Jump to content

Virtuals... ethics?


dicentra

Recommended Posts

What do you think (or what are the "rules") of logging a virtual cache you have visited prior to being a geocacher? (actually visited)

Example: I've been to the Space Needle probable hundreds of times. Now I see that there is a virtual there... I can probably answer the questions off the top of my head...

 

Not looking to be an armchair geocacher or pad numbers... Just wondering what the ethics are. If any.  I'm torn. On one hand I feel like I should revisit the site, on the other hand it's kind of like the challenges, where past finds count..  (And fwiw I hope they bring back virtuals. They pair nicely with earth caches)

Link to comment

Seems we hear quite a bit on  "ethics" lately, when  (to me) it seems the subject's often really just about entitlement.

 - The guidelines leave logging issues up to the CO.   There's quite a few threads on the subject, one recently.

You already stated you're not looking to be an "armchair geocacher", so didn't you answer your own question on "ethics"?  :)

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

The CO's logging requirements are specific.

To log this cache, please take a photo of yourself with the large bolts anchoring the needle's legs to the foundation, and post it with your log.

It is completely up to the CO but I would think if you have such photo then you would probably be good to post,  The CO was smart to ask for a "off-beat" photo at the Space Needle, otherwise you're right...it would open this new virtual to many arm-chair logs.  Our family was in Seattle a few summers back and we have many photos of us around and inside the space needle.  Unfortunately, zero photos of the bolts so we will put this Virtual on our to-do list for our next visit.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment

I had a similar (but not identical) situation.  I visited New Orleans several years ago and, during my trip, visited a certain location that I found out a year or two later actually had a virtual cache there.  It so happened when I read the description that I could provide the required answer to log the cache because I'd actually taken a photo of the area.  In the end, I sent off a message to the CO explaining and they were cool with me logging it for the date I was there.  If you did the required task or obtained the required information, I see no reason to deprive someone of a find, whether or not they were aware of a cache being there at the time they were present.  If I wasn't a cacher and, during a hike, ran across an ammo can and signed the log inside...only to later discover geocaching...I'd have no problem logging the find.  I'm sure there are actually quite a few people that get into caching this way - accidental discovery.  All requirements fulfilled = valid find.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

It's the same 'ethic' quesiton of whether to log an Earthcache you visited years ago if you can provide all the necessary elements required for logging it. IIRC guidelines allow for it. Because there's no log book, there's no verifiable way to require someone visit as of a certain date (such as publishing), so to encourage it typically it's best for COs to require a task or info that can only be done or retrieved from a certain date (something nearby constructed recently, for example).

The CN Tower virtual in Toronto is the same GC7B7QM. Requires a precise picture from the base; how many people have that? So the question is - those who have one already, would you couch log it as of that photo date?  Or would you enjoy the spirit of the cache again and make another visit?

I think the "ethic" is entirely dependent on whether you feel the 'spirit' of the geocache is to visit for the listing, or just to visit. I think generally speaking most people fall into the former category.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

There are no questions, there's a very specific photo requirement. If you've got that photo.... 

I'm not fond enough of virts to have much of an opinion on this. There are virts within an hour of my house I've never logged.  mostly, I log them if I took pics of the area, and there's no physical cache I can attach the pictures to.

Link to comment

Right, the guidelines allow for it, but the ethic in this case would be a personal one (to revisit, or not to revisit?). Plus, if you couch log them, you might incur the angst of others in the community :P  I'm guessing many if not most people would still revisit the virtual before logging it, if not on principle then of avoiding possible negative impressions, if that's even a concern, heh.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Funny story just a bit OT.     A few weekends ago was an earthcache weekend, and went to an event instead. Two we believed may be starting problems for others were in attendance, and I asked one if they thought I could "armchair" an EC that I've been to hundreds of times.  Knowing that I've been there with her twice, even replacing her missing cache when she was outta state,  she said, "why sure, you probably could".

The following Monday I was mailed by the owner asking why I haven't logged it yet.  ;)       Next event maybe  I'll try the other...   :laughing:

Link to comment

I don't consider it a true find for myself unless I visited the site to find the cache. I grew up in Washington, D.C., and had visited it often before I started geocaching, so I could have answered the questions required for most of the virtuals without setting foot in the city. What would be the point of that? Instead, I waited until the next time I visited, went to the places to find the answer again, and then logged a find to celebrate yet another visit to a place I remembered fondly.

