Groundspeak and COVID-19

[+ccx]

A little story from my neighborhood, which is currently under lock-down: A few cachers came up with the idea to allow a handful of caches for online only logging without a physical log proof to support the stay at home policies. The GS response was immediate - these caches were locked. Wrong message at the wrong time guys! 

[+G.O. Cash]

2 hours ago, ccx said:

A little story from my neighborhood, which is currently under lock-down: A few cachers came up with the idea to allow a handful of caches for online only logging without a physical log proof to support the stay at home policies. The GS response was immediate - these caches were locked. Wrong message at the wrong time guys! 

1. From looking at the first page of your profile, it appears that you have some sort of longstanding beef with Groundspeak;

2. Looking at the logs of your own caches, you have been checking the physical logbooks of your caches, and deleting online logs without matching entries;

3. Now you‘re upset that you can‘t log a physical cache without leaving your home, which btw you‘re still allowed to do: „... Sport und Bewegung an der frischen Luft sind geboten, aber nur einzeln oder im kleinsten Familienkreis des eigenen Haushalts von nicht mehr als 5 Personen erlaubt.“ engl. „Sports and exercise in fresh air are required [sic!], but only individually or in the smallest family circle of your own household of no more than 5 people.“ (from the official government website https://www.coronavirus.sachsen.de). 

4. ...Is there anything else that you‘re confused about?

[+frostengel]

2 hours ago, ccx said:

A little story from my neighborhood, which is currently under lock-down: A few cachers came up with the idea to allow a handful of caches for online only logging without a physical log proof to support the stay at home policies. The GS response was immediate - these caches were locked. Wrong message at the wrong time guys! 

 

What does this have to do with geocaching? Everyone just logs these caches online and that's it? Why?? What is the purpose (other than getting plus 1)?

 

Are you sure that these cachers do the same hobby as I do?

[+on4bam]

Good to see they locked the caches. I hope the logs were deleted too as no one deserves a +1 for writing a log from their home without physically logging the field.

 

 

[+ccx]

1 hour ago, G.O. Cash said:

1. From looking at the first page of your profile, it appears that you have some sort of longstanding beef with Groundspeak;

2. Looking at the logs of your own caches, you have been checking the physical logbooks of your caches, and deleting online logs without matching entries;

3. Now you‘re upset that you can‘t log a physical cache without leaving your home, which btw you‘re still allowed to do: „... Sport und Bewegung an der frischen Luft sind geboten, aber nur einzeln oder im kleinsten Familienkreis des eigenen Haushalts von nicht mehr als 5 Personen erlaubt.“ engl. „Sports and exercise in fresh air are required [sic!], but only individually or in the smallest family circle of your own household of no more than 5 people.“ (from the official government website https://www.coronavirus.sachsen.de). 

4. ...Is there anything else that you‘re confused about?

Thanks for explaining me the rules... Me being upset about not being able to log these caches is your own interpretation. I am certainly not and I still go out in the field, also right now. The promille difference in my own statistics is really irrelevant and I don't gain anything from that. But I disagree about the scale of reaction. There are thousands of +1 gained through "team logs", coordinate swapping, etc and nobody really cares. If GS wants to play strict, they could have removed the logs or asked the cache owners to do so. Anyway, it's my opinion and you have yours. Declaring me as confused is somewhat arrogant, btw. 

[+Touchstone]

You could always log a Note with the intention of logging a legitimate Find after signing the Log.  Hard to see how HQ would have an issue with a generic Note.

 

Since my experience informs me that HQ usually only gets wind of these things when another User complains, maybe you should invite the person/people in your area that appear to have an issue with this practice to a video chat to talk it over and find some sort of solution.  Zoom Happy Hours are becoming quite the thing in my area.

[+frostengel]

1 hour ago, ccx said:

Thanks for explaining me the rules...

 

Let's get away from the rules just for a moment. Please answer my question(s) from above:

 

3 hours ago, frostengel said:

Why?? What is the purpose (other than getting plus 1)?

 

I really want to know the answer. You have no experience at all so you can't write any useful log. You just sit in your chair and write anything. Some counter adds up one. That is all. What is the sense of it and isn't there something better to do?

 

That's the sight from the cachers logging the cache. The same question about the sense goes for the "cache" owners, of course. You get logs of cachers who haven't seen anything. Most logs will be like "Danke, dass ich hier Fund loggen darf." (it will be German logs as the caches are located in Dresden, Germany) and that's all. Why should any owner want that?

 

Can you please link one of those caches? Thank you!

 

Best wishes to Dresden from Karlsruhe

Jochen

[+on4bam]

1 hour ago, ccx said:

There are thousands of +1 gained through "team logs", coordinate swapping, etc and nobody really cares. If GS wants to play strict, they could have removed the logs or asked the cache owners to do so.

 

Yes, they should delete these fake founds, plenty of threads about that.

And you're wrong about "nobody cares" 

 

[+Max and 99]

6 hours ago, ccx said:

Wrong message at the wrong time guys! 

I think it was exactly the right message. It's  Geocaching 101: Sign the log. Which you already know.

