One climber... multiple loggers

[+Doc_musketeers]

This has probably come up before but is hard to search for.

What’re the opinions regarding etiquette when it comes to high terrain caches that involve a final climb? Our team of three signs logs as a single user (Doc_musketeers) but if we were caching with others, and one cacher climbed the cliff, bridge, tree, whatever ... and the log or entire cache was removable, could they hand it down for all to sign? Or should everyone take turns scaling the obstacle? Any sympathy based on age or other physical limitation?

[+Max and 99]

I personally think you should respect the COs wishes on high T caches, if they are stated.   

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

What’re the opinions regarding etiquette when it comes to high terrain caches that involve a final climb?

The opinions are numerous and varied.

[+Ambrosia]

I have mixed feeling about this. On one hand, I feel like higher terrain caches are intended to be found that way by each cacher. But then on the other hand, I feel like it's a bit silly if you have a group of five people and each one climbs up, signs the cache, climbs down, another climbs up, signs the cache, climbs down, etc.

"On the other hand...NO! THERE IS NO OTHER HAND!" - Tevye   

[+arisoft]

4 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

This has probably come up before but is hard to search for.

What’re the opinions regarding etiquette when it comes to high terrain caches that involve a final climb? Our team of three signs logs as a single user (Doc_musketeers) but if we were caching with others, and one cacher climbed the cliff, bridge, tree, whatever ... and the log or entire cache was removable, could they hand it down for all to sign? Or should everyone take turns scaling the obstacle? Any sympathy based on age or other physical limitation?

For the cache owner, every cache signed with your nickname or team name is "found" regardless of whether you are present or not. (Except challenge caches with extra rules.) This is the rule and everything above this level is just a personal preference.

Edited March 16, 2018 by arisoft

[+MartyBartfast]

5 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

but if we were caching with others, and one cacher climbed the cliff, bridge, tree, whatever

It's not clear whether you're asking should every member of Doc_musketeers climb, or should all the "others" climb. IMO one person from each online account should make the climb. 

I often do high terrain tree climbs with groups, and if there are a lot of us one will go up and bring the cache down we all sign and each of us will climb to touch the spot where the cache was, and one of the last up will replace it.

Having said that this is the wording on my tree climb cache:

Quote

As far as logging is concerned I think that to log a find on a cache of this type then you should have at least touched the container in-situ, though I'm not the cache police and I'll leave it to your conscience whether you feel you found it, or whether you just stood on the ground and watched someone else find it for you.

 

[MicroEthan]

I think it depends on what the geocaching page has written on it (:
For example some people can't physically make it and if possible they want to be included too on the caching log.

But if the page says only if you make the climb, then the rules are the rules (:

[+Touchstone]

As a Finder, I would prefer writing my own Username on the log.

As a Cache Owner, I assume everyone is contributing to the effort in some way.  For instance, if 20-30 friends got together and built a human pyramid to access the cache, I would not begrudge the people at the bottom of the pyramid to claiming the Find.

 

 

[+justintim1999]

6 hours ago, Ambrosia said:

I have mixed feeling about this. On one hand, I feel like higher terrain caches are intended to be found that way by each cacher. But then on the other hand, I feel like it's a bit silly if you have a group of five people and each one climbs up, signs the cache, climbs down, another climbs up, signs the cache, climbs down, etc.

"On the other hand...NO! THERE IS NO OTHER HAND!" - Tevye   

I'm in the same boat.  On one hand, as a cache owner,  I probably wouldn't know if one climbed or they all climbed.  On the other hand If somehow did know that only one climbed I'd more than likely pretend I didn't.  

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, Touchstone said:

As a Finder, I would prefer writing my own Username on the log.

As a Cache Owner, I assume everyone is contributing to the effort in some way.  For instance, if 20-30 friends got together and built a human pyramid to access the cache, I would not begrudge the people at the bottom of the pyramid to claiming the Find.

This.

Absolute basics:

• As a finder, I know that I am allowed to log the find if the name I'm caching with is in the logbook. I also try to understand what experience the CO intends people to have in finding the cache, and do my best to have that experience. If I don't, I reserve my right to not log it (even if found) and come back another day to have the full experience, or just log it as is.
• As an owner, I know that I can't delete logs from people who cached in a group if the log was signed by one person and only that person did what was intended. So I no longer try to find ways to get people to do what I want them to do, or to rally against or criticize people who don't. Rather I try to encourage people who want to and who do, or provide an experience bonus for people who do.

