FTF logging rules - ubused notes

3.8k · March 10, 2017

FTF is an unsanctioned side game with many variations. There is no universal standard for fair play. FTF has no rules.

Everyone has different processes, and different approaches. When I happen to get an FTF, I treat it the same way I would treat any other find, i.e. I log it, in order, when I have time to write a detailed log. I have not ever agreed to participate in any kind of competition with others, so I am not under any obligation to agree with, or adhere to, imaginary notions of fair play.

Fair play in geocaching means nothing more than putting the cache back where it belongs so it is ready for the next geocacher. If someone chooses to place less value on their experience because they didn't get to the cache first, that's a matter of attitude and not my responsibility.

That is not logic. I there would exist rules or obligation we would't need fair play anyway.

It's not about competition nor because of that less value experience.

For me fair play means that I recognise fact among us are geocachers who also (not exclusively) like FTF. My attitude to other geocachers dictates me to except this fact and because of that I write log for a new caches immediately whether I compete with them or not.

Huh?? :blink:

March 10, 2017

Hmmm ... I'm curious. I never heard of this issue, so I tried it just now. At the start of the experiment, my Profile page said "Logs Until Next Favorite Point: 9". Then I logged "Found it" logs on two of my own archived caches. As I had never logged these as "found" before, the Profile page now said "Logs Until Next Favorite Point: 7". Just as expected.

Then I deleted the two bogus logs, but the number is still at 7! Of course it also stays at 7, if I write another find log for one of the two archived caches. So it's correct, that only the first "Found it" log adds to the FP counter, but deleting that log apparently doesn't decrease the counter. Is there some sort of "delayed update" involved? I hope so, because otherwise some jokers might get the idea to beef up their available FP by fake-logging caches all over the world and deleting the logs immediately afterwards .

Number decreases even on our own caches if we log them as found and then delete log.

Something's weird here, and it's not the issue I described. What's weird is that logging your own cache as "found" should not count towards your favorite point accrual. Per Groundspeak's help center article, at https://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=287, "Finds on geocaches that you own are also not included" in calculating your favorite points total.

Did a "delayed update" correct things?

1.4k · March 10, 2017

Hmmm ... I'm curious. I never heard of this issue, so I tried it just now. At the start of the experiment, my Profile page said "Logs Until Next Favorite Point: 9". Then I logged "Found it" logs on two of my own archived caches. As I had never logged these as "found" before, the Profile page now said "Logs Until Next Favorite Point: 7". Just as expected.

Then I deleted the two bogus logs, but the number is still at 7! Of course it also stays at 7, if I write another find log for one of the two archived caches. So it's correct, that only the first "Found it" log adds to the FP counter, but deleting that log apparently doesn't decrease the counter. Is there some sort of "delayed update" involved? I hope so, because otherwise some jokers might get the idea to beef up their available FP by fake-logging caches all over the world and deleting the logs immediately afterwards .

Number decreases even on our own caches if we log them as found and then delete log.

Something's weird here, and it's not the issue I described. What's weird is that logging your own cache as "found" should not count towards your favorite point accrual. Per Groundspeak's help center article, at https://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=287, "Finds on geocaches that you own are also not included" in calculating your favorite points total.

I didn't know that. Which makes the result of my experiment indeed even weirder.

Did a "delayed update" correct things?

No. As I said, I ended up yesterday with "Logs Until Next Favorite Point: 7". Today I found 6 caches, and now it says "Logs Until Next Favorite Point: 1". So yesterday's testing still brought me a net gain of 0.2 FP.

Just to see if it makes a difference when I log not my own caches, I just picked out two old listings, which have been archived since 7 years, have 0 watchers, and inactive owners. After I had logged both as "found", I had acquired one additional FP, and my "Logs Until Next Favorite Point" counter was at 9 (as expected). Deleting the two find logs again didn't change anything on my FP count. So I have by now gained 0.4 FP by cheating experimenting. Definitely a bug.

6.8k · March 11, 2017

Hmmm ... I'm curious. I never heard of this issue, so I tried it just now. At the start of the experiment, my Profile page said "Logs Until Next Favorite Point: 9". Then I logged "Found it" logs on two of my own archived caches. As I had never logged these as "found" before, the Profile page now said "Logs Until Next Favorite Point: 7". Just as expected.