 

 

[+Max and 99]

6 hours ago, ccx said:

A little story from my neighborhood, which is currently under lock-down: A few cachers came up with the idea to allow a handful of caches for online only logging without a physical log proof to support the stay at home policies. The GS response was immediate - these caches were locked. Wrong message at the wrong time guys! 

Edit: I don't know if your visit was a virtual one or physical, but I assume virtual because of your post. Requiring nothing but a photo of your favorite house plant is utterly ridiculous.

 

 

Edited March 28, 2020 by Max and 99

[+ccx]

1 hour ago, frostengel said:

 

Let's get away from the rules just for a moment. Please answer my question(s) from above:

 

 

I really want to know the answer. You have no experience at all so you can't write any useful log. You just sit in your chair and write anything. Some counter adds up one. That is all. What is the sense of it and isn't there something better to do?

 

That's the sight from the cachers logging the cache. The same question about the sense goes for the "cache" owners, of course. You get logs of cachers who haven't seen anything. Most logs will be like "Danke, dass ich hier Fund loggen darf." (it will be German logs as the caches are located in Dresden, Germany) and that's all. Why should any owner want that?

 

Can you please link one of those caches? Thank you!

 

Best wishes to Dresden from Karlsruhe

Jochen

 

Hi Jochen (and all),

 

in my opinion it is a nice sign which fits the current situation and it originates from cache owners in the local area, not any couch cachers. And anyone who has logged the affected caches has extensive caching records and really does not need the finds for anything. It is simply an action to support a message. Right now there are enough indications that some cachers attempt to overstretch the current legal rules just for the hobby.A bit more stay@home would be appropriate for some. What was initiated here was a very area- and time-limited story, concerning 3 caches and a handful logs. I have opened one of my caches for one day too (Malerweg I), because I support the message (not of couch logging, but of keeping our outdoor activities at a reasonable scale). This cache is out of reach due the current legal restrictions for most of those who know about the proposal (which was only posted to a local group). And, all of those know that they miss something if they log from the couch, so there is enough motivation to do the caches later on despite a couch log. This is btw also true for the two couch logs I have done, these are sufficiently interesting to be also visited in real.

 

The response from the HQ side was harsh and different to the common practice - the caches just got locked anonymously. No note from a reviewer, no attempt of contact to resolve the matter. Instead, they fired the second-biggest weapon they have without notice and further explanation. As said before, I believe this could have been addressed in a different way.

 

For touchstone's proposal to resolve this locally: Of course there are different opinions on that - some pro, some con, and they are discussed. And of course some local folks have triggered the process with HQ. But these do not leave their hides, apparently.

 

Anyway, I do not want to take this any further from here. Anyone with a deeper interest on how the story evolves will find the respective caches easily through my profile and yesterday's found logs.

 

Best wishes!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+Max and 99]

4 minutes ago, ccx said:

not any couch cachers

I disagree. I think that's exactly what label you give someone who logs a cache from home without going to the actual cache.

[+frostengel]

5 minutes ago, ccx said:

Hi Jochen (and all),

 

Hi and thank you for your answer!

 

5 minutes ago, ccx said:

 I have opened one of my caches for one day too (Malerweg I), because I support the message (not of couch logging, but of keeping our outdoor activities at a reasonable scale). This cache is out of reach due the current legal restrictions for most of those who know about the proposal (which was only posted to a local group).

 

That's a nice multi cache for sure. The last log seems to be one (and the only) of the couch logs. As it seems (from the distance) cacher Hoppedei posts a picture from any other hiking tour and tells that the other hike was a nice tour with nice caches - that has nothing to do with your cache and I still do not see any positive effect for you or for Hoppedei other than "+1".

I like your idea of

 

And, all of those know that they miss something if they log from the couch, so there is enough motivation to do the caches later on despite a couch log.

 

but I am sure that Hoppedei won't do your cache correctly later on. They are finished having the point and  I think your cache is worth more than that. And if they did - there log now wouldn't mean anything.

 

The response from the HQ side was harsh and different to the common practice - the caches just got locked anonymously. No note from a reviewer, no attempt of contact to resolve the matter. Instead, they fired the second-biggest weapon they have without notice and further explanation. As said before, I believe this could have been addressed in a different way.

I agree with you here! "Der Ton macht die Musik."

 

By the way: If someone would say that they only do this to push their statistics I would be fine with it (as long as the owners are fine with it what they are). But you do not read that kind of honesty, do you? I'd like to have a statement of Hoppedei here why they logged your cache.

 

Jochen

[+hal-an-tow]

9 minutes ago, ccx said:

 

Hi Jochen (and all),

 

in my opinion it is a nice sign which fits the current situation and it originates from cache owners in the local area, not any couch cachers.

 

Couch cachers are , however, taking the opportunity to couch cache are they not ?

11 minutes ago, ccx said:

 

And anyone who has logged the affected caches has extensive caching records and really does not need the finds for anything. It is simply an action to support a message.

So, why do those people with 'extensive caching records' not log a note ? If I saw this ridiculous behaviour from someone with 'extensive caching records' I'd seriously doubt the accuracy and honesty of those records ...

 

13 minutes ago, ccx said:

 Right now there are enough indications that some cachers attempt to overstretch the current legal rules just for the hobby.A bit more stay@home would be appropriate for some. What was initiated here was a very area- and time-limited story, concerning 3 caches and a handful logs.

