Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
AleksSI

FTF logging rules - ubused notes

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, HunterandSamuel said:

My signature is not on the log because I wouldn't sign a log on an unpublished geocache found, found accidently.

 

You didn't state that anywhere in any of your posts until now.  All you've said is you wouldn't log an unpublished cache, which no one can do anyway.  There's nothing about you not signing the log.  So what if the cache you accidentally found was a published cache and was the final of a multi, a Wherigo, or a puzzle?  Would you not sign it, to be safe, on the chance that perhaps you might have found the final of some other type of cache?

 

I see ICUK beat me to the punch here.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, IceColdUK said:


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’?

How would I know it's not published? Because I didn't get a notification of a new cache. No, I wouldn't sign a multi or mystery cache either if found but not published.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

You didn't state that anywhere in any of your posts until now. 

I guess I assumed you knew this. My bad. I'll try harder in the future. sigh

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

What I got from the last few exchanges was that if HaS stumbled upon a cache they weren't searching for and couldn't find it published online, they wouldn't physically sign the logbook because it's not "published on geocaching.com".

I honestly don't think I've seen anyone adhere to that strict a standard for signing a logsheet, but hey, you can play that way and it doesn't hurt anyone.

 

4 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

How would I know it's not published? Because I didn't get a notification of a new cache. No, I wouldn't sign a multi or mystery cache either if found but not published.

 

Couple things. Not getting a notification doesn't mean the cache isn't published or active. Also, you might find a container belonging to a multi or mystery and not know it - it won't show at your location on the map, so it could well be an active published cache and you might think it's not published.

 

So what you seem to be actually saying is you'll only sign the log of a cache you know exists at the coordinates at which you found the logsheet (ie, actively searching for) - that means published, and intentionally sought (or accidentally found and confirmed on the map at those coordinates so you are confident to infer that it's published)

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

So what you seem to be actually saying is you'll only sign the log of a cache you know exists at the coordinates at which you found the logsheet (ie, actively searching for) - that means published,

That was published on geocaching.com.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, please assume that is the default context for "published" unless otherwise stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, thebruce0 said:

Yes, please assume that is the default context for "published" unless otherwise stated.

Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I guess I assumed you knew this. My bad. I'll try harder in the future. sigh

 

Why would I know or assume this?  You said lots about not logging an unpublished cache but nothing about signing an unpublished cache (eventually published on geocaching.com) As Bruce has stated, you're basically saying that you'll only sign a log that you are certain is the cache you're looking for.  Anything else you won't bother. Got it.  So does that go for throwdown caches as well?  If the description says small lock-n-lock but you find a pill bottle (with nothing from the CO to clarify that it's a replacement container) with signatures that match the online logs, are you going to sign the log and claim the find?  I know it's a tongue in cheek response but that's basically the standard you've apparently determined is the way you are going to play.  More power to you if that's the case.  That's an awfully stringent manner of playing.

 

3 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

That was published on geocaching.com.

 

I guess I assumed you knew this. My bad. I'll try harder in the future. sigh

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

This is off topic, Bruce, but I just want to say...you posted a log that your signed somewhere here, can't find it...you do realize you took up three spaces on that log with your signature, date, and ink print of your feet? It was cute but not many COs will find it so cute. lol

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, coachstahly said:

Why would I know or assume this?

By reading my posts. Sorry it took you so long. Are we done now?

Share this post


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

This is off topic, Bruce, but I just want to say...you posted a log that your signed somewhere here, can't find it...you do realize you took up three spaces on that log with your signature, date, and ink print of your feet? It was cute but not many COs will find it so cute. lol

*blinks*  I have no idea what you're talking about, I can say with absolute certainty that not every single one of my signatures has only ever taking up one single designated signature spot, and yeah it's highly off topic. :huh:

ETA: and entirely irrelevant

Edited by thebruce0
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

By reading my posts. Sorry it took you so long. Are we done now?

 

I did read your posts and reread them to be certain.  The only signatures on logs you mentioned on unpublished caches were back on page 4 and were apparently family members or someone with the CO when they hid the cache (or before it was hidden?).  There's nothing from you about you NOT signing an unpublished cache that you might have accidentally found.  There's some other stuff about the legitimacy of signatures on caches that haven't been published, but, again, nothing specifically where you state you wouldn't sign an unpublished cache log until page 6.

