Ethics of Finding

[+CanadianRockies]

Trying to impose your individual standards on someone else often causes hard feelings and limits fun.

True to some extent...

Which is why I wrote "often" instead of "always."

 

...but on the other I need to admit that I have serious issues with the statement "Everyone can play as they want".

 

It ruins my enjoyment as a cache hider enormously how some finders behave. I'm not hiding hiking and puzzle caches for those who abuse my caches as traditionals. All what my caches are about happens before finding the container and I would not invest even 5 minutes to appeal provide a further container for those to find for whom it is about searching for containers and who do not care for anything else.

I certainly don't agree that "everyone can play as they want." For example, I'd definitely object to someone who intentionally stole or destroyed a cache container.

 

But I suspect I have a more relaxed attitude towards many geocaching behaviors than you do. While I generally would prefer that people solve my puzzles and complete my full multis, it doesn't ruin my enjoyment as a cache hider when they don't.

 

My main motivation for hiding caches is to give enjoyment to others rather myself. It's a way of giving back to the community for all that they have given me.

[+Profbrad]

The problem with publishing an ethics document is that it is, by definition, subjective. The only objective rules are what Groundspeak says are valid or not. Beyond that, there could be any number of 'ethics' employed by people worldwide, so publishing one merely introduces the potential for arguments and anger.

 

The reason Groundspeaks rules are so open and flexible is fundamentally because the only enforceable rules are verifiable rules, and the nature of this game is so individualistic that defining a ruleset so specific would be impossible without heavy arbitration on Groundspeak's part. As it stands, Groundspeak already passes off much of the decision making to the CO because they are the next best 'authority' on the activity that took place where the cache is located.

 

And so, as it pertains to logging a find online, the only (arguably) verifiable parameter is whether a user's name is in the log book - and even then it's presumed that the CO is acting respectably, and even then the CO may still decide whether exceptions can be granted for an online find log.

 

At best, instead of an ethics document saying some action is right and some action is wrong, there should simply be suggested guidelines for the generally accepted activity of geocaching, not to be taken as rules set in stone, but merely as what is generally considered in the activity of "geocaching", while explaining that the activities vary so much just within the range of geocache and geocaching styles as well as over various regions around the world.

 

Objective rules are few, for good reason.

 

Subjective ethics cannot be enforced, and can easily cause divisions and negativity when promoted as the definition of "right" and "wrong".

 

It's not about enforcement by others. The question is can we define a defensible way to play that conforms to the spirit of the activity, not just to the official rules? I understand that not everyone is interested in this question and that is fine. I'm not sure why they're posting on this thread, but whatever.

[+Profbrad]

What do you mean by too strict?

Guideline #7, for example, is extremely strict: "The find was not previously discovered by the finder." It would forbid multiple finds for:

 

• Events that recycle their GC Code each month (e.g., GCR999).
   
  
• Grandfathered locationless caches (e.g., GC43F3).
   
  
• Grandfathered moving caches (e.g., GCA0D6).
  

 

Guideline #2 is very strict as well: "The finder signed the log if it was possible to do so and, if not, documented evidence of the find."

 

If a group of geocachers find a cache (perhaps using the Huckle-Buckle-Beanstock method to abide by your Guideline #1), why would anyone object to a single member of that group signing the log for other members? In some cases, it might even make sense to save log space by signing with a team name instead of individual signatures.

 

No, I wasn't thinking of excluding those, to me, very reasonable things. I have using the Huckle method already, although I never had a name for it!

[+cerberus1]

Shared accounts Sharing a geocaching account with others is likely to be problematic because of the high potential to violate one or more of the above principles.

Shared accounts have worked just fine for the couples and families that I know who use them. There has been nothing problematic about them. (Otherwise, they would have created separate accounts already.) And yes, sometime only one or the other finds any given cache. So what?

Yep.

Over ten years now. If something ever became "problematic", we woulda fixed it by now...

Most couples and families in my area have the same type of account as we do - shared.

There are many historical examples of things being fixed after many more years than 10. Are you really arguing that things are perfect because people have been doing this for ten years? Come on.

We haven't had any of the "problems" you say are likely.

I'm saying that sharing an account hasn't been an issue since we joined and also with many others we know, some since this hobby started.

If the possibility ever exists that it'd be a problem, we'd simply fix it.

For now, and over ten years, we're good thanks.

The sky isn't falling...

 

darned spplelling...

Edited February 6, 2015 by cerberus1

[+NYPaddleCacher]

If someone else climbs a tree, locates a container and puts your name on the log sheet, the language in the guideline allows you to post a Found it log, even thought you didn't *technically* find the cache. Maybe you're standing at the base of the tree, or even gave the person that climbed it a boost.

If you (the general you) consider that to be a valid find, would it be any different if someone went up into a tree a thousand miles away, found a container and wrote your name in the log?

Two completely different subjects. You truly don't see a difference?

One, folks are at GZ, working as a team for the find.

The other, just fake logging finds for others.

 

Sorry, I don't think the lines is as fine as you're suggesting?

 

There is a cache near me that requires a tree climb to reach the container. There was a group of about a dozen people that went to GZ after an event and "found" it. Only one person actually climbed the tree, then wrote down the names for everyone that was standing around below. There was no "working as team" involved. When I went to search for it I was there by myself but spotted the container up in the tree. Those people that stood around at the base of the tree didn't do anything different than what I did, other than watch someone climb the tree and put their name on the logsheet.

 

As I mentioned, leapfrogging caches has become an acceptable practice for, with the justification the everyone that posted a found it log was part of "the team". In that case, some of those found it log were posted by people that never got to GZ for every cache.

 

If I solved a puzzle on a cache a 1000 miles away then gave the coordinates to someone near GZ, who found the cache and wrote down both of our user names, shouldn't we both be able to log it as found? After all, we worked as a team to find it.

Edited February 6, 2015 by NYPaddleCacher

[+Profbrad]

I'd ask what other sport/ hobby / activity operates without some standards? I believe people have more fun when they know the rules of the game.

 

But the only verifiable criteria for finding a cache is that there's a name on the bit of paper. You can set all the rules/standards you like about not being passed the log, finding the cache without any help etc, but none of that can be proven in any way, so what's the point trying to implement such rules?

 

I have my standards which, for example, mean if I'm caching with a group and one of the group finds it behind a tree while I'm looking behind a rock then I still claim a find, but if someone goes up a tree to retrieve the cache and passes it down then I don't claim it; and I don't particularly care what personal standards others apply to their own game.

