Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
AleksSI

FTF logging rules - ubused notes

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I can get more catty than you, nira, but will not lower myself to that level.

First, it's "niraD" not "nira"

 

Second, I was trying to express my reaction to the way you don't seem to recognize that you're the one who added the requirement for coordinates "that were gotten off a published cache". That isn't part of any description of geocaching I've seen. That's just something you've added. And you seem to be insisting that you didn't add it, but that it is part of the original description of geocaching that you quoted.

 

25 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

This forum is better than that. 

Sure. Let's say it is.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, HunterandSamuel said:

So far there is no need to contact the CO. No additional finds were logged. 

 

It is normal that there were more than one person hiding the cache. Cache owner can not log a find but other players may sign the logbook when it is originally hidden,  not found  in this context.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, niraD said:

Second, I was trying to express my reaction to the way you don't seem to recognize that you're the one who added the requirement for coordinates "that were gotten off a published cache". That isn't part of any description of geocaching I've seen. That's just something you've added. And you seem to be insisting that you didn't add it, but that it is part of the original description of geocaching that you quoted.

No dear. I was asked what coordinates meant to me and answered. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Okay, nira.

Sure thing, PunterSandMule.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, niraD said:

Sure. Let's say it is.

I think this forum is better than that. Not just a "Let's say it is". I have been on many forums but this is the first where genuine people want to help and guide others. And then there are the ..."others". Others who enjoy putting down others to up their status on the forum and get "likes". lol 

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

The guideline is 'visit the coordinates'.  Not that they have to be gotten off a published cache. 

 

This is how we see it as well.    :)

With civilian GPS only accurate to around ten feet (meaning you and the CO may be off by twenty...),  "the coordinates" could just be in the area of the cache.

Most we've found are...

The CO needs us to visit the coordinates to satisfy the "use of GPS" guideline.

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

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? 

In simple terms. When a cache is submitted for review there is a requirement that it has been placed and ready to be found. There is then a time lag from when it placed until it is published, generally 7 days or less, sometimes possibly more. During that time, between placing and publishing, the cache may be found, either accidently, or, by a smart cacher guessing possible placements in a series being being published progressively. That finder has visited the coordinates. That finder can sign the log. That finder can then log the FTF once the cache is published.

It can be said there are two rules in claiming FTFs

Rule 1. There are nor rules.

Rule 2. If you think there is a Rule see Rule 1.

Is this an oxymoron?:wacko:

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I have no idea and not my concern. I'm talking about traditional caches. 

The example of mystery caches was actually a very good example of a different way of looking at your issue, to gain insight. I invite you to think about it some more and not just brush it off.

 

The way I see it, people could discuss the nuances or parse words for many more forum pages and not find a consensus. That’s because there is no official ruling on FTF. Basically, hundreds of people could claim FTF on 1 cache over a period of years. It doesn’t make any sense, but there’s nothing to stop them. They can tag it as [FTF] so that it shows up on project-gc.com as a legitimate FTF. They can put it on a public bookmark of “my FTF’s”. Okay great. Other players don’t care. Other players can discern the “truth” (in their own eyes) easily enough. 
 

At the end of the day, just play the game for yourself. If you feel like you were FTF through some edge case or rules lawyering, then go for it. It’s you, in the end, that will admire your FTF list more than anybody else and you’ll know in your heart how true and accurate it is.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, colleda said:

Rule 1. There are nor rules.

Good, if there are no rules then I stand by what I said, what my opinion is, and my personal opinion on what the rules should be. 

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:
43 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Okay, so I went back however many pages in that thread and found your first post, and yes, it looks pretty much as I surmised. So my advice still stands: contact the CO, explain the situation and ask them about those signatures. Were they intended to be official finds or just a bit of fun for their kids? The easiest way to solve things like this is to talk to those involved.

So far there is no need to contact the CO. No additional finds were logged. 

 

I would still recommend contacting the CO regardless of whether any of those signatures become online logs, but please don't ask the CO to adjudicate who is FTF as that's not their role. What you're seeking is clarification of the status of those signatures, something the CO can probably answer if they were members of his/her family or friends.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Korichnovui said:

At the end of the day, just play the game for yourself.

