the log sheet. If you deleted my find the first thing I would do is submit a request to GS to have me log re-instated (and I don't even care about the numbers). The second thing I would do is put all your caches on my ignore list (and I don't even use an ignore list).

 

See, if it happened to me, I'd accept the correction and consider returning to find the actual geocache. I would be embarrassed if I discovered I had signed some garbage that was left near the cache. Of course, I do take time to read the logbook when I find a cache. This came in handy over the summer when I found what I thought was a cache, noticed that the logs were sparse compared to online, and then searched a little further to find the actual cache.

 

Even if I did count and compare the physical log to the online log that wouldn't tell me whether or not the cache was real or a throwdown. A cache owner might replace a log sheet when the previous one is full (although I often write "replacement log" on a log sheet when I do that) or might even have replaced a container and log that has gone missing. What you're suggesting is that even if someone has found a cache which has every indication of being the real cache we should continue searching for other containers.

 

Returning to search for another container is just not always practical. About 12% of my finds are over 1000 miles from home, many in places that I will never get the opportunity to visit again.

 

 

Link to comment

Maybe the idea behind the suggestion for Challenge Stars is in play here.

 

Challenge Stars have been proposed to account for the fact that if you find the challenge cache you cannot log a find online unless you also have also attained the associated geocaching related challenge. The literalists are disturbed the meaing of the words "Found It" are somehow corrupted. After all you found the container the cache owner hid and you signed the physical log in the container. You 'Found It'. Yet you cannot say you 'Found It' by using the appropriate online log for that.

 

Similarly here we have an argument that if you found something other than the cache that the cache owner hid you have not 'Found It' so you must not use the 'Found It' log.

 

I suggest we have throwdown stars. If you find a throwdown, you log a 'Found the throwdown' log and get points for finding a throwdown. Similar point can be given for leaving a throwdown, as well as for finding a decoy, a letterbox, a sticker with a QR code, or even a piece of cammo tape that obviously came from the cache that the animals have chewed up.

 

Then literalists can rest assured that the 'Found It' log is only used when their definition of find is met and other people can earn their WIGAS points however they like. :mmraspberry:

I don't know what 'WIGAS' means and I get that you are likely being silly, but the problem with all of this is that cachers have no idea whether a container and logbook is the 'real' cache or a throwdown. As such, they submit their found logs in good faith. Those logs should be perfectly fine.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Even if I did count and compare the physical log to the online log that wouldn't tell me whether or not the cache was real or a throwdown. A cache owner might replace a log sheet when the previous one is full (although I often write "replacement log" on a log sheet when I do that) or might even have replaced a container and log that has gone missing. What you're suggesting is that even if someone has found a cache which has every indication of being the real cache we should continue searching for other containers.

 

Returning to search for another container is just not always practical. About 12% of my finds are over 1000 miles from home, many in places that I will never get the opportunity to visit again.

 

It's not necessary to count, or guess. You can ask the CO. "Hey, found a very fresh container but didn't see a maintenance log. Just letting you know." It is always good practice to report on cache conditions to the CO.

 

Sometimes, DNFs far away from home happen. C'est la vie. It's happened to me, and I don't feel like I am owed the find just because it's difficult for me to get back.

Link to comment

If I'm looking for a cache, have followed my GPS to GZ, and find a container which has a size which match cache listing, I'm going to sign the log, replace the cache, and go one to the next one. I'm not going to continue searching for another container the site because all evidence would indicate that I found the real cache. I read pretty much all the cache descriptions, but I don't scroll through all the logs. Even if I found the cache with only one signature in the log book it may be impossible for me to tell if it was a throwdown or you had replaced the cache or just replaced the log sheet. If you deleted my find the first thing I would do is submit a request to GS to have me log re-instated (and I don't even care about the numbers). The second thing I would do is put all your caches on my ignore list (and I don't even use an ignore list).

 

We are different geocachers... This is just an example of a situation like the one you describe!

 

http://coord.info/GLE2KRYR

 

First I found the green container which is a throwdown but I keept searching for the correct container and found it!

 

So, what to do with the logs on the green container, that is a throwdown...

 

But if you want yet another example you have this:

 

http://coord.info/GLE2KVMH

 

As my log says, the cache was always there but many people just either logged another logbook or didn´t log at all...

 

In both cases none of the bogus logs were deleted meaning that the CO clearly don´t follow Groundspeak recommendations.

 

Am I the only one to see this?

You are certainly the only one who doesn't understand why your local geocaching community has issues with you.