Case in point - I love climbing trees, and I know a number of people who do. When I created my tree climb trail, I knew full well that our big local caching group of 30+ people who often find difficult caches where 1 person does all the work would eventually come out to grab them. So I encourage to at least be present on the hike for the trail, to encourage each other, observe the caches (rather than skipping ahead or leapfrogging), and have fun. And I emphasize that these caches are for people who love to climb trees, so if you're in such a group, have fun and climb some of the trees! Because they're placed for you.  Conquering some of them will be your reward. Even if someone else has already climbed it, give in to your temptation and try the climb yourself

In a general sense though, it would depend on the hide. I might want to encourage people to climb in order to log the smiley if the whole experience is in the tree; like a multiple red herring search up and down, for instance.  It would also depend on the structure of the tree - a nice big and solid tree with a low first step would be much more accessible and I more strongly encourage people to at least try, and opposed to a first leap. Same with requiring a ladder; if it's within arm's reach of the top of the ladder, there's really no excuse - but then being so easy I wouldn't be as bothered by a large group all signing, because it's really not that hard.

Whatever.

I go back to the absolute basics above. That's the formula, imo, for the most people to have the most fun (hiders, finders, and reviewers ). And these days that's what more important.

[+hzoi]

3 hours ago, MicroEthan said:

For example some people can't physically make it and if possible they want to be included too on the caching log.

This is going to sound cold, but I imagine there are a lot of things that people who can't climb a  cliff, bridge, tree, whatever would like to be included in but physically can't accomplish.  I question whether signing a log on their behalf they could never reach is really including them.

As a cache finder, I do know there are several tree hides around here I've attempted and decided to back down.  Heights have never been my thing, so it's more mentally unable to get up there than physical.  Either way, I didn't log a find when I was there solo, so I'm not sure I could justify logging it just because someone else happened to have climbed the tree while I was there.  But that's me.

I won't pretend to speak for other cache owners, and I don't have any tree climbing hides at the moment, so I don't have to worry about the issue for our own hides. 

Edited March 16, 2018 by hzoi

[+J Grouchy]

Hard truth for COs:  as long as that cacher's name (or a team name) is on the log sheet, there is no "official" allowable reason to delete the online log.

Hard truth for cachers:  what are you honestly comfortable with?  I almost always cache alone because not only do I prefer caching as a solitary exercise, I don't like having to think about who actually found it and who did the real work.  If I think too long about it, I like claiming a find as part of a group less and less.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Typically, finding a cache requires navigating to GZ, locating the container, retrieving the container, signing the log sheet and replacing the container where it was hidden.  When more than one geocacher goes to find a cache it's somewhat common to just one to locate and retrieve the container, and even sign for everyone involved in the search.  In that case, there was nothing intended by the CO that would require everyone in group to locate/retrieve the cache and individually sign the log.  Having one person sign for everyone is really just a matter of convenience.

In the case of a cache in a tree or under water or perhaps in a tunnel, the CO has specifically created the cache with the intent of finders climbing a tree, diving under water, or crawling into a tunnel.  Geocachers that fail or are incapable of taking that extra step are, to me, just taking advantage of a loop hole in the guideline which merely indicates that the log has to be signed,  even though it really shouldn't be a question for whether navigating to GZ and locating/retrieving the cache ought to be prerequisites.

For a cache in a tree  I would contend that someone that stood at the base of the tree while someone else did the climbing (even if they brought the cache back to ground to be signed) that they didn't actually reach GZ.   While the coordinates at the base of the tree and up in the branches may be the same, the fact that a cache which requires a climb typically has a 4-5 terrain rating while a cache at the base of of tree might only have a 2-3 rating. 

If someone won't or can't reach GZ or in some way contributed to the find (held a ladder, located the container from the ground) then it seems to me they didn't actually find the cache.  

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

35 minutes ago, hzoi said:

This is going to sound cold, but I imagine there are a lot of things that people who can't climb a  cliff, bridge, tree, whatever would like to be included in but physically can't accomplish.  I question whether signing a log on their behalf they could never reach is really including them.