Thanks. That's exactly what I'm doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I would still recommend contacting the CO regardless of whether any of those signatures become online logs, but please don't ask the CO to adjudicate who is FTF as that's not their role. What you're seeking is clarification of the status of those signatures, something the CO can probably answer if they were members of his/her family or friends.

Quote

 

Thanks. It's a new member. I really don't want to cause more stress than what I caused in my log. If the CO responses, then I'll address my concerns. 

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Good, if there are no rules then I stand by what I said, what my opinion is, and my personal opinion on what the rules should be. 

If you believe (or not) that you were FTF then log it. Your log cannot be deleted by the CO. If they do you can appeal the deletion (but not on the basis of a denied FTF).

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I'm not making an "argument". A person can not "visit" coordinates until they are published on geocaching.com. 

 

Sure they can.  Latitude and Longitude coordinates existed long before geocaching existed.   I've been geocaching for 13 years and it's always been acceptable to log a find on a cache pre-publication.  

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Sure they can.  Latitude and Longitude coordinates existed long before geocaching existed.   I've been geocaching for 13 years and it's always been acceptable to log a find on a cache pre-publication.  

 I'm referring to geocaching.com. Not something that existed before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 1/4/2020 at 2:21 PM, HunterandSamuel said:

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

So I can't visit N30 18.402 w104 01.154 to get a burrito because the coordinates are not published on Geocaching.com? Suppose I walked across the street and even though I didn't have a clue it was there, found a cache without a GPS or a phone? Could I sign the log even though I didn't see it on GC.com? How many times do you think a non-cacher has found a cache by accident, are they not allowed to sign it by your interpretation of the guidelines?

 

Do what you want with the FTF, it's meaningless to anyone other than the person that claims it, there is no need in trying to justify your decision. You can be the 50th person to sign the log and claim a FTF, because no one besides yourself cares. In my opinion the only reason the FTF side game was created by cachers was to have bragging rights.

 

Remember this? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see where it says you have to get the coordinates from GC.com or even be a member in order to sign the log.

Congratulations! You’ve just found a geocache—intentionally or not.

 

Geocaching is the anytime, anywhere adventure where players (called geocachers) use a Geocaching app or a GPS to find hidden containers around the world.

What to do now:

 

  • Sign and date the logbook
  • Trade items (if you want to), just remember to leave something of equal or greater value
  • If you find something with the words “Trackable at Geocaching.com” on it, it’s best to leave it in the geocache unless you know what to do with it
  • Re-hide the container exactly where and how you found it so other geocachers can find it
  • Log your find online at Geocaching.com or using the free Official Geocaching App

If this container needs to be removed for any reason, please contact the geocache owner at the email address listed below. You can also visit geocaching.com/help and send a message with unique information about the geocache, such as the GC code, geocache name, or a nearby address (including the city and country).

 

 

 

Edited by 31BMSG
Formatting
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 4

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, 31BMSG said:

So I can't visit N30 18.402 w104 01.154 to get a burrito because the coordinates are not published on Geocaching.com? Suppose I walked across the street and even though I didn't have a clue it was there, found a cache without a GPS or a phone? Could I sign the log even though I didn't see it on GC.com? How many times do you think a non-cacher has found a cache by accident, are they not allowed to sign it by your interpretation of the guidelines?

 

Do what you want with the FTF, it's meaningless to anyone other than the person that claims it, there is no need in trying to justify your decision. You can be the 50th person to sign the log and claim a FTF, because no one besides yourself cares. In my opinion the only reason the FTF side game was created by cachers was to have bragging rights.

 

Remember this? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see where it says you have to get the coordinates from GC.com or even be a member in order to sign the log.

Congratulations! You’ve just found a geocache—intentionally or not.

 

Geocaching is the anytime, anywhere adventure where players (called geocachers) use a Geocaching app or a GPS to find hidden containers around the world.

What to do now:

 

  • Sign and date the logbook
  • Trade items (if you want to), just remember to leave something of equal or greater value
  • If you find something with the words “Trackable at Geocaching.com” on it, it’s best to leave it in the geocache unless you know what to do with it
  • Re-hide the container exactly where and how you found it so other geocachers can find it
  • Log your find online at Geocaching.com or using the free Official Geocaching App

If this container needs to be removed for any reason, please contact the geocache owner at the email address listed below. You can also visit geocaching.com/help and send a message with unique information about the geocache, such as the GC code, geocache name, or a nearby address (including the city and country).

