Ethics of Finding

6.8k · February 7, 2015

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.

Yes, I'm sure that you have a more relaxed attitude. I'm not a relaxed person regardless of the context.

However, I also think that my caches are more vulnerable than yours (except maybe your only surviving multi cache) - most of your mystery caches seem to be single stage challenge caches.

6.1k · February 7, 2015

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.

But the hard and fast rules you have suggested would exclude it if followed to the letter, and we all know that if those rules were adopted there would be COs out there who would apply them rigourously and disallow such a find.

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

I don't see the issue you're trying to address, though I do see issues with your proposed "solution", as do many others it seems. It's important we say our piece so that our views can be considered, otherwise the silence created by us all "moving on" could be taken as tacit approval for your additional rules.

February 7, 2015

Part of the reason I like this game is because I'm not in competition with anyone else. My finds are my finds, your finds are yours.

I love watching my numbers grow, but I pay little attention to how anyone else's grow.

As long as I am logging the caches in the way I feel is OK, and the CO doesn't care, than that is how the game should be played.

For those of you who feel this game is a contest between players, and want consistency and fairness, that's good, that's how you play. But geocaching was not and is not set up to be a competitive sport.

As long as I'm consistent to my own way of playing, it should not affect your way of play.

This! Couldn't have said it better. Thank you.

Any more complex rules just add the feeling of competition. The "official rules" should focus on giving guidelines about not spoiling the entire hobby of geocaching, so "find container, sign log, place container back as found, log online" is totally enough. Some other parts of the guidelines ("ask for permission of land owner", "local laws are valid", "don't damage things", "don't disturb others/nature/wildlife/...", "handle with care", "respect trading rules", "keep trackables in the game" etc.) is just a reminder to what should be obvious. No more specific rules needed for a non competitive game.

Yesterday I overheard a radio comment about a sport team (skiing, I think, didn't pay much attention) lost first place by 0,07 seconds. That is competition. I don't want this in geocaching.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Ben0w

February 7, 2015

Very interesting discussions. Something that's been on my mind throughout is how geocaching communities might to gravitate towards a set of ethics. This might not be the same set of ethics that other geocaching communities use, but it makes sense to some degree. Newer cachers in an area might look towards the more experienced cachers in an area as role models. I know I did when I started geocaching, and the ethics that the experienced cachers in my area had were imparted on my own caching behavior. That's not to say there weren't disagreements at times, but it seemed to be the case. And anyone who has hosted a "Geocaching 101" type event where the purpose is to educate newer cachers about the rules and guidelines, and just the fun of the hobby, will also realize that ethics usually comes up and you end up sharing your own opinions to the group of newer cachers. This is fairly natural, and not a bad thing, but you can certainly see some examples where one groups ideas are far different than others. As an example, there is a group of geocachers that hosts events with temporary caches hidden at them, and they allow/encourage people who find the temporary caches to log multiple "attended" logs for the event. The result is that a cacher can log 10s or hundreds of "attended" logs on the event, and make it appear that the event had thousands of attendees, even though it may have just had a few dozen or so. Occasionally, this kind of thing is brought up in the forums (oops, I'm doing it now) and people jump all over this community for their perceived lack of geocaching ethics. IMPORTANT: I am not passing judgement on this practice, nor am I bringing it up so others can do so. Please do not go off on a tangent because of this example. The point is, that community likes to play the game that way, and they share a sense of geocaching ethics that makes sense to them. And like others have mentioned in this thread, they should be allowed to play the game the way they see fit. So geocaching ethics can be a regional thing. You can support and even espouse your own ideology (geocaching or otherwise), but folks should have the freedom to choose for themselves how they see fit to play (or live).

10.2k · February 7, 2015

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.

But the hard and fast rules you have suggested would exclude it if followed to the letter, and we all know that if those rules were adopted there would be COs out there who would apply them rigourously and disallow such a find.

I've stayed out of this thread, but I read the OP, I think even before anyone replied. And yes, a situation such as TriciaG mentions is one of the first things that popped into my head.

I'm going to guesstimate about half of my finds have been while group caching. I will then go on to further guesstimate I haven't personally signed my name in about 700 logbooks.

4.5k · February 7, 2015

Part of the reason I like this game is because I'm not in competition with anyone else. My finds are my finds, your finds are yours.

I love watching my numbers grow, but I pay little attention to how anyone else's grow.

As long as I am logging the caches in the way I feel is OK, and the CO doesn't care, than that is how the game should be played.

For those of you who feel this game is a contest between players, and want consistency and fairness, that's good, that's how you play. But geocaching was not and is not set up to be a competitive sport.

As long as I'm consistent to my own way of playing, it should not affect your way of play.

This! Couldn't have said it better. Thank you.

Any more complex rules just add the feeling of competition. The "official rules" should focus on giving guidelines about not spoiling the entire hobby of geocaching, so "find container, sign log, place container back as found, log online" is totally enough. Some other parts of the guidelines ("ask for permission of land owner", "local laws are valid", "don't damage things", "don't disturb others/nature/wildlife/...", "handle with care", "respect trading rules", "keep trackables in the game" etc.) is just a reminder to what should be obvious. No more specific rules needed for a non competitive game.

Yesterday I overheard a radio comment about a sport team (skiing, I think, didn't pay much attention) lost first place by 0,07 seconds. That is competition. I don't want this in geocaching.

I totally agree! Unfortunately, there are many who can't figure it out, who don't care, or who purposely do these things see what they can get away with and/or to cause drama. We shouldn't need a guideline/rule reminding us to respect local laws, our surroundings, property owners, or our fellow cachers. These seem so obvious yet we see them happen everyday.

What's bad is, the things you mentioned are already part of the existing suggestions and guidelines. Even if we could somehow come up with standards, there would still be too many out there who'd ignore them and keep playing their own way.

3.1k · February 7, 2015

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.

Yes, I'm sure that you have a more relaxed attitude. I'm not a relaxed person regardless of the context.

However, I also think that my caches are more vulnerable than yours (except maybe your only surviving multi cache) - most of your mystery caches seem to be single stage challenge caches.

Even if you exclude our puzzle-less challenges, we still have 11 active mystery caches, which is more than twice your number. Many of our caches (traditionals, mystery, and multi) also involve field puzzles, which also makes them vulnerable to the type of behavior you might consider unethical abuse.

6.8k · February 7, 2015

Even if you exclude our puzzle-less challenges, we still have 11 active mystery caches, which is more than twice your number. Many of our caches (traditionals, mystery, and multi) also involve field puzzles, which also makes them vulnerable to the type of behavior you might consider unethical abuse.

What annoys me the most cannot arise at traditional, be it with or without fields puzzle. Unethical is not the proper term for what worries me.

In single stage caches the final of caches that are worth to be visited is typically chosen at a special location - for multi stage caches of the type I like them the most, it's the way to the final and what can be seen on the way but not the final which is everything the cache is about. For all my caches visiting the final skips almost all or sometimes all the cache is about. I did not have this impression in the case of a few caches of yours I looked at, but of course I might be mistaken.

The main reason why I do nor react relaxed about visits to my caches that leave out major parts of the cache is that it typically results in logs that frustrate me and also increases the traffic.

7.7k · February 7, 2015

Just like horses, you can lead a geocacher to an interesting spot, but you cannot make them pay attention to or appreciate the beauty, history, or significance to the spot. The more involved you make the process of logging the geocache out to be, the less likely they are to pay attention to their surrounding, because they're rushing to complete the task before they're out of time.

Trying to codify the ethics (I have an issue with the word too, but let's not go into semantics here) of the game, or to draw up rules for each and every situation, is a self defeating move. If there is a 1000 page document detailing rules and regulations, all that will mean is that a group of people will take great pleasure finding corner cases, loopholes, exploit them, and gleefully insist how it is entirely allowed in the rules. Look at law and tax code of any country. Sure, there's not as much at stake in geocaching, but just look at the passion poured into this thread and tell me with a straight face it won't happen.

I can't tell anyone not to try to control the behavior of others - that would be rather ironic, because then I'd be trying to control your behavior. I can only say that my personal view is that it leads only to frustration. Ultimately, we behave in ethical ways in geocaching and in other aspects of life because we seek the approval, or at least we seek to avoid the disdain, of our peers.

3.6k · February 7, 2015

Just like horses, you can lead a geocacher to an interesting spot, but you cannot make them pay attention to or appreciate the beauty, history, or significance to the spot. The more involved you make the process of logging the geocache out to be, the less likely they are to pay attention to their surrounding, because they're rushing to complete the task before they're out of time.

Trying to codify the ethics (I have an issue with the word too, but let's not go into semantics here) of the game, or to draw up rules for each and every situation, is a self defeating move. If there is a 1000 page document detailing rules and regulations, all that will mean is that a group of people will take great pleasure finding corner cases, loopholes, exploit them, and gleefully insist how it is entirely allowed in the rules. Look at law and tax code of any country. Sure, there's not as much at stake in geocaching, but just look at the passion poured into this thread and tell me with a straight face it won't happen.

I can't tell anyone not to try to control the behavior of others - that would be rather ironic, because then I'd be trying to control your behavior. I can only say that my personal view is that it leads only to frustration. Ultimately, we behave in ethical ways in geocaching and in other aspects of life because we seek the approval, or at least we seek to avoid the disdain, of our peers.

Wow... I have to agree with this.

6.8k · February 7, 2015

I can't tell anyone not to try to control the behavior of others - that would be rather ironic, because then I'd be trying to control your behavior. I can only say that my personal view is that it leads only to frustration.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but what drives me is not the attempt to control the behaviour of others. I guess the main issue is that until a few years ago it worked well to use geocaching such that it suits my interests and preferences well. I hide a hiking cache to appeal to those who like to hike and I enjoy if they report their experiences. If there existed a site where not only hikes are suggested, but those who went for the hike wrote interesting reports and uploaded nice photos, I would move all my hiking caches over there.