 

So some cachers attempting to overstretch the rules just for the hobby means that a small geographical and time limited breaking of the rules is OK ? Really ? Is that as long as it's only in your own area ?

16 minutes ago, ccx said:

A bit more stay@home would be appropriate for some. What was initiated here was a very area- and time-limited story, concerning 3 caches and a handful logs. I have opened one of my caches for one day too (Malerweg I), because I support the message (not of couch logging, but of keeping our outdoor activities at a reasonable scale). This cache is out of reach due the current legal restrictions for most of those who know about the proposal (which was only posted to a local group). And, all of those know that they miss something if they log from the couch, so there is enough motivation to do the caches later on despite a couch log. This is btw also true for the two couch logs I have done, these are sufficiently interesting to be also visited in real.

 

Again,  you suggest that this is OK because it was posted on a local group: was that here on the forum, or one of the other social media ? Will cachers who are not privy to your 'local group' be encouraged by those 'found it' logs to think it is OK to actually visit those caches ? Despite them apparently being illegal to access by your own description.

You genuinely think cachers will go to the caches at a later date when the areas are legal to enter ? Why bother if they already 'found it', they cannot post another find on the same cache.

24 minutes ago, ccx said:

The response from the HQ side was harsh and different to the common practice - the caches just got locked anonymously. No note from a reviewer, no attempt of contact to resolve the matter. Instead, they fired the second-biggest weapon they have without notice and further explanation. As said before, I believe this could have been addressed in a different way.

 

It's not harsh to avoid cachers making foolish decisions by removing their ability to do so, and keeping it impersonal protects the volunteer reviewers from feeling they should waste their time and effort politely responding to the sort of specious arguments you are putting forward here

 

28 minutes ago, ccx said:

For touchstone's proposal to resolve this locally: Of course there are different opinions on that - some pro, some con, and they are discussed. And of course some local folks have triggered the process with HQ. But these do not leave their hides, apparently.

Anyway, I do not want to take this any further from here. Anyone with a deeper interest on how the story evolves will find the respective caches easily through my profile and yesterday's found logs.

 

.Opinions really don't matter here, the simple straightforward universal rule of (non-virtual) caching says, visit the cache, sign the log, log the find online.

You say, no need to visit, no need to sign, just log online.

Groundspeak ( backed up by every contributor outside your group on here) says that is wrong. No need to look deeper, read logs or anything.

It is wrong.

There was nothing to stop you posting  honest notes on the cache pages, nothing apart from wanting the +1 smiley makes a note a less desirable log type.

[+ccx]

4 minutes ago, frostengel said:

but I am sure that Hoppedei won't do your cache correctly later on. They are finished having the point and  I think your cache is worth more than that. And if they did - there log now wouldn't mean anything

 

This would remain to be verified. And of course I do not know. And he was the only one, because HQ was aware and has been watching the cache. I would assume that there was one or two more attempts.

 

6 minutes ago, frostengel said:

By the way: If someone would say that they only do this to push their statistics I would be fine with it (as long as the owners are fine with it what they are). But you do not read that kind of honesty, do you? I'd like to have a statement of Hoppedei here why they logged your cache.

 

This is something you would have to ask Hoppedei himself. I am not really fine with people pushing heir statistics and also on this cache you would find some series logs of type "we have been to the area and collected some caches". Do I like it? No, but also here the rule says that the on-site log proves the visit. Of course - as G.O. Cash found out, I verify the log books of my caches from time to time. But I also apply "Augenmaß". So I communicate with everyone I delete (and the majority did it by accident) and I also have allowed a few people to log my Malerweg caches without a physical log. Sometimes a cache gets muggled and on other occasions people just do not find it for whatever reason. After walking between 25 and 35 km for it, they either never come there again, because they move on on their long distance walk, or they would have to travel significant distances to return to the final again. Putting a physical log as the top rule in such conditions becomes inappropriate. I am ok with a proof that they have done the tour (which is usually the information on the intermediate stages and calculated final coordinates). And I think, that is the main point: The logs of those people are ok for ME as the owner of the cache. Whoever logs from the couch or with swapped coordinates of course cheats his own statistics (and there is more than enough of that happening every day beyond the very specific case discussed here), but he does not even cheat GS in any way.

 

Best regards

 

Andreas

 

[+Max and 99]

2 minutes ago, ccx said:

Putting a physical log as the top rule in such conditions becomes inappropriate

In my opinion, it's time to find another hobby if you feel this way. It's the basis of geocaching!

[+Max and 99]

9 minutes ago, ccx said:

Sometimes a cache gets muggled and on other occasions people just do not find it for whatever reason. After walking between 25 and 35 km for it, they either never come there again, because they move on on their long distance walk, or they would have to travel significant distances to return to the final again

That's what the DNF log is for. 

[+ecanderson]

@ccx

As a procedural matter related to GC5JZJH, I note that this cache is "Locked".  You say 'you' opened it for a day.  Can you explain the mechanism by it was locked, and apparently unlocked for one day, and relocked again?