 

As for other activities, I would suggest trainspotting & birdwatching - I guess that their rule is you see the train/bird and you can tick it off, I doubt they have rules saying it doesn't count if someone tells you where to look for the Lesser Spotted Bandersnatch sitting in a tree.

 

I'd be surprised if neither of those activities had more elaborated rules, formalized or less so. I'd also be surprised if neither of those groups had a similar discussion to this one on some kind of website.

[+niraD]

Here's a semi-hypothetical situation. I wonder how the OP would apply his rules to it.

 

A group finds a 5/5 puzzle scuba cache. Alice solves the truly mind-bending puzzle. Brian, Carol, and David put on scuba gear and search for the cache. Emily provided the boat and piloted it to the coordinates from Alice's solution. Frank holds the "diver down" flag until his arms get tired, then hands it to Alice. Alice holds the "diver down" flag for a while, then hands it to Emily, who attaches it to her boat so no one has to hold it any longer. Brian finds and retrieves the cache, and hands it to Frank who unseals the container, writes everyone's names on the log, and carefully reseals the container. Carol takes the resealed container from Frank, and she and David make one last dive together to reattach the container to its underwater anchor. Alice and Brian help Carol and David back into the boat, Frank weighs anchor, and Emily starts the boat's engine.

 

Who gets to post a Find online? Does it matter if any of the group members have a shared account? Why do you care?

[+Profbrad]

Shared accounts – Sharing a geocaching account with others is likely to be problematic because of the high potential to violate one or more of the above principles. For example, if another person under your account claims a find when you aren’t there, you’re violating #1-3. Finders who are active should have separate accounts. Families with young children caching under the same account would be advised to create separate accounts if grown children decide to continue in the hobby separately.

I suspect that what you find problematic about shared accounts (and the violations of several of your principles) is that they make it difficult to compare find counts across accounts. It's easier for a multi-person account to find 1,000 caches than it is for a single-person account, so it's like comparing apples to oranges.

 

The thing is, geocaching is designed to allow both apples and oranges to exist. A find for one person (or one account) can mean something quite different than a find for another person/account. And that's good. It allows different people to enjoy this activity in different ways.

 

To those who interpret what I'm saying as trying to limit fun, well, no, that's not the goal. The goal is to flesh out some standards for the hobby. Why do that? To reduce misunderstandings that cause hard feelings.

Trying to impose your individual standards on someone else often causes hard feelings and limits fun.

 

Yes, at some point certain "geocaching" behaviors cease to fall under the commonly accepted understanding of what constitutes geocaching (e.g., armchair caching). But those extreme behaviors are way beyond the scope of what you're discussing.

 

I'm NOT trying to impose anything on anyone. I'm asking for a discussion.

[+Profbrad]

I think the only rule we need is this "practice what you preach" ?!?!?!

 

 

That does not solve any problem.

[+Profbrad]

For those who like to "do it their own way," I'd ask what other sport/ hobby / activity operates without some standards?

Someone else mentioned birdwatching, and it's not a bad analogy. For example, if someone says that they spotted a New Caledonian owlet-nightjar when they really didn't, who does it really affect? Does it really matter to anyone else? Similarly, if someone says they found a cache when they really didn't, or found it under "questionable" circumstances (in relation to your documented guidelines), why does it really matter? In my opinion, as long as a log meets the criteria outlined by Groundspeak, the circumstances surrounding the find don't put the future of the cache or geocaching in jeopardy, and both the finder and hider are fine with it, then all's good. Other people with differing opinions may roll their eyes at a log if it doesn't fit their personal ethos, but beyond that...

Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com. There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find.

It actually really doesn't matter to me what other people - although it does affect me sometimes. The value in thinking/discussing this is that I/others might learn something that changes how I/they do things.

[+Profbrad]

 

I disagree with your positions on "Signing for others / having others sign for you", "shared accounts", and "FTF Etiquette". They're too strict.

 

For those and for the others: how would these be enforced? I think that they're followed about as much as they can be without external enforcement - and I'd hate to see more enforcement than we have already.

 

I agree with the OPs position on "Signing for others". As we all know, the guidelines indicate that if you're name is on the log sheet you can log the cache as found. That language is frequently treated as a loophole. If someone else climbs a tree, locates a container and puts your name on the log sheet, the language in the guideline allows you to post a Found it log, even thought you didn't *technically* find the cache. Maybe you're standing at the base of the tree, or even gave the person that climbed it a boost. If you (the general you) consider that to be a valid find, would it be any different if someone went up into a tree a thousand miles away, found a container and wrote your name in the log? This loophole has also frequently been taken advantage of when putting together an adhoc team, splitting up the members to "find" different caches, each stamping the "team name", and then having everyone on the team log finds for all the caches found by a member of the team. The guideline allows everyone to log a find, even if someone wasn't even close to the actual cache location.

 

Ethics should not need to be enforced. Something that is unethical does not become ethical if it's unenforceable.

 

I have no problem with another person signing my name, while i'm in his/her presence, in a logbook on caches that i can reach myself. Someone else writing my name in a log in a cache that i cannot reach myself, is not a find for me. You climbing a tree and dropping a cache down to me is not a find in my book. I'll make the climb myself and reach the cache or it'll be a DNF. This is one of those things that's very easy to figure out, at least for me.

 

Exactly. If my mother, 3 feet away from me, has taken off her winter gloves to open and sign the cache that we both found on a fence post (an easy spot to reach), why can't I keep my fingers warm?

 

I never meant to exclude this kind of thing. Silly.

[cezanne]

My main motivation for hiding caches is to give enjoyment to others rather myself. It's a way of giving back to the community for all that they have given me.

 

That has been also my motivation for years. However now there are so many in the community which seem to have a completely different activity than mine and which have not given anything positive to me and just cause me frustration (many of them do not own a single cache by the way).

 

It's hard to give something back to those with whom I still feel to have something in common with respect to geocaching (this does not need to be that we prefer the same caches) while not getting completely frustrated and demovivated by the others.

 

Just one example: At the one hand, I want to make it easy for those who really deal with a cache of mine to find it once at GZ while at the other hand I do not want to make it easier to abuse my caches. I have lived through many moments within the last two years where I was just a few seconds away from archiving certain of my caches or all of them.

 

If those who abuse any sort of cache as traditional absolutely need to do that, they could at least have the kindness to report at least whether the final container is in proper condition. These people somehow consume caches like they take it for granted that in my country clear water comes out of the water tap and that there is plenty of water.

Edited February 6, 2015 by cezanne

[+cerberus1]

If someone else climbs a tree, locates a container and puts your name on the log sheet, the language in the guideline allows you to post a Found it log, even thought you didn't *technically* find the cache. Maybe you're standing at the base of the tree, or even gave the person that climbed it a boost.