Then I deleted the two bogus logs, but the number is still at 7! Of course it also stays at 7, if I write another find log for one of the two archived caches. So it's correct, that only the first "Found it" log adds to the FP counter, but deleting that log apparently doesn't decrease the counter. Is there some sort of "delayed update" involved? I hope so, because otherwise some jokers might get the idea to beef up their available FP by fake-logging caches all over the world and deleting the logs immediately afterwards .

Number decreases even on our own caches if we log them as found and then delete log.

Something's weird here, and it's not the issue I described. What's weird is that logging your own cache as "found" should not count towards your favorite point accrual. Per Groundspeak's help center article, at https://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=287, "Finds on geocaches that you own are also not included" in calculating your favorite points total.

I didn't know that. Which makes the result of my experiment indeed even weirder.

Did a "delayed update" correct things?

No. As I said, I ended up yesterday with "Logs Until Next Favorite Point: 7". Today I found 6 caches, and now it says "Logs Until Next Favorite Point: 1". So yesterday's testing still brought me a net gain of 0.2 FP.

Just to see if it makes a difference when I log not my own caches, I just picked out two old listings, which have been archived since 7 years, have 0 watchers, and inactive owners. After I had logged both as "found", I had acquired one additional FP, and my "Logs Until Next Favorite Point" counter was at 9 (as expected). Deleting the two find logs again didn't change anything on my FP count. So I have by now gained 0.4 FP by cheating experimenting. Definitely a bug.

I noticed that too a few months back. When logging a bunch of caches that included my 600th find, I managed to mess up the order and got the wrong cache as the milestone, so I deleted a few logs and redid them. Out of that I ended up with a couple of extra tenths of an FP that I wasn't expecting.

Conversely, I've noticed that attending your own event doesn't contribute to FPs but attending other people's does. I can understand finding your own cache being excluded, but aren't events different?

10.1k · March 11, 2017

That is not logic. I there would exist rules or obligation we would't need fair play anyway.

It's not about competition nor because of that less value experience.

For me fair play means that I recognise fact among us are geocachers who also (not exclusively) like FTF. My attitude to other geocachers dictates me to except this fact and because of that I write log for a new caches immediately whether I compete with them or not.

Huh??

I think he is saying that we all must pander to whatever strange whims other cachers are into.

If other cachers want to sign the log after someone who signed the log upside down, we must all sign the log upside down. Not part of Geocaching: a strange whim. "This is what I want. So you all have to follow my whim!" Really sad that someon is so emphatic about their whims.

March 11, 2017

I've found over 1000 FTFs and have encountered none of the problems described in this thread which to me has been pretty pointless.

1.1k · January 4, 2020

On 3/6/2017 at 6:18 AM, AleksSI said:

I disagree with both of you. Wrong type is not a challenge nor fun. The same text we can write under Fount it or Write note. Geocachers who use Write note use wrong type. If they can use one type in the filed, can use other as well.

I also suppose, that's against GC rules https://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=534

I clicked on the GC link. It also says this:

Found It: You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook. You can also add a photo or a Favorite point to your online log.

What if someone signs the log in the cache before it's even submitted to be published or before it's even published? Obviously there are no coordinates to the new cache because it's not published yet. But GS states in its rules that it can only be logged online after the coords are visited and log is signed. Does word of mouth to friends or family, etc where the cache is hidden before it's published or submitted make it legit to sign the log online?

13.7k · January 4, 2020

6 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I clicked on the GC link. It also says this:

Found It: You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

You can also add a photo or a Favorite point to your online log.

What if someone signs the log in the cache before it's even submitted to be published or before it's even published? Obviously there are no coordinates to the new cache because it's not published yet. But GS states in its rules that it can only be logged online after the coords are visited and log is signed. Does word of mouth to friends or family, etc where the cache is hidden before it's published or submitted make it legit to sign the log online?

Sure. As long as that log is signed. Whether they're gonna claim FTF is up to them too.

1.1k · January 4, 2020

12 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Sure. As long as that log is signed. Whether they're gonna claim FTF is up to them too.

Well, well. I have to disagree. If a cache isn't published yet nor even submitted to be published yet by the CO, it doesn't matter who signs it...it's not an official legit signature...in my opinion and I'm sticking to it. So the FTF this morning I own. All mine. Not sharing with anyone. I will take it to the HQ courts!