I don't actually know or care what the rules are. If it's allowed, I can't stop you. But I'll still shake my head at how silly you're being. After all, how much different is it to log a virtual you know the answer to because you were there in the past and logging a virtual that you know the answer to because you visited it virtually on the web without going there in person?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

According to my “ethics” ... I would not log a found. When you visit a place as a cacher... it is different. You go there in order to “find” the cache, and the cache makes you enjoy and discover the place. Logging a cache published later doesn’t give you nothing but a “found” which increases your smiley count. This is not an experience, just a number, and logging it is, in my opinion, meaningless.

It is not a thing against rules... if a geocacher asked me to log my virtual ( I don’t own virtuals but... it is just an example), and sends me correct answers thanks to a “previous visit”, I would not delete the found.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, simoktm said:

When you visit a place as a cacher... it is different. You go there in order to “find” the cache, and the cache makes you enjoy and discover the place. 

I disagree. More often than not, you are there for the very reason a virtual was located there. The experience is often exactly the same, whether you are aware of the cache or not. 

Virtual caches are 100 percent about the location. As long as you were there and found it memorable enough, what difference does it make which day you decide to log it? 

But once again, forum folks are over thinking the whole matter.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I tend to view logging virtuals on the basis of previous visits in much the same manner as earthcaches.   The Earthcaching FAQ states their view that "somebody has not actually visited an EarthCache if there was no EarthCache there at the time of their visit!"   The practice was described by a Geoaware in the forums as "cheesy."  But ultimately it is left to the discretion of the cache owner.  

It's similarly hard to say that a person was caching when they visited a virtual location before they started to cache or before the cache was published.   But there are a lot about of things about this game that are ultimately left to the disecretion of the individual - whether it be the CO or the cache finder.  If it did not violate either person's ethics then who am I to say anything more about it?   

If a person can answer "why" then perhaps they have answered the question for themselves   If a person asks"why not" they are asking the wrong question.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

I don't consider it a true find for myself unless I visited the site to find the cache. I grew up in Washington, D.C., and had visited it often before I started geocaching, so I could have answered the questions required for most of the virtuals without setting foot in the city. What would be the point of that? Instead, I waited until the next time I visited, went to the places to find the answer again, and then logged a find to celebrate yet another visit to a place I remembered fondly.

Yep, same way. Partly because I care about statistical continuity (for the most part - qualifying for very remote challenges has made me use personal TBs to track distance rather than cache-to-cache Finds), and partly because to find the "cache" listing, it doesn't feel right just logging it because I've been there before. That time, I was there for some other reason, not the cache. Even if I know all the answers, it doesn't feel, to me "right" to log the cache found. Now, mark the location as having been visited on some arbitrary "where I've been" map? Sure, no problem. But to find the cache, I'd want to visit the cache, not just the site.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:

I disagree. More often than not, you are there for the very reason a virtual was located there. The experience is often exactly the same, whether you are aware of the cache or not. 

Virtual caches are 100 percent about the location. As long as you were there and found it memorable enough, what difference does it make which day you decide to log it? 

But once again, forum folks are over thinking the whole matter.

While I have not personally done it, I share the same philosophy.. so long as you can fulfill the exact logging requirement and you were able to take in the essence of the location.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, dicentra said:

Example: I've been to the Space Needle probable hundreds of times. Now I see that there is a virtual there... I can probably answer the questions off the top of my head...

I've visited the Space Needle several times as well, but I don't have the required photo, nor would I want to do something like that, since I know the CO personally.  Let's just say it probably wouldn't end well for me :D

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Thanks for all of the responses. Interesting discussion. Keep them coming.

Fwiw, I threw out the space needle as an example off the top of my head... I dont have a pic of the bolts, so I wouldn't log that specific one as found. There are other virtual locations I have been to. I would have to read the specifics on those...

Link to comment
9 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

I disagree. More often than not, you are there for the very reason a virtual was located there. The experience is often exactly the same, whether you are aware of the cache or not. 

Virtual caches are 100 percent about the location. As long as you were there and found it memorable enough, what difference does it make which day you decide to log it? 

But once again, forum folks are over thinking the whole matter.

Yes, it is true that a virtual brings you to an interesting place that you will probably visit even without the virtual... but... if you log it many years after your visit... what do you “get”?

If I start logging virtuals published in places I visited many years ago, or places where I have been on holiday, my logs will be a long “collection” of places I visited in my life... and this is not my ( My, so... my opion) idea of geocaching... 

