Protocol re: late logging of caches

[+zookeepertx]

Just making a very unofficial poll:

 

If you've found a number of caches over the last 6-7 months, but haven't gotten around to logging them, what do you do when you DO log them:

 

1. Log with the date you found it
   
2. Log with the current date but note the date that you actually found it
   

 

In either case, your observations at the cache may not be true; changes may have been made, cache may have gone missing, problems may have been resolved...

 

I don't want to put false information out there, but I want to write a log that the CO enjoys reading.

 

Thanks!

[+fizzymagic]

Just making a very unofficial poll:

 

If you've found a number of caches over the last 6-7 months, but haven't gotten around to logging them, what do you do when you DO log them:

 

1. Log with the date you found it
   
2. Log with the current date but note the date that you actually found it
   

 

In either case, your observations at the cache may not be true; changes may have been made, cache may have gone missing, problems may have been resolved...

 

I don't want to put false information out there, but I want to write a log that the CO enjoys reading.

 

Thanks!

 

Always log with the date you found them. Always.

[+Ambrosia]

Yup. I always log any cache with the date that I was physically there. It's what the history is. Of course, I use my cache log history to help me remember where I've been and what I've been doing in years past. But it's also important for things to be correct for other finders and the cache owner for various reasons.

 

If it makes you feel better, add a note at the bottom of the log saying you're logging late.

[+Qbar]

I sometimes log late (in fact my goal for tomorrow is to log the 6 or 8 caches I found on holidays back in September). I also use the actual found date with a note that i'm logging late. Seems the logical way to me, shrug.

[+narcissa]

Always log with the actual find date. Indicate that the log is late so the CO and cache watchers can take that into consideration.

[+pppingme]

Date you found it, any other date causes confusion if maintenance issues crop up.

[+Manville Possum]

If it were one of my listings, please use the date you found it. Sometimes I compare physical logs to make sure the find is legitimate.

[+bflentje]

I always log on the actual date found.

Edited January 2, 2017 by bflentje

[+cerberus1]

If you've found a number of caches over the last 6-7 months, but haven't gotten around to logging them, what do you do when you DO log them:

If we were ever so far behind on logging, we wouldn't log a find.

We wouldn't know what that cache looks like now, and wouldn't feel right about it.

We might have added a FP to it 6-7 months ago, but recently find it's a neglected POS today.

Those couple caches wouldn't be a big deal, since it's still a hobby to us...

 

When we first started, though the other 2/3rds had a sortasmartphone, logging on vacations often waited 'til we got home.

So back then two weeks or so tops, and we'd use the date the cache was found.

We check ours at times, and a date 6-7 months back will probably get one of us looking for a sig.

We know quite a few others who'd do the same.

These days, when wifi's everywhere for the laptop or phones (I still prefer to use a GPSr), we either log the day found , or if it was a long day already, next day tops.

Locally, I'll log as soon as I'm home / pour a coffee.

[+Dame Deco]

Log date found, always, always, always. Anything else could lead another cacher to believe it's been found recently when it might be missing. I already know one local who I never trust to log on the date found, so I disregard those finds as the most recent ones.

[cezanne]

In either case, your observations at the cache may not be true; changes may have been made, cache may have gone missing, problems may have been resolved...

 

I log with the date of the find and report my experiences of the day of the find. There is nothing which can turn this into something which is not true any longer.

 

It's not uncommon that I log some caches weeks later and it also occured that I logged some a few months later (typically caches for which my log was very long).

[+on4bam]

As 100% of all others already said, log on the found date. And try not to be late

[+zookeepertx]

Hey, look! A unanimous poll result! When's the last time anyone saw THAT? LOL!

 

Okay, so I'll use the actual found date on those caches. Thanks for the input!

 

You know how crazy I am? I found 4 yesterday, but I feel like I shouldn't log those until the others are logged because it wouldn't be chronological. I know - I'm weird. (I have to find my notes from the others before I can correctly log them. They're somewhere on my mess of a desk).

 

I'll be sure and log the recent ones and then catch up on the old ones.

 

BTW, I didn't do this on purpose; I just like to write decent logs so I put it off till I have time to decide what to type. Then 5 minutes go by and POOF! it's out of my head.

 

Jenny

[+narcissa]

Hey, look! A unanimous poll result! When's the last time anyone saw THAT? LOL!

 

Okay, so I'll use the actual found date on those caches. Thanks for the input!

 

You know how crazy I am? I found 4 yesterday, but I feel like I shouldn't log those until the others are logged because it wouldn't be chronological. I know - I'm weird. (I have to find my notes from the others before I can correctly log them. They're somewhere on my mess of a desk).

