Group Caching: Where do we draw the line in the sand?

[fendmar]

2 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

 

This was from an old Geocaching blog (https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2014/07/7-steps-to-sprinkle-extra-awesome-on-the-7-souvenirs-of-august/)

 

 

You can make a case about the four spectators, but haven't the nine 'assistants' earned their smiley?

See the one up there on top find the rest assist stat unless they actually did the climbing up there part too. I would have used a ladder or just climbed the pole.

[+Goldenwattle]

15 minutes ago, fendmar said:

people that sit at home in front of the live-stream and assisted can get something, too.

I have never heard of anyone doing that before it was mentioned here. I actually doubt it happens enough to worry about. How many people actually know anyone who does this? I am tired of hearing all about something I suspect hardly exists, if at all.

[+RocTheCacheBox]

13 hours ago, fendmar said:

There's a phrase I have seen used in the media these days that comes to mind...

 

stolen valor.

Just, wow! 

There's a phrase I use once in a while.

"I can explain it to you. But I cant make you understand it."

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by RocTheCacheBox

[fendmar]

It apparently existed enough that GS felt the need to reiterate their thoughts on the subject at least as far as events was concerned.

[+Goldenwattle]

Just now, fendmar said:

It apparently existed enough that GS felt the need to reiterate their thoughts on the subject at least as far as events was concerned.

What about caches. You don't need to answer, as you have not answered any of my questions yet.

[+niraD]

9 minutes ago, fendmar said:

It could be setup like an event, since most of this requires planning and forethought anyway.

"Hey, fendmar, a few of us are going geocaching tomorrow. Wanna come?"

"Sure, let's set up an event so only the 'actual finder' gets credit for the Find, and the rest can log Attended."

"Um, events require 2 weeks in advance, and have to be open to everyone. Besides, that's too much planning and forethought. Anyway, never mind. Have fun doing whatever you do. The rest of us are just going geocaching tomorrow."

[+cerberus1]

Just now, Goldenwattle said:

I have never heard of anyone doing that before it was mentioned here. I actually doubt it happens enough to worry about.

How many people actually know anyone who does this? I am tired of hearing all about something I suspect hardly exists, if at all.

 

Exactly.  It's the rare time we hear about it, then a couple create an idea that it happens all the time.

Everyone but them is a cheater, and most COs are lousy at maintenance.   That's simply not true.  Everyone just isn't as anal as them.

I had a few of these people on ignore at one time, then the emails received made me realize maybe it's good to keep track of what they're up to.  

[fendmar]

8 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

What about caches. You don't need to answer, as you have not answered any of my questions yet.

I don't know which questions you keep persisting about. It seems pretty clear that horseshoes and hand grenades is not enough. If you don't personally climb the tree then you may as well be sitting at home in front of the live-stream.

Edited May 8, 2020 by fendmar

[+ecanderson]

22 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

 

This was from an old Geocaching blog (https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2014/07/7-steps-to-sprinkle-extra-awesome-on-the-7-souvenirs-of-august/)

 

 

You can make a case about the four spectators, but haven't the nine 'assistants' earned their smiley?

 

If effort and sacrifice is the measure, I'd say the 'finder' at the top of the pile earned this one less than that pained pile of assistants below!

 

[fendmar]

1 minute ago, ecanderson said:

 

If effort and sacrifice is the measure, I'd say the 'finder' at the top of the pile earned this one less than that pained pile of assistants below!

 

Hey! Can I change my answer?

[+niraD]

Quote

If you don't personally climb the tree then fendmar thinks you may as well be sitting at home in front of the live-stream.

 

Fixed it for you.

[+RocTheCacheBox]

I put parking coordinates on my cache.

But I've watched as people have the audacity to park somewhere else and claim my cache. 

I think I should start deleting their finds. 

 

 

 

 

[fendmar]

11 minutes ago, niraD said:

 

Fixed it for you.

Yeah, I'm the only one. 

[+hzoi]

Holy schikes.  This one blew up.

 

For our finds, I typically take the mystery out of the question here by not going caching in groups.  That way, if'n I logged it, it's because I found it and signed the log, or performed whatever act the non-physical cache required me to take to log a find. 

 

For others' finds, I don't honestly care enough to audit others.  I used to.  It got tiresome.  I stopped.  The puritan hat, pictured below, is now in retirement.

 

 

(Photoshop credit goes to, if I recall correctly, @knowschad, though I can't find the original post.)

