Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
The Perkins Family

Logging earthcaches from previous visit

Recommended Posts

What would happen if i visited a place a few months before and then later realised there was an earthcache and could answer all the questions correctly. I still learn about the geology but i didn't think about it at the place. Does it count as a find?

Share this post


Link to post

What would happen if i visited a place a few months before and then later realised there was an earthcache and could answer all the questions correctly. I still learn about the geology but i didn't think about it at the place. Does it count as a find?

 

In general, I think it's up to the rules you want to play by, but I would say no. Here's the slippery slope. What if you visited it before the Earthcache was published? What is your find date, then? Do you automatically get FTF? (Am I the only one who claims FTF on Earthcaches?...Checks Google...guess not.)

 

I wouldn't be offended if someone felt differently, but I just feel like it's too hard to come up with a sensible set of rules for retro-logging Earthcaches. Virtuals could be even worse. (But it says to post a picture next to the statue, and I was there in 1972...)

Share this post


Link to post
What would happen if i visited a place a few months before and then later realised there was an earthcache and could answer all the questions correctly. I still learn about the geology but i didn't think about it at the place. Does it count as a find?

 

Not in my book. Earthcaches are best done by visiting the spot and thinking about the geology and the questions while you are there. Many earthcaches could be done entirely from internet searches, but why would anybody do that?

Share this post


Link to post

so you wouldn't recommend me logging one in a place i say visit or live next to all summer and can also answer all the questions, but not visited with the intent of finding the earthcache?

 

Also unrelated, is it bad to not answer a question in an earthcache if say you didn't have enough time to read through the noticeboards or you didn't understand them because they were in a different language?

Share this post


Link to post

It sounds like you haven't done the EarthCaches. Not sure why you are asking us to validate your behavior. You didn't do them properly--own it and do them some other time.

Share this post


Link to post

so you wouldn't recommend me logging one in a place i say visit or live next to all summer and can also answer all the questions, but not visited with the intent of finding the earthcache?

 

Also unrelated, is it bad to not answer a question in an earthcache if say you didn't have enough time to read through the noticeboards or you didn't understand them because they were in a different language?

All your scenarios can be lumped under the heading of "armchair logging", which is generally discouraged and frowned upon.

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't logged any like that yet, i was just wondering if it was possible, Also i always answer all the questions to earthcaches although i have got some wrong. (I have set up 4 earthcaches and found 5)

Edited by The Perkins Family

Share this post


Link to post

Your original question was, "does it count as a Find". Technically yes. You Find count will go up by +1.

 

"Is it possible"? Yes. The only check and balance on the website is between you and the cache owner. If the cache owner thinks that you are not telling the truth concerning you visit, then your Find could get deleted, which would result in your Find count to go down by -1.

 

The other potential fall out is to get labeled as a liar in the community. This scenario doesn't usually end well, and the cost seems a bit too steep.

 

It really depends on what value you assign your reputation.

Share this post


Link to post

OK. I think i understand now, it is not technically against the guidelines but it is bad etiquette and you should only really log the find if you have been to the place and thought about the earthcache at the place. So even if you know the area well, and have even studied the area and get all the questions correct it is considered bad practice to count it as a find? Because i know on the guidelines it says you can make an earthcache to areas you have visited on holiday up to 3 months before.

 

many thanks for confirming this to me.

Share this post


Link to post

OK. I think i understand now, it is not technically against the guidelines but it is bad etiquette and you should only really log the find if you have been to the place and thought about the earthcache at the place. So even if you know the area well, and have even studied the area and get all the questions correct it is considered bad practice to count it as a find? Because i know on the guidelines it says you can make an earthcache to areas you have visited on holiday up to 3 months before.

 

many thanks for confirming this to me.

The "within 3 month" portion of the Guidelines has more to do with actually giving an adequate amount of time to develop the Description so that it meets the Guidelines. I know for a few of my EC's, I've taken up to a month to write them up, just because I was unfamiliar with the topic and had to research it adequately.

 

The other aspect of the time frame allowed is also the reality that permission can be difficult to obtain. For the most part, I've had a lag time of 3-4 weeks. I've known of one cache owner that had to wait up to 2 years to secure permission.

Share this post


Link to post

OK. I think i understand now, it is not technically against the guidelines but it is bad etiquette and you should only really log the find if you have been to the place and thought about the earthcache at the place. So even if you know the area well, and have even studied the area and get all the questions correct it is considered bad practice to count it as a find?