 

 

 

All of that because I'm interpreting what Geocaching.com rules are for finding and logging a cache for it's geocaching.com members? 

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

All of that because I'm interpreting what Geocaching.com rules are for finding and logging a cache for it's geocaching.com members? 

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.

 


This discussion does seem to be going round in circles.

 

I hope I’m not trying to put words into your mouth, but your interpretation of the quoted guidelines, seems to be that coordinates cannot be visited until the cache listing has been published, and therefore a find can not be legitimately logged with a date earlier than the publication date.

 

What most here are saying (I think) is that a cache listing doesn’t need to have been published for someone to visit the coords and find the cache.  (Some of the finds may be ‘dubious’ but many will not.)  Therefore, once the cache has been published, it is perfectly reasonable for the cacher to log it as Found with the actual date it was found, i.e. pre-publication.

 

The claiming of an FTF in this (or any) situation is down to the finder, and their moral compass.

 

For what it’s worth, if I were to find a cache pre-publication...

 

I would claim a FTF if, for example;

- I’d stumbled upon the cache by accident.  (That looks a good place for a cache...)

- I’d managed to guess we’re a cache might be hidden.  (Hmmm, a CO has been publishing caches every 200 m along this path, why have they left a gap?)
- I spotted the CO placing it.

 

I would not claim a FTF if, for example

- I was with the CO when they placed the cache.  (Not sure I’d sign the log even if I was.)

- I was involved with the cache design in any way (e.g. beta tester for a puzzle).

- I was offered the log to sign before the cache was even placed.  (I would actually decline the offer.)


And finally, if I found a cache after publication with names already on the log, I’d probably claim a ‘post-publication FTF’ if it was (or became) reasonably clear that the names had been added in any of that second set of scenarios.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:


This discussion does seem to be going round in circles.

 

I hope I’m not trying to put words into your mouth, but your interpretation of the quoted guidelines, seems to be that coordinates cannot be visited until the cache listing has been published, and therefore a find can not be legitimately logged with a date earlier than the publication date.

 

What most here are saying (I think) is that a cache listing doesn’t need to have been published for someone to visit the coords and find the cache.  (Some of the finds may be ‘dubious’ but many will not.)  Therefore, once the cache has been published, it is perfectly reasonable for the cacher to log it as Found with the actual date it was found, i.e. pre-publication.

 

The claiming of an FTF in this (or any) situation is down to the finder, and their moral compass.

 

For what it’s worth, if I were to find a cache pre-publication...

 

I would claim a FTF if, for example;

- I’d stumbled upon the cache by accident.  (That looks a good place for a cache...)

- I’d managed to guess we’re a cache might be hidden.  (Hmmm, a CO has been publishing caches every 200 m along this path, why have they left a gap?)
- I spotted the CO placing it.

 

I would not claim a FTF if, for example

- I was with the CO when they placed the cache.  (Not sure I’d sign the log even if I was.)

- I was involved with the cache design in any way (e.g. beta tester for a puzzle).

- I was offered the log to sign before the cache was even placed.  (I would actually decline the offer.)


And finally, if I found a cache after publication with names already on the log, I’d probably claim a ‘post-publication FTF’ if it was (or became) reasonably clear that the names had been added in any of that second set of scenarios.

An excellent idea...post publication FTF. Thanks for a great post and the information. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Wow... just catching up on this.  Umm... I don't know what to say.

Ok well I do, cuz there have been SO many threads debating the meaning of "FTF" :lol:

 

As everyone has said, there is no "rule" on geocaching.com for the FTF claim.

That said, there is common sense. However...

 

"First" is undefined and vague.

"Find" is undefined and vague.

And because of that, there will always be people who disagree about what constitutes qualification to claim the illustrious "FTF".

 

All I tell people is sure, claim it if you want. But if you want to avoid needless drama, just qualify it; define 'first' and 'find'.  As mentioned above, "First To Find After Publication", or "First To Find On Foot", or "First To Find AND Solve The Puzzle", etc.

 

Some people beta test caches (help the CO place it, and sign the log in the process). Some of those will hold off logging their 'find' online until the 'FTF' has been claimed by someone else (after publication) -- yet some people will claim the 'FTF' as soon as it's published and annoy crowds of people.