 

[+ccx]

Just now, ecanderson said:

@ccx

As a procedural matter related to GC5JZJH, I note that this cache is "Locked".  You say 'you' opened it for a day.  Can you explain the mechanism by it was locked, and apparently unlocked for one day, and relocked again?

 

No, this is a misunderstanding here. As seen from the discussion above I offered to some people to log the cache today. I have no control over locking or unlocking of course. This is on GS side.

[+Max and 99]

1 minute ago, ecanderson said:

@ccx

As a procedural matter related to GC5JZJH, I note that this cache is "Locked".  You say 'you' opened it for a day.  Can you explain the mechanism by it was locked, and apparently unlocked for one day, and relocked again?

 

My understanding, which could likely be wrong, is that the cache was available for online logging for one day only by the CO, as part of the community message.  It was locked by HQ after that. 

[+hal-an-tow]

11 minutes ago, ccx said:

 

 I also have allowed a few people to log my Malerweg caches without a physical log. Sometimes a cache gets muggled and on other occasions people just do not find it for whatever reason. After walking between 25 and 35 km for it, they either never come there again, because they move on on their long distance walk, or they would have to travel significant distances to return to the final again. Putting a physical log as the top rule in such conditions becomes inappropriate. I am ok with a proof that they have done the tour (which is usually the information on the intermediate stages and calculated final coordinates). And I think, that is the main point: The logs of those people are ok for ME as the owner of the cache. Whoever logs from the couch or with swapped coordinates of course cheats his own statistics (and there is more than enough of that happening every day beyond the very specific case discussed here), but he does not even cheat GS in any way.

 

The log type  is called 'found it', because it is a record stating that the cacher ... found the cache in question.

 

It's not an award for effort, or recompense for being in the right place at the wrong time ... it's that the cacher found the cache and signed the log.

However long the walk is, it's immaterial. If any cacher doesn't find the cache and sign the log, it's a DNF . 

 

I've had COs offer me 'finds' on caches I DNFd on walks, and it always strikes me as a bizarre and rather childish response to failure, why pretend it didn't happen ? Nothing is lost (except the +1) , just shrug and move on, learn from it , if you feel truly diminished n the eyes of others by posting a DNF, , just don't even bother posting one, then no one will know ....

 

[+ecanderson]

@ccx

Thanks for the clarification.

@Max and 99

I would think it was the 'local' reviewer, not HQ.  It's hard enough for 'local' (often 'not local') reviewers to keep up with the fluid rules situations, much less HQ.

[+Max and 99]

7 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

@ccx

Thanks for the clarification.

@Max and 99

I would think it was the 'local' reviewer, not HQ.  It's hard enough for 'local' (often 'not local') reviewers to keep up with the fluid rules situations, much less HQ.

Point taken. I use HQ in my line of work,  and it was used as a general authority reference in my post. I'll pay closer attention to that in the future. Good point! 

[+dprovan]

Nice try. It was an interesting idea, but I agree with GS that it was misguided, so I'm happy they shut it down. I can see why you're upset about them not posting an explanation, but your description makes it clear the caches were published under false pretenses, however noble the intention, and GS usually doesn't react kindly to that.

 

Try something else, and maybe talk it over with GS or come on the forums to discuss it before you decide unilaterally that it justifies pretending to be geocaching when you're actually doing something else. I haven't looked at the recent "virtual event" thread, but I'm guessing that's someone thinking along the same lines, so you might want to check it out.

[+cerberus1]

Nice to see someone seemed to have enough sportsmanship to report this silly group cheating.

 - And after "virtual finds" was mentioned in logs by HQ on all events since this virus thing too.

Sheesh.     This is why numbers mean nothing to us, seeing/hearing how some come by them...

We're currently in a "stay in place" , "restricted" area,  yet we are allowed to get sun, exercise, and fresh air, as long as we're mature-enough to stick with "social distancing".   14 new caches came out sorta near me today too.

Friends of ours that can't go out at all  know that they have new caches to go after when all's okay.   They'll wait...  

[+frostengel]

54 minutes ago, ccx said:

I also have allowed a few people to log my Malerweg caches without a physical log. Sometimes a cache gets muggled and on other occasions people just do not find it for whatever reason. After walking between 25 and 35 km for it

 

Hello Andreas,

 

I totally agree with you on this one. And -- that's against the rules but I am going to say it anyway -- if the actual situation allowed the cachers to do the full hike but the final was in a restricted area I would completely agree with you letting them log the find by sending you the answers and final coordinates (of course that must be only a temporary solution). For me -- not for the rules and most cachers here -- that is similar to one stage not being accessible when the owner is fully allowed to give that missing number in the listing.

 

But without the hike and the final, without everything that is no log for me - never! And I would be ashamed to write logs like this but -- and that's against any rule -- I have given and got "Logerlaubnis" (logging allowence) when the final was missing, too.

 

But whatever happened, most important part for Hoppedei, you, the other posters here and me: STAY HEALTHY!

 

Best wishes to Dresden - I have to visit your city some day

Jochen

[+baer2006]

I utterly fail to see how the intent of the idea was anything else than boosting find counts in a time, when getting legitimate cache finds is difficult or impossible (depending on your local COVID-19 restrictions). Anyway, I wanted to comment on this one...

