One climber... multiple loggers

[+Stakmaster]

I guess it depends on how you view this hobby. A group of people of varying physical abilities drive out to an area specifically for a geocache, track it down however far it may be, locate it, and the most physically capable person retrieves it. Is it really fair that the other people, who made 99% of the trip and effort, shouldn't be able to sign and log the geocache? How awful would they feel if that's the case? Did everyone but the climber waste their time?

Depends on if you view geocaching as a hobby of athleticism. I'm sure there are people who do, but I always thought it was more about the adventure. Plus, that's sort of one of the benefits of caching in a group, so you have a wider ranger of abilities available and so old, infirmed grandpa and little Billy can get those geocaches they'd never be able to get on their own.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Indeed. But there is still a limit.  ref: couch logging. BUT, that's not a decision we make, that's one that HQ or appeals decides, given enough supporting evidence.

Agreed.  There are a wide range of scenarios begin described here.  Only a purist would object to a couple of people searching together, one finding it and writing both names in the log book while one stands within arms reach of the container, then both posting found it logs.  Some might raise an eyebrow when one person finds the cache and signs the log book for both but the other hasn't even reached GZ (perhaps they waited in the car).  When it gets to one person finding a cache while the other is caching (or is just part of "a team") elsewhere (perhaps in a divide and conquer approach to a power trail) I start to question the integrity of those logging a find.  Since most cache owners never compare physical logs to the online geocacher learn that they can get away with no signing the log and "couch logging" happens.  Everyone draws the line somewhere but at some point, there is a question of dishonesty and a lack of integrity if they're claiming to have found a cache when they never "found" the cache even with the most liberal definition of a find.

[+Z_Statman]

On 4/23/2018 at 3:59 PM, BulldogBlitz said:

uh oh.  I'm guilty of this.  yesterday i was in a tandem kayak with my 8 year old.  we paddled up to a tree, i aimed us for the most reasonable spot and told him to stand and look in "that hole".  he did, and it was there.  he logged for both of us as i sat 5 feet away.

Well done to your child but IMHO this is very different from, e.g., 6 show up at the launch, 3 paddle and 3 sit on the ground waiting and when done get 6 finds! Not "ethical"

 

[+L0ne.R]

It's about fair play.

A group of 20 people watch one guy climb the tree and log for their group then each log a find on the cache and for a grid-filling challenge they've been working toward. The CO and Groundspeak support that type of play.

Yet 60-year-old Fred with bad knees (who prefers his me-time and caches alone) comes by a half hour later, does what 20 other people before him did--stay on the ground and look up at the cache. He logs his find then the CO with Groundspeak's backing removes the find.

If Fred can't have the find and qualify for the challenge, is it fair that 20 other people who did exactly what Fred did, can log a find and qualify for a challenge with the Groundspeak's blessing? 

What if the CO removes the 20 finds because he heard that 20 people didn't climb? If contested Groundspeak would re-instate the 20 finds, but Fred still doesn't get to log a find.

What if the CO of the tree challenge cache would prefer that those qualifying for his challenge actually climbed each tree they claimed a find on?

It seems COs of high terrain caches don't have much say.

Does fair play matter?

[+thebruce0]

Yeah. Groundspeak would likely first recommend both parties consider being more friendly/leniant to avoid disputes, but after then it comes back to evidence. If a decision must be made, who can defend their position more?

For the above, interesting that you made Fred a feeble 60 year old
Would Fred, being a 60-year-old with bad knees, have a better chance of 'wooing' HQ in an appeal than if Fred were a 17 year old known troublemaker? (I don't think anyone would bat an eye of the 17yo Fred's log were deleted)
What if the group claimed that 17-year old Fred was indeed a part of the group, compared to if 60-year-old Fred was known to be at home at the time, and not caching with the group?

The CO may not have too much say, since they have the most flexibility to abide by rules or be lenient about logs on their caches, but if they can show that someone doesn't fall within the 'fair play' guidelines (caching under the named signed in the logbook) then they certainly have good reason and defense to have logs deleted in an appeal process; whether the cacher is a feeble 60 year old or troublesome 17 year old...

Edited April 25, 2018 by thebruce0

[+niraD]

For the sake of debate...

23 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Yet 60-year-old Fred with bad knees (who prefers his me-time and caches alone) comes by a half hour later, does what 20 other people before him did--stay on the ground and look up at the cache.

Technically, Fred did not do what 20 other people before him did. Those 20 other people came prepared with an appropriate mechanism to get their names on the log. Fred did not.

[+L0ne.R]

28 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Yeah. Groundspeak would likely first recommende both parties consider being more friendly/leniant with disputes, but then it comes back to evidence. If a decision must be made, who can defend their position more?

