Jump to content

Ok to log an accidental find


Fisher513
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Just to throw this out there...

What if you created a difficult puzzle...or set up a long chain of fun hides for a multi-cache...and the FTF was some John Doe Muggle? In my own opinion - while I would never question the validity of their find or get upset, I have to admit it would be a TINY bit disappointing to see an important part of the process completely skipped, accident or not.

 

Might your disappointment be misplaced? Should you blame the accidental finder for the find or maybe someone else?

 

Who said anything about assigning blame? 'Blame' assumes 'fault', which in turn implies that something is wrong with the setup. It could be the most devious of hides in the most gorgeous and scenic location and it would still feel slightly disappointing to know that part of the effort of devising a puzzle or multi was not fully appreciated by someone...especially the FTF. There's nothing at all inherently "wrong" with them finding it. It's kind of like setting up a big surprise party and having folks hide in the back room...only to have the person you are surprising see all the cars and walk in the back door. The full effect was not fully realized. The party wasn't ruined, but the reveal was not experienced as intended.

 

I do agree with your analogy in that is much like an accidental finder recording the find doesn't ruin anything. It's just that the experience was not as expected by the FTF chaser. Also, "all the cars" would be analogous to "all the foot prints leading to the final cache" or any other telltale signs left by the CO.

 

And since I'm in the mood to assign blame :-), in your analogy, I'd blame the party organizer for the reveal not being experienced as intended. Maybe next time the organizer will consider parking issues. And to being this back to the final cache in your scenario, maybe next time the owner will consider the tailtale signs being given.

Link to comment
What if you created a difficult puzzle...or set up a long chain of fun hides for a multi-cache...and the FTF was some John Doe Muggle?
I'd welcome John Doe Muggle to the game and laugh about it. "The best laid plans..." and all that.

 

I've found puzzle caches without solving the puzzles first. Usually, this has been because I was with a friend who had solved the puzzles, and who wanted to search for the caches with me. But before I logged my finds, I solved the puzzles.

 

But I didn't solve the puzzles because I was under some moral obligation to solve the puzzle before logging the find. I solved the puzzles because I enjoy puzzles, and I wanted to experience that aspect of the puzzle caches. If someone else wants to log a find (even an FTF) without solving the puzzle, then they're welcome to do that.

Link to comment

Just to throw this out there...

What if you created a difficult puzzle...or set up a long chain of fun hides for a multi-cache...and the FTF was some John Doe Muggle? In my own opinion - while I would never question the validity of their find or get upset, I have to admit it would be a TINY bit disappointing to see an important part of the process completely skipped, accident or not.

I guess I'd start questioning my abilities as a cache hider if they were that easy to find.

Link to comment

If I ever find a cache by accident, I would sign the physical log. Then, at home, I would check the cache listing, and if it's a traditional, I would log the find as normal Found It.. If it's a puzzle or multi, I would log it with a Note, and then solve the puzzle/search for the previous stages, and after finding it, I would change my log type to Find It. Unless it's a place far from home and I won't come back in a long time. Then I would... I don't know.

Wait. Can we change log types after the fact?

Link to comment

Just to throw this out there...

What if you created a difficult puzzle...or set up a long chain of fun hides for a multi-cache...and the FTF was some John Doe Muggle? In my own opinion - while I would never question the validity of their find or get upset, I have to admit it would be a TINY bit disappointing to see an important part of the process completely skipped, accident or not.

I guess I'd start questioning my abilities as a cache hider if they were that easy to find.

 

That's quite a leap in logic. How many caches out there have been muggled? How many of those have been incredibly tough or devious hides? No way to know, but it happens and one can't start questioning the abilities of the hider this way. Besides...in the case of a multi or puzzle, maybe the final is intentionally easy to find...or one of those "hidden in plain sight" styles that could easily be damaged or taken by muggles. So your point really has no validity beyond the obvious attempt to insult me.

Link to comment

Just to throw this out there...