If you (the general you) consider that to be a valid find, would it be any different if someone went up into a tree a thousand miles away, found a container and wrote your name in the log?

Two completely different subjects. You truly don't see a difference?

One, folks are at GZ, working as a team for the find.

The other, just fake logging finds for others.

 

Sorry, I don't think the lines is as fine as you're suggesting?

 

There is a cache near me that requires a tree climb to reach the container. There was a group of about a dozen people that went to GZ after an event and "found" it. Only one person actually climbed the tree, then wrote down the names for everyone that was standing around below. There was no "working as team" involved.

 

As I mentioned, leapfrogging caches has become an acceptable practice for, with the justification the everyone that posted a found it log was part of "the team". In that case, some of those found it log were posted by people that never got to GZ for every cache.

 

If I solved a puzzle on a cache a 1000 miles away then gave the coordinates to someone near GZ, who found the cache and wrote down both of our user names, shouldn't we both be able to log it as found? After all, we worked as a team to find it.

I understand your issue. It's your choice of examples I don't get.

 

If one is "standing at the base of a tree", I'd consider him acting as my spotter, an important position (often required with ropes) for my safety.

 

Why isn't a person who "gave the climber a boost" eligible for a find too?

- without him (and that boost up), neither of you'd get it...

 

Your reply is a different scenario though.

Folks just hanging out aren't what you expressed earlier and I'd probably agree with you.

[+niraD]

Exactly. If my mother, 3 feet away from me, has taken off her winter gloves to open and sign the cache that we both found on a fence post (an easy spot to reach), why can't I keep my fingers warm?

I never meant to exclude this kind of thing. Silly.

With all due respect, that wasn't exactly clear from your original post.

[+geodarts]

But beyond that, how should we play?

 

We should play the game with the knowledge that simplicity is to be valued, and there is a difference between style and ethics.

 

As a matter of style, we may disagree about how much help is overwhelming, whether a log has to be signed personally in every situation, how and with what instruments is a log to be signed, whether being with the CO when they place a cache constitutes a find, whether helping someone up a tree is enough to warrant a find, or any other topic that is discussed here from time to time. But the question of ethics is far different.

 

As a matter of ethics, the approach taken by thebruce0 is not a bad place to start: "Do onto others . . ." So yes, I think we should play with the understanding that sometimes our actions can affect others -- so we do not post spoilers; we trade even or up; we return the container as it was hidden; we respect one another, those whom we meet along the way, and the earth itself.

 

Either that or we should be subject to random drug tests so that we can be assured that each find that is claimed was made with an equal playing field rather than performance enhancing drugs.

Edited February 6, 2015 by geodarts

[+cerberus1]

Here's a semi-hypothetical situation. I wonder how the OP would apply his rules to it.

 

A group finds a 5/5 puzzle scuba cache. Alice solves the truly mind-bending puzzle. Brian, Carol, and David put on scuba gear and search for the cache. Emily provided the boat and piloted it to the coordinates from Alice's solution. Frank holds the "diver down" flag until his arms get tired, then hands it to Alice. Alice holds the "diver down" flag for a while, then hands it to Emily, who attaches it to her boat so no one has to hold it any longer. Brian finds and retrieves the cache, and hands it to Frank who unseals the container, writes everyone's names on the log, and carefully reseals the container. Carol takes the resealed container from Frank, and she and David make one last dive together to reattach the container to its underwater anchor. Alice and Brian help Carol and David back into the boat, Frank weighs anchor, and Emily starts the boat's engine.

 

Who gets to post a Find online? Does it matter if any of the group members have a shared account? Why do you care?

+1

[+NanCycle]

Here's a semi-hypothetical situation. I wonder how the OP would apply his rules to it.

 

A group finds a 5/5 puzzle scuba cache. Alice solves the truly mind-bending puzzle. Brian, Carol, and David put on scuba gear and search for the cache. Emily provided the boat and piloted it to the coordinates from Alice's solution. Frank holds the "diver down" flag until his arms get tired, then hands it to Alice. Alice holds the "diver down" flag for a while, then hands it to Emily, who attaches it to her boat so no one has to hold it any longer. Brian finds and retrieves the cache, and hands it to Frank who unseals the container, writes everyone's names on the log, and carefully reseals the container. Carol takes the resealed container from Frank, and she and David make one last dive together to reattach the container to its underwater anchor. Alice and Brian help Carol and David back into the boat, Frank weighs anchor, and Emily starts the boat's engine.

 

Who gets to post a Find online? Does it matter if any of the group members have a shared account? Why do you care?

 

Nancy is afraid of the water (or there just wasn't room in the boat for one more person) and was watching and video-recording from the shore; in addition she drove the whole group to the lake (or wherever).

Edited February 6, 2015 by NanCycle

[+Profbrad]

Here's a semi-hypothetical situation. I wonder how the OP would apply his rules to it.

 

A group finds a 5/5 puzzle scuba cache. Alice solves the truly mind-bending puzzle. Brian, Carol, and David put on scuba gear and search for the cache. Emily provided the boat and piloted it to the coordinates from Alice's solution. Frank holds the "diver down" flag until his arms get tired, then hands it to Alice. Alice holds the "diver down" flag for a while, then hands it to Emily, who attaches it to her boat so no one has to hold it any longer. Brian finds and retrieves the cache, and hands it to Frank who unseals the container, writes everyone's names on the log, and carefully reseals the container. Carol takes the resealed container from Frank, and she and David make one last dive together to reattach the container to its underwater anchor. Alice and Brian help Carol and David back into the boat, Frank weighs anchor, and Emily starts the boat's engine.

 

Who gets to post a Find online? Does it matter if any of the group members have a shared account? Why do you care?

 

My answer is simple: none of them (but Alice is closest, then Brian)!

 

To claim the cache, I think it's reasonable to expect a person to have solved the puzzle and dived down to get the cache. I care for me, ultimately. But wouldn't it be helpful to you and others to have a defensible, coherent approach to the hobby? Please don't post that I'm telling you or others what to do. I'm not. What I am thinking is that the community probably could articulate a set of spirit of geocaching "rules" or guidelines, whether they're mine or your or someone else's.

[+redsox_mark]

I accept there are unwritten "ethics" of the game; some of which are widely shared. And that newbies ask these questions. I've had newbies at events ask me things like:

 

- If I hide a cache, is it OK to tell my friends where it is before it is published and let them sign as First to Find?

 

To which I will tell them my opinion - that it is best not to do that, as it would annoy many cachers who like to get FTFs.

 

But another cacher might tell them "Sure, go ahead.. the FTF game is stupid anyway, don't worry about what anyone says".