 

I'll be sure and log the recent ones and then catch up on the old ones.

 

BTW, I didn't do this on purpose; I just like to write decent logs so I put it off till I have time to decide what to type. Then 5 minutes go by and POOF! it's out of my head.

 

Jenny

 

Don't worry, there is no time limit on logs! (Some people in the forum may try to tell you otherwise.)

 

If you're someone who puts off logging it is still a good idea to mention urgent / emerging issues in a timely fashion. You can use notes or NM logs for that sort of thing without putting your found logs out of order.

[+Bear and Ragged]

IF you late log, log it on the date you found it.

IF you say you are logging late, it helps to indicate when you found it and when you are logging it.

 

Log from my watchlist of a local cache:

 

Log Type: Found it

Date: 02/Jan/2017

Location: West Midlands, United Kingdom

Type: Traditional Cache

 

Log:

Found a few weeks ago but forgot to log - TFTC

 

I KNOW it was logged "a few weeks ago" from today, but in a couple of weeks time, anyone reading the log wont know when it was found...

[+niraD]

I always log with the date of the visit to the cache location.

 

When I've logged significantly late (more than a few weeks), I've also included a note [in brackets] that explained that I was posting the log late. This note is visible in the email sent to the CO and to anyone watching the cache. Then I edited the online log to remove the note, so that the log made sense on its own when viewed in the cache's history.

[+hzoi]

I didn't do this on purpose; I just like to write decent logs so I put it off till I have time to decide what to type. Then 5 minutes go by and POOF! it's out of my head.

I usually take notes when I'm out on scrap paper so I can remember, for that reason. Especially handy after a long road trip, as I don't normally log caches until I get home to the laptop.

[+zookeepertx]

I didn't do this on purpose; I just like to write decent logs so I put it off till I have time to decide what to type. Then 5 minutes go by and POOF! it's out of my head.

I usually take notes when I'm out on scrap paper so I can remember, for that reason. Especially handy after a long road trip, as I don't normally log caches until I get home to the laptop.

 

Oh, by "POOF! Out of my head" I meant the whole intention of logging at all! (I'm just SURE I used to be able to remember stuff; I don't know what happened, LOL!)

[+TheVoytekBear]

If I'm able to recreate the physical logging date I'd go with that one.

Actually happened to me once: While being in the area for a second time I noticed a cache I found isn't a smiley on the map. I found pictures from that visit on my phone and got the date from there.

[+J Grouchy]

I have a related question.

 

So say I was in New Orleans a few years ago (September 2013) and visited a certain location and noted something I saw there. Then say that while perusing caches in that area I note there is a virtual cache in that exact location and the requirement for logging the cache is to describe the 'something' I saw there. I did not snap a photo, but I do recall exactly what it was.

 

I guess my question is this: What are folks' thoughts on logging this virtual more than three years later? I can meet the requirement, I was actually there...it's just that at the time I was there I was not aware of the existence of this virtual.

[+on4bam]

I have a related question.

 

So say I was in New Orleans a few years ago (September 2013) and visited a certain location and noted something I saw there. Then say that while perusing caches in that area I note there is a virtual cache in that exact location and the requirement for logging the cache is to describe the 'something' I saw there. I did not snap a photo, but I do recall exactly what it was.

 

I guess my question is this: What are folks' thoughts on logging this virtual more than three years later? I can meet the requirement, I was actually there...it's just that at the time I was there I was not aware of the existence of this virtual.

 

I had a similar (but different) thing happening last year. Driving the Great Ocean Road (Vic. Australia) we stopped at most of the viewing points where, at some places, we walked along a loop path. At one of these places there was an Earthcache but as we inadvertently walked the "wrong" direction we passed the different waypoints before getting to the start where the icon was on the map. Since we missed the WPs we didn't bother trying to log the EC eventhough, a few weeks later, we had all the answers we needed to get at the WPs.

We know we were there and experienced everything the EC wanted us to see/do but we are not desperate enough to want that extra point.

 

I'd just "let it go".

[+J Grouchy]

I have a related question.

 

So say I was in New Orleans a few years ago (September 2013) and visited a certain location and noted something I saw there. Then say that while perusing caches in that area I note there is a virtual cache in that exact location and the requirement for logging the cache is to describe the 'something' I saw there. I did not snap a photo, but I do recall exactly what it was.

 

I guess my question is this: What are folks' thoughts on logging this virtual more than three years later? I can meet the requirement, I was actually there...it's just that at the time I was there I was not aware of the existence of this virtual.