I think that every cache should bring you to “search” something, or to do a specifical thing...even if it is a virtual. A cache which can be logged from google earth or from a previous visit in my opinion is not a good idea..Maybe a virtual where you have to pm the owner a particular word written on a sculpture that only a “person who is searching that word” notices, or a virtual which requires a picture with your gps or  with a piece of paper with your nickname will be better...

Link to comment
1 hour ago, narcissa said:

Just talk to the cache owner and respect his or her wishes.

This is the best mindset to play the entire game, when it comes to decisions that aren't black and white in the guidelines.

In this case, cachers are allowed to log virtual caches (& EC's) if able to provide the logging requirements without a 'new' visit (since the latter can't be objectively verified apart from meeting the requirements).  So, do you? You can, and the CO can't stop you, but as with other decisions like this, if you think of the other person first, chances are things will work out better for everyone :)

Link to comment

I see it as pretty much the same as stumbling on a cache before it's published. I'm sure this seems silly to many, but i'll wait until it's published on geocaching dot com, then make another trip back to the cache to sign the physical log before logging it as found. This goes for virtual caches as well,

Again, this is how i see it. I wouldn't roll my eyes or anything if a person  logged a found it if they were in the same situation the OP is in.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
4 hours ago, narcissa said:

Just talk to the cache owner and respect his or her wishes.

This is the best mindset to play the entire game, when it comes to decisions that aren't black and white in the guidelines.

I agree this is the appropriate mindset if you're thinking about logging it, but I still think you're not really thinking about geocaching right in that case. In addition to the specific reasons it makes no sense, the true bottom line is that there's no reason to log it other than to get the +1. If you're grubbing for numbers, you're missing the point.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I agree this is the appropriate mindset if you're thinking about logging it, but I still think you're not really thinking about geocaching right in that case. In addition to the specific reasons it makes no sense, the true bottom line is that there's no reason to log it other than to get the +1. If you're grubbing for numbers, you're missing the point.

Which is what, exactly...?  To take a photo of bolts?  To scan a sign or marker for certain key words or numbers?  

No, the point of publishing/visiting a virtual is to take you to/experience a location.  The point of logging a virtual is to obtain a +1.  The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

No, the point of publishing/visiting a virtual is to take you to/experience a location.  The point of logging a virtual is to obtain a +1.  The two aren't mutually exclusive.

And each person will choose which is more relevant to their own "geocaching", because the guidelines leave that decision up to the geocachers.  In this case, it's another unresolvable debate if the argument on either side is "that's not geocaching".

I still come back to my own tipping point which is as long as the (public) log history is accurate to the state of the cache (ie, being sure that a Find log correctly implies that the cache is "Find"able - and log accuracy falls on both the logger and the owner), then within the guidelines for each cache type to each his own about whether or not to log.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, J Grouchy said:
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

 If you're grubbing for numbers, you're missing the point.

Which is what, exactly...?  To take a photo of bolts?  To scan a sign or marker for certain key words or numbers?  

The point is to enjoy the geocache. The CO put out the geocache to bring you to that spot to experience it that way. To me, logging a find in this case is like having a friend invite you to share with him some special spot that he loves, and you turning him down with a curt, "Oh, I've already been there." I understand why you might not want to go back to GZ, but, as far as I can see, posting a find for it serves no purpose other than announcing that the cache is worth no more than your +1.

55 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I thought the "point" of logging online was simply to show you were there, tell a story, and thank the CO.

What are you thanking the CO for?  You're specifically telling everyone that he had nothing to do with your visit.

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

And each person will choose which is more relevant to their own "geocaching", because the guidelines leave that decision up to the geocachers.  In this case, it's another unresolvable debate if the argument on either side is "that's not geocaching".

I certainly agree. I'm not telling anyone how they have to geocache, and I'm certainly not saying any such log should be deleted as long as it meets the guidelines. I'm just telling you, as my friends, why that attitude is messed up.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, dprovan said:

The point is to enjoy the geocache. The CO put out the geocache to bring you to that spot to experience it that way. To me, logging a find in this case is like having a friend invite you to share with him some special spot that he loves, and you turning him down with a curt, "Oh, I've already been there." I understand why you might not want to go back to GZ, but, as far as I can see, posting a find for it serves no purpose other than announcing that the cache is worth no more than your +1.

