Jump to content

Changes to logging, specifically stopping double logs


Recommended Posts

The way I see it, there are four reasons why a cache would get duplicate logs.

 

1. The finder doesn't know any better. Some newbie caches just don't yet understand the difference between a found it, note, or other logs.

 

2. A duplicate log was "accidentally" posted. This often due to a system glitch where the logger doesn't know if the Found It/Attended log took, so they post another one. Sometimes what happens is that user submits the log, the database is updated, but something goes wrong in constructing and returning the response that the log was posted.

 

3. The very few exceptions (Brass Cap, YOSM, or recurring events which re-use a GC code) where posting multiple found it/attended logs are legitimate.

 

4. The finder intentionally posts multiple found it/attended logs knowing full well that it's not considered to be an acceptable practice.

 

This topic has come up quite frequently in the past and my suggestion has been to just create a pop-up alert when the system detects that a previous Found It/Attended log has been posted. It would have some text something like: You have already submitted a "Found It" log for this cache. Submitting another Found It log may impact your geocaching statistics and is not generally an accepted practice [Link to Help Center Page].

Are you sure you want to submit another "Found It" log? [Accept] [Cancel]

 

That would likely eliminate almost all of the duplicate logs in the first two scenarios, would allow duplicates in the third scenario, and become an annoyance to finders in scenario #4.

 

I just happen to consider number 3 as not a valid reason. The first two examples are locationless caches and the third example should just receive a new GC number for each event.

Link to comment

It seems as though not much thought has gone into this. As you can see just from the posts on this thread, there are all sorts of exceptions for caches set up during the early days of caching that were approved of at that time. Perhaps Groundspeak should reconsider this.

 

Tear the bandage off, I say. Maybe painful at first, but the rare exceptions (which I still don't personally feel SHOULD be exceptions) don't really justify the frustrations that the multiple logging can cause.

 

To set a standard now and move foreword with it is good, but to go back and attempt to rewrite history will cause lots of problems.

 

Like I said before, I highly doubt they would delete existing duplicates. I don't see anything indicating they would do that. I'm certain they'll let existing duplicates stand and moving forward will just block new duplicates from happening.

 

The exceptions are not so rare for those who started in this hobby early.

Edited by tomturtle
Link to comment

I hope that this will not affect the very popular and well favourited YOSM geocache, as this will be really sad

 

Especially in it's 15 year.

 

If it does it could be the end of my caching days and I'm sure this might be the same for others.

 

Surely Groundspeak don't want to lose revenue ;-/

We've seen bluffs like that for years, every time there's been some change (there's a ton over the new app...), yet the opposite has happened with membership.

- Guess it's sorta like putting your finger in a glass of water, and watching for the hole it leaves on the way out. :D

Link to comment

You have four caches that I'd argue should have been published as locationless and archived or modified back in 2006. You were allowed to keep them going 11 years longer than any other locationless caches. I'd say view that time as a gift. But, as above, I don't have a dog in this fight.

 

As far as how they will be affected, it appears that only one find would be allowed per geocacher, but I'll let Groundspeak answer that.

 

I agree with this. These caches have lived long past the time they should (since they are basically locationless caches). I hope that Geocaching HQ doesn't spend a lot of time producing special cases for a handful of caches that wouldn't be possible to publish today in any case. They had their time. Now it's time to go.

Link to comment

It seems as though not much thought has gone into this. As you can see just from the posts on this thread, there are all sorts of exceptions for caches set up during the early days of caching that were approved of at that time. Perhaps Groundspeak should reconsider this.

 

Tear the bandage off, I say. Maybe painful at first, but the rare exceptions (which I still don't personally feel SHOULD be exceptions) don't really justify the frustrations that the multiple logging can cause.

 

To set a standard now and move foreword with it is good, but to go back and attempt to rewrite history will cause lots of problems.

 

Like I said before, I highly doubt they would delete existing duplicates. I don't see anything indicating they would do that. I'm certain they'll let existing duplicates stand and moving forward will just block new duplicates from happening.

 

The exceptions are not so rare for those who started in this hobby early.

Thank you for changing your post. I got to remove mine before posting. :)

Link to comment

You have four caches that I'd argue should have been published as locationless and archived or modified back in 2006. You were allowed to keep them going 11 years longer than any other locationless caches. I'd say view that time as a gift. But, as above, I don't have a dog in this fight.

 

As far as how they will be affected, it appears that only one find would be allowed per geocacher, but I'll let Groundspeak answer that.