Analogously, I could imagine dedicated sites for my caches which have a different background than hiking. I'd like to focus on special audience and do not have to deal with the rest. Geocaching has somehow become much too diverse for me.

7.7k · February 7, 2015

I cannot speak for anyone else, but what drives me is not the attempt to control the behaviour of others. I guess the main issue is that until a few years ago it worked well to use geocaching such that it suits my interests and preferences well. I hide a hiking cache to appeal to those who like to hike and I enjoy if they report their experiences. If there existed a site where not only hikes are suggested, but those who went for the hike wrote interesting reports and uploaded nice photos, I would move all my hiking caches over there.

Analogously, I could imagine dedicated sites for my caches which have a different background than hiking. I'd like to focus on special audience and do not have to deal with the rest. Geocaching has somehow become much too diverse for me.

There are mountain biking where people post tracklogs, photos, discuss the difficulty, etc. I believe I came across several sites for hiking as well. If the hike is more important than the cache, that may be a more appropriate site.

If you hide a geocache, listed it on a geocaching site, and you want to restrict it to people interested in hiking, in my opinion, that is a failure right there. And it is about trying to control the behavior of others. If you're not a hiker, don't come to this cache. If you don't want to post nice photos and talk about your hike, don't come to this cache.

It may be more rewarding to think of it in another way. You hide a cache that requires hiking. Maybe someone coming out to look for this cache who is not really into hiking may discover that they enjoy hiking. I hide a few geocaches in what I think is an interesting spot. If just one geocacher finds it interesting and had fun, it's a success to me.

3.1k · February 8, 2015

The main reason why I do nor react relaxed about visits to my caches that leave out major parts of the cache is that it typically results in logs that frustrate me and also increases the traffic.

And we've come full circle. As I noted before, "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."

So I'm fine with more traffic, which generally means more people are enjoying my cache. And while I certainly appreciate nice logs, it doesn't frustrate me if someone who doesn't like writing logs jots "." or "TFTC." I mostly hide caches for their enjoyment, not mine.

7.5k · February 8, 2015

The main reason why I do nor react relaxed about visits to my caches that leave out major parts of the cache is that it typically results in logs that frustrate me and also increases the traffic.

And we've come full circle. As I noted before, "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."

So I'm fine with more traffic, which generally means more people are enjoying my cache. And while I certainly appreciate nice logs, it doesn't frustrate me if someone who doesn't like writing logs jots "." or "TFTC." I mostly hide caches for their enjoyment, not mine.

How do you know they are enjoying your cache if they simply write "TFTC". Or "Out caching with BillyBob, found 50 today."?

4.5k · February 8, 2015

The main reason why I do nor react relaxed about visits to my caches that leave out major parts of the cache is that it typically results in logs that frustrate me and also increases the traffic.

And we've come full circle. As I noted before, "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."

So I'm fine with more traffic, which generally means more people are enjoying my cache. And while I certainly appreciate nice logs, it doesn't frustrate me if someone who doesn't like writing logs jots "." or "TFTC." I mostly hide caches for their enjoyment, not mine.

How do you know they are enjoying your cache if they simply write "TFTC". Or "Out caching with BillyBob, found 50 today."?

I have a feeling that the main enjoyment for TFTC people comes from getting the smiley. That's what they're after and they probably don't even remember much about the cache itself.

3.1k · February 8, 2015

The main reason why I do nor react relaxed about visits to my caches that leave out major parts of the cache is that it typically results in logs that frustrate me and also increases the traffic.

And we've come full circle. As I noted before, "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."

So I'm fine with more traffic, which generally means more people are enjoying my cache. And while I certainly appreciate nice logs, it doesn't frustrate me if someone who doesn't like writing logs jots "." or "TFTC." I mostly hide caches for their enjoyment, not mine.

How do you know they are enjoying your cache if they simply write "TFTC". Or "Out caching with BillyBob, found 50 today."?

I said I wasn't frustrated by brief logs.

I said it was the more traffic that generally means more people are enjoying my cache. Most people enjoy finding caches; that's why they geocache. If more people find my cache, then it's likely that more people are enjoying my cache. Not guaranteed; just more likely.

Many of my cache finders have had kind things to say in their logs. And quite a few have awarded favorite points.

Edited February 8, 2015 by CanadianRockies

6.8k · February 8, 2015

There are mountain biking where people post tracklogs, photos, discuss the difficulty, etc. I believe I came across several sites for hiking as well. If the hike is more important than the cache, that may be a more appropriate site.

I have not encountered such sites in my area. There exist sites with route suggestions, but no user comments except maybe 1-2 feedbacks with stars or two words are available (even worse than on Waymarking).

All my caches and 95% of those that have been hidden in my area in the early years have been about the hike, the scenery, the history of the locations etc and never about the cache container and searching for containers. The big majority of cache owners liked hiking and being outdoors.

If you hide a geocache, listed it on a geocaching site, and you want to restrict it to people interested in hiking, in my opinion, that is a failure right there. And it is about trying to control the behavior of others. If you're not a hiker, don't come to this cache. If you don't want to post nice photos and talk about your hike, don't come to this cache.

I do not care whether they are interested into hiking. If they go for the hike, I'm fine with it. If they just visit the final, I'm not fine with it for the reasons I explained. Someone could go for a hike suggested on a hiking site for other reasons than enjoying hiking too, but what will not happen there that people report on having not gone for the hike and just having visited the starting or ending point (that fits well to the way Waymarking deals with hiking trails which I do not like at all).

It may be more rewarding to think of it in another way. You hide a cache that requires hiking.

That's exactly the problem with nearly all my caches. If just the final is visited, there is no real hiking required. Some require at least a walk from the nearest parking but the route taken then does not contain what's nice about about the area.

I'm not living in an area where one could walk/hike for several km without reaching roads, houses etc.

It's also certainly a reason why multi stage caches are more frequent in my coin of the world. It is not too uncommon that a multi cache invites for a walk/hike of say 8km and the cache container is hidden very close to the starting point where one returns after the walk/hike. When people share the final coordinates and just visit the final (which typically will be hidden at a quite uncharacteristic and no special place at all to make it less vulnerable to muggles while the nice places will be shown along the way)

it's something completely different the people experience and log.

There are cachers who do not enjoy logging and some never upload photos, I can live with that (despite the fact that I of course enjoy reading longer individual logs, regardless of whether they are positive or not). What frustrates me (and that's the reason why it is connected to this thread) is if cachers log a found it for a cache they have not in the slightest dealt with and do not even know what it is really about.

Maybe someone coming out to look for this cache who is not really into hiking may discover that they enjoy hiking. I hide a few geocaches in what I think is an interesting spot. If just one geocacher finds it interesting and had fun, it's a success to me.

If you hide traditionals in an interesting spot, it's a completely different situation to what I'm talking about.

Edited February 8, 2015 by cezanne

6.8k · February 8, 2015

So I'm fine with more traffic, which generally means more people are enjoying my cache.

More traffic is an issue when sensible locations are involved where it is preferable when only people go there who have a real interest and know what is waiting for them and know what the cache is about.

Moreover, the locations where people park to park as closest to the final are often not suitable for parking and in this way they attract unnecessary attention of the residents nearby, of hunters and other local people.

Edited February 8, 2015 by cezanne

7.3k · February 8, 2015

In the opening post there are 7 numbered points and nine more (some duplicates).

Here's my agree/disagree/maybe response, without specifying what I agree/disagree/maybe to:

yes \\\ 3

maybe \\\\ 4

no \\\ \\\ \\\ 9

I has got some kinda finding ethics, but mine are quite different from yours.

Just an observation.

1.2k · February 8, 2015

The OP arrived with around 16 proposed ethical conclusions. Almost all of these have been debated in individual threads here ad infinitum, sometimes for years. There has never been consensus in ANY of these individual threads. Nor should any be expected. Consolidating them all into one tract is unwieldy and only serves to complicate the possibility of having a reasonable structured discussion.

Going off and leaving in a huff after dropping this ill-advised bomb here does not add value either.

BTW, I happen to agree with a lot of the OP's points. However, others may not, and that is okay.

Prof cheech

6.8k · February 8, 2015

It's a way of giving back to the community for all that they have given me.

I thought a while about this statement and about the meaning of community. It appears to me that a lot of aspects that are discussed in this thread and others and the fact that there is no concensus boils down that people have different communities in mind.

There are meanwhile many cachers who take part in a completely different activity than I do - I do not belong to the same community as they do. The simple fact that they all use gc.com does not turn them into a community.

It feels a bit like a garden party where every participants brings along something, a cake, a salad, a bottle of wine etc and then someone passes by on the street, enters the garden, take a piece of cake because he likes to eat cakes and there are not cakes offered at other places and then leaves. Of course the example does not fully fit the setting, but maybe it can explain how I feel when I cachers share final coordinates of multi caches and mystery caches with the argument that they are just interested into searching and finding boxes.

3.1k · February 8, 2015

It's a way of giving back to the community for all that they have given me.

I thought a while about this statement and about the meaning of community. It appears to me that a lot of aspects that are discussed in this thread and others and the fact that there is no concensus boils down that people have different communities in mind.

There are meanwhile many cachers who take part in a completely different activity than I do - I do not belong to the same community as they do. The simple fact that they all use gc.com does not turn them into a community.

Using gc.com doesn't turn them into the community you have in mind, but (as you noted) different people can have different communities in mind.