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, thebruce0 said:

*blinks*  I have no idea what you're talking about, I can say with absolute certainty that not every single one of my signatures has only ever taking up one single designated signature spot, and yeah it's highly off topic. :huh:

Yeah, off topic. I was trying to find your post of a log that you signed and took a photo of. It was definitely three lines you took up. lol 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 There's nothing from you about you NOT signing an unpublished cache that you might have accidentally found

I clearly stated that I would not sign an unpublished cache if accidently found. Sorry, I didn't read the rest of your post. But you get what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour 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'm fine with this, but I wouldn't qualify the term. I'd explain it, for sure, since how I found the cache before publication is very important and interesting information that I definitely want to put in the log. But I tend to just call either one "FTF". I'm claiming it's an FTF. I don't care if anyone else sees things differently and calls their find an FTF, too. It doesn't take anything away from my FTF, and I see no need for either of us to invent a different term for our particular form of finding the cache first. And I suppose I have to admit that it's because I'd enjoy an argument since I know no one around here would take the argument seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'm fine with this, but I wouldn't qualify the term. I'd explain it, for sure

Well that's pretty much what I mean :P

Practically I'd just be claiming FTF, but if a disagreement ever came up Id' qualify. My "FTF" may be different than another's "FTF", once the details are explained. In some cases I'd just find it easier to clarify it right off the bat than wait for someone to scream " NUH UH!!!1!" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I clearly stated that I would not sign an unpublished cache if accidently found. Sorry, I didn't read the rest of your post. But you get what I mean.

 

You seem to be saying I have no clue as to what you are trying to say and don't understand your notions about unpublished caches.  You say to read your posts (which you obviously didn't do with mine but I really hope you do with this post) in order to understand your point of view, so I did.  It took you multiple pages of posts about this topic before you said that you wouldn't sign the log of an unpublished cache on page 6 after starting up on page 4  (never mind the fact that it could be a puzzle, Wherigo, or multi final of a cache published on geocaching.com).  How was I to assume I knew this about your caching habits if you've never stated, much less implied, that you wouldn't sign the log of an unpublished cache until much later in this discussion?

 

Now that I know this because you stated it, it seems that you're taking things in a straight timeline concept. I don't have a problem with that but it's a very stringent reading of the guideline.  Guidelines are rarely black and white.  They're specific enough to be solid foundations to build upon but they're also vague enough to allow for some growth and expansion, some good and some bad.  The basis of your entire point is the guideline outlined in geocaching.com.

 

Here's the quoted guideline.  Found It: You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

 

The first part is pretty straightforward.  It's about the online log, which can only be done after the last part of the sentence.  Here's where you take things literally and in a straight line, time based concept.  You believe the cache coordinates aren't "valid" until the cache is published (on geocaching.com).  Once the cache is published (on geocaching.com), you visit the coordinates and you sign the logbook.  Then you log it as a find online.  Your timeline is publish, visit coordinates, sign log, log find online.  In a large majority of the cases out there, this is the typical and normal timeline. For you, it appears that any deviation from that timeline appears to be invalid.  Does that sum it up about right?

 

What many of us are trying to show you is that there's nothing written in the above guideline that says that it MUST happen in this order - publish, visit coordinates, sign log, log find online.  By some sort of fluke/luck/coincidence, people occasionally visit a set of coordinates (not published on geocaching.com) that have been around since second century BC to identify a specific location on the earth and unexpectedly find a cache that was placed at that set of coordinates but doesn't appear to have been published yet on geocaching.com.  Most of these people sign the log since that's what we cachers are required to do, per the stated guideline above, in order to be able to claim a find.  We typically note the location somehow and then check new cache publications as they come out to see if this is the cache we found. On the chance that it's a replacement log or a new replacement container with a new log, we also attempt to check (much more difficult) to see if it might be the final to a puzzle, a multi, a Wherigo, or some long archived cache that was forgotten about by the CO, even though they fixed it up.  Lo and behold, a new cache is published that matches what we found and then we go and file our online found it log.  This timeline, while infrequent, is just as valid a find as the one you appear to adhere to, although the timeline is noticeably different since publication doesn't occur until the third step instead of the first one - visit coordinates (unintentionally but you still were at the specific location that turned out to be the location of the cache), sign log, publish, log find online.  If you don't believe the find is valid, see which side Groundspeak agrees with if proof is provided that the signature is on the log, even if the signature predates the publication date.