 

I had a similar (but different) thing happening last year. Driving the Great Ocean Road (Vic. Australia) we stopped at most of the viewing points where, at some places, we walked along a loop path. At one of these places there was an Earthcache but as we inadvertently walked the "wrong" direction we passed the different waypoints before getting to the start where the icon was on the map. Since we missed the WPs we didn't bother trying to log the EC eventhough, a few weeks later, we had all the answers we needed to get at the WPs.

We know we were there and experienced everything the EC wanted us to see/do but we are not desperate enough to want that extra point.

 

I'd just "let it go".

 

Yeah. Just thought I'd throw it out there. I was thinking maybe I'd send the CO a quick email to see what they think.

[+Ambrosia]

I think that if you were there while the virtual or EC existed, and you can answer all the questions, then it should be fine to log the cache. The only thing that's missing is the intent while at the site, and it seems a bit silly to me to not log the cache because of that. What, if you went back knowing the cache was there, and then log it, wouldn't that be weird since you could have done that without going back and repeating yourself? Seems like semantics, to me. Of course, my opinion.

[+dprovan]

I have a related question.

 

So say I was in New Orleans a few years ago (September 2013) and visited a certain location and noted something I saw there. Then say that while perusing caches in that area I note there is a virtual cache in that exact location and the requirement for logging the cache is to describe the 'something' I saw there. I did not snap a photo, but I do recall exactly what it was.

 

I guess my question is this: What are folks' thoughts on logging this virtual more than three years later? I can meet the requirement, I was actually there...it's just that at the time I was there I was not aware of the existence of this virtual.

Since you're asking me, I'm going to say, no, you shouldn't log it because you didn't in any sense find it. You just happen to know the answer.

 

Having said that, I would not care if you logged it, and, in fact, I'll freely admit that if it were me, I might very well talk myself into logging it, too.

[+J Grouchy]

I have a related question.

 

So say I was in New Orleans a few years ago (September 2013) and visited a certain location and noted something I saw there. Then say that while perusing caches in that area I note there is a virtual cache in that exact location and the requirement for logging the cache is to describe the 'something' I saw there. I did not snap a photo, but I do recall exactly what it was.

 

I guess my question is this: What are folks' thoughts on logging this virtual more than three years later? I can meet the requirement, I was actually there...it's just that at the time I was there I was not aware of the existence of this virtual.

Since you're asking me, I'm going to say, no, you shouldn't log it because you didn't in any sense find it. You just happen to know the answer.

 

Having said that, I would not care if you logged it, and, in fact, I'll freely admit that if it were me, I might very well talk myself into logging it, too.

 

Who said I was asking you in particular? I was asking the forum. You can certainly answer, but don't pretend to be special.

 

As for your answer, I would argue I DID in fact find it. If I happened across a container that ended up being a geocache...happened across it completely by accident, would you not argue it was reasonable to log a find? What if I was walking down the street and noticed a friend standing in the street and stopped to talk to him. Later at home I realized he'd been standing there getting his picture taken by a webcam and, by chance, I happened to be in the picture. Couldn't I also log that find on the webcam cache? What if I was out at a restaurant and spotted a friend and sat with him for a while talking...then found out it was an event. Would it not be reasonable to claim attendance at the event?

I was at the location, saw the object mentioned in the cache page and only later realized it was a virtual cache. I'm not really trying to "talk myself into logging it". In fact, I have not yet. I've actually emailed the CO to present this, asking if he was okay with it. If not, I won't. It's not a big deal...but I honestly feel it's perfectly reasonable to claim a find.

Edited January 6, 2017 by J Grouchy

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I was at the location, saw the object mentioned in the cache page and only later realized it was a virtual cache. I'm not really trying to "talk myself into logging it". In fact, I have not yet. I've actually emailed the CO to present this, asking if he was okay with it. If not, I won't. It's not a big deal...but I honestly feel it's perfectly reasonable to claim a find.

 

I had almost an identical scenario on a virtual cache in Maine. I was at the location, saw the object (even took a photo of it), but didn't realize that it was a virtual until I got back to NY. I didn't log it as found, and didn't contact the CO, but ran into her on another forum and she thanked me for having the integrity of not logging it. Maybe some day I'll get back there but it's 330 miles (as the crow flies) from home. Or maybe I won't. An increment by one in my find count means nothing to me.

 

[+dprovan]

Who said I was asking you in particular?

?

 

As for your answer...

I guess we disagree.

[+Ambrosia]

I think it's funny saying something like integrity, when it's just different ways of looking at things. People who know me would say I'm an overly honest person, but my way of looking at things can be quite didactic and I don't see it as an issue of integrity. When people say that, it makes me feel like I did something akin to stealing, like I'm dirty or something. It's quite ridiculous.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Ambrosia

[cezanne]

 

I had almost an identical scenario on a virtual cache in Maine. I was at the location, saw the object (even took a photo of it), but didn't realize that it was a virtual until I got back to NY. I didn't log it as found, and didn't contact the CO, but ran into her on another forum and she thanked me for having the integrity of not logging it.