5.6k · January 4, 2020

20 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Well, well. I have to disagree. If a cache isn't published yet nor even submitted to be published yet by the CO, it doesn't matter who signs it...it's not an official legit signature...in my opinion and I'm sticking to it. So the FTF this morning I own. All mine. Not sharing with anyone. I will take it to the HQ courts!

And, like the Supreme Court does, they will refuse to get involved with the "case".

1.1k · January 4, 2020

8 minutes ago, The Jester said:

And, like the Supreme Court does, they will refuse to get involved with the "case".

Whoosh.

2.9k · January 4, 2020

37 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Well, well. I have to disagree. If a cache isn't published yet nor even submitted to be published yet by the CO, it doesn't matter who signs it...it's not an official legit signature...in my opinion and I'm sticking to it. So the FTF this morning I own. All mine. Not sharing with anyone. I will take it to the HQ courts!

It is up to you what you take account in your FTF statistics. It is your personal decision.

1.1k · January 4, 2020

1 minute ago, arisoft said:

It is up to you what you take account in your FTF statistics. It is your personal decision.

Thank you!

January 4, 2020

45 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Well, well. I have to disagree. If a cache isn't published yet nor even submitted to be published yet by the CO, it doesn't matter who signs it...it's not an official legit signature...in my opinion and I'm sticking to it. So the FTF this morning I own. All mine. Not sharing with anyone. I will take it to the HQ courts!

What if the CO let his kids sign prior to placing it? I'm not going to dash some kid's joy by playing this silly, meaningless side game When did it become all about the number of smilies, FTF, and trackables instead of the enjoyment of simply finding a cache?

1.1k · January 4, 2020

2 minutes ago, 31BMSG said:

What if the CO let his kids sign prior to placing it? I'm not going to dash some kid's joy by playing this silly, meaningless side game

The kids are fine. No one is disputing their find nor planning on taking it away from them.

When did it become all about the number of smilies, FTF, and trackables instead of the enjoyment of simply finding a cache?

When I joined. Sorry.

13.7k · January 4, 2020

On ‎3‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 4:40 AM, barefootjeff said:

Seven of my 26 hides are in places with no mobile data coverage, so FTFs on those couldn't have been logged immediately.

Pretty much anywhere that's outside our major towns and cities and away from the main highways will have no coverage unless it's on high ground overlooking such places.

Surprises folks that we have no-cell spots as well, but I walk in the woods to get away from that stuff anyway.

Most times I don't even have a sorta-smart phone on me anymore, but will have a rugby flip for emergencies.

I walk a couple miles in the woods, the last thing I'd want is to log announcing to all where I am, how far I'm in, and where the truck might be parked.

15.3k · January 4, 2020

2 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Obviously there are no coordinates to the new cache because it's not published yet.

The coordinates exist whether or not they are published on the geocaching.com site.

55 minutes ago, arisoft said:

It is up to you what you take account in your FTF statistics. It is your personal decision.

And it's up to us whether we laugh at someone's FTF claims. It is our personal decision.

1.1k · January 4, 2020

12 minutes ago, niraD said:

And it's up to us whether we laugh at someone's FTF claims. It is our personal decision.

That's not what he meant I'm sure. Also, is this what the forum is about? Laughing at members here because they believe in something you don't?

1.1k · January 4, 2020

19 minutes ago, niraD said:

The coordinates exist whether or not they are published on the geocaching.com site.

Reread what I said:

Found It: You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook. You can also add a photo or a Favorite point to your online log.

What if someone signs the log in the cache before it's even submitted to be published or before it's even published? Obviously there are no coordinates to the new cache because it's not published yet. But GS states in its rules that it can only be logged online after the coords are visited and log is signed. Does word of mouth to friends or family, etc where the cache is hidden before it's published or submitted make it legit to sign the log online?

Above is what I said. You took my sentence out of context. If geocaching.com states that you can only sign a log after you visited the coordinates, then obviously there are no coords to visit when the cache hasn't even been published yet.

15.3k · January 4, 2020

5 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

What if someone signs the log in the cache before it's even submitted to be published or before it's even published?

That depends. If the CO handed them the cache and the log, then the signature means nothing. If they found the cache and signed the log before it was published, then they're still FTF.

7 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Obviously there are no coordinates to the new cache because it's not published yet.

I don't think it's obvious at all. Why can't the CO provide the coordinates apart from the listing being published on the geocaching.com site? Why can't someone visit those coordinates before the listing is published on the geocaching.com site?