2 hours ago, ccx said:

The response from the HQ side was harsh and different to the common practice - the caches just got locked anonymously. No note from a reviewer, no attempt of contact to resolve the matter. Instead, they fired the second-biggest weapon they have without notice and further explanation. As said before, I believe this could have been addressed in a different way.

This seems to be standard operating procedure. I've seen it a few times, including once on one of my own caches. Several years ago, some *$%!&! thought it's a good idea to take a blank logbook to a Mega Event, write the GC code of one of my 5/5 hides on top of it, and hand it out to event visitors to "log an easy 5/5". Before I fully realized what had happened, I had four or five of those bogus logs online in my listing, and the listing itself had been locked without any reviewer note. The incident was on a Friday, and it took me a whole weekend and lots of mails with reviewers and GS to sort it all out. So the point is: If a reviewer sees something really fishy going on in a cache listing, they lock it first, and discuss afterwards.

[+colleda]

Am I missing something? Are people so addicted to this game that, when confined to barracks and can't get out for a while, they feel HAVE to log a cache they can't get to and haven't found? Give me a break. There must be other things they can do to relieve their boredom. It's still couch logging and if a CO is promoting that then, yes, lock their account.

 

 

[+ecanderson]

Here we are allowed outdoor recreation, but must keep minimum distance from others while out and about.  As an example, we treated the dog to an on-leash trip to the park today.  All of the playground equipment is off limits and taped off, but a walk on the grass through the trees is still accepted.  Likewise, non-urban geocaching qualifies as an acceptable form out outdoor exercise.

 

Different conditions prevail.

 

[+Goldenwattle]

Weird claiming a find when you haven't found it. If someone does that to one of my caches, I would delete them as I do to all armchair loggers.

Where I live we are not in lock-down at present, although state borders are closed. As it's not a lock-down, I have driven short distances (under 10 kms) and gone out and found some caches where I am unlikely to meet other people. When and if lock-down comes, it is my understanding that people will be allowed out once a day for some exercise, but from the home, not with a car drive. I have been preserving about a dozen caches in walking and cycling distance for this and can get my once a day exercise by walking or cycling to a cache (and distancing myself from other people on the way) and then straight home again. I would not consider armchair logging; as that isn't this game.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Geocaching has been my hobby for the last fifteen years.  When I retired, I started a streak.  I'm at 628 days!  It's  gotten tougher recently.  I don't want to head east into higher Corona areas.  The president is threatening to put us into quarantine.  Four caches (that I've been saving) within walking distance.  If we go into quarantine, my streak is over.  Find a cache.  Sign the log.  Log on-line.  That's the definition of the game.  Wish me luck.

[+colleda]

4 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Weird claiming a find when you haven't found it. If someone does that to one of my caches, I would delete them as I do to all armchair loggers.

Where I live we are not in lock-down at present, although state borders are closed. As it's not a lock-down, I have driven short distances (under 10 kms) and gone out and found some caches where I am unlikely to meet other people. When and if lock-down comes, it is my understanding that people will be allowed out once a day for some exercise, but from the home, not with a car drive. I have been preserving about a dozen caches in walking and cycling distance for this and can get my once a day exercise by walking or cycling to a cache (and distancing myself from other people on the way) and then straight home again. I would not consider armchair logging; as that isn't this game.

Same here but who knows what ScoMo or the Premier will come up with next week. I'm guessing a lock down could well be on the cards.

In the meantime I go windsurfing for my physical workouts. My club has ceased it weekly Saturday racing and the clubhouse is closed but we can still sail individually. Not hard to maintain distance from other sailors when there's only half a dozen of us on a lake almost three times the size of Sydney harbour.

[+colleda]

2 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Geocaching has been my hobby for the last fifteen years.  When I retired, I started a streak.  I'm at 628 days!  It's  gotten tougher recently.  I don't want to head east into higher Corona areas.  The president is threatening to put us into quarantine.  Four caches (that I've been saving) within walking distance.  If we go into quarantine, my streak is over.  Find a cache.  Sign the log.  Log on-line.  That's the definition of the game.  Wish me luck.

Good luck. Not wishing to be a harbinger of doom outsider looking in but lock downs(quarantine) appear to be inevitable.

[+Viajero Perdido]

35 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

If we go into quarantine, my streak is over.

 

Since streaks are self-imposed, why can't we just agree that streaks can be suspended, you know, for circumstances?

[+G.O. Cash]

6 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

 

Since streaks are self-imposed, why can't we just agree that streaks can be suspended, you know, for circumstances?

Here we go again... anyway, looks like Harry‘s streak doesn‘t have to end just yet: 

„Trump Decides Against Quarantine for New York, New Jersey, Connecticut“ (WSJ head line)

[+JL_HSTRE]

If you really feel the need that badly for armchair logs and virtual events because you can't attend physical ones maybe you have an unacknowledged addiction that you should seek help for once the quarantine is over?

 

If you've got a streak going and need to armchair log finds to keep it going while quarantined you need to get your priorities in order.

 

Besides you should have done what most streak chasers do: store up a supply of unlogged finds you can log on days were you can't find any caches. That's the way I usually see long streaks kept alive.

Edited March 29, 2020 by JL_HSTRE

[+frostengel]

Are we talking about ending a geocaching streak while a virus is ending life of many people everyday?