 

I would not say that this is a matter of integrity but rather of a matter of personal caching philosophy. It happened more than once that I knew that at a location there is a virtual or EC but did not have the text with me and then took a few photos and answered the questions at home, or I even had the text with me but knew that everything can be done at home.

 

As to whether one can find something one did not intentionally search for, yes, in my opinion one can: If I encounter a physical cache by chance I log it normally as found too. I do not do that because I care about my score but rather because it fits to my idea of what a found it log means. I log DNF if I could not open the container and sign the log when the container was frozen and I log a find if I could sign the log regardless of whether I planned to find the cache. (There could be exceptions if the cache is not a traditional and I do not feel that I experienced the cache in an appropriate manner, but that's not an issue of having planned to visit a cache.)

[+hzoi]

One of our earthcaches is based on a mineral spring in southern Alabama. The first person who logged it hadn't been anywhere near the park when he logged it, but he was able to answer all of the questions completely accurately, since he had family in the area and had been there many times. Not only had he already learned the lesson, he helped correct a few things on my earthcache. So when he logged the find, I let it stand.*

 

Personally, I don't think I would do this for a virtual or earthcache. I may have visited and noted the plaque or geologic whatsit in question, I may even have a photo, but I look at this as an armchair log. When I first started I noticed several places I had been that I could do this for, but enough of those caches specifically asked people not to log retroactive finds or finds from before geocaching, so I let 'em go.

 

Many virtual caches tried to close this loophole by requiring a photo with your GPSr visible; same with webcams requiring a specific act such as a phoon. The loophole has obviously been reopened by the rise of phone cachers, since unless there's a mirror handy, you can't take a picture of a phone with the phone. And since the rules changed on earthcaching, a photo can't normally be required. (Of course, six years after the change went into effect, I still see earthcaces with "mandatory" photo requirements, but that's another issue for another thread.)

 

 

*Of course, he then claimed FTF, which then drew the ire of someone who was actually the first person to trundle down to the park and answer the questions after the earthcache was published. Hence, I have (1) stopped acknowledging FTF on our caches,, (2) stopped taking FTF seriously overall, and (3) not counted earthcaches on my FTF list, even though I was the first to log visits on at least one I can think of.

[+J Grouchy]

I was at the location, saw the object mentioned in the cache page and only later realized it was a virtual cache. I'm not really trying to "talk myself into logging it". In fact, I have not yet. I've actually emailed the CO to present this, asking if he was okay with it. If not, I won't. It's not a big deal...but I honestly feel it's perfectly reasonable to claim a find.

 

I had almost an identical scenario on a virtual cache in Maine. I was at the location, saw the object (even took a photo of it), but didn't realize that it was a virtual until I got back to NY. I didn't log it as found, and didn't contact the CO, but ran into her on another forum and she thanked me for having the integrity of not logging it. Maybe some day I'll get back there but it's 330 miles (as the crow flies) from home. Or maybe I won't. An increment by one in my find count means nothing to me.

 

I'm trying to understand the logic.

So you did everything required to be able to log the find. The only "crime" was that you did not do it in the typical order. Is there a guideline somewhere that states one must be aware of the presence of the virtual before fulfilling the requirement to log it? I'm trying to understand how not doing so is somehow a mark of lower integrity. If someone accidentally found one of my physical caches (maybe they didn't have a GPS device with them and only happened to run across it while hiking), I wouldn't think less of them if they claimed the find even without knowing of the existence of the cache prior to finding it. How is such a scenario any different with a virtual?

 

So basically there are two scenarios:

1 - Know about the cache, visit the location, fulfill the requirement, log the cache = virtuous

2 - Visit the location, fulfill the requirement, discover the cache, log the cache = dishonest

 

Gotcha.

[+DragonsWest]

Just making a very unofficial poll:

 

If you've found a number of caches over the last 6-7 months, but haven't gotten around to logging them, what do you do when you DO log them:

 

1. Log with the date you found it
   
2. Log with the current date but note the date that you actually found it
   

 

In either case, your observations at the cache may not be true; changes may have been made, cache may have gone missing, problems may have been resolved...

 

I don't want to put false information out there, but I want to write a log that the CO enjoys reading.

 

Thanks!