Link to comment
As my log says, the cache was always there but many people just either logged another logbook or didn´t log at all...

 

In both cases none of the bogus logs were deleted meaning that the CO clearly don´t follow Groundspeak recommendations.

 

Am I the only one to see this?

 

Of course!!! If I know it´s a amno box and I find a 35mm film I will log a find because there are some COs that don´t update the cache page (I always complain about this, maybe another reason for them not to like my attitudes) but the CO has the power to (and for me he really should) delete my log if I found a throwdown instead of the real cache.

You keep saying that cache owners should delete the logs of those who found the throwdown. You even went as far as saying that the guidelines require it. However, that's incorrect. As explained many times in this very thread, the direction from tptb is that while a 'found' log made by the person who placed the throwdown can be deleted, subsequent logs of people who found the throwdown in good faith should not be deleted.

Link to comment

You keep saying that cache owners should delete the logs of those who found the throwdown. You even went as far as saying that the guidelines require it. However, that's incorrect. As explained many times in this very thread, the direction from tptb is that while a 'found' log made by the person who placed the throwdown can be deleted, subsequent logs of people who found the throwdown in good faith should not be deleted.

 

Actually, the word from TPTB is that it's okay if a cache owner chooses not to delete them, i.e. they won't be considered a negligent cache owner for allowing armchair or fraudulent logs. Nothing says we can't delete them if we so choose.

Link to comment

Well there's just too much crying over NAs and deleted logs these days anyhow. I had a few cachers throw a temper tantrum because my cache was missing and I wouldn't award them a find for arriving at GZ. I can see both sides here, and one takes much more guts than the other.

For me, one case is facing the problem... another is looking away from the problem!

Actually, one seems to be creating a problem; for themselves, the local caching community, and the future health of their geocaches.

Link to comment

As such, they submit their found logs in good faith. Those logs should be perfectly fine.

 

Someone who finds a QR sticker or the lid of a Gatorade bottle might also be logging in "good faith." Unfortunately, they did not find the cache.

The QR sticker and gatorade lid arguments are red herrings. They have no place in this conversation.

 

This issue is about a geocacher who finds a container with a logbook at ground zero, signs the logbook, and logs the find online.

Link to comment

Worth repeating that the best way to avoid this mess is to hide caches that don't attract slimeballs. My husband and I have never had issues with throw-downs on any of our geocaches.

 

Not all cachers who stick to traditionals are bad, but most bad cachers stick to traditionals.

The fact is, most owners of traditional caches never experience this issue, either. The forums have a way of looking at issues microscopically which makes it appear that things are more widespread than they are.

Link to comment

It's not necessary to count, or guess. You can ask the CO. "Hey, found a very fresh container but didn't see a maintenance log. Just letting you know." It is always good practice to report on cache conditions to the CO.

 

Sometimes, DNFs far away from home happen. C'est la vie. It's happened to me, and I don't feel like I am owed the find just because it's difficult for me to get back.

 

I do not have an issue with DNF logs and if I'm the first in a log book of a cache which is not new I will notice this and report it if there is no owner log making it clear that the log book has been changed recently. I feel however there is a limit for my responsability. I'm clearly neither willing nor able to check the logs in the log book against the online logs. I usually sign the log and do not care about the other logs before me that much.

 

If there is no clear sign that someone found a wrong container, I would not delete logs as cache owner and I would not expect other cache owners to delete such logs. I'm out for caching and not for a detective game.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

If there is no clear sign that someone found a wrong container, I would not delete logs as cache owner and I would not expect other cache owners to delete such logs. I'm out for caching and not for a detective game.

 

Again, I completely respect that you would take a different approach. Not sure why, in a forum where people are hypersensitive about the legitimacy of other people's finds, everyone is in such a rage to tell me what I should do.

Link to comment

 

Not all cachers who stick to traditionals are bad, but most bad cachers stick to traditionals.

 

Not all COs that hide multis are bad with maintenence, but enough are that I stick to traditionals.

 

In fact, the whole problem with throwdowns stems from poor cache maintenance. It started out with cachers just adding a log sheet to help a fellow cacher out. Then people began replacing containers. Heck, people still encourage others to carry field maintenance kits to give poorly maintained caches some tlc.

 

The lack of maintenance is so bad that the NM and NA logs were introduced.

 

Then you had power trails green lighted and throwdowns became the norm because they are actually encouraged on those trails. And mind you that reviewers were involved with the first sanctioned power trails.

 

So the problem as I see it is that not only does the lily pad condone throwdowns, they have encouraged the practice.