I agree.  If someone can't physically reach ground zero, then they shouldn't log it as found.  Not every cache is meant to be found by everyone.  I've logged DNFs on three  tree caches when I discovered upon arrival at the coordinates that I could not physically reach the container.  

[garyo1954]

These are the type questions that make me wonder if geocaching is for me. As far as I can tell, I'm the non-conformist geocacher. I want it to be fun. I'm not worried about my stats or your stats. I may sign a log; I may not. I'll leave swag and not take anything. My actions depend on the situation. But I understand the general rule.

Somebody hides something; someone goes looking for it.

Now when the rules become so technical they sound like the NFL catch rule, its time to rethink. People are going to be people. They aren't always going to apply the rules as you would. In some cases a group of four don't see the point signing and replacing a cache only to have the next member of their team retrieve it, sign it, and replace it, and so forth.....

 

 

[+thebruce0]

20 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I agree.  If someone can't physically reach ground zero, then they shouldn't log it as found.  Not every cache is meant to be found by everyone.

Right. So from two perspectives, this is how it plays out:

Finder: Ideally, won't log it found if didn't sign the log. That's an ideal, based on observing the CO's intended experience. Objectively - name in logbook, it can be logged online.
Owner: Ideally, no one will try to log it found if they didn't get the full experience intended by the hide. Objectively - name in logbook, it can be logged online.

IMO, the ideal is met when both the finder and owner respect each others' wishes, which does not preclude one or the other being gracious and giving way on some of the grey area stuff.
A finder can say "yeah, I didn't climb/hike/swim/paddle like the owner intended, so I won't log it found even though I can."
An owner can say "yeah, you didn't do what I hoped all finders would do, but there's nothing I can do about it since your name is in the log sheet, so I won't cause a scene."

Drama ensues when there's a clash at the point of logbook signing when the other person doesn't agree with their ethic:
- if the finder doesn't accept the CO's decision after the find log is deleted merely because the signature isn't in the logbook, or
- the CO opts to delete the find even if the log is signed but the finder didn't do the intended task to sign it.

If everyone knew the rules, and abided by them (a general expectation), and were greatful if the other person decided to be lenient... this sort of drama wouldn't exist.

 

15 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

Now when the rules become so technical they sound like the NFL catch rule, its time to rethink. People are going to be people. They aren't always going to apply the rules as you would. In some cases a group of four don't see the point signing and replacing a cache only to have the next member of their team retrieve it, sign it, and replace it, and so forth...

Yeah, this is all stuff that happens under the covers. The hobby is all glitter and fun, until cachers find that rare person who can make things worse for everyone. And that goes from both sides of the fence. There are problem finders and COs. BUT, thankfully, they are few and far between.

Take up the hobby, understand it, think of other people first, and have fun. It's not worth the drama.

[garyo1954]

I agree thebruce0. Courtesy and understanding from both sides would go a long way to resolving some of these issues.

I suppose if you sent 100 people after the same cache, you'd find more ways than you perceived to locate it.

Anyway, I'm getting ready to go out for bit as soon as I finish my coffee. I'll try to keep all the rocks out my shoes and hopefully not drop any that would end up in anyone else's.

[+Doc_musketeers]

Just to give some background and answer one earlier question:

Our team is two adults and a 10-yr old, and we sign under one name. No one has a separate account. Occasionally it’s just me running for a nearby P&G after work, often it’s my wife and I, and occasionally our third member joins us. What happened, who was there, and who did what at GZ, is always part of our log since it’s half the fun. 

So the OP had nothing to do with how our team logs finds

As to our question, it came up because we are planning a medium terrain rock climb cache at a beach a couple hours north of us.

over the years an older couple of cachers had stayed in a cabin on the bluff overlooking the cache - literally feet away but unreachable for them. Theyve posted a number of Notes, They’ve even been instrumental in updating cache status. They just posted a note on the cache and mentioned this was their last time at that cabin. We wondered if they’d still be around this weekend when we hope to attempt the cache.

we basically thought “wouldn’t it be nice for them to have at least an honorary ‘Find’ on this one?” Images of tossing the log over to the bluff went through our minds .... And then we started contemplating the NFL style technicalities, lol. I doubt the couple would “accept” the offer anyway.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Doc_musketeers

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

I'm OK with the idea of something that actively assists in working with the actual finder being able to claim a find. Safety first. For example, if someone helps (belaying, spotting, guiding), I'm OK with them logging the find without actually touching the cache. To me, they are a critical part of the search for the cache.