 

Same thing if someone asks me is it OK to get help with a puzzle, or get help climbing a tree. They will get my opinion. If we are in a group, they may get other opinions too. There may be a debate.

 

So while I say there are ethics which are widely shared, they are not universally shared, and I'm not sure trying to get a consensus list of them written down helps. As others have said, keep it simple, have fun.

[+Profbrad]

But beyond that, how should we play?

 

We should play the game with the knowledge that simplicity is to be valued, and there is a difference between style and ethics.

 

As a matter of style, we may disagree about how much help is overwhelming, whether a log has to be signed personally in every situation, how and with what instruments is a log to be signed, whether being with the CO when they place a cache constitutes a find, whether helping someone up a tree is enough to warrant a find, or any other topic that is discussed here from time to time. But the question of ethics is far different.

 

As a matter of ethics, the approach taken by thebruce0 is not a bad place to start: "Do onto others . . ." So yes, I think we should play with the understanding that sometimes our actions can affect others -- so we do not post spoilers; we trade even or up; we return the container as it was hidden; we respect one another, those whom we meet along the way, and the earth itself.

 

Either that or we should be subject to random drug tests so that we can be assured that each find that is claimed was made with an equal playing field rather than performance enhancing drugs.

 

It's not about enforcement!

 

The Do Unto Others actually doesn't help things. If my standards are very different than yours, we're going to bump into each others. Much better that we come together, talk it over, reach consensus on some things, and leave the better for it.

[+thebruce0]

It's not about enforcement by others. The question is can we define a defensible way to play that conforms to the spirit of the activity, not just to the official rules? I understand that not everyone is interested in this question and that is fine. I'm not sure why they're posting on this thread, but whatever.

When you imply "right" and "wrong ways" in the context of subjective ethics, then you essentially are enforcing a ruleset - by guilting others who are playing the "wrong" way, against your ethics.

 

I'm NOT trying to impose anything on anyone. I'm asking for a discussion.

...and thus the geocaching ethics debate rages on, mostly with the same forum people, with no hope for a solution in sight - because there is nothing to solve. The minimal objective "rules" exist as they do because this subjective discussion is entirely unsolvable.

 

Discussion towards some destination is good, but this topic gets rehashed and revived every time someone posts a new thread about something they don't like. You just happen to cover the entire gamut of geocaching ethics in this post

 

Discussion for the sake of discussion is great, sure. But this thread won't solve anything, and has a much greater chance of stirring up quarrels among people with clashing ethics. That's about all that's going to happen here, I'd wager...

 

The Do Unto Others actually doesn't help things. If my standards are very different than yours, we're going to bump into each others. Much better that we come together, talk it over, reach consensus on some things, and leave the better for it.

 

Do Unto Others in the sense that - what do you want most? To enjoy geocaching. So, leave where you've been in such a way as to let the most people enjoy their experience after you. How you do geocaching immediately is up to you. How you leave everything for those that follow is what's important. Declaring your own ethics as a standard for right and wrong is not. (do you want others to tell you you're doing something wrong, let alone call you out on it, just because they do it differently? That's a recipe for angry argument)

This isn't morality, this is just subjective etiquette and ethics that differs from person to person and region to region, above and beyond the basic, standard, universal rule set that Groundspeak promotes.

 

I accept there are unwritten "ethics" of the game; some of which are widely shared. And that newbies ask these questions. I've had newbies at events ask me things like:

 

- If I hide a cache, is it OK to tell my friends where it is before it is published and let them sign as First to Find?

 

To which I will tell them my opinion - that it is best not to do that, as it would annoy many cachers who like to get FTFs.

 

But another cacher might tell them "Sure, go ahead.. the FTF game is stupid anyway, don't worry about what anyone says".

 

Same thing if someone asks me is it OK to get help with a puzzle, or get help climbing a tree. They will get my opinion. If we are in a group, they may get other opinions too. There may be a debate.

 

So while I say there are ethics which are widely shared, they are not universally shared, and I'm not sure trying to get a consensus list of them written down helps. As others have said, keep it simple, have fun.

Spot on.

Edited February 6, 2015 by thebruce0

[+niraD]

My answer is simple: none of them (but Alice is closest, then Brian)!

Then it's a good thing that Alice and Brian use a shared account, huh? (Oh, wait...)

 

But wouldn't it be helpful to you and others to have a defensible, coherent approach to the hobby?

Sure. If I'm involved in the cache hunt, and the cache is found as a result of that effort, then I post an online Find. That seems pretty defensible and coherent to me.

 

As a bonus, I don't have to worry about whether I physically wrote my name on the log, or whether others' contributions to the search represented "overwhelming assistance", or whether others in the group were using shared accounts, individual accounts, or both.

[+CanadianRockies]

My main motivation for hiding caches is to give enjoyment to others rather myself. It's a way of giving back to the community for all that they have given me.

That has been also my motivation for years. However now there are so many in the community which seem to have a completely different activity than mine and which have not given anything positive to me and just cause me frustration (many of them do not own a single cache by the way).

First, there are other ways to give back to the geocaching community other than hiding caches.

 

Second, just because I enjoy giving back to the community doesn't mean I expect everyone to enjoy doing so.

 

It's hard to give something back to those with whom I still feel to have something in common with respect to geocaching (this does not need to be that we prefer the same caches) while not getting completely frustrated and demovivated by the others.

It doesn't demotivate me when people enjoy geocaching differently than I do. Actually, that's one of the features of geocaching that I very much appreciate: different folks can enjoy the activity differently.

 

I have lived through many moments within the last two years where I was just a few seconds away from archiving certain of my caches or all of them.

I'm sorry you have felt this way. Again, I suspect I take a more relaxed attitude towards many geocaching behaviors than you do.

[+niraD]

If my standards are very different than yours, we're going to bump into each others.

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

I've been on group geocaching trips where most people were content to have someone else write their name (or an informal group name) on the log. But one person wanted to sign each log himself.

 

Oh, no! Our standards are very different! What shall we do?! We're bumping into each other!

 

So the person signing on behalf of the group handed the log to the person who wanted to sign it himself, and we moved on to the next cache. Lather, rinse, repeat. And everyone had a good time geocaching that day.

[+geodarts]

Here's a semi-hypothetical situation. I wonder how the OP would apply his rules to it.