Latitude and longitude existed long before the geocaching.com site. GPS coordinates existed long before the geocaching.com site. There is nothing magical about publishing a listing on the geocaching.com site that makes those coordinates suddenly spring into existence.

2.9k · January 4, 2020

39 minutes ago, niraD said:

And it's up to us whether we laugh at someone's FTF claims. It is our personal decision.

It may be a ToU violation if you laugh too loud in a wrong forum. Basically laughing is OK if it helps you to process the matter. It may be the only way.

Many years ago I heard about dispute whether the FTF should be tagged to only one find. Common opinion was regionally divided. Nowadays nobody laughts when there are 50 FTF logs in a single cache and it is absolutely impossible that most of them have ever visited the GZ.

Edited January 4, 2020 by arisoft

1.1k · January 4, 2020

8 minutes ago, niraD said:

If the CO handed them the cache and the log, then the signature means nothing.

Bingo. Or told them where the cache was placed or was with the CO when he/she hid the cache.

1.1k · January 4, 2020

9 minutes ago, niraD said:

20 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Obviously there are no coordinates to the new cache because it's not published yet.

I don't think it's obvious at all. Why can't the CO provide the coordinates apart from the listing being published on the geocaching.com site? Why can't someone visit those coordinates before the listing is published on the geocaching.com site?

Latitude and longitude existed long before the geocaching.com site. GPS coordinates existed long before the geocaching.com site. There is nothing magical about publishing a listing on the geocaching.com site that makes those coordinates suddenly spring into existence.

You still took my question out of context and still didn't answer my question. " If geocaching.com states that you can only sign a log after you visited the coordinates, then obviously there are no coords to visit when the cache hasn't even been published yet."

15.3k · January 4, 2020

2 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Or told them where the cache was placed or was with the CO when he/she hid the cache.

Why would the presence of the CO change anything about whether someone really found the cache?

Just now, HunterandSamuel said:

You still took my question out of context and still didn't answer my question. " If geocaching.com states that you can only sign a log after you visited the coordinates, then obviously there are no coords to visit when the cache hasn't even been published yet."

I am challenging the assumption that you are basing your whole argument on.

The phrase "after you visited the coordinates" does not mean "after the listing is published on the geocaching.com site". Whether someone visits the coordinates or not is completely independent of whether a listing with those coordinates has been published on any web site.

1.1k · January 4, 2020

2 minutes ago, niraD said:

Why would the presence of the CO change anything about whether someone really found the cache?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I was responding to what you said. Did you forget? "If the CO handed them the cache and the log, then the signature means nothing."

1.1k · January 4, 2020

3 minutes ago, niraD said:

Why would the presence of the CO change anything about whether someone really found the cache?

I am challenging the assumption that you are basing your whole argument on.

The phrase "after you visited the coordinates" does not mean "after the listing is published on the geocaching.com site". Whether someone visits the coordinates or not is completely independent of whether a listing with those coordinates has been published on any web site.

I'm not making an "argument". A person can not "visit" coordinates until they are published on geocaching.com. if said person finds their caches with the help of geocaching.com...which is my point. Now why in God's name do you feel the need to challenge that?

15.3k · January 4, 2020

1 minute ago, HunterandSamuel said:

A person can not "visit" coordinates until they are published on geocaching.com.

Sure they can.

Coordinates can exist and can be visited before they are published on any web site.

7 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I have no idea what you are talking about. I was responding to what you said. Did you forget? "If the CO handed them the cache and the log, then the signature means nothing."

Sorry. I missed the "when he/she hid the cache" part. I was focusing on another point, which I now realize was rather tangential. I'll wait until it comes up again before referring to it again.

2.9k · January 4, 2020

3 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

A person can not "visit" coordinates until they are published on geocaching.com.

Today, I visited many coordinates that are not published on geocaching com. I am sure that I visited those coordinates.

1.1k · January 4, 2020

1 minute ago, niraD said:

Sure they can.

Coordinates can exist and can be visited before they are published on any web site.

Sorry. I missed the "when he/she hid the cache" part. I was focusing on another point, which I now realize was rather tangential. I'll wait until it comes up again before referring to it again.

This is the third time you are answering the same post. Maybe go back a little and reread my answer so I won't have to keep repeating myself, okay? Thanks!

1.1k · January 4, 2020

2 minutes ago, niraD said:

Sure they can.