The questions about whether the rules consider it valid and whether the CO will let it stand are not that important. What you should be asking yourself is why it's so important to you to score one more find on a cache you didn't even know about when you were there. Are the numbers really that important to you? If you know the area well, perhaps you'll be back later and can follow the earthcache at that time?

Share this post


Link to post

If you can fulfill the logging requirements, then there's really nothing to stop you. Other geocachers will probably make fun of you for it if they find out about it. Whether or not that matters is entirely up to you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

The questions about whether the rules consider it valid and whether the CO will let it stand are not that important. What you should be asking yourself is why it's so important to you to score one more find on a cache you didn't even know about when you were there. Are the numbers really that important to you? If you know the area well, perhaps you'll be back later and can follow the earthcache at that time?

 

I do not think that the score is the key aspect here. While for a cache with a container one aspect (and for many the key aspect) is about finding a container, the issue with many ECs (and in particular old ones) is that what they present and teach is often far below the level of the knowledge available to someone who interested into geology and familiar with the area. Of course one can return to the location and log a visit then but it will still not be "follow the EC" and learn something. The log which is induced by the first visit where one learnt about an area and its geology will be more inspiring and have more to tell than a visit which only took place to comply with what some people set up as a rule.

 

An alternative might be to write a note and mention that one can easily answer all questions from a previous visit and then move the cache to the ignore list if one has one.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Usually the only time I find out about someone logging one of our ECs is when they either date their log prior to the publication date or flat out say so in their log.

 

I've not deleted the handful of finds from folks who have done this, because they were able to answer the logging questions.

 

There are several areas I've gotten to know well enough that I could do this for earthcaches that were published after my visit there. For the reasons discussed above, I've not done so. It's the same as logging a virtual cache with a photo from my pre-caching days. Was I at the site? Yes, but not as a geocacher and not while geocaching, so it wasn't a find.

 

I get that it's more tempting to do this for places one is unlikely to revisit. I would argue that this gives just one more reason to go back and see a great location once again, but I only control my personal actions and ethics. (And sometimes those of my toddler, but not very often.)

Share this post


Link to post

I do not think that the score is the key aspect here. While for a cache with a container one aspect (and for many the key aspect) is about finding a container, the issue with many ECs (and in particular old ones) is that what they present and teach is often far below the level of the knowledge available to someone who interested into geology and familiar with the area.

The logical conclusion of that line of reasoning is that you should claim the find even if you've never been to GZ.

 

Of course one can return to the location and log a visit then but it will still not be "follow the EC" and learn something. The log which is induced by the first visit where one learnt about an area and its geology will be more inspiring and have more to tell than a visit which only took place to comply with what some people set up as a rule.

I'm not suggesting a return to GZ as a learning experience. That might very well be redundant, although I'm often surprised by what earthcaches point out that I never would have noticed otherwise. I'm suggesting it to make the find legitimate since I don't think it should be considered a real find if you're not aware of what you're looking for when you're there. Yeah, it's a shame I didn't notice the earthcache, but it's not really important that I can't log one more find.

 

This is probably better handled with a message to the CO. Opinions will run strong in a forum like this.

Personally, I'm not very interesting in whether the CO will give me credit in a case like this.

Share this post


Link to post

I do not think that the score is the key aspect here. While for a cache with a container one aspect (and for many the key aspect) is about finding a container, the issue with many ECs (and in particular old ones) is that what they present and teach is often far below the level of the knowledge available to someone who interested into geology and familiar with the area.

The logical conclusion of that line of reasoning is that you should claim the find even if you've never been to GZ.

 

No, first I referred to "familiar with the area" and I meant with that the location.

Second, my attempt was to explain the issue I have with the situation and I did not write anything about claiming a find. Actually, I think that the log type "found it" does not fit for Earthcaches as I do understand them anyway.

 

Of course one can return to the location and log a visit then but it will still not be "follow the EC" and learn something. The log which is induced by the first visit where one learnt about an area and its geology will be more inspiring and have more to tell than a visit which only took place to comply with what some people set up as a rule.

I'm not suggesting a return to GZ as a learning experience. That might very well be redundant, although I'm often surprised by what earthcaches point out that I never would have noticed otherwise.

 

If they point out something in addition to what you have already noticed that's fine but not the scenario I find difficult to handle either way.

 

I'm suggesting it to make the find legitimate since I don't think it should be considered a real find if you're not aware of what you're looking for when you're there. Yeah, it's a shame I didn't notice the earthcache, but it's not really important that I can't log one more find.