 

I'm not out to tell you your idea is wrong.  In fact, it's the most common manner in which the large majority of caches are found.  However, in a small amount of caches that are found, the timeline doesn't always adhere to the normal and typical manner of how a find is made.  Because of this, Groundspeak knows that there's some variation as to how things happen so they allow finds for both types of timelines.  The far more common type is the typical one but they also realize that it's possible (and probable) that the timeline won't always follow the usual progression.  That's why they don't state that it MUST happen in that order.

 

As to whether or not it's a FTF, you'll find lots of different answers as you've already probably noticed.  I really hope you read through all of this post and I apologize to everyone else for the length.

Edited by coachstahly
I
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I really hope you read through all of this post and apologize to everyone else for the length.

Sorry, I didn't. Sorry.

Edited by HunterandSamuel

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, HunterandSamuel said:

Sorry, I didn't and will never apologize to who you want me to apologize to.

 

Oh my goodness.  I was apologizing to everyone else that had to read that long post, not asking you to apologize to anyone.  It's a shame that you didn't read it because it had some good points that might have cleared up any confusion.  I tried my best to explain the guideline you quoted to start this entire 3 1/2 pages of unpublished cache protocol.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Sorry, I didn't and will never apologize to who you want me to apologize to.

It was coachstaly apologising to readers (for the length of the post). He was not asking you to apologise.

Again you have shown your ignorance by expecting people to read what you have posted but not extending the same courtesy to others making a genuine effort to clearly explain the situation.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

To be a devil's advocate... *dons fire gear*

 

15 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I really hope you read through all of this post and apologize to everyone else for the length.

 

I kind of thought the wording of this sentence could be misunderstood as well, but didn't want to be a grammar nazi ;P

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

Oh my goodness.  I was apologizing to everyone else that had to read that long post, not asking you to apologize to anyone.  It's a shame that you didn't read it because it had some good points that might have cleared up any confusion.  I tried my best to explain the guideline you quoted to start this entire 3 1/2 pages of unpublished cache protocol.  

Gee my mistake. Are we done?

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, colleda said:

It was coachstaly apologising to readers (for the length of the post). He was not asking you to apologise.

 

Good to know.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, colleda said:

Again you have shown your ignorance by expecting people to read what you have posted but not extending the same courtesy to others making a genuine effort to clearly explain the situation.

I appreciate what you think but it's inaccurate in this case. Are we going to keep this going?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm amazed that "seasoned" cachers on this forum keep senseless posts from us newbies going. LOl Looks to me that they just want to be ...

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Are we going to keep this going?

 

Why not? I would like to read your comments about the extra lenght post you didn't read.

47 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I'm amazed that "seasoned" cachers on this forum keep senseless posts from us newbies going. LOl Looks to me that they just want to be ...

 

... trolls feeding a troll?

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Gee my mistake. Are we done?

 

You apparently are.  I'm surprised that you, an avowed newbie, have chosen to come onto a forum message board and then have opted not to read the messages that are addressing the issues that you bring up.  Although it's not nearly as eloquent as my longer post, the gist of the post was to let you know that although your "method" for finding a cache - publish, visit coordinates, sign log, log find online - is the most common way things are done, the guideline doesn't say that it MUST be done that way.  Groundspeak realized that an alternate form, just as valid but far less common, could happen - visit coordinates, sign log, publish, log find online.  If you don't think it's valid, I want you to consider how Groundspeak would rule in a dispute if proof of a signature on a log was provided, even if the signature predated the publication date.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I'm amazed that "seasoned" cachers on this forum keep senseless posts from us newbies going. LOl Looks to me that they just want to be ...

 

All - you do realize that THIS post is the point behind this thread, right? Read it again.

 

This is the weirdest kind of internet troll - One that APPEARS to actually be one of us, with a real history in the hobby, jerking you ALL around from one contradictory statement to another for seven pages now.

 

Nothing makes sense and nothing's consistent. Attempts at logic and presentation of actual guidelines are met with disdain, sarcasm, rudeness and condescension.

 

Attempts to pin her down on what she's written are met with diversion, denial and misdirection.

 

Attempts to agree-to-disagree are met with ridicule and provocation.

 

Do you really think she doesn't get the points you're all making? Notice that when things slow down she goes back and dredges up an old insult or a statement from pages back that's already been beaten to death.

 

What fun!

 

And if I'm wrong, then it's still a comedy of bad behaviors. Stop feeding.    
 

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

Time for a mod to step in perhaps?

This thread appears to have run its course.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I'm amazed that "seasoned" cachers on this forum keep senseless posts from us newbies going. LOl Looks to me that they just want to be ...

