Jump to content

Legal Find or Not


Jffok

Recommended Posts

I have searched geocaching how to but cannot find anything on this topic. I found a cache that had been placed 5 months before. Bad cords and in a real out of the way area. The cords were finally corrected and I went and found the cache. Still no finds showing on the cache pages. But there was a name (Geosnakes) on the paper log dated the month before. I could not find this name by searching it. So I have not claimed a first to find on this but was wondering if to claim a find you would have to log it on the site.

Link to comment

I have searched geocaching how to but cannot find anything on this topic. I found a cache that had been placed 5 months before. Bad cords and in a real out of the way area. The cords were finally corrected and I went and found the cache. Still no finds showing on the cache pages. But there was a name (Geosnakes) on the paper log dated the month before. I could not find this name by searching it. So I have not claimed a first to find on this but was wondering if to claim a find you would have to log it on the site.

 

If you don't log it online... then where else would you be claiming to have found it? :unsure:

Link to comment

There are folks who will do lots of finding of caches, properly signing the logs, but never log their finds online. There are a variety of reasons for them to do so, which I won't recite here.

 

Also, it may just be that the original finder is just really behind in logging his/her finds. It happens to some folks.

 

I guess I'm not sure what it means to "claim a find" if you're not logging it online. I can always tell all my friends about the tens of thousands of caches I've found, but if I'm not logging them, they'll just have to take my word for it (or, in this case, not, since I don't have that many finds).

Link to comment

I have searched geocaching how to but cannot find anything on this topic. I found a cache that had been placed 5 months before. Bad cords and in a real out of the way area. The cords were finally corrected and I went and found the cache. Still no finds showing on the cache pages. But there was a name (Geosnakes) on the paper log dated the month before. I could not find this name by searching it. So I have not claimed a first to find on this but was wondering if to claim a find you would have to log it on the site.

 

If you don't log it online... then where else would you be claiming to have found it? :unsure:

 

The signature on the log is his/her claim.

Link to comment

Thanks for the replies. I guess there is no hard rule on this anywhere. I am guessing maybe it was someone who knew the CO and was considering taking up the hobby of geocaching and then changed their mind. Some of my friends say I should claim a ftf and some say I can't . I probably won't.

Link to comment

Thanks for the replies. I guess there is no hard rule on this anywhere. I am guessing maybe it was someone who knew the CO and was considering taking up the hobby of geocaching and then changed their mind. Some of my friends say I should claim a ftf and some say I can't . I probably won't.

 

OK, now it is more clear and we are discussing a FTF. :laughing:

 

You would only be the first to log if there was another players signature on the log book.

Link to comment

Manville Possum Hunters I agree with you but the glitz is that the person never set up a geocaching account. It was one month and one day after he/she signed the log sheet that I found it and still they do not have a geocaching account. Since there is no direct answer (or rule) on this I will leave it as is. I signed the log and on my on line log I said it had been found the month before but that the cache had never set up an account and logged the find. Maybe someday they will . The person who hid the cache shows to never have logged a cache on line either. Maybe they don't know they can or even that they should.

Link to comment

Manville Possum Hunters I agree with you but the glitz is that the person never set up a geocaching account. It was one month and one day after he/she signed the log sheet that I found it and still they do not have a geocaching account. Since there is no direct answer (or rule) on this I will leave it as is. I signed the log and on my on line log I said it had been found the month before but that the cache had never set up an account and logged the find. Maybe someday they will . The person who hid the cache shows to never have logged a cache on line either. Maybe they don't know they can or even that they should.

 

Maybe it was a beta tester and the CO gave them the coordinates, or did the finder get the coordinates from this web site?

 

It don't really matter, because if you found the cache and signed the log then you should log your find online. The FTF stuff is just a side game to geocaching. Find it, sign the log, log your find. Simple. B)

Link to comment

So I have not claimed a first to find on this but was wondering if to claim a find you would have to log it on the site.

Nope. There are many non-web site logging geocachers. Especially during the early years there were many who did not log online.