 

I'll close with this statement.  Integrity is often defined as doing the right thing, even when no one else is watching.  Find counts in geocaching, and in the cases here, even signatures in the logbook, are based on integrity.  If one feels the need to justify "earning" a find using facts that are any different from them finding the container and signing the log, or performing whatever act the non-physical cache required them to take to log a find, then I'd question whether the find is actually "earned" or not.  But at the end of the day, that's between you and your sense of integrity.  (And the cache owner's, I suppose, if they ever found out.)

Edited May 8, 2020 by hzoi

[+L0ne.R]

23 hours ago, niraD said:

A group-of-the-day name is signed in place of everyone signing individually as a courtesy to the CO, to avoid filling the log with everyone's names.

 

Yet when there's a large logbook in the cache, with plenty of room for hundreds of people to log in, still the group-of-the-day name goes in. 

 

For the last decade people log only a trailname and date. It takes up little space. 10 signatures can easily go on one side of a pocket-size notebook page. 30-40 signatures easily if the date goes on the top of the page and everyone writes their trailname only below. In most locations, a pocket-size notepad logbook lasts 3 years easily. Mine do.  

 

It's really about saving time, by not passing the logbook around. And also saving time in order to get on to the next cache. And because the logbook can't be passed around because not all of the group is present and won't be. 

 

I once asked in the forums about owners being allowed to ask for all signatures rather than a group-of-the-day name. I was tarred and feathered. In my area a CO did request it. His ammo can large logbook got completely filled by a visit from the "group"*. One person found the cache, wrote in large letters filling each page, wrote one member's trailname per page, filmed it and posted it on youtube. Ha, ha, so hilarious. I got the message, COs should not clash with groups. Also showed that when some groups cache *only one person actually finds the cache. 

Edited May 8, 2020 by L0ne.R

[+CAVinoGal]

2 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

2 hours ago, coachstahly said:

The following posters have all weighed in with their thoughts about group caching and have come down on the same side as GSHQ has, that it's permitted and the find is allowed -  niraD, CAVinoGal, MNTA, Clancy's Crew, GW,  Bruce, JL, RocTheCacheBox, IceColdUK, and STNolan -

 

I've not had too many caching opportunities so far this year, and to be honest, not a huge haul from the last twelve months - 315 finds.  Of those, a rough count shows that maybe 70 were done solo - a bit over 20%.  The rest were done as a team - some just with my wife, some with a few friends.  Am I teaming up to boost my find count?  Or to get 'easy' finds on high D/T caches?  Or because I prefer the sociable aspects of caching with friends?

but I bet if you ask them, they will agree that not all group caching is equal and that what L0ne.R and you are saying has some elements of truth, but not to the extent the two of you appear to believe it exists.

Maybe this does vary by area, but in my experience, the main reason people get together to cache, is that (i) they like getting together and (ii) they like caching.

 

This^^^, a thousand times over.  In the last 12 months, I've found a grand total of 275 caches, roughly 25 of those were solo.  I cache with others because I prefer not to be alone, and we share the enjoyment of a common hobby.  

 

I concur with coachstahly's comment  - <list of cacher's mentioned above, of which I am one> "but I bet if you ask them, they will agree that not all group caching is equal and that what L0ne.R and you are saying has some elements of truth, but not to the extent the two of you appear to believe it exists.

 

Some group caching does occur as presented, maybe more in some areas than others.  I have seen that type of group caching - but that's not the type of group caching I participate in.  And it's far from the  "norm".  I'm perfectly content to claim finds when hubby reaches the cache that my arms won't reach, and to "allow" him to log the find on that word puzzle that I solved and we found together.

[+IceColdUK]

36 minutes ago, fendmar said:

See the one up there on top find the rest assist stat unless they actually did the climbing up there part too. I would have used a ladder or just climbed the pole.

 

How about this one?

 

 

They could have switched places, but is that really necessary for them both to claim the find?

 

And going back to an earlier question, would it make a difference if the one on top was a child who couldn't support the adult's weight?

[+niraD]

13 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Yet when there's a large logbook in the cache, with plenty of room for hundreds of people to log in, still the group-of-the-day name goes in.

I'm sure it happens, but that hasn't been my experience. When we've come to a cache with an actual logbook with plenty of space, someone writes the date and then we pass around the logbook for everyone to sign. Or sometimes, one person will sign for everyone. Or sometimes some people will sign for themselves and for the person standing next to them before passing the logbook around. Whatever. But the team name is reserved for the small log sheets that would fill up quickly.

 

13 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

It's really about saving time, by not passing the logbook around. And also saving time in order to get on to the next cache. And because the logbook can't be passed around because not all of the group is present and won't be.