Whereas other COs might say "Oh! Well that's great that you enjoyed the location, wasn't it great? Feel free to log it found." :)

 

27 minutes ago, dprovan said:
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

And each person will choose which is more relevant to their own "geocaching", because the guidelines leave that decision up to the geocachers.  In this case, it's another unresolvable debate if the argument on either side is "that's not geocaching".

I certainly agree. I'm not telling anyone how they have to geocache, and I'm certainly not saying any such log should be deleted as long as it meets the guidelines. I'm just telling you, as my friends, why that attitude is messed up.

Haha, that logic is pretty much equivalent to "No offense, but you're dumb." But yes, it's messed up - according to your idea of geocaching; but it's perfectly reasonable according to their idea of geocaching. Neither idea of geocaching is right or wrong in this case. So...

To whit, I'd prefer to visit the location for the cache even I've been there 100 times. But I won't say someone who couch logs it has a messed up attitude about geocaching. If the CO allows the log, and it's clear that the cache is still findable (that would be a judgement call I'd need to make based on other recent logs in that case), then whatevs.  If the tables were turned, I wouldn't call someone who had to visit the site again just to log it found as being uptight and legalistic... it's merely what they'd prefer to do, so whatevs.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, dprovan said:

The point is to enjoy the geocache. The CO put out the geocache to bring you to that spot to experience it that way. To me, logging a find in this case is like having a friend invite you to share with him some special spot that he loves, and you turning him down with a curt, "Oh, I've already been there." I understand why you might not want to go back to GZ, but, as far as I can see, posting a find for it serves no purpose other than announcing that the cache is worth no more than your +1.

Again, the ENTIRE "geocache," in the case of virtuals, is the place itself (and perhaps some object, monument, view, etc. at the location).  If you've been there before and experienced the focus of the virtual, then you have "enjoyed the geocache".  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

I thought the "point" of logging online was simply to show you were there, tell a story, and thank the CO.     :)

42 minutes ago, dprovan said:

What are you thanking the CO for?  You're specifically telling everyone that he had nothing to do with your visit.

Please explain further.   What do you thank a CO for, or specifically, what do you do so differently that our logs are now inferior...

Edited to add...   Remembered reading some time ago in a geocaching.com Blog, on   "5 quick ways to inspire your fellow geocachers with your next log entry", and they were  Tell your story, Add a picture, Name some names, Add a favorite point, and Say thanks.   We do that. 

Edited by cerberus1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

Again, the ENTIRE "geocache," in the case of virtuals, is the place itself (and perhaps some object, monument, view, etc. at the location).  If you've been there before and experienced the focus of the virtual, then you have "enjoyed the geocache".  

Those aren't the geocache. Those are why the geocache is there. You've already enjoyed those. There's no reason to bring the geocache into it.

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Whereas other COs might say "Oh! Well that's great that you enjoyed the location, wasn't it great? Feel free to log it found." :)

I'm explaining my attitude. I'm not suggesting I think COs would or wouldn't like such logs in practice. Some COs even like pure armchair logs. That's not the issue.

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Haha, that logic is pretty much equivalent to "No offense, but you're dumb."

Pretty close. I don't call my friends "dumb", of course, but I do tell them when they're acting dumb. If I don't, who will?

2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Please explain further.   What do you thank a CO for, or specifically, what do you do so differently that our logs are now inferior...

I wonder what I could have said that made you think I'm talking about the quality of logs. Or of any log at all, for that matter. I'm just talking about the idea of logging a find on a cache because one time, a long ago, you happened to be in the same neighborhood. Such a log could be of super high quality, much better than anything I could write. It just wouldn't see the sense in making it a find log.

So to answer your question, I thank the CO for the cache. If I was at GZ before the cache then filed a find on the cache retroactively, isn't that kinda thumbing my nose at the CO as if to say, "Thanks for nothing, I already knew about this."

I'm sorry to upset everyone about this. I thought it was pretty cut&dried, so I'm surprised some of you are starting to sound a little angry. I was recently in Paris, and there's a brand new virtual at the tippytop of the Eiffel Tower that requires a photo of a well known tableau. Now, as it happens, the CO added a clever twist -- you have to have your entrance ticket in the required picture -- but it wouldn't be hard to imagine a slightly less thorough CO requiring a photo that many people might have by accident. I can't fathom the idea of claiming a find simply because you took the right picture 50 years ago when you were a kid. I see vanishingly little difference between that and claiming a find because you looked at the scene on the web.