 

Unless you can find that the one signing the log was a beta tester then it would not be a ftf for you.

Link to comment

I have searched geocaching how to but cannot find anything on this topic. I found a cache that had been placed 5 months before. Bad cords and in a real out of the way area. The cords were finally corrected and I went and found the cache. Still no finds showing on the cache pages. But there was a name (Geosnakes) on the paper log dated the month before. I could not find this name by searching it. So I have not claimed a first to find on this but was wondering if to claim a find you would have to log it on the site.

 

"First to find" is not a recognized stat on the website. If you think "first to log online" is the same as "first to find," then go right ahead.

Link to comment

Thanks for the replies. I guess there is no hard rule on this anywhere.

 

It might not be documented anywhere but it is simple.. if you were first, then you were first. If you weren't first then you weren't. Anything else is a joke. There should not be any gray areas about such a thing.

 

And if you need a FTF handed to you then I have news for you, the FTF side game isn't for you.

Link to comment

It might not be documented anywhere but it is simple.. if you were first, then you were first. If you weren't first then you weren't. Anything else is a joke. There should not be any gray areas about such a thing.

It might look simple, but there actually are several gray areas. Mostly, this is because there are lots of gray areas about the definition of a "find." Here are just a few examples:

 

  • If a beta tester is the first to find the cache, then are they the FTF?
     
  • Can a cache hider find their own cache? If so, then if the cache hider signs the log first, then are they the FTF?
     
  • If two people share the task of searching for the cache, then can the one who doesn't find the container be a co-FTF?
     
  • If a geocacher finds the cache and photographs the empty log book but doesn't sign the log book, then are they the FTF? What if they don't bother photographing the log book? Are they still the FTF? If so, then how would we ever know who is the FTF?
     
  • What if a geocacher spots the cache up in a tree and doesn't climb the tree but photographs the container? If the cache owner has allowed such "finds" to be logged as finds on their other caches, then is that non-climbing geocacher the FTF for this cache?

Link to comment

It might not be documented anywhere but it is simple.. if you were first, then you were first. If you weren't first then you weren't. Anything else is a joke. There should not be any gray areas about such a thing.

It might look simple, but there actually are several gray areas. Mostly, this is because there are lots of gray areas about the definition of a "find." Here are just a few examples:

 

  • If a beta tester is the first to find the cache, then are they the FTF?
     
  • Can a cache hider find their own cache? If so, then if the cache hider signs the log first, then are they the FTF?
     
  • If two people share the task of searching for the cache, then can the one who doesn't find the container be a co-FTF?
     
  • If a geocacher finds the cache and photographs the empty log book but doesn't sign the log book, then are they the FTF? What if they don't bother photographing the log book? Are they still the FTF? If so, then how would we ever know who is the FTF?
     
  • What if a geocacher spots the cache up in a tree and doesn't climb the tree but photographs the container? If the cache owner has allowed such "finds" to be logged as finds on their other caches, then is that non-climbing geocacher the FTF for this cache?

 

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. There are always exceptions to every rule, but within the context of the OP in which I was speaking, it is perfectly clear.

Link to comment

It might not be documented anywhere but it is simple.. if you were first, then you were first. If you weren't first then you weren't. Anything else is a joke. There should not be any gray areas about such a thing.

It might look simple, but there actually are several gray areas. Mostly, this is because there are lots of gray areas about the definition of a "find." Here are just a few examples:

 

  • If a beta tester is the first to find the cache, then are they the FTF?
     
  • Can a cache hider find their own cache? If so, then if the cache hider signs the log first, then are they the FTF?
     
  • If two people share the task of searching for the cache, then can the one who doesn't find the container be a co-FTF?
     
  • If a geocacher finds the cache and photographs the empty log book but doesn't sign the log book, then are they the FTF? What if they don't bother photographing the log book? Are they still the FTF? If so, then how would we ever know who is the FTF?
     
  • What if a geocacher spots the cache up in a tree and doesn't climb the tree but photographs the container? If the cache owner has allowed such "finds" to be logged as finds on their other caches, then is that non-climbing geocacher the FTF for this cache?