What if you created a difficult puzzle...or set up a long chain of fun hides for a multi-cache...and the FTF was some John Doe Muggle? In my own opinion - while I would never question the validity of their find or get upset, I have to admit it would be a TINY bit disappointing to see an important part of the process completely skipped, accident or not.

I guess I'd start questioning my abilities as a cache hider if they were that easy to find.

 

Caches get muggled all the time.

Link to comment

Just to throw this out there...

What if you created a difficult puzzle...or set up a long chain of fun hides for a multi-cache...and the FTF was some John Doe Muggle? In my own opinion - while I would never question the validity of their find or get upset, I have to admit it would be a TINY bit disappointing to see an important part of the process completely skipped, accident or not.

I guess I'd start questioning my abilities as a cache hider if they were that easy to find.

 

That's quite a leap in logic. How many caches out there have been muggled? How many of those have been incredibly tough or devious hides? No way to know, but it happens and one can't start questioning the abilities of the hider this way. Besides...in the case of a multi or puzzle, maybe the final is intentionally easy to find...or one of those "hidden in plain sight" styles that could easily be damaged or taken by muggles. So your point really has no validity beyond the obvious attempt to insult me.

Wasn't trying to insult you in the slightest. I was trying to be the "you" in your hypothetical and post how I would respond. I think I misread your question and combined the two situations, as in a bunch of puzzle caches that were rooted up by the same random dude. And in that situation, I (me) reiterate that if I (the male third of hzoi) set up a chain of puzzle caches and they all got found by some random passerby without benefit of puzzle solution, I (still me) would think that I (this guy in El Paso who is typing now) had not hidden them that well. That's it.

Link to comment

Just to add to the questions, while out this afternoon and being typically unorganised (no caches loaded onto GPS for the area) with no adequate data signal to use the phone we started to discuss where good hiding places would be. Much to our surprise we spotted a tab box nicely hidden in a hole in a wall!

 

Once discreetly retrieved we found that there was only a FTF log in it and that was back in April. We signed the log and recorded the coords to identify the cache later. Checking later, there are no geocaches listed within 0.2mi, it certainly wasn't the closest listing as a picture on the logs shows a different container. Is there anything I should do now? Obviously can't log it and don't see any archived caches in the area.

 

For info - this was in Portrush along the strand.

Link to comment

Just to add to the questions, while out this afternoon and being typically unorganised (no caches loaded onto GPS for the area) with no adequate data signal to use the phone we started to discuss where good hiding places would be. Much to our surprise we spotted a tab box nicely hidden in a hole in a wall!

 

Once discreetly retrieved we found that there was only a FTF log in it and that was back in April. We signed the log and recorded the coords to identify the cache later. Checking later, there are no geocaches listed within 0.2mi, it certainly wasn't the closest listing as a picture on the logs shows a different container. Is there anything I should do now? Obviously can't log it and don't see any archived caches in the area.

 

For info - this was in Portrush along the strand.

 

Do you have any coordinates for it?

 

What was the name on the log?

 

Could have been archived.

 

Could be the final stage of a multicache or a mystery cache.

 

B.

Link to comment
If you have the date that the FTF logged it, and the FTF has his finds listed publicly, you could look through them to see what cache he found on that day.
Yep, that's how I've identified my accidental finds, by identifying the previous finders and the dates they found those caches.
Link to comment

Just to add to the questions, while out this afternoon and being typically unorganised (no caches loaded onto GPS for the area) with no adequate data signal to use the phone we started to discuss where good hiding places would be. Much to our surprise we spotted a tab box nicely hidden in a hole in a wall!

 

Once discreetly retrieved we found that there was only a FTF log in it and that was back in April. We signed the log and recorded the coords to identify the cache later. Checking later, there are no geocaches listed within 0.2mi, it certainly wasn't the closest listing as a picture on the logs shows a different container. Is there anything I should do now? Obviously can't log it and don't see any archived caches in the area.

 

For info - this was in Portrush along the strand.

 

Do you have any coordinates for it?

 

What was the name on the log?

 

Could have been archived.

 

Could be the final stage of a multicache or a mystery cache.