In some cases, maybe. We've usually spent more time standing around talking than it would have taken us to pass around the log for everyone to sign though. And I've already criticized the abuse of team names to enable divide-and-conquer armchair logging on numbers runs.

 

The closest I've gotten to a numbers run was 28 finds in one day. Yes, we used a team name for most of those caches. A couple of us also listed the names of all the geocachers in the group using that team name. I even got most of them to play "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" style, at least until those of us who wanted a chance to spot the cache ourselves had done so.

 

13 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Also showed that when some groups cache *only one person actually finds the cache. 

As I've said before, geocaching groups have been playing "Three Musketeers" style, where everyone declares victory once anyone spots the cache, for longer than either of us has been geocaching. All the ranting and railing in the world isn't going to change that. The best you can do is to win over your fellow geocachers if you want to play "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" style on your group trip.

[+cerberus1]

49 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Yet when there's a large logbook in the cache, with plenty of room for hundreds of people to log in, still the group-of-the-day name goes in. 

For the last decade people log only a trailname and date. It takes up little space. 10 signatures can easily go on one side of a pocket-size notebook page. 30-40 signatures easily if the date goes on the top of the page and everyone writes their trailname only below. In most locations, a pocket-size notepad logbook lasts 3 years easily. Mine do.  

 

It's really about saving time, by not passing the logbook around. And also saving time in order to get on to the next cache.

And because the logbook can't be passed around because not all of the group is present and won't be. 

 

I once asked in the forums about owners being allowed to ask for all signatures rather than a group-of-the-day name. I was tarred and feathered.

In my area a CO did request it. His ammo can large logbook got completely filled by a visit from the "group"*. One person found the cache, wrote in large letters filling each page, wrote one member's trailname per page, filmed it and posted it on youtube. Ha, ha, so hilarious.

I got the message, COs should not clash with groups. Also showed that when some groups cache *only one person actually finds the cache. 

 

Sure.  When most we find is a log strip in an ammo can anymore, most we know will simply stick to the script when finding one "larger".

I use Rite in rain notepads  or log books, but all I care about is a sig in them.  If that's a "team" name, I'm okay with that.  

 

I just gave an example of what we see.  You assume what other's motives are.  

...And back to all people  are cheaters again.  

 

Again, one example, and this makes it true everywhere  ?

We know of a group that has a "leader", or one that leads the group.  No different than planned conservation district hiking events. 

Most times they find the cache first.  So what ?

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by cerberus1

[+L0ne.R]

47 minutes ago, niraD said:

I'm sure it happens, but that hasn't been my experience. When we've come to a cache with an actual logbook with plenty of space, someone writes the date and then we pass around the logbook for everyone to sign. Or sometimes, one person will sign for everyone. Or sometimes some people will sign for themselves and for the person standing next to them before passing the logbook around. Whatever. But the team name is reserved for the small log sheets that would fill up quickly

 

I see that as appropriate behaviour when caching with others.

 

My beef is with those who use the "we're being courteous" feigned excuse because they found a loophole to beat the system. 

 

 

[+cerberus1]

3 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

My beef is with those who use the "we're being courteous" feigned excuse because they found a loophole to beat the system. 

 

Surprised  you're really seeing so much "unseemly"  behavior among your fellow cachers.

Sure they simply aren't conforming to your standards ?   

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, fendmar said:

If you don't personally climb the tree then you may as well be sitting at home in front of the live-stream.

Wow. This is the argument that supports people logging find virtually, because it is absolutely okay for people to log finds if they are at the location and watching someone else sign. Regardless of whether it requires climbing a tree or unscrewing a container.  If you think someone should only be allowed to log an assist if they don't climb the tree, then anyone who doesn't do every single step to access the logsheet themselves cannot log a cache found. Clearly that's unquestionably ridiculous. The argument does not hold up.

Again, if you wouldn't log it "found" without doing everything you personally are required to do to access and sign the logsheet in person, well that's your choice. But it's not enforceable.

 

 

3 hours ago, fendmar said:

3 hours ago, ecanderson said:

If effort and sacrifice is the measure, I'd say the 'finder' at the top of the pile earned this one less than that pained pile of assistants below!

Hey! Can I change my answer?

Not without undermining your entire attempted argument.

 

 

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

It's really about saving time, by not passing the logbook around.

You really seem to know what's in every group geocacher's mind. Are you absolutely confident that every single geocacher who isn't solo (since 2 or more is a 'group') and doesn't sign every logbook themselves or uses a shared name is purely using a single group name to save time and find more +1's?  I don't believe you think that's true. And if not, then your statement is false.