 

I agree with this. These caches have lived long past the time they should (since they are basically locationless caches). I hope that Geocaching HQ doesn't spend a lot of time producing special cases for a handful of caches that wouldn't be possible to publish today in any case. They had their time. Now it's time to go.

+1

Link to comment

We are keen YOSM hunters in the UK,(GC45CC) and therefore we would just like to add our input to the discussion. We understand the need for implementing something to prevent multiple accidental logging of caches, however as many have already pointed out, this travelling cache and the Canadian cache are unique. We have travelled far and wide within the UK and up many mountains to claim this as a find. We enjoy the challenge and also the variety of places that this takes us to. We don't necessarily find them to add to our geocaching stats, and we would be happy for there to be an alternative as long we can monitor our finds. outforthehunt has maintained this cache for 15 years, and we have just had many events across the UK to celebrate this. Please note the number of attendees at these events and also the number of logged finds for this great cache that celebrates something historical and intrinsically important to mapping in the UK. We hope that Groundspeak will look favourably on this cache as I think it is crucial to the ethos of what caching is about, ie. taking us out into the countryside and experiencing part of our countries heritage.

Link to comment

At least it'll give us something to talk about at a local event tonight where, coincidentally, I'll be logging the travelling Cuckoo cache for the 2nd time.

I don't see why exceptions couldn't be made to the new rules for duplicate logging on these old caches - it should be easy enough to find caches within the database which are eligible.

Link to comment

At least it'll give us something to talk about at a local event tonight where, coincidentally, I'll be logging the travelling Cuckoo cache for the 2nd time.

I don't see why exceptions couldn't be made to the new rules for duplicate logging on these old caches - it should be easy enough to find caches within the database which are eligible.

That doesn't sound right...

Moving caches are not intended to visit events as pocket caches or to be mass logged.

Maybe breaking of rules like this is giving Groundspeak another reason to *not* make exceptions for moving caches...

Link to comment
They had their time. Now it's time to go

 

I'm very confused with this type of comment? What is geocaching? Well here's a log from my Brass Cap cache that does give me a great explanation of what geocaching is all about. Note the comment....

"They are the reason we have explored so much of our great province. The most favourite reason I love hunting for caps is all the fun I’ve had finding them with family and good friends and the memories we have created together "

 

Wow! 15 years of brass caps. I found my first brass cap back in June 2008, so I am only approaching my 9th Anniversary of finding them. Hunting brass caps has taken me as far north as Steen River at the NWT border to as far south as Coutts at the USA border. They have taken me as far west as Boundary Lake near the BC border to as far east as Jaycee Park at the SK border. I have found brass caps at elevations as low as 249m in Fort McMurray to as high as 2803m on the summit of Mount Allan. Cap hunting has had me looking in areas as public as under a manhole in front of the old King Eddy Hotel in Calgary to the middle of nowhere in a forest north of Hinton. They’ve brought me from large cities to tiny hamlets and National Parks to small greenspaces. I’ve had the pleasure of many memorable brass cap outings involving extreme weather, forest fires, animal encounters, route finding challenges, snow coverage, excavations, metal detecting and just plain difficulty in finding them. They are the reason we have explored so much of our great province. The most favourite reason I love hunting for caps is all the fun I’ve had finding them with family and good friends and the memories we have created together.
Link to comment

At least it'll give us something to talk about at a local event tonight where, coincidentally, I'll be logging the travelling Cuckoo cache for the 2nd time.

I don't see why exceptions couldn't be made to the new rules for duplicate logging on these old caches - it should be easy enough to find caches within the database which are eligible.

That doesn't sound right...

Moving caches are not intended to visit events as pocket caches or to be mass logged.

Maybe breaking of rules like this is giving Groundspeak another reason to *not* make exceptions for moving caches...

"This is a UK travelling cache which can be found inside another cache waiting for the next Geocacher."

Inside an Event cache? Yeah, maybe you're right...

Link to comment

Another pointless change to fix nonexistent problems by adding restrictions. I don't think I've seen more than one or two "odd" posts by COs on their own caches, and I've never seen one that didn't make sense. It's just illogical to not let a CO warn seekers that his cache needs maintenance when it needs maintenance.

 

And while redundant found logs do happen, of course, and people do regularly ask why their counts are off, I've never seen it as a significant problem. In fact, more often than not it seems like the way newbies learn that there are other geocachers out there that can help them.