 

B.

I unfortunately never thought of recording the name on the previous log! I have the coords written down and will post later.

 

There is a puzzle cache nearby but can't be to do with this as there are many recent finds for it.

 

How long are archived caches visible for?

Edited by TiberiusSofa
Link to comment
How long are archived caches visible for?
Archived listings are kept on the site indefinitely. However, you can't search for them the way you can search for active caches. The only way to find them really is to go to a list of caches that someone has found, or a list of caches that someone owns, or possibly a bookmark list that still has the cache on it. From there, you can follow the link to the archived listing.
Link to comment

Here are the coordinates that I wrote down at the time, will be a couple of meters out as we moved away to sign, but shouldn't be any further.

 

N55 12.292

W006 38.962

 

There is an archived multi cache near that area, GC1T6RN, and an archived mystery cache near that area, GC292BZ. No archived traditional caches in that area. (You can include archived caches in a map search using project-gc.com.) There are other archived mystery caches further away on the map that it could be as well. I didn't notice any caches that had only been found once before being archived, but then what you found could have been a replacement cache.

 

Or, it could be a cache that hasn't been published yet and was accidentally found by someone else.

 

(Or it could be listed on another site other than geocaching.com.)

 

If you go back, write down the name of the other cacher who logged it and try to contact them.

Link to comment

I found out about Geocaching because of an accidental find. A friend of mine went for a lunch break run in the woods near his office and found a cache. Checked the website and emailed me with this "new" thing to do in the woods (we are both active Orienteers) A few days later I found my first cache.

Link to comment

Here are the coordinates that I wrote down at the time, will be a couple of meters out as we moved away to sign, but shouldn't be any further.

 

N55 12.292

W006 38.962

 

I checked out those coordinates, and it looks like it is a cache that was submitted, but never published on gc.com.

 

So either the FTF was another person who found it accidentally like you did, or it was someone who was with the cache hider during placement.

Edited by Cascade Reviewer
speelling
Link to comment

 

I checked out those coordinates, and it looks like it is a cache that was submitted, but never published on gc.com.

 

So either the FTF was another person who found it accidentally like you did, or it was someone who was with the cache hider during placement.

 

Cheers for checking, at least I wasn't imagining things [:P]

So take it this just stays there inactive as there is no active CO?

Link to comment

 

I checked out those coordinates, and it looks like it is a cache that was submitted, but never published on gc.com.

 

So either the FTF was another person who found it accidentally like you did, or it was someone who was with the cache hider during placement.

 

Cheers for checking, at least I wasn't imagining things [:P]

So take it this just stays there inactive as there is no active CO?

Probably. In this case, I highly doubt the cache will ever be listed, it's been sitting inactive for a long time unfortunately.

Link to comment

 

I checked out those coordinates, and it looks like it is a cache that was submitted, but never published on gc.com.

 

So either the FTF was another person who found it accidentally like you did, or it was someone who was with the cache hider during placement.

 

Cheers for checking, at least I wasn't imagining things [:P]

So take it this just stays there inactive as there is no active CO?

Probably. In this case, I highly doubt the cache will ever be listed, it's been sitting inactive for a long time unfortunately.

 

It might be cross listed with another site.

Link to comment

Just to throw this out there...

What if you created a difficult puzzle...or set up a long chain of fun hides for a multi-cache...and the FTF was some John Doe Muggle? In my own opinion - while I would never question the validity of their find or get upset, I have to admit it would be a TINY bit disappointing to see an important part of the process completely skipped, accident or not.

 

Might your disappointment be misplaced? Should you blame the accidental finder for the find or maybe someone else?

 

Who said anything about assigning blame? 'Blame' assumes 'fault', which in turn implies that something is wrong with the setup. It could be the most devious of hides in the most gorgeous and scenic location and it would still feel slightly disappointing to know that part of the effort of devising a puzzle or multi was not fully appreciated by someone...especially the FTF. There's nothing at all inherently "wrong" with them finding it. It's kind of like setting up a big surprise party and having folks hide in the back room...only to have the person you are surprising see all the cars and walk in the back door. The full effect was not fully realized. The party wasn't ruined, but the reveal was not experienced as intended.