Let's look at this from the other side. Would you log a find on a cache that someone brought to you unsolicited? I can see embarrassment for both parties if someone shows up on a doorstep unannounced with a cache in hand for logging. In this particular situation, I would suggest contacting the other cachers, and see if there is a way that they can participate or work with your group in finding (and logging) the cache with you.

[+niraD]

5 hours ago, MicroEthan said:

I think it depends on what the geocaching page has written on it (:

Um, no. From the guidelines:

"For physical caches other than challenge caches, any additional logging requirement (ALR) beyond finding the cache and signing the log must be optional. Caches can be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook."

Cache owners are not free to impose arbitrary requirements for logging a find. If I sign the log, or if someone in my group signs the log on my behalf, then it doesn't matter whether I retrieved and replaced the log the way the owner intended/expected/demanded.

And I've found a number of elevated caches (or multi-stage caches with elevated stages). Sometimes I've made the climb. Sometimes I've used a tool. Sometimes I've let someone else in the group make the climb. But those decisions are made by the people finding the cache, not by the CO.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

1 hour ago, garyo1954 said:

I agree thebruce0. Courtesy and understanding from both sides would go a long way to resolving some of these issues.

I suppose if you sent 100 people after the same cache, you'd find more ways than you perceived to locate it.

Anyway, I'm getting ready to go out for bit as soon as I finish my coffee. I'll try to keep all the rocks out my shoes and hopefully not drop any that would end up in anyone else's.

I generally agree with thebruce0 as well, but as he suggested the drama starts when one of those sides is not so understanding.  If a cache owner wants to be lenient in regards to allowing someone to log the find if it was "found" in a manner that wasn't intended, that's fine.  It's when a finder *expects* to be allowed to log a cache as found when it wasn't found as intended that things get heated.   

[+niraD]

28 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

Does it matter if you were even there or not, as long as someone signs your user name to the log?

As a cache finder, sure. The excerpt that I quoted from the guidelines includes the phrases "finding the cache" and "visited the coordinates".

As a cache owner, I'm not sure how far you'd get claiming that someone never found the cache or visited the coordinates if their geocaching name is written in the physical log.

[+L0ne.R]

10 hours ago, Ambrosia said:

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

[+arisoft]

53 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

Does it matter if you were even there or not, as long as someone signs your user name to the log?

Right, I have got some FTF's that way by sending a friend to find and sign the cache for me. 

 

[+cerberus1]

My favorite hides.

Most times out with maybe one, or  another couple at most.  We all can use gear, and one of us retrieves the cache/log, the other puts it back.  The other 2/3rds enjoys it as well, so will often climb just for fun.  While one's climbing, others are keeping track of whoever's climbing for assist if needed, taking pics and maintaining gear.  A team...

On times when out with others who aren't climbers, my concentration's directed to them in helping me succeed.  Everyone gets a "job".  Maybe one is the pic-taker, one's the keeping track o gear  person, and one gets a crash course on how to keep me reasonably "safe" (usually not really an issue). I'll either go back down for all to sign, or drop the log with a light line, signed by those on the ground, and brought back up to replace.  All contributed in some way to sign the log, keep order, and maintain my safety.  A team...     

If someone's just standing around, not paying attention, and not contributing, it's agreed before we head out that their name isn't in the log. 

Edited March 16, 2018 by cerberus1

[+EggsTheBest]

38 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

I'm OK with the idea of something that actively assists in working with the actual finder being able to claim a find. Safety first. For example, if someone helps (belaying, spotting, guiding), I'm OK with them logging the find without actually touching the cache. To me, they are a critical part of the search for the cache.

I couldn't agree more. I have retrieved higher terrain caches while hunting together with one or more cachers. Sometimes my taller companion would climb a tree, retrieve a cache, drop it to me, I sign it and throw the container back to the person in a tree to put it back. Sometimes I (always the smallest person in group) would get into a narrow tunnel to retrieve the cache, while other cachers are guiding and/or providing the light. 

