Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Alke04

Logging into fake caches

Recommended Posts

I have one problem I'm dealing with Groundspeak. The cache was lost and several players reported it. I did not disable the cache, but there were a couple of scammers who put a piece of paper in place and started writing on this paper that had nothing to do with the original cache.

 

So, I deleted the logs because it is a cultural monument and the paper is not in the right place.

Expression is so far such that these logos are fine.

 

So I understand it well that if the cache is disfigured - do you just have to load the paper and the owner has to recognize all the other logos?

 

This is demotivating, and it gives instructions on how to log a disaffected cache.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I would do the same, delete the logs, as it is expected from cache owner anyway. They didn't found the cache, nor it's logbook. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Absolutely no issue with deleting the logs of whoever left the throwdown - presumably the first names in the ‘new’ logbook.

 

If it’s been found by others since then, I think it’s less black and white.  If it was quite reasonable for subsequent finders to suppose they had found the original cache (or a genuine replacement), then I’d find it harder to justify deleting their logs.

 

Edited by IceColdUK
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Alke04 said:

I did not disable the cache,

 

There's your mistake. You knew the cache was missing and did nothing about it so you continued to encourage cachers to go looking for it.

It's fair to delete the log of the ones who placed the throwdown, but how were the subsequent finders to know that what they found wasn't your cache so you shouldn't punish them for your mistake.

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Alke04 said:

This is demotivating, and it gives instructions on how to log a disaffected cache.

 

What I find demotivating about this situation is that you seemingly show no interest in replacing your missing cache, you wont archive it so someone else can place and maintain a cache there, and you're disgruntled that people continue to have fun finding some semblance of a cache at this location that someone else added because you wouldn't maintain your own.

 

Whatever side of the throwdown fence one sits, this looks like a CO just trying to keep a claim on a certain spot without there actually being a cache there. The people who put the paper there - seems like they just want the game of geocaching to continue there. So how about replacing your cache?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

If you can prove who left a replacement, their log doesn't have to stand.

 

You can not prove this kind of things easily or at all unless someone confesses. I don't know a guideline for this kind of situation. Normally no log in a wrong cache stands but the CO may allow them.

 

OP stated that there is a problem with the HQ. Did someone complain? I would like to hear how this is resolved.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

There's your mistake. You knew the cache was missing and did nothing about it so you continued to encourage cachers to go looking for it.

It's fair to delete the log of the ones who placed the throwdown, but how were the subsequent finders to know that what they found wasn't your cache so you shouldn't punish them for your mistake.

It's fair to complain that the OP didn't disable the cache,. But at the same time, I don't see that that makes any difference in whether he can deny finds for people that didn't find his cache. After all, he could have discovered the throwdown before he knew the cache was missing, so he wouldn't have been able to disable it. Sure, I'd give everyone a break and let them decide for themselves whether they wanted to keep the find when it wasn't my cache, but I don't think the guidelines require me to do that. The section Keystone pointed to only says the CO might want to consider letting other finds on the throwdown stand, it doesn't say he has to let it stand.

Share this post


Link to post

 

24 minutes ago, dprovan said:

After all, he could have discovered the throwdown before he knew the cache was missing, so he wouldn't have been able to disable it.

 

I took this:

On 12/17/2018 at 11:33 PM, Alke04 said:

The cache was lost and several players reported it. I did not disable the cache, but there were a couple of scammers who put a piece of paper in place and started writing on this paper that had nothing to do with the original cache.

 

to be a record of the sequence of events, namely: cache disappeared, missing cache was reported; no action was taken; someone placed a throwdown.

In which case he knew it was missing before the throwdown was placed, therefore he could have disabled it.

 

 

27 minutes ago, dprovan said:

The section Keystone pointed to only says the CO might want to consider letting other finds on the throwdown stand, it doesn't say he has to let it stand. 

Indeed, and I expect that's the response the CO got from GC, which he's unhappy with, so he came on here looking for opinions and he got mine; I'm not in a position to tell him what he can/can't do but I can say what I think he should/shouldn't have done, but it is only an opinion and he's welcome to ignore it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

I took this:

 

to be a record of the sequence of events, namely: cache disappeared, missing cache was reported; no action was taken; someone placed a throwdown.

In which case he knew it was missing before the throwdown was placed, therefore he could have disabled it.

I was merely remarking on how a slight change in the scenario, a change that seems morally insignificant to me, would make a clearer case for the CO deleting the finds. I agree to OP was clear that wasn't how it actually happened.

 

8 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

Indeed, and I expect that's the response the CO got from GC, which he's unhappy with, so he came on here looking for opinions and he got mine; I'm not in a position to tell him what he can/can't do but I can say what I think he should/shouldn't have done, but it is only an opinion and he's welcome to ignore it.

It's hard for me to believe CO would be upset with a "do what you want" comment from GS, so I was assuming the logs were restored, although I don't know how it was justified. But who knows?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/17/2018 at 6:33 PM, Alke04 said:

I did not disable the cache, but there were a couple of scammers who put a piece of paper in place and started writing on this paper

 

I'm confused.  "Put a piece of paper in place"...where?  Inside of what?  

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

I'm confused.  "Put a piece of paper in place"...where?  Inside of what?  

 

Somewhere near the posted coordinates. Then other geocachers find the paper with some nicknames and they sign the paper wishing that the CO will never check the paper.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Somewhere near the posted coordinates. Then other geocachers find the paper with some nicknames and they sign the paper wishing that the CO will never check the paper.

 

 

That seems a little presumptive.  I would suggest they sign it thinking that's the cache, and not at all caring whether the CO ever checks it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

That seems a little presumptive.  I would suggest they sign it thinking that's the cache, and not at all caring whether the CO ever checks it.

 

I can not believe that most players think that they have found a cache when they find someting that looks like a logbook. But I am sure that they will sign it and hope that it stands. They definitely know that they have found a sort of logbook only, not a cache. In most cases everything goes well but sometimes the CO may find something fishy and here we are now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

I can not believe that most players think that they have found a cache when they find someting that looks like a logbook. But I am sure that they will sign it and hope that it stands. They definitely know that they have found a sort of logbook only, not a cache. In most cases everything goes well but sometimes the CO may find something fishy and here we are now.

I have found caches with only a log book (the real one), the cache being either stolen, disintegrated or chewed to pieces by an animal, but the log remains. Then nothing is done to replace the cache, and it ends up being only a log in a plastic bag (the bag perhaps added by someone else). Depending where it is hidden and on the climate it might last a long time like this. So, a cache could then only be a log.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I can not believe that most players think that they have found a cache when they find someting that looks like a logbook. But I am sure that they will sign it and hope that it stands. They definitely know that they have found a sort of logbook only, not a cache. In most cases everything goes well but sometimes the CO may find something fishy and here we are now.

 

I've "found" and signed caches that it turned out later were throwdowns.  So what?  Want me to fly back to the US, Iceland, etc and find the real caches once (or more accurately *if*) they are replaced?  When people find something that resembles the cache, they sign the log and they stop looking.  It's pretty logical really.  Either that, or I'm a terrible person....

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

So, a cache could then only be a log.

 

According to guidelines it is not a cache if it does not have a container.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

I've "found" and signed caches that it turned out later were throwdowns.  So what?  Want me to fly back to the US, Iceland, etc and find the real caches once (or more accurately *if*) they are replaced?  When people find something that resembles the cache, they sign the log and they stop looking.  It's pretty logical really.  Either that, or I'm a terrible person....

 

This is elementary. Change your log type to DNF if you did not find the cache.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

This is elementary. Change your log type to DNF if you did not find the cache.

 

You are too funny. I just cant take anything you say seriously.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

According to guidelines it is not a cache if it does not have a container.

A log in a good, well sealed plastic bag; that's a container. I have been to at least one country where many caches are just this. Basically, logs in thick plastic bags hidden. That seems to be accepted in some places.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I can not believe that most players think that they have found a cache when they find someting that looks like a logbook. But I am sure that they will sign it and hope that it stands. They definitely know that they have found a sort of logbook only, not a cache. In most cases everything goes well but sometimes the CO may find something fishy and here we are now.

 

According to the guidelines a cache must include a container and a log book/sheet.  If all someone has found is a log sheet (piece of paper) then, technically they haven't found a cache.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

A log in a good, well sealed plastic bag; that's a container. I have been to at least one country where many caches are just this. Basically, logs in thick plastic bags hidden. That seems to be accepted in some places.

One of the best caches I have found was in fact a plastic bag with a logbook inside and the cache size had been set to 'Other'. But the camouflage was a masterpiece, and looking at the cache FP ratio it was not only my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

One of the cleverest caches I have found was a pinned up piece of paper on a noticeboard asking people to sign up if they were interested in such & such activity. In full sight. No container. Very clever. 537 finds and 218 favourite points. Cache was 'other'.

 

I have also seen other similar versions.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

One of the cleverest caches I have found was a pinned up piece of paper on a noticeboard asking people to sign up if they were interested in such & such activity. In full sight. No container. Very clever. 537 finds and 218 favourite points. Cache was 'other'.

 

Caches that violates guidelines are often so unique that they easily get lots of favorites. 🤔

I think that this "cache must have a container" is quite new guideline.

Edited by arisoft
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

One of the cleverest caches I have found was a pinned up piece of paper on a noticeboard asking people to sign up if they were interested in such & such activity. In full sight. No container. Very clever. 537 finds and 218 favourite points. Cache was 'other'.

 

I have also seen other similar versions.

 

Off topic (sorry!), but this similar idea in London is one that I really should have found before it was archived: https://coord.info/GC2C1NN - you had to sign up for the Tin Pan Alley Band. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 

Caches that violates guidelines are often so unique that they easily get lots of favorites. 🤔

I think that this "cache must have a container" is quite new guideline.

Since you brought it up, the current guidance followed by reviewers worldwide was issued by Geocaching HQ to us on July 10, 2007.  From that date forward, the basic principle is that a cache consists of a container that encloses a separate logsheet.

 

If 2007 qualifies as "quite new," then fine.

 

Can we get back to discussing fake loggers?

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 3:38 AM, funkymunkyzone said:

 

You are too funny. I just cant take anything you say seriously.

 

I don't see anything funny with Arisoft's suggestion. I'd change my log to a DNF if I found out later that I signed a throwdown, something not authorized by the CO. This especially if the original cache happened to still be in place when I signed the throwdown. Think about it, I may have found something but it wasn't the cache placed by its CO.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Mudfrog said:

Think about it, I may have found something but it wasn't the cache placed by its CO.

 

That's how I feel. I want to find the cache placed by the CO, otherwise I'm finding litter.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

That's how I feel. I want to find the cache placed by the CO, otherwise I'm finding litter.

 

I would literally love to hear your definition of litter, particularly how it differentiates between a cache placed by a CO and one placed by someone else.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

I would literally love to hear your definition of litter, particularly how it differentiates between a cache placed by a CO and one placed by someone else.

:)

 

It's just honesty, sincerity and ethics. You can twist with some or all of them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

46 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

It's just honesty, sincerity and ethics. You can twist with some or all of them.

 

I guess I play this *game* for different reasons.  I play it to have fun and provide fun for others too, in fact more so the latter than the former.  Unlike some who play it to be morally superior, like it's some kind of religious competition to be better and more pious and pure than everyone else.

 

In any case, merry xmas one and all! :)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Haha. So you'll find a cache, as described in the cache description, the hint, etc.... but you'll log as a dnf.... too funny.

I wonder how many throwdowns have matched the cache description, the hint, etc. The one's I've experienced have not matched the original cache.

 

2 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

I would literally love to hear your definition of litter, particularly how it differentiates between a cache placed by a CO and one placed by someone else.

I would think that throwdowns would qualify.

 

Naturally, that isn't the same as a replacement placed by someone else after consulting with the CO and with the CO's permission.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, funkymunkyzone said:

I guess I play this *game* for different reasons.

 

I didn't mention reasons to play. Let me guess. You play to get number of finds greater and you adjust your ethic to suit to this goal.  It is ok and pretty common reason and way to play. For me, both Find and Did Not Find are ways to present my experience. The only difference is that only one of them increases the "score".

 

Merry Xmas!

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

I guess I play this *game* for different reasons.  I play it to have fun and provide fun for others too, in fact more so the latter than the former.  Unlike some who play it to be morally superior, like it's some kind of religious competition to be better and more pious and pure than everyone else.

 

Let's describe fun:

  1. You go somewhere with GPS and hints to find something a cache owner has placed.
  2. You find a box, logbook, etc and you think it is exactly the thing you searched for.
  3. You inform a cache owner about the find through the cache page.
  4. A cache owner informs you that you have found something else but not the thing you searched for.
  5. You still claim that you have found the right thing and a cache owner is wrong.

Is it really what you call fun?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, rapotek said:

 

Let's describe fun:

  1. You go somewhere with GPS and hints to find something a cache owner has placed.
  2. You find a box, logbook, etc and you think it is exactly the thing you searched for.
  3. You inform a cache owner about the find through the cache page.
  4. A cache owner informs you that you have found something else but not the thing you searched for.
  5. You still claim that you have found the right thing and a cache owner is wrong.

Is it really what you call fun?

 

Fun or not, it does not matter. It is DNF.

To date, I have logged more than 1200 DNF's (while I was more successful ~8900 times). 

One of the most painful DNF's was far from home - after really difficult climb, where we found a cache - which turned up to be from competing game, not Geocaching.

CO told us afterwards. Funny or not, I changed my log to DNF and did not appeal, because he's right - we did not found his geocache, we found something else.

I actually admire his approach and I'm happy with the experience itself! It was spectacular hike, I'm glad he took us there and that's more important than smiley on the map!

Be honest to yourself and you'll find happiness in what you do.
(That's not for you, just general quote, I know you only reacted to funkymurkyzone.)

99c48a21-21ed-4c45-b2bd-9e09e472106b.jpg

Edited by Rikitan
added picture

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, niraD said:

I wonder how many throwdowns have matched the cache description, the hint, etc. The one's I've experienced have not matched the original cache.

 

Agreed.  Most we knew were throwdowns weren't even close to the container the CO used.  

Cache page says "regular-sized lock n lock" and you find a film can (seems to be most common throwdown here, followed by 2.5x1.5  pill bottles).

Guess you can put a lot in a pocket for those pesky "I can't find it, so it can't be there.  Replaced. You're welcome..." caches.   Sheesh...

 - But we're seeing COs replacing their quality containers with those that we'd see as throwdowns, more than half the time.

They forget to change that size and/or description on the cache page.

 

Another thing we're seeing is the original container sizes not correct in the first place.  

How would folks know they found  a throwdown, unless the CO volunteered that information after an OM ?

When I say " Looking for a small, found a micro..." in my log, and get no reply later, I have to assume the CO doesn't know the difference.

2.5x1.5 pill bottles aren't smalls...right ?

 - And I suppose someone might think a 20oz thin-neck soda bottle is a small.  If I was only leaving marbles in "caches" I guess it'd work fine...

 

Edited by cerberus1
Addification ;)
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I didn't mention reasons to play. Let me guess. You play to get number of finds greater and you adjust your ethic to suit to this goal.  It is ok and pretty common reason and way to play. For me, both Find and Did Not Find are ways to present my experience. The only difference is that only one of them increases the "score".

 

Merry Xmas!

 

Feel free to guess, although I am not the subject of this thread. And you're wrong.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, rapotek said:

 

Let's describe fun:

  1. You go somewhere with GPS and hints to find something a cache owner has placed.
  2. You find a box, logbook, etc and you think it is exactly the thing you searched for.
  3. You inform a cache owner about the find through the cache page.
  4. A cache owner informs you that you have found something else but not the thing you searched for.
  5. You still claim that you have found the right thing and a cache owner is wrong.

Is it really what you call fun?

Where did step 4 come from?

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, niraD said:

I wonder how many throwdowns have matched the cache description, the hint, etc. The one's I've experienced have not matched the original cache.

 

I would think that throwdowns would qualify.

 

Naturally, that isn't the same as a replacement placed by someone else after consulting with the CO and with the CO's permission.

I've seen more than enough CO replacement caches that look like throwdown caches to know not to use that to judge.

 

Re the definition of litter, like I said, I'd love to have it explained to me, using the actual definition of litter, how a throwdown differs from any other deliberately placed object. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Where did step 4 come from?

 

Well, firstly: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=427

Quote

A “throwdown” is a container placed by a geocacher who cannot find the original cache.

 

Some geocachers place throwdowns so that they can log a find on a cache that they suspect is missing. Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the cache owner. This can lead to multiple containers, geocacher confusion, and disputes about whether someone is entitled to log a find or not.

 

Secondly:

On 12/20/2018 at 1:48 AM, funkymunkyzone said:

I've "found" and signed caches that it turned out later were throwdowns.  So what?  Want me to fly back to the US, Iceland, etc and find the real caches once (or more accurately *if*) they are replaced?

 

Taking these two quotes above, I assumed that the sequence could be like I listed before. But if a cache owner did not accept the throwdown as the real cache AND you knew it was a throwdown after you "found" it, conclusion is the same.

 

As for a "litter" definition - imagine there is a CITO in a terrain where a cache is placed with a throwdown. When cachers, who have found the real cache earlier, encounter the throwdown they can treat it as litter because they know how the real cache looked and where exactly it was placed and there is no information in cache listing about any serious changes.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, rapotek said:

As for a "litter" definition - imagine there is a CITO in a terrain where a cache is placed with a throwdown. When cachers, who have found the real cache earlier, encounter the throwdown they can treat it as litter because they know how the real cache looked and where exactly it was placed and there is no information in cache listing about any serious changes. 

 

No, they cannot call the cache litter just because the container is different than the one they found in the past. It is not determined by them if the cache owner changed the container without notifying those who have found the cache in the past.

 

If a cache owner doesn't immediately disable a cache and replace the container when a throwdown is reported, subsequent finders are not deprived of a find. They acted in good faith and would have no knowledge of the cache not being the correct container and log.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, K13 said:

 

No, they cannot call the cache litter just because the container is different than the one they found in the past. It is not determined by them if the cache owner changed the container without notifying those who have found the cache in the past.

 

If a cache owner doesn't immediately disable a cache and replace the container when a throwdown is reported, subsequent finders are not deprived of a find. They acted in good faith and would have no knowledge of the cache not being the correct container and log.

 

Having no knowledge that a throwdown occurred and thinking that the right cache was found does happen, probably more often than we realize. I have no doubt I've logged find logs on caches I didn't know were throwdowns at the time and that I still don't know about today. Oh well. However, it's a different situation if I log a cache but then happen to find out later it was a throwdown and not the cache I was supposed to have found. 

 

It's not really a big deal and i can see it either way. For me, I would know that I didn't find the cache its owner intended me to find and I would go back and change my previous log to a DNF. ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

 

 For me, I would know that I didn't find the cache its owner intended me to find and I would go back and change my previous log to a DNF. ;)

For me that's it in a nutshell. I'm with you.

(My bolding)

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 4:40 AM, rapotek said:

 ... imagine there is a CITO in a terrain where a cache is placed with a throwdown. When cachers, who have found the real cache earlier, encounter the throwdown they can treat it as litter because they know how the real cache looked and where exactly it was placed and there is no information in cache listing about any serious changes.

 

Guessing you cache with a phone, to assume it's that simple ...     

Even if you're able to view the cache page when there, you wouldn't really know that cache was changed.

We've found more than "a few" caches replaced by the CO,  downgrading their hide to pill bottles or similar, with no mention on the cache page.

 

Years ago I got a NM to replace a missing cache.  Newb caching with an "experienced" cacher who found it earlier.

Neither read the cache page, or they would have noticed the cache was moved 300' after that "experienced cacher" found it.   :)

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Having no knowledge that a throwdown occurred and thinking that the right cache was found does happen, probably more often than we realize. I have no doubt I've logged find logs on caches I didn't know were throwdowns at the time and that I still don't know about today. Oh well. However, it's a different situation if I log a cache but then happen to find out later it was a throwdown and not the cache I was supposed to have found. 

It's not really a big deal and i can see it either way. For me, I would know that I didn't find the cache its owner intended me to find and I would go back and change my previous log to a DNF. ;)

 

I won't.  When's your time frame for "later" ?  When you get home ?  Six months ?

Finding a cache "as the owner intended" might not be true after the FTF... 

Last year I found a cache I helped place well out of it's specific spot after only five people.      :)

I don't care about find count, but I won't change my log over something I wasn't aware of at the time, or wasn't fixed before I got there.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:
16 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Having no knowledge that a throwdown occurred and thinking that the right cache was found does happen, probably more often than we realize. I have no doubt I've logged find logs on caches I didn't know were throwdowns at the time and that I still don't know about today.

 

Finding a cache "as the owner intended" might not be true after the FTF... 

Last year I found a cache I helped place well out of it's specific spot after only five people.      :)

I don't care about find count, but I won't change my log over something I wasn't aware of at the time, or wasn't fixed before I got there.

 

^^^This.

I know we have found 2 containers at or near GZ several times; sometimes it's obvious which is the throwdown, sometimes not.  And sometimes both are placed by the CO, thinking the original is missing.  Sometimes the logs give hints or outright say there's a "replacement" cache, other times there's no indication that anything is amiss.

 

So, we set out to find a cache, we get to GZ, we poke around and come up with a container and a logsheet with signatures, and we add ours to the list and log a "Found it!"  Sometimes we are suspicious, as we find a relatively newish container, with one signature (the last "finder") - and no indication in the log of DNF's or suspected missing.  Not often, but it happens.  And yes, we'll sign and claim the find.  And if we have time and are so inclined, we'll keep looking for the original.

 

We logged a find on a cache the other day, stated (as had the last few finders) the logbook was full (a nano with w 1/4" strip), and I was going to email the CO rather than log NM.  Before I could do that, we got an email from the CO asking where we found it, as they had been out to replace the log prior to our visit and couldn't find it!  It was not where they had placed it, findable anyway, but not hidden as intended.  They've since found it, replaced the logsheet, and put it back where it was in the first place.  So yeah, caches do migrate, making finds more difficult and throwdowns a part of the game, however unethical it may seem/be.  We log DNF's; we know of others in our local area that claim a smilie with a throwdown.  With or without CO permission.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I don't care about find count, but I won't change my log over something I wasn't aware of at the time, or wasn't fixed before I got there.

I would change my find to a note if the CO asked me to, but I wouldn't do it on principle. There's been a time or two when someone found something else and claimed a find on my cache. I sent them a note explaining what happened, but I've never had them withdraw their find. And that's just what I hoped: I wanted them to know in case they had some kind of higher calling they followed, but I have no problem with someone playing honestly taking the find for something out of their control.

 

I probably shouldn't mention this, but once when someone dropped a throwdown, I went and found the cache still in place and the throwdown nearby. I recovered the throwdown, of course, but then I just mentioned to the person that dropped the throwdown that they just missed it. They didn't withdraw their log, either, which is still fine with me, even though I'd kinda hoped they would.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...