 

True, but the hypothetical is unlikely. And after the accidental FTF, there will be a geocaching finder who does the puzzle, etc., along with the full search, and who writes a nice log. Then the CO will feel better, I hope. Plus many more finders will later express their appreciation for the cache.

Link to comment

So a while back I went on a day of caching in a local park and when I went to look at the bulletin board with all the flyers of stuff to do the the area I found a micro hanging from a tack! Im still debating whether or not to log it as a find, what do you think?

 

Most people who have been caching for a while find the rare accidental cache. Don't we all take a peek in a "likely spot" occasionally? and sometimes get lucky? I log any cache I find if I have identified it by map and description so there is no doubt I got the right one. If I need to I check with the owner first just to make sure I've got the correct cache.

Link to comment

Just to throw this out there...

What if you created a difficult puzzle...or set up a long chain of fun hides for a multi-cache...and the FTF was some John Doe Muggle? In my own opinion - while I would never question the validity of their find or get upset, I have to admit it would be a TINY bit disappointing to see an important part of the process completely skipped, accident or not.

 

Might your disappointment be misplaced? Should you blame the accidental finder for the find or maybe someone else?

 

Who said anything about assigning blame? 'Blame' assumes 'fault', which in turn implies that something is wrong with the setup. It could be the most devious of hides in the most gorgeous and scenic location and it would still feel slightly disappointing to know that part of the effort of devising a puzzle or multi was not fully appreciated by someone...especially the FTF. There's nothing at all inherently "wrong" with them finding it. It's kind of like setting up a big surprise party and having folks hide in the back room...only to have the person you are surprising see all the cars and walk in the back door. The full effect was not fully realized. The party wasn't ruined, but the reveal was not experienced as intended.

 

True, but the hypothetical is unlikely. And after the accidental FTF, there will be a geocaching finder who does the puzzle, etc., along with the full search, and who writes a nice log. Then the CO will feel better, I hope. Plus many more finders will later express their appreciation for the cache.

 

In my opinion to log a multicache you need to find each element, so accidently finding the final would not count.

Link to comment

Just to throw this out there...

What if you created a difficult puzzle...or set up a long chain of fun hides for a multi-cache...and the FTF was some John Doe Muggle? In my own opinion - while I would never question the validity of their find or get upset, I have to admit it would be a TINY bit disappointing to see an important part of the process completely skipped, accident or not.

 

Might your disappointment be misplaced? Should you blame the accidental finder for the find or maybe someone else?

 

Who said anything about assigning blame? 'Blame' assumes 'fault', which in turn implies that something is wrong with the setup. It could be the most devious of hides in the most gorgeous and scenic location and it would still feel slightly disappointing to know that part of the effort of devising a puzzle or multi was not fully appreciated by someone...especially the FTF. There's nothing at all inherently "wrong" with them finding it. It's kind of like setting up a big surprise party and having folks hide in the back room...only to have the person you are surprising see all the cars and walk in the back door. The full effect was not fully realized. The party wasn't ruined, but the reveal was not experienced as intended.

 

True, but the hypothetical is unlikely. And after the accidental FTF, there will be a geocaching finder who does the puzzle, etc., along with the full search, and who writes a nice log. Then the CO will feel better, I hope. Plus many more finders will later express their appreciation for the cache.

 

In my opinion to log a multicache you need to find each element, so accidently finding the final would not count.

The accidental finder who signs the logbook of any cache (other than Challenge caches) has WAAAY more right to claim a find than the person who merely goes to the cache location, however remote it may be, and fails to find the cache.:ph34r:

Link to comment

Just to throw this out there...

What if you created a difficult puzzle...or set up a long chain of fun hides for a multi-cache...and the FTF was some John Doe Muggle? In my own opinion - while I would never question the validity of their find or get upset, I have to admit it would be a TINY bit disappointing to see an important part of the process completely skipped, accident or not.