I hide my caches mostly for my local geocaching community, since they are the folks who are most likely to find them. But I also hide them for the broader gc.com community, since everyone with access to that website are free to come and search for my caches (which get international visitors). I do belong to the same community as they do (using the type of "community" I have in mind), since we share a common interest in geocaching.

It feels a bit like a garden party where every participants brings along something, a cake, a salad, a bottle of wine etc and then someone passes by on the street, enters the garden, take a piece of cake because he likes to eat cakes and there are not cakes offered at other places and then leaves. Of course the example does not fully fit the setting, but maybe it can explain how I feel when I cachers share final coordinates of multi caches and mystery caches with the argument that they are just interested into searching and finding boxes.

I disagree that it's like a garden party where every participant brings along something. Even in your region, no geocacher is required to hide caches (i.e., they can eat cake without having to bring wine). Maybe in your region such geocachers aren't welcome, but in my area I'm pleased that we aren't so exclusive.

If somebody wants to hide a cache in our area, then they certainly can do so, and most of us probably will appreciate it (even if it isn't our favorite kind of hide). But if somebody doesn't want to hide a cache, then that's also okay; they're still welcome to find geocaches. Personally, I wouldn't want someone to hide a cache if they didn't enjoy doing so. Such caches are less likely to be maintained well, are less likely to be special caches, and might occupy a location where someone else might enjoy placing a cache.

Groundspeak also welcomes geocachers who don't hide caches. It's not a requirement for having a membership, regardless of how many finds a person might have. Groundspeak's current guidelines don't allow challenges to require hiding caches. And even non-challenge caches aren't allowed to "seed" hides by finders. I'm glad Groundspeak welcomes non-hiders and opens their garden party to all.

3.1k · February 8, 2015

So I'm fine with more traffic, which generally means more people are enjoying my cache.

More traffic is an issue when sensible [sic] locations are involved where it is preferable when only people go there who have a real interest and know what is waiting for them and know what the cache is about.

Personally, I generally try to avoid placing caches in sensitive locations.

7.5k · February 8, 2015

BTW, I happen to agree with a lot of the OP's points. However, others may not, and that is okay.

I agree that I'd recommend geocaching along the lines the OP suggests, I just disagree completely that it's a matter of ethics. In other words, we shouldn't discuss whether they're right, but, rather, how each alternative makes the game better or worse.

In particular, I claim that the ethical question here is based on the premise that counting finds is really, really important, so we shouldn't let anyone count a find we don't think they deserve (or, at least, they should feel unethical about it). I think that premise is wrong, but, more to the point, having established that counting finds is really, really important, you do more to encourage people to claim those really, really important finds when they shouldn't regardless of your ethical argument about any specific point.

6.8k · February 8, 2015

I do belong to the same community as they do (using the type of "community" I have in mind), since we share a common interest in geocaching.

The point I tried to make is that what geocaching means to these different groups is so different, that it is no longer a common interest. In my opinion there are many subcommunities and there is no community at large any longer.

For example I cannot find anything essential a number cacher and a cacher like Lone.R have in common.

I disagree that it's like a garden party where every participant brings along something. Even in your region, no geocacher is required to hide caches (i.e., they can eat cake without having to bring wine).

Of course not, but it was not about hiding caches. I explained that my example fits only some aspects. The stress was not on attending a party as guest without bringing along something, but on passing as a not invited person and taking away some cake and arguing that there is not enough cake elsewhere so that it is justified to take away a cake whereone one encounters one.

The argument that it is ok to e.g. visit only the final of a 30km hiking cache because one does not like hiking and just enjoys finding cache containers is as lame in my eyes than the cake example above.

Edited February 8, 2015 by cezanne

10.1k · February 9, 2015

In the opening post there are 7 numbered points and nine more (some duplicates).

Here's my agree/disagree/maybe response, without specifying what I agree/disagree/maybe to:

yes \\\ 3

maybe \\\\ 4

no \\\ \\\ \\\ 9

I has got some kinda finding ethics, but mine are quite different from yours.

Just an observation.

I will have to agree with you. Some ideas are good. Many are not.

I thought I was a purist! But the OP has gone overboard. I realize that they were just thoughts, but they are presented as irrefutable: This is what must be!

Most of my finds are with my caching companion. One or the other of us finds the cache. One or the other of us signs both names. I solve the mystery caches. We both find them. (Wouldn't be worth hunting for them otherwise.)

The only caches that have

4. The find was made by following any specific rules in the cache description.

are Webcams, Virtuals, Challenges and EarthCaches. Anything else is an ALR.

In fact, following he OP's rules, we would NOT go geocaching!

On the other fin, I do look down upon large groups who meet to find all the mystery caches that only one has solved. But, I do not delete such finds. I merely look down my snout at them. So, I am not sure where to draw the line there. When we cache with my brother and sister, one of us finds the cache, and signs the names. But we have all 'found' the cache.

The guideline (which is not actually found in the guidelines) is "Sign Log. Log on-line."

Have I logged archived caches? Yes. They were archived after I downloaded by GPX, and they were still there.

Did I climb the abandoned water tower when someone noted that they would bring along the ladder? Yup! Group of fifteen.

Interesting proposals, perhaps, but mostly unviable. And not in the spirit of the game.

3.1k · February 9, 2015

I do belong to the same community as they do (using the type of "community" I have in mind), since we share a common interest in geocaching.

The point I tried to make is that what geocaching means to these different groups is so different, that it is no longer a common interest. In my opinion there are many subcommunities and there is no community at large any longer.

For example I cannot find anything essential a number cacher and a cacher like Lone.R have in common.

An essential aspect of geocaching that I suspect most geocachers share is finding caches. Just because you don't see a common interest doesn't mean there isn't one. Just because you don't consider gc.com geocachers to be a community doesn't prevent others from considering it to be a community.

You have your own view of the world, and that's okay. I hope you can respect other peoples' views enough to understand how they might see hiding caches as "a way of giving back to the community for all that they have given me." But if you can't, that's okay.

I disagree that it's like a garden party where every participant brings along something. Even in your region, no geocacher is required to hide caches (i.e., they can eat cake without having to bring wine).

Of course not, but it was not about hiding caches.

Of course it was about hiding caches. Here's my comment that caused you to make your garden party analogy:

As I noted before, "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."

Edited February 9, 2015 by CanadianRockies

7.7k · February 9, 2015

An essential aspect of geocaching that I suspect most geocachers share is finding caches.

Exactly. We may find different types caches, we may have different reasons for geocaching, but the one thing that we have in common is that we find caches.

As for community, I actually appreciate the diversity. I can find people with the same interests as me. At the same time, I can find people with different interests, and I can enjoy their stories without wanting to do what they do. One geocaching community with everyone having almost the same interests and goals would actually be rather disturbing to me.

6.8k · February 9, 2015

You have your own view of the world, and that's okay. I hope you can respect other peoples' views enough to understand how they might see hiding caches as "a way of giving back to the community for all that they have given me." But if you can't, that's okay.

I never ever questioned this point of view. I just tried to explain why I see it differently from a personal point of view despite the fact that I also have the wish to give back to the community (just a different one).

I do not like to define finding caches as an essential common aspect among all cachers given the different ways how finds are achieved and that it is not uncommon to also log found logs when there is nothing to be found (missing containers, throwdowns left etc) instead of logging DNFs.

Moreover, from my personal point of view there is a big difference between finding caches and finding cache containers. Someone visiting the final of a multi or mystery cache with shared coordinates has not really found the cache, only a cache container being the final of a cache. Those for whom finding cache container is the essential part of geocaching, do indeed belong to a different community than myself. For those for whom it is about the cache container it makes no sense to go on a 10km round trip to find the only involved cache container 300m from the parking lot. That's an unbridgable gap to those for whom the way and the locations are an integral and actually the by far most important part of the cache.

Of course it was about hiding caches. Here's my comment that caused you to make your garden party analogy:

No, it was not your comment that made me make that analogy. I'm sorry for having made it look like I did.

This garden party analogy has been on mind for a long time and relates uniquely to the argument that it is ok to turn every

type of cache into a traditional (and as such is quite strongly related to the topic of this thread and to my disagreement with the statement that everyone can cache as they want without affecting others).

9k · February 9, 2015

For those for whom it is about the cache container it makes no sense to go on a 10km round trip to find the only involved cache container 300m from the parking lot. That's an unbridgable gap to those for whom the way and the locations are an integral and actually the by far most important part of the cache.

If you want the cache to be found, not just the container, find a way to require the person to hike 10km. Put the cache somewhere near that point. If you place the container 300m from the parking lot, you cannot complain as you are that people who care "only about the container" skip the hike part. You are effectively telling them that the hike is not as significant to the cache, because they can find the container without doing the hike. And this essentially is Groundspeak's view of geocaching as well - as long as the name is in the logbook, it is found. So in that case, your community (as you deem "cache finders") is not the general geocaching community (as you deem "container finders"). You are attempting to segregate yourself from the typical geocaching community, from within the geocaching community.

If you want to create a community of "cache finders", then you will need to place caches that require the person to experience the cache in its entirety - that means finding ways around "cheaters" who skip puzzles, and "lazy" people who get final coordinates and skip any physical coordinates.

Alternatively, you could just forget about trying to enforce your experiences on other cachers, and let them play how they play - while encouraging people not to miss out on the experience you've designed for them.

And by "enforce", I mean complaining about people who skip the hike and find the cache 300m from parking, as if they did something objectively wrong, because it's not what you wanted them to do. As irritating as it is.

Edited February 9, 2015 by thebruce0

6.8k · February 9, 2015

If you want the cache to be found, not just the container, find a way to require the person to hike 10km.