For the above, interesting that you made Fred a feeble 60 year old
Would Fred, being a 60-year-old with bad knees, have a better chance of 'wooing' HQ in an appeal than if Fred were a 17 year old known troublemaker?
What if the group claimed that 17-year old Fred was indeed a part of the group, compared to if 60-year-old Fred was known to be at home at the time, and not caching with the group?

The CO may not have too much say, since they have the most flexibility to abide by rules or be lenient about logs on their caches, but if they can show that someone doesn't fall within the 'fair play' guidelines (caching under the named signed in the logbook) then they certainly have good reason and defense to have logs deleted in an appeal process; whether the cacher is a feeble 60 year old or troublesome 17 year old...

 

I'm not grasping the fairness. How is caching under a name-of-the-day and not climbing, then claiming a find fair? Yet caching under your own trailname and not climbing, then claiming a find is not fair play?  

Edited April 25, 2018 by L0ne.R
Grammar

[+L0ne.R]

1 minute ago, niraD said:

For the sake of debate...

Technically, Fred did not do what 20 other people before him did. Those 20 other people came prepared with an appropriate mechanism to get their names on the log. Fred did not.

Hmmm. That's a fine line. People are always trying for workarounds and loopholes. 

Still doesn't seem fair to me. A climbing cache should be climbed and a CO should be able to ask that people actually climb the tree before logging a find. That was the intent. A group-of-the-day name is not an account name. A cache owner should have the right to expect that when someone logs a find on their account, their account name will be in the log and that they did climb to get the cache (as intended).

[+niraD]

4 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

A climbing cache should be climbed and a CO should be able to ask that people actually climb the tree before logging a find. That was the intent.

Does the same apply to well-camouflaged caches? Should the CO be able to ask that everyone actually spot the camouflage on their own before logging a find? Does the same apply to difficult puzzles? Does the same apply to boating or SCUBA caches? If the CO's intent is that I climb unassisted, but I bring climbing tools, have I crossed a line? What if I bring some other tools to retrieve and replace the elevated cache without climbing? What if the CO's intent is that I post a selfie of myself wearing the headband found inside the cache? What if the CO's intent is that I write my log in the form of a limerick?

11 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

A group-of-the-day name is not an account name. A cache owner should have the right to expect that when someone logs a find on their account, their account name will be in the log and that they did climb to get the cache (as intended).

I think a group-of-the-day name is a completely separate issue. It is perfectly possible for groups to write everyone's name on the log. Usually we use a group-of-the-day name to save space in the log, as a favor to the CO who will have to replace the log when it's full.

[+thebruce0]

57 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I'm not grasping the fairness. How is caching under a name-of-the-day and not climbing, then claiming a find fair? Yet caching under your own trailname and not climbing, then claiming a find is not fair play?

Not sure what you're responding to... I wasn't making a point about what name you're caching under. If you mean Fred-of-any-age logging the couch find either under their name or the group name - the defense has to with 1) whether the group corroborates the person as being with the group, or 2) whether it's known by some other source that Fred was not with the group. If the CO can reasonably show that Fred-of-any-age (feedble or not) was not caching (alone or with the group) to claim the find, then they have a case for deleting the log.

48 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

A climbing cache should be climbed and a CO should be able to ask that people actually climb the tree before logging a find. That was the intent.

Sure, should be able to. But there's no way to prove that everyone in a group climbed a tree (or whatever the task may be). As HQ always says, that's pure he-said-she-said.  If the group is signed in, and the group supports that everyone was there and took part, then all the 'finds' are valid logs. Not much you can do.
Then there's all the What if's NiraD added...

49 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

A group-of-the-day name is not an account name.

Of course not. But neither is a short form. Then it becomes a debate about whether what was signed sufficiently indicates the account name; and that it can't be mistaken for another account name. Nope, again, easiest is just claim the name being signed (and if contested, corroborated by the group).

And of course, there are many who will, despite claiming the group find, also request to have or write their own name in the logsheet in the off chance that there is a dispute - just to guarantee that there's no question. And sure, plenty feel that they have to have their own name in a logsheet to be "legitimate", and that's their choice. But it's impossible be enforced without a massive administrative headache for appeals.

[+L0ne.R]

If the intent of the hide is to climb (as indicated by the high T rating). Neither Fred nor the 20 people who did not climb, should log a find. It's that simple. It's not in the spirit of the game. 

[+thebruce0]

Sure, you can argue spirit of the game until you're blue in the face - it's still impossible to enforce. And others would say your interpretation of spirit is way too strict. So who's spirit is valid?  I gave up trying to enforce what I believe the "spirit" of caching is on everyone where it can't be enforced. It's not worth strong-arming people alone. Better would be to work with people and positively encourage them to have experiences that are in line with the experiences you want them to have, if they can.

The spirit of the game, to me, is to provide the most enjoyment for people, encourage people to try things they haven't before, make friends and positively influence others, and generally to try to have a fun time, all around, within the rules enforced and enforcible by the company that runs the listing website.

To try to enforce "I want everyone to climb the tree and sign their own name or they don't get to log it found" on my caches is just opening a can of really, really ugly worms to deal with.  Of course I'd prefer everyone (who can) to, and that the rest would be willing to leave the cache unfound. Ain't no way I can force that ethic though. So rather than causing a ruckus and making someone's life worse, I'd rather encourage them in a better direction and if they still want to log it in the way they are allowed to, then try to let them have fun while doing it. It's not that important to me, so I don't want to drag them down.

Edited April 26, 2018 by thebruce0

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

If the intent of the hide is to climb (as indicated by the high T rating). Neither Fred nor the 20 people who did not climb, should log a find. It's that simple. It's not in the spirit of the game. 

As I've said before, the spirit of my caches is for people to enjoy them. I have a T5 cache that a few people have managed to do without a boat, although I wonder whether it would've been easier for them just to borrow one, but as long as they have fun in their own way I don't mind in the slightest how they get to the cache. My caches aren't an examination or some sort of qualification that has to be earned, they're just something I hope people will have a bit of fun with in whatever way they like.

A few years back another local cacher set a series of T4 hides that involved following a trail of waypoint photos up some difficult climbs to reach GZ, but he also provided a "Plan B" on the cache page to determine the coordinates directly through a tedious search of historic gravestones in the local cemetery. Not being good at climbing, I opted for Plan B in each instance, which required several visits to the cemetery to find everything I needed, and, armed with the coordinates, worked out a much easier route in along the ridgetop. The CO was happy I made the effort to do it that way, as otherwise I wouldn't have found them at all.

[+redsox_mark]

6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

If the intent of the hide is to climb (as indicated by the high T rating). Neither Fred nor the 20 people who did not climb, should log a find. It's that simple. It's not in the spirit of the game. 

I understand the sentiment here, but I still see a fundamental difference.   I'm nearly 60 and don't climb very well, so call me Fred.  

If I'm out on my own and there is a cache I can't get to, of course I don't log it as found.

If I've made arrangements to be part of a team, or to use some equipment that the CO didn't foresee, or whatever, to get my name on the log, that is different.    I see it as different not only in the letter of the rules (I've signed the log), but also in spirit.    I have, one way or another, found a way to get the cache.     I see the argument that if I didn't contribute at all, then I don't "deserve it".   But generally I will contribute, and where do you draw the line?   Most simple case is I am with a friend who did the climb, but I gave him a boost up and directed him from below.  That made it easier for my friend, and also make him feel more safe than if he did it alone.   Is that enough to be in the spirit?   I might think yes, the CO might think no.   

Now for me personally, if I really did nothing to help - let's say I just happened to turn up as another group was signing the log of a tree climb cache, and they offer me to sign the log.. I wouldn't do it.  But exactly where one draws the line is a personal choice.    

I have some friends who want to find a SCUBA cache but they don't SCUBA.   They are building a underwater "rover" which they will drive to the cache by remote control and sign the log.    I think it would be much easier for them to take SCUBA lessons, and if they succeed, they will not be doing as the CO intended.   But they will deserve that find if they succeed.

To me, the only sensible approach is for finders to log as they feel is right in spirit of the game.   And COs to accept their decisions.   I don't see it productive for a CO to get upset or offended if someone found it differently than they intended - whatever the type of cache.

[+arisoft]

9 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

If the intent of the hide is to climb (as indicated by the high T rating). Neither Fred nor the 20 people who did not climb, should log a find. It's that simple. It's not in the spirit of the game. 

Same spirit relates to puzzle caches. Neither Fred and 20 people at local event, should log a find, if someone spoiled the puzzle during the event by sharing final coordinates.

Some geocachers play with this spirit but others do not. The only right way is how do you play yourself.

[+CAVinoGal]

7 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

 ... If I'm out on my own and there is a cache I can't get to, of course I don't log it as found.

If I've made arrangements to be part of a team, or to use some equipment that the CO didn't foresee, or whatever, to get my name on the log, that is different.    I see it as different not only in the letter of the rules (I've signed the log), but also in spirit.    I have, one way or another, found a way to get the cache.   ...

If I can see a cache (maybe, say, a magnetic nano on STOP sign, 6-7 feet up) and I can't reach it, I don't log it.  I bring back my husband, or someone taller than I am, and we BOTH log the find!  In this case, I'd consider that other person my persoanl TOTT.  I could also make use of a magnetic grabber, another TOTT.

How someone else plays it is up to them.  I know how I play it, and it only means something to ME.  I'm not overly bothered by those who play it another way.  It annoys me sometimes how some high numbers cachers manage to log all those finds, but I'm happy with my numbers, and comfortable knowing I found all of those caches, either by myself or as part of a team.  Hey, if I've done the work of solving the puzzle to get the final coordinates, and hubby spies the container first when we reach GZ - we both log a find and call it good!

[+thebruce0]

6 hours ago, arisoft said:

The only right way is how do you play yourself.

Within the guidelines, of course. And, ideally, with community in mind.

The former, some forget or bank on apathy (eg, couch logging). The latter, many don't care for (ie, "I'll play how I want and if you dno't like it you can't stop me")

Neither are good for the game.

I hate "everyone plays their own way" when it's not qualified with the inherent limitations. It also sounds so ridiculously selfish, as is.

[+J Grouchy]

See...this is why I don't cache with other people.  I find it, I retrieve it, I sign it and put it back. 

Whatever, though...if you are okay with group caching where one person makes the find, then it should apply across the board.  Period.  Doesn't matter what the "intent" is.  Someone in that group fulfilled the intent.  

[+niraD]

26 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Whatever, though...if you are okay with group caching where one person makes the find, then it should apply across the board.  Period.  Doesn't matter what the "intent" is.  Someone in that group fulfilled the intent.  

Exactly. Some people cache solo. Some people cache in groups with the huckle-buckle-beanstalk method, where everyone in the group gets a chance to spot the hide before anyone reveals it. Some people cache in groups with the three-musketeers method, where the entire group considers it a find when the first person spots the hide.

You may not like the three-musketeers method, but people play that way. And it doesn't matter if the cache in question is a 1/1 LPC or a high-terrain climbing/boating/whatever cache or a high-difficulty camouflaged cache or whatever.

[+The Jester]

At what point do we limit cache finds to "intent of CO for the find"?  A cache hidden under sticks behind a tree is "intended by the CO" to be found by moving the sticks.  Does every single finder have to move the sticks to log a find?  Even is you allow everyone to spot the cache before being pulled out, only one person moved the sticks.  So is he/she the only one to log the find?  Is there a terrain level beyond which changes the rules?  "If it's a 3.5* or higher you must find as CO intended."  And who defines what the CO intended, if he/she hasn't detailed that on the cache page. (Which won't fly in many cases:  look at TB 'prisons' - the "always leave X TBs in cache" or "only take if leaving")

Many years ago, a cache was hidden on one the spires of the Black Hills (back behind Mt Rushmore).  It was a technical climb (5.4 I believe) requiring climbing  knowledge and gear.  One guy, who wasn't a climber, brought his hot air balloon and did a tethered flight to reach the top and sign the cache.  Found as the CO intended?  Not at all.  But a very clever way to use skills & tools he had. 

[+thebruce0]

9 hours ago, The Jester said:

At what point do we limit cache finds to "intent of CO for the find"?

Correct, which is why the closest and only verifiable/enforcible requirement is name on the logsheet.
And if there's any dispute about that, GS will more often side with the finder unless the CO can convince HQ that the cacher was not anywhere near the cache at the time of the find. The hope is, by that point, people's general sense of fairness has kicked in, or the intense desire to 'win' has dissipated and the two parties will have worked it out.
And if not and there's still dispute, then HQ has to make the final decision.

[+CAVinoGal]

On 4/26/2018 at 11:41 AM, niraD said:

Exactly. Some people cache solo. Some people cache in groups with the huckle-buckle-beanstalk method, where everyone in the group gets a chance to spot the hide before anyone reveals it. Some people cache in groups with the three-musketeers method, where the entire group considers it a find when the first person spots the hide.

I've cached solo - and it works in some cases, but other times I am not comfortable at ALL caching by myself - I really prefer to be with at least one or two others!

When with one or more, it's kind of a group decision whether we announce "Got it!" as soon as one of us sees it, or step aside and wait for all to spot it before retrieiving and signing the log.  It depends on how long we've been searching, how much time we have, how many muggles are about, even our individual moods at the time of the search.  In all these cases, I have no qualms about signing the log and claiming the find if I was in on the search - with the group I cache with most often, it splits pretty evenly which one of us actually "finds" the container on our searches.  None of us has any issue with the others claiming the find if any one of the three of us actually finds it.

I'm a puzzle solver, and if 2 or 3 of us are out for a day of caching and there are nearby puzzles I've solved, I'll share the final coords.  I've been in on a large group "FTF" after an event when one of the raffle prizes was an FTF pre-publish opportunity- yes, I'll claim the find, but I don't track my FTF's (I may note in the log if we are the FTF, but I don't bracket it to highlight it, and I have no idea how many I have) and I don't count it towards my COTD (I'm on day 119 on my quest to get a COTD for 2018!!)

Caching ethics and etiquette are SOOO subjective.