 

Don't get me wrong: I want to get out of the house every day (I would get sick in here if not). And I want to find some caches as soon as it is possible again. I am pausing at the moment after a -- tested Corona-free -- light flu. If it takes some more weeks until it is safe (not only for me, but for others, too!) to go out searching for caches that's fine. We are just walking at the moment and as soon as the body has fully recovered we want to start running again (we paused that, too, for obvious reasons).

 

But I think anyone's geocaching streak is the least I care about. Sorry to say, but I am happy for you if this is really your biggest concern right now.

 

Stay healthy!

Jochen

 

 

[+G.O. Cash]

17 minutes ago, frostengel said:

Are we talking about ending a geocaching streak while a virus is ending life of many people everyday?

 

Yes we are, and you are too. Now cut out the self-righteousness, deflate, and go outside for a walk. The antibiotic and healing effects of being in fresh air are well documented and may help you recover from the flu more quickly. All the best!

[+Mausebiber]

In Germany:

For comparison: around 3,500 people die each year in road traffic accidents - while around 8,000 people lose their lives in the household every year. According to the Robert Koch Institute, 2.8 million Germans suffer an accident in the household every year.

 

It is much safer to go for a walk into the woods than staying at home.  All you have to do is keep a short distance between you and other people, which is really easy to accomplish.

[+baer2006]

2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Besides you should have done what most streak chasers do: store up a supply of unlogged finds you can log on days were you can't find any caches. That's the way I usually see long streaks kept alive.

That's called "cheating" and not "streaking".

 

Logging a find each day is not such a big accomplishment at all, finding one each day is. The former is comparatively easy even in these times now (either with a backlog of unlogged finds, or by deleting your finds on a powertrail and re-logging them one cache a day), but the latter quickly becomes impossible. I only shake my head about cachers who log a cache each day, but brag about having a streak of daily finds. And yes, it's usually trivial to find out which type a "streaker" is.

 

That said, I can somewhat understand that a "true" streaker (finding, not only logging) is unhappy about the looming end of the streak, even if it's objectively a rather trivial "problem" now. It's just human psychology, and luckily we're all still humans and not purely rational robots.

[+Touchstone]

51 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

In Germany:

For comparison: around 3,500 people die each year in road traffic accidents - while around 8,000 people lose their lives in the household every year. According to the Robert Koch Institute, 2.8 million Germans suffer an accident in the household every year.

A rather false comparison IMO.  The main difference being that not all those people are seeking medical attention of one sort or another in the space of a week or two, and the rest of the year is idle.  The compressed nature of this pandemic is the real issue, not that it's any worse than any other accident or malady that afflicts us.

[+Mausebiber]

Just now, Touchstone said:

The main difference being that not all those people are seeking medical attention of one sort or another in the space of a week or two

 

I compared danger at home to danger while going for a walk and again, going for a walk is less dangerous than staying at home.  I did not make any comparison to Corona or any other pandemic.

 

Now I do:

The problem with this pandemic is, that so many people get infected.  Staying at home is not a problem as far as infection is concerned, but the danger of getting hurt is increasing. 

But we all cannot stay at home for a longer time, we have to go shopping, we have to buy goods, we have to go outside.  I think, getting infected in a supermarket with many people around is much higher than getting infected while going for a walk.  Again, keep a distance to others and you will be good.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2020 by Mausebiber

[+frostengel]

2 hours ago, G.O. Cash said:

and go outside for a walk. The antibiotic and healing effects of being in fresh air are well documented and may help you recover from the flu more quickly. All the best!

 

1 hour ago, Mausebiber said:

It is much safer to go for a walk into the woods than staying at home.

 

That is exactly what we did and though in normal times I might find that boring (we are "just walking" for 14 days now) at the moment that is perfectly fine with me. :-)

 

I have to say that about 3 weeks ago I wouldn't even have thought about changing my life at all in a situation like that. But it is impressive if you feel "it" coming closer any day:

 

Day 1: training was cancelled at the university sports -> why do they do that? I didn't understand it and didn't like that they changed my life here.

Day 2: training was cancelled in two other locations -> let's do jogging and biking instead. I didn't want to understand it.

Day 3: great caching day with a nice bycicle tour. Everything is perfect!

Day 4: We might have been in contact with an infected person. Symptoms starting. Perhaps ...? No, everything is fine, it is just a cold.

Day 5: The person was tested positive. That's when I started thinking. :-)

 

A week later we've been tested negative (and we are in no risk group so ....) but my thinking about the whole thing has drastically changed. Since then I take the whole sh*t more serious, sometimes too serious - I am sorry for that.

 

I wish you all the best!

Jochen

 

PS: Want to go caching - search - open logbook - write name.... Of course, the desire is there. It's a great hobby and it will be! :-)

[+hal-an-tow]

10 minutes ago, frostengel said:

 

 

That is exactly what we did and though in normal times I might find that boring (we are "just walking" for 14 days now) at the moment that is perfectly fine with me. :-)

 

I have to say that about 3 weeks ago I wouldn't even have thought about changing my life at all in a situation like that. But it is impressive if you feel "it" coming closer any day:

 

Day 1: training was cancelled at the university sports -> why do they do that? I didn't understand it and didn't like that they changed my life here.