 

Might your disappointment be misplaced? Should you blame the accidental finder for the find or maybe someone else?

 

Who said anything about assigning blame? 'Blame' assumes 'fault', which in turn implies that something is wrong with the setup. It could be the most devious of hides in the most gorgeous and scenic location and it would still feel slightly disappointing to know that part of the effort of devising a puzzle or multi was not fully appreciated by someone...especially the FTF. There's nothing at all inherently "wrong" with them finding it. It's kind of like setting up a big surprise party and having folks hide in the back room...only to have the person you are surprising see all the cars and walk in the back door. The full effect was not fully realized. The party wasn't ruined, but the reveal was not experienced as intended.

 

True, but the hypothetical is unlikely. And after the accidental FTF, there will be a geocaching finder who does the puzzle, etc., along with the full search, and who writes a nice log. Then the CO will feel better, I hope. Plus many more finders will later express their appreciation for the cache.

 

In my opinion to log a multicache you need to find each element, so accidently finding the final would not count.

The accidental finder who signs the logbook of any cache (other than Challenge caches) has WAAAY more right to claim a find than the person who merely goes to the cache location, however remote it may be, and fails to find the cache.:ph34r:

 

Can't argue with that, but its still not legit to log a multiple when you only found the last one by fluke. I think anyway.

Link to comment

Just to throw this out there...

What if you created a difficult puzzle...or set up a long chain of fun hides for a multi-cache...and the FTF was some John Doe Muggle? In my own opinion - while I would never question the validity of their find or get upset, I have to admit it would be a TINY bit disappointing to see an important part of the process completely skipped, accident or not.

 

Might your disappointment be misplaced? Should you blame the accidental finder for the find or maybe someone else?

 

Who said anything about assigning blame? 'Blame' assumes 'fault', which in turn implies that something is wrong with the setup. It could be the most devious of hides in the most gorgeous and scenic location and it would still feel slightly disappointing to know that part of the effort of devising a puzzle or multi was not fully appreciated by someone...especially the FTF. There's nothing at all inherently "wrong" with them finding it. It's kind of like setting up a big surprise party and having folks hide in the back room...only to have the person you are surprising see all the cars and walk in the back door. The full effect was not fully realized. The party wasn't ruined, but the reveal was not experienced as intended.

 

True, but the hypothetical is unlikely. And after the accidental FTF, there will be a geocaching finder who does the puzzle, etc., along with the full search, and who writes a nice log. Then the CO will feel better, I hope. Plus many more finders will later express their appreciation for the cache.

 

In my opinion to log a multicache you need to find each element, so accidently finding the final would not count.

The accidental finder who signs the logbook of any cache (other than Challenge caches) has WAAAY more right to claim a find than the person who merely goes to the cache location, however remote it may be, and fails to find the cache.:ph34r:

 

Can't argue with that, but its still not legit to log a multiple when you only found the last one by fluke. I think anyway.

 

All that is required is to sign the log.

Link to comment

Just to throw this out there...

What if you created a difficult puzzle...or set up a long chain of fun hides for a multi-cache...and the FTF was some John Doe Muggle? In my own opinion - while I would never question the validity of their find or get upset, I have to admit it would be a TINY bit disappointing to see an important part of the process completely skipped, accident or not.

 

Might your disappointment be misplaced? Should you blame the accidental finder for the find or maybe someone else?

 

Who said anything about assigning blame? 'Blame' assumes 'fault', which in turn implies that something is wrong with the setup. It could be the most devious of hides in the most gorgeous and scenic location and it would still feel slightly disappointing to know that part of the effort of devising a puzzle or multi was not fully appreciated by someone...especially the FTF. There's nothing at all inherently "wrong" with them finding it. It's kind of like setting up a big surprise party and having folks hide in the back room...only to have the person you are surprising see all the cars and walk in the back door. The full effect was not fully realized. The party wasn't ruined, but the reveal was not experienced as intended.