In cases when there is a big group of cachers, where one climbs a tree, and 9 other cachers just stand on the ground and do nothing, that is not really assisting. But as a CO, there would be no way of checking who actually put effort into retrieving the cache, and who was just a part of a group. 

[+CAVinoGal]

1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:

Hard truth for COs:  as long as that cacher's name (or a team name) is on the log sheet, there is no "official" allowable reason to delete the online log.

Hard truth for cachers:  what are you honestly comfortable with?  I almost always cache alone because not only do I prefer caching as a solitary exercise, I don't like having to think about who actually found it and who did the real work.  If I think too long about it, I like claiming a find as part of a group less and less.

This is what it boils down to, for me (and I don't resume to speak for anyone else!!)  Am I comfortable claiming this particular "find"?  A couple of examples to illustrate:

We were on a family camping trip, on the Colorado River, rented a pontoon boat, and 4 of the 9 of us on the boat were geocachers.  There were a couple of caches across the river accessible only by boat or watercraft.  The non-cachers were agreeable to taking the trip over and watching us go get the cache - for the first one, 3 of the 4 of us went ashore and found it, signed all 4 names.  For the second, 3 of the 4 went ashore again, not the same 3.  All 4 names went in the log and claimed the find.  I was on the boat for the 2nd find, and I was comfortable with having my name signed in the log - I felt I had the experience intended by the CO ... the boat ride, finding the rocky cove, etc.

On another day, closer to home, I see a cache container in a tree, but have no tools or any desire to climb...no find claimed.  If I was with someone who had the tool, or was willing to climb instead of me?  Then I'd probably claim it - teamwork works for me!

[+arisoft]

4 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

My local reviewer and I are close, so they sign my user name on the log when they go out under the cover of darkness in the pre-publish inspection check.

Here CO sometimes puts already filled logbook in a new cache. For example, my signature is in one mystery cache logbook but I don't know where the cache is. I have tried to locate it without success.

Edited March 16, 2018 by arisoft

[+cerberus1]

12 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Here CO sometimes put already filled logbook in the new cache. For example, my signature is in one mystery cache logbook but I don't know where the cache is. I have tried to locate it without success.

Veering OT, but I agree.  We see this in "team" caches mostly.  One member of the "team" place hides.  First or STF notices a list of names in the middle of the log somewhere.   

[+Doc_musketeers]

2 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

 

So that is what you call a find where you never actually visit the cache or leave home to log it? Honorary?

In the following sense:

hon·or·ar·y

ˈänəˌrerē/

adjective

1. 1. 
   conferred as an honor, without the usual requirements or functions.

   "an honorary doctorate"

    

    

   That would be exactly the meaning. (Although in the HYPOTHETICAL example, the cachers would have left home, would have “visited” the cache location other than the last scramble.

    

   if you are taking the “honor” part of honorary to mean “my sense of honor prevents me from claiming this as a Find” then I concur most of the time and am pretty sure the cachers we were referring to would feel the same.

   But as this thread has discussed, there are some

   cachers who log finds while with groups when they had the capability to reach GZ but didn’t bother. This would have been a different situation. We were simply looking at a situation where someone basically lamented “guess I’ll never get to sign that log...” so yes — whether they decided to log it online as a “Find” or not, we contemplated whether it MIGHT be a nice gesture to let them put some note in that logbook.

[+cerberus1]

20 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

But as this thread has discussed, there are some  cachers who log finds while with groups when they had the capability to reach GZ but didn’t bother. This would have been a different situation. We were simply looking at a situation where someone basically lamented “guess I’ll never get to sign that log...” so yes — whether they decided to log it online as a “Find” or not, we contemplated whether it MIGHT be a nice gesture to let them put some note in that logbook.

If they accompanied you, isn't your group a team for that day?  Any other caches nearby?   Let them find one along the way maybe, if they feel awkward logging, thinking they aren't contributing to the cache intended. Heck, a member of a team can simply offer fellowship.  A sandwich or a picnic at that "cabin overlooking" and they're participating.   