 

A group finds a 5/5 puzzle scuba cache. Alice solves the truly mind-bending puzzle. Brian, Carol, and David put on scuba gear and search for the cache. Emily provided the boat and piloted it to the coordinates from Alice's solution. Frank holds the "diver down" flag until his arms get tired, then hands it to Alice. Alice holds the "diver down" flag for a while, then hands it to Emily, who attaches it to her boat so no one has to hold it any longer. Brian finds and retrieves the cache, and hands it to Frank who unseals the container, writes everyone's names on the log, and carefully reseals the container. Carol takes the resealed container from Frank, and she and David make one last dive together to reattach the container to its underwater anchor. Alice and Brian help Carol and David back into the boat, Frank weighs anchor, and Emily starts the boat's engine.

 

Who gets to post a Find online? Does it matter if any of the group members have a shared account? Why do you care?

 

My answer is simple: none of them (but Alice is closest, then Brian)!

 

To claim the cache, I think it's reasonable to expect a person to have solved the puzzle and dived down to get the cache. I care for me, ultimately. But wouldn't it be helpful to you and others to have a defensible, coherent approach to the hobby? Please don't post that I'm telling you or others what to do. I'm not. What I am thinking is that the community probably could articulate a set of spirit of geocaching "rules" or guidelines, whether they're mine or your or someone else's.

 

I would not raise an eyebrow if all of them claimed a find, except for David of course because he has stated he will only log finds in certain situations that this would not include.

 

There have been attempts to articulate a spirit of geocaching, such as The Cacher's Creed. But I suspect that the spirit of the game has almost as many meanings as there are cachers. I don't agree with everything that Groundspeak decides, but if we both are using their site, we both are agreeing to play by their rules. We can discuss whether specific rules need to be changed, and there is space on the forum for that. That is enough for me.

 

The Do Unto Others actually doesn't help things. If my standards are very different than yours, we're going to bump into each others. Much better that we come together, talk it over, reach consensus on some things, and leave the better for it.

 

There is certainly no reason for that. We can respect our differences. You can decide whether you would be happy caching with either myself or my friends. I can decide the same. At an event we could have a great discussion where we could agree to disagree. I assume you would not do anything that would get into ethics, like armchairing my earthcache at the Great Gallery in Utah when you were in Vermont at the time. That is the type of thing that would make me bump into someone else.

Edited February 6, 2015 by geodarts

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Here's a semi-hypothetical situation. I wonder how the OP would apply his rules to it.

 

A group finds a 5/5 puzzle scuba cache. Alice solves the truly mind-bending puzzle. Brian, Carol, and David put on scuba gear and search for the cache. Emily provided the boat and piloted it to the coordinates from Alice's solution. Frank holds the "diver down" flag until his arms get tired, then hands it to Alice. Alice holds the "diver down" flag for a while, then hands it to Emily, who attaches it to her boat so no one has to hold it any longer. Brian finds and retrieves the cache, and hands it to Frank who unseals the container, writes everyone's names on the log, and carefully reseals the container. Carol takes the resealed container from Frank, and she and David make one last dive together to reattach the container to its underwater anchor. Alice and Brian help Carol and David back into the boat, Frank weighs anchor, and Emily starts the boat's engine.

 

Who gets to post a Find online? Does it matter if any of the group members have a shared account? Why do you care?

 

You forgot John, who just sits in the boat and drinks beer the whole time but was thoughtful enough to bring enough beer for everyone for the celebration when they get back to shore.

 

Let's throw a little twist into the scenario. When Frank unseals the container he discovers that the seal has been compromised, the log is a mushy mess, and nobody can find anything in the boat to use as a replacement. When Carol and David dive back down, David takes a picture with an underwater camera as "proof" that they found the cache.

Edited February 6, 2015 by NYPaddleCacher

[+barefootjeff]

I have no problem with another person signing my name, while i'm in his/her presence, in a logbook on caches that i can reach myself. Someone else writing my name in a log in a cache that i cannot reach myself, is not a find for me. You climbing a tree and dropping a cache down to me is not a find in my book. I'll make the climb myself and reach the cache or it'll be a DNF. This is one of those things that's very easy to figure out, at least for me.

 

Now you're making me feel guilty, as on a few occasions I've done just that . We're not all young, tall and agile; what might be an easy climb up a tree or out on a ledge for a twenty-year-old could be perilous for someone my age. On top of that, I have an inner-ear problem that's wrecked my sense of balance, so climbing in situations where I could overbalance and fall is a no-no. I wouldn't claim a find if the sole purpose of the cache was to climb a tree or a cliff, but where it's just a small element at the end of a multi or long hike, well if a friend helps me over the final hurdle and passes down the log for me to sign, I'll claim a smiley, but will always state in my on-line log that I've had that assistance and if a CO finds it unacceptable then I'll happily delete my log or change it to a WN or DNF. So far that hasn't happened.

[+cerberus1]

I have no problem with another person signing my name, while i'm in his/her presence, in a logbook on caches that i can reach myself. Someone else writing my name in a log in a cache that i cannot reach myself, is not a find for me. You climbing a tree and dropping a cache down to me is not a find in my book. I'll make the climb myself and reach the cache or it'll be a DNF. This is one of those things that's very easy to figure out, at least for me.

 

Now you're making me feel guilty, as on a few occasions I've done just that . We're not all young, tall and agile; what might be an easy climb up a tree or out on a ledge for a twenty-year-old could be perilous for someone my age. On top of that, I have an inner-ear problem that's wrecked my sense of balance, so climbing in situations where I could overbalance and fall is a no-no. I wouldn't claim a find if the sole purpose of the cache was to climb a tree or a cliff, but where it's just a small element at the end of a multi or long hike, well if a friend helps me over the final hurdle and passes down the log for me to sign, I'll claim a smiley, but will always state in my on-line log that I've had that assistance and if a CO finds it unacceptable then I'll happily delete my log or change it to a WN or DNF. So far that hasn't happened.

We see that often when caching with others, doing 4+ terrain multis with a few puzzle stages mixed in.

The brainiacs solve the high D stages (I'm dyslexic as heck) and I'll hit the terrain hides for those with mobility/fear issues.

We always mention "with the help of..." in our logs.

Never heard from a CO about having fun caching as a team, and never heard of it being "unethical" anywhere, until reading others opinions in these forums.

[+Profbrad]

My answer is simple: none of them (but Alice is closest, then Brian)!

Then it's a good thing that Alice and Brian use a shared account, huh? (Oh, wait...)

 

But wouldn't it be helpful to you and others to have a defensible, coherent approach to the hobby?

Sure. If I'm involved in the cache hunt, and the cache is found as a result of that effort, then I post an online Find. That seems pretty defensible and coherent to me.

 

As a bonus, I don't have to worry about whether I physically wrote my name on the log, or whether others' contributions to the search represented "overwhelming assistance", or whether others in the group were using shared accounts, individual accounts, or both.