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. There are always exceptions to every rule, but within the context of the OP in which I was speaking, it is perfectly clear.

In other words, it is NOT so simple and there ARE gray areas. That's quite a bit different than what you first proclaimed.

Link to comment

It might not be documented anywhere but it is simple.. if you were first, then you were first. If you weren't first then you weren't. Anything else is a joke. There should not be any gray areas about such a thing.

It might look simple, but there actually are several gray areas. Mostly, this is because there are lots of gray areas about the definition of a "find."

I actually don't find these examples particularly gray myself, but the fun part about the FTF game is that it's subjective: you claim FTF for yourself, you don't have to convince anyone else to grant it to you. Multiple people can claim FTF if they see these issues differently, and that doesn't cause any problems. People arguing about it is a problem, but only for them.

Link to comment

Around here it is common to see a cache placed in a remote area. After the first person to log online a cacher that was along for the ride when the cache was placed will log it. Deferring FTF to the cacher who wasn't there to see where the cache was placed. I have not looked to see if they call their intensions out in the paper log though.

Link to comment

Reminds me of the logs I frequently see saying stuff like "<cacher> was kind enough to share the FTF with me"...as if it's some sort of award. How do people share an FTF? Why are people so hung up on getting some sort of FTF credit even though they were maybe a couple minutes too late?

 

Others have chimed in, but let me offer an example from my logs.

 

Cemetery cache posts. It's rated as a 3/1.5, because while the cache host is obvious, figuring out how to extract the cache is not (or so the description says). I get to the site first and, well, yes, I see the host, but I have no idea what to do to extract the cache. I muck about for awhile. Another pair of cachers show up, we greet one another, I show them the host, they offer an idea, and I use the idea to extract the cache from the host.

 

Who gets the FTF? I got there first, I retrieved the cache, and I signed the log first, but I would've never have figured out how to get the cache out without their help. I say that the other pair deserves a co-FTF, and I stated as much in my log. In their logs, they only claimed STF.

 

I've had it happen in the other direction as well. Once, I showed up second at the site of a cache to find another cache searching the area to no avail. He's searching only with his smartphone, so he's not sure if he trusts the coordinates. I have a handheld GPSr, which I power up and confirm that the site we're searching matches the coordinates. We decide to broaden the search radius ... I head south, he heads north, and a few moments later he finds it, in a place that's about 55' north of the posted coordinates. He's got the cache in hand first, but he tells me I'm co-FTF because I helped make the find possible.

 

Again ... since "FTF" isn't an official statistic, anybody is free to claim it, based on whatever criteria they like.

Link to comment

It might not be documented anywhere but it is simple.. if you were first, then you were first. If you weren't first then you weren't. Anything else is a joke. There should not be any gray areas about such a thing.

It might look simple, but there actually are several gray areas. Mostly, this is because there are lots of gray areas about the definition of a "find."

I actually don't find these examples particularly gray myself, but the fun part about the FTF game is that it's subjective: you claim FTF for yourself, you don't have to convince anyone else to grant it to you. Multiple people can claim FTF if they see these issues differently, and that doesn't cause any problems. People arguing about it is a problem, but only for them.

Yes, my own standards provide clear answers to each of my examples as well. But I don't claim my standards should dictate how others view the issue. Different people have different FTF standards that provide different answers to my examples, so the answers aren't black-and-white across the geocaching community. Hence, my description of them as "gray" areas.

Link to comment

I did not claim a FTF on the cache in question. I simply logged it as a find. I know cachers who do not log all their finds. I was just curious about this one since the name on the log sheet was not associated with a geocaching account. Had I wanted to log a FTF on it I would simply have done that without even mentioning any of this. I was just curious and again I thank each of you for the comments even the not so nice ones thinking I was seeking permission to log an FTF. I do not chase the FTFs.

Link to comment
I was just curious about this one since the name on the log sheet was not associated with a geocaching account.
I've gone geocaching with groups, where we've signed a single temporary "team name" rather than signing everyone's individual geocaching name. These "team names" are not registered anywhere, and there is no geocaching.com account corresponding to any of them, unless someone else just happened to register an account using the same name we used as a team name.