I think most here have been on "group" finds, after events mostly.  A dozen people or more, with one who just has to be the first (but only of that group...) to find it.  Most times we've noted the time we were there (do on all anyway) and what group we were caching with.  I don't know one person who'd stay behind, simply because they had to find or sign that cache on their own when in a group.

 

 

 

[+niraD]

23 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I don't know one person who'd stay behind, simply because they had to find or sign that cache on their own when in a group.

I wouldn't stay behind, but I'd encourage the group to play huckle-buckle-beanstalk style, rather than three-musketeers style. But playing huckle-buckle-beanstalk style can be an exercise in futility if there are several in the group who have never done so before, and who have little interest in hiding the moment they discover the cache location.

[garyo1954]

24 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

If they accompanied you, isn't your group a team for that day?  Any other caches nearby?   Let them find one along the way maybe, if they feel awkward logging, thinking they aren't contributing to the cache intended. Heck, a member of a team can simply offer fellowship.  A sandwich or a picnic at that "cabin overlooking" and they're participating.   

I think most here have been on "group" finds, after events mostly.  A dozen people or more, with one who just has to be the first (but only of that group...) to find it.  Most times we've noted the time we were there (do on all anyway) and what group we were caching with.  I don't know one person who'd stay behind, simply because they had to find or sign that cache on their own when in a group.

 

 

 

Is being the first of the group always that important?

[+thebruce0]

32 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

a member of a team can simply offer fellowship.  A sandwich or a picnic at that "cabin overlooking" and they're participating.   

That's basically what I say too. Drawing a line for who "participated" in a find s 100% arbitrary. If someone who carried a bag, or even just supported people with their presence as a friend, affected the group, who knows if it wouldn't have been found otherwise. It's the butterfly flapping its wings causing a hurricane thing...

 

Scenario: If a group caching and signing under one name agrees and decides whose name is associated with the log signature for a trail series, that's different than a CO deciding for them. For instance, maybe 10 people go down the trail, but 1 person leaves the group after 2 finds. The group might decide that say the first couple of caches included them, and the rest didn't. If that person logs the next 8 but wasn't there, the group could let the CO know or support the CO's choice to delete that individual's find logs, because everyone is claiming they were not with the group ('caching under the group name') for those last 8, only the first 2.

This is another reason some people on "important" cache finds will request their individual name be signed on the logsheet (or do it themselves) just as insurance against any potential confusion or debate about naming.

This situation is so unbelievably rare though that it's not really worth being concerned about. Point being, claims caching under a name have to be supported by others caching under the name, if disputed by the CO. If there's such a dispute and say even the CO's choice is potentially argumentative, then it'll go to appeals.  And when it comes to who "participated" with the find, well I suppose it's majority rule... but personally I don't draw that arbitrary line as a rule; if anything, a case by case basis.

 

A more common scenario: What if the driver waits in the car while 2 others hike 100m to the cache and sign everyone in?  As a driver, some might not claim the find, but some will citing their participation (it wouldn't have been found if no one was taken there); either way the CO can't delete the find if the name is signed.  In a case like that, it's not worth getting worked up over. Let someone claim how they do with their ethics. They're only letting themselves miss out on the experience to the cache (whatever that may be).

[+J Grouchy]

38 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

Is being the first of the group always that important?

Hey...I've met her.

She always wears that wig and the fuzzy mouse ears in 'real life'.  I'm not even exaggerating.

Always.

Edited March 16, 2018 by J Grouchy

[+Doc_musketeers]

25 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

That's good to know with the Planetary Pursuit coming up. I was worried about not being able to participate. So now I can, from home. 

Whoever has said “from home?”  Obviously you could argue this could be a slippery slope but that was neither the intent of my OP nor mentioned by any of the nuanced opinions expressed by others.

Also, in the very particular situation we were discussing, helping these cachers somehow “leave their mark” on this cache would only influence this cache, and anyone who read through the logs would clearly understand the unique circumstances.

Sure, technicality I could ask my friend in Portland (300 miles away) to sign us into every cache he finds, and no one could prove we couldn’t claim the Find, but why? That’s hardly the situation we even mentioned.

Thats exactly why we used the term “honorary”

from wikipedia:

“[An honorary degree] is often conferred as a way of honouring a distinguished visitor's contributions to a specific field or to society in general.”