Day 2: training was cancelled in two other locations -> let's do jogging and biking instead. I didn't want to understand it.

Day 3: great caching day with a nice bycicle tour. Everything is perfect!

Day 4: We might have been in contact with an infected person. Symptoms starting. Perhaps ...? No, everything is fine, it is just a cold.

Day 5: The person was tested positive. That's when I started thinking. :-)

 

A week later we've been tested negative (and we are in no risk group so ....) but my thinking about the whole thing has drastically changed. Since then I take the whole sh*t more serious, sometimes too serious - I am sorry for that.

 

I wish you all the best!

Jochen

 

PS: Want to go caching - search - open logbook - write name.... Of course, the desire is there. It's a great hobby and it will be! :-)

 

An interesting time line, thanks for sharing it.

Mine went like this :

Returned home on March 12th after a brief break  at a rural coastal location, during which time I stayed in a Youth Hostel , which was hosting two school groups from different parts of the country, as well as the usual bunch of independent travelers from all over the place . I cached (mostly ECs and  virtuals plus maybe a dozen physical caches) and held an event (half a dozen attendees) in the course of the stay.

 

Getting home to find the situation with the virus was getting more serious (but little action as yet from the English government : pubs still open, schools still open, everyone still at work ) and knowing that whilst I'm generally healthy and under 65, many of my friends and neighbours are in vulnerable categories, I immediately self isolated for a cautious 14 days , doing by my own choice exactly what the government mandated a week later.

 

During those 14 days I went out recreationally only for a couple of solo walks a week, staying well away from popular places,  including one suburban caching walk (timed to get home as the school day finished) plus I walked to some of my seldom found rural caches and  pro-actively maintained them. 

Made one shopping trip by car to buy pet food and necessities for me, and another to pick up some things up on behalf of a vulnerable neighbour.

 

I have had no symptoms, but as our government have not been any good at getting testing underway ( the tests are  'going to be here in days' , and they have been 'going to be here in days' for the last 2 weeks ...) I have no idea if I have never acquired the virus, if I have acquired the virus and my immune system has beaten it without any fuss, or if I have acquired the virus , am asymptomatic, and likely to pass it on to anyone whose path I may cross. Which is hugely annoying, as if I could be confident I had the antibodies and (probable) immunity I could be a lot more useful to the community.

 

So, I need to continue the same routine, it's easier now everyone has to do it, and I'm not seen as a doom mongering pessimist !

 

There's a range of reactions to this awful pandemic, everyone finds their own place on the line,  which ranges from

'Meh, it's like 'flu , I'm not in a risk category, so I don't care'  *.....................................to .......................................................................'AAArgh ! The sky is falling !

 

I reckon 75% along the line towards, but not at, the  right hand end of the line is about right in Europe at the moment. Elsewhere in the world, and in the future, things may well be different. Accurate information about transmission and how to prevent it are key to staying calm and thinking positively. Back when HIV/AIDS virus was the pandemic we were urgently dealing with, the UK government put out adverts which said 'Don't die of ignorance' , that applies just as much today .

 

* anyone who thinks this is in line for a well deserved Darwin Award

[+NYPaddleCacher]

On 3/28/2020 at 10:19 AM, ccx said:

There are thousands of +1 gained through "team logs", coordinate swapping, etc and nobody really cares.

 

Many geocachers actually do care.   They care because these sorts of practice promote the idea that there is a lack of integrity among players, and not caring is essentially condoning dishonesty.   Personally,  if I am going to play a game, I'd prefer that it didn't have a reputation of being played by people that are dishonest.  Claiming a find on a cache when you didn't even go to the location where it was hidden is dishonest.

[+ccx]

Hi everyone, some update on the matter. After the initial harsh reaction, which I still consider as too much for the case and which did provoke me to the also overly harsh reaction to put the initial post: HQ eventually approached me and the others in the way, that I would have expected from the very beginning and that would have cleared the case quickly without any lock-up actions.

 

It was good to see, that - beyond proposals to just expel me from the hobby for my opinions - quite a few people engaged in a constructive discussion, namely frostengel here in the thread and G.O. Cash behind the scenes. Thanks for that!

 

And, I am quite happy to see that people actually keep caring about the honest approach to caching, beyond the comparatively easily observable and sactionable logs that are not physically present in the book. When someone just did hold the rope on a climbing T5 or did log a D5 mystery with swapped coordinates or because someone else in the caching party did do all the work solving the puzzle, they cheat not only their own statistics, but in particular the owners of the respective caches. This is playing the game against the owners , who are the foundation of the game. Of course it is harder to prove, and the "being in the book" moreover will override it anyway. This aspect of it for me personally continues to weight heavier than the physical log itself. And in a way it also led to my misconception, that the book rule might be by-passable in a special circumstance and in consent with the respective cache owners. I have learned that it is not and accept that. I hope and trust that those, who have been very insisting on the physical log as the core of all rules, treat the other kind of cheats with the same amount of fundamental strictness.

 

Stay healthy everyone!

