Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, TmdAndGG said:

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

Presuming the cache is at the coordinates :laughing:. I've found a few that weren't; one over 500 metres away. Me, just stretching the point...

Signing the log is the main thing for me. It someone picked up one of my logs and took it away for someone to sign and then returned it to its hide; how would I know. But I'd know if there is no signature.

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
3 hours 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...

 

Technically, the guidelines say "visited the coordinates", not "visited the posted coordinates".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

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

 

 

30 minutes ago, niraD said:

Technically, the guidelines say "visited the coordinates", not "visited the posted coordinates".

 

3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Presuming the cache is at the coordinates :laughing:. I've found a few that weren't; one over 500 metres away. Me, just stretching the point...

Signing the log is the main thing for me. It someone picked up one of my logs and took it away for someone to sign and then returned it to its hide; how would I know. But I'd know if there is no signature.

I know, I know... I meant to say the coordinates of the container, but I was in a rush:cute:.

Edited by TmdAndGG
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

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

It doesn't, but that's not the point. A, you could miss out on a cool location, and B, your breaking possibly the most important rule in geocaching. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

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

Even if that was true? - It IS true.

Why does their failure to do so affect you? - It affects everyone involved in geocaching. Because rules/guidelines are there for a reason. They form the structure of the activity. Without them them we may as well allow someone to claim a ammo can cache hidden in France when they actually came across a discarded pop can along the road in New Mexico.  

 

  • Love 2
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, TmdAndGG said:
4 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

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

It doesn't, but that's not the point. A, you could miss out on a cool location, and B, your breaking possibly the most important rule in geocaching. 

 

Absolutely this. Geocaching has a definition, an understanding, an expectation. Don't do any of that (as the person signing from home because a friend brought you the cache and returned it - OR the person enabling a non-geocacher by implying it's okay to do that), and you're not geocaching. Sure, it may not affect me in any way (presuming the cache's log history is accurate) - but then, is it? It's been signed by someone who isn't geocaching, or doing anything resembling geocaching. That's not accurate.  I wouldn't care if they got a +1 from that, but I would care that someone not geocaching is promoting a non-geocaching activity in the realm of geocaching marked by a Find log, and that a supposed geocacher is also condoning that behaviour. (which is against the guidelines).

 

They exist for a reason - regardless of whether certain action matter by statistics/comparison/competition - but to retain a definition of the activity for people to associate with, and retain some semblance of organization. There are a LOT of things people do that don't matter to me - we don't make a fuss about most things people do differently. But this is relevant to the core of what geocaching is, and should rightly be enforced. Otherwise what is geocaching?

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

It's not the first time I write this but it DOES affect others. CO's may get annoyed by fake loggers and archive their caches and that affects all who want to go find them.

 

Those fires in Oz a few months ago didn't affect me and yet... I do care about them and I was glad they were put out. ;)

 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
6 hours ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

Even if that was true? - It IS true.

Why does their failure to do so affect you? - It affects everyone involved in geocaching. Because rules/guidelines are there for a reason. They form the structure of the activity. Without them them we may as well allow someone to claim a ammo can cache hidden in France when they actually came across a discarded pop can along the road in New Mexico.  

 

Taken to the n'th degree. Why would or should COs bother placing caches if no one goes out to find them. Result = end of game.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

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

 

Maybe it doesn't effect you and it doesn't affect me.  It's not about the stats.  Perhaps it does affect the game, and more importantly, how those that provide access to locations where we can play the game, perceive the game and those that play it.   If honesty can not be considered to be a basic tenet in how the game is played, a land manager might become hesitant about allowing access to large swaths of land.  

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, colleda said:

Taken to the n'th degree. Why would or should COs bother placing caches if no one goes out to find them. Result = end of game.

 

Yes, I'm imagining the Armchair Cachers Association's one hundred members all sign their names on an A4 sheet which their one agile member then photocopies and goes off on a trip around the country to all the T4 and T4.5 caches he can get to, stapling a copy into each logbook he visits. Once he returns and declares mission accomplished, they all log their online finds. That'd go down well with COs, I'm sure.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

The reason I don't care if someone signs a log without actually climbing the tree, claiming a find by some sort of divide and conquer trick, or similar, is that these don't distort the state of the cache.  In all cases, the cache was found by someone and it was logged as found.

 

What does bug me is techniques which make a cache look like it is there when it isn't, and vice versa.  An armchair found log when the cache is actually missing.  A find on a challenge cache dated months or years after finding and writing a note - who knows if the cache is still in place.  Logging DNF without even starting a search - a few folk do that and it looks like the cache may be missing.  All these potentially give a wrong impression of the state of the cache.   Maybe that doesn't bother you.  That's fine.  But it does bug me.

 

 

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

Logging DNF without even starting a search - a few folk do that and it looks like the cache may be missing.  All these potentially give a wrong impression of the state of the cache.

 

I've logged DNFs when I've been unable to reach the cache, such as when I realise on reaching GZ that I can't get to where it's hidden and will need to return with a ladder, some rope or a helper. Most recently, I DNFed a multi-stage EarthCache when big seas prevented me from getting to all the waypoints. It's rare for one of my DNFs to mean the cache is missing, it just means this Blind Freddy couldn't find it.

 

Likewise I've had DNFs logged on my own hides when searchers have been defeated by the terrain, failing light, approaching storms, swarms of mozzies or, most recently, when the seeker didn't understand that finding a multi means more than just going to the listed coordinates. Or just that they looked everywhere except the place I'd hidden it - I've had ten of those on GC5H5G2 but it's never been missing.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

The reason I don't care if someone signs a log without actually climbing the tree, claiming a find by some sort of divide and conquer trick, or similar, is that these don't distort the state of the cache.  In all cases, the cache was found by someone and it was logged as found.

 

What does bug me is techniques which make a cache look like it is there when it isn't, and vice versa.  An armchair found log when the cache is actually missing.  A find on a challenge cache dated months or years after finding and writing a note - who knows if the cache is still in place.  Logging DNF without even starting a search - a few folk do that and it looks like the cache may be missing.  All these potentially give a wrong impression of the state of the cache.   Maybe that doesn't bother you.  That's fine.  But it does bug me.

 

 

 

At face value, yes, almost any type of log can be misleading. More than likely thought, we're able to get a good idea of why the log was posted, if we take the time to read it. I have posted several DNFs over the years, a few where I could see the cache but not reach it, some where I was headed for a cache but got derailed, etc,,,. I always give the circumstances involved for my decision to log a DNF. Take the time to read it and it'll tell right away if there's an implication the cache might be missing. ;)

 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

What does bug me is techniques which make a cache look like it is there when it isn't, and vice versa. 

An armchair found log when the cache is actually missing. 

A find on a challenge cache dated months or years after finding and writing a note - who knows if the cache is still in place. 

Logging DNF without even starting a search - a few folk do that and it looks like the cache may be missing. 

All these potentially give a wrong impression of the state of the cache.   Maybe that doesn't bother you.  That's fine.  But it does bug me.

 

I read everything I can.  It's usually the only cache I'll search for that day.   :)

 - But I agree it may not be clear what's going on, and folks may miss an important part. 

For example, leaving a DNF when you can see the cache (you "found" it...), but simply can't reach it.

Rather than leave a DNF, we'll usually leave a Write Note, explaining why we didn't/couldn't complete a find (by signing