 

And sometimes people change their geocaching.com name. The old name still appears on the logs they signed before changing their name.

 

In such situations, the name on the log may not correspond to a geocaching.com account.

Link to comment
but the fun part about the FTF game is that it's subjective: you claim FTF for yourself, you don't have to convince anyone else to grant it to you. Multiple people can claim FTF if they see these issues differently, and that doesn't cause any problems. People arguing about it is a problem, but only for them.

If you really want to have some fun, claim FTF on every cache you find.

 

Why are people so hung up on getting some sort of FTF credit even though they were maybe a couple minutes too late?

Likewise, why are people so hung up on trying to define the FTF for the hounds when they admit there are no rules for it?

If everyone can play this game their own way and since FTF isn't a rule, then if we say to just let people do the FTF thing if they want, then let people also argue amongst themselves about FTF if they want too :P

Link to comment
but the fun part about the FTF game is that it's subjective: you claim FTF for yourself, you don't have to convince anyone else to grant it to you. Multiple people can claim FTF if they see these issues differently, and that doesn't cause any problems. People arguing about it is a problem, but only for them.

If you really want to have some fun, claim FTF on every cache you find.

 

Why are people so hung up on getting some sort of FTF credit even though they were maybe a couple minutes too late?

Likewise, why are people so hung up on trying to define the FTF for the hounds when they admit there are no rules for it?

If everyone can play this game their own way and since FTF isn't a rule, then if we say to just let people do the FTF thing if they want, then let people also argue amongst themselves about FTF if they want too :P

 

Are you saying I am trying to "define the FTF"? Hardly. It seems pretty clear cut. It sort of defines itself: first to find. Not first to arrive. Not first to touch. Not first to open. Not first to sign. Now, I can't and won't tell people what they can or can't claim. Heck...if someone is the 63rd to find it, they can tell everyone they were the first for all I care. What gets me (and no, it doesn't upset me or bother me...it merely perplexes me) is when it's something that is bartered or negotiated, as if there can be some sort of arrangement made in order to write "FTF" in their log.

 

If I find it first, I log it that way. If I'm a close second, I don't. If I get there at the same time as another and we both look and I find it first, I log it that way but I don't get angry or upset if the other person does too. It's happened once or twice for me and I just basically shrugged it off...thinking it quite silly that others felt the need to make the claim that way.

Link to comment

It might not be documented anywhere but it is simple.. if you were first, then you were first. If you weren't first then you weren't. Anything else is a joke. There should not be any gray areas about such a thing.

It might look simple, but there actually are several gray areas. Mostly, this is because there are lots of gray areas about the definition of a "find." Here are just a few examples:

 

  • If a beta tester is the first to find the cache, then are they the FTF?
     
  • Can a cache hider find their own cache? If so, then if the cache hider signs the log first, then are they the FTF?
     
  • If two people share the task of searching for the cache, then can the one who doesn't find the container be a co-FTF?
     
  • If a geocacher finds the cache and photographs the empty log book but doesn't sign the log book, then are they the FTF? What if they don't bother photographing the log book? Are they still the FTF? If so, then how would we ever know who is the FTF?
     
  • What if a geocacher spots the cache up in a tree and doesn't climb the tree but photographs the container? If the cache owner has allowed such "finds" to be logged as finds on their other caches, then is that non-climbing geocacher the FTF for this cache?

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. There are always exceptions to every rule, but within the context of the OP in which I was speaking, it is perfectly clear.

In other words, it is NOT so simple and there ARE gray areas. That's quite a bit different than what you first proclaimed.

 

No, not really gray unless you aspire to be argumentative.

Link to comment

If you really want to have some fun, claim FTF on every cache you find.

I can't imagine why that would be fun, but have at.

 

What gets me (and no, it doesn't upset me or bother me...it merely perplexes me) is when it's something that is bartered or negotiated, as if there can be some sort of arrangement made in order to write "FTF" in their log.