 

 

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I once asked in the forums about owners being allowed to ask for all signatures rather than a group-of-the-day name. I was tarred and feathered.

Because it can't be required, by the guidelines.  Requested, sure, but you can't do anything about it.  As my prior cited example - I have a treeclimb trail series. I request and recommend that if you enjoy climbing trees, to do so - even if someone else in the group does, because I'd hope the action of doing so if there for your fun. But I don't require it, I don't demand it, and if a group goes through with 1 name or only 1 in 30 does 'the work', I give no implication that their logs will be removed. 

 

I can only encourage the intended experience, I cannot require it. That's as far as a cache owner's ability goes.  Delete false finds - allow 'name in logbook' finds.

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

Surprised  you're really seeing so much "unseemly"  behavior among your fellow cachers.

 

Being in the same area, I can vouch for the 'unseemly' behaviour. And for at least one or two of these groups, they have a private group to discuss plans so that it's not public knowledge (and to avoid inevitable drama).  I used to care much more about it, now I'm kind of annoyed but whatever. If they pass through an area and there are 30 find logs, I only expect to see a handful with log text that's actually relevant to the cache in question, and on the logsheet, only a group name (and maybe a handful of individuals who prefer to ensure their own name is on the sheet).  As a CO I know there's nothing I can do unless I know and can demonstrate that someone claiming the find wasn't there.

But for me, the most important aspect now as an owner is just that the log history is accurate to the state of the cache for other geocachers.  30 new Find logs? If 5 of them are not legitimate, almost certainly I'm not going to make a deal about it. If I know those 5, then at I'll know at least that they missed out on some experience.

 

Now if I knew that one geocacher found my cache and broadcast the experience to 29 others who logged it found (and there's evidence), then I would delete the 29 finds and likely report the user to HQ so they can decide how to handle the enabler.

[+L0ne.R]

37 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Surprised  you're really seeing so much "unseemly"  behavior among your fellow cachers.

 

Being in the same area, I can vouch for the 'unseemly' behaviour. And for at least one or two of these groups, they have a private group to discuss plans so that it's not public knowledge (and to avoid inevitable drama).  I used to care much more about it, now I'm kind of annoyed but whatever. If they pass through an area and there are 30 find logs, I only expect to see a handful with log text that's actually relevant to the cache in question, and on the logsheet, only a group name (and maybe a handful of individuals who prefer to ensure their own name is on the sheet).

 

Thank you for confirming that this behaviour does exist in our area.

 

(And has for years).

 

[+cerberus1]

30 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Thank you for confirming that this behaviour does exist in our area.

(And has for years).

 

And it's sometimes a real pain-in-the-can when folks like that are around.  We disregard most, confront some...

It's not clear in posts though, sounding like general statements that help no one.  I for one would probably understand if it was your area.

Was the captured spot from another thread in your area ?   It didn't seem so. 

 

So maybe it'd be a good idea to say  "our area, or "local cachers",  so it doesn't appear you're making general statements.   

 - Unless you are, then we're right back to square one...

[+coachstahly]

9 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Thank you for confirming that this behaviour does exist in our area.

 

(And has for years).

 

 

Does EVERY group in your area do this?  I'm pretty sure that Bruce wouldn't participate in such an outing but he has mentioned that he has gone group caching so there's a good chance that not every group in your area does what you appear to accuse them of.  You also can't extrapolate your area's group proclivities with the actions of all other groups everywhere else.  While it might be more prevalent in your area, it's certainly not that common where I live. 

 

Again, no one is saying that you're full of it and making things up.  This happens.  I bet all of us know someone that has participated in a group setting where it's all about the numbers.  If we don't, then there's a good chance that as COs we've had a group like that visit our caches.  But that doesn't mean that all or most group cachers do it and that it's the normal way of caching for most groups.  It just means that some do it in that manner while some others have an "experience" based goal in mind that the group can all participate and enjoy, rather than one focused solely on the numbers. However, that doesn't fit your narrative so you refuse to acknowledge those types of groups and claim the illegitimacy of all group finds so that they can all be lumped together to better fit your portrayal of group caching and the deleterious effects it's supposedly having in geocaching. 

[+STNolan]

5 hours ago, fendmar said:

See the one up there on top find the rest assist stat unless they actually did the climbing up there part too. I would have used a ladder or just climbed the pole.

Okay so how about this example?