 

Still, there are many like myself that have not bought into the numbers game. But at the same time, I'm also not into trying to figure out if someone has tossed an extra container or not. If I get to ground zero and find a cache and sign a logbook, I'm counting that as a find. Good luck deleting my found log. ;)

Link to comment

Even if I did count and compare the physical log to the online log that wouldn't tell me whether or not the cache was real or a throwdown. A cache owner might replace a log sheet when the previous one is full (although I often write "replacement log" on a log sheet when I do that) or might even have replaced a container and log that has gone missing. What you're suggesting is that even if someone has found a cache which has every indication of being the real cache we should continue searching for other containers.

 

Returning to search for another container is just not always practical. About 12% of my finds are over 1000 miles from home, many in places that I will never get the opportunity to visit again.

 

It's not necessary to count, or guess. You can ask the CO. "Hey, found a very fresh container but didn't see a maintenance log. Just letting you know." It is always good practice to report on cache conditions to the CO.

 

Sometimes, DNFs far away from home happen. C'est la vie. It's happened to me, and I don't feel like I am owed the find just because it's difficult for me to get back.

 

If you had ever found (or looked for an didn't) a cache far away from home you might feel a little different. If you're 5000+ miles from home, and only have a few hours in the area, it's unreasonable to expect that a finder is going to be able to contact a CO and get a response before leaving the area.

 

A cache owner that deletes the log from a finder that legitimately believes to have found the actual cache but, through no fault of their own has signed a throwdown (which wouldn't happen if the CO had performed timely maintenance on the cache by removing the throwdown) is completely unreasonable and overly controlling.

 

 

 

Link to comment

If there is no clear sign that someone found a wrong container, I would not delete logs as cache owner and I would not expect other cache owners to delete such logs. I'm out for caching and not for a detective game.

 

Again, I completely respect that you would take a different approach. Not sure why, in a forum where people are hypersensitive about the legitimacy of other people's finds, everyone is in such a rage to tell me what I should do.

I think that the difference is that most times people talk about their personal way of playing the game, it doesn't effect anyone else. A person hates numbers runs so doesn't do them - awesome. A person loves numbers runs and does them every day - great. Those personal caching preferences don't have any actual effect on anyone else.

 

The difference between those topics and this one is that yours and Preto's personal bent on the game does effect others. Further, the people that you are effecting by deleting their finds acted totally in good faith and had no reason to think that there is anything wrong with what they did.

 

Before you go back to you narrative that deleting a false log isn't punishment. It is instead just a factual correction that shouldn't bother anyone, please take note of NYPaddleCacher's point that many caches are found in locations that a person may never return to. Many people travel far and wide and may just have enough time to find a cache or two in each exotic location.

 

I've done this very thing. On more than one occasion, my plan was to find at one cache during my limited free time. I had a couple targeted to look for and if I could not find the first, I'd move on to the second. However, if I found the first, I would not use my limited time looking for the next. I would be quite troubled if the cache owner deleted that find.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

If you had ever found (or looked for an didn't) a cache far away from home you might feel a little different. If you're 5000+ miles from home, and only have a few hours in the area, it's unreasonable to expect that a finder is going to be able to contact a CO and get a response before leaving the area.

 

So, maybe I am reading it wrong but are you saying that if you drove 5000+ miles to search for a cache and what you actually found was a throwdown you are entitled to keep the found... but if you only drove 5 miles there is no problem?

 

Com´on man!

Link to comment

Before you go back to you narrative that deleting a false log isn't punishment. It is instead just a factual correction that shouldn't bother anyone, please take note of NYPaddleCacher's point that many caches are found in locations that a person may never return to. Many people travel far and wide and may just have enough time to find a cache or two in each exotic location.

 

So... If I go to the USA, because I am away from home, I am allowed to make a throwdown so I can log a far away cache?

 

Now the COs must also take in consideration the distance from home in order to delete or not a bogus found it... :lol:

Link to comment

Many people travel far and wide and may just have enough time to find a cache or two in each exotic location.

 

I geocache when I travel. I don't expect to claim finds on caches I didn't find, whether the cache is 5000km from or 5km from home. Writing my name on garbage near the GZ is not finding a geocache.

Link to comment

Many people travel far and wide and may just have enough time to find a cache or two in each exotic location.

 

I geocache when I travel. I don't expect to claim finds on caches I didn't find, whether the cache is 5000km from or 5km from home. Writing my name on garbage near the GZ is not finding a geocache.