Honestly, just file a note. The only reason to file a find is for the numbers.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Please explain further.   What do you thank a CO for, or specifically, what do you do so differently that our logs are now inferior...

Edited to add...   Remembered reading some time ago in a geocaching.com Blog, on   "5 quick ways to inspire your fellow geocachers with your next log entry", and they were  Tell your story, Add a picture, Name some names, Add a favorite point, and Say thanks.   We do that. 

5 hours ago, dprovan said:

I wonder what I could have said that made you think I'm talking about the quality of logs. Or of any log at all, for that matter. I'm just talking about the idea of logging a find on a cache because one time, a long ago, you happened to be in the same neighborhood. Such a log could be of super high quality, much better than anything I could write. It just wouldn't see the sense in making it a find log.

So to answer your question, I thank the CO for the cache. If I was at GZ before the cache then filed a find on the cache retroactively, isn't that kinda thumbing my nose at the CO as if to say, "Thanks for nothing, I already knew about this."

Oh, I get it now.  You berated me for something I didn't say. That's odd... 

I am still in the same neighborhood of not logging a cache unless you're there, and haven't said differently anywhere in this thread.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I thought the "point" of logging online was simply to show you were there, tell a story, and thank the CO.     :)

 - I'd be just as happy if one could do that without "obtaining a +1" ...    

18 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

You can.  Post a 'Note'.

It's called a Found it log because that's what one does.  I don't look at my finds as anything more than finding a cache presented by another.

I'd ask the site to bring back the default "That's one more find for me! " log to keep it simple, if the only point to logging caches found was for a find count...

 

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

It's called a Found it log because that's what one does.  I don't look at my finds as anything more than finding a cache presented by another.

I'd ask the site to bring back the default "That's one more find for me! " log to keep it simple, if the only point to logging caches found was for a find count...

 

If you prefer not to have a +1, then it really shouldn't matter what type of log you use.  You can pull up a list of all your notes fairly easily.  Or, you can just ignore the number altogether.  Nobody ever really has to care about the number of finds they have.  

Link to comment
On 11/2/2017 at 8:27 AM, narcissa said:

Just talk to the cache owner and respect his or her wishes.

With the caveat that the owner still needs to follow guidelines and practice cache ownership within those guidelines.

If the cache owner were to submit their virtual listing of Niagara Falls with the following description: "Anyone one can log a find. If you have ever visited this location at any time in your life, go ahead and log a find." the virtual would not be published. 

Same goes for physical caches. If the owner decided that their missing cache can now be logged as found (essentially turn it into a Virtual cache) and stated so on their cache page, an alerted reviewer would disable/archive it. 

Edited by L0ne.R
typo
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

If you prefer not to have a +1, then it really shouldn't matter what type of log you use.  You can pull up a list of all your notes fairly easily.  Or, you can just ignore the number altogether.  Nobody ever really has to care about the number of finds they have.  

Guess I don't understand why you keep gravitating to my logging methods, when it's simply that you said "The point of logging a virtual is to obtain a +1",  and I believe it's so much more.   :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Guess I don't understand why you keep gravitating to my logging methods, when it's simply that you said "The point of logging a virtual is to obtain a +1",  and I believe it's so much more.   :)

I stand by that.

You can visit any number of caches, virtual or not, and have the EXACT experience intended.  The only reason to log it online is to track/increase your find count.  You can track with notes, but logging it found is a way to increase your number.  I mean, that's exactly what it all comes down to.  Why does everyone get so defensive about the notion?  There's nothing wrong with wanting +1.  The only time there should ever be an issue with it is the method people use toward obtaining +1.  In the case of virtuals, the work may have been done long ago...but the work is still the work.  How does knowledge of the marker on the geocaching map make the experience any more valid?

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

With the caveat that the owner still needs to follow guidelines and practice cache ownership within those guidelines.

If the cache owner were to submit their virtual listing of Niagara Falls with the following description: "Anyone one can log a find. If you have ever visited this location at any time in your life, go ahead and log a find." The virtual would not be published. 

Same goes for physical caches. If the owner decided that their missing cache can now be logged as found (essentially turn it into a Virtual cache) and stated so on their cache page, an alerted reviewer would disable/archive it. 

Cache owners are always required to act according to the guidelines.

This post is about virtual geocaches. No need to muddy the waters with more needless anxiety about hypothetical poor physical cache ownership.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

The only reason to log it online is to track/increase your find count.