No, I don't understand it, either. (By the way, the idiom "what gets me" means "what annoys me" to most people -- and to the dictionary where I just looked it up -- so you might do better to just say "what perplexes me" if that's all you mean.)

 

If I find it first, I log it that way. If I'm a close second, I don't. If I get there at the same time as another and we both look and I find it first, I log it that way but I don't get angry or upset if the other person does too. It's happened once or twice for me and I just basically shrugged it off...thinking it quite silly that others felt the need to make the claim that way.

I think we've discussed this before, but the only real difference between our views is that I see the people searching acting as a team which either does or doesn't find the cache as a unit and, hence, are all first to find simply by being in that unit. So if someone else in my team finds it first, I'll claim FTF, although typically in my FTF log I mention who was involved in what ways in the actual discovery.

Link to comment

What gets me (and no, it doesn't upset me or bother me...it merely perplexes me) is when it's something that is bartered or negotiated, as if there can be some sort of arrangement made in order to write "FTF" in their log.

No, I don't understand it, either. (By the way, the idiom "what gets me" means "what annoys me" to most people -- and to the dictionary where I just looked it up -- so you might do better to just say "what perplexes me" if that's all you mean.)

 

*sigh*

 

If I find it first, I log it that way. If I'm a close second, I don't. If I get there at the same time as another and we both look and I find it first, I log it that way but I don't get angry or upset if the other person does too. It's happened once or twice for me and I just basically shrugged it off...thinking it quite silly that others felt the need to make the claim that way.

I think we've discussed this before, but the only real difference between our views is that I see the people searching acting as a team which either does or doesn't find the cache as a unit and, hence, are all first to find simply by being in that unit. So if someone else in my team finds it first, I'll claim FTF, although typically in my FTF log I mention who was involved in what ways in the actual discovery.

 

I don't do the "group caching" thing for reasons I've already explained. My enjoyment of it depends on it being a solitary exercise...or something to do with my kids, who don't worry about the log or the online aspect of it.

Link to comment

Are you saying I am trying to "define the FTF"? Hardly. It seems pretty clear cut. It sort of defines itself: first to find. Not first to arrive. Not first to touch. Not first to open. Not first to sign. Now, I can't and won't tell people what they can or can't claim. Heck...if someone is the 63rd to find it, they can tell everyone they were the first for all I care. What gets me (and no, it doesn't upset me or bother me...it merely perplexes me) is when it's something that is bartered or negotiated, as if there can be some sort of arrangement made in order to write "FTF" in their log.

And my point was, why does that matter? You may not be upset, but you're "perplexed" enough to want to comment critically about it in the forums :) Again, why does it matter, if it is has no official rule?

Additionally, we've seen over and over and over again that it's not that simple for those who claim ftf. Even in this thread there are examples of how it's not just clear cut. You may apply it clear cut, but that doesn't mean it is for everyone. So, if it doesn't matter to you, well... clearly it does :)

 

If I find it first, I log it that way. If I'm a close second, I don't. If I get there at the same time as another and we both look and I find it first, I log it that way but I don't get angry or upset if the other person does too.

But you're still critical of other applications of 'ftf' as per comments in here.

 

"thinking it quite silly that others felt the need to make the claim that way."

Ok. So why does it matter to make sure everyone knows you think it's silly? (I'm really not trying to center you out, just pointing out that this back and forth has gone on since forever :P)

 

Like, "There's a reason FTF is not officially defined" followed up by "But first means first and find means find - it's clear cut and obvious!"

 

....it either matters or it doesn't. Play the way you want to play, and when it comes to something like ftf, who cares.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Are you saying I am trying to "define the FTF"? Hardly. It seems pretty clear cut. It sort of defines itself: first to find. Not first to arrive. Not first to touch. Not first to open. Not first to sign. Now, I can't and won't tell people what they can or can't claim. Heck...if someone is the 63rd to find it, they can tell everyone they were the first for all I care. What gets me (and no, it doesn't upset me or bother me...it merely perplexes me) is when it's something that is bartered or negotiated, as if there can be some sort of arrangement made in order to write "FTF" in their log.