While I do not own a cache 300m from the parking lot, I live in an area where the above is not possible. There is no point where a 10 km hike is required.

There are 3.4 inhabitants per km^2 in Canada and 101 in Austria despite the mountain regions and I do live in a much more densely populated area.

There are even 405 inhabitants per km^2 in The Netherlands.

In Canada you can do a lot which is not possible in my area.

You are effectively telling them that the hike is not as significant to the cache, because they can find the container without doing the hike.

I'm not talking about those who manage to find a cache by brute forcing, guessing etc.

I do not regard walking to the coordinates provided by someone else as being able to find the container in the spirit of what geocaching means to me and always

has meant.

And this essentially is Groundspeak's view of geocaching as well - as long as the name is in the logbook, it is found.

To me this has been introduced only because nothing else can be enforced, but it never conformed with the spirit of geocaching for me.

Then one could as well make all the waypoints of multi caches and mystery caches public to those who want to see them if what you write were Groundspeak's view of geocaching. But I assure you Groundspeak then suddenly would lose a huge deal of its customers at least in Europe.

Until the last few years neither me nor anyone else in the area would have envisaged that there could come a time where it is mainly about logging caches and just wanting to exploit whatever caches is available and abuse it.

So in that case, your community (as you deem "cache finders") is not the general geocaching community (as you deem "container finders"). You are attempting to segregate yourself from the typical geocaching community, from within the geocaching community.

I would not say that those who share coordinates set the standards for what's the usual geocaching community.

If it were like this, in my country for years no usual geocaching community would have existed.

If you want to create a community of "cache finders", then you will need to place caches that require the person to experience the cache in its entirety - that means finding ways around "cheaters" who skip puzzles, and "lazy" people who get final coordinates and skip any physical coordinates.

There exist no such ways. One would need to change the caches every week, for example, but that's not manageable.

Do not misunderstand me. Of course I cannot avoid that someone who abuses a non traditional as a traditional logs a found it and I never would consider deleting such a found it log on one of my caches. I do not agree however with those who state that everyone should choose to geocaches as he/she wants to and that is is thus perfectly welcome if cachers behave in the discussed manner.

And by "enforce", I mean complaining about people who skip the hike and find the cache 300m from parking, as if they did something objectively wrong, because it's not what you wanted them to do. As irritating as it is.

There is a difference between complaining and being very disappointed and frustrated up to the extent that I feel to have done something wrong by having been so stupid to hide a geocache in this new world.

In contrast to the OP I'm not in favour of adding new rules to the guidelines about cache logging or writing up a catalogue of proper caching etiquette. I just do not agree with the statement that everyone is free and welcome to cache in the way they enjoy it the most. There are limitations (and not only those coming from local laws).

I will never come to the point that I react with happyness or indifference to logs of cachers that share coordinates (be it my caches or caches owned by someone else in my area).

I do not mind if others see it differently and handle it differently. They have it certainly easier.

Edited February 9, 2015 by cezanne

February 9, 2015

For the most part, the main problem I have with the original posted set of rules is that it attributes a level of significance to geocaching that is unmerited. Intentionally or not, attempting to define what exactly constitutes a find carries an unspoken implication that a find has meaning beyond the person who made the find (and to a lesser extent the person who hid the cache).

Those who enjoy making it a competition are very welcome to do so, and naturally those people would need to agree on their standards within the circle they move in. But it is an error to assume that any one way is the only way or the best way. I, for example, made a conscious decision when I started caching that it was something I would do only for fun, and that I wanted nothing to do with competition within my caching experience. So, although my personal caching code is in many ways similar to the posted list, I do not project it on others. Why would I? I find a cache my way, I have fun. Someone else does it their way, which I might not agree with, they have fun. And most importantly, their fun doesn't change my fun. (I know this is an oversimplification, but you get the point. There are exceptions.)

It's like reading a book. People read books in different ways, and we don't really have (or need) a definition of what constitutes having read a book. I read and enjoy a book, someone else reads the same book and maybe checks the ending first to see what happens, or skips sections, or maybe delves deeper into the subtleties of plot and punctuation than I care to. So what? Even if it's in a situation where how one reads is actually important, such as a professional or educational setting, those who don't read carefully only hurt themselves.

Rules of this sort are really only needed when something is actually at stake.

9k · February 9, 2015

> If you want the cache to be found, not just the container, find a way to require the person to hike 10km.

While I do not own a cache 300m from the parking lot, I live in an area where the above is not possible. There is no point where a 10 km hike is required.

There are 3.4 inhabitants per km^2 in Canada and 101 in Austria despite the mountain regions and I do live in a much more densely populated area.

There are even 405 inhabitants per km^2 in The Netherlands.

In Canada you can do a lot which is not possible in my area.

I was responding to your comment about the 10km hike and 300m cache from parking. You made that example to make a point, so I responded to that. I don't know nor care if that specific cache actually exists or whether it's yours or not. Your point was the point.

> You are effectively telling them that the hike is not as significant to the cache, because they can find the container without doing the hike.

I'm not talking about those who manage to find a cache by brute forcing, guessing etc.

I do not regard walking to the coordinates provided by someone else as being able to find the container in the spirit of what geocaching means to me and always has meant.

I know, this is why you made the distinction between "cache finders" (who enjoy hiking, or similarly, puzzles) and "container finders" which is what I was specifically responding to.

> And this essentially is Groundspeak's view of geocaching as well - as long as the name is in the logbook, it is found.

To me this has been introduced only because nothing else can be enforced, but it never conformed with the spirit of geocaching for me.

Exactly my point. You are segregating yourself as a "community", within the greater geocaching community, and attempting to enforce - by segregation and complaining about people who don't think like you - your "spirit" on that greater geocaching community (your "container finders"), within which you exist. Because you list your hike caches as geocaching.com caches.

Then one could as well make all the waypoints of multi caches and mystery caches public to those who want to see them if what you write were Groundspeak's view of geocaching. But I assure you Groundspeak then suddenly would lose a huge deal of its customers at least in Europe.

Nope. Making waypoints public has nothing to do with it.

Notice I didn't say make your cache a multi so people have to visit every waypoint before "the container", nor make a puzzle so people have to solve the puzzle to locate "the container". Because people don't have to visit every waypoint or solve puzzles, only sign the log in "the container". So you have to make the requirements to find "the container" as specific to the experience you want to provide. Otherwise, you have to accept the fact that there will be some people who will find ways around your "experience" just so they can find the container. You've gotta live with it, or move along.

> So in that case, your community (as you deem "cache finders") is not the general geocaching community (as you deem "container finders"). You are attempting to segregate yourself from the typical geocaching community, from within the geocaching community.

I would not say that those who share coordinates set the standards for what's the usual geocaching community.

If it were like this, in my country for years no usual geocaching community would have existed.

I didn't say they set the standard. I said they exist. And that is the minimal requirement (rule) Groundspeak sets. That is all that's needed in order to be "a geocacher" in the geocaching community. Geocaching is not intrinsically nor fundamentally "about hiking". If you want to make your cache about the hike, and require people to experience the hike in order to find the container, then you'll need to find a way to make sure the person is required to hike to find the container, or else just encourage people to do so and accept the fact that there will be people who don't want to and will merely find the container.

> If you want to create a community of "cache finders", then you will need to place caches that require the person to experience the cache in its entirety - that means finding ways around "cheaters" who skip puzzles, and "lazy" people who get final coordinates and skip any physical coordinates.

There exist no such ways. One would need to change the caches every week, for example, but that's not manageable.

I gave you an example of how to do so. You put the physical container at the end of the 10km hike, not 300m from parking with an optional hike.

We have a cache in Ontario that requires a full day hike to get to and back - there is no other way. And I've done it twice so far. It'll be quite obvious to anyone if someone logs it found and they have not actually done the hike. It would take considerable deceit and planning in order for someone to get their name into the log book without having hiked/skiid/ridden to the container. It is not 300m from parking. It is not a multi, it is not a puzzle, it is a traditional. It is old.

If you cannot find any location in your region along a hike route you want to promote, then you will have to accept the fact that your caches may be found by people who do not want to do the hike you encourage them to do, and may simply set out to find the cache 300m from parking.

Do not misunderstand me. Of course I cannot avoid that someone who abuses a non traditional as a traditional logs a found it and I never would consider deleting such a found it log on one of my caches. I do not agree however with those who state that everyone should choose to geocaches as he/she wants to and that is is thus perfectly welcome if cachers behave in the discussed manner.

What is implied by being "perfectly welcome"?

I don't think anyone would be perfectly happy that finders of their cache skipped the experience they intended them to have and just found the container. Some here have said, however, that they're fine with people doing that if they had fun anyway, because they still provided an experience for the community which they enjoyed - even if it wasn't the full experience the CO intended.

i. There is a minimal objective rule set Groundspeak requires hiders and finders to adhere to (eg, find it/sign it/log it online; respect local laws)

ii. There are guidelines Groundspeak promotes towards the intended positive experience of geocaching for the most people in the community (eg, respect nature, respect property, respect people, stay safe)

Keeping the above in consideration...

1. Everyone may choose to geocache as he/wants (because it's a fun pastime; why do something you don't find fun?)

2. Everyone and anyone can encourage people to have an experience they wish to promote (by creating caches that attempt to promote that experience)

3. Everyone needs to realize that the minimal 'experience' in order to 'find' a geocache is to locate the cache container and sign its log book (using GPS technology is not a requirement; solving a puzzle yourself is not a requirement; accomplishing physical tasks is not a requirement if the container is findable or already found; etc, Challenge Caches being the only exception for physical caches)

4. Anyone's individual geocaching preference may fall anywhere between finding "the container" and doing everything the CO intended them to in order to experience the entire cache.