 

Maybe I should just change this log into a FOUND IT! Right?

 

http://coord.info/GLDFKF51

Link to comment

Many people travel far and wide and may just have enough time to find a cache or two in each exotic location.

 

I geocache when I travel. I don't expect to claim finds on caches I didn't find, whether the cache is 5000km from or 5km from home. Writing my name on garbage near the GZ is not finding a geocache.

 

Maybe I should just change this log into a FOUND IT! Right?

 

http://coord.info/GLDFKF51

 

Apparently. I guess from now on when I'm travelling and want to do a quick detour to get a new state, I can just drive by and throw a film can out the window like everybody else seems to be doing these days.

Link to comment

As such, they submit their found logs in good faith. As such, those logs should be perfectly fine.

 

Someone who finds a QR sticker or the lid of a Gatorade bottle might also be logging in "good faith." Unfortunately, they did not find the cache.

 

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me to come across a cache utilizing a gatorade lid in some fashion. But i do agree with you,, a person probably isn't finding the cache when they log a qr code or gatorade lid and they shouldn't be surprised if their log gets deleted. But we're not talking about a qr sticker or a gatorade lid here.

 

I'm logging a find if i reach ground zero and locate a container with logsheet that matches the cache's stated size and difficulty ratings.

Link to comment

If you had ever found (or looked for an didn't) a cache far away from home you might feel a little different. If you're 5000+ miles from home, and only have a few hours in the area, it's unreasonable to expect that a finder is going to be able to contact a CO and get a response before leaving the area.

 

So, maybe I am reading it wrong but are you saying that if you drove 5000+ miles to search for a cache and what you actually found was a throwdown you are entitled to keep the found... but if you only drove 5 miles there is no problem?

 

Com´on man!

 

No, I'm saying that some travel great distances, and have a limited amount of time to search for caches while in that location. The expectation that one can just come back later is completely unreasonable in that case. Geocaching far from home *is* different then geocaching 5 miles from home. Let's not pretend that it's exactly the same.

 

I don't expect to be able to get credit for a find when I *knowingly* signed a throwdown, but that's not what we're talking about here.

 

 

Link to comment

No, I'm saying that some travel great distances, and have a limited amount of time to search for caches while in that location. The expectation that one can just come back later is completely unreasonable in that case. Geocaching far from home *is* different then geocaching 5 miles from home. Let's not pretend that it's exactly the same.

 

No, it really isn't. It just means you don't get a chance to resolve the DNFs.

Link to comment

If you had ever found (or looked for an didn't) a cache far away from home you might feel a little different. If you're 5000+ miles from home, and only have a few hours in the area, it's unreasonable to expect that a finder is going to be able to contact a CO and get a response before leaving the area.

 

So, maybe I am reading it wrong but are you saying that if you drove 5000+ miles to search for a cache and what you actually found was a throwdown you are entitled to keep the found... but if you only drove 5 miles there is no problem?

 

Com´on man!

Yes, you read it wrong.

 

If you are 5,000 miles away and don't find the cache, then you have an opportunity to go attempt another one. But if you do find a cache and sign a logbook and go home, then you don't have the opportunity to go find another cache. When someone finds a cache with a logbook it is not the same as a DNF. They found the cache.

 

If you want to make sure that it was your cache they found, then get out there 2 or 3 times a day and make sure not only that your cache is in place and in good condition but also make sure there are no throwdowns. If this is how you maintain your caches, I would be happy if you deleted bogus finds.

 

But if a throwdown is allowed to remain at your cache location for days or weeks and then you decide to delete legitimate find logs because you allowed that throwdown to remain in place, then you are not playing any better than the person who placed the bogus container.

Link to comment

Basically is a situation like this:

 

1. I place a cache 3 meters high in a tree.

2. A "fellow geocacher" goes there, can´t find the geocache and places a throwdown at the base of the tree.

3. The next geocachers don´t even have to climb the tree since there is a new container at the base of the tree.

 

Do you really think the next geocachers, that found the "base of the tree container" are "entitled" to say "Found it"?

Bad example. I've found quite a few hanging caches that have been knocked down and are laying on the ground.

Link to comment

 

So... If I go to the USA, because I am away from home, I am allowed to make a throwdown so I can log a far away cache?

 

Now the COs must also take in consideration the distance from home in order to delete or not a bogus found it... :lol:

 

Perhaps there is a language barrier or you are just not reading the entire thread.

 

I have seen not one person condone throwdowns in this thread.

 

Everyone that I can see has been in favor of you deleting the log of the person that tossed it.

