One climber... multiple loggers

[+cerberus1]

52 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Most of my hides fall into the higher D/T category and my intention as a CO is for people to enjoy finding them in whatever way they want. I might suggest a way of getting there through waypoints in a multi or a puzzle to solve, but if someone finds a different way to the logbook and enjoyed doing it their way, who am I to argue? Some of those circumvented the tricky terrain logs are the funniest to read.

Agreed.  The other 2/3rds wanted a "rope cache" for one of our 5T hides after this old fart gave her lessons. 

 - But we both realized that whatever means to access would be fine.  Some private pics looked like keystone cops films.        Most used ladders.  One I sent a scathing mail after finding they used screw-in steps.  The complex, well-built siege tower from downed trees was interesting, but I wish they put that wood back instead of just leaving it there... 

[+L0ne.R]

54 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Most of my hides fall into the higher D/T category and my intention as a CO is for people to enjoy finding them in whatever way they want. I might suggest a way of getting there through waypoints in a multi or a puzzle to solve, but if someone finds a different way to the logbook and enjoyed doing it their way, who am I to argue? Some of those circumvented the tricky terrain logs are the funniest to read.

I think I understand, you are saying if you had a cache up a tree and someone used a lift to get to the cache and sign it, you would be fine with that. But what if a group of 10 people looked up and saw the cache and logged the find but never climbed or used a ladder or a cherry-picker lift? Or what if 10 people sat around a picnic table at a park while their kayaking friend headed out the island a kilometer away, found the cache, signed in for himself and the 10 people back at the park? 

[+Doc_musketeers]

1 hour ago, Manville Possum said:

I'd sure like to put the cache on my watch list, or at least view what you are talking about. Is it ownerless or have an inactive owner? 

Maybe you should pack a nice replacement cache with you just in case. 

I’ll message you the GC. I don’t quite feel posting it here is fair to the poor innocent couple whose identity wouldnbe clear once you start reading the log.

The cache container is chained down, I think it’s a flare box, which Ive never seen but perhaps their lid is truly removable as opposed to a typical ammo can?

but the rock is easy enough to climb (although rated a 4.5) that muggles occasionally mess with it. CO seems active enough. They’ve responded to issues before and probably will again, just not likely in the next few days. Assuming we make it up we will likely post a NM with details, but I have no qualms beinging a replacement log to this cache.

[+cerberus1]

16 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

But what if a group of 10 people looked up and saw the cache and logged the find but never climbed or used a ladder or a cherry-picker lift?

Or what if 10 people sat around a picnic table at a park while their kayaking friend headed out the island a kilometer away, found the cache, signed in for himself and the 10 people back at the park? 

I can't speak for barefootjeff, but he did say, " but if someone finds a different way to the logbook and enjoyed doing it their way, who am I to argue? ".

Why are your examples  "people cheating" again?  It sounded (to me) that he simply meant it as all actually finding them...

 - But on your tree one, on our 5T logs, that's simple.  We check on maintenance .  Says so on the cache page.   No names on that date, online ones go bye-bye.   

The kayaking example we hear of a lot  here, only by the same couple of people, but never experienced or heard of elsewhere. 

 - I thought we give others the benefit of the doubt.  Rather than spend my time  installing  cameras and such, if they cheated and got over , that's on me and no one else.

[+barefootjeff]

52 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I think I understand, you are saying if you had a cache up a tree and someone used a lift to get to the cache and sign it, you would be fine with that. But what if a group of 10 people looked up and saw the cache and logged the find but never climbed or used a ladder or a cherry-picker lift? Or what if 10 people sat around a picnic table at a park while their kayaking friend headed out the island a kilometer away, found the cache, signed in for himself and the 10 people back at the park? 

It hasn't happened (yet, I suppose) but no, it wouldn't bother me. If that's how they get their enjoyment from my cache, then fine, especially if they all give it FPs as well . I make my hides a bit challenging for those who enjoy a bit of a challenge, but it's no skin off my nose if some find other ways to enjoy them. As long as there's a signature in the log and the cache is properly rehidden, great.

[+niraD]

22 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

The kayaking example we hear of a lot  here, only by the same couple of people, but never experienced or heard of elsewhere. 

Yeah, the kayakers I've known are more likely to help you kayak out to the cache yourself, than to just sign the log for you, or even to just bring the log to you.

[+Doc_musketeers]

33 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

 - I thought we give others the benefit of the doubt.  Rather than spend my time  installing  cameras and such, if they cheated and got over , that's on me and no one else.

Agree. Somehow a few posters on this thread seem to view the question “how much should a cacher contribute before they can count a Find?” to be advocating for people to be able to cache vicariously.

Ironically, if someone wants to make it black and white- the guidelines simply say the name has to be on the physical log. Technically that doesn’t even require the “Finder” to be the one signing! [edit] So the “10 cachers at the picnic bench” is technically hard to challenge.

This game is really meant to be a self-challenge. Frankly, unless it’s a fake FTF or a fake find after a string of DNFs fools a CO into neglecting a cache in need of attention, it doesn’t affect me. The cache is still there for me to log. The rating is the same. Heck, most of us don’t even read all the logs so how would we even know?