 

As it happens, I have a strict standard not to log any cache twice, even in cases where it's allowed and makes sense. (Here in my area, the two cases are moving caches and challenge caches that you can log again every time you meet the challenge again.) But even though the restriction won't make any difference to me, I feel no need to inflict it everyone else.

Link to comment

There can be a sequence of logs and often there is (for example reenable and performed maintenance). For example, I could first log a DNF or a find and then a NM. With the same logic a CO can first log a DNF if he/she wants to.

There is no reason to forbid that

When you as a finder look for a cache, the result is either "Found it" or "Did not find it". Since a CO won't be able to log "Found it", it makes perfect sense to remove the ability to post "Did not find" as well, since those two are the result of a search by the finder. The owner has "Owner Maintenance" or "Temporarily Disable Listing".

 

A bookmark might be the better way for you. For others it is not (apart from the fact that basic members cannot use bookmarks). Why should COs be kept from using NM in the same manner than others? Temporarily disable only handles major cases and not minor ones like the log book only has 6 free entries. Some cachers argue how important NM logs are as they also alert other cachers and are that notes do not serve the same purpose. If a cache owner takes over what cache visitors are not doing, why should they be forced to use a second account? (Which is the obvious way out.)

If you don't have access to bookmark lists, a simple piece of paper will also do the trick... If you have more caches then you can keep track of with the tools that are available, you might have to many..?

 

If they do not allow a cache owner to write a DNF, they might argue that if I have previously found a cache (say in May 2015) I cannot write a DNF log for it in March 2017.

It is this what I meant with regarding finds as "score counters". Then one might argue that once you received the award (the +1) why should you come up with a DNF log afterwards.

This is just my thoughts, but I don't think they're going to make that change. But if you've found the cache before, and know where it is, why not post a NM instead?

 

I do not care whether the find count of others is correct,.

Apart from that what I regard as bad is the big role of finds as a score counter and not as the message that someone has successfully completed a cache.

I care about my own find count. And bugs in the API, and on the site itself, have caused double logs to appear. This change will prevent that from happening, which I think is good for everyone.

Link to comment

As it happens, I have a strict standard not to log any cache twice, even in cases where it's allowed and makes sense. (Here in my area, the two cases are moving caches and challenge caches that you can log again every time you meet the challenge again.) But even though the restriction won't make any difference to me, I feel no need to inflict it everyone else.

 

Good for you.

 

Groundspeak obviously got a lot of input from folks wanting something like this and responded to it. And since it won't be you "inflicting it on everyone else", you needn't worry about complaining or apologizing for it.

Link to comment

There can be a sequence of logs and often there is (for example reenable and performed maintenance). For example, I could first log a DNF or a find and then a NM. With the same logic a CO can first log a DNF if he/she wants to.

There is no reason to forbid that

When you as a finder look for a cache, the result is either "Found it" or "Did not find it". Since a CO won't be able to log "Found it", it makes perfect sense to remove the ability to post "Did not find" as well, since those two are the result of a search by the finder. The owner has "Owner Maintenance" or "Temporarily Disable Listing".

 

No, it does not make perfect sense as it indeed can happen that COs do not find their own caches. The other log types can follow in subsequent logs.

It's simply not logical to disallow DNF logs by COs.

 

If you don't have access to bookmark lists, a simple piece of paper will also do the trick... If you have more caches then you can keep track of with the tools that are available, you might have to many..?

 

Personally, I do not use NM logs for my own caches (actually I hardly use them at all and usually mention things in my normal logs or in mails). However there is no reason to forbid NM logs by COs.

Why should COs be forced to use a second account or a piece of paper or whatever other method? Who profits?

 

 

If they do not allow a cache owner to write a DNF, they might argue that if I have previously found a cache (say in May 2015) I cannot write a DNF log for it in March 2017.

It is this what I meant with regarding finds as "score counters". Then one might argue that once you received the award (the +1) why should you come up with a DNF log afterwards.

This is just my thoughts, but I don't think they're going to make that change. But if you've found the cache before, and know where it is, why not post a NM instead?

 

Caches move around, one can make mistakes one did not make years before, one could not recall where a cache had been hidden etc

I ended up with DNFs when I came along with friends for caches that I have found before and that still turned out to be fine at the time of my DNF.

 

I do not care whether the find count of others is correct,.

Apart from that what I regard as bad is the big role of finds as a score counter and not as the message that someone has successfully completed a cache.

