Definition of a "find."

[+thebruce0]

cezanne, you're not disagreeing with anything...

Technically, yes, they are. And all Groundspeak can offer to ensure (through COs agreeing to a minimum level of maintenance responsibility) is that they are. They can't ensure finders do exactly what the owner wants them to do in order to find their cache.

Of course Groundspeak neither can ensure that cachers do a cache in the intended manner nor they can ensure that visitors to a cache obey the local laws, handle the cache properly etc but this does not mean that these issues are not important.

Of course they're important. But Groundspeak can only enforce what they can verify - and that really is only what the CO knows about the activity on their cache, or how the finder conducts themselves. That's it. The local reviewer can check a cache listing to ensure it abides by local laws, but ultimately it's a matter of trust that the CO is honest when they check that box, and ongoing responsibility of the CO. Beyond that, again, nothing can be explicitly verified, and GS can only deal with disputes and make judgement calls.

 

So the level of ethic you are describing is entirely subjective.

Some parts are, some parts are not.

 

It is not subjective that it is not ok to drive to a cache when it is not allowed. It is not subjective that it is not ok to openly lie in a log and e.g. write that one has visited all stages when it is not true. The issue I have with the latter is that it makes the cache owner and other cachers believe that everything is alright with the stages.

1. "Not allowed" to drive to a cache? That's only enforceable if it's a matter of law, then of course doing it is breaking the law; a cache would not be published unless perhaps there was a way to do it without driving, and the reviewer felt that the CO stated that method strongly enough as the required method. Reviewer judgement. Matters of law. Not subjectivity. A CO cannot condone breaking the law to find their cache. A finder should not break the law to find a cache. But if they do, they alone are held responsible.

2. Lying in a log? Already discussed accuracy of the log history. The CO bears the responsibility of ensuring the validity of their logs, insofar as names are written in the logsheet, and wherever possible, valid/relevant logs to the cache's state are posted. That's it. If a finder says they visited all stages when they didn't, then the finder is potentially perpetuating an unfindable multicache (as in the manner the owner intended), because there may be a problem with one of the stages and the Found It log implies there is none. Thus, that's false log posting. Already discussed that, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a verifiable falsehood. --Actually, technically it's not even verifiable - a problematic stage could have become a problem after the finder logged their find. In that case, how can one know the log is a lie? Presuming it is though, yes it's entirely a bad logging practice. Unverifiable in that sense, which again is why the one rule is enough to allow the find log to remain - they found the final container and signed the log.

 

Even if I knew the previous finder didn't find all the stages, I couldn't complain and have their find log removed. It would be an interesting situation to see what the local reviewer might judge tho. But I'd be willing to bet that the finder would be safe - it's entirely he-said-she-said at that point. So, it's personal caching ethic. My ethic might be - I will not sign the final logsheet without finding every stage. Their caching ethic was - I signed the final logsheet, doesn't matter if I found the previous stages. They might offer to give me coordinates, but my ethic and my ethic alone would tell me not to accept that, even though I would be perfectly within the rules to do so, to sign the logsheet, and log it found.

It only gets complicated when you start debating whether it's right or wrong not to inform the cache owner if you know that a stage is missing. Of course I firmly agree that lying is wrong, because it's intentional misinformation in the log history.

But *sigh*

 

This is why GS leaves it to the CO to make the decision to delete a log only if the name isn't in the logsheet.

As soon as the CO learns that a stage is missing, then they need to perform maintenance. Yes, it's annoying if they only found out after someone lied in a log. But nothing can be done about that. Them's the risks as finders of trusting the log history. And we all to some degree trust the log history - both that previous finders aren't lying and that COs are being responsible as owners.

 

But quarrels over whether a find is "legitimate" between an owner and a finder (or disagreements between finders) where the base requirements are met according to Groundspeak, are just unnecessary battles.

Yes, because the rules are as they are. There are cases however where the rules lead to tricky situations like the examples I mentioned when legal issues come into the play. It's not always that harmless and simple that it only boils down whether a cache owner is happy or not.