If there was a way for our team to help a 66 yr old couple feel that they could sign a physical log and claim a smiley - even tho they couldn’t actually climb the crag - it doesn’t take away from anyone else’s game. 

But we weren’t asking permission to help anyone “cheat” we were looking for ways to give someone AS MUCH of the intended experience for this cache as possible for them. In the end its irr whether they claimed a Find or not.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Doc_musketeers

[+Harry Dolphin]

18 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I make my hides a bit challenging for those who enjoy a bit of a challenge, but it's no skin off my nose if some find other ways to enjoy them. As long as there's a signature in the log and the cache is properly rehidden, great.

For one of my 5T finds, I hiked across a swamp, sat on a fallen branch in the river.  And signed the log,  Not how it was intended, but I signed the log!  

Another (probably not 5T) was ten feet up in a hollow in a tree.  I used a fallen branch to knock it out, and return it to its hiding place.  Log signed.  Not as intended.  Oh  well.

[+Doc_musketeers]

18 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

For one of my 5T finds, I hiked across a swamp, sat on a fallen branch in the river.  And signed the log,  Not how it was intended, but I signed the log!  

Another (probably not 5T) was ten feet up in a hollow in a tree.  I used a fallen branch to knock it out, and return it to its hiding place.  Log signed.  Not as intended.  Oh  well.

My wife frequently amends our logs to include details about my amazing ability to turn T1.5 caches into T3 or better. (It’s not my fault! That’s just the direction my GPSr said to go!)

ETA: oh lord! What’s the name of the gizmo that tracks your exercise? People were hooking them to ceiling fans and such? How long until our smartphones will record evidence of whether or not we made the climb ... sounds like ALR to me but ...

Edited March 16, 2018 by Doc_musketeers

[+barefootjeff]

16 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

25 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I make my hides a bit challenging for those who enjoy a bit of a challenge, but it's no skin off my nose if some find other ways to enjoy them. As long as there's a signature in the log and the cache is properly rehidden, great.

For one of my 5T finds, I hiked across a swamp, sat on a fallen branch in the river.  And signed the log,  Not how it was intended, but I signed the log!  

Another (probably not 5T) was ten feet up in a hollow in a tree.  I used a fallen branch to knock it out, and return it to its hiding place.  Log signed.  Not as intended.  Oh  well.

One of my hides is a T4 multi, with match-the-photo virtual waypoints descending down a cascade of waterfalls and the final further down the creek where it joins the tidal estuary. I enjoy exploring waterfalls, but there's a local cacher who doesn't share that passion, so she worked out all possible combinations of photos, eliminated those that gave coordinates within 161 metres of other caches, then went and visited all the remaining possible GZs, most of which were deep amongst tangles of thorny brambles. Eventually she got to the right one which was much easier to access. We had a great laugh about it when we caught up at the next event.

[+niraD]

15 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

My wife frequently amends our logs to include details about my amazing ability to turn T1.5 caches into T3 or better.

I once rented a pedal-boat to cross a lake to find a cache... that was a stone's throw from a parking lot. It would have been a lot easier to drive around the lake to get that T1.5 cache.

[+Gill & Tony]

I was once part of a group of 3; one who solved the puzzle, my son who climbed the tree and one (me) who was the ladder the climber used to reach the first branch.  We all claimed the find.

If I was with someone who climbed the tree while I stood around trying to look decorative, that would not be a find for me.

 

[+Doc_musketeers]

27 minutes ago, niraD said:

I once rented a pedal-boat to cross a lake to find a cache... that was a stone's throw from a parking lot. It would have been a lot easier to drive around the lake to get that T1.5 cache.

Yup ... here’s one of mine:

“Out celebrating our 100th find, by revisiting our first and arguably most Epic yet, Omenoku (GC4M0HM). Stumbled accross this one on the way back. Porthos made us stumble through the underbrush more than was necessary, because he was convinced that we would be spotted by muggles unless we approached through the woods from more than 200 feet away. Left soaking (okay damp), and proud of our accomplishment. Found some cool Fungi of the edible and non edible variety (all of which we left), and learned that if "they" want Aramiss and D'artagnia on the team, "they" need to wait on a group consensus of when and where to go off trail.

[+Doc_musketeers]

12 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Thanks for the link, I viewed the listing and added it to my list. It's quite clear the contents are missing, so no log to sign and in need of owner maintenance. The owner is still active with 801 hides. If it were me and I was attempting it, I would take a replacement cache that is water proof. A few of my 5/5 hides were on islands that get flooded a few times a year, and those Plano tackle boxes from Walmart held up well. 

Good luck on your attempt. Post photos if you can, I enjoy seeing them.

Yeah, CO recommends no trackables because of the issue here. We might bring up a plastic container- but with no way to secure it, it’d likely disappear too, potentially becoming geo litter, or worse, getting moved enough to look confusingly like another cache or an easier to reach incarnation of this cache.

our Other idea was just a rite in the rain notebook we could zip tie onto the cable and flip the box over until CO can get up there.