Who cares... if I went to find a cache and I was the first person to literally, in actuality, sign the log after the publication, then I'd claim the FTF as well but clarify in the log that I was the first to visit the cache after publication and sign it, despite there being other signatures from people who signed it PRE-publication.

 

There is no "rule" defining the label "FTF". There are only vagarities, opinions, and a wide assortment of contexts.  Claim it, define it, and be done with it. If it's really SO important to someone that they be the only one to claim it, and any form of it, then just let it go. It's not worth the hassle.

 

It's a subjective side-game statistic.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

An excellent idea...post publication FTF. Thanks for a great post and the information. 

 

Wow. Just... wow.

 

On 1/4/2020 at 12:45 PM, niraD said:

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.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, niraD said:

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.

Nah, I like PPFTF better. But in my recent case...I'm FTF still online. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Nah, I like PPFTF better. But in my recent case...I'm FTF still online. 

Until/unless they end up logging the find. If they are gc.com users, and they signed the log before you, then if they log it online but quite late, technically (under the same qualifications as your'e claiming) they are the FTF.  Right now, your FTF is technically 'first known gc.com user to find and log online', since there's a signature on the log before yours but they could be non-geocachers.

But whatev. You can deal with any possible disagreements when they arise. :P

 

Personally, I would just explain what I saw on the logsheet when I found it and signed it, and (as commented above) qualify what I mean if/when I claim "FTF" to avoid any confusion or immediate conflicts.

 

Sometimes for fun around here someone might claim a FTLA (First to log online). Not that there's any stat for that. But it kind of shines a light on how vague and subjective it is to argue over what constitutes a FTF. :)

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Until/unless they end up logging the find. If they are gc.com users, and they signed the log before you, then if they log it online but quite late, technically (under the same qualifications as your'e claiming) they are the FTF.  Right now, your FTF is technically 'first known gc.com user to find and log online', since there's a signature on the log before yours but they could be non-geocachers.

But whatev. You can deal with any possible disagreements when they arise. :P

 

Personally, I would just explain what I saw on the logsheet when I found it and signed it, and (as commented above) qualify what I mean if/when I claim "FTF" to avoid any confusion or immediate conflicts.

 

Sometimes for fun around here someone might claim a FTLA (First to log online). Not that there's any stat for that. But it kind of shines a light on how vague and subjective it is to argue over what constitutes a FTF. :)

Thanks, Bruce. So far, not a word from the CO so I think it was her family that signed it before being submitted. They obviously are not geocache members. If they become members, and claim the FTF in the online log, they can have it. My gift for getting 4 more members to join. lol I think I'll message the CO, will get back to you. She's a new member. I don't want her first hide to be a bad experience. I even gave it a favorite, it was a good hide that made us jump! I love hides that scare people. lol 

Share this post


Link to post

Heck with new events sometimes there's even a rush to be the FTWA! (First To Will Attend)

It means nothing. But it can be fun(ny) sometimes

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

This discussion does seem to be going round in circles.

That is an unbelievably nice way to say it. And then the message got through. I cannot thank you enough for the quality of this post.

 

5 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

And finally, if I found a cache after publication with names already on the log, I’d probably claim a ‘post-publication FTF’ if it was (or became) reasonably clear that the names had been added in any of that second set of scenarios.

I see your point of view, but I'd claim the find as a simple, legitimate FTF if the previous signatures were beta testers or otherwise tipped of by the CO. I'd only call it "post-publication" if I needed it to distinguish it from your first group, the legitimate pre-publication FTFs that didn't involve insider information. Like you, I consider them the true FTFs, but I'm still going to claim the lesser credit credit for a less perfect post-publication FTF. But that's just how I look at it, not an edict I expect anyone else to follow.

 

I was amused to run into exactly this situation a few days ago while this conversation was going on. I was in a pre-publication group using insider information given out at an event (although another pre-publication was there before us, so I couldn't even call it a pre-publication FTF). Then when I was back at the same place after an hour of walking, I saw someone show up and score the true FTF, so I got a chance to joke around with him about it. As it happens, his FTF wasn't quite legitimate, either: a friend of his was at the event, then alerted his friend to the new cache so he was already halfway out of the gate by the time it was published. No matter how pure you like your FTFs, you could call that one either way. But I thought it was valid, and I gave him kudos for his FTF in my log.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I'd claim the find as a simple, legitimate FTF if the previous signatures were beta testers or otherwise tipped of by the CO.