> And by "enforce", I mean complaining about people who skip the hike and find the cache 300m from parking, as if they did something objectively wrong, because it's not what you wanted them to do. As irritating as it is.

There is a difference between complaining and being very disappointed and frustrated up to the extent that I feel to have done something wrong by having been so stupid to hide a geocache in this new world.

If you feel you have "done something wrong by having been so stupid to hide a geocache" that is not anyone's problem but your own.

It's awesome that you hid a geocache. Really.

But you're putting expectations on the community - the geocaching community - the "container-finding" community you expressly dislike - that are misplaced, and creating your own world of pain. Your disappointment and frustration is well known on these forums because it always comes up in discussions, about how people in your area now don't enjoy the same things you do and when they find your geocaches they don't appreciate what you set up. It's complaining because it's incessant and repetitive, but you don't work towards a solution, you find no way around it, continually passing off suggestions and encouragements to assuage your pain, then returning to complain about the same things again and again.

Other people have found ways around this 'ethics' problem, others have come to accept the fact that not everyone geocaches the same way as them. This thread is about the differences in geocaching ethics, and for the most part people people understand and accept that everyone caches differently.

So, like I said, you can:

* Find ways to place geocaches (the containers specifically) that would actually require finders to experience what you want them to experience in order to locate the container

* Encourage people to go for the full experience you want them to have, while accepting that people will have the freedom to skip it and "just" find the container (that means being happy that at least they had some kind of fun, even if it's not the kind of fun you wanted them to have) - this is applicable to non-traditional cache types, or your setup of traditional caches (ie, don't put a container 300m from parking and "hope" that they'll also do the 10km hike before finding the cache)

* Move on and realize that what you actually want is people to enjoy hiking, not just finding a container, and so listing "hikes" as "geocaches" is not the best way to do so.

In contrast to the OP I'm not in favour of adding new rules to the guidelines about cache logging or writing up a catalogue of proper caching etiquette. I just do not agree with the statement that everyone is free and welcome to cache in the way they enjoy it the most. There are limitations (and not only those coming from local laws).

Objectively, there are minimal requirements. I don't think anyone here disagrees that those should exist.

It's beyond those minimal requirements that everyone is free and welcome to cache in the way they enjoy it most.

Ideally, that means also understanding that others enjoy different things, different experiences, different strategies, different social behaviours, and not making a huge commotion when someone else's preferences clash with your own.

I will never come to the point that I react with happyness or indifference to logs of cachers that share coordinates (be it my caches or caches owned by someone else in my area).
I do not mind if others see it differently and handle it differently. They have it certainly easier.

I don't think anyone would be "happy" to find their cache coordinates shared, unless that's what they intended.

Indifference? Good on those people who can shrug it off - but I think it's safe to say that in their cases, their actual hope was for cachers to enjoy finding the cache (the container) and not only in them having the entire experience.

Most people, especially whom I know, would be annoyed at puzzle solution sharing, at group caching, and other various 'preferences' that skip everything other than just finding the container. But most also now accept that it happens, and move along without making a huge fuss.

There may also be people who make a huge commotion about it; occasionally there's a geocide in frustration, but to them I'd say the same as I say to you - constantly complaining just makes your life more miserable. Why bother? Encourage the experience you want people to have, but recognize that you cannot require it. You'll end up a much happier person in the community, less frustrated, less incessantly annoyed, and less likely to geocide, to 'take my ball and go home'.

RobDJr - I like your book reading analogy How annoying it must be to authors when someone reads the last page, and never reads the rest; or worse, reviews it negatively based merely on the 'experience' of that last page. But, that author would probably be much happier if they realize the nature of books, and that there may well be people who do that - that they're missing out on the entire story and only ruining it for themselves. An author who goes on a social rampage to try to tell all the book readers out there how annoying and "wrong" it is to only read the last page really only makes their life more miserable. No one will ever make a "rule" that in order to read a book, you have to read the entire book. It's unenforceable, and frankly ludicrous to set out on a crusade of that scope. But the author can certainly promote their book, how awesome their story is, quote other people who have read the whole thing and praise it... while realizing that some people just won't care anyway, and even that there are some people out there who just live to make people's lives worse.

6.8k · February 9, 2015

I know, this is why you made the distinction between "cache finders" (who enjoy hiking, or similarly, puzzles) and "container finders" which is what I was specifically responding to.

I do not make the distinction in terms of enjoing. Someone could visit puzzle caches without enjoying the puzzles at all (actually, I do that myself from time to time, but I do solve the puzzles).

Exactly my point. You are segregating yourself as a "community", within the greater geocaching community, and attempting to enforce - by segregation and complaining about people who don't think like you - your "spirit" on that greater geocaching community (your "container finders"), within which you exist. Because you list your hike caches as geocaching.com caches.

I'm not enforcing anything. I just stated that for many years there exist no other community in my area than the one which you call mine.

I never ever would have started with geocaching and hiding caches there if it had been differently. I also do think that other sites would have developped as a local alternative if it were differently, but of course now it is too late.

Nope. Making waypoints public has nothing to do with it.

In my opinion it has. If you claim that sharing coordinates conforms with the way Groundspeak thinks about geocaching (that's something different than what they can enforce as a rule),

then the only approach consistent with it would be offering all waypoints to whomever wants them.

That is all that's needed in order to be "a geocacher" in the geocaching community. Geocaching is not intrinsically nor fundamentally "about hiking". If you want to make your cache about the hike, and require people to experience the hike in order to find the container, then you'll need to find a way to make sure the person is required to hike to find the container, or else just encourage people to do so and accept the fact that there will be people who don't want to and will merely find the container.

Again, I agree. My attempt to define what community means for me comes from a completely different perspective. I do not care whether the activity I'm interested in is called geocaching or something different. It fitted well to refer to it as geocaching for many years, however.

My essential part when making the distinction between cache finders and container finders was to explain for which type of people I have hidden my caches and whom I feel to have something in common with.

The others are much more distant from my heart and my interests than hardrock fans even though I hate hard rock. The less contact I have with them, the better. That's also one of the reasons why I almost stopped attending events.

The container finders are just a completely foreign world for me to whom I do not feel the slightest attachment. They are definitely not the group of people I have in mind when I do something to give back to the community. They rather demotivate me, make me refrain from hiding new caches, giving up old caches and force me to make my caches more complicated as I want them to make if I want to make an attempt to minimize the unwanted effects on my caches.

And the larger the number of container finders becomes, the more I'm inclined to remove my caches from gc.com. Actually, if there existed a proper alternative I would have done that move already at least 3 years ago.

I gave you an example of how to do so. You put the physical container at the end of the 10km hike, not 300m from parking with an optional hike.

We have a cache in Ontario that requires a full day hike to get to and back - there is no other way.

Ok, once again: I do not live in Ontario. I also do not live in the lonesome mountains. Wherever I can hide and maintain a cache (and I'm not one of those who hides caches only very close from home) I cannot enforce a 10km hike and noone can do so.

What is implied by being "perfectly welcome"?

................

I don't think anyone would be perfectly happy that finders of their cache skipped the experience they intended them to have and just found the container. Some here have said, however, that they're fine with people doing that if they had fun anyway, because they still provided an experience for the community which they enjoyed - even if it wasn't the full experience the CO intended.

Perfectly welcome boils down to the statement "Let everyone cache as they want" implies it. Every form of caching has to be appreciated in the same way.

In many cases it is just the "+1" and the progress on challenge caches that plays a role and certainly not having fun.

In case of my cache where I was the most annoyed about cachers who shared the final coordinates, there was definitely not any meaningful experience provided at the final location as I intentionally chose it away from the interesting location.

If you feel you have "done something wrong by having been so stupid to hide a geocache" that is not anyone's problem but your own.

Oh interesting. If I think to have done something wrong, it is my problem. If I think that someone who shares final coordinates has done something wrong, it's me who is the one to blame.

* Move on and realize that what you actually want is people to enjoy hiking, not just finding a container, and so listing "hikes" as "geocaches" is not the best way to do so.

Not all my caches are about hiking (they all include a walk however). Actually, shortcutting my caches (and all other caches that are similarly set up) makes even less sense for the non hiking caches. If a cache e.g. deals with very sad historical facts from the Nazi time, the logs and visits of container finders are particularly inappropriate.

I don't think anyone would be "happy" to find their cache coordinates shared, unless that's what they intended.

..............

Most people, especially whom I know, would be annoyed at puzzle solution sharing, at group caching, and other various 'preferences' that skip everything other than just finding the container. But most also now accept that it happens,

This thread rather makes me think that many of those witing here have not the slightest issue with it. That's exactly how I understand that everyone should cache as they want to enjoy the game.

It all sounds in my ears like "Feel free to share as many coordinates as you want. All what counts is signing log sheets".

If people are not happy, then why not mention this in this thread? I cannot think of a better thread than this one.

If some cachers in the early stage of the thread would have written something like the above, and not only that they personally do not involve in such practices, I would not have felt the need to take part in this thread at all.

Edited February 9, 2015 by cezanne

7.5k · February 9, 2015

Most people, especially whom I know, would be annoyed at puzzle solution sharing, at group caching, and other various 'preferences' that skip everything other than just finding the container. But most also now accept that it happens,

This thread rather makes me think that many of those witing here have not the slightest issue with it. That's exactly how I understand that everyone should cache as they want to enjoy the game.

It all sounds in my ears like "Feel free to share as many coordinates as you want. All what counts is signing log sheets".