I care about my own find count. And bugs in the API, and on the site itself, have caused double logs to appear. This change will prevent that from happening, which I think is good for everyone.

 

There are easier ways to deal with that. For example "Are you sure?" However you still do not seem to have understood my point above which is not about disallowing multiple finds but about the role of find logs in general.

 

For me they are a message and not a way to add to a counter.

Link to comment

This is terrible news and I hope Groundspeak reconsider. I accept the intention to restrict multiple logging in error or deliberate in standard caches but surely an exception can be found for GC45CC. This cache brings so much pleasure to geocachers and although I accept the move for all New caches PLEASE reconsider for this cache.

Link to comment
They had their time. Now it's time to go

 

I'm very confused with this type of comment? What is geocaching? Well here's a log from my Brass Cap cache that does give me a great explanation of what geocaching is all about. Note the comment....

"They are the reason we have explored so much of our great province. The most favourite reason I love hunting for caps is all the fun I’ve had finding them with family and good friends and the memories we have created together "

 

Wow! 15 years of brass caps. I found my first brass cap back in June 2008, so I am only approaching my 9th Anniversary of finding them. Hunting brass caps has taken me as far north as Steen River at the NWT border to as far south as Coutts at the USA border. They have taken me as far west as Boundary Lake near the BC border to as far east as Jaycee Park at the SK border. I have found brass caps at elevations as low as 249m in Fort McMurray to as high as 2803m on the summit of Mount Allan. Cap hunting has had me looking in areas as public as under a manhole in front of the old King Eddy Hotel in Calgary to the middle of nowhere in a forest north of Hinton. They’ve brought me from large cities to tiny hamlets and National Parks to small greenspaces. I’ve had the pleasure of many memorable brass cap outings involving extreme weather, forest fires, animal encounters, route finding challenges, snow coverage, excavations, metal detecting and just plain difficulty in finding them. They are the reason we have explored so much of our great province. The most favourite reason I love hunting for caps is all the fun I’ve had finding them with family and good friends and the memories we have created together.

 

Your note sums up so much I enjoy about geocaching. I hope Groundspeak reconsider or find an exception so that the YOSM cache and its peers can continue to be enjoyed by many geocachers.

Link to comment

I hope that this will not affect the very popular and well favourited YOSM geocache, as this will be really sad

 

Especially in it's 15 year.

 

If it does it could be the end of my caching days and I'm sure this might be the same for others.

 

Surely Groundspeak don't want to lose revenue ;-/

We've seen bluffs like that for years, every time there's been some change (there's a ton over the new app...), yet the opposite has happened with membership.

- Guess it's sorta like putting your finger in a glass of water, and watching for the hole it leaves on the way out. :D

 

Good one :laughing:

Link to comment
There are easier ways to deal with that. For example "Are you sure?"

In all cases we (my wife and myself) have experienced double logging, it's been due to hiccups in the API, site overload etc. A message wouldn't help at all, since the extra log didn't come from our actions...

Link to comment

Groundspeak's system already includes an exception for grandfathered traveling caches, to allow the owners to update the posted coordinates as the caches migrate.

 

It would be nice if Groundspeak's system could include another exception for grandfathered traveling caches, to allow users to post multiple Find logs. I suppose they could continue to block multiple sequential Find logs (since you shouldn't log another Find until someone else has found and moved the traveling cache), but I don't see the point of doing that.

 

And then, once they've coded an exception for grandfathered traveling caches, then they could apply that same exception to other exceptional caches that have traditionally allowed multiple Find logs for legitimate reasons.

 

Hey, a geocacher can dream, right?

Link to comment

I find this really sad as one of the few things that I enjoy about caching recently is doing the odd YOSM. I let my premium membership lapse last year and only renewed it for 3 months in January to see how things went, can't really see my-self renewing it again if the YOSM dies. The list of things worth paying for premium is getting shorter for me personally and not financially worth it.

 

I wish I could believe that Groundspeak will take notice of the views of people supporting these old caches but sadly they have a reputation for ignoring threads like this and I can't see their management changing that attitude anytime soon.

Link to comment

There can be a sequence of logs and often there is (for example reenable and performed maintenance). For example, I could first log a DNF or a find and then a NM. With the same logic a CO can first log a DNF if he/she wants to.

There is no reason to forbid that

When you as a finder look for a cache, the result is either "Found it" or "Did not find it". Since a CO won't be able to log "Found it", it makes perfect sense to remove the ability to post "Did not find" as well, since those two are the result of a search by the finder. The owner has "Owner Maintenance" or "Temporarily Disable Listing".