Already talked about legal issues. The objective rules include obeying local laws, both while finding (though this can't be enforced, and ultimately consequences lie with the finder if they do something illegal and the listing does not in any way promote that) and while publishing (this can be enforced, because reviewers can deny the listing). Already went over all that.

 

When I say subjective quarrels, I'm not talking about whether it's ok to break laws, or whether it's ok to disobey Groundspeak's explicit rules where they can be enforced, or whether it's ok to be a troublemaker in the community. All of those are issues that Groundspeak can deal with (whether directly or by giving responsibility to owners). What I'm talking about are these threads that debate whether it's "really" a find if someone has their name on the logsheet but only stood at the base of a tree and claimed the find while someone else climbed, or they watched from the car and claimed a find, etc. None of those are rule-breaking or law-breaking, and in those cases the logs posted correctly imply the state of the cache - findable. They are beyond the capability for any kind of verification and fall entirely in the realm of honour system and personal caching ethic. THOSE are unnecessary battles.

[cezanne]

cezanne, you're not disagreeing with anything...

 

Not with anything you said in the previous post. My point is just that the only important aspect of a find is that it fulfills what Groundspeak can enforce and everything else is up to the individual cacher is wrong.

 

1. "Not allowed" to drive to a cache? That's only enforceable if it's a matter of law, then of course doing it is breaking the law; a cache would not be published unless perhaps there was a way to do it without driving, and the reviewer felt that the CO stated that method strongly enough as the required method. Reviewer judgement. Matters of law. Not subjectivity. A CO cannot condone breaking the law to find their cache. A finder should not break the law to find a cache. But if they do, they alone are held responsible.

 

That's not a reviewer issue - I did not talk of caches that are not reachable in a legal manner. Imagine an arbitrary cache in a forest close to a logging road. (Note: In my country driving along logging roads is forbidden except it is explicitely allowed which is hardly ever the case.) Some cachers can only be kept from driving by barriers.

 

It could for example be part of the guidelines of Groundspeak that they expect the finders to not break the law. Of course it is not enforcable (it would to some extent if a cache owner could delete logs in which breaking the laws is admitted or is evident without being mentioned - e.g. a FTF log during a time when an area is closed and one needs to climb over a fence like in a cemetery closed at night. )

 

 

--Actually, technically it's not even verifiable - a problematic stage could have become a problem after the finder logged their find. In that case, how can one know the log is a lie?

 

First in case of virtual stages there are often alternative ways of finding out when eg. the numbering system has changed, a new sign post has been erected etc

Moreover, for what some cachers log on a single day , it's clear that they cannot have visited everything - however it's not clear what they really visited and what not. An additional piece of evidence for type of lies not too rare in my area is that in some logs you find stories like this

"Cacher A reports to have met cacher B at the cache. Cacher B logs that he did this cache together with cachers C and D (who have not been along at all but also log the cache) and does not even change his log story due to A's log."

 

 

Even if I knew the previous finder didn't find all the stages, I couldn't complain and have their find log removed. It would be an interesting situation to see what the local reviewer might judge tho. But I'd be willing to bet that the finder would be safe - it's entirely he-said-she-said at that point.

 

The local reviewers will not care at all and I do not expect them to care. No it's not a he-said-she-said at this point. There are cases where one can prove the lie and then these sort of people would admit their lie (e.g. when for some reasons it becomes evident that they did not solve a puzzle in contrast their to their original claim and admit it themselves). Still these people think that what they do is alright and perfectly fine as geocaching is only about finding containers.

 

 

So, it's personal caching ethic.

 

It's something which affects us all and it is something which should find a space somewhere on Groundspeak's pages.

It would be better to once in a while address a blog post to such a topic than to providing suggesting on how to streak.

 

And we all to some degree trust the log history - both that previous finders aren't lying and that COs are being responsible as owners.