Not at all. I encourage people to have the richer experience you offer, and I might even make a snide remark if they shortcut it. But the point here is that if they don't accept your offer, that doesn't diminish the richer experience I'll have when I seek the cache. The way you talk, you'll be so wrapped up in thinking negatively about the people that didn't follow the path presented that you won't even notice that I visited your cache and enjoyed it as intended. In fact, you sometimes talk as if I'll never get a chance to have the experience because your negative feelings are going to drive you to archive them before I get there, and that would be a shame.

If you invite me to a party, I will enjoy the fine wine and food you serve me regardless of how many people go to the fast food joint down the street.

6.8k · February 9, 2015

Not at all. I encourage people to have the richer experience you offer, and I might even make a snide remark if they shortcut it. But the point here is that if they don't accept your offer, that doesn't diminish the richer experience I'll have when I seek the cache. The way you talk, you'll be so wrapped up in thinking negatively about the people that didn't follow the path presented that you won't even notice that I visited your cache and enjoyed it as intended.

No, that's not true. Otherwise not a single of my caches would still exist and I would not have hidden a cache less than a year ago. In the very moment I encounter the effects of coordinate sharing the annoyance however dominates.

Somehow some posts in this thread (not yours by the way) make me feel as cache owners ought to welcome all visits to their caches equally and should not be more happy with one type than the other.

9k · February 9, 2015

I do not make the distinction in terms of enjoing. Someone could visit puzzle caches without enjoying the puzzles at all (actually, I do that myself from time to time, but I do solve the puzzles).

You missed the point.

You gave the example of the "hike", with a container at 300m from parking as an analogy to "cache finders" and "container finders". Whether it's a puzzle or a hike is irrelevant. Enjoyment is irrelevant - when I said "who enjoy hiking or puzzles", it was in reference to those "cache finders" who WILL do what was intended (because they find it enjoyable) in order to locate the container, instead of doing whatever is necessary ONLY to locate the container.

> You love hikes, and want people who love hikes to do hikes before finding the container.

> Some people might not like hikes, but STILL do the hike before finding the container.

** these are your "cache finders"

> Some people do not like hikes, and WILL find the container 300m from parking without doing the intended hike.

** these are your "container finders"

I'm not enforcing anything.

Read again: by constantly and repeatedly complaining without working towards a solution (or rather, implying that the only solution to your complaint would be that everyone holds the same ethics as you), you are implying that the problem is objective and that the problem is people who don't like to geocache the same way you do. That is different than disliking, but being fine with that fact.

I also do think that other sites would have developped as a local alternative if it were differently, but of course now it is too late.

It's never too late.

If the "community" you value is as prevalent as you wish it to be, then it would be successful if done right. Don't be a defeatist - find a community of people who love hikes as much as you do, and join it. Or be an enterpreneur and start up a site that caters to that community. But don't expect the entire geocaching world to adhere to your desires that people enjoy hiking for caches as much as you do - when they can just grab the cache 300m from parking instead. If there are no communities in your area that enjoy what you do, then I'm sorry for that. But you cannot expect the geocaching community to adhere to your ethics about finding geocaches.

> Making waypoints public has nothing to do with it.

In my opinion it has. If you claim that sharing coordinates conforms with the way Groundspeak thinks about geocaching (that's something different than what they can enforce as a rule), then the only approach consistent with it would be offering all waypoints to whomever wants them.

I did not say that "sharing coordinates conforms with the way Groundspeak thinks about geocaching." There's a difference between the "spirit" and the "law". The rules are minimal. And as I said above, there are guidelines Groundspeak promotes for positive, enjoyable geocaching experiences for the most people. I would say those guidelines very much are in favour of your geocaching ethic - do the hike! Have a great experience! But there is a difference. Your "spirit" of geocaching is different than other people's. Your "spirit" of geocaching is not the "law" of geocaching, the objective rules. Accept that, and continue geocaching and placing geocaches with that in mind, or find a service that caters to your professly enjoyed experiences and those who think the same as you.

I do not care whether the activity I'm interested in is called geocaching or something different. It fitted well to refer to it as geocaching for many years, however.

If the activity you're interested in is not called geocaching, then you cannot expect to list a geocache on geocaching.com and that it will cater to everyone in this community, if it is not geocaching. And it does not seem to be - demonstrated by your repeated complaints about people who don't enjoy hiking for geocaches the same way you do. The way things are now in that context has been the way it was for many years - it just happened that there were more in the past, it seems, who felt similarly to you than who didn't. But with the removal of ALRs, the rules have since merely been "find it, sign it, log it online." Which does not appear to be your "spirit" of geocaching.

My essential part when making the distinction between cache finders and container finders was to explain for which type of people I have hidden my caches...

But when you hide your caches, you can't. When you hide and list on geocaching.com, you hide them for anyone who uses geocaching.com to find. NOT just people with whom you have something in common. You can encourage and promote the cache to people who enjoy what you do, but you cannot restrict it to those people. I know you know this, but again your constant complaining without seeking a solution implies that the only solution is that everyone think like you. That will not happen.

The container finders are just a completely foreign world for me
...

They rather demotivate me, make me refrain from hiding new caches, giving up old caches and force me to make my caches more complicated as I want them to make if I want to make an attempt to minimize the unwanted effects on my caches. And the larger the number of container finders becomes, the more I'm inclined to remove my caches from gc.com. Actually, if there existed a proper alternative I would have done that move already at least 3 years ago.

Sorry to hear that. But they are part of the geocaching community. As you cannot exclude them from finding your caches, you'll either need to accept that fact, as much as it bothers you (and that means you've found a way to move on instead of constantly complaining about them), or give up on geocaching as it exists on geocaching.com. Of course, I can't tell you to go away and I can't tell you to stop posting or stop complaining. I'm just saying - for your own sake - you'll be much happier if you accept and move on. AND the caches you place will still be available to provide fun and enjoyment for all those who wish to find them - however they choose to do so.

Perfectly welcome boils down to the statement "Let everyone cache as they want" implies it. Every form of caching has to be appreciated in the same way.

No, "let everyone" doesn't mean "appreciate", it just means understanding that there are people that WILL do things differently than you prefer them to, and accepting that fact, if it's not against the objective rules.

In case of my cache where I was the most annoyed about cachers who shared the final coordinates, there was definitely not any meaningful experience provided at the final location as I intentionally chose it away from the interesting location.

Then don't do that in the future if you want to force every cacher to have the experience you intend them to have.

> If I think that someone who shares final coordinates has done something wrong, it's me who is the one to blame.

No, I did not say that.

I quoted you: "done something wrong by having been so stupid to hide a geocache", this is not the same as publishing a puzzle with the intent that people solve it, or to hide an optional-hike cache with the intent that people hike it. YOU are not to blame for thinking that sharing final coordinates, or going to the container 300m from parking instead of taking the optional 10km hike first, is wrong. You are to blame if you constantly get frustrated and annoyed by others' allowabable actions and let it bother you so much that you repeatedly complain to the point of considering geocide.

Not all my caches are about hiking (they all include a walk however). Actually, shortcutting my caches (and all other caches that are similarly set up) makes even less sense for the non hiking caches. If a cache e.g. deals with very sad historical facts from the Nazi time, the logs and visits of container finders are particularly inappropriate.

I agree. But it happens. Let it happen. You can't make it NOT happen, unless you find a way to ensure that there is NO way to short cut. If you can do that, GREAT. Otherwise, who cares - they missed out on the experience you intended, they lose out. So be it. Move on.

> It all sounds in my ears like "Feel free to share as many coordinates as you want. All what counts is signing log sheets".

Those are two distinct sentiments that are not linked.

* "Feel free to share as many coordinates as you want." ~ Yep, generally considered bad etiquette, and most COs don't like when it happens, though some won't care. Don't like when it happens? That's fine. But it can happen. And there's nothing you can do to stop it, so why stress out over it?

* "All what counts is signing log sheets" ~ Yep, that's an objective rule. That's all that matters to logging the find online. You can't force people to do more, so if they choose not to, then it's their loss, and there's nothing you can do to stop it, so why stress out over it?

February 9, 2015

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 are missing a few people from the team. my brother works for licensing and he provided the license for that boat. my cousin rents the scuba equipment that was used for that find. then there is me, frank and carol had to skype me so that i could explain the precise manner which the seal had to be broken and re-attached.

if we are going over the top......might as well be together.

the only people that should care is the finder and the hider. oh...and the challenge cache owner who is now dragged into this fray because that completed a special challenge requiring a 5/5 find on a day that ended in "y".

6.8k · February 9, 2015

If the "community" you value is as prevalent as you wish it to be, then it would be successful if done right. Don't be a defeatist - find a community of people who love hikes as much as you do, and join it. Or be an enterpreneur and start up a site that caters to that community.

I neither have the time nor the abilities to do the latter and the same is true for most other people I know.

As the first is regarded, there are people who are much into hiking than I'm, but they are all much fitter and do not have health issues and are typically not internet oriented. Geocaching

was a perfect fit within the local community.

But don't expect the entire geocaching world to adhere to your desires that people enjoy hiking for caches as much as you do - when they can just grab the cache 300m from parking instead.

Actually, I do not expect them to adhere to my desires. If I knew a way to approach those I wanted to approach (or a non empty subset of those), I'd move all my caches (under whichever name) to this other places.

But you cannot expect the geocaching community to adhere to your ethics about finding geocaches.

Of course I cant't. I just said that until comparatively recently 99% of the cachers in the area have adhered with it.

I did not say that "sharing coordinates conforms with the way Groundspeak thinks about geocaching." There's a difference between the "spirit" and the "law".

But the above is what I understood. I never talked about the guidelines and the rules when a found it log is legitimate.

If the activity you're interested in is not called geocaching, then you cannot expect to list a geocache on geocaching.com and that it will cater to everyone in this community, if it is not geocaching.