 

No, it does not make perfect sense as it indeed can happen that COs do not find their own caches. The other log types can follow in subsequent logs.

It's simply not logical to disallow DNF logs by COs.

 

You are advocating that CO's NEED to be allowed to log DNF's on their own caches? How utterly pointless.

 

Why should COs be forced to use a second account or a piece of paper or whatever other method? Who profits?

 

CO's aren't being forced to use a second account or a piece of paper. They might choose to but they are not being forced to. In any case, were I not a premium member, contributing financially to the upkeep of the website these changes are being made on, I wouldn't see myself as being in a strong position to make such demands on the website owner in the first place.

Link to comment
They had their time. Now it's time to go

 

I'm very confused with this type of comment? What is geocaching? Well here's a log from my Brass Cap cache that does give me a great explanation of what geocaching is all about. Note the comment....

"They are the reason we have explored so much of our great province. The most favourite reason I love hunting for caps is all the fun I’ve had finding them with family and good friends and the memories we have created together "

 

Wow! 15 years of brass caps. I found my first brass cap back in June 2008, so I am only approaching my 9th Anniversary of finding them. Hunting brass caps has taken me as far north as Steen River at the NWT border to as far south as Coutts at the USA border. They have taken me as far west as Boundary Lake near the BC border to as far east as Jaycee Park at the SK border. I have found brass caps at elevations as low as 249m in Fort McMurray to as high as 2803m on the summit of Mount Allan. Cap hunting has had me looking in areas as public as under a manhole in front of the old King Eddy Hotel in Calgary to the middle of nowhere in a forest north of Hinton. They’ve brought me from large cities to tiny hamlets and National Parks to small greenspaces. I’ve had the pleasure of many memorable brass cap outings involving extreme weather, forest fires, animal encounters, route finding challenges, snow coverage, excavations, metal detecting and just plain difficulty in finding them. They are the reason we have explored so much of our great province. The most favourite reason I love hunting for caps is all the fun I’ve had finding them with family and good friends and the memories we have created together.

 

I've never logged one of these brass caps or the YOSM in the UK and I'm not bothered if they stay or go.

 

It does strike me though that the above log with brass cap replaced by geocache would read just as well and be equally valid and valuable.

Link to comment

GC43F3-Brass Cap Cache was created March 21 2002 at present has 20,202 finds

GC45CC-Ye Ole Survey Monuments was created March 25 2002 at present has 22,630 finds

GCA0D6-Stash n' Dash was created November 15 2002 at present has 1558 finds

GC4411 -LEAP FROG was created March 2 2002 at present has 384 finds

 

 

In principle, the move to prohibit multiple logs is a good one, which I fully support. But exception has to be made for long-standing travelling caches like those listed above. There were hundreds of people at events all over Britain last weekend (including me) to celebrate the 15th anniversary of GC45CC. Without this cache I would probably never really have got into caching at all. There can only be a tiny handful of these exceptions; losing them would be a terrible move. Surely they can be grandfathered in a way that protects their current status, while allowing the new rules to apply to everything else, a bit like what happened with Virtuals?

Link to comment

Wow! 15 years of brass caps. I found my first brass cap back in June 2008, so I am only approaching my 9th Anniversary of finding them. Hunting brass caps has taken me as far north as Steen River at the NWT border to as far south as Coutts at the USA border. They have taken me as far west as Boundary Lake near the BC border to as far east as Jaycee Park at the SK border. I have found brass caps at elevations as low as 249m in Fort McMurray to as high as 2803m on the summit of Mount Allan. Cap hunting has had me looking in areas as public as under a manhole in front of the old King Eddy Hotel in Calgary to the middle of nowhere in a forest north of Hinton. They’ve brought me from large cities to tiny hamlets and National Parks to small greenspaces. I’ve had the pleasure of many memorable brass cap outings involving extreme weather, forest fires, animal encounters, route finding challenges, snow coverage, excavations, metal detecting and just plain difficulty in finding them. They are the reason we have explored so much of our great province. The most favourite reason I love hunting for caps is all the fun I’ve had finding them with family and good friends and the memories we have created together.

 

I've never logged one of these brass caps or the YOSM in the UK and I'm not bothered if they stay or go.

 

It does strike me though that the above log with brass cap replaced by geocache would read just as well and be equally valid and valuable.