 

While your point of view comes from "legitimate find", for me the term find makes no sense for Earthcaches anyway and my issue is that a repeated visit just to fulfill the requirement for what you refer to as legitimate find is not feeling satisfactory either. When I visit a location of geological interest and come prepared for doing so, then of course my focus has been on the geology and in my opinion that's also what Earthcaches are about. For me it's not about finding something.

 

I do understand your point of view. my message is that the repeated visit to log an EC at a location well known to me will not make me happy either. So the only way out is simply not to ever log a found it for such an EC (which is a legitimate option by the way). It feels much less lame to me (attention: to me does mean when it regards my own caching, not the caching of someone else) than revisiting an EC location just to log a found it.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

...for me the term find makes no sense for Earthcaches anyway...

The OP was asking specifically about finds. I didn't realize you wanted to talk about something else.

Share this post


Link to post

...for me the term find makes no sense for Earthcaches anyway...

The OP was asking specifically about finds. I didn't realize you wanted to talk about something else.

 

Yes, the OP used the term find but he was not the one who decided to call a completion log for an EC "find" - that was Groundspeak's decision. Like for events they could have chosen to introduce a different term.

Share this post


Link to post

...for me the term find makes no sense for Earthcaches anyway...

The OP was asking specifically about finds. I didn't realize you wanted to talk about something else.

Yes, the OP used the term find but he was not the one who decided to call a completion log for an EC "find" - that was Groundspeak's decision. Like for events they could have chosen to introduce a different term.

Groundspeak could have used a different term to describe EarthCaches that are answered or events that are attended, but I'm glad they didn't. They don't use the term "find" in the hyper-literal sense. Instead they use it as a shorthand way of describing what almost all geocachers understand.

 

Groundspeak notes that a user has 1,234 "finds." That's a whole lot easier than the more literal explanation that a person has 1,234 "finds, EarthCaches successfully answered, events/celebrations/parties attended, webcam photos taken, virtual photos taken or questions successfully answered, adventure exhibits viewed, lab cache codes entered, and locationless cache coordinates supplied."

 

I think you'll discover that people engaged in specialized activities often use some terms in non-literal ways. A "button" means something very different to poker players, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Instead they use it as a shorthand way of describing what almost all geocachers understand.

 

Do they in terms of Earthcaching? It rather seems to me that a found it log for an EC means quite different things to different people and the discussion here shows it once again.

 

Some here use arguments that you could not find what you have not known to exist at the time of your visit - this argument uses find quite literally. This does not involve an understanding of an EC as the combined result of a visit at the EC location, the learning process and completing the logging tasks (that's a bit similar to challenge caches where the order meanwhile is up to each visitor) which is closer to my personal opinion of how ECs can make sense. The date of the log is then the date when one finally has accomplished everything and not the date of the visit to the site.

 

As your argument with the total number of finds is regarded, I should add that I also consider it to be a mistake to count EC finds (and event attendances) as finds.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Some here use arguments that you could not find what you have not known to exist at the time of your visit - this argument uses find quite literally.

 

My concern isn't so much about the literal sense of the word, "Find", in regards to EC's, but more about the perception that such behavior as retroactively logging ANY cache type is acceptable. It doesn't really concern me what type of cache type is involved. In terms of clarity and consistency, I think it's better for the game in general if people log Finds AFTER visiting the location, AND after the Listing was created.

 

The date of the log is then the date when one finally has accomplished everything and not the date of the visit to the site.

 

I'm fine with that, providing the visit took place AFTER the Listing was Published.

Share this post


Link to post

The date of the log is then the date when one finally has accomplished everything and not the date of the visit to the site.

 

I'm fine with that, providing the visit took place AFTER the Listing was Published.

 

The OP did not say anything when the EC was created but just that he/she learnt about the existence of the EC later.

 

Personally, I cannot see much difference however to the case when the visit took place before but the date of the completion log is after the publication.

When one considers the concept visit+questions answered as requirement for an EC, it's not any longer an option to confuse this with other caches types where a visit suffices.

 

Of course the ideal EC teaches me more than I get taught by visiting the location on my own, but to be honest many ECs do not accomplish this goal. Some just make me copy words from a sign and if I have read the sign already at a previous visit and have even taken a photo and the EC does nothing else than making me visit the location and asking me for some words on the sign without providing anything in addition, why should it make sense to visit the location again? It's this sort of Ecs I have in mind and then see ignoring them and not logging a find it at all as the only way out.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I cannot see much difference however to the case when the visit took place before but the date of the completion log is after the publication.