 

Quote

CACHER 1 - No problems finding this one. As with the others out here getting to it is the problem. Joined the CACHING GROUP for a well-equipped day of 4X4 adventure. Great fun!

tnlnsl. TFTC! #409

 

Quote

This find was part of a day long beach caching extravaganza. Our trip took us on a traverse of Matagorda peninsula, then to Sergeant beach and finally to Bryan beach near Freeport for a last cache. Thanks to CACHER1, CACHER2, CACHER3 and CACHER4 for joining in on the great time. We had a great day in perfect caching weather with plenty of fun and 4x4 frolic on the beaches. Lets do it again sometime. Thanks to CACHE OWNER for giving us one more reason for all of us to get together for this great trip.

 

(Bold parts changed by me)

 

 

A T5 terrain cache that requires a 4x4 vehicle (special tool) to reach. Only one cacher drives their vehicle out there and everyone else rides with them. Since they didn't drive out there should they be able to claim the find? They just sat in the passenger vehicle. That to me seems even less useful than the human pyramid example up there.

I personally would argue that both are equally valid because the cacher made it to GZ and their name is on the log. 

Edited May 8, 2020 by STNolan

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Thank you for confirming that this behaviour does exist in our area.

(And has for years).

 

I didn't think anyone believed it doesn't exist. My comment wasn't to confirm your report, only to fill out some tangible details and my experience with it. We seem to very much disagree about the right/wrong and how much a personal ethic is applicable to other people's caching habits.

Virtual logging by watching online: Not allowed.

Logging finds by being in the area when someone else signs the log, or signs a group name: Allowed.

Person A uses that strategy -- Person B abhores it. Neither can tell each other their personal view is right and the other is wrong. They're opinions within the realm of allowability.

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Inner Sydney is NOT where you're going to find a long hike for just 1 cache.  I've been there (before caching) and it's far from natural in its state.  It's as urban as you're going to get (not quite as urban as NYC). I'm guessing they left 10s of caches unfound as well.  More likely 100s.

 

These are what we did that day, though there were a few others as well which have since been archived and don't show on the map, and there'll be some newer caches on the map now that weren't there then. I think my total finds for the day was about 20.

 

 

We caught the train down from the Central Coast and walked from Central station down through Eveleigh then up through Camperdown and around Glebe before catching the tram back to Central. We certainly didn't set out to clear the area, we just attempted the ones that were close to the route we were taking.

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Yet when there's a large logbook in the cache, with plenty of room for hundreds of people to log in, still the group-of-the-day name goes in. 

 

For the last decade people log only a trailname and date. It takes up little space. 10 signatures can easily go on one side of a pocket-size notebook page. 30-40 signatures easily if the date goes on the top of the page and everyone writes their trailname only below. In most locations, a pocket-size notepad logbook lasts 3 years easily. Mine do.  

 

It's really about saving time, by not passing the logbook around. And also saving time in order to get on to the next cache. And because the logbook can't be passed around because not all of the group is present and won't be. 

 

One of our group members, lee737, usually brings his sons along, samuel737 and oliver737, but signs the logbook as "team737", not so they can dash off to get the next +1 but simply because it's quicker and easier. We're a small community and everyone knows who team737 is if they see it in a logbook. In any case, once at GZ the kids usually want to do some exploring or climb trees while the adults pass the logbook around, pull out some nibblies. take photos, admire the view, compare notes on the next cache we're targeting on the hike or just have a bit of a chat and a breather.

 

This is our group dashing off to get the next illegitimate +1 in the day's numbers chase:

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+Max and 99]

7 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

 

This was from an old Geocaching blog (https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2014/07/7-steps-to-sprinkle-extra-awesome-on-the-7-souvenirs-of-august/)

 

 

You can make a case about the four spectators, but haven't the nine 'assistants' earned their smiley?

Stealth, people!

[+barefootjeff]

8 hours ago, hzoi said:

I'll close with this statement.  Integrity is often defined as doing the right thing, even when no one else is watching.  Find counts in geocaching, and in the cases here, even signatures in the logbook, are based on integrity.  If one feels the need to justify "earning" a find using facts that are any different from them finding the container and signing the log, or performing whatever act the non-physical cache required them to take to log a find, then I'd question whether the find is actually "earned" or not.  But at the end of the day, that's between you and your sense of integrity.  (And the cache owner's, I suppose, if they ever found out.)