 

Andreas

[+niraD]

36 minutes ago, ccx said:

When someone just did hold the rope on a climbing T5

What the belayer does is at least as important as what the climber does. It isn't just "holding the rope" as you refer to it. Anyone can attempt a technical climb with very little training, but to belay for a technical climb, you need to know what you're doing.

[+cerberus1]

7 minutes ago, ccx said:

When someone just did hold the rope on a climbing T5 or did log a D5 mystery with swapped coordinates or because someone else in the caching party did do all the work solving the puzzle, they cheat not only their own statistics, but in particular the owners of the respective caches.

 

 I hope and trust that those, who have been very insisting on the physical log as the core of all rules, treat the other kind of cheats with the same amount of fundamental strictness.

 

When I do a rope climb, usually I have someone with me.   We're a team.

On high vertical climbs I may depend on that belayer for my safety, whether they can climb themselves or not.

I used to team-up with a genius who's in a wheelchair.  He can't climb, and I'm dyslexic.    

When he solved  mysteries,  I'd access the hide, bring it to him and go back up.   We were a team, and both get that find.

On every cache, the CO was fine with that.   

We've even seen fun photos of Groundspeak's Lackeys caching in a group. Who knows if everyone "solved the puzzle".    

That's  not "cheating"...   

[+ccx]

11 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

When I do a rope climb, usually I have someone with me.   We're a team.

On high vertical climbs I may depend on that belayer for my safety, whether they can climb themselves or not.

I used to team-up with a genius who's in a wheelchair.  He can't climb, and I'm dyslexic.    

When he solved  mysteries,  I'd access the hide, bring it to him and go back up.   We were a team, and both get that find.

On every cache, the CO was fine with that.   

We've even seen fun photos of Groundspeak's Lackeys caching in a group. Who knows if everyone "solved the puzzle".    

That's  not "cheating"...   

 

I was trying to make a point throughout all my communications here that being reasonable and interacting with each other is a key point. What is acceptable for an owner would be generally acceptable for the game. That is my point of view. And, it should be dependent on the circumstances. You have a set of very good reasons! I have no issues with that. But I have also been attacked quite a bit here for what I was thought is a good reason to not be rock-hard on the "be in the book". And someone who goes as far to say, that I do not deserve to be part of the game for this, should play all rules with the same strictness and not just the ones which fit his own style of playing the game. This is what I tried to express and of course a simplified and exaggerated statement has its weak points too.

 

I for myself take the D* / T* thing quite serious for myself. When I am not fit for the cache, I do not go for it - in D as well as in T. Others are more relaxed on that. But, if an owner is ok with it for whatever good reasons, it is fine and his decision. Just to explain a bit more why I stressed this: My first own cache was a D4 mystery. The final coordinates leaked due to the geochecker being hacked - luckily I had shifted the location a bit just before. After some years of trouble-free existence, suddenly the geochecker started to report exactly the same coordinates in the vast majority of the checks (for a coordinate projection over a few kilometers!). As the cache did not get found very often, it was not too difficult to trace back to some people in the community. And - surprise surprise - They were quite strict about being in the book and have achieved their T5s personally. But at the same time logging mysteries from swapped coordinates was perfectly ok for them. I felt cheated, apparently, and because it was a mass-phenomenon, I archived the cache. Finding mysteries is about solving the riddle. This is what I meant by playing against each other. I am quite relaxed as long as there is consensus among the participants of a particular case (and for the initial story here there was no consensus from the GS side, so I accept that too) - it is a game we play together and not a competition. But I am also sensible when someone takes and projects to others with rigor the part of the rules that match his own playing style and stretches the others. If being strict, it should be being strict on everything. Btw, I did not accuse anyone of the critics of not doing so, I just did express this expectation.

[+hal-an-tow]

53 minutes ago, ccx said:

 

I was trying to make a point throughout all my communications here that being reasonable and interacting with each other is a key point. What is acceptable for an owner would be generally acceptable for the game. That is my point of view.

 

Point of view means nothing , the fundamental rule is

On 3/28/2020 at 7:14 PM, hal-an-tow said:

The log type  is called 'found it', because it is a record stating that the cacher ... found the cache in question.

 

It's not an award for effort, or recompense for being in the right place at the wrong time ... it's that the cacher found the cache and signed the log.

 

Yes, as cache owners we control the caches we set and own.

I've said it before (many times) Groundspeak simply runs the database of Groundspeak caches. , they don't own the caches .

 

However, in order to have a cache listed on Groundspeak's servers, we are obliged to follow their rules.  We don't have to list caches here if we don't want to play by the Groundspeak rules.  Groundspeak rules say a find is made by signing the log .

 

The rules  also give everyone who sees the cache listing an equal chance of finding the cache : for instance, you cannot set a puzzle which require contacting the CO, or adding some ALR (additional logging requirement) such as having to log a specific TB  . A fair game has to treat every cacher fairly, not just our friends.

 

A local agreement between a few cache owners to allow their friends to log finds on caches they have never visited is not only against the 'find the cache, sign the log' rule, it discriminates against every cacher who is not in on the scheme. No wonder someone from the local caching community complained .

 

If you want to play a private game with your own rules which don't coincide with the Groundspeak rules , then come here to complain about it,  you  really shouldn't be surprised to be criticized.