 

I guess the main difference for me has to do with consistency in logging behavior. If you have a different set of rules to one subset of cache types, it merely increases the confusion. It's confusing enough with a separate set of Guidelines and requirements for each cache type. I don't think it would be an improvement in the game if you could log Listings retroactively. Just a matter of etiquette, since people can do pretty much whatever anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I cannot see much difference however to the case when the visit took place before but the date of the completion log is after the publication.

 

I guess the main difference for me has to do with consistency in logging behavior. If you have a different set of rules to one subset of cache types, it merely increases the confusion. It's confusing enough with a separate set of Guidelines and requirements for each cache type. I don't think it would be an improvement in the game if you could log Listings retroactively. Just a matter of etiquette, since people can do pretty much whatever anyway.

 

Actually, for most challenge caches you could have started with fulfilling the challenge requirements also long before the challenge cache got published, so I do not see an essential difference in concept.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I cannot see much difference however to the case when the visit took place before but the date of the completion log is after the publication.

 

I guess the main difference for me has to do with consistency in logging behavior. If you have a different set of rules to one subset of cache types, it merely increases the confusion. It's confusing enough with a separate set of Guidelines and requirements for each cache type. I don't think it would be an improvement in the game if you could log Listings retroactively. Just a matter of etiquette, since people can do pretty much whatever anyway.

 

Actually, for most challenge caches you could have started with fulfilling the challenge requirements also long before the challenge cache got published, so I do not see an essential difference in concept.

I don't do Challenges, but not a fair comparison, since the site statistics are publicly viewable in most instances. How a person fulfills an EC Logging Requirement is independent of anything I can confirm on the website. It depends on integrity and honesty.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't do Challenges, but not a fair comparison, since the site statistics are publicly viewable in most instances. How a person fulfills an EC Logging Requirement is independent of anything I can confirm on the website. It depends on integrity and honesty.

 

I considered it to be a suitable comparison with respect to the consistency argument you came up with.

Cheating is an entirely different topic, but in my opinion not conntected to the date used for logging.

Share this post


Link to post

Some here use arguments that you could not find what you have not known to exist at the time of your visit - this argument uses find quite literally.

I'm not sure whose argument you're talking about here. This is the closest quotation that I located (although it doesn't make the argument you asserted):

What you should be asking yourself is why it's so important to you to score one more find on a cache you didn't even know about when you were there.

If that's the quotation you're talking about, then you again seem to be making a hyper-literal interpretation of dprovan's use of the term "find." It seems pretty obvious to me that "find" is being used in the Groundspeak sense of "going to the location and satisfactorily answering the questions." I realize the English language involves certain nuances, so perhaps you don't realize that not every word's many possible definitions are going to be found in a dictionary. But you've been geocaching for a while. You've "found" EarthCaches, virtuals, and events. You should realize that Groundspeak's use of the word "find" doesn't always literally mean locating a physical container.

 

This does not involve an understanding of an EC as the combined result of a visit at the EC location, the learning process and completing the logging tasks (that's a bit similar to challenge caches where the order meanwhile is up to each visitor) which is closer to my personal opinion of how ECs can make sense.

Again, it seems pretty obvious to me that the argument does involve such an understanding...if you stop trying to interpret "find" in a hyper-literal way.

Share this post


Link to post

Some here use arguments that you could not find what you have not known to exist at the time of your visit - this argument uses find quite literally.

I'm not sure whose argument you're talking about here. This is the closest quotation that I located (although it doesn't make the argument you asserted):

 

No, I was not specifically referring to dprovan's statement you quoted. The question discussed in this thread has been brought up many times before and the typical arguments brought up

is that they one cannot find one did not know to exist and that it is not consistent with the logging process for traditional caches.

 

 

If that's the quotation you're talking about, then you again seem to be making a hyper-literal interpretation of dprovan's use of the term "find." It seems pretty obvious to me that "find" is being used in the Groundspeak sense of "going to the location and satisfactorily answering the questions."

 

The issue with "going to the location and satisfatorily answering the questions", there is nothing said about the order. If it's really meant only in this sense, then finds for ECs where the visit to the location predates one's awareness of the existence of an EC are perfectly ok.