 

For me at least, caching isn't a competitive sport where the find logs are prizes or rewards, it's just an enjoyable pastime that combines a whole lot of things I like, including hiking, kayaking, navigation, exploring out-of-the-way places, technology and comradery with like-minded participants. My statistics bear witness to that:

• 1137 finds after 7 years
• Best day - 22 finds
• Best month - 36 finds
• Best year - 195 finds
• Longest streak - 7 days (and that was something of an ordeal for last year's Streak Week souvenir)
• A D/T grid still with 12 holes in it

There are competitive tennis players and there are hit-and-giggle ones. I'm a hit-and-giggle cacher. I have no qualms getting hints to puzzle caches but I've never sought the outright solution, and likewise I have no qualms about getting help reaching some caches but I've always signed the logbook. My online logs always acknowledge any help I've had and I've never had a CO question any of my finds or delete a log. For me that's enough, I've honoured the letter of HQ's rules and what I believe is their spirit, but if others think I'm a liar, a cheat and a thief, well, what can I do?

[+Goldenwattle]

10 hours ago, fendmar said:

I don't know which questions you keep persisting about. It seems pretty clear that horseshoes and hand grenades is not enough. If you don't personally climb the tree then you may as well be sitting at home in front of the live-stream.

Answering your question here, these are whole posts again then, that you never answered.

 

Posted Thursday at 06:47 PM

On 5/7/2020 at 11:27 AM, fendmar said:

I'm not denying them any of that, I just think if someone wants to claim a legitimate find on a cliff cache there ought to be some cliff climbing involved in their personal experience somewhere. Goes the same for tree climbers or whatever.

What about if there is none of that, as the person uses a tool such as a ladder?

 

Posted yesterday at 11:24 AM

On 5/8/2020 at 9:33 AM, fendmar said:

I don't know why so many people just can't accept the fact that some caches are beyond their abilities. You don't have to log them all. Is it entitlement?

Tell me, have you ever taken a boat to a cache? I have swum to a couple of caches, while most other people have taken boats. Boats are cheating don't you think? Everyone should swim or they have no right to log that cache. "some caches are beyond their abilities. You don't have to log them all. Is it entitlement?"

 

I don't mind if some take a boat, whether they paddled, were a passenger or whether the boat had a motor, but this example is no different to your claim if you don't climb you shouldn't log it. So have you logged a cache that you shouldn't have under your rules, because you took a boat rather than swam? I also asked the question which you haven't answered, what about people who don't climb the actual tree, but use a ladder, or a tool to reach up and fetch the cache. Do you think they have the right to log, as they didn't climb the tree?

And then, using a real example, a cache placed in a remote place that would take several days hike to reach it, which is how most people logged it. But then a group of cachers hired a helicopter to fly to it. When I saw the picture of their "geocaching tool", I laughed and thought, good on them. But what do you think? They didn't walk to it as was planned no doubt by the CO, being on a long distant trail.

 

 

 

[+Goldenwattle]

10 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Yet when there's a large logbook in the cache, with plenty of room for hundreds of people to log in, still the group-of-the-day name goes in. 

 

For the last decade people log only a trailname and date. It takes up little space. 10 signatures can easily go on one side of a pocket-size notebook page. 30-40 signatures easily if the date goes on the top of the page and everyone writes their trailname only below. In most locations, a pocket-size notepad logbook lasts 3 years easily. Mine do.  

 

It's really about saving time, by not passing the logbook around. And also saving time in order to get on to the next cache. And because the logbook can't be passed around because not all of the group is present and won't be. 

 

I once asked in the forums about owners being allowed to ask for all signatures rather than a group-of-the-day name. I was tarred and feathered. In my area a CO did request it. His ammo can large logbook got completely filled by a visit from the "group"*. One person found the cache, wrote in large letters filling each page, wrote one member's trailname per page, filmed it and posted it on youtube. Ha, ha, so hilarious. I got the message, COs should not clash with groups. Also showed that when some groups cache *only one person actually finds the cache. 

The only time I have been with a large group (large groups aren't common here) a group name was used to sign the logs of the two caches we found that day, or the hard to get to caches would have had their small logs filled up. If I had been one of the COs I would have been grateful to avoid a visit into the 'bowels' of the earth to replace the log. (The first section alone was a km walk underground.) The person who organised the group, wrote the attendants name in her log, so the CO would know who really was there.

[+fizzymagic]

5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

I didn't think anyone believed it doesn't exist. My comment wasn't to confirm your report, only to fill out some tangible details and my experience with it. We seem to very much disagree about the right/wrong and how much a personal ethic is applicable to other people's caching habits.

Virtual logging by watching online: Not allowed.

Logging finds by being in the area when someone else signs the log, or signs a group name: Allowed.

Person A uses that strategy -- Person B abhores it. Neither can tell each other their personal view is right and the other is wrong. They're opinions within the realm of allowability.

 

The key here is my earlier question that the OP has ignored (perhaps I am blocked):

 

Is geocaching a competitive sport or a non-competitive activity?

 

Without an answer to that question, we will never get anywhere.