In the case of this particular cache, this couple took every opportunity to reassure other cachers that the container was still in place, or that the lid was missing, etc. 

Finding some way to honor their contribution was the intent. (In fact if anyone has an idea, we’d love suggestions)

[+thebruce0]

27 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Sure, technicality I could ask my friend in Portland (300 miles away) to sign us into every cache he finds, and no one could prove we couldn’t claim the Find, but why? That’s hardly the situation we even mentioned.

Just to address this strand, I would assume this could be easily addressed: technically if someone knew you weren't there, had evidence (say a photo of eating at a local restaurant that day), they could easily report your find log, cite evidence, and your log could still be deleted (by CO/reviewer/hq/etc) if it's deemed you effectively 'abused' the logging feature. There is sufficient system in play to dissuade abuse to that degree, otherwise yeah people would be logging finds all over the world just because a friend signed them in. But that's blatantly agains the 'spirit' of geocaching and I have no doubt HQ would step in with some consequential action against such a user (and maybe even the one enabling them by signing their name).

He-said-she-said? HQ likely won't do anything. But if it's clear/undeniable that a user is essentially lying, hq will probably step in.

[+L0ne.R]

17 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Whoever has said “from home?”  Obviously you could argue this could be a slippery slope but that was neither the intent of my OP nor mentioned by any of the nuanced opinions expressed by others.

Also, in the very particular situation we were discussing, helping these cachers somehow “leave their mark” on this cache would only influence this cache, and anyone who read through the logs would clearly understand the unique circumstances.

Sure, technicality I could ask my friend in Portland (300 miles away) to sign us into every cache he finds, and no one could prove we couldn’t claim the Find, but why? That’s hardly the situation we even mentioned.

Thats exactly why we used the term “honorary”

from wikipedia:

“[An honorary degree] is often conferred as a way of honouring a distinguished visitor's contributions to a specific field or to society in general.”

In the case of this particular cache, this couple took every opportunity to reassure other cachers that the container was still in place, or that the lid was missing, etc. 

Finding some way to honor their contribution was the intent. (In fact if anyone has an idea, we’d love suggestions)

I re-read your original post and see that you have misgivings. Otherwise, you probably would not have come to the forums seeking an OK.

I'm firmly on the side of the ethics of logging a T5 cache where the intent is to climb (or swim, or kayak, or rappel, etc.), if I didn't climb/swim/kayak/rappel I don't log a find, I write a note.

But in your situation, if the people you are with ask you to throw down the cache, then I would throw it down.  If they choose to log the find instead of writing a note, it's their choice and their ethics.

[+L0ne.R]

15 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

There is sufficient system in play to dissuade abuse to that degree, otherwise yeah people would be logging finds all over the world just because a friend signed them in.

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.

[+cerberus1]

21 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

 (In fact if anyone has an idea, we’d love suggestions)

If there's absolutely no way that they'll sign and finally log a find they've helped others on, you could mention your appreciation for their contributions to the hobby (maybe with a pic?) in with your find log.  Sorta " Thank you for this fun hide. A favorite !   'Special thanks' go to john n june who we met while there, for their contributions to  this odd hobby by keeping this cache intact, and cachers informed.  Good people.  "  kinda thing. 

[+Doc_musketeers]

16 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Just to address this strand, I would assume this could be easily addressed: technically if someone knew you weren't there, had evidence (say a photo of eating at a local restaurant that day), they could easily report your find log, cite evidence, and your log could still be deleted (by CO/reviewer/hq/etc) if it's deemed you effectively 'abused' the logging feature. There is sufficient system in play to dissuade abuse to that degree, otherwise yeah people would be logging finds all over the world just because a friend signed them in. But that's blatantly agains the 'spirit' of geocaching and I have no doubt HQ would step in with some consequential action against such a user (and maybe even the one enabling them by signing their name).

He-said-she-said? HQ likely won't do anything. But if it's clear/undeniable that a user is essentially lying, hq will probably step in.

Just to be clear, I was using hyperbole to address Manville Possum’s assertion that providing some non-quantifiable amount of help to a 66-yr-old couple in touching, signing, leaving swag, claiming a Find, whatever- for a cache they’d been obseving but couldn’t quite reach was equal to someone armchair caching. I think there’s a little space between those two situations.