 

I thought it more that the newbies kept insisting that they were absolutely right, and don't listen to anybody.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

On a slight tangent to the present discussion but still relevant to this thread, here's a bit of an odd situation. A new virtual (GC890AQ) was published on Monday. Four people claimed joint FTF later that day but so far have only posted "log to follow" WNs. Yesterday I drove up there, visited the waypoints, took the photos, sent my answers to the CO, got confirmation from him and logged a find when I got home, and that's still the only find logged on that cache. I'm not about to claim FTF on it as clearly I wasn't the first to visit the locations and fulfil the requirements, but I'm just curious what constitues a FTF on a virtual or EC when there's no log to sign.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

What I got from the last few exchanges was that if HaS stumbled upon a cache they weren't searching for and couldn't find it published online, they wouldn't physically sign the logbook because it's not "published on geocaching.com".

I honestly don't think I've seen anyone adhere to that strict a standard for signing a logsheet, but hey, you can play that way and it doesn't hurt anyone.

FWIW, I once found a cache container accidentally. In the field, I was able to determine that it was a Challenge Cache that I did not (yet) qualify for, so I replaced it where it belonged, and later I posted a Note explaining what had happened. I did not sign the log sheet at that time.

 

Later, I qualified for the Challenge Cache, returned to the cache location, found the container, signed the log, and claimed the find.

 

But for anything other than a Challenge Cache, I would have signed it and logged a find the first time I was there, when I accidentally found the out-of-place container.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Are we done?

Yep. Definitely gray all the way through with no sign of pink.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours 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.  

 

Before cell phones were commonly used, one would prepare to go geocaching by creating a pocket query of caches then  upload cache data to their handheld GPS or enter in cache data in some manner.  From that point in time until they refresh that data, a cache owner might archive a cache (for whatever reason) but not yet remove the container.   It wasn't common but finding a cache, signing then log, then going online to log the find only to discover that it was archived did occur and it was generally accepted that logging a find on an archived cache was valid.   

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

On a slight tangent to the present discussion but still relevant to this thread, here's a bit of an odd situation. A new virtual (GC890AQ) was published on Monday. Four people claimed joint FTF later that day but so far have only posted "log to follow" WNs. Yesterday I drove up there, visited the waypoints, took the photos, sent my answers to the CO, got confirmation from him and logged a find when I got home, and that's still the only find logged on that cache. I'm not about to claim FTF on it as clearly I wasn't the first to visit the locations and fulfil the requirements, but I'm just curious what constitues a FTF on a virtual or EC when there's no log to sign.

You could contact the CO and ask if the others' answers have been submitted before yours then go from there. I tried looking at the cache but it looks like my turn to be getting 404 errors.

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, colleda said:

You could contact the CO and ask if the others' answers have been submitted before yours then go from there. I tried looking at the cache but it looks like my turn to be getting 404 errors.

 

As I said, I have no desire to claim FTF on that cache as I have no doubt the others submitted answers and just haven't gotten around to fleshing out their logs. It's more just academic pondering on what constitutes an FTF on a virtual.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

As I said, I have no desire to claim FTF on that cache as I have no doubt the others submitted answers and just haven't gotten around to fleshing out their logs. It's more just academic pondering on what constitutes an FTF on a virtual.

Fair 'nuff.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, niraD said:

FWIW, I once found a cache container accidentally. In the field, I was able to determine that it was a Challenge Cache that I did not (yet) qualify for, so I replaced it where it belonged, and later I posted a Note explaining what had happened. I did not sign the log sheet at that time.

 

Later, I qualified for the Challenge Cache, returned to the cache location, found the container, signed the log, and claimed the find.

 

But for anything other than a Challenge Cache, I would have signed it and logged a find the first time I was there, when I accidentally found the out-of-place container.

 

Neat, and I'd say that's a great personal ethic.  Personally I wouldn't force myself not to sign the log of the challenge cache, because you're certainly allowed to sign before qualifying, you just can't log Found online before qualifying. My ethic follows that process =)

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, thebruce0 said:

 

Neat, and I'd say that's a great personal ethic.  Personally I wouldn't force myself not to sign the log of the challenge cache, because you're certainly allowed to sign before qualifying, you just can't log Found online before qualifying. My ethic follows that process =)

I too log a note on challenge caches that I haven't fulfilled yet, but I have found and signed. In fact on some challenge caches it's expected that people will sign it before completing the challenge. GC5BFD9 is an example of that, as after logging a cache in each state and territory in Australia in one year, if would be tough to expect the person to turn around and travel thousand's of kms just to sign the log after completing the challenge. People find and sign and then publish a note, when travelling through the Northern Territory while completing the challenge. I drove over 12,000kms on mainland Australia to complete that challenge, plus the extra journey to Tasmania.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Goldenwattle said:

I too log a note on challenge caches that I haven't fulfilled yet, but I have found and signed. In fact on some challenge caches it's expected that people will sign it before completing the challenge. GC5BFD9 is an example of that, as after logging a cache in each state and territory in Australia in one year, if would be tough to expect the person to turn around and travel thousand's of kms just to sign the log after completing the challenge. People find and sign and then publish a note, when travelling through the Northern Territory while completing the challenge. I drove over 12,000kms on mainland Australia to complete that challenge, plus the extra journey to Tasmania.

 

On my older challenge cache (GC752YF), I've had five people sign the log and post notes saying they hadn't yet qualified, and some of those have since done so and converted their logs to finds. It's a pretty remote cache, though, a T3.5 living up to its challenge of taking more than a hour to reach, so it'd be a bit of an effort to go back a second time just to sign the log.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, barefootjeff said:

 

On my older challenge cache (GC752YF), I've had five people sign the log and post notes saying they hadn't yet qualified, and some of those have since done so and converted their logs to finds. It's a pretty remote cache, though, a T3.5 living up to its challenge of taking more than a hour to reach, so it'd be a bit of an effort to go back a second time just to sign the log.

Goldenwattle fulfils challenge Slow Cooked Aussie Challenge (GC752YF), according to https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC752YF/26293

You have found 31 caches of type "Takes more than 1 hour"  :D

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Neat, and I'd say that's a great personal ethic.  Personally I wouldn't force myself not to sign the log of the challenge cache, because you're certainly allowed to sign before qualifying, you just can't log Found online before qualifying. My ethic follows that process =)

I don't pre-sign Challenge Caches because I don't like the way that screws with your statistics when you later log the Find.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, niraD said:

I don't pre-sign Challenge Caches because I don't like the way that screws with your statistics when you later log the Find.

I don't log Adventure Labs for that reason :P But we have allowable flexibility in how we log challenge caches.  I don't change past logs to a find, I post my Find when the challenge has been both signed and qualified. Both of those are requirements to log online.  I post a note when I sign if not qualified; and maybe I'll post a note if I qualify but haven't yet signed.  Posting Find log on qualification does indeed mess with the cache listing's log history - and that has never sat well with me; especially when you might see a challenge cache with 15 finds - but all are from people who just qualified having signed a few years ago. Gotta dig down through the Find logs to actually locate one posted by the one who most recently visited the cache. That happens all too often.

But, there's been a suggestion hammered out to help rectify that problem. Now where's frinklabs when you need him =P

 

There's no perfect solution to the challenge cache conundrum. So HQ lets you choose how to log them. You just can't save the find log type before the cache has been both signed and challenge qualified.

 

ETA: But, this has nothing to with FTF logging, so, oops

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, niraD said:

I don't pre-sign Challenge Caches because I don't like the way that screws with your statistics when you later log the Find.

I don't pre-sign Challenge Caches because they don't make onto the GPSr until I qualify.  I've done a couple of short trails of Challenge Caches and there are gaps along the way where CC's that weren't qualified for lie.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, The Jester said:
9 hours ago, niraD said:

I don't pre-sign Challenge Caches because I don't like the way that screws with your statistics when you later log the Find.

I don't pre-sign Challenge Caches because they don't make onto the GPSr until I qualify.

Well, that too. I load mystery/puzzle caches only when they're on my "solved" lists, and Challenge Caches go on the "solved" lists only when I qualify.

 

But that's the effect. The cause is that I don't like the way that pre-signing Challenge Caches screws with your statistics when you later log the Find.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, niraD said:

Well, that too. I load mystery/puzzle caches only when they're on my "solved" lists, and Challenge Caches go on the "solved" lists only when I qualify.

 

But that's the effect. The cause is that I don't like the way that pre-signing Challenge Caches screws with your statistics when you later log the Find.

 

I have only found a handful of challenge caches.   One was a "Find a geocache in 25 or more countries".  It was located in Copenhagen (where I had an overnight layover).  I got my 25th country earlier in the day when I took the train to Malmo, Sweden.  If I had not done so, even though I've found caches in 5 new countries since I found the Challenge cache I haven't been back to Copenhagen since (as much as I'd like to) and there is a decent chance that I never will.   

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...