 

Well, I tell you something. When it comes to the logs of a large group of cachers my default mode is meanwhile "do not trust at all" and that's the sad part.

[+jellis]

And this part that tends to be the mantra of the power cacher throwdowner "I put a temporary cache in place until the CO can make a permanent replacement". As if their intent is to altruistically help the cache owner and community, not to add another smiley to their score. I would love to see them be honest. "I threw down a cache so I could claim this smiley."

 

The CO has been ignoring DNFs for 7 months. He has over 150 hides. His list of hides has many ignored NMs. Kudos to TRR for their NM log.

 

I think it's really easy to lump all "throwdowns" into a negative light. I think there is a legitimate case to be made for maintenance by a finder that's permitted by the CO who then allows the find.

 

An emphatic No!

There are an increasing amount of cache owners with a small army of minions, who will throw down a bison tube at any cache that certain delinquent power COs with hundreds (even 1000+) hides, will never maintain. I can name 3 COs in our area who never/rarely get out to maintain their caches, but post OMs thanking so-n-so for throwing a cache down after 3 months of DNFs.

I agree as a group would be fine. I have climbed my share of trees, but wouldn't it take longer if you had to wait til each person to go up and come back down. Certain trees I refuse to climb because I have been slowly getting a phobia of heights that I didn't before. But I still climb some or I use my extended pole if it is not attached to the tree. But if I am by myself and I knew I couldn't climb the tree I am not going to log it.

[+thebruce0]

> cezanne, you're not disagreeing with anything...

 

Not with anything you said in the previous post. My point is just that the only important aspect of a find is that it fulfills what Groundspeak can enforce and everything else is up to the individual cacher is wrong.

Now what you just said there does disagree with I said. I didn't say "the only important aspect of a find". I said the only qualification for a legitimate Find [log online] is what Groundspeak can enforce (directly or via the CO given their ownership responsibilities, such as verifying the name in the logsheet). Everything else is up to the individual cacher, and debating what is "right" or "wrong" is fruitless. Everything else (that is, everything that cannot be verified nor enforced) is a matter of subjective differences in personal caching ethic.

 

I did not talk of caches that are not reachable in a legal manner. Imagine an arbitrary cache in a forest close to a logging road. (Note: In my country driving along logging roads is forbidden except it is explicitely allowed which is hardly ever the case.) Some cachers can only be kept from driving by barriers.

"forbidden" but "explicitly allowed" - this does not make sense. Is it legal or not legal? If it's not legal, then cachers who do so are breaking the law, and the owner can't be held responible, especially if they state in the listing that they cannot and should not access the cache by logging road, but by the legal method you've described in the listing.

 

It could for example be part of the guidelines of Groundspeak that they expect the finders to not break the law.

It is.

 

Of course it is not enforcable (it would to some extent if a cache owner could delete logs in which breaking the laws is admitted or is evident without being mentioned - e.g. a FTF log during a time when an area is closed and one needs to climb over a fence like in a cemetery closed at night. )

Precisely. It is expected that cachers will not break the law (but those actions are not verifiable or enforceable, and so the cacher alone is held legally responsible if they are caught doing so). It is expected that COs will not condone breaking of the law (whether by encouraging a cacher to do so to gain access to the cache, or by placing the cache illegally on property without appropriate demonstrated permission). That's applies worldwide, dependent on local laws, known by the local reviewers.

 

 

> --Actually, technically it's not even verifiable - a problematic stage could have become a problem after the finder logged their find. In that case, how can one know the log is a lie?

 

First in case of virtual stages there are often alternative ways of finding out when eg. the numbering system has changed, a new sign post has been erected etc

Irrelevant. A CO can't delete the log of someone who found the cache in an illegal manner (imagine how many appeals will be generated by disagreements about what constitutes trespassing for any particular cache, for instance). If it gets bad, the user might get a warning, but I wouldn't bet on it. The finder risks themselves getting caught and fined for trespassing. There's nothing anyone can do about it.