Coordinates can exist and can be visited before they are published on any web site.

Sorry. I missed the "when he/she hid the cache" part. I was focusing on another point, which I now realize was rather tangential. I'll wait until it comes up again before referring to it again.

Thanks. lol

1.1k · January 4, 2020

2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Today, I visited many coordinates that are not published on geocaching com. I am sure that I visited those coordinates.

That wasn't my point.

2.9k · January 4, 2020

Just now, HunterandSamuel said:

This is the third time you are answering the same post. Maybe go back a little and reread my answer so I won't have to keep repeating myself, okay? Thanks!

I think that you are trying to tell that there is no cache until it is published in geocaching.com. Do you know that there are also other listing services? Cache and cache listing are different things. You can find a cache whether it is listed to any service or not.

15.3k · January 4, 2020

Just now, HunterandSamuel said:

3 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Today, I visited many coordinates that are not published on geocaching com. I am sure that I visited those coordinates.

That wasn't my point.

Okay, then what was your point?

Earlier, you wrote:

12 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

A person can not "visit" coordinates until they are published on geocaching.com.

Then arisoft described visiting many coordinates that are not published on the geocaching.com site.

That seems to contradict the basic assumption that you're making, that coordinates cannot be visited until they have been published on the geocaching.com site.

1.1k · January 4, 2020

I'll try again. Here's my original post (below) to another person who posted this link:

https://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=534

Me: I clicked on the GC link. It also says this:

"Found It: You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook. You can also add a photo or a Favorite point to your online log."

Me: What if someone signs the log in the cache before it's even submitted to be published or before it's even published? Obviously there are no coordinates to the new cache because it's not published yet. But GS states in its rules that it can only be logged online after the coords are visited and log is signed. Does word of mouth to friends or family, etc where the cache is hidden before it's published or submitted make it legit to sign the log online?

Me to a comment: You took my sentence out of context. If geocaching.com states that you can only sign a log after you visited the coordinates, then obviously there are no coords to visit when the cache hasn't even been published yet.

13.7k · January 4, 2020

41 minutes ago, niraD said:

And it's up to us whether we laugh at someone's FTF claims. It is our personal decision.

In '04, the other 2/3rds became a FTF monster when locals begged us to keep beating out the person who told anyone that'd listen they were the "FTF king".

Not as many cachers, and night shifters at the time, it was pretty-much a given we'd be there early.

This person was so incensed, that he bad-mouthed us at events, and to anyone who'd listen. Many emailed us afterwards.

If I walked away as he was entering GZ, he'd say "hi...", and apparently saying hi allowed him to log "co-FTF" on the cache pages.

The other 2/3rds put a stop to that quick and started taking photos of the log, and noted the time with each cache log too.

He continued carp at events, and at one we were standing behind him. He left after all were laughing.

- All over a silly side-game...

I liked FTF simply because it was the only time you'd ever see the cache as the CO intended.

We used to mention FTF in our log, but stopped that at 350 , when one said "we should give someone else a chance". :huh:

Like others, I tell them they should get up earlier.

That becoming more common, and people making-up "rules" to benefit them is when I lost interest. Still find some when distant...

The other 2/3rds continued until '18, finally tired of beta-testing newbs with phones. Her last was 400' off. She found it.

1.1k · January 4, 2020

2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I think that you are trying to tell that there is no cache until it is published in geocaching.com. Do you know that there are also other listing services? Cache and cache listing are different things. You can find a cache whether it is listed to any service or not.

No that is not what I'm saying and yes I do know there are other listing services. But I'm not talking about them. I'm talking specifically about geocaching.com.

15.3k · January 4, 2020

1 minute ago, HunterandSamuel said:

No that is not what I'm saying and yes I do know there are other listing services. But I'm not talking about them. I'm talking specifically about geocaching.com.

Then maybe it would help if you referred to FTFAP (First To Find After Publication) if you're referring only to finding caches after they've been listed on the geocaching.com web site.

6 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Me to a comment: You took my sentence out of context. If geocaching.com states that you can only sign a log after you visited the coordinates, then obviously there are no coords to visit when the cache hasn't even been published yet.

And that is the part that is not at all obvious to many of us. Why are there "no coordinates" until the listing is published on the geocaching.com site?