We will post a NM but our policy is full ground truth so our post is as accurate as possible (as COs we hate blank or vague NMs.)

[+dprovan]

Since the find isn't important, I only log caches where I haven't done the physical job if I have a "good reason". What exactly makes a reason good will vary from time to time depending on my mood, but the case you describe with giving the elderly geocaches with a close connection to the cache a chance to claim the find is an excellent reason. Don't be surprised if they turn you down, though, but it will still be fun to meet them when you go for it yourself.

Generally I try to stick within the CO's intentions. A gnarly tree climb 30' up with the CO making a big deal about the experience, I generally won't bother to go to GZ to begin with. On the other hand, if the cache can be plucked out of the tree with a grabber, I don't have any problem using my own TOTT -- a young assistant or even a more daring geocacher -- to retrieve the cache instead of carrying a grabber with me. When there's no particular reason any one of us couldn't climb the tree, usually we just send one person up for the same reason we only make one person pick up a cache that's sitting on the ground.

[+Doc_musketeers]

33 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

And how is a rite in the rain log notebook zip tied to the retaining cable going to last longer than the first high tide and not going to become geolitter?

Maybe a NM is in place, knowing the facts and wait on the cache owner to repair it.

High tide doesn’t overwhelm the rock, just prevents access. ETA: The issue is muggles (and/or seagulls, lol), not forces of nature. 

And, as our previous post should indicate, we are thinking over the options, planning to come prepared, and are considerate enough that we wouldn’t intentionally do something detrimental to the cache or the environment just for the Find. That being said, this is still not a spot we pass everyday and we plan at least to reconnoiter GZ. If we get there and there is a way to leave a signature, we will.

as for posting a NM based on another cacher’s photo ... for all we know the lid is sitting there just out of sight. Or the whole container could be compromised. We can’t know until we see it ourselves and we don’t like posting NMs without being able to explain the issue. Definitely not from 100+ miles away.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Doc_musketeers

[+Doc_musketeers]

12 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

After a closer read, the couple that posted the note have no intentions of ever returning and never considered an attempt on the cache in the first place. It appears a typical abandoned vacation cache, but be sure to award it another FP when you log it as found, because part of the container is still there (maybe) tethered with a cable, just the contents are gone.

Locally I'm seeing those found the location but not the geocache. I don't think the game changed that much, just the players.

You are right about a couple things: the couple is not returning to the resort cabin that overlooks the Cache. This was their last visit. It was the slight possibility that they still might be there this weekend that made us consider this.

and, no, this couple in their late 60’s never planned to attempt it. If I somehow implied that, it was in error.

As for the CO, who I do not know, they have responded at least four times to issues at this cache, the last time an OM just to check on it in 2016. There have only been 6 logs since then: 3 finds, 2 WN from the visiting older couple and one WN from us.

There is nothing here that seems to fit the “leave it and forget it since I’ll never be here again” mentality I envision when the term “vacation Cache” is used negatively.

”Abandoned?” That won’t be arguable for at least a month, assuming we post a NM tomorrow. The WN with the pic of the lidless Cache was posted 2 days ago.

Your apparently flippant remark about us rewarding it a FP makes no sense to me since we never extolled the virtue of this cache beyond having an amusing side story, the fact it fills a square for a sub-game, and the beach itself looks fun to explore.

The maintenance situation of this cache has absolutely zero to do with me and zero to do with this thread.

As for your complaint about “found the location not the cache ...” logs, That too is really another discussion. But I’ll still respond to your implication: 

Personally, finding a frayed tether and claiming that must have been where the cache was attached? Nope. But, Finding an obvious container that’s simply missing a lid attached to that tether? And I can match it to pictures of it when it was intact? And when the CO has specifically mentioned the likelihood that contents may be muggled? No problem calling that a Find.

Im not sure if you now consider me one of those players that have “changed” (and apparently affected the game for the worse). If so I’m truly confused and sorry to have contributed to your discouragement with a game I sincerely enjoy and respect. 

 

 

[+Doc_musketeers]

3 hours ago, niraD said:

If "tossing the log" is unacceptable to you/them, then perhaps you could help them figure out how to retrieve the cache/log with a tool of some sort, and perhaps even help them use said tool.

My “toss the log” comment was in jest. They actually state that the cache is 75’ from the porch on the cabin ... unless the log was actually a stone tablet I doubt we could literally chuck it that far, lol. But your idea of some sort of assist is more in the spirit of what we were contemplating. Or just offering to place some swag for them (in a muggle-besieged lidless Cache, for whatever that would be worth, lol).

again, I doubt they are around anymore anyway. Maybe I’ll message them? If they are still around, maybe having them get a photo of us at GZ might be nice for all involved, or at least help explain things to our medical and/or life insurance company.

[+Doc_musketeers]

17 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Sorry, but I see you joined one year ago today and I have been geocaching for almost ten years now. I can tell you without any doubt that the new players are so much different today that it has discouraged me from being a cache owner, and I cared enough to maintain my listings and be helpful to players interested in seeking them. Now the site runs on auto pilot.