Well said! If these brass caps are so fantastic, why can't you visit them without this virtual? And why can't you place traditional/mystery caches nearby and log those instead? Why not make a "YOSM Micro Series", like with the churches... Or even better, make it Large :laughing:

Link to comment

What about adoptions ? I and a friend adopted a series of 200 from someone who packed in caching. I didn't set the caches nor do i have any idea of how they are hidden. The only reason we took on 200 caches is so we could log them as found at our own pace. Now this is being made impossible and I'm stuck with one hundred caches i didn't want and can't log.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

What about adoptions ? I and a friend adopted a series of 200 from someone who packed in caching. I didn't set the caches nor do i have any idea of how they are hidden. The only reason we took on 200 caches is so we could log them as found at our own pace. Now this is being made impossible and I'm stuck with one hundred caches i didn't want and can't log.

 

Replies to this one are going to be good..

 

:blink:

Link to comment

What about adoptions ? I and a friend adopted a series of 200 from someone who packed in caching. I didn't set the caches nor do i have any idea of how they are hidden. The only reason we took on 200 caches is so we could log them as found at our own pace. Now this is being made impossible and I'm stuck with one hundred caches i didn't want and can't log.

Do I understand you correctly if I read this as: you adopted 200 caches so you could log them yourself *after* adopting them?

Link to comment

What about adoptions ? I and a friend adopted a series of 200 from someone who packed in caching. I didn't set the caches nor do i have any idea of how they are hidden. The only reason we took on 200 caches is so we could log them as found at our own pace. Now this is being made impossible and I'm stuck with one hundred caches i didn't want and can't log.

 

Putting aside the ridiculous reason for adopting them in the first place...

 

Create another account, adopt them to that new account, log the finds. Done.

Link to comment

What about adoptions ? I and a friend adopted a series of 200 from someone who packed in caching. I didn't set the caches nor do i have any idea of how they are hidden. The only reason we took on 200 caches is so we could log them as found at our own pace. Now this is being made impossible and I'm stuck with one hundred caches i didn't want and can't log.

 

Adopting a cache means that you assume responsibility for maintaining it. It's OK to have found logs on caches that you have adopted, but I'd say that assumes that you find them before adopting them. After that it's just logging your own cache.

Link to comment

What about adoptions ? I and a friend adopted a series of 200 from someone who packed in caching. I didn't set the caches nor do i have any idea of how they are hidden. The only reason we took on 200 caches is so we could log them as found at our own pace. Now this is being made impossible and I'm stuck with one hundred caches i didn't want and can't log.

 

Putting aside the ridiculous reason for adopting them in the first place...

 

Create another account, adopt them to that new account, log the finds. Done.

 

And then abandon them? No, that's not how it works.

 

I'd say the alternatives are:

 

1) Assume responsibility for the caches that you have adopted and maintain them, but don't log them.

 

2) Find another cacher who is willing to adopt and maintain the caches and let them adopt the series. After that, you can log them.

Link to comment

It will be a very big hit to our local geocaching community if the much loved and well-maintained Brass Cap (GC43F3), Stash n Dash (GCA0D6) and Leap Frog (GC4411) geocaches are killed because of this new rule. I truly hope that exceptions are made for these caches. If the rule will only be enforced on new geocaches, then I'm all for it. If this rule is enforced on all caches (regardless of status), I'm afraid to see what will happen...

 

I really hope my log on GC43F3 from my engagement day won't be turned from a "found it" to a note :(

 

Also, what about geocaches that I haven't found that I've adopted from someone else? I was approached by an older lady after her husband passed away to adopt her cache in the backcountry (GC307YR). I haven't made it back there yet but the cache is there in good shape.... so I won't be able to log a find when I find it?

 

Why do we really care if people log geocaches in somewhat non-traditional ways? It's just a game after all.

Link to comment

What about adoptions ? I and a friend adopted a series of 200 from someone who packed in caching. I didn't set the caches nor do i have any idea of how they are hidden. The only reason we took on 200 caches is so we could log them as found at our own pace. Now this is being made impossible and I'm stuck with one hundred caches i didn't want and can't log.

 

Putting aside the ridiculous reason for adopting them in the first place...

 

Create another account, adopt them to that new account, log the finds. Done.

 

And then abandon them? No, that's not how it works.

 

I'd say the alternatives are:

 

1) Assume responsibility for the caches that you have adopted and maintain them, but don't log them.

 

2) Find another cacher who is willing to adopt and maintain the caches and let them adopt the series. After that, you can log them.