Yep. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

So a friend and I were doing a paddle series of caches and met the COs, who were out on the river as well.  They mentioned they were putting out new hides in the area somewhat downstream from this series of caches.  My friend and I finished up with the series but still had to paddle another 10 miles downstream to the takeout point.  On a lark, from the very last cache in the series, we stopped .10 downstream and he checked one side while I checked the other side and to our surprise, he found one that had been hidden but not published.  We signed the log and moved on, again doing the .10 stop, him on one side and me on the other, and found another one.  We did this for awhile before beginning to run out of daylight and had to get back to the takeout point in order to head home.  We weren't there when they hid the caches, they're not family, and they didn't tell us where they were hiding caches, only that they were going to be somewhere downriver.

 

Based on what @HunterandSamuel have said, apparently we have no claims to the FTF on these because they weren't published caches.  I completely disagree.  At some point they were published caches and we were the first to visit the coordinates as well as sign the logs on each of them.  We just did it before they were listed on this listing service.  The intent of the COs was to get them published.  They just hadn't submitted all the "paperwork" yet by the time we arrived at the first of the new ones they had placed.  

 

The argument that a first to find is only valid if it's a published cache is faulty because the intent of the person hiding the cache is to make it, well, a cache that is going to be listed on this site.  For me, it boils down to a somewhat simple question that's related to the intent of the CO hiding the cache.  When does a cache become a cache?  For me, it's once the CO places a container and gets coordinates.  Their intent for doing this is what the important thing is here.  They intend for it to be published on the listing service for others to find.  In their minds, it's already a cache but they want to list it so that others can come find it.  If the cache has proximity issues (or other issues) and never gets published, that only means that for that particular listing service, it isn't a cache that can be listed on their site.  

 

Keep in mind that the owner of the cache isn't Groundspeak; it's the person who placed it so they could choose to list it elsewhere and if it fit their model, it's a cache that's listed on another service.  It didn't stop being a cache just because Groundspeak had some sort of problem that prevented it from being published and therefore listed by them.  It just became an unpublishable cache on their site, but still a cache. If the argument is that it has to be an active and published cache on Groundspeak to be able to claim the FTF (which is also a find), then any archived cache you find can't be logged either because it's not active anymore.  However, Groundspeak allows cachers to log finds on archived caches, which means that it's still a cache.  It's just an archived one that has no current listing on the site.  The same goes for an unpublished cache - It's still a cache; it's just an unpublished one that has no current listing on the site.

Edited by coachstahly
Spelling
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, dprovan said:

but I'd claim the find as a simple, legitimate FTF if the previous signatures were beta testers or otherwise tipped of by the CO.

Good point.

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Based on what @HunterandSamuel have said, apparently we have no claims to the FTF on these because they weren't published caches.

Nope. I will explain one more time. I'm discussing geocaches published on geocaching.com only, and not other places, and going by geocaching.com rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Nope. I will explain one more time. I'm discussing geocaches published on geocaching.com only, and not other places, and going by geocaching.com rules.

 

So am I.  They weren't published anywhere yet. Eventually they were published on the geocaching.com site.

Edited by coachstahly
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

So a friend and I were doing a paddle series of caches and met the COs, who were out on the river as well.  They mentioned they were putting out new hides in the area somewhat downstream from this series of caches.  My friend and I finished up with the series but still had to paddle another 10 miles downstream to the takeout point.  On a lark, from the very last cache in the series, we stopped .10 downstream and he checked one side while I checked the other side and to our surprise, he found one that had been hidden but not published.  We signed the log and moved on, again doing the .10 stop, him on one side and me on the other, and found another one.  We did this for awhile before beginning to run out of daylight and had to get back to the takeout point in order to head home.  We weren't there when they hid the caches, they're not family, and they didn't tell us where they were hiding caches, only that they were going to be somewhere downriver.