Ten years ago when I was a noob, things were much different. The game has degraded badly, old players are leaving and new players seldom last long. 

Now I really don't understand the reasoning of your OP.

  But you are a frequent commenter on a forum designed to help all players understand and improve this game. I’m new, yes. Have I seen things that discourage me? Of course: Muggles, careless cachers, negligent COs. But I for one want to keep playing. I come to the forum for advice not to try to further destroy the game.  I’m all ears! It doesn’t help to lament better days gone by. It certainly doesn’t make sense to expend so much energy discussing something that discourages you.

I shared a listing with you, personally, to help you understand a situation. While you are certainly free to respond, somehow it resulted in you talking down: the cache, the CO, the couple, me, and the whole Geocaching game ... I don’t get how that sort of response will change things, and if you don’t think they CAN be improved I don’t see what you hope to gain from commenting on them?

As for my OP, seeing that couple’s note on this cache made us realize we didn’t have a clear set of Team guidelines for this very hypothetical situation. We came to the forum to lean on people like you - with decades of experience- to help us. The EXACT situation: people, cache, etc. wasn't the focus, just the impetus to explore a grey area of the game. 

 

[+Doc_musketeers]

1 hour ago, Manville Possum said:

 

So prop it up with a log zip tied to the old container is the way a neglected geocache is to be handled, and call bully on anyone that attempts to tell you different and explain the game to you?

There are no grey areas here. Find the cache, sign the log, log the find online. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

Umm, as I’ve said, I have no idea yet if this cache is really being neglected. It’s a somewhat remote area.  There are no ignored NMs or even DNFs. There is only a 2-day old WN explaining the cache container is lidless. They didn’t post a NM. We will post one if we make it to GZ. I don’t view it as “propping up” a cache just because I’m contemplating the potential that there isn’t a log there at this moment and being prepared to have something sign-able after the effort. For goodness sakes if I post a NM that the lid IS missing, I’ll be the first to post a NA if it didn’t get attention in a month!

ETA: I went back to the COs profile. Couldn’t find a single Reviewer Archived Cache. Lots of remote caches, but once someone raised an issue, he either fixed them or archived them.

Your previous response:

3 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Thanks for the link, I viewed the listing and added it to my list. It's quite clear the contents are missing, so no log to sign and in need of owner maintenance. The owner is still active with 801 hides. If it were me and I was attempting it, I would take a replacement cache that is water proof. A few of my 5/5 hides were on islands that get flooded a few times a year, and those Plano tackle boxes from Walmart held up well. 

Good luck on your attempt. Post photos if you can, I enjoy seeing them.

OK. Was I missing your sarcasm? Because you acknowledge that it appears CO is active. You give very specific recommendations for a replacement cache, the tone of which seems sincere, and you ask for pictures, which again, unless you were being cruelly sarcastic, implies that the cache location/challenge is interesting.

At what point did I start ignoring your advice or calling bully? In fact, believing you were sincerely interested I started discussing OT details of potential temporary remedies. It wasn’t until you “reread” the listing and dismissed everything you had been discussing as proof the game was going downhill.

1 hour ago, Manville Possum said:

There are no grey areas here. Find the cache, sign the log, log the find online. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

Besides the not so veiled personal insult, there has been quite the spectrum of opinion expressed on this thread about applying that concept.

sometimes the simplest phrases can lead to the most debate because we have to apply the principles in specific circumstances. (Think about the Constitution!)

Edited March 17, 2018 by Doc_musketeers

[garyo1954]

You can't blame people for not following the rules.

Once competition entered the picture, and people saw others cheat using the technical wording of the rules, they had no reason to continue to follow the rules. Take baseball, if one team is stealing signals, you can bet the other teams is playing the same game. 

The fun is gone when anything becomes a competition. That's especially true when those who made it a competition warped the rules to achieve their standing.
There are still purist, just like their are purists in baseball, or any sport.
Unfortunately, you can't have the rules written for competition apply to those who choose to do caching for fun. That leads to exactly what you have now.

People who don't follow the rules because they are in it for fun vs people who want the rules applied stringently due to the competitive turn of the game.

There always seems to be that minority who ruins anything for everyone else. For example, a new person joins our laser group and immediately proclaims he just bought the best laser on the market. Yet, he's never run a laser.

Someone points out 90% of us have the same machine and his is no better. Now the guy is completely falling out of his tree because he has the new improved electronics, and some fluff add-ons that he'll never need anyway. Then an old timer tells him its not the machine, but what he can do with the machine that counts.  And suddenly this new guy who has never used a laser in his life goes ballistic and none of know anything.

Its all the same. Someone claims a certain program is better than another. Or someone comes in betting they cut at a faster speed, higher power, or thicker material than anyone else. Or they can laser material not intended to be lasered. And then he's told this is not a competition, you think he's David Banner and just transformed into the Hulk and is even now destroying his own neighborhood.

I admit if geocaching were an Olympic event I would see it differently. But its not.

Still there will be people who want to make it so, enforcing rules that do not apply to the situation, or the conditions, or the idea with which others took up the endeavor. And that mindset eventually turns people off and turns others away, and may even keep those thinking about it to hit the off switch.

Owners want people to log caches, but want them to follow the rules they laid out when designing the cache. Well that will never happen.
Then they wonder why more people don't visit their cache.

I honestly get the impression there are owners who hide a cache thinking/hoping it will never be found. And when it is, they immediately question the legitimacy of the find based on the rules.

 

[+arisoft]

7 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Ironically, if someone wants to make it black and white- the guidelines simply say the name has to be on the physical log. Technically that doesn’t even require the “Finder” to be the one signing! [edit] So the “10 cachers at the picnic bench” is technically hard to challenge.

When you go deeper inside this matter you should finally find the ultimate wisdom: Everybody is playing the game for themself. If you are satisfied the way you play and your nickname is in the logbook, no one else should try to judge your style of the play.

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, garyo1954 said:

Owners want people to log caches, but want them to follow the rules they laid out when designing the cache. Well that will never happen.
Then they wonder why more people don't visit their cache.

The problem is mostly reverse. They wonder why so many people visit their cache.

From the view of CO, they are willing to show appreciation to ones who can solve the puzzle or climb to the tree or sometimes both. To show appreciation, the CO must discriminate geocachers depending on did they solve the puzzle or climbed to the tree etc. The discrimination and appreciation is meant to happen using "Found it" log entries. The CO thinks that only players who have achieved the goal themself shoud get this status. This is wrong assumption and sometimes, when the CO relizes this afterwards, you will see mass archiving of caches showing the disappointment. The CO thinks that by letting anyone to log "Find it" reduces the appreciation of those who have really completed the task.

I have used another means to show appreciation. For example by using separate log to ones who have really solved the mystery.

Edited March 17, 2018 by arisoft

[+NYPaddleCacher]

14 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I don't see a difference between this and logging a find when I am 500m down the trail chatting with co-geoachers while someone else finds the cache and logs in our name. The only difference is distance. I'm 500m away instead of 500+ miles away.

Perhaps, but distances does make a difference it was 5 feet instead of 500 feet.   At 5 feet there may be no other reason other than convenience for someone not the sign the log themselves.  At 500 feet they haven't even seen the cache.  I can someone honestly say they found something if they haven't even seen it?

[+Doc_musketeers]

6 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

Aside from you thinking I'm personally insulting you for attempting to point you in the right direction, just look at the facts that you have posted.

We know the lid and most likely the contents are missing, therefore : 

 

So I suggested that you replace it with a water proof Plano container and a new log, but you say that will only turn into geolitter, so you think zip tying a log is the thing to do, just add paper, which is common nowdays. 

If I offer advice from experience, you say I'm insulting you. I read the note from the couple, you took it upon yourself to help out this 68 year old couple that you have never communicated with.

You are not making sense when it comes to geocaching. Just do whatever you think is right, it's between you and the cache owner that has not maintained the cache in two years and was notified when the couple and yourself posted the notes. If it were mine, I would temp disable it until I could fix it or archive it. But that's so 10 years ago.

The only thing that came across as a personal insult was your quoting back the guideline when what I was basically asking was for input in applying that guideline in a particular situation. 

I didn’t mean to belittle your suggestion to add a better container. My feeling was just that if anything could be seen as propping up an abandoned cache, leaving something that some might consider a “throw down”’would be worse than a temporary measure that didn’t let the CO off the hook. And I really don’t see a way to secure it and wasn’t sure you understood that part of the equation. I think there’s a difference between “just adding paper” and forgetting ... versus going through the steps, finding the cache, and creating a way to claim that find, and still following up by posting an appropriate NM. 

I’m sure lots of cachers will agree that me that posting a NM from 100+ miles away is not a trend they want to see, even if justified in this case.

and again, I’ve repeatedly stated I don’t think the couple is standing at the base of the rock waiting for us to help them, their note just raised the subject in our mind. 

As for the CO, I didn’t count how many active caches he has of those 801. There’s the whole “How many is too many” discussion, but again, these were WNs on that cache, not NMs. And the comment about the broken lid is 5 sentences into a note that starts off saying the cache is in place, the cable is working, etc. Even with far fewer caches, I could see a CO not catching the maintenance issue raised in this note. As for not checking a cache preemptively, I totally agree that two years is a pretty big gap, even for a remote or high T cache.

Our team hopes to hold to a higher standard for our hides. You’ve seen and commented on threads we’ve started discussing exactly that issue.

It seems like the situation of that cache upsets you - but it’s not my cache. Just because I still want to climb a rock and see what’s actually going on before placing a NM does not make me complicit in its condition. 

As niraD posted very early in this thread “opinions are numerous and varied” as to what is “right.” As newer players, we have to find our own standards. Just because a discussion continues doesn’t mean your advice was ignored.

Not to mention your advice seemed to change from “replace the cache” to “log an armchair NM” within a couple posts. It’s obvious you have a set of conditions that trigger one or the other response even to this one cache, which means it’s not so cut and dry. I don’t see how our searching for a solution in between those two options is somehow outside your idea of Geocaching logic.

[+Doc_musketeers]

6 hours ago, garyo1954 said:

Once competition entered the picture, and people saw others cheat using the technical wording of the rules, they had no reason to continue to follow the rules.

This is something that confuses me as a newer player. The only thing we see as direct competition is racing for FTF.

When it comes to challenges- say filling your d/t “Fizzy”- we can see how it affects reaction to caches (if a neglected cache is the only local one that fills a square, Finders may help it limp along). But even that isn’t really cacher -against- cacher competition.

is there some other form of competition being referring to? I guess there’s the Friend League thing ... do people actually cheat just for “weekly leader” or whatever?

or is it more a change in attitude- players somehow turning personal bragging rights into “competition?”

[+arisoft]

20 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

But even that isn’t really cacher -against- cacher competition.

is there some other form of competition being referring to?

Cache owner vs. cache seekers. There should be no such competition but in many times it looks like competition when you watch how cache constructions evolve. Difficult cache, more difficult cache, even more difficult cache. This continues until no one can find the most difficult cache.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Perhaps, but distances does make a difference it was 5 feet instead of 500 feet.   At 5 feet there may be no other reason other than convenience for someone not the sign the log themselves.  At 500 feet they haven't even seen the cache.  I can someone honestly say they found something if they haven't even seen it?

My argument is, if you haven’t seen the cache logging it as found is not right. 500 miles away or 500 meters away.  The pastime becomes about numbers.

Also, the behaviour is bad for the pastime because it tells the cache owner that their cache doesn’t matter, only the listing matters. Then what we end up with are cache owners who also don’t care about the cache and are happy to provide lots of cache listings. 

[+Doc_musketeers]

31 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Cache owner vs. cache seekers. There should be no such competition but in many times it looks like competition when you watch how cache constructions evolve. Difficult cache, more difficult cache, even more difficult cache. This continues until no one can find the most difficult cache.

Ahh! Interesting. I guess I view creating challenging caches as a service to the hunter ... as many on this thread have commented, totally circumventing the Experience that the CO intended you to have seems to miss half the fun. It seems a bit like cheating at a solitaire card game. Obviously from my OP I could see situations where providing assistance or making it a team effort is a consideration, but walking along with a group and having my name signed by someone else on a cache I didn’t even see doesn’t even seem fun. Why bother? Bragging rights? To whom? 

[+Doc_musketeers]

31 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

My argument is, if you haven’t seen the cache logging it as found is not right. 500 miles away or 500 meters away.  The pastime becomes about numbers.

Also, the behaviour is bad for the pastime because it tells the cache owner that their cache doesn’t matter, only the listing matters. Then what we end up with are cache owners who also don’t care about the cache and are happy to provide lots of cache listings. 

It’s funny because when I started this thread what I thought would be frustrating is seeing the cache mere feet away but being physically unable to personally grab it. I envisioned cachers still having the desire to participate as fully as possible in the retrieval process. The concept of able-bodied cachers not even bothering to watch was inconceivable.

I suppose that is the result of power-trail type hides where the next match container is hidden exactly like the last 20 ... granted that’s not exciting— but on a high D or T cache? Sure, our team might split up responsibilities but we are all present and actively participating and when the Cache is in hand we are all three scrabbling to open it up, look through any swag, check the log for familiar or famous signatures, etc. I simply can’t see the pleasure of the game otherwise.

[+hal-an-tow]

1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Ahh! Interesting. I guess I view creating challenging caches as a service to the hunter ... as many on this thread have commented, totally circumventing the Experience that the CO intended you to have seems to miss half the fun. It seems a bit like cheating at a solitaire card game. Obviously from my OP I could see situations where providing assistance or making it a team effort is a consideration, but walking along with a group and having my name signed by someone else on a cache I didn’t even see doesn’t even seem fun. Why bother? Bragging rights? To whom? 

I'm with you on that . C.O.s set tough caches (high T or difficult puzzles) because they like tree climbing or worrying at puzzles themselves, and want to provide opportunities for like minded others to enjoy the same. Seeing the C.O. / potential finder relationship as adversarial is a very strange attitude indeed, and if a C.O. gives that kind of vibe, or a finder's logs suggest that seriously is their attitude, I'd be careful to avoid both them and their caches.

The C.O./ potential finder are actually collaborating ( I set a cache, which I hope you will find in the spirit in which I set it ...), which is what makes it disappointing when the extra effort the C.O. went to climbing a tree/formulating a puzzle/whatever is subverted by cheats who got the co-ords off facebook or stood nearby while someone else climbed the tree. They don't get the experience intended, thay don't get any part of the fun the C.O. designed the cache to provide, but what they do get is the D/T rating ticked off in their grid, and a smiley for their total.

And that really is all some people care about.

[+Doc_musketeers]

29 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

And that really is all some people care about.

Sad, really. And mostly it’s their loss ... except that as the longtime players comment it eventually influences CO attitude, which in turn creates another level of disconnect, and the downward spiral continues.

i guess our team is fortunate that there’s a handful of local players that, as far as I can tell, match the description of “the good old days.” One of them will publish a new cache and others may even chime in with WNs joking about the FTF race or some other aspect. It lets COs know their efforts are appreciated- at least among the local regulars, and it makes reading the logs a bit more interesting, almost part of an ongoing story of that cache and the interacting players. Often there’s useful hunting info, but no matter what it beats a column of “TFTC”s

[+thebruce0]

9 hours ago, garyo1954 said:

Owners want people to log caches, but want them to follow the rules they laid out when designing the cache. Well that will never happen.
Then they wonder why more people don't visit their cache.

Agree with your post, but there's also the fact that the log history should be accurate. Many people just want the smiley, without necessarily understanding what it implies about the cache to other people. So some COs will be much more strict about valid finds, since that indicates how many actually found the cache, and what the current state of the cache is at any one point in time.

Some people think it's just about collecting smileys, and if there's a problem finding a cache, they should still 'get' the smiley for putting forth the effort.  If it were just an individual game, there's no problem with that; but it's a community game, adn logs mean something to other people too.

 

2 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

3 hours ago, arisoft said:

Cache owner vs. cache seekers. There should be no such competition but in many times it looks like competition when you watch how cache constructions evolve. Difficult cache, more difficult cache, even more difficult cache. This continues until no one can find the most difficult cache.

Ahh! Interesting. I guess I view creating challenging caches as a service to the hunter ... as many on this thread have commented, totally circumventing the Experience that the CO intended you to have seems to miss half the fun. It seems a bit like cheating at a solitaire card game. Obviously from my OP I could see situations where providing assistance or making it a team effort is a consideration, but walking along with a group and having my name signed by someone else on a cache I didn’t even see doesn’t even seem fun. Why bother? Bragging rights? To whom? 

The find count to many people is what they brag about. Then if the CO makes any effort to keep the smiley away from them, especially if it's a grey area and the CO decides to be more strict, the competitive nature of their game (having high, or the most, smileys) influences how they respond to the CO.  So 'competition' isn't just direct active comparison between 2 or more cachers, it's a general mentality in comparison to everyone else as well. "I earned that smiley!"  Well, technically, you didn't, if your name isn't in the logbook.  And even if it is, their attitude in claiming that smiley makes a big difference too.  I know some people who just keep track of their own stuff and never log online because of logging drama and couldn't care less about competition or even the impression of being competitive.

 

59 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

The C.O./ potential finder are actually collaborating ( I set a cache, which I hope you will find in the spirit in which I set it ...), which is what makes it disappointing when the extra effort the C.O. went to climbing a tree/formulating a puzzle/whatever is subverted by cheats who got the co-ords off facebook or stood nearby while someone else climbed the tree. They don't get the experience intended, thay don't get any part of the fun the C.O. designed the cache to provide, but what they do get is the D/T rating ticked off in their grid, and a smiley for their total.

Yep, a lot of people value the statistic more than the experience these days. They may disagree, and to an extent it's true - they do love the experience - but they value getting the stats more than the humble choice to not have to have the find.  Others understand what they are allowed to 'earn' and claim the smiley anyway if the log is signed, especially if they know they'll never be able to do the intended task... and that's the grey area that causes so much angst.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Sad, really. And mostly it’s their loss ... except that as the longtime players comment it eventually influences CO attitude, which in turn creates another level of disconnect, and the downward spiral continues.

Yes, it definitely influences CO attitude. One local CO known for his challenging caches with high terrain ratings decided to call it quits when Groundspeak reinstated and locked a log that he had deleted because he thought it was bogus. The finder just wanted to fill a space in his difficulty-terrain grid and bypassed the all-day hiking adventure of the multi-stage cache, and just got the coordinates of the final from someone.

There was a time when it was considered considerate for a CO to design a multi-stage cache so that the route looped back, with the final near where people would have parked for the first stage. Now, such consideration leaves your cache subject to hacking.

[+Ambrosia]

23 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

On 3/15/2018 at 10:59 PM, Ambrosia said:

it's a bit silly if you have a group of five people and each one climbs up

 

 

Ah. That's a bit different. Unfortunately, I haven't had the pleasure of finding that sort of tree cache. I was thinking more along the lines of climbing a smaller tree and finding a cache maybe 10-15 feet up it:

 

[+cerberus1]

40 minutes ago, niraD said:

There was a time when it was considered considerate for a CO to design a multi-stage cache so that the route looped back, with the final near where people would have parked for the first stage. Now, such consideration leaves your cache subject to hacking.

Agreed.  We're seeing that with "lonely" hides now.  At an event, one told by another what I went through for one said, "you should have just called me".  Turned out she kept the final coordinates for all she "found", and many she didn't get to yet (coords provided by others).  None of the caches were hers.  People "finding" 4+T caches 100' from parking. Sheesh...   I don't help anymore with hints for caches not mine, and never would give out a final.  Not liked by a few here.    Things sure have changed...

[+kunarion]

When I go caching with a group, we all climb the tree.  Hey, here we are now.  See me waving?

 

Edited March 17, 2018 by kunarion

[+Doc_musketeers]

Well, my wife and I made the climb for the T4.5 from the OP this morning. We tried to do our best with the added controversy of dealing with a broken container (yes we had to leave a replacement log, yes we posted an NM).  