 

True, but the hypothetical is unlikely. And after the accidental FTF, there will be a geocaching finder who does the puzzle, etc., along with the full search, and who writes a nice log. Then the CO will feel better, I hope. Plus many more finders will later express their appreciation for the cache.

 

In my opinion to log a multicache you need to find each element, so accidently finding the final would not count.

The accidental finder who signs the logbook of any cache (other than Challenge caches) has WAAAY more right to claim a find than the person who merely goes to the cache location, however remote it may be, and fails to find the cache.:ph34r:

 

Can't argue with that, but its still not legit to log a multiple when you only found the last one by fluke. I think anyway.

 

They still found it, they get to log it. It doesn't matter if it's a traditional, A multi of any length or a puzzle that requires intimate knowledge of astrophysics AND the biology of the Fairy Penguin and their interactions to get the coordinates...... Get the log in your hands and you can claim the find. The fact of the matter is that the multiple stops or puzzles are just road blocks, in the real world we reward people who find ways around these road blocks.

Edited by Tassie_Boy
Link to comment

Just to throw this out there...

What if you created a difficult puzzle...or set up a long chain of fun hides for a multi-cache...and the FTF was some John Doe Muggle? In my own opinion - while I would never question the validity of their find or get upset, I have to admit it would be a TINY bit disappointing to see an important part of the process completely skipped, accident or not.

 

Might your disappointment be misplaced? Should you blame the accidental finder for the find or maybe someone else?

 

Who said anything about assigning blame? 'Blame' assumes 'fault', which in turn implies that something is wrong with the setup. It could be the most devious of hides in the most gorgeous and scenic location and it would still feel slightly disappointing to know that part of the effort of devising a puzzle or multi was not fully appreciated by someone...especially the FTF. There's nothing at all inherently "wrong" with them finding it. It's kind of like setting up a big surprise party and having folks hide in the back room...only to have the person you are surprising see all the cars and walk in the back door. The full effect was not fully realized. The party wasn't ruined, but the reveal was not experienced as intended.

 

True, but the hypothetical is unlikely. And after the accidental FTF, there will be a geocaching finder who does the puzzle, etc., along with the full search, and who writes a nice log. Then the CO will feel better, I hope. Plus many more finders will later express their appreciation for the cache.

 

In my opinion to log a multicache you need to find each element, so accidently finding the final would not count.

The accidental finder who signs the logbook of any cache (other than Challenge caches) has WAAAY more right to claim a find than the person who merely goes to the cache location, however remote it may be, and fails to find the cache.:ph34r:

 

Can't argue with that, but its still not legit to log a multiple when you only found the last one by fluke. I think anyway.

 

They still found it, they get to log it. It doesn't matter if it's a traditional, A multi of any length or a puzzle that requires intimate knowledge of astrophysics AND the biology of the Fairy Penguin and their interactions to get the coordinates...... Get the log in your hands and you can claim the find. The fact of the matter is that the multiple stops or puzzles are just road blocks, in the real world we reward people who find ways around these road blocks.

 

good point!

Link to comment

So a while back I went on a day of caching in a local park and when I went to look at the bulletin board with all the flyers of stuff to do the the area I found a micro hanging from a tack! Im still debating whether or not to log it as a find, what do you think?

 

I would say if it is regular cache then yes logging it would be ok. However if it is part of a multi cache then you need to do the entire cache. I found the end of a multi but have not completed the rest of the stages so I will not log it until I do all of it.

I

Link to comment

I haven't done a multi yet so correct me if I'm wrong. Unless the GC code is in the final location, wouldn't it be impossible to log a find without the code? The location wouldn't be on the map. But they could sign and tale a ftf prize because they are there.

 

As for logging it. They were the "first to find" it. They were not the first to complete the process.

 

James

Link to comment
Unless the GC code is in the final location, wouldn't it be impossible to log a find without the code? The location wouldn't be on the map.
I've identified my accidental finds (which weren't on the map) by noting a few of the names and dates in the log, and then looking up the cache(s) found by those members on those dates.

 

And many caches do have the cache name and/or the GC code on the cache or on the log.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...