 

Who ever said anything about abandoning them? I'm assuming this person would act as a responsible CO and maintain them. Otherwise...yes, archive them or adopt them out to someone else.

Link to comment

I'll be so gutted if the YOSM cache GC45CC is not made an exception. It's the only cache that I have been interested in for a while now which had taken me from orkney in the far north of the uk to Brighton in the far south. It's been interesting as it could be a hidden rivet your trying to find or a huge pillar, mostly in scenic locations and some which require a good walk. It's been much better than trying to find the ever growing amount of dross caches just chucked out of a car window with no thought to the location people are being brought to.

 

SAVE THE YOSM GC45CC

Link to comment

Groundspeak obviously got a lot of input from folks wanting something like this and responded to it.

I'm not convinced they got any input at all about it. I think they're just reacting to some general grousing. Although from some of the comments posted here, there's also a bug in the API that causes a single log to be added to the database twice, and they can't figure out a legitimate way to fix it.

 

And since it won't be you "inflicting it on everyone else", you needn't worry about complaining or apologizing for it.

I'm a member of the community, so I take my share of responsibly for what it inflicts on people.

Link to comment

You have four caches that I'd argue should have been published as locationless and archived or modified back in 2006. You were allowed to keep them going 11 years longer than any other locationless caches. I'd say view that time as a gift. But, as above, I don't have a dog in this fight.

 

As far as how they will be affected, it appears that only one find would be allowed per geocacher, but I'll let Groundspeak answer that.

 

I agree with this. These caches have lived long past the time they should (since they are basically locationless caches). I hope that Geocaching HQ doesn't spend a lot of time producing special cases for a handful of caches that wouldn't be possible to publish today in any case. They had their time. Now it's time to go.

 

Perhaps the re-instatement of the American Ape cache should be squashed then~ that was an exception for a single cache and a backtrack on previous rulings!

Link to comment

What about adoptions ? I and a friend adopted a series of 200 from someone who packed in caching. I didn't set the caches nor do i have any idea of how they are hidden. The only reason we took on 200 caches is so we could log them as found at our own pace. Now this is being made impossible and I'm stuck with one hundred caches i didn't want and can't log.

 

Adopting a cache means that you assume responsibility for maintaining it. It's OK to have found logs on caches that you have adopted, but I'd say that assumes that you find them before adopting them. After that it's just logging your own cache.

 

But what about a challenge cache someone has physically found but did not qualify at that time? There has been no rule that owners need to qualify until the recent rule change.

 

Of course adopting out the cache to a second account will do the job but on the other hand others want to restrict adoptions .............

 

More and more rules are upcoming and I do not see anything that really warrants that much the caused restrictions.

Link to comment

What about adoptions ? I and a friend adopted a series of 200 from someone who packed in caching. I didn't set the caches nor do i have any idea of how they are hidden. The only reason we took on 200 caches is so we could log them as found at our own pace. Now this is being made impossible and I'm stuck with one hundred caches i didn't want and can't log.

Maybe you shouldn't have adopted 100 caches that you didn't intend on maintaining... What a stupid decision.

Link to comment

Why change anything. When logging a cache why not have an option to say "you have logged this before do you want to log again?" Or something similar. I log the YOSM cache based in the UK and some of these are on top of mountains!!! I have logged this 135 times to date. As a reformed couch potato I plead with Groundspeak to save GC45CC it's a national institution here in the U.K. There were even events last weekend to celebrate its existence. Fingers crossed 🤞 you see sense and keep it.

Link to comment

I've never logged one of these brass caps or the YOSM in the UK and I'm not bothered if they stay or go.

 

It does strike me though that the above log with brass cap replaced by geocache would read just as well and be equally valid and valuable.

 

I have never been into locationless caches. However it seems to me that you miss an important aspect.

 

I guess one of the features that attracted people in locationless caches is that everyone had to come up with new locations noone else has used for logging so far. That's quite different to visiting virtuals or waymarks (it's a bit like creating new waymarks within a category but this requires using another site and one is then in charge of the waymark and the logs gets split over all the waymarks in the category and moreover the same location can typically listed in different categories- it's not the same effect as having the chance to read through all the logs of a locationless cache). The German opencaching site offers a type of locationless cache and they are quite popular there and the map that can be created is very nice and it's quite different than to having physical caches at all these locations (apart from the fact that it's pretty unrealistic for many reasons to have caches at all these locations).