But we BOTH made the climb, in fact I made it twice because somehow we ended up on top without either of our phones. (I didn’t even realize we could still detach them from our hands, geez, just imbed a chip in our brains and get it over with!). I clambered down and back up for some “summit” pics. Personally, I’d rate it a 3.5 at most, but I guess needing to time it with the tide can be considered added “terrain” difficulty. No sign of our non-aquaintence couple, but we gave them a shout out in our log. This is a fun spot. Worth the climb even without a cache. I can see why it gets found by muggles, the rock is an obvious magnet for reckless adolescent climbing, it even entices those of us who should know better, lol.

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Well, my wife and I made the climb for the T4.5 from the OP this morning.

Cool. 

[garyo1954]

Makes sense to me. The way I look at it, jacks and jump rope are simple until someone makes a contest of it. Then you have to write rules and you'll be writing rules until they make no sense at all. Without an overseer, the rules are useless.

Way back in the 1970s we started a war on litter. "Give a Hoot, don't pollute!" Remember that? We were going to beautify America. Clean up our highways.

Well, 40 odd years later we haven't defeated a piece of paper, or an empty soda can laying alongside the highways and byways. About once a month I pick up a bottle or a can, or a fast food bag, along the edge of my property. What are the chances of people following the rules when as a whole, we can't defeat a defenseless piece of paper?

Hate to say this, but people have been breaking the ten commandments since the day Moses brought them down from Mount Sinai.

 

Edited March 17, 2018 by garyo1954

[garyo1954]

19 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

I remember Iron Eyes Cody the fake crying Indian on the Tennessee Trash commercial.

I remember the Indian too. And stamping out forest fires with Smokey. And likely dozens of others if I tried. People know what a turn signal is when they take a drivers test, but once they get out on the road on their own, they may/may not use it. 

I don't know. I'm more concerned with preparing for an early start tomorrow.
I revisited a nano I couldn't find last week. And came away empty again.
Looked at the pictures, they show three different style of containers at various times.
Read the log. Last time it was found 3/14/18 and logger writes he "parked in a convenient spot and made the short walk over..." which is confusing since you can park within 10 foot of the monument.



 

[+justintim1999]

On 3/16/2018 at 11:45 AM, garyo1954 said:

Is being the first of the group always that important?

That is brilliant. 

[garyo1954]

23 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

So far you are making a good examples for making geocaches PMO to keep those that don't care enough to invest anything into the hobby.

If that's what you take from everything I've shown you, then I've failed to show the most important point.

People do not follow rules.
They never have and never will.

Make everything PMO. There will still be problems with rules because 1) people don't know the rules or, 2) people don't care about the rules or, 3) people don't choose to play the game in accordance with the rules.

Like jacks, Monopoly, Uno or any other game; as long as the players are happy with the way they play, it doesn't matter what the rules say.

[garyo1954]

47 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Still, from my experience and your novice on the subject I strongly disagree with you.

I agree with my being a novice when it comes to geocaching. No bones about it and I make no apologies.

But that's far from understanding people. I'll step out on the end of that branch and make the claim that you yourself do not follow every rule in all that you do. Nothing to be ashamed of, nobody does. Maybe you don't know there is a rule, maybe you don't see how it applies, or maybe you choose to ignore it.

Ever read the back of a polyurethane can? You know how you're supposed to apply thin coats?

(Sometimes I just dunk an item in the can and let it drip dry.)

 

[+niraD]

20 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

Ever read the back of a polyurethane can? You know how you're supposed to apply thin coats?

(Sometimes I just dunk an item in the can and let it drip dry.)

There was a product I used years ago that told you to do that. It was a liquid rubber type product for adding rubber grips to tool handles. You'd dip the tool handle into the liquid, then let it drip dry. When you were done, your tool had a nice non-slip rubber grip on its handle.

[+Doc_musketeers]

Lol. I wanted to read the last few hours worth of new posts on this thread and clicked the link ... read something about PMO caches and thought I’d tapped the wrong link. Did it twice more ...

funny how many threads end up discussing cache maintenance and PMO caches.

I swear I could start a thread asking “do hamsters or small chihuahuas make better swag?” then ignore the thread for a day or so only to jump back in to debate whether the results are the CO’s fault for not putting air holes in their caches or the community’s fault for enabling the situation by freeing the animals instead of slamming the lids back down and posting NMs.

[+niraD]

14 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

I swear I could start a thread asking “do hamsters or small chihuahuas make better swag?”

Are there any other kind of chihuahua?

[+Doc_musketeers]

22 minutes ago, niraD said:

Are there any other kind of chihuahua?

Apparently they vary in weight from 3.3 to 6.6 pounds. But I’m not sure what that range would be in apples and sandwiches.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Doc_musketeers

[garyo1954]

I remember that dip stuff called Plasti-dip or something. It did make a good non-slip handle.

 

[+Gill & Tony]

20 minutes ago, niraD said:

Are there any other kind of chihuahua?

Yes See here