interesting log

[+Jayeffel]

On the online log of a cache posted as placed 2/12/19; "FTF I found it long time ago of the other wood's cache that was placed here , the coordinates were miles and miles off. I had my name written down already so I have and FTF"

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, Jayeffel said:

On the online log of a cache posted as placed 2/12/19; "FTF I found it long time ago of the other wood's cache that was placed here , the coordinates were miles and miles off. I had my name written down already so I have and FTF"

The date fooled me for a moment as I saw 2nd December 2019. In most of the world, that is how that is read.

[+papu66]

My interpretation after reading this several times is that he/she found the cache and realized he has already logged this long time ago in another location. Perhaps the cache has moved or it's logbook has somehow migrated into another cache.

 

It is also possible he/she don't know what FTF means.

 

 

[+DerDiedler]

@Jayeffel

this could have been posted in this thread

[+papu66]

Okay, I got it wrong. Someone sees a new cache and claims FTF because he's already logged another cache a few miles off, maybe even in the same forest. Nothing wrong with that. 

[+arisoft]

There is one problem.

Quote

You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

 

If the finder have not visited the coordinates the Found It log is false and should be removed even it is signed.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=107&pgid=534

[+irisisleuk]

The log is a bit strange, but so is the situation with this cache. The log belongs to cache Wood's cache published on 12 Feb. But this cache was published before as WOOD's cache on Oct 26.  But since the coordinates were way off (about 20 miles) it got archived. But it was found back then and it seems to be exactly the same cache, maybe even the same logbook, the only difference is the coordinates might be right now.

So to respond to the post of arisoft: the finder visited the coordinates of this cache, he found it, the log is probably in the logbook, exactly at the spot where he found it a couple of months ago. Should he drive back to sign it again? Normally I would say this is a new cache, a new GC-code, and by the way you have already logged the other GC-code, so why two smileys for one and the same cache? But on the other hand, considering the mess with the first cache ...

 

But from the log it is not clear to me if he logged it again, it could be that he means that he found his log in the logbook, so he logged it twice, but this time it counts as a FTF.

 

 

[+DerDiedler]

19 minutes ago, irisisleuk said:

it seems to be exactly the same cache

No, it seems not to be. New Name, new GC number, new submitted listing, new publication.

but yes, strange.

[Keystone]

All fixed. 

[+Jayeffel]

Thanks, was not aware of previous cache. 

[Keystone]

Normally when someone archives a cache due to bad coordinates, and then resubmits a new page, they will either mention this in their initial reviewer note, or I will remember the first cache ("didn't I just publish this?").  But here, the first and second caches were separated in time by several months, which is unusual.

 

Once this thread alerted me to the duplicate cache, I retracted the new cache and fixed the old one.  Teachable moment:  if coordinates are way off (more than 528 feet), write the publishing reviewer an email and the reviewer will fix them.  Archiving and resubmitting to correct the coordinates results in double-counting on the hider side and the finder side (if the original cache received found-it logs).

[+The A-Team]

 

10 hours ago, DerDiedler said:

11 hours ago, irisisleuk said:

it seems to be exactly the same cache

 

No, it seems not to be. New Name, new GC number, new submitted listing, new publication.

It's the same cache, but with a new listing.

 

...or at least that's the way it was until Keystone fixed it. I've seen a few people archive a listing only to resubmit it again with different coordinates or some other minor change. I don't know why these people don't just ask for help to change the original listing.

[+NanCycle]

1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

 

It's the same cache, but with a new listing.

 

...or at least that's the way it was until Keystone fixed it. I've seen a few people archive a listing only to resubmit it again with different coordinates or some other minor change. I don't know why these people don't just ask for help to change the original listing.

 

We had a similar case locally; the CO reversed 2 digits in entering the coordinates which resulted in an error of about .3 mi.  He asked the publishing reviewer to change it but got no response .  (I don't know what the time frame was.)  I suggested that he ask our area's other reviewer--whom I have found to be very responsive, and the coordinates were corrected within hours.  

 

As an aside--both of our longtime reviewers retired recently and we miss them.