At least it has been termed geocaching for many years in my country and it fitted well to the participants. My remark that I would not mind if it got a new name related to how dramatically geocaching has changed. I'm not attached to the name. What I have in mind is however neither uniquely hiking nor uniquely something else.

I do not know a better name for it. It's definitely not Waymarking either.

Some of the old virtuals belong to the best caches available - so it is not even the presence of a container in the end that defines geocaching.

But with the removal of ALRs, the rules have since merely been "find it, sign it, log it online." Which does not appear to be your "spirit" of geocaching.

ALRs never had any significant impact in my country. The change was uniquely brought along by power caching and challenge caches which became popular after ALRs have veen abolished.

Even if ALRs existed I would not want to have to make use of them. I felt much more comfortable with a community where the majority of cachers did not abuse caches.

I would not want to check track logs of people and neither would I want to send in my track logs.

Perfectly welcome boils down to the statement "Let everyone cache as they want" implies it. Every form of caching has to be appreciated in the same way.

No, "let everyone" doesn't mean "appreciate", it just means understanding that there are people that WILL do things differently than you prefer them to, and accepting that fact, if it's not against the objective rules.

Then we disagree about how these statements are to be understood. For me they mean exactly what I wrote and that's the reason why I object so heavily.

The fact that there are people to will do things differently is a triviality and well known. There is nothing to understand in my opinion. And it is also well known that is not against the guidelines.

I'd welcome a statement that is along the lines of "Found it logs are legitimate once you sign the log sheet". Some practices which are conforming to the rules for legitimate logs are however not fair to the cache owners. I do not need a list of rules of what has to be obeyed for fairness and there are in any case borderline situations. It's obvious for me however that sharing coordinates on a large scale is one example for unfairness.

> If I think that someone who shares final coordinates has done something wrong, it's me who is the one to blame.

No, I did not say that.

You wrote a sentence saying something along the lines that one should not use the term wrong in connection with what I called container finders as they follow the guidelines.

I was referring to this.

* "All what counts is signing log sheets" ~ Yep, that's an objective rule.

No, in my understanding this is not a rule at all. I never added for "being allowed to log a found it".

I believe that it should be allowed to refer to the behaviour of the container finders as being lame regardless of whether these people appreciate this or not.

There is no doubt that such behaviour cannot be avoided - that never has been the topic of my posts here.

I just heavily disagree with postings of the type "I do not share coordinates and do not make use of related practices because I enjoy geocaching more in this manner. Everyone is however free to do what they want and enjoy the most" when it comes to the second part.

9k · February 9, 2015

I neither have the time nor the abilities to do the latter and the same is true for most other people I know.

As the first is regarded, there are people who are much into hiking than I'm, but they are all much fitter and do not have health issues and are typically not internet oriented. Geocaching was a perfect fit within the local community.

Apparently not perfect enough...

Actually, I do not expect them to adhere to my desires. If I knew a way to approach those I wanted to approach (or a non empty subset of those), I'd move all my caches (under whichever name) to this other places.

So instead, you choose to continuously complain, here? Do you think anything is going to change?

Of course I cant't. I just said that until comparatively recently 99% of the cachers in the area have adhered with it.

They haven't adhered to it, the face your local community has just changed over time, where it so happened that there (supposedly) were more that preferred what you prefer who also geocached, than otherwise.

> I did not say that "sharing coordinates conforms with the way Groundspeak thinks about geocaching." There's a difference between the "spirit" and the "law".

But the above is what I understood. I never talked about the guidelines and the rules when a found it log is legitimate.

I know you didn't distinguish rules vs guidelines or spirit vs law, I did. Your only distinguishing was between "cache finders" and "container finders". My point was that the rules mean that "container finding" is the minimum that can be required of geocachers by cache owners, by objective rules. "cache finding" is the spirit of geocaching, but is not the requirement.

> If the activity you're interested in is not called geocaching, then you cannot expect to list a geocache on geocaching.com and that it will cater to everyone in this community, if it is not geocaching.

At least it has been termed geocaching for many years in my country and it fitted well to the participants. My remark that I would not mind if it got a new name related to how dramatically geocaching has changed. I'm not attached to the name.

But it hasn't.

Apart from ALRs, everything related to your experience has always been there. 10 years ago a cache placed 300m from a parking lot could still be found and logged without doing a 10km hike beforehand (unless you somehow required it as an ALR).

So no, what you want was never "geocaching". As I said, it's merely that there appears to have been more people back then who thought like you than didn't. Nothing changed except your local community.

ALRs never had any significant impact in my country. The change was uniquely brought along by power caching and challenge caches which became popular after ALRs have veen abolished.
Even if ALRs existed I would not want to have to make use of them. I felt much more comfortable with a community where the majority of cachers did not abuse caches.

Your quarrel is with people in your country who do not think like you, NOT geocaching.

For me they mean exactly what I wrote and that's the reason why I object so heavily.

Then what's your solution?

Making everyone adhere to your concept of geocaching is not an option.

I'd welcome a statement that is along the lines of "Found it logs are legitimate once you sign the log sheet". Some practices which are conforming to the rules for legitimate logs are however not fair to the cache owners. I do not need a list of rules of what has to be obeyed for fairness and there are in any case borderline situations. It's obvious for me however that sharing coordinates on a large scale is one example for unfairness.

"Fair" is entirely subjective, which is why there is no objective rule defining fair. That is why reviewers and the appeals team make judgement calls on a case by case basis.

Rules are clear cut, "fairness" is not. Break the rules, and you are wrong. Feel you've been treated unfairly, make your case to the higher power.

The "spirit" of geocaching cannot be enforced, universally, objectively.

You wrote a sentence saying something along the lines that one should not use the term wrong in connection with what I called container finders as they follow the guidelines. I was referring to this.

> "All what counts is signing log sheets" ~ Yep, that's an objective rule.

No, in my understanding this is not a rule at all.

Then you do not have the correct understanding. The only enforceable rule for logging a find (on a physical geocache) is that the user's name is verifiably in the logsheet. Group names are issues, that if contested, would need to be taken to Groundspeak for a ruling.

All that counts is signing the log sheets. That is the objective rule.

> I believe that it should be allowed to refer to the behaviour of the container finders as being lame regardless of whether these people appreciate this or not.

Very much no. I'm positive Groundspeak would not want to take up adjudicating battles between angry players based on he-said-she-said and judging who is being "fair" and "lame" and not being based on any verifiable arguments, and it's highly unlikely they'd hire a large team of staff in order to do so.

And if you just mean you yourself referring to annoying behaviour as lame, I never said you couldn't. We all find certain practices lame and annoying. Again, it's about incessant complaining to the geocaching community with no effort to find a solution other than having everyone agree with your geocaching ethic. It's about accepting that it happens, and moving on.

> There is no doubt that such behaviour cannot be avoided - that never has been the topic of my posts here.

No, because you are a subject in that topic

I just heavily disagree with postings of the type "I do not share coordinates and do not make use of related practices because I enjoy geocaching more in this manner. Everyone is however free to do what they want and enjoy the most" when it comes to the second part.

Well feel free to "heavily disagree", but that is the way things work.

---

I think I'm going to take my own advice and accept that cezanne will continue regurgitating the same points, and move on. I've said my bit. I need to find some caches.

Edited February 9, 2015 by thebruce0

7.5k · February 9, 2015

No, that's not true. Otherwise not a single of my caches would still exist and I would not have hidden a cache less than a year ago. In the very moment I encounter the effects of coordinate sharing the annoyance however dominates.

Most people would stop doing something that annoyance dominated. I understand that's not true for you, but I don't know why: from your posts, "annoyance dominates" is a vast understatement. At times, it seems like all you get from your hides is annoyance.

Somehow some posts in this thread (not yours by the way) make me feel as cache owners ought to welcome all visits to their caches equally and should not be more happy with one type than the other.

If anyone here is saying that its a waste of time to go to extra effort to design a special experience, then they don't know what they're talking about and we can ignore them. But I suspect you're hearing the observation that shortcut visits are, by rule, equivalent finds, and interpreting it as saying that you yourself must view them as equivalent. No, of course, if you create something special, obviously you value more highly the visits by people that appreciate your efforts. Just don't waste time or effort ruing those vastly less satisfying visits by the people uninterested in what makes your cache special.

3.1k · February 9, 2015

It's interesting to see 3 pages on this subject. It appears to me that most folks adhere, in general, to the simple idea that you find a container, leave your mark on the logbook, and log the find online.

There are many, many examples we could come up with (real, or made up) that provide exception to that idea. But really, what the OP has said just isn't how the game--historically or even today--is played.

1. The finder located the physical container or was on site to visit an earthcache or virtual.

2. The finder signed the log if it was possible to do so and, if not, documented evidence of the find.

3. The find was made without overwhelming assistance from others.

4. The find was made by following any specific rules in the cache description.<--That's called an ALR

5. The find was publically available when claimed.

6. The find was not a cache placed by the finder.

7. The find was not previously discovered by the finder. (I assume this means your use of "discovered"="logged previously as 'Found It' by the finder")

For example of no need for additional "ethics guides" or new clarifications of guidelines, we need not look any further than the FTF example. This is a side game with no rules--for a reason. If someone wants to create a new site that extracts the find data from Groundspeak to publish an "official" (for that site, not for Groundspeak/Geocaching.com) FTF rulebook and statistical clearing house for users, go for it.

We can't control how "meaningful"a geocaching experience is. All we can do is have the general guidelines for cache placement, listing creation, and maintenance of both. "Bad caches" happen, and "bad users" exist. When we start treating this site as a place to compete, we've jumped the shark. This site isn't about "who is better" or "who places the best caches", or "who was there first". Rather, this site is a host for players of the game where you hide a container (or specific tasks to undertake in the cases of Earthcaches or remaining Virtuals/Webcams), at set coordinates for others to find.