 

 

I realize the English language involves certain nuances, so perhaps you don't realize that not every word's many possible definitions are going to be found in a dictionary. But you've been geocaching for a while. You've "found" EarthCaches, virtuals, and events. You should realize that Groundspeak's use of the word "find" doesn't always literally mean locating a physical container.

 

I'm fully aware of this. I does neither change that I personally think that it would be better to separate non physical cache types from physical caches when it comes to the counter nor does not change that

I believe that the date of an EC location visit is not really important.

 

This does not involve an understanding of an EC as the combined result of a visit at the EC location, the learning process and completing the logging tasks (that's a bit similar to challenge caches where the order meanwhile is up to each visitor) which is closer to my personal opinion of how ECs can make sense.

Again, it seems pretty obvious to me that the argument does involve such an understanding...if you stop trying to interpret "find" in a hyper-literal way.

 

But if it does, "find" logs with the date when the questions have been answered regardless of when (not whether!) a visit to the location took place seem perfectly ok.

Share this post


Link to post

But if it does, "find" logs with the date when the questions have been answered regardless of when (not whether!) a visit to the location took place seem perfectly ok.

Actually, that wouldn't make any more sense to me than dating a traditional find based on when you got around to logging it on line.

 

In challenge caches there are two events -- signing the log and satisfying the requirements -- but the only event in an EarthCache is learning the lesson by visiting GZ. Answering the questions isn't part of learning the lesson, it's merely reporting that the lesson was learned.

Share this post


Link to post

But if it does, "find" logs with the date when the questions have been answered regardless of when (not whether!) a visit to the location took place seem perfectly ok.

Actually, that wouldn't make any more sense to me than dating a traditional find based on when you got around to logging it on line.

 

In challenge caches there are two events -- signing the log and satisfying the requirements -- but the only event in an EarthCache is learning the lesson by visiting GZ. Answering the questions isn't part of learning the lesson, it's merely reporting that the lesson was learned.

 

It depends on the EC. In many cases the learning process took place much before an EC got published. So then one would need to use the date of when the learning process took place or refrain from logging the EC at all (as for a future visit it will never be possible that what you describe as one event takes place.)

 

For more difficult ECs, it could be that someone sends several wrong answers and has to realize when receiving a reply that the learning process has not taken place satisfactorily and then further work needs to be invested. For many more difficult ECs I needed to do quite some work at home after the visit and only part of the learning process took place at the location. The same is true also for geological sites I visited without connection to an EC.

Share this post


Link to post

But if it does, "find" logs with the date when the questions have been answered regardless of when (not whether!) a visit to the location took place seem perfectly ok.

Actually, that wouldn't make any more sense to me than dating a traditional find based on when you got around to logging it on line.

 

In challenge caches there are two events -- signing the log and satisfying the requirements -- but the only event in an EarthCache is learning the lesson by visiting GZ. Answering the questions isn't part of learning the lesson, it's merely reporting that the lesson was learned.

 

It depends on the EC. In many cases the learning process took place much before an EC got published. So then one would need to use the date of when the learning process took place or refrain from logging the EC at all (as for a future visit it will never be possible that what you describe as one event takes place.)

 

For more difficult ECs, it could be that someone sends several wrong answers and has to realize when receiving a reply that the learning process has not taken place satisfactorily and then further work needs to be invested. For many more difficult ECs I needed to do quite some work at home after the visit and only part of the learning process took place at the location. The same is true also for geological sites I visited without connection to an EC.

 

Yes, I have done many detailed Earthcaches that involved collecting details at the site and then doing "homework" to fulfill the requirements to log the find.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I have done many detailed Earthcaches that involved collecting details at the site and then doing "homework" to fulfill the requirements to log the find.

Being assigned homework doesn't change the date the lesson was given.

 

Nor, to go back to cezanne's other case, does the fact that you've learned the information from a previous teacher change the date of the lesson you're reporting on.

 

I'm not getting why anyone would want to date the log on any date other than when they were in the area. I try to avoid signing challenge caches before I satisfy the requirements specifically because I'd be annoyed to have to put a date on the find unrelated to when I was physically caching in that area.

Share this post


Link to post

Being assigned homework doesn't change the date the lesson was given.

 

Definitely, it can change this date. It might be that at the site you collect data and at home you evaluate them and draw conclusions and the lesson draws on the results. Learning is not more than reading a text or listing to a talk.

 

Nor, to go back to cezanne's other case, does the fact that you've learned the information from a previous teacher change the date of the lesson you're reporting on.

 

That's exactly the question: Which lesson is one reporting on? For an EC where I know the answers right ahead I will only read the answers and not not so much what you call the lesson. The fact that I have nothing to report about another visit to the location that only took place to fulfull your preferred order is the reason I would either have to remember what I felt at my visit when I learnt something about the location and write about this or end up with a quite lame log in many cases (not every EC location is fascinating in itself).

 

I'm not getting why anyone would want to date the log on any date other than when they were in the area. I try to avoid signing challenge caches before I satisfy the requirements specifically because I'd be annoyed to have to put a date on the find unrelated to when I was physically caching in that area.

 

That's your choice. I hardly do any challenge caches at all. The rules allow an arbitrary order for them even though a container has to be found which is not the case for ECs. It's just a matter of definition for ECs. Personally, I could also envisage a system where one uses the date of the visit, but some people mind if the date predates the existence of the cache or allows someone who has been there before to log as first.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I have done many detailed Earthcaches that involved collecting details at the site and then doing "homework" to fulfill the requirements to log the find.

Being assigned homework doesn't change the date the lesson was given.

 

Nor, to go back to cezanne's other case, does the fact that you've learned the information from a previous teacher change the date of the lesson you're reporting on.

 

I'm not getting why anyone would want to date the log on any date other than when they were in the area. I try to avoid signing challenge caches before I satisfy the requirements specifically because I'd be annoyed to have to put a date on the find unrelated to when I was physically caching in that area.

 

I personally choose to date all of my logs on the day I actually, physically found/visited them. I wouldn't find a challenge cache I don't qualify for, and I wouldn't "find" an Earthcache if I didn't visit it on purpose. But it is a falsehood to claim that all the learning happens, or is supposed to happen, at the site. There's a lot of variety.

 

I don't know why other people do the things they do, but I don't really see the need to fuss about it too much. If someone gets their kicks by being creative with the dates they put on their cache logs, oh well.

Share this post


Link to post

Being assigned homework doesn't change the date the lesson was given.

Definitely, it can change this date. It might be that at the site you collect data and at home you evaluate them and draw conclusions and the lesson draws on the results. Learning is not more than reading a text or listing to a talk.

dprovan: "When was that lecture on metamorphic rock?"

cezanne: "It was today, April 21st, since that's when I finally figured out what he was saying. But the talk was last week."

Ridiculous.

 

Nor, to go back to cezanne's other case, does the fact that you've learned the information from a previous teacher change the date of the lesson you're reporting on.

That's exactly the question: Which lesson is one reporting on?

You're writing a find log on an EarthCache. What possible question can there be about which lesson you're reporting on?

 

I'm not getting why anyone would want to date the log on any date other than when they were in the area. I try to avoid signing challenge caches before I satisfy the requirements specifically because I'd be annoyed to have to put a date on the find unrelated to when I was physically caching in that area.

That's your choice.

Well, of course it's my choice.

 

Personally, I could also envisage a system where one uses the date of the visit, but some people mind if the date predates the existence of the cache or allows someone who has been there before to log as first.

I suppose that's what I'm completely missing: I would say it's the day I visited the cache, not the day I visited that location before there was a cache.

 

I personally choose to date all of my logs on the day I actually, physically found/visited them.

I think dating challenge caches on the day the log was signed is probably the right answer, but I can't bring myself to go that far. Fortunately, I think there's only one challenge cache that I found before I qualified, so the number of discrepancies in my record is small.

 

I wouldn't find a challenge cache I don't qualify for, and I wouldn't "find" an Earthcache if I didn't visit it on purpose. But it is a falsehood to claim that all the learning happens, or is supposed to happen, at the site. There's a lot of variety.

I can't imagine anyone claiming all the learning happens at the EarthCache GZ. (I'd be a little more uneasy about saying the learning isn't supposed to happen at the site, since it kinda defeats the idea of an EarthCache for the learning to happen elsewhere, but let's leave that aside.) My entire point is that the date the learning happened makes no sense to me in dating the found log.

 

I don't know why other people do the things they do, but I don't really see the need to fuss about it too much. If someone gets their kicks by being creative with the dates they put on their cache logs, oh well.

I'm not making a fuss, I'm just discussing what makes sense and why. It makes no difference to me how people actually date their logs.

Share this post


Link to post

dprovan: "When was that lecture on metamorphic rock?"

cezanne: "It was today, April 21st, since that's when I finally figured out what he was saying. But the talk was last week."

Ridiculous.

 

It's ridiculous in the setting above. However attending a lecture does not mean that a learning process was involved and you referred to a lesson learnt before and not used the term lecture.

 

 

You're writing a find log on an EarthCache. What possible question can there be about which lesson you're reporting on?

 

In a scenario where I learnt all about the EC site much before the EC even existed and thus decided after a quick look to skip most of the EC description, that's definitely a meaningful question.

I could report about the date when I learnt a lesson about the EC site but it would not be the date when I visited the EC just to log it.

The thrill a first time discovery of something might have brought along would have long been passed - not every location is very fascinating in itself once you know about the geological lesson to be learnt there.

 

 

I suppose that's what I'm completely missing: I would say it's the day I visited the cache, not the day I visited that location before there was a cache.

 

That's why I stressed that an EC for me is a geological lesson. I'm not visiting a lesson. I of course visit a location as one part of what the lesson involves but if I have visited the location before, there is no need for the lesson to visit it again if the lesson does not go beyond what I have already learnt.

 

If you use the same concept for ECs than for caches with containers, then of course your approach makes more sense.

I more or less see them as "Having visited the location and learnt the lesson" and not as a proxy for a classical cache.

 

My entire point is that the date the learning happened makes no sense to me in dating the found log.

 

But you also object against dating the EC log with the date when the visit took place when the visit was not motivated by the EC.

Share this post


Link to post

As an earthcache owner, this wouldn't bother me. As long as you can answer the questions and understand the lesson, I'm fine with it. I've had folks ask me if they can log an earthcache that they visited before they realized it was an earthcache. I've allowed it but have asked (not required) them to post a photograph for fun.

Share this post


Link to post

It's ridiculous in the setting above. However attending a lecture does not mean that a learning process was involved and you referred to a lesson learnt before and not used the term lecture.

The phrase I used was "learning the lesson by visiting GZ". I would have thought talking about GZ would make it clear it was the lesson that was key. I would have left "learning" out of the phrase, since it had nothing whatsoever to do with my meaning, if I'd known you would stress so strongly the distinction between experiencing a lesson and learning it.

 

You're writing a find log on an EarthCache. What possible question can there be about which lesson you're reporting on?

In a scenario where I learnt all about the EC site much before the EC even existed and thus decided after a quick look to skip most of the EC description, that's definitely a meaningful question.

No, it's really not. What you're describing is learning the information independently of the EC, so a find on the EC wouldn't be appropriate. If you wanted to post a note on the EC dated earlier explaining that that's when you learned the information, that would make sense.

 

My entire point is that the date the learning happened makes no sense to me in dating the found log.

But you also object against dating the EC log with the date when the visit took place when the visit was not motivated by the EC.

I'm not sure what "object against" means, but I do claim it's not logical because the find log reports finding that one earchcache. Learning the same information through some other means is an unrelated event, and the date of that other event has no bearing on the date of the EC find.

Share this post


Link to post

No, it's really not. What you're describing is learning the information independently of the EC, so a find on the EC wouldn't be appropriate. If you wanted to post a note on the EC dated earlier explaining that that's when you learned the information, that would make sense.

 

That's exactly why I wrote that when imposes your understanding of an EC visit, revisiting the location to log a find does not make sense and that then only skipping the EC is left an a way out.

 

I'm not sure what "object against" means, but I do claim it's not logical because the find log reports finding that one earchcache. Learning the same information through some other means is an unrelated event, and the date of that other event has no bearing on the date of the EC find.

 

What you write above again demonstrates that it is all about this "find notion". If an EC log just meant "I have visited the location" and "I learnt the lesson and have successfully answered the questions", then a completion log would definitely make sense. Of course then one cannot make any meaningful comparison to finds for physical caches and cannot come up with a consistent concept for every cache type but I do not regard this as necessary anyhow. Maybe you can understand now why I insisted on my preference for not using the term find for ECs (while being aware that find is not meant literally, but still it has a certain meaning which does not fit to my "completion" understanding).

Share this post


Link to post

There is a very real and concrete thing: a find log. That's what I'm talking about. I don't really care about your discomfort with the abstract concept of "finding" an earthcache.

Share this post


Link to post

There is a very real and concrete thing: a find log. That's what I'm talking about. I don't really care about your discomfort with the abstract concept of "finding" an earthcache.