 

I log the date I found it, trying very hard to keep the logs in the order of finding (mistkaes happen). I'm ambivalent regarding the dates people use when logging finds on my caches - there's no big honkin' text on the log page telling people what and how they should log, I'm sure not going to take up the cause and chastise people.

[+redsox_mark]

 

So basically there are two scenarios:

1 - Know about the cache, visit the location, fulfill the requirement, log the cache = virtuous

2 - Visit the location, fulfill the requirement, discover the cache, log the cache = dishonest

 

Gotcha.

 

Interesting.

 

I had a recent experience where I found a physical cache. Unknown to me, a new earth cache was published at the same location that morning. I was a bit annoyed at my bad luck for not knowing that. (It was outside my local area, so I did not receive a notification, and was using a GPS not a phone with a live feed).

 

In my case - the Earthcache asked you to perform some tasks, e.g

 

2) Using your GPS, measure your height above sea level at GZ.

 

3) Measure the length of the bridge. Your GPS's waypoint function may prove useful.

 

As I didn't do those things there, I wouldn't log it as found, even though I could find the altitude and length of the bridge via other means.

 

I guess if I happened to have done all the tasks without knowing it was an earthcache, then I'd log it as found.

[cezanne]

but enough of those caches specifically asked people not to log retroactive finds or finds from before geocaching,

 

In those cases one could at least argue that such logs might look strange or create issues like debates about who was the first finder.

 

But where is the difference between these two scenarios:

 

Scenario A

 

Someone notes after his return home that he visited an EC location that very day and the EC happens to be of the type that everything

can easily be answered by using the photos taken at the site. The correct answers are sent to the EC owner.

 

Scenario B

 

Someone is aware of the EC and takes a photo to answer the questions at home to save time at the cache site (e.g. because being in company of people who

do not like geocaching). The correct answers are sent to the EC owner.

 

Of course one always could pretend that scenario B is the real one by lying - that makes the integrity discussion even more weird.

 

Many virtual caches tried to close this loophole by requiring a photo with your GPSr visible; same with webcams requiring a specific act such as a phoon.

 

I would not say that ECs and virtuals are about taking photos of persons or GPS-devices.

[+dprovan]

Of course, he then claimed FTF, which then drew the ire of someone who was actually the first person to trundle down to the park and answer the questions after the earthcache was published. Hence, I have (1) stopped acknowledging FTF on our caches...

I have to admit, I never cared for the idea of acknowledging FTF on the cache page since it encourages the mistaken notion that COs grant FTF honors, but if you had a habit of it and wanted to continue, the obvious reaction would be to acknowledge both FTFs since both FTF claims are valid in their own way.

Edited January 9, 2017 by dprovan

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I was at the location, saw the object mentioned in the cache page and only later realized it was a virtual cache. I'm not really trying to "talk myself into logging it". In fact, I have not yet. I've actually emailed the CO to present this, asking if he was okay with it. If not, I won't. It's not a big deal...but I honestly feel it's perfectly reasonable to claim a find.

 

I had almost an identical scenario on a virtual cache in Maine. I was at the location, saw the object (even took a photo of it), but didn't realize that it was a virtual until I got back to NY. I didn't log it as found, and didn't contact the CO, but ran into her on another forum and she thanked me for having the integrity of not logging it. Maybe some day I'll get back there but it's 330 miles (as the crow flies) from home. Or maybe I won't. An increment by one in my find count means nothing to me.

 

I'm trying to understand the logic.

So you did everything required to be able to log the find. The only "crime" was that you did not do it in the typical order. Is there a guideline somewhere that states one must be aware of the presence of the virtual before fulfilling the requirement to log it? I'm trying to understand how not doing so is somehow a mark of lower integrity. If someone accidentally found one of my physical caches (maybe they didn't have a GPS device with them and only happened to run across it while hiking), I wouldn't think less of them if they claimed the find even without knowing of the existence of the cache prior to finding it. How is such a scenario any different with a virtual?

 

So basically there are two scenarios:

1 - Know about the cache, visit the location, fulfill the requirement, log the cache = virtuous

2 - Visit the location, fulfill the requirement, discover the cache, log the cache = dishonest

 

Gotcha.

 

In that particular case, the time between I visited it and when I discovered that it was a pretty short amount of time so I thought about logging it as found. However, there are lots of places that I have visited, some long before I ever heard of geocaching that might have virtuals or earthcaches where, with a bit of research I could probably answer the necessary questions or otherwise meet the requirements, but it would feel too much like gaming the system just to get credit for the find. I think that there are far too many that seem to look for various loopholes that they can exploit so that they log a find on caches and then justify to themselves that the find is valid, because, technically the guidelines allow them to do (and in some cases, just because they can get away with it). That's not how I want to play the game.