 

Choosing to ignore the issues is not the same as there not being an issue. The fact that people play how they want to play doesn't move us toward figuring out how they ought to play (if that's possible).

[+CanadianRockies]

But wouldn't it be helpful to you and others to have a defensible, coherent approach to the hobby?

Sure. If I'm involved in the cache hunt, and the cache is found as a result of that effort, then I post an online Find. That seems pretty defensible and coherent to me.

 

As a bonus, I don't have to worry about whether I physically wrote my name on the log, or whether others' contributions to the search represented "overwhelming assistance", or whether others in the group were using shared accounts, individual accounts, or both.

Choosing to ignore the issues is not the same as there not being an issue. The fact that people play how they want to play doesn't move us toward figuring out how they ought to play (if that's possible).

But I still haven't seen an explanation of why everyone ought to play your way rather than niraD's way. I, too, sometimes hunt in groups where we find caches as a team rather than individually, where one group member might sign the log for everyone, and where some accounts might include multiple people.

 

You might opt to play geocaching as an individual activity, and that's okay. Others might opt to play geocaching as a more team activity (at least at times). I don't understand why that's not okay, too.

[+tozainamboku]

I don't know what made your rules "better." It looks like wat you were after was quite different.

 

Pointing out that this is a fun activity is not an argument against adopting some standards.

There's no doubt, I've never hidden my disdain for people who believe the almighty WIGAS point (i.e, online find log) needs to be defended against some kind of abuse and demand some minimal standard so your finds are comparable to my finds or whatever.

 

I think it is absurd to to burden a fun light activity with arbritrary opinions about when an online log is earned. It is perfectly acceptable to say "here are the standards I use when deciding to log a find online". But I don't have any sympathy for someone trying to force their standard on others. Too bad if your knickers are twisted because I logged finds on a group hike when I wasn't actually the first to spot any caches.

 

I'm even disdainful of the guidelines Keystone posted; mainly because they are worded in a way that appeals to those who are demanding standards. You know what changed in 2009? Prior to that, individual cache owners could set up what ever rules they wanted for their cache. These were often called "Additional Logging Requirements" because the went above and beyond simply finding the cache and signing the log. The guidelines were written specifically to forbid cache owner from having additional requirements (although the can still make optional requests). The guidelines simply prevent owners from deleting logs once someone has signed the log.

 

It may be that the new guidelines cause more problems then they solved. There may be more owners who will insist on having the log signed (even in those case where your proposal says you should still be able to log a find), and there may be more case of people who log online when someone else has written their name in the log (and where you may feel they didn't actually find the cache). I don't let this get in my way of enjoing geocaching. I'm sorry your underwear is twisted because others refuse to play your way. Perhaps geocaching is not for you. Why not take up a sport with rules like how much air to put in the football; we'll see how that one gets enforced

[+K13]

Something that is an issue to one person may be no issue at all to many others.

 

"...figuring out how they ought to play..."

It seems that according to Groundspeak, people ought to play as described in Keystone's posts earlier, not according to the suggestions in the OP.

[+niraD]

If I'm involved in the cache hunt, and the cache is found as a result of that effort, then I post an online Find. That seems pretty defensible and coherent to me.

 

As a bonus, I don't have to worry about whether I physically wrote my name on the log, or whether others' contributions to the search represented "overwhelming assistance", or whether others in the group were using shared accounts, individual accounts, or both.

Choosing to ignore the issues is not the same as there not being an issue. The fact that people play how they want to play doesn't move us toward figuring out how they ought to play (if that's possible).

See, that's the thing. I don't think it's really an issue whether I wrote my name on the log, or someone else wrote my name on the log, or someone in the group wrote an informal team name on the log. And I don't think it's an issue whether I contributed more to a search effort than someone else, or whether either of us contributed enough to earn a smiley (by someone else's arbitrary standards). And I don't think it's an issue whether others use shared accounts, individual accounts, both, or neither.

 

You're the one who seems to think there's an issue with such things. Maybe that's because I'm choosing to ignore the issue. But as long as I'm having fun geocaching, and as long as the people around me are having fun geocaching, I really don't care.

 

Although do I wonder why you do seem to care so much that others are having fun wrong.

[+Profbrad]

I don't know what made your rules "better." It looks like wat you were after was quite different.

 

Pointing out that this is a fun activity is not an argument against adopting some standards.

There's no doubt, I've never hidden my disdain for people who believe the almighty WIGAS point (i.e, online find log) needs to be defended against some kind of abuse and demand some minimal standard so your finds are comparable to my finds or whatever.

 

I think it is absurd to to burden a fun light activity with arbritrary opinions about when an online log is earned. It is perfectly acceptable to say "here are the standards I use when deciding to log a find online". But I don't have any sympathy for someone trying to force their standard on others. Too bad if your knickers are twisted because I logged finds on a group hike when I wasn't actually the first to spot any caches.

 

I'm even disdainful of the guidelines Keystone posted; mainly because they are worded in a way that appeals to those who are demanding standards. You know what changed in 2009? Prior to that, individual cache owners could set up what ever rules they wanted for their cache. These were often called "Additional Logging Requirements" because the went above and beyond simply finding the cache and signing the log. The guidelines were written specifically to forbid cache owner from having additional requirements (although the can still make optional requests). The guidelines simply prevent owners from deleting logs once someone has signed the log.

 

It may be that the new guidelines cause more problems then they solved. There may be more owners who will insist on having the log signed (even in those case where your proposal says you should still be able to log a find), and there may be more case of people who log online when someone else has written their name in the log (and where you may feel they didn't actually find the cache). I don't let this get in my way of enjoing geocaching. I'm sorry your underwear is twisted because others refuse to play your way. Perhaps geocaching is not for you. Why not take up a sport with rules like how much air to put in the football; we'll see how that one gets enforced

 

Alright enough with the personal attacks. Act like an adult.

[+Profbrad]

If I'm involved in the cache hunt, and the cache is found as a result of that effort, then I post an online Find. That seems pretty defensible and coherent to me.

 

As a bonus, I don't have to worry about whether I physically wrote my name on the log, or whether others' contributions to the search represented "overwhelming assistance", or whether others in the group were using shared accounts, individual accounts, or both.

Choosing to ignore the issues is not the same as there not being an issue. The fact that people play how they want to play doesn't move us toward figuring out how they ought to play (if that's possible).

See, that's the thing. I don't think it's really an issue whether I wrote my name on the log, or someone else wrote my name on the log, or someone in the group wrote an informal team name on the log. And I don't think it's an issue whether I contributed more to a search effort than someone else, or whether either of us contributed enough to earn a smiley (by someone else's arbitrary standards). And I don't think it's an issue whether others use shared accounts, individual accounts, both, or neither.