 

You do not need to care, but I will not change my opinion that for Earthcaches a concept "accomplished" that combines a visit to the location with the learning process and the sent answers would make more sense than a find log because when the notion "find" is used it leads to the type of arguments you come along with which e.g. lead to the conclusion that you cannot log ECs as completed if you have known what the Ec teaches before the EC,

Share this post


Link to post

I see no harm in logging an earthcache if the site was visited before the earth cache was published.  An earthcache is imho not  finding a cache and leaf your name in the logbook. It's just about geology and Earth science. If visited and correct answers (and pictures as an extra prove), log it. But a stated earlier, caches can be easy logged without having visited the site, But then Who is fooling who? :-) 

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/17/2016 at 11:09 AM, The Perkins Family said:

What would happen if i visited a place a few months before and then later realised there was an earthcache and could answer all the questions correctly. I still learn about the geology but i didn't think about it at the place. Does it count as a find?

I recently made a trek to the East Coast, and discovered there was an EarthCache at a caverns attraction I have visited multiple times over the years.  The CO is someone I met at an event, and she suggested I log it. She kind of implied I could do so without visiting the site this time, but my personal "geo-ethic" was that I needed to visit the site with the intent of logging the cache.  

So, I did actually go to the caverns site (it was nearby my home), and snapped a selfie on the grounds of the site which I submitted with my answers to the CO; I did not take the caverns tour this time (and said so in my log and my notes to the CO), but I did know most of the answers from growing up nearby and taking the tour numerous times over the years, both before and after it was an EarthCache.  I did claim it as a find, but then, I actually visited GZ, took the pic, and answered the questions, although the "learning" took place many years ago!

"Finding" the cache, for EarthCaches, seems to me you need to go to the site (coordinates) with the intent of "finding the cache", which involves learning the lesson and taking any pics (not required these days, though).  I logged the "find" on the day I visited the cache site.  So far, my log still stands, so I am assuming the CO accepted it.  I never heard back (is it customary for the CO to reply to your submission?  Or only let you know if you failed and they are deleting your find log?)

Share this post


Link to post

FWIW, the second to last item in our FAQ addresses this topic somewhat:

http://www.geosociety.org/GSA/Education_Careers/Field_Experiences/EarthCache/GSA/fieldexp/EarthCache/faq.aspx

  1. There is no rule that says somebody has to visit the location after publication in order to make a log.
  2. HOWEVER, in GSA’s view, somebody has not actually visited an EarthCache if there was no EarthCache there at the time of their visit!
  3. GSA has no problem with a cache owner deleting a log from somebody who has clearly not visited the EarthCache after its publication date.
  4. If a cache owner wants to allow such logs to stand, that's fine too. (That's up to the cache owner. Maybe in some cases they would feel as though the person logging the cache did get a good lesson, by combining an earlier visit with solving the cache's logging tasks after the fact. The cache owner can be the judge of that.)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/10/2017 at 10:17 PM, GeoawareGSA1 said:

FWIW, the second to last item in our FAQ addresses this topic somewhat:

http://www.geosociety.org/GSA/Education_Careers/Field_Experiences/EarthCache/GSA/fieldexp/EarthCache/faq.aspx

  1. There is no rule that says somebody has to visit the location after publication in order to make a log.
  2. HOWEVER, in GSA’s view, somebody has not actually visited an EarthCache if there was no EarthCache there at the time of their visit!
  3. GSA has no problem with a cache owner deleting a log from somebody who has clearly not visited the EarthCache after its publication date.
  4. If a cache owner wants to allow such logs to stand, that's fine too. (That's up to the cache owner. Maybe in some cases they would feel as though the person logging the cache did get a good lesson, by combining an earlier visit with solving the cache's logging tasks after the fact. The cache owner can be the judge of that.)

 

Whoops - wrong thread.

Edited by Team Microdot
Wrong thread.

Share this post


Link to post

I’m very lenient when it comes to things like this. I’m quite lenient on the answers to my logging requirements as well, unless it’s completely obvious that they didn’t visit. I always steer people in the right direction in any case. 

 

I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again, if they learn something from it, that’s all that really matters to me. 

 

I see it like this: If someone visited a site and remembers what it looks like, that doesn’t mean they know how the Geological feature formed. If they learn how it was formed from my EarthCache pages and then apply it to their previous knowledge of the feature, I see nothing wrong with them logging it as found, so long as they demonstrate that they learned something or thought more critically about the feature.

 

Just my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×