 

So please, people in this thread, answer that question so that we can tell where you are coming from.

 

My answer: it's a combination.  I like to compete with myself for imaginary "style points," but dislike the more competitive portions of the game that cause this kind of kerfuffle.  But with respect to other people, for me it is NOT a competition.  And thus I don't get terribly upset by people who do group logging, although I am not a fan of completely virtual logging.

 

My point:  getting upset about people treating Geocaching as a competition ("all about the smileys") and then getting upset about people cheating is self-contradictory.

[+Goldenwattle]

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

These are what we did that day, though there were a few others as well which have since been archived and don't show on the map, and there'll be some newer caches on the map now that weren't there then. I think my total finds for the day was about 20.

 

 

We caught the train down from the Central Coast and walked from Central station down through Eveleigh then up through Camperdown and around Glebe before catching the tram back to Central. We certainly didn't set out to clear the area, we just attempted the ones that were close to the route we were taking.

That's what I do when in Sydney, plan a walking route in conjunction with trains and trams, and occasionally buses, and find the caches along that. I don't try to clear out an area. Although, if I make a few visits, that can in effect begin to happen in small areas of the city. The last visit; early March, before the covid 19 crisis hit here, I used a train to get to SideTracked caches (sub group I am concentrating on). Then I would take short walks around each of the areas and find a few more caches, and then back on the train and off to the next relevant train station and another short walk. Just catching trains in a place where I don't live was an adventure, let alone the found caches.

[+Goldenwattle]

13 hours ago, fendmar said:

See the one up there on top find the rest assist stat unless they actually did the climbing up there part too. I would have used a ladder or just climbed the pole.

And likely, as I have seen often, that was marked 1.5T .

[+cerberus1]

On 5/8/2020 at 10:28 PM, fizzymagic said:

Is geocaching a competitive sport or a non-competitive activity?

So please, people in this thread, answer that question so that we can tell where you are coming from.

 

My answer: it's a combination.  I like to compete with myself for imaginary "style points," but dislike the more competitive portions of the game that cause this kind of kerfuffle.  But with respect to other people, for me it is NOT a competition.  And thus I don't get terribly upset by people who do group logging, although I am not a fan of completely virtual logging.

My point:  getting upset about people treating Geocaching as a competition ("all about the smileys") and then getting upset about people cheating is self-contradictory.

 

We became PM when the other 2/3rds got caught up (by others encouraging her ...) in the FTF side-game. 

She "needed" notifications.  Midnights in the woods in PJs, competing with others in PJs, just to sign the log first.   

Other than that, she had a desire to fill out those grid things.  "Day" is the reason I have one lpc and guard rail hide found. She had to work...

She finally burned out, giving up the hobby after yet-another "beta test" on a newb, no-finds phone hide.

 - She found a cache 400' off and quit that day.

An average day, she'd maybe cache with a friend or two, but preferred to be solo.  Caching in groups was usually after events.

For her it was a sport.

        I like to walk in the woods.  I search for a cache that I'd do.  Sometimes there's a couple close by that looks nice too.

I don't cache on roadsides, in parking lots, or small parks. The only time I look at my "stats" is when one here asks about something.

Next week is a 7mi, 5-cache series with 2-4 terrain.   Sick a while, hopefully I prove the doc wrong and make it.  *

I've got to do OM on mine, and need to get better to do them  (5Ts).  Not ready to adopt 'em out yet...

I'll cache with others if they ask me.    Caching in groups was usually after events. 

I've called this a hobby since starting.  

 

         We played differently, yet both agree that everyone logs in group finds.  When they're there.

At events,  most times there's someone who regularly doesn't remember to bring something for potluck.

You just consider the source, feed them too, and be happy you don't live next door to 'em.

 - Well, caching's similar.  Sometimes one doesn't contribute as much as you'd like, but they're there that day, so you deal with it.

 

If the OP stuck with the "virtual" thing, we would have agreed.  Fitting in all the other "irks" within...not so much...

The only time I compete is games at events.

 

* Freezing two nights straight, the solid birdbaths showed that a walk on rocks along a creek not good for a crippled old fart.

Next week looks good...

 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by cerberus1

[+Goldenwattle]

22 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

Is geocaching a competitive sport or a non-competitive activity?