 

You're the one who seems to think there's an issue with such things. Maybe that's because I'm choosing to ignore the issue. But as long as I'm having fun geocaching, and as long as the people around me are having fun geocaching, I really don't care.

 

Although do I wonder why you do seem to care so much that others are having fun wrong.

 

If you don't see the issue and don't care, then move on.

[+GeoTrekker26]

And I imagine people are deeply invested in whatever way they've been playing for years and that makes this discussion extra threatening.

 

LOL. You give yourself too much credit; there is nothing threatening about this discussion. In fact it's humorous that you want to project the way you (want to) play the game on others. If you want to do that set up your own website and invite people to publish their geocaches on your site. Guidelines are already in place and like the US Constitution at time they are deliberately vague or even mute on a point, allowing flexibility for the volunteer reviewers and membership paid and free cachers.

 

Perhaps you would be more comfortable with a hobby that has more structure and that is fine. I hope you can enjoy caching the way it is. There is no need to rewrite the texts that have developed over ~15 years. There is no singular way that caching "ought to be played." There is no cheating in caching because there are no winners, losers or scoreboards. Why, because it is not a competition.

[+niraD]

If you don't see the issue and don't care, then move on.

Just because I don't see the issues that you seem concerned about doesn't mean that I don't see some other issues raised in this thread... perhaps even more important issues than the ones you seem concerned about.

 

And who said anyone has to see an issue before they can contribute to a discussion here?

[+K13]

If I'm involved in the cache hunt, and the cache is found as a result of that effort, then I post an online Find. That seems pretty defensible and coherent to me.

 

As a bonus, I don't have to worry about whether I physically wrote my name on the log, or whether others' contributions to the search represented "overwhelming assistance", or whether others in the group were using shared accounts, individual accounts, or both.

Choosing to ignore the issues is not the same as there not being an issue. The fact that people play how they want to play doesn't move us toward figuring out how they ought to play (if that's possible).

See, that's the thing. I don't think it's really an issue whether I wrote my name on the log, or someone else wrote my name on the log, or someone in the group wrote an informal team name on the log. And I don't think it's an issue whether I contributed more to a search effort than someone else, or whether either of us contributed enough to earn a smiley (by someone else's arbitrary standards). And I don't think it's an issue whether others use shared accounts, individual accounts, both, or neither.

 

You're the one who seems to think there's an issue with such things. Maybe that's because I'm choosing to ignore the issue. But as long as I'm having fun geocaching, and as long as the people around me are having fun geocaching, I really don't care.

 

Although do I wonder why you do seem to care so much that others are having fun wrong.

 

If you don't see the issue and don't care, then move on.

 

Maybe you should heed this guy's advice.

Alright enough with the personal attacks. Act like an adult.

[+niraD]

If you don't see the issue and don't care, then move on.

Maybe you should heed this guy's advice.

Alright enough with the personal attacks. Act like an adult.

And now I need to clean my computer display...

[+Touchstone]

If you don't see the issue and don't care, then move on.

 

Sadly, just another case of, "..if you don't agree with me, please don't respond to my thread...".

 

Unfortunately, the types of "ethics" that the OP suggest tend to sound like just another way of saying that there is some need to control behavior, which I firmly believe is doomed to failure.

 

Now if you want to discuss ways to design a cache that supports the premise of the OP, that might be an interesting and challenging task.

[+cerberus1]

Not agreeing on an issue doesn't mean one lacks an opinion.

Asking someone to "move on" when they don't agree's not happening. Especially here.

[+Profbrad]

What I said about moving on is not a personal attack nor it a sad case of anything. I'm (again) not trying to control anyone's behavior. Where do you get that? I won't rehash my other comments about the goal. They're there to be read.

[+Profbrad]

This "discussion" may have reached a predictably unproductive end. Thanks to all who weighed in. I appreciate your comments. They've given me some things to think about.

[+niraD]

Okay, let's look at your stated goal:

 

To those who interpret what I'm saying as trying to limit fun, well, no, that's not the goal. The goal is to flesh out some standards for the hobby. Why do that? To reduce misunderstandings that cause hard feelings. To help newbies understand what to do and not do. Etc. These are good things, right? For those who like to "do it their own way," I'd ask what other sport/ hobby / activity operates without some standards? I believe people have more fun when they know the rules of the game.

Sure, reducing misunderstandings is good. Reducing hard feelings is good. Helping newbies is good.

 

What makes you think your proposed rules will do any of that?

 

What makes you think geocaching doesn't already have standards, or that people don't know the existing rules of the game?

[+Mudfrog]

Here's a semi-hypothetical situation. I wonder how the OP would apply his rules to it.

 

A group finds a 5/5 puzzle scuba cache. Alice solves the truly mind-bending puzzle. Brian, Carol, and David put on scuba gear and search for the cache. Emily provided the boat and piloted it to the coordinates from Alice's solution. Frank holds the "diver down" flag until his arms get tired, then hands it to Alice. Alice holds the "diver down" flag for a while, then hands it to Emily, who attaches it to her boat so no one has to hold it any longer. Brian finds and retrieves the cache, and hands it to Frank who unseals the container, writes everyone's names on the log, and carefully reseals the container. Carol takes the resealed container from Frank, and she and David make one last dive together to reattach the container to its underwater anchor. Alice and Brian help Carol and David back into the boat, Frank weighs anchor, and Emily starts the boat's engine.

 

Who gets to post a Find online? Does it matter if any of the group members have a shared account? Why do you care?

+1

 

I don't care what you or others do in this situation. I respect that there was a team effort going there and have no problem with those involved logging their finds as they see fit. For myself, and even if i was on this team, i would not log the find unless i actually made the dive down to where the cache was placed.

 

Imo, there is still a difference in this and say, "leapfrogging". Sorry, but leapfrogging is not geocaching. People who do it are only kidding themselves when they somehow believe they are finding every cache on a power trail. The thing is, it's a practice that doesn't affect me in the least. I might roll my eyes but i certainly don't lose any sleep when i hear of it happening.

[+cerberus1]

Here's a semi-hypothetical situation. I wonder how the OP would apply his rules to it.