And my point was, why does that matter? You may not be upset, but you're "perplexed" enough to want to comment critically about it in the forums :) Again, why does it matter, if it is has no official rule?

Additionally, we've seen over and over and over again that it's not that simple for those who claim ftf. Even in this thread there are examples of how it's not just clear cut. You may apply it clear cut, but that doesn't mean it is for everyone. So, if it doesn't matter to you, well... clearly it does :)

 

If I find it first, I log it that way. If I'm a close second, I don't. If I get there at the same time as another and we both look and I find it first, I log it that way but I don't get angry or upset if the other person does too.

But you're still critical of other applications of 'ftf' as per comments in here.

 

"thinking it quite silly that others felt the need to make the claim that way."

Ok. So why does it matter to make sure everyone knows you think it's silly? (I'm really not trying to center you out, just pointing out that this back and forth has gone on since forever :P)

 

Like, "There's a reason FTF is not officially defined" followed up by "But first means first and find means find - it's clear cut and obvious!"

 

....it either matters or it doesn't. Play the way you want to play, and when it comes to something like ftf, who cares.

 

Another thing that perplexes me is your compulsive need to argue every...little...thing...

 

Seriously. I think an intervention is in order.

Link to comment

I don't do the "group caching" thing for reasons I've already explained. My enjoyment of it depends on it being a solitary exercise...or something to do with my kids, who don't worry about the log or the online aspect of it.

I normally cache alone, too, which I think might be why when I am caching with others, I still tend to see it as a single entity searching instead of individuals searching alone at the same time. It also doesn't help that "the other person" is often my lovely assistant who isn't a geocacher, and in that case it would seem silly to not claim FTF because she's the one that found the cache. That would be like not claiming FTF because I unwittingly knocked it loose with a stick, so technically the stick found it first.

Link to comment

Caveat up front: the post below reflects merely my own views on the subject and is not intended as a jab at other cachers.

 

Back in the day, when I chased FTFs, I claimed FTF in similar circumstances. For two of the caches, the "first finder" was a beta tester for the cache owner and didn't log his find online until a few months later. For the third, the beta tester has yet to log his find, though he signed the log FTF and the owner credited him with FTF on the page.

 

I think today I wouldn't claim FTF on any of these, but probably because my view on the FTF game has changed as well. Back when we first started, I would get frustrated and even angry if someone beat me to the cache. Which makes no sense. This is supposed to be fun. And since I have never set up my phone to get email alerts, which has really been the key to being FTF ever since we started in 2007, I realized I was setting myself up for disappointment most of the time, anyway. It made no sense.

 

So I started throttling back on FTFs a few years ago. These days, if I get one, cool. If not, no big deal. I don't usually try to be first, unless it's either a cache I happen to be driving by or an out of the way cache that no one has bothered to look for yet. I'll admit there is still a little thrill to the chase when I go for FTF and a little moment of disappointment if I see that someone else has gotten there first. But although I did get a little kick out of being the first to find a local roadside micro last week, I had a much better time last month when I hiked out over a narrow desert mesa in Las Alamos and found a cache that hadn't been logged since January 2012. (The stunning views and challenging hike probably helped.)

 

I've taken the same attitude on our owned caches. I used to edit the cache to congratulate the first finders, but I don't even do that anymore. I've seen more than one instance where arguments broke out in the cache logs on who was or wasn't FTF. I leave it to them to figure out.

 

As for the three beta tested caches I claimed as FTF, I am tempted to edit my logs and take them off our FTF list, but I'm leaving them there as a reminder to myself to keep the game fun and not make it a competition.

Link to comment

I have searched geocaching how to but cannot find anything on this topic. I found a cache that had been placed 5 months before. Bad cords and in a real out of the way area. The cords were finally corrected and I went and found the cache. Still no finds showing on the cache pages. But there was a name (Geosnakes) on the paper log dated the month before. I could not find this name by searching it. So I have not claimed a first to find on this but was wondering if to claim a find you would have to log it on the site.