Maybe the UK version could take over this cache type.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

What about adoptions ? I and a friend adopted a series of 200 from someone who packed in caching. I didn't set the caches nor do i have any idea of how they are hidden. The only reason we took on 200 caches is so we could log them as found at our own pace. Now this is being made impossible and I'm stuck with one hundred caches i didn't want and can't log.

Maybe you shouldn't have adopted 100 caches that you didn't intend on maintaining... What a stupid decision.

 

Adopt just to pad their numbers by logging their own listings? :blink: Surely I am mistaken. :(

Link to comment

What about adoptions ? I and a friend adopted a series of 200 from someone who packed in caching. I didn't set the caches nor do i have any idea of how they are hidden. The only reason we took on 200 caches is so we could log them as found at our own pace. Now this is being made impossible and I'm stuck with one hundred caches i didn't want and can't log.

Maybe you shouldn't have adopted 100 caches that you didn't intend on maintaining... What a stupid decision.

 

:laughing:

 

At least he was honest about his motivation though and didn't make some transparently empty claim about saving these precious caches as a service to the community.

 

I don't want these 100 caches but I'll adopt them anyway? :blink:

Link to comment
I hope that this will not affect the very popular and well favourited YOSM geocache, as this will be really sad

...

If it does it could be the end of my caching days and I'm sure this might be the same for others.

 

Surely Groundspeak don't want to lose revenue ;-/

So the *only* reason you cache is to log the YOSM cache over and over? *That* is really sad... :sad:

Link to comment

Please please save the YOSM cache, I understand why you'd implement this for a traditional but for a virtual location less cache, with lots of meaning and pleasure, why ruin it for those that love the YOSM?

 

What's to stop you from continuing to find these landmarks? Post notes instead of 'found it' logs. Or are you willing to admit you only do it for the +1 ?

Link to comment

I've never logged one of these brass caps or the YOSM in the UK and I'm not bothered if they stay or go.

 

It does strike me though that the above log with brass cap replaced by geocache would read just as well and be equally valid and valuable.

 

I have never been into locationless caches. However it seems to me that you miss an important aspect.

 

I guess one of the features that attracted people in locationless caches is that everyone had to come up with new locations noone else has used for logging so far. That's quite different to visiting virtuals or waymarks (it's a bit like creating new waymarks within a category but this requires using another site and one is then in charge of the waymark and the logs gets split over all the waymarks in the category and moreover the same location can typically listed in different categories- it's not the same effect as having the chance to read through all the logs of a locationless cache). The German opencaching site offers a type of locationless cache and they are quite popular there and the map that can be created is very nice and it's quite different than to having physical caches at all these locations (apart from the fact that it's pretty unrealistic for many reasons to have caches at all these locations).

Maybe the UK version could take over this cache type.

 

Save yourself the effort - I'm not the slightest bit interested.

Link to comment

I've never logged one of these brass caps or the YOSM in the UK and I'm not bothered if they stay or go.

 

It does strike me though that the above log with brass cap replaced by geocache would read just as well and be equally valid and valuable.

 

I have never been into locationless caches. However it seems to me that you miss an important aspect.

 

I guess one of the features that attracted people in locationless caches is that everyone had to come up with new locations noone else has used for logging so far. That's quite different to visiting virtuals or waymarks (it's a bit like creating new waymarks within a category but this requires using another site and one is then in charge of the waymark and the logs gets split over all the waymarks in the category and moreover the same location can typically listed in different categories- it's not the same effect as having the chance to read through all the logs of a locationless cache). The German opencaching site offers a type of locationless cache and they are quite popular there and the map that can be created is very nice and it's quite different than to having physical caches at all these locations (apart from the fact that it's pretty unrealistic for many reasons to have caches at all these locations).

Maybe the UK version could take over this cache type.

 

Save yourself the effort - I'm not the slightest bit interested.

 

Not you but maybe others. The last sentence was not specifically addressed to you but did not warrant a post of its own. The rest should explain that what you wrote above "just as well and equally valid and valuable" is not true in its generality for the reasons I provided.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Please please save the YOSM cache, I understand why you'd implement this for a traditional but for a virtual location less cache, with lots of meaning and pleasure, why ruin it for those that love the YOSM?

 

What's to stop you from continuing to find these landmarks? Post notes instead of 'found it' logs. Or are you willing to admit you only do it for the +1 ?

 

With found it logs it is certainly easier to keep track of the newly visited locations which noone has logged before.

Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...