I love this example because I would play this both ways every time: if I were you, I'd crow about FTF and be particularly and vocally proud of it specifically because I used this sneaky approach. But as the next person to find the cache, I'd reject your claim because of your insider information and claim FTF for myself. To me, this is one of the best parts of the FTF game: everyone gets to make their own rules, anyone can claim FTF, and we can poke fun at each other even when we're being overtly hypocritical. (Alas, I have to admit that I'd have a lot of fun poking fun at someone that was taking it too seriously, too, so I'm kinda glad that never comes up in my area.)

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

So am I.  They weren't published anywhere yet. Eventually they were published on the geocaching.com site.

If you want to claim FTF before a cache is even published...then do so. I would never do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

If you want to claim FTF before a cache is even published...then do so. I would never do that.

 

Why not?  Would you claim a find (separate from the FTF) on an unpublished cache?  Would you claim a find (separate from the FTF) on an unpublished cache with no previous knowledge at all that you happened to stumble upon?  Would you claim a find on an archived cache?

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Why not?

Because I wouldn't. I like to find caches that are published on geocaching.com.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, HunterandSamuel said:

Because I wouldn't. I like to find caches that are published on geocaching.com.

 

If the unpublished caches you accidentally found and signed were eventually listed on geocaching.com, would you log a find on one you found before it was published on the site?  Would you log a find on an archived cache that used to be active on geocaching.com?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

If the unpublished caches you accidentally found and signed were eventually listed on geocaching.com, would you log a find on one you found before it was published on the site?  Would you log a find on an archived cache that used to be active on geocaching.com?

I never found a cache that was unpublished and if I did, would wait and see if it's published (gets a reviewers approval). Archived caches? LOL Never came across one. Unless you mean that one in the woods chewed up from animals and archived by it's owner? Gee, I didn't know archived caches are still able to being logged.  

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

If the unpublished caches you accidentally found and signed were eventually listed on geocaching.com, would you log a find on one you found before it was published on the site?  Would you log a find on an archived cache that used to be active on geocaching.com?

 

Once published I'd definitely log it found. Once published, I'd personally state I found it accidentally before publish, but I wouldn't claim FTF because of that; or at least, an unqualified FTF. More like pre-publish- or accidental-FTF. Again it's all about what people infer by a claim of "FTF", and the general understanding for a geocache listed on geocaching.com is you were the first to find based on the new published details at geocaching.com :)

 

pre-publish FTF isn't the same as post-publish FTF. I'd qualify it just to avoid arguments :omnomnom:

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I never found a cache that was unpublished and if I did, would wait and see if it's published (gets a reviewers approval). Archived caches? LOL Never came across one. Unless you mean that one in the woods chewed up from animals and archived by it's owner? Gee, I didn't know archived caches are still able to being logged.  

 

You couldn't log it anyway until it was published.  If those caches were never published, I would have never claimed the finds.  So would you log the find then?

 

There are some that are locked from all future logs but generally speaking, archived caches are able to be logged as found, assuming you found one, even though it's not listed (anymore) on geocaching.com.  GS allows a cache that's no longer on their site to be logged as a find.  Why would they NOT allow a find (or even a FTF) on a cache that hasn't been published yet?

 

6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Once published I'd definitely log it found. Once published, I'd personally state I found it accidentally before publish, but I wouldn't claim FTF because of that; or at least, an unqualified FTF. More like pre-publish- or accidental-FTF. Again it's all about what people infer by a claim of "FTF", and the general understanding for a geocache listed on geocaching.com is you were the first to find based on the new published details at geocaching.com :)

 

pre-publish FTF isn't the same as post-publish FTF. I'd qualify it just to avoid arguments :omnomnom:

 

I don't quite understand this particular bit of logic.  As I see it, you were the very first one to find and sign an unpublished cache, which was eventually published.  You didn't have any inside information.  You weren't given advance notice of the publication and the associated coordinates.  You weren't with them when it was placed. You managed to find the cache at the posted coordinates before the site listed it without any advantages being provided.  You were lucky.  That was it.  I fail to see why it would matter when it was found, only that someone found it first.  A verifiable find is a find, any way you look at it.  That being said, I understand what you're saying.  I just don't agree.

 

What, then, do you think about tribute caches that are put out and the honoree is given advance notice of publication as well as coordinates in order to be given the opportunity to be FTF?  What if they sign it before it's published?  What if they sign it within a minute of it being published because they knew in advance the exact time of publication an were just waiting for the ding to notify them that the publication email came through?