 

A group finds a 5/5 puzzle scuba cache. Alice solves the truly mind-bending puzzle. Brian, Carol, and David put on scuba gear and search for the cache. Emily provided the boat and piloted it to the coordinates from Alice's solution. Frank holds the "diver down" flag until his arms get tired, then hands it to Alice. Alice holds the "diver down" flag for a while, then hands it to Emily, who attaches it to her boat so no one has to hold it any longer. Brian finds and retrieves the cache, and hands it to Frank who unseals the container, writes everyone's names on the log, and carefully reseals the container. Carol takes the resealed container from Frank, and she and David make one last dive together to reattach the container to its underwater anchor. Alice and Brian help Carol and David back into the boat, Frank weighs anchor, and Emily starts the boat's engine.

 

Who gets to post a Find online? Does it matter if any of the group members have a shared account? Why do you care?

+1

 

I don't care what you or others do in this situation. I respect that there was a team effort going there and have no problem with those involved logging their finds as they see fit. For myself, and even if i was on this team, i would not log the find unless i actually made the dive down to where the cache was placed.

 

Imo, there is still a difference in this and say, "leapfrogging". Sorry, but leapfrogging is not geocaching. People who do it are only kidding themselves when they somehow believe they are finding every cache on a power trail. The thing is, it's a practice that doesn't affect me in the least. I might roll my eyes but i certainly don't lose any sleep when i hear of it happening.

So the only stipulation in team caching is you find the cache separately from others?

Seems odd (to me) to be so solid on the "finding" end, but have no reservations of having Alice solve the puzzle for you.

 

I agree, there's a big difference than a team functioning as above and leapfroggers, but since leapfroggers weren't even mentioned, why bring it up in your response?

[+Mudfrog]

Here's a semi-hypothetical situation. I wonder how the OP would apply his rules to it.

 

A group finds a 5/5 puzzle scuba cache. Alice solves the truly mind-bending puzzle. Brian, Carol, and David put on scuba gear and search for the cache. Emily provided the boat and piloted it to the coordinates from Alice's solution. Frank holds the "diver down" flag until his arms get tired, then hands it to Alice. Alice holds the "diver down" flag for a while, then hands it to Emily, who attaches it to her boat so no one has to hold it any longer. Brian finds and retrieves the cache, and hands it to Frank who unseals the container, writes everyone's names on the log, and carefully reseals the container. Carol takes the resealed container from Frank, and she and David make one last dive together to reattach the container to its underwater anchor. Alice and Brian help Carol and David back into the boat, Frank weighs anchor, and Emily starts the boat's engine.

 

Who gets to post a Find online? Does it matter if any of the group members have a shared account? Why do you care?

+1

 

I don't care what you or others do in this situation. I respect that there was a team effort going there and have no problem with those involved logging their finds as they see fit. For myself, and even if i was on this team, i would not log the find unless i actually made the dive down to where the cache was placed.

 

Imo, there is still a difference in this and say, "leapfrogging". Sorry, but leapfrogging is not geocaching. People who do it are only kidding themselves when they somehow believe they are finding every cache on a power trail. The thing is, it's a practice that doesn't affect me in the least. I might roll my eyes but i certainly don't lose any sleep when i hear of it happening.

So the only stipulation in team caching is you find the cache separately from others?

Seems odd (to me) to be so solid on the "finding" end, but have no reservations of having Alice solve the puzzle for you.

 

I agree, there's a big difference than a team functioning as above and leapfroggers, but since leapfroggers weren't even mentioned, why bring it up in your response?

 

Read that response twice but somehow missed the part about Alice being the only one to solve the puzzle. I do in fact have reservations about claiming a find on a cache that i didn't solve. I admit that i'll accept help from a CO on a harder cache but i won't log it as found unless i arrive at a solution.

 

On the leapfrogging, i'm just saying that there is no one size fits all for what people call, teamwork. Some will say that a team needs to be together to claim a find on a cache. Then there are some who think it's fine to split up and still have everyone in the team claim a find. Like many aspects of geocaching, there is no clear cut right and wrong. This is one reason why the OP's idea of incorporating some standard guidelines would be pretty tough to do.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

 

Pointing out that this is a fun activity is not an argument against adopting some standards.

What standards need to be adopted? That's just another way of saying "You don't play the way I do, so you are wrong in the way you play". It's been stated time and again: stop paying attention to how anyone else is playing and you're enjoyment of the game will increase 1000%. As soon as someone starts getting jealous of someone else's find count, they want to introduce a whole slew of "standards" to make it "fair".

[+Mudfrog]

I have no problem with another person signing my name, while i'm in his/her presence, in a logbook on caches that i can reach myself. Someone else writing my name in a log in a cache that i cannot reach myself, is not a find for me. You climbing a tree and dropping a cache down to me is not a find in my book. I'll make the climb myself and reach the cache or it'll be a DNF. This is one of those things that's very easy to figure out, at least for me.

 

Now you're making me feel guilty, as on a few occasions I've done just that . We're not all young, tall and agile; what might be an easy climb up a tree or out on a ledge for a twenty-year-old could be perilous for someone my age. On top of that, I have an inner-ear problem that's wrecked my sense of balance, so climbing in situations where I could overbalance and fall is a no-no. I wouldn't claim a find if the sole purpose of the cache was to climb a tree or a cliff, but where it's just a small element at the end of a multi or long hike, well if a friend helps me over the final hurdle and passes down the log for me to sign, I'll claim a smiley, but will always state in my on-line log that I've had that assistance and if a CO finds it unacceptable then I'll happily delete my log or change it to a WN or DNF. So far that hasn't happened.

We see that often when caching with others, doing 4+ terrain multis with a few puzzle stages mixed in.

The brainiacs solve the high D stages (I'm dyslexic as heck) and I'll hit the terrain hides for those with mobility/fear issues.

We always mention "with the help of..." in our logs.

Never heard from a CO about having fun caching as a team, and never heard of it being "unethical" anywhere, until reading others opinions in these forums.

 

My post above may not have come out the way i intended. I realize that most cachers, at least the ones i know, log some of their finds like this. Fact is, and i hope it doesn't sound like i'm being hypocritical, is that i know many who have done just these kinds of things on some of my harder caches. It doesn't bother me when people do this. I'm saying that this part of geocaching, determining what i think constitutes a find, was easy for me to figure out. I'm fairly strict with myself but i don't expect anyone else to be this way.

 

There are some things people do that i think are flat wrong and i don't mind voicing my opinion on them. This is not one of those things...

[+cerberus1]

On the leapfrogging, i'm just saying that there is no one size fits all for what people call, teamwork. Some will say that a team needs to be together to claim a find on a cache. Then there are some who think it's fine to split up and still have everyone in the team claim a find. Like many aspects of geocaching, there is no clear cut right and wrong. This is one reason why the OP's idea of incorporating some standard guidelines would be pretty tough to do.

Agreed.

We're of the "everyone stays together" opinion of a team find.