[+Doc_musketeers]

24 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I re-read your original post and see that you have misgivings. Otherwise, you probably would not have come to the forums seeking an OK.

I'm firmly on the side of the ethics of logging a T5 cache where the intent is to climb (or swim, or kayak, or rappel, etc.), if I didn't climb/swim/kayak/rappel I don't log a find, I write a note.

But in your situation, if the people you are with ask you to throw down the cache, then I would throw it down.  If they choose to log the find instead of writing a note, it's their choice and their ethics.

(A) the couple probably isn’t there. (B) They’d probably choose a WN over a Find anyway which sounds like a great option.

But yes, since this subject will likely come up again in a more nuanced way, we figured it was a good time to gather the community opinions that will help shape our own sense of ethics in what can be yet another grey area in this game.

[+Doc_musketeers]

21 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

If there's absolutely no way that they'll sign and finally log a find they've helped others on, you could mention your appreciation for their contributions to the hobby (maybe with a pic?) in with your find log.  Sorta " Thank you for this fun hide. A favorite !   'Special thanks' go to john n june who we met while there, for their contributions to  this odd hobby by keeping this cache intact, and cachers informed.  Good people.  "  kinda thing. 

+1

That is, at the minimum, our intent. And the likely outcome anyway since I doubt they would still be in the area ...

[+Doc_musketeers]

19 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

They are several caches on my watch list that I am unable to attempt. I have enough honor about me not to honorary fake log a find.

First - in reality I’m not planning to force this couple to claim a Find.

Second- numerous posts in this thread have debated how much “contribution” a cacher should put into a group-caching situation to earn the right to claim a Find.

in this case, I guarantee our team wouldn’t be driving hours, betting against the weather and gambling on the tide if the couple hadn’t posted a note and pic a day or so ago showing the cache in place. We also know the lid is missing, and therefore there might be an unsignable or missing logbook. There is little likelihood that the CO will respond to the situation before we have a rare opportunity to attempt the cache this weekend. So we also know to be extra prepared with a potential temporary replacement log, etc.

Based on some of the arguments others have made, reconnoitering GZ could even be counted as helping our team make the Find. If the couple happened to be standing at the base of the rock and we handed down whatever log exists for them to sign, I don’t think everyone would count that as a “fake find” if they chose to log it as such.

again, not knowing the couple outside of their logs on this single cache, this is all just conjecture anyway. Really we were just searching for the best way to give them some credit for their assistance and perhaps giving them some sort of chance to physically connect with the cache.

[+L0ne.R]

20 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

right to claim a Find

I don't think it's about a right to claim a find, maybe because I don't see a find as a commodity, I see it in terms of etiquette. Did the cache owner intend for people to climb up to get the cache (or swim, or rappel, or figure out the puzzle, or do all the stages of a multi or actually see and experience the cache).

Edited March 16, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+barefootjeff]

25 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I don't think it's about a right to claim a find, maybe because I don't see a find as a commodity, I see it in terms of etiquette. Did the cache owner intend for people to climb up to get the cache (or swim, or rappel, or figure out the puzzle, or do all the stages of a multi or actually see and experience the cache).

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.

[+thebruce0]

1 hour 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.

Sure, but I'd say the same result applies - someone could report the log and HQ would decide whether there's an abuse going on in the logging; whether 500m or 500mi away.  Couch logging isn't condoned (probably whether it's a couch or a car seat if there's a viable criticism :P)

[+hzoi]

2 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

That's good to know with the Planetary Pursuit coming up. I was worried about not being able to participate. So now I can, from home.

For someone who keeps posting that they quit geocaching, you sure seem like you're still interested in it.  As far as geocides go, I'd rate this 2/10; it's more of a geo terminal illness.

[+niraD]

6 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Images of tossing the log over to the bluff went through our minds ....

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.

[+Doc_musketeers]

55 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.

We have one scheduled for this summer that is rated for a very long meandering hike between a slough and a bay. We realized it’s much quicker and easier for us to sail or kayak over- but that probably “ups” the terrain due to special equipment, lol. Sometimes it’s a toss up: drag a ladder through the woods or plan for a monkey climb ...