I don't think that was its initial intent. I thought it was to record that you visited that particular cache i.e. more of a journal record. And to filter out caches you've found from the map, to make finding unfound caches easier.   That's why logging only notes would eventually make finding unfound caches very difficult.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

I visited Gettysburg in May 2009. I had alot of photos from that trip. When I started geocaching in 2010 I looked to see what was there at the time and there were 4 Virtuals. I had the required info on 3 of them, plus photos of the monuments in question. I contacted the COs, explaining the situation. Both allowed me to log Finds, one a little reluctantly. I backdated my logs to the actual date of my visit.

Other than messing up my stats, I don't feel bad about this decision. However, the OP situation is a bit of the reverse from my situation; I wasn't a cacher at the time of my visit whereas the cache didn't exist at the time of the OP visit.

Let's say a muggle hiker stumbles across an ammo can and finds it is a geocache. Later the muggle starts actively geocaching. Is it acceptable for the new cacher to log a cache he found as a non-cacher? I think so; like the stock note says, "found it, intentionally or not."

On the other hand, if you've been to a location a hundred times then someone puts a cache on the exact spot you need to make visit 101 to be able to log a find - you were there but the cache wasn't.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Joshism said:

On the other hand, if you've been to a location a hundred times then someone puts a cache on the exact spot you need to make visit 101 to be able to log a find - you were there but the cache wasn't.

I think that's the correct interpretation of the intent of the geocaching pastime. When the person was there, there was no geocache. Now there is. We need to re-visit the area to note the visit to the geocache. We are noting (via a find log) the visit to the geocache, not just the spot on earth.

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Joshism said:

Let's say a muggle hiker stumbles across an ammo can and finds it is a geocache. Later the muggle starts actively geocaching. Is it acceptable for the new cacher to log a cache he found as a non-cacher? I think so; like the stock note says, "found it, intentionally or not."

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Joshism said:

I backdated my logs to the actual date of my visit.

This is one of the more obvious issues that leads me to my conclusion. Think about it: does that mean you'd backdate a log to 20 years before geocaching was invented if that's when you were at GZ? It seems ludicrous, but it's consistent with backdating it to before the cache was planted or before you were a geocacher.

1 hour ago, Joshism said:

Other than messing up my stats, I don't feel bad about this decision.

I want to make very clear I don't think anyone should feel bad about this decision. I'm pretty sure I've done things like this, and I might even do something like this in the future because of some special circumstance. I'm just saying in the abstract, with no other issues to consider, I don't think it makes sense. (And, yes, it can mess up your stats, which is a good practical reason to reconsider.)

1 hour ago, Joshism said:

Let's say a muggle hiker stumbles across an ammo can and finds it is a geocache. Later the muggle starts actively geocaching. Is it acceptable for the new cacher to log a cache he found as a non-cacher? I think so; like the stock note says, "found it, intentionally or not."

I think the case of a physical cache, found and signed, is very different. You did find that cache. You didn't in any sense find the virtual, you were just there earlier finding what the virtual's CO later found at that location. Personally, I wouldn't log your ammo can, either, but that's just me. The human being Don Provan found that ammo can, but the geocacher dprovan did not since he didn't exist yet, so there's no reason for me to log it. There are, in fact, several caches I found with other geocachers before I started that I never had any interest in logging except for the ones I found again after I was onboard. The only reason I can imagine logging any of those other caches would be because I desperately wanted to increase my find count, and I couldn't care less about my find count.

1 hour ago, Joshism said:

On the other hand, if you've been to a location a hundred times then someone puts a cache on the exact spot you need to make visit 101 to be able to log a find - you were there but the cache wasn't.

If you've already been there 100 times, then finding a virtual cache is the best reason to go back to a place you obviously love. I was dearly hoping for one of these new virtuals to be planted somewhere like that so I'd have an excuse to go somewhere I haven't had time to revisit for a while, but, alas, it hasn't happened yet.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

With the caveat that the owner still needs to follow guidelines and practice cache ownership within those guidelines.

If the cache owner were to submit their virtual listing of Niagara Falls with the following description: "Anyone one can log a find. If you have ever visited this location at any time in your life, go ahead and log a find." the virtual would not be published. 

Ooh!  I visited Niagara Falls in 1956!  Can I log it?  I'd ask my aunt if she had a picture of  me there, but she died in 1975...   :wacko:

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...