15.3k · February 10, 2015

It appears to me that most folks adhere, in general, to the simple idea that you find a container, leave your mark on the logbook, and log the find online.

Well, yes.

Except that people seem to disagree over what it really means for you to find a container (e.g., "overwhelming assistance" or "following any specific rules") or for you to leave your mark on the logbook (e.g., "signing for others" or "having others sign for you", let alone using an informal team name).

9k · February 10, 2015

Except that people seem to disagree over what it really means for you to find a container (e.g., "overwhelming assistance" or "following any specific rules") or for you to leave your mark on the logbook (e.g., "signing for others" or "having others sign for you", let alone using an informal team name).

Which is why how the signature gets in the log book - an unverifiable act itself - isn't relevant to the rule. If the name is in the log book, there isn't really anything the CO can do unless they can defend a claim that the find is, nonetheless, illegitimate, in order to delete the log. Otherwise, name in logbook? Valid find. The issue of a group caching name, like I said a while back, would need to be something judged by tptb, if the CO really really wanted to delete logs; and I think generally Groundspeak would encourage the CO to let it go in that case.

6.8k · February 10, 2015

The "spirit" of geocaching cannot be enforced, universally, objectively.

Of course it cannot. But one can still discuss and state what one believes is encompassed by the spirit of geocaching.

>> "All what counts is signing log sheets" ~ Yep, that's an objective rule.

>No, in my understanding this is not a rule at all.

Then you do not have the correct understanding. The only enforceable rule for logging a find (on a physical geocache) is that the user's name is verifiably in the logsheet. Group names are issues, that if contested, would need to be taken to Groundspeak for a ruling.

You completely misunderstood what I meant. I'm fully aware that if someone signsthe log sheet, they are eligible for a found it log.

As group names are concerned, Groundspeak has already ruled that it is ok, too.

My point however was a completely different one. My understanding of "all what counts" comprises so much more than the online found it log. So while many create the impression here that all what should be taken into account when geocaching is following all objective rules (local laws and the guidelines), in my opinion there are many other aspects that play a role in what I refer to spirit as geocaching. It does not make sense to me to come up with rigid lists defining what this spirit is and there would not exist such a list everyone agrees with. This does not change the fact that I feel that the recent development of geocaching has put too much stress on logging finds (this is also related to log quality and many other aspects).

> I believe that it should be allowed to refer to the behaviour of the container finders as being lame regardless of whether these people appreciate this or not.

Very much no. I'm positive Groundspeak would not want to take up adjudicating battles between angry players based on he-said-she-said and judging who is being "fair" and "lame" and not being based on any verifiable arguments, and it's highly unlikely they'd hire a large team of staff in order to do so.

I'm not expecting Groundspeak to make that judgement and I did not say anything about deleting logs that are caused by unfair or lame behaviour. My point is just that I think it is should be ok to call some behaviours in geocaching lame, unfair etc even if all objective rules are followed.

I neither could nor would want to specify exact criteria what I myself regard as lame, but that does not mean that it should be discouraged to use the word.

I believe that one of the reasons why the reduction to the logging rules makes me angry is that those who build up large cheater lists, hack geocheckers and those are in favour of such lists, use for their defence to have followed everything which counts in geocaching, and I simply think that this is awfully wrong.

I do not think that building up cheater lists on the large scale (this is not like sharing a few coordinates with a friend)

is what can and should be called ethical behaviour in geocaching.

So while it is not possible to come up with rigid rules for ethical behaviour, there are still certain things that are unethical which go beyond everyone's own geocaching ethics when they regard their own geocaching.

And if you just mean you yourself referring to annoying behaviour as lame, I never said you couldn't. We all find certain practices lame and annoying.

Myself and others. I would have expected this thread to contain more about what kind of behaviours in geocaching

the people posting to the thread do not appreciate on a larger scale and not just for their own geocaching.

There would not be a concensus, but it would exactly what I expect in a discussion about the topic "Ethics of geocaching".

Maybe part of my problem also is a cultural one. Often in this forum and whenever the people taking part come predominantly from the US, I somehow have the feeling that using any sort of negative statement is discouraged. That's quite a difficult to face for someone from continental Europe. SOmehow some of what is written here sounds like saying "Oh, well done. We are happy that you take part in geocaching and found fun in it. We appreciate you being part of the community" to someone who shares final coordinates on the large scale.

I just heavily disagree with postings of the type "I do not share coordinates and do not make use of related practices because I enjoy geocaching more in this manner. Everyone is however free to do what they want and enjoy the most" when it comes to the second part.

Well feel free to "heavily disagree", but that is the way things work.

What do you mean with "how things work"? The statement above is not about that sharing coordinates happens and that such logs are legitimate (I do not disagree with this part). I disagree with the public reception of the described behaviour.

Following all guidelines does not make someone end up with a caching behaviour that it is respectable to me. I accept the resulting online logs, but that's all.

Somehow you constantly seem to try to convince me that there cannot be more rules regarding logging than the sign the log sheet rule while I never claimed anything different. I did not discuss about the guidelines which are not dealing with ethics in my opinion anyway.

Edited February 10, 2015 by cezanne

1.2k · February 10, 2015

Maybe part of my problem also is a cultural one. Often in this forum and whenever the people taking part come predominantly from the US, I somehow have the feeling that using any sort of negative statement is discouraged. That's quite a difficult to face for someone from continental Europe. SOmehow some of what is written here sounds like saying "Oh, well done. We are happy that you take part in geocaching and found fun in it. We appreciate you being part of the community" to someone who shares final coordinates on the large scale.

Whoah! Where the heck did this hypothesis come from. Please enlighten me.

6.8k · February 10, 2015

Maybe part of my problem also is a cultural one. Often in this forum and whenever the people taking part come predominantly from the US, I somehow have the feeling that using any sort of negative statement is discouraged. That's quite a difficult to face for someone from continental Europe. SOmehow some of what is written here sounds like saying "Oh, well done. We are happy that you take part in geocaching and found fun in it. We appreciate you being part of the community" to someone who shares final coordinates on the large scale.

Whoah! Where the heck did this hypothesis come from. Please enlighten me.

I guess you misunderstood me. The statement about the cultural difference was not at all referring to different geocaching cultures and was not geocaching specific at all.

What I meant is rather that in my coin of the world one is much more inclined to state clearly and honestly what one is thinking about something even if it is relatively negative and is not having so much issues with that in this way someone might potentially be discouraged. I also noticed in another thread that some people were making comments about narcissa's replies and argued that she is Canadian. I did not find anything special in her replies and most continental Europeans I know would be at least as direct.

If someone who shares coordinates on the large scale, feels discouraged by negative comments about coordinate sharing and decides to leave geocaching, I certainly do not mind and will have no regrets.

Edited February 10, 2015 by cezanne

7.3k · February 10, 2015

There's a difference between being open and direct and constantly being critical and negative.

9k · February 10, 2015

*sigh*

Yeah, not going to requote and restate what's been requoted and restated repeatedly before.

3.1k · February 10, 2015

It appears to me that most folks adhere, in general, to the simple idea that you find a container, leave your mark on the logbook, and log the find online.
Well, yes.

Except that people seem to disagree over what it really means for you to find a container (e.g., "overwhelming assistance" or "following any specific rules") or for you to leave your mark on the logbook (e.g., "signing for others" or "having others sign for you", let alone using an informal team name).

Which is why how the signature gets in the log book - an unverifiable act itself - isn't relevant to the rule. If the name is in the log book, there isn't really anything the CO can do unless they can defend a claim that the find is, nonetheless, illegitimate, in order to delete the log. Otherwise, name in logbook? Valid find. The issue of a group caching name, like I said a while back, would need to be something judged by tptb, if the CO really really wanted to delete logs; and I think generally Groundspeak would encourage the CO to let it go in that case.

The "overwhelming assistance" thing immediately drew me to the hypothetical example of a cache where the cache owner ends up either giving away the hide (be it coordinates for a final, or what to look for, specifically, at GZ) or going with the cacher to help find the cache. I don't see this as a reason not to log a "Found It". Sometimes there is a need for assistance, even "overwhelming" assistance.

Then there's the "following any specific rules" thing. We can't have ALRs. We also can't stop someone from playing minesweeper or simply happening on a cache's final location. As much as any person may wish that they could control the "how" of finding a cache, we really can't. I can think of a few dozen times that I've not "followed specific rules" to find a cache--sometimes on purpose, but more often my mistake or unintentionally. In those cases I was able to laugh with the cache owner about how I came to the cache and signed the logbook. I've only encountered those who would be miffed about "following rules" here in the forums...

Any time we insert subjective measure into the guidelines, we've missed the point. One person's "overwhelming assistance" will not be another's. The guidelines for this game on Geocaching.com are just vague enough, and just specific enough to allow the game to be played in very much the way it was in the beginning: Find a spot, place a cache, get coordinates. List the coordinates online and describe the hide. People go out and find the cache at the coordinates, sign the logbook, and then tell people about the experience online. Ta-da! Any other subjective rules only will serve to create far too many instances where TPTB would have to intervene and pass judgement on individual cases.

If one doesn't like that a group logged the cache with a group name, and then they each log online...then where does the line get drawn for other cases? What about when a couple caches under one handle, but the other starts their own account? Are they going to be disallowed the ability to go back and log for themselves the caches that they were there for, found, and perhaps even signed the log for their partner? Let's just not go down that rabbit hole, and let this game be simple: Find it. Sign it. Log it online.

Ethics of Finding

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment