Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Ragnemalm

Suggested feature: "Revisited" log type

Recommended Posts

The thing with this is that if it becomes a trackable stat, then it will becomes about the numbers and its use will shift towards numbers and competition. Guaranteed. Trackable stats are stats to track. Someone will make a challenge. Someone will display their stat proudly. Someone will complain about illegitimate stats.

If it exists, and its primary purpose is to be helpful, then it can't be statistically tracked.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/26/2019 at 2:36 PM, Goldenwattle said:

When I do that usually my friends include me in the list of who visited, so I don't need to make a log.

For me, it would not be about informing the CO I re-visited, but keeping my own record.

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/26/2019 at 3:52 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

While waiting for a storm to pass, I've just gone through all my WN logs to try to classify them:

  • 28 notes posted on my own hides for anything that doesn't qualify as an OM, including some TB drops
  • 10 TB drops on other people's caches
  • 2 previous finds that I revisited with friends
  • 10 advising of a belated FP
  • 28 posting info for the CO and/or other cachers
  • 26 partial attempts, usually multis I hadn't completed or intended searches that didn't really start enough to be a DNF
  • 2 posted in order to log an NM/NA with the new logging system
  • 4 revisiting a previous find when in the area
  • 1 advising that I'd qualified for a challenge
  • 1 after deleting an incorrectly-logged find
  • 3 placement logs on moving caches
  • 3 event apologies
  • 1 long log extension
  • 1 find on a throwdown that I refused to log as a find

With all those different WN scenarios and revisits only accounting for a small percentage of them, does that really warrant a different log type just for those?

 

Maybe not, but I didn't start the topic, just adding my opinion.

 

However, of all your logs above, I could still see value to me personally to be able to see how many of those were physical revisits and how many were just for some other "note" purpose.

 

I mean, if you take it to the ridiculous extreme in the other direction, we don't really need Found It logs - they could just be a write note as well.... :)

 

Share this post


Link to post

If there was a Revisited log type, they'd probably make it the default on any caches already found, thus adding to the mayhem default log types are already causing.

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

If there was a Revisited log type, they'd probably make it the default on any caches already found, thus adding to the mayhem default log types are already causing.

 

Separate issue.

 

Personally I would suggest Write Note still remain as the default in this case.

 

And if there is already "mayhem" as you suggest, then what's the difference?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

Separate issue.

 

Personally I would suggest Write Note still remain as the default in this case.

 

And if there is already "mayhem" as you suggest, then what's the difference?

 

I think barefootjeff was referring to 'Found' as being the default log, which leads to Found It logs with messages such as "Had a good look but couldn't find it, so it must be missing." (Usually logs like this from Geocachers with few or no finds. Me being sarcastic :ph34r: .) This is not a problem if the CO is doing their job by contacting the logger and asking them to please change their log to DNF, and if they don't, deleting it. It does give the CO more work though, especially if they have many caches.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, funkymunkyzone said:

And if there is already "mayhem" as you suggest, then what's the difference?

 

There are numerous examples in the Found It = Didn't Find It thread which were most likely caused by the default log type. I've had several on my own caches where the text of a Found log made it clear it was meant to be a DNF and either the logger has spotted the mistake and corrected it themselves or done so after I've sent them a message querying it. I've also been caught out myself at least half a dozen times, logging a find when I meant to log a note or an OM when I meant to enable a disabled cache. Those are probably just the tip of the iceberg and there would be many more where, maybe because the text of the log isn't specific enough to spot the error, it goes unnoticed and uncorrected. Adding to that with yet another default log type that needs to be changed a lot of the time (only about half my WNs on caches I'd previously found were actually revisits) will make the problem worse, particularly if the CHS treats Revisit logs the same as Found It logs when assessing a cache's health score.

 

If that's not bad enough, with the "new" logging system requiring you to post some other log in order to log an NM or NA on a cache you've previously found, if that defaulted to Revisited you could potentially end up with your "cache is missing" maintenance log being cancelled out by the Revisited log in the eyes of the CHS and maybe even a reviewer who didn't join the two separate logs and recognise the mistake. Don't make a bad problem worse.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

If there was a Revisited log type, they'd probably make it the default on any caches already found, thus adding to the mayhem default log types are already causing.

 

Wouldn't it be fun to see the thousands of multiple "Found It" logs that were placed on some (COs "finding" their own caches while doing maintenance for example...) being corrected by default to a "revisited" log type.   :D

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I think barefootjeff was referring to 'Found' as being the default log, which leads to Found It logs with messages such as "Had a good look but couldn't find it, so it must be missing." (Usually logs like this from Geocachers with few or no finds. Me being sarcastic :ph34r: .) This is not a problem if the CO is doing their job by contacting the logger and asking them to please change their log to DNF, and if they don't, deleting it. It does give the CO more work though, especially if they have many caches.

I think he was referring to the default to "Write Note" when adding a log to a cache already found.  And that wouldn't need to change, so....?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

There are numerous examples in the Found It = Didn't Find It thread which were most likely caused by the default log type. I've had several on my own caches where the text of a Found log made it clear it was meant to be a DNF and either the logger has spotted the mistake and corrected it themselves or done so after I've sent them a message querying it. I've also been caught out myself at least half a dozen times, logging a find when I meant to log a note or an OM when I meant to enable a disabled cache. Those are probably just the tip of the iceberg and there would be many more where, maybe because the text of the log isn't specific enough to spot the error, it goes unnoticed and uncorrected. Adding to that with yet another default log type that needs to be changed a lot of the time (only about half my WNs on caches I'd previously found were actually revisits) will make the problem worse, particularly if the CHS treats Revisit logs the same as Found It logs when assessing a cache's health score.

 

If that's not bad enough, with the "new" logging system requiring you to post some other log in order to log an NM or NA on a cache you've previously found, if that defaulted to Revisited you could potentially end up with your "cache is missing" maintenance log being cancelled out by the Revisited log in the eyes of the CHS and maybe even a reviewer who didn't join the two separate logs and recognise the mistake. Don't make a bad problem worse.

 

2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Wouldn't it be fun to see the thousands of multiple "Found It" logs that were placed on some (COs "finding" their own caches while doing maintenance for example...) being corrected by default to a "revisited" log type.   :D

 

 

Simple, leave it to default to "Write Note" for caches already found/owned.

Edited by funkymunkyzone

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

 

 

Simple, leave it to default to "Write Note" for caches already found/owned.

 

I agree, but I doubt I'll have any say in the matter should such a log be introduced. Given how everything else new becomes the default (search map, dashboard, log entry, etc.)  I think it likely it would. Or maybe common sense will prevail and they'll do away with default log types altogether. Oh wait...

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a newer member & I try to hide some in the area & hate that the reviewer tells me it's less than the allotted feet. But I physically know that someone could not walk it directly! And I'm just tired of the last person to find not ever trying to fix the cache up, but just posting wet log... Take a zippy bag & a piece of paper with you & try to help keep the sport going please

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, DOBBY8 said:

I'm just tired of the last person to find not ever trying to fix the cache up, but just posting wet log... Take a zippy bag & a piece of paper with you & try to help keep the sport going please

 

You may be unfamiliar with the expected guidelines with regards to cache owner expectations and responsibilities.

 

From the Help Center (see the bolded green text):

 

7. Ownership after publication

7.4. Maintenance expectations

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

  • Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
  • Replace broken or missing containers.
  • Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
  • Replace full or wet logbooks.
  • Temporarily disable your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
  • Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
  • Delete inappropriate logs.
  • Update coordinates if cache location has changed.
Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 4

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, owners should not expect cachers to help keep a cache maintained, but to some degree (and many have differing opinions of that threshold) there is a 'good deed' etiquette that is nice to provide cache owners if you are a cacher - but it's always a risk because you never know if the CO wants a cacher to fix up (to any degree) their geocache - even if it is just a wet log. Someone might think a damp log needs replacing and 'out of the kindness of their heart' swap it out, not realizing that 1] the log may dry and still be usable and 2] the cache owner may want to keep the logsheet or look it over.

Proxy maintenance is always a grey area and always a risk, which is why it's not condoned as an acceptable official practice.  In the end, the cache owner is the only one who can ensure their cache is verifiably findable as intended. A 'good deed' may be helpful, it may also mess that up. It's a tough call.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the input. I just try to keep them going & maybe I shouldn't. It's just a bummer to drive, walk, and it's icky. I'm not positive but I need the walk with my dog & hunting for the cache makes me keep doing it, but winter is here and I should just stop.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, DOBBY8 said:

And I'm just tired of the last person to find not ever trying to fix the cache up, but just posting wet log... Take a zippy bag & a piece of paper with you & try to help keep the sport going please

 

If the log is wet there's probably a reason for that, like a cracked container or a failed seal, so any replacement log will just end up as soggy as the old one the next time it rains. Zippy bags won't keep the log dry if the container fills with water and, even if it drys out in hot weather, will keep the log damp. The CO really needs to fix the actual problem (water getting into the cache) or, if they're no longer around, maybe it's time for it to be archived to make way for something that will stay dry.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

If the log is wet there's probably a reason for that, like a cracked container or a failed seal,

 

Or finders catching the baggie between the lid & container ... or just not closing the lid completely (how hard is it to screw the cap back onto a preform?)....

 

6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The CO really needs to fix the actual problem

 

Yes, I've considered it, but I've heard it's considered assault to smack folks upside the head.;)

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/24/2019 at 10:56 AM, Ragnemalm said:

Why? Because many cachers tend to give up when the entire area is covered and there aren't many new ones [....] I think this would be very good to keep beginners!

I cannot imagine any big area to be covered completely. Take your bike, go on a short tour for less then 10 miles and I am sure there are plenty of nice places to visit. If there is no cache go out and hide your own ones! That's geocaching, too, and that can be much fun - for you and your finders who can visit your cache once. :-)


Does it sound boring to revisit a cache you already found?

It might work with traditional caches if they give some kind of challenge - difficult climbing for example.

But have you thought about other cache types? Given a multi cache for example, do you visit the stages again (getting no reward for it!?) or do you go directly to the final?

 

Finally, this could be a nice premium feature.

WHY?

 

I haven't read the whole thread (I am sorry) but I am sure you have explained why geocaching isn't fun if you don't get "points" for it. My personal opinion: if those who only go caching for competition, getting more and more "points" (geocaches are NOT points) leave the game I am happy. :-)

 

Jochen

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/30/2019 at 7:01 PM, DOBBY8 said:

I'm a newer member & I try to hide some in the area & hate that the reviewer tells me it's less than the allotted feet. But I physically know that someone could not walk it directly! And I'm just tired of the last person to find not ever trying to fix the cache up, but just posting wet log... Take a zippy bag & a piece of paper with you & try to help keep the sport going please

 

Sorry, your cache is not my responsibility. If you can't maintain it then don't hide it.

  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, bflentje said:

Sorry, your cache is not my responsibility. If you can't maintain it then don't hide it.

 

Or use waterproof containers so that the logbook does not get wet. They are only a little bit more expensive but it helps. And as side effect better containers are more fun to the finders. :-)

I can't remember having to maintain one of my caches as the logbook was wet; hasn't happened for a long time an when it happened I always wanted to do it myself. I use logbooks and don't want someone to place a piece of paper instead the real logbook inside the cache.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I have started re-visiting caches on a regular basis. One per day! I can't do that with finding new ones (little left within biking distance except for impossible mysteries) and I have too many hides myself so I can't make more, but I need a reason for exercise.

The result is 100% positive. I have re-solved a mystery. It was just like a new one, possibly a bit harder since things change. I have also found several traditionals. Several of them had changed so much that it totally felt like a new find.

The numbers have little to do with this, it helps me to keep caching fun and interesting, it helps me to get out and get some exercise. (Fortunately, we are not "locked in" here, going outdoors are just fine, just keep distance.)

It may never become a log type, but I find it totally beneficial and fun for me. It puts new life into the hobby.

Edited by Ragnemalm
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 4/25/2020 at 3:04 PM, Ragnemalm said:

I have started re-visiting caches on a regular basis. One per day! I can't do that with finding new ones (little left within biking distance except for impossible mysteries) and I have too many hides myself so I can't make more, but I need a reason for exercise.

The result is 100% positive. I have re-solved a mystery. It was just like a new one, possibly a bit harder since things change. I have also found several traditionals. Several of them had changed so much that it totally felt like a new find.

The numbers have little to do with this, it helps me to keep caching fun and interesting, it helps me to get out and get some exercise. (Fortunately, we are not "locked in" here, going outdoors are just fine, just keep distance.)

It may never become a log type, but I find it totally beneficial and fun for me. It puts new life into the hobby.

 

I thought of a way for you to solve your problem.. just log a DNF on every first visit. Then the next time you visit log a Found It if you found it. ;-)

Edited by bflentje
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, bflentje said:

 

I thought of a way for you to solve your problem.. just log a DNF on every first visit. Then the next time you visit log a Found It if you found it. ;-)

 

Why a DNF instead of a WN?  DNF logs are shown in GSAK as little red squares so looking at the list of caches it seems the caches have problems. Without reading all logs it will not be clear if the DNF is a "real" DNF and there may be a problem with the cache or the last cacher just didn't want to touch the container. Keep DNF's for real Didn't Find so logs at at least accurate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, on4bam said:

 

Why a DNF instead of a WN?  DNF logs are shown in GSAK as little red squares so looking at the list of caches it seems the caches have problems. Without reading all logs it will not be clear if the DNF is a "real" DNF and there may be a problem with the cache or the last cacher just didn't want to touch the container. Keep DNF's for real Didn't Find so logs at at least accurate.

 

 

Good grief. It was humor. Please go about your business.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, bflentje said:

 

Good grief. It was humor. Please go about your business.

Humor? OK, I must have missed that. You should try stand-up comedy but don't give up your day job.

 

BTW, sorry to be alive.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Here's how I see it.  A huge part of the fun of geocaching is the search.  Some are easy, but some are REALLY worth the smilie.  If it were possible to let some time go by and then go back and log them all again, where would the fun be?  You'd never have that same white-hot bolt of joy upon finding it--whether that be by lifting the lamp skirt, or moving the rock after a 10-mile hike.  It would just be something you've done already and are doing again because it is easier to get a +1 that way than to go out and find new caches.  And if for some reason it is NOT about the extra smilie, then you CAN revisit them at any time, and write a note.  But it wouldn't count as a FIND any more than a revisit would count as a FIND, because you can't FIND something you have already found.

 

If it is about getting exercise, then find someone who is new to caching and take them out.  Let THEM find and log them, and then you can write a note if you want to chime in.

  • Upvote 3
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/10/2020 at 6:04 AM, Ageleni said:

Here's how I see it.  A huge part of the fun of geocaching is the search.  Some are easy, but some are REALLY worth the smilie.  If it were possible to let some time go by and then go back and log them all again, where would the fun be?  You'd never have that same white-hot bolt of joy upon finding it--whether that be by lifting the lamp skirt, or moving the rock after a 10-mile hike.  It would just be something you've done already and are doing again because it is easier to get a +1 that way than to go out and find new caches.

 

Have you tried it? I am revisiting on a daily basis, and 9 out of 10 caches feel like a brand new one. It was several years since the previous visit, the place has changed, my memory of how it was hidden has faded. I don't revisit something I logged months ago, but rather something I logged 5 years ago.

It is just like when it was new. Some are trivial, they were trivial back then too. I also re-solve mysteries and field puzzles. Several years after, they also feel like new.

And that is not because my memory is bad. It is usually considered pretty good. Of course I remember the very special ones, but even they are not exactly the same 5 years later.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/4/2020 at 3:26 PM, bflentje said:

I thought of a way for you to solve your problem.. just log a DNF on every first visit. Then the next time you visit log a Found It if you found it. ;-)

 

Haha! Yes, I saw that was a joke. Why not log NM when we're at it? :)

 

But to on4bam, there we have the problem with text communication. You can't hear the tone of the voice.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

The main reason I joined this hobby is to explore areas I've never been to, or familiar areas with segments I'm unaware of.    :)

For example,  just by luck while searching for a cache less than two miles away from me, I spotted a cave that (at the time) was able to be entered.

Lived here for some time and had no clue.   Odd too that the CO who placed that cache didn't put one there ( we did... ;-).

Another, a spot long forgotten by many with a steel ladder system running most of the way down a 400' cliff.

 - If I didn't have to ask for permission to replace most of the pitons with bolts for safety (the landowner would have ripped it out instead) I would have secured a cache somewhere. 

Possible I guess that the landowner forgot, or maybe doesn't even know that historic section exists themselves.

 

We take notes when in an unfamiliar area, mostly for exceptional hunting, fishing, or climbing opportunities, and from cache placements that work well for beginners of the hobby, to areas flat enough to take my mother for a walk.  

We already "revisit"  areas,  the cache we found in that area maybe archived years ago.   

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/27/2019 at 5:22 PM, thebruce0 said:

The thing with this is that if it becomes a trackable stat, then it will becomes about the numbers and its use will shift towards numbers and competition. Guaranteed. Trackable stats are stats to track. Someone will make a challenge. Someone will display their stat proudly. Someone will complain about illegitimate stats.

If it exists, and its primary purpose is to be helpful, then it can't be statistically tracked.

 

Is this a problem? The whole hobby has problems with competitive behaviours, PTs and other caches that exist only for bringing your numbers up. Cache series that give the whole D/T matrix for some cache type. It has little to do with the suggestion to revisit caches.

 

Should "revisit" be a cache type, it surely would count to your statistics, but it would also benefit good caches, which PTs don't.

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

Should "revisit" be a cache type, it surely would count to your statistics, but it would also benefit good caches, which PTs don't.

 

Curious...  how would "revisiting" a cache benefit it ?   Why would it only benefit "good" caches ?   Thanks.    :)

Seems (to me) a major "benefit" for revisiting a geocache is maintaining caches for the CO that isn't...

I'd bet throwdown folks would definitely find those PTs worth "revisiting" if that's the case.    ;)

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Should "revisit" be a cache type, it surely would count to your statistics, but it would also benefit good caches, which PTs don't.

 

Like cerberus, I'm confused as to how it would benefit ANY cache, much less good ones, unless you're planning on doing maintenance, which means that "good" cache isn't so "good" anymore if it needs maintenance.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't get why "revisited" has to be a log type. Can't you just revisit it and not log it? How is this any different? Why does everything always have to be a stat on geocaching.com*? Why am I asking so many questions? 

* But seriously, why? There are some people who have found plenty of geocaches, just don't log them online because they don't need to see a +1 to find a geocache...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, TmdAndGG said:

I just don't get why "revisited" has to be a log type. Can't you just revisit it and not log it?

Why does everything always have to be a stat on geocaching.com*? 

 

Yep.  Possible I guess that some folks never went outdoors, or walked in the woods until this hobby. 

I'll ask if we ever see an event again.  :)

Odd (to me) some feel they need to "get paid" though to do something they should be enjoying.  

We've always considered a view, waterfall, a field fulla swallowtails,  or the company of others to be the "prize" when out.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

Sure.  I've revisited sites, both unintentionally as when I forgot to log it, and with other people.  I don't mind it.

Share this post


Link to post

I've always revisited caches -For tb movement, for helpful maintenance, or just because I am in the area.  Even before we had the limit of one find per cache, I never double logged them -- I just logged a note that I was there again and what I did.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

We have a good friend who sets up a hike associated with a multi that goes through a rugged and beautiful area along a great local river every spring daylight savings change.  It's not about the cache, which just takes us to striking locations, but about getting together with friends and enjoying ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/27/2020 at 2:26 AM, TmdAndGG said:

I just don't get why "revisited" has to be a log type. Can't you just revisit it and not log it? How is this any different? Why does everything always have to be a stat on geocaching.com*? Why am I asking so many questions? 

* But seriously, why? There are some people who have found plenty of geocaches, just don't log them online because they don't need to see a +1 to find a geocache...

 

Why does "found it" need to be a log type? Why not just go out and sign the caches? Why does that have to be a stat?

 

I want to follow my progress, that is why. I want to be able to look at the map and see what I haven't revisited, just like I did when I logged them the first time. I want the "not yet revisited" to show so I can plan my next trip.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

 

Why does "found it" need to be a log type? Why not just go out and sign the caches? Why does that have to be a stat?

 

I want to follow my progress, that is why. I want to be able to look at the map and see what I haven't revisited, just like I did when I logged them the first time. I want the "not yet revisited" to show so I can plan my next trip.

With 3+ million caches worldwide, you *have* to plan trips back to caches?  And you want the map to show all the Not Found, DNF, Found, Revisited, and Not Revisited - that getting pretty crowded on one small icon.  You are asking for a lot of work from the Groundspeak programmers (and other company programmers if you insist they be included in stats) just for something *you* want.  Use a third party program (like GSAK) to track your caches.  It can output subsets (only Found, Revisited, etc.) to plot on a map.  With GSAK you can then write a plug-in macro to insert your Revisit stats into the FSG (Find Stat Generator macro) and post it to your Profile.

 

BTW, what comes after you have revisited all your caches?  A new re-revisit log type?  And then... :wacko:

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Jester said:
1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

I want the "not yet revisited" to show so I can plan my next trip.

Use a third party program (like GSAK) to track your caches.  It can output subsets (only Found, Revisited, etc.) to plot on a map.  With GSAK you can then write a plug-in macro to insert your Revisit stats into the FSG (Find Stat Generator macro) and post it to your Profile.

 

Yup. 

1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

 

Why does "found it" need to be a log type? Why not just go out and sign the caches? Why does that have to be a stat?

Just imagine the game without online find logs. You have no clue how many you've found, much less how many anyone else has found. No challenge caches. Just a map of caches that only tell you the coordinates and the description. Not so fun, is it?;)

 

By the way, I'd like to see a list of people who want the revisited log other than you. Thanks:)

 

Edited by TmdAndGG

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TmdAndGG said:

Just imagine the game without online find logs.

You have no clue how many you've found, much less how many anyone else has found.

 

Actually I can, and have asked a few times to "remove" caches I've "signed the online log of" from the system without adding a "smiley".     

I don't know right now what my "numbers" are, and we haven't cared what "finds" others have for a while now.

 - After seeing how some came by them...    :D

We still have people that never logged online here,  some of our favorite cachers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

We still have people that never logged online here,  some of our favorite cachers.

Sure, but there would be waaaay less people playing the game without online find logs. I know we wouldn't.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, TmdAndGG said:

Sure, but there would be waaaay less people playing the game without online find logs. I know we wouldn't.

 

...And I agree.    :)

The cachers who've never logged online use GPSrs with the website, so if basic, they only miss out on pmo hides.

 - We've never found that a big deal either.     ;)

These are the same people who've left lengthy notes, drawings, poems, pressed flowers, and such in our log books

- Right then n there.    Often while having lunch.  Then they're going to the car for home.   

They just don't have the desire to recreate what their day was for others online.  For them (and us) this is a hobby, not a competition.

 

Edited by cerberus1
addification
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, The Jester said:

With 3+ million caches worldwide, you *have* to plan trips back to caches?

 

There may be 3+ million caches worldwide but they aren't very evenly distributed. Most are in north America and Europe with some pockets of higher density elsewhere. I only have a bit over 1100 finds after 7 years in the game, but just about all my caching now requires at least an hour of travel just to reach the parking waypoint so it needs some planning before I leave home. A lot of my caching time these days is revisiting, mostly my own hides but sometimes caches on my favourite list simply because they're great places to revisit. No need for a special log type or reward though as the journey and location is reward enough.

 

 

21 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

They just don't have the desire to recreate what their day was for others online.  For them (and us) this is a hobby, not a competition.

 

Online logs don't have to be competitive, for me they create a sense of community, of sharing experiences with other players. I have caches on my watchlist simply because I enjoy reading others' experience of them and seeing the photos they've posted. If they're ones I've already found it brings back memories of my own adventure, while for those still on my to-do list it provides encouragement and helps in planning what I'm likely to need. Even those T4.5s I'm unlikely to ever get to make great reading when someone heads out into the wilds.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

There may be 3+ million caches worldwide but they aren't very evenly distributed. Most are in north America and Europe with some pockets of higher density elsewhere. I only have a bit over 1100 finds after 7 years in the game, but just about all my caching now requires at least an hour of travel just to reach the parking waypoint so it needs some planning before I leave home. A lot of my caching time these days is revisiting, mostly my own hides but sometimes caches on my favourite list simply because they're great places to revisit. No need for a special log type or reward though as the journey and location is reward enough.

 

Yes, I know you are in a "semi-arid" cache zone (you never let us forget) but the OP, who I was talking to, lives in/near Sweden - which is not cache limited - and doesn't *need* to revisit caches just so they can cache.  I, too, have revisited a spot where a cache is (or was), not for the cache but because the spot is great - but that's not what this discussion is about. 

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, The Jester said:

Yes, I know you are in a "semi-arid" cache zone (you never let us forget) but the OP, who I was talking to, lives in/near Sweden - which is not cache limited - and doesn't *need* to revisit caches just so they can cache.  I, too, have revisited a spot where a cache is (or was), not for the cache but because the spot is great - but that's not what this discussion is about. 

 

The OP said as justification for their proposal:

 

Quote

Why? Because many cachers tend to give up when the entire area is covered and there aren't many new ones, and those who don't tend to waste much petrol to get to caches far away. If a revisit would count as a kind of log, you can take a second turn in your home area. I think this would be very good to keep beginners!

 

which implies caches there are a bit thin on the ground too.

Share this post


Link to post

The key words he/she used was "many cachers tend" does imply such - but they did not say they were in that situation.  Looking at their profile many of their finds are in Östergötland, Sweden, which shows 8,873 caches in the GC search.  That's plenty of caches left to find (their count is 2,529, not all in Östergötland) without revisiting any cache.  So, while there are some areas of the world that are cache poor (parts of Africa are worse then you), most cachers (and yes, the US and Europe have the highest percentage of them) aren't in "need" of a revisit log type.  As I pointed out in a post, tracking and planning revisits is best done with third party software, since there are so few that need/want (isn't the OP the only one asking at this time?) such a feature. 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, hey. We're still talking about this.

 

 

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post

So I revisited a cache today that I had found 6 years ago. Since then, it has been moved which I thought qualifies it as a new cache. When was this changed? BTW, I didn't find the cache today but I noticed on the log drop-down menu there is no longer a Found It option on previously found caches. 

Share this post


Link to post

It may have moved by cachers, it's called cache creep. Or, it may have been moved by the CO if it's hide was somehow compromised. It can be moved up to 161m from its original spot so long as it doesn't encroach on any other caches 161m radius, or physical Multi/Mystery waypoints. It does not have to be made a new cache unless the CO considers there is something that changes it from  how it was originally listed such as a significant change in D/T or cache size.

A cache can only be found once, this was changed a few years ago, when multiple logging became an abuse of this feature I believe.

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 6

×
×
  • Create New...