 

Fisrt to find is a binary state, either you are or you are not. It also is no different to the twentieth find. If you're asking should you put a note in your log that you were ftf, you were not.

Link to comment

I have searched geocaching how to but cannot find anything on this topic. I found a cache that had been placed 5 months before. Bad cords and in a real out of the way area. The cords were finally corrected and I went and found the cache. Still no finds showing on the cache pages. But there was a name (Geosnakes) on the paper log dated the month before. I could not find this name by searching it. So I have not claimed a first to find on this but was wondering if to claim a find you would have to log it on the site.

 

NO, sadly, to claim a find you don't have to log it online. And rightly so that you didn't claim FTF, because you weren't.

Link to comment

I have searched geocaching how to but cannot find anything on this topic. I found a cache that had been placed 5 months before. Bad cords and in a real out of the way area. The cords were finally corrected and I went and found the cache. Still no finds showing on the cache pages. But there was a name (Geosnakes) on the paper log dated the month before. I could not find this name by searching it. So I have not claimed a first to find on this but was wondering if to claim a find you would have to log it on the site.

 

NO, sadly, to claim a find you don't have to log it online. And rightly so that you didn't claim FTF, because you weren't.

 

In what manner is a person "claiming" a find if it isn't logged online? What value does this claim have if it isn't logged online?

Link to comment
In what manner is a person "claiming" a find if it isn't logged online? What value does this claim have if it isn't logged online?
I know people who don't post Find logs online. They started geocaching before one could post a Find log online, and never saw a reason to start.

 

Their signature on the physical log or their discussions with other geocachers about the geocaches they've found could be considered a claim of a find. And I don't think that claim is diminished by the fact that they don't post Find logs online.

Link to comment
In what manner is a person "claiming" a find if it isn't logged online? What value does this claim have if it isn't logged online?
I know people who don't post Find logs online. They started geocaching before one could post a Find log online, and never saw a reason to start.

 

Their signature on the physical log or their discussions with other geocachers about the geocaches they've found could be considered a claim of a find. And I don't think that claim is diminished by the fact that they don't post Find logs online.

Just a lot harder to keep track

Link to comment
In what manner is a person "claiming" a find if it isn't logged online? What value does this claim have if it isn't logged online?
I know people who don't post Find logs online. They started geocaching before one could post a Find log online, and never saw a reason to start.

 

Their signature on the physical log or their discussions with other geocachers about the geocaches they've found could be considered a claim of a find. And I don't think that claim is diminished by the fact that they don't post Find logs online.

 

But in what manner are they "claiming" a find that can be meaningfully refuted by someone else? Why are we so worried about these cachers?

Link to comment
In what manner is a person "claiming" a find if it isn't logged online? What value does this claim have if it isn't logged online?
I know people who don't post Find logs online. They started geocaching before one could post a Find log online, and never saw a reason to start.

 

Their signature on the physical log or their discussions with other geocachers about the geocaches they've found could be considered a claim of a find. And I don't think that claim is diminished by the fact that they don't post Find logs online.

But in what manner are they "claiming" a find that can be meaningfully refuted by someone else? Why are we so worried about these cachers?

We "worry" about these catchers (I.e., take them into account) when determining FTF because they were the first to find the cache, regardless of weather or not they are making an online claim to being FTF.

Link to comment
In what manner is a person "claiming" a find if it isn't logged online? What value does this claim have if it isn't logged online?
I know people who don't post Find logs online. They started geocaching before one could post a Find log online, and never saw a reason to start.

 

Their signature on the physical log or their discussions with other geocachers about the geocaches they've found could be considered a claim of a find. And I don't think that claim is diminished by the fact that they don't post Find logs online.

But in what manner are they "claiming" a find that can be meaningfully refuted by someone else? Why are we so worried about these cachers?

We "worry" about these catchers (I.e., take them into account) when determining FTF because they were the first to find the cache, regardless of weather or not they are making an online claim to being FTF.

 

If you *feel* that you were FTF, why not claim it? What is going to happen?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...