Not to me. I think of it more as collecting; rather as someone else might collect stamps. It also gets me to places I might not have seen otherwise, and finds make souvenirs of where I have been. I have over 10,000 finds, but that's also because I have travelled a fair bit. I used to think of work as somewhere to go to to get money to travel. I travelled as much as I could before I found geocaching; my annual four weeks leave, the extra week my workplace got off over Christmas as my workplace closed for this, long weekends and other weekends made into long weekends by working longer hours and earning flexitime. This continued with geocaching. Now I am retired and until covid 19 I was able to travel even more. Not all travel need be too expensive. When I travel in Australia for instance, I have taken some long outback road-trips and mostly slept in my car to avoid motel costs and allow me to travel for weeks more. I keep most of my limited hotel budget for trips overseas, where I can't take my car.

There is also the personal challenge with finding some caches, and they tend to be some of the ones I remember.

[+K13]

Where is the HQ response disallowing virtual visits to geocaches in the same manner they did with Events?

[+Lynx Humble]

52 minutes ago, K13 said:

Where is the HQ response disallowing virtual visits to geocaches in the same manner they did with Events?

Isn't always been the case?

 

You need to sign the logbook to claim your +1.

[+K13]

6 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

Isn't always been the case?

 

You need to sign the logbook to claim your +1.

This thread began with a post about a group using FaceTime to join in the finding of caches.

[Keystone]

3 hours ago, K13 said:

Where is the HQ response disallowing virtual visits to geocaches in the same manner they did with Events?

See the very first reply to the original post on page one.

[+redsox_mark]

On 5/4/2020 at 8:29 PM, cerberus1 said:

The site has already said they won't allow "virtual" logging .  If it bugs you that much, tell on 'em.       

But this "folks at a climb" thing is getting kinda old...  If you personally know examples, how about saying something there ?

 

If I'm doing a risky climb, I'll have someone along even if they don't climb themselves.

I'll still need them for safety, for belay, gear maintenance, or even simply taking pics for me.  We're a team.  They claim the find too....

I'm pretty close to doing those again, but know I'm not gonna be 80% for some time.  Someone's coming with me, and they're claiming a find.

 

Your post doesn't say whether every person in the rope climb has done something to attend that climb.

I've cached with handicapped who can solve puzzles (I can't...) but can't climb (I can).  We're a team.  Both get to claim the find...

We've seen many examples where people have solved a dozen caches together, and each is doing "their part" somewhere, sometime during the day. 

They're a team.  They all get a find...  

 

I've read the whole thread, but this post way back on page 1 answers it for me.    I draw the line at being at GZ, being part of the team, and contributing.   If I feel I contributed, and my name (or team name for the day) is on that log, then I will log a find.  

 

 

 

 

[+Gill & Tony]

Assume that, for a cache you have found, someone retrieves the cache, drives it to a friend's house, they both sign the log and the cache gets returned as found.

 

Why would you care?

 

Have they somehow delegitimized your find?  Does their behaviour affect you in any way?  Why are we having this debate?  If someone finds a cache in a way I think is wrong, I don't care.  If I find a cache in a way you think is wrong,  I don't care.  

 

My statistics reflect the caches I found or didn't find according to my rules.  Your statistics reflect your rules.  The two may not be the same.  Who cares?  And why?

 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Gill & Tony

[+NYPaddleCacher]

10 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

Assume that, for a cache you have found, someone retrieves the cache, drives it to a friend's house, they both sign the log and the cache gets returned as found.

 

Why would you care?

 

Because the person that never left their house demonstrated a lack of integrity by claiming to have found a cache when then didn't even go to the location where the CO hid it, and I don't think we should be condoning a lack of integrity in the game.  

Edited May 13, 2020 by NYPaddleCacher

[+Gill & Tony]

11 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Because the person that never left their house demonstrated a lack of integrity by claiming to have found a cache when then didn't even go to the location where the CO hid it, and I don't think we should be condoning a lack of integrity in the game.  

But their name is in the log book, and they signed it.  Isn't that the rule?  

 

According to the rules of the game, their find is valid.  I wouldn't do it and I suspect that you wouldn't either.  But why should either of us care that someone bent the rules?

Edited May 13, 2020 by Gill & Tony

[+TmdAndGG]

4 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

But their name is in the log book, and they signed it.  Isn't that the rule?  

Yes, but there's the other rule that you have to go to the cache* (you know, the one with container with a log to sign) coordinates.

*Edited, due to a major flaw

Edited May 13, 2020 by TmdAndGG

[+barefootjeff]

4 minutes ago, TmdAndGG said:

Yes, but there's the other rule that you have to go to the posted coordinates.

 

That might be a tad difficult with some mystery caches...

 

[+Gill & Tony]

3 minutes ago, TmdAndGG said:

Yes, but there's the other rule that you have to go to the posted coordinates.

Even if that was true, why does their failure to do so affect you?