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

You couldn't log it anyway until it was published.  If those caches were never published, I would have never claimed the finds.  So would you log the find then?

Like I said, I only log caches that are published.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
25 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Once published I'd definitely log it found. Once published, I'd personally state I found it accidentally before publish, but I wouldn't claim FTF because of that; or at least, an unqualified FTF. More like pre-publish- or accidental-FTF. Again it's all about what people infer by a claim of "FTF", and the general understanding for a geocache listed on geocaching.com is you were the first to find based on the new published details at geocaching.com :)

 

pre-publish FTF isn't the same as post-publish FTF. I'd qualify it just to avoid arguments :omnomnom:

 

I don't quite understand this particular bit of logic.  As I see it, you were the very first one to find and sign an unpublished cache, which was eventually published.

 

This is exactly why I say definition is important, and why I said "pre-publish FTF isn't the same as post-publish FTF".  Sure, no inside info, but you still had leg up on everyone else.  The publish is the event that puts geocachers on the same 'knowledge of' level. That's it. If I come across an unpublished cache, no one else had the same advantage I did of being at the right place at the right time. That's a definitive difference. If you ignore that, then sure, there's "no difference" between pre- or post- publish finds. But you have to see that difference. It's a most fundamental, basic concept of caches being published on the website. Those are the publicly-known, everyone-access (PM excepted) information listings.

In this particular context the race gun firing is an apt analogy to mark the start of the race. If you cross the finish line before the gun goes off, sure you ran the race and completed it, perhaps even in record time, but you didn't do the race.  You can claim your record time if you want, but it won't be relevant for the context of the race. If I found cache pre-publish, I'd claim a pre-publish FTF - that's what it was. And it's not the same as a post-publish FTF (what most people generally consider "FTF", as a label, not as literal meaning, to indicate)

 

10 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

What, then, do you think about tribute caches that are put out and the honoree is given advance notice of publication as well as coordinates in order to be given the opportunity to be FTF?  What if they sign it before it's published?  What if they sign it within a minute of it being published because they knew in advance the exact time of publication an were just waiting for the ding to notify them that the publication email came through?

 

1) If a tribute cache is published and someone not the subject gets the FTF, they were the FTF.

2) If a tribute cache were placed for me and I were given the details before publishing so I could find it, I wouldn't log it and claim the definitive FTF as soon as it's published. I'd claim pre-publish FTF, thanking the people for doing that. Alternatively, if I really wanted a legitimate FTF I might ask them not to give me info ahead of time, but let me go for it like everyone else and have the rush of attempting to be the FTF post-publish.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Like I said, I only log caches that are published.

 

No one can log an unpublished cache.  You can find an unpublished cache but the online log MUST wait to be filed until the cache is officially published.  The question is - Would you log a find, once the cache is published to the site, of a cache that you "accidentally" found and signed before it was published?  For example, you're out caching and find a brand new lock-n-lock with a new log and new swag today, January 7.  You sign the log, to be safe, since you're not sure what's going on since there's nothing there on your map.  January 10 you get an email notifying you that a new cache has been published and it's the one you found three days earlier.  Would you log this cache as found?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, coachstahly said:

The question is - Would you log a find, once the cache is published to the site, of a cache that you "accidentally" found and signed before it was published? 

Of course not. My signature is not on the paper log. Next question? sigh.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Of course not. My signature is not on the paper log. Next question? sigh.

 

Do you even read the comments you respond to?

 

8 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Would you log a find, once the cache is published to the site, of a cache that you "accidentally" found and signed before it was published?

 

You sign the log, to be safe, since you're not sure what's going on since there's nothing there on your map.

 

Sigh....

Edited by coachstahly
  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Next question?

 

Would you log this cache as found?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Do you even read the comments you respond to?

Sure I do. Sorry you didn't understand my post.  My signature is not on the log because I wouldn't sign a log on an unpublished geocache found, found accidently. Next?

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, HunterandSamuel said:

Sure I do. Sorry you didn't understand my post.  My signature is not on the log because I wouldn't sign a log on an unpublished geocache found, found accidently. Next?


How would you know it’s not published?  Could be the final of a multi or mystery.  Might not even be a new cache just a new log.  Wouldn’t you sign ‘just in case’?

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...