 

It is the subsequent finders who had no idea there was a different cache that we are talking about.

 

Throwdowns differ from decoys in that they contain a logbook. Thus, unless you specifically describe your cache in the listing, noone has any way of knowing they found anything other than your cache.

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment

As such, they submit their found logs in good faith. As such, those logs should be perfectly fine.

 

Someone who finds a QR sticker or the lid of a Gatorade bottle might also be logging in "good faith." Unfortunately, they did not find the cache.

 

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me to come across a cache utilizing a gatorade lid in some fashion. But i do agree with you,, a person probably isn't finding the cache when they log a qr code or gatorade lid and they shouldn't be surprised if their log gets deleted. But we're not talking about a qr sticker or a gatorade lid here.

 

I'm logging a find if i reach ground zero and locate a container with logsheet that matches the cache's stated size and difficulty ratings.

 

You would log the find ( as would I ) and your log would stand.

Link to comment

Many people travel far and wide and may just have enough time to find a cache or two in each exotic location.

 

I geocache when I travel. I don't expect to claim finds on caches I didn't find, whether the cache is 5000km from or 5km from home. Writing my name on garbage near the GZ is not finding a geocache.

 

Maybe I should just change this log into a FOUND IT! Right?

 

http://coord.info/GLDFKF51

 

We loked for a good 1h around the spot and nothing.

 

Unless I'm missing something, it appears you found nothing. In that case, I see no reason for you to change your log.

Link to comment

Many people travel far and wide and may just have enough time to find a cache or two in each exotic location.

 

I geocache when I travel. I don't expect to claim finds on caches I didn't find, whether the cache is 5000km from or 5km from home. Writing my name on garbage near the GZ is not finding a geocache.

 

Maybe I should just change this log into a FOUND IT! Right?

 

http://coord.info/GLDFKF51

 

Apparently. I guess from now on when I'm travelling and want to do a quick detour to get a new state, I can just drive by and throw a film can out the window like everybody else seems to be doing these days.

 

If you do you will not find much support around here.

Link to comment

If there is no clear sign that someone found a wrong container, I would not delete logs as cache owner and I would not expect other cache owners to delete such logs. I'm out for caching and not for a detective game.

 

Again, I completely respect that you would take a different approach. Not sure why, in a forum where people are hypersensitive about the legitimacy of other people's finds, everyone is in such a rage to tell me what I should do.

I think that the difference is that most times people talk about their personal way of playing the game, it doesn't effect anyone else. A person hates numbers runs so doesn't do them - awesome. A person loves numbers runs and does them every day - great. Those personal caching preferences don't have any actual effect on anyone else.

 

The difference between those topics and this one is that yours and Preto's personal bent on the game does effect others. Further, the people that you are effecting by deleting their finds acted totally in good faith and had no reason to think that there is anything wrong with what they did.

 

Before you go back to you narrative that deleting a false log isn't punishment. It is instead just a factual correction that shouldn't bother anyone, please take note of NYPaddleCacher's point that many caches are found in locations that a person may never return to. Many people travel far and wide and may just have enough time to find a cache or two in each exotic location.

 

I've done this very thing. On more than one occasion, my plan was to find at one cache during my limited free time. I had a couple targeted to look for and if I could not find the first, I'd move on to the second. However, if I found the first, I would not use my limited time looking for the next. I would be quite troubled if the cache owner deleted that find.

 

I agree completely with all.....I relate to having limited time to search exotic locations, a few were in foreign countries and since traveling companions were not cachers my time was limited. There was lots of pre trip planning and all pages printed out. If you get to GZ and everything matches the cache page and you sign the log its a Find. If there is a throw down at GZ matching the cache page and the owner objects to folks finding the wrong cache the CO needs to go pick up the throw down.....I pick up throw downs to my caches but am in no hurry to do so ( save it for a maint run )...until then whatever log folks sign is fine with me.

Ours is a nice pleasant game that takes us to new places....its a shame some want to micro manage it and suck out all the fun.

Link to comment

No, I'm saying that some travel great distances, and have a limited amount of time to search for caches while in that location. The expectation that one can just come back later is completely unreasonable in that case. Geocaching far from home *is* different then geocaching 5 miles from home. Let's not pretend that it's exactly the same.

 

No, it really isn't. It just means you don't get a chance to resolve the DNFs.

 

No, it means that the cache owner allowed someone else to maintain their cache by not going out and ensuring that the cache was in place and that no other cache containers were in place.

Link to comment

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...