 

If a finder finds the cache but says nothing about how they found it, it is irrelevant whether they trespassed to get there or got the final coordinates from someone. In both cases, the Find log is valid and remains. The finder has no obligation to describe how they attained the final cache.

 

And of course we as a community can and should continue discouraging illegal acitivities as viable ways to find caches. Not for our own sanity, but for the sake and safety of such individuals (and reputation of geocaching in general).

But again this falls into the context of troublemakers. And GS can decide how to handle those if they repeatedly pose problems for the community. We can't police their activity as objectively "right" or "wrong" as it pertains to a "valid Find [log online]"

 

Moreover, for what some cachers log on a single day , it's clear that they cannot have visited everything - however it's not clear what they really visited and what not.

Irrelevant. Name in logsheet = find. If the find is valid (their name was written in the final logsheet indicating that the cache findable), then what does it matter to me that they got a smiley if they didn't find it the intended way? It doesn't. In the case of multis with a bad stage, I addressed that earlier. In the case of find logs implying an incorrect status of the listing, that falls under potential problem players and/or irresponsible COs who don't maintain their listings' log history.

 

An additional piece of evidence for type of lies not too rare in my area is that in some logs you find stories like this

"Cacher A reports to have met cacher B at the cache. Cacher B logs that he did this cache together with cachers C and D (who have not been along at all but also log the cache) and does not even change his log story due to A's log."

I don't care. I don't condone lying, but the find logs of cachers A-D correctly imply the state of the cache - Findable. Cachers C and D missed out on the cache experience. I don't care that they got a +1 smiley each. It' not worth my angst.

 

> Even if I knew the previous finder didn't find all the stages, I couldn't complain and have their find log removed. It would be an interesting situation to see what the local reviewer might judge tho. But I'd be willing to bet that the finder would be safe - it's entirely he-said-she-said at that point.

 

The local reviewers will not care at all and I do not expect them to care. No it's not a he-said-she-said at this point.

Oh but it is. The reviewer isn't going to go out and check the logsheet. Only the CO can verify the logsheet. So it's the CO's word against the finders regarding the stages. If the names are in the logsheet, the reviewer will let the Find log stand. But if the CO knows the finders didn't find all the prior stages - well then now the CO knows that the stages may need to be checked, because the CO knows the find log incorrectly implies every stage is findable. It's unfortunate that the finder put that work on the owner's shoulders, but that's how it works.

 

There are cases where one can prove the lie and then these sort of people would admit their lie (e.g. when for some reasons it becomes evident that they did not solve a puzzle in contrast their to their original claim and admit it themselves). Still these people think that what they do is alright and perfectly fine as geocaching is only about finding containers.

This is not a matter of objective rules. Puzzle solving is not required to claim a valid Find, nor is admitting without lying that they solved the puzzle, as long as the name is in the logsheet. Sure, they may think what they do is fine - but that's the whole point. To them, it's fine. To you or I who own the puzzle, it's not just fine ... that's the definition of subjective; one opinion versus another. Neither can be held up to an objective rule to determine "right" or "wrong".

 

All we can do for the community is encourage what we believe to be the best caching practices for the sake and sanity of our community, above and beyond abiding by the minimal rule set that Groundspeak has outlined and can enforce.

 

Well, I tell you something. When it comes to the logs of a large group of cachers my default mode is meanwhile "do not trust at all" and that's the sad part.

That's harsh.

If a group found the cache, I presume that one person minimum found and signed the cache. If that's true, then all the logs correctly imply the state of the cache. It is certainly annoying to have to sift through 30 copy-paste irrelevant find logs, but me complaining about it all or even trying to enforce some subjective standard on the logs is simply a waste of my time and effort. I can't verify how many of the group actually found the logsheet, let alone how. The group name is in the logsheet. If any people missed out on actually finding the cache, that's their loss. They wanted the +1 and got it. Followup finders will presume the cache is findable. All's well.

 

In short, if you want to get angsty about others' caching practices, sure, go right ahead. But you'll live a happier life (and help others also to do so) if you don't regularly get worked up about stuff you really don't need to get worked up about.

Edited March 7, 2016 by thebruce0

[+J Grouchy]

In short...

 

Too late for THAT!

[+thebruce0]

[cezanne]

I said the only qualification for a legitimate Find [log online] is what Groundspeak can enforce (directly or via the CO given their ownership responsibilities, such as verifying the name in the logsheet). Everything else is up to the individual cacher, and debating what is "right" or "wrong" is fruitless. Everything else (that is, everything that cannot be verified nor enforced) is a matter of subjective differences in personal caching ethic.

 

My point was that while the qualification aspect is the straightforward one - the interesting aspects are those that go beyond, enforcable or not.

 

"forbidden" but "explicitly allowed" - this does not make sense. Is it legal or not legal?

 

Driving on normal logging roads is forbidden unless it is explicitely allowed for a special road.

 

If it's not legal, then cachers who do so are breaking the law, and the owner can't be held responible, especially if they state in the listing that they cannot and should not access the cache by logging road, but by the legal method you've described in the listing.

 

Of course the owner cannot be made responsible but all cachers suffer from the bad image for geocachers caused by such cachers.

 

It is.

 

While the knowledge book is not the same as the guidelines, it does not matter in this case as what I have in mind is not in the cited part anyway

 

Precisely. It is expected that cachers will not break the law (but those actions are not verifiable or enforceable, and so the cacher alone is held legally responsible if they are caught doing so). It is expected that COs will not condone breaking of the law (whether by encouraging a cacher to do so to gain access to the cache,

or by placing the cache illegally on property without appropriate demonstrated permission). That's applies worldwide, dependent on local laws, known by the local reviewers.

 

It could be enforcable at least as what people write in logs is regarded.

 

 

Irrelevant. Name in logsheet = find. If the find is valid (their name was written in the final logsheet indicating that the cache findable), then what does it matter to me that they got a smiley if they didn't find it the intended way? It doesn't.

 

It's irrelevant for the qualification for a find (which is the boring and trivial aspect), but not irrelevant for the fact that what they write cannot be relied on.

 

An additional piece of evidence for type of lies not too rare in my area is that in some logs you find stories like this

"Cacher A reports to have met cacher B at the cache. Cacher B logs that he did this cache together with cachers C and D (who have not been along at all but also log the cache) and does not even change his log story due to A's log."

I don't care. I don't condone lying, but the find logs of cachers A-D correctly imply the state of the cache - Findable. Cachers C and D missed out on the cache experience. I don't care that they got a +1 smiley each. It' not worth my angst.

 

It's neither about smileys, nor angst. It's about knowing for sure that the logs contain lies.

 

 

That's harsh.

If a group found the cache, I presume that one person minimum found and signed the cache. If that's true, then all the logs correctly imply the state of the cache.

 

No, it's not harsh and what you understood is a completely different scenario. I did not talk about 20 people visiting a cache at the same time as a group.

I meant that there are lot of cachers in my country who lie in logs on a regular basis - so my default mode meanwhile is in many cases not to believe what it is written in logs unless I have extra evidence.

 

There is no connection at all to signing log sheets and all that stuff.

 

In short, if you want to get angsty about others' caching practices, sure, go right ahead. But you'll live a happier life (and help others also to do so) if you don't regularly get worked up about stuff you really don't need to get worked up about.

 

I do not want to get angsty but I'd like to have the time back when my default mode that what is written in logs has been written in a good intent worked out fine. I do know that I cannot change the times, but still it makes me unhappy. It's one thing whether one logs a find for a tree climbing cache without having done the climb and admitting this in the log or not mentioning anything about the procedure and someone who states to have climbed the tree while it is not true. If it's just 1-2 people in an area who are lying like that, it's not a real issue - if many are doing it, then how to keep confidence in what it is reported in logs without any further evidence (like knowing the person who writes something).