2.9k · January 4, 2020

1 minute ago, HunterandSamuel said:

No that is not what I'm saying and yes I do know there are other listing services. But I'm not talking about them. I'm talking specifically about geocaching.com.

Then I must assume that you are trying to invent new rules for us to obey.

In some new virtual caches the CO has added requirement that the player must visit coordinates and take the picture after the virtual cache has been published. Do you mean something like this?

1.1k · January 4, 2020

Also, if the rules of geocaching.com are "you can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook" then even "accidentally" finding a cache first before it's even being published, is not a legit found?

13.7k · January 4, 2020

There's a couple threads around where folks, while Waymarking, were finding unpublished caches with new trackables too. .

- A site that Groundspeak also owns.

1.1k · January 4, 2020

1 minute ago, arisoft said:

Then I must assume that you are trying to invent new rules for us to obey.

Not at all. Did you read what I posted...what geocaching.com rules are on logging a found?

2.9k · January 4, 2020

7 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Not at all. Did you read what I posted...what geocaching.com rules are on logging a found?

I would greatly appreciate it if the reasoning was not based on illogical arguments. You have an important point that has been forgotten many times.Signing the logbook is not sufficient to claim a find. You must also visit the coordinates.

I think that there is no dispute wether the logbook is signed or not. Could you explain what coordinates are and how do you visit coordinates? That may help us to understand each others.

Edited January 4, 2020 by arisoft

10.1k · January 4, 2020

32 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I'm not making an "argument". A person can not "visit" coordinates until they are published on geocaching.com. if said person finds their caches with the help of geocaching.com...which is my point. Now why in God's name do you feel the need to challenge that?

The cacher can visit the coords without knowing the cache coords. My sister hid a cache recently. The FTF was before the cache was published: FTF was visiting someone. She told him: "There was a car over there. She hid something." He followed her footprints in the snow, checked it out and found the cache! He got FTF.

Then there were some events recently. Caches were hidden beforehand. The cachers attending the event were given printouts of the cache pages. The caches were not published until the next day. But they had a number of finds by then.

2.9k · January 4, 2020

3 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Caches were hidden beforehand. The cachers attending the event were given printouts of the cache pages. The caches were not published until the next day. But they had a number of finds by then.

Interesting loophole. You know that finding geocaches is not allowed theme for an event. I have attented some events that have temporary caches not published as geocaches. Advnture Lab caches are an exemption.

1.1k · January 4, 2020

5 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I think that there is no dispute wether the logbook is signed or not. Could you explain what coordinates are and how do you visit coordinates? That may help us to understand each others.

Okay. Coordinates that are posted in a published geocache to help find a cache. A requirement. For example: N 42° 02.653 W 072° 31.402

15.3k · January 4, 2020

22 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Also, if the rules of geocaching.com are "you can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook" then even "accidentally" finding a cache first before it's even being published, is not a legit found?

How did they find the cache container (even accidentally) and sign the log if they did not visit the coordinates where the cache was located?

15.3k · January 4, 2020

1 minute ago, HunterandSamuel said:

that are posted in a published geocache to help find a cache

Now you're adding requirements beyond "visit the coordinates".

2.9k · January 4, 2020

5 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Okay. Coordinates that are posted in a published geocache to help find a cache. A requirement. For example: N 42° 02.653 W 072° 31.402

a) What are these numbers? How did you get them?

b) How do you know that you have visited these coordinates?

Edited January 4, 2020 by arisoft

1.1k · January 4, 2020

12 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

The cacher can visit the coords without knowing the cache coords. My sister hid a cache recently. The FTF was before the cache was published: FTF was visiting someone. She told him: "There was a car over there. She hid something." He followed her footprints in the snow, checked it out and found the cache! He got FTF.

See, I don't understand how one can be FTF on geocaching.com when a cache hasn't even been published yet. Or even submitted yet. But I guess this is okay and proper. Did he log it online after it was published?

2.9k · January 4, 2020

Just now, HunterandSamuel said:

See, I don't understand how one can be FTF on geocaching.com when a cache hasn't even been published yet

This is simple. When you feel that you got FTF then it is FTF for you.

Here, where I live, we use a different tag for finds made before the cache has been accepted for publication but there is no rule. You can do what you want.

FTF logging rules - ubused notes

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Found It: You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook. You can also add a photo or a Favorite point to your online log.

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Reread what I said:

Found It: You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook. You can also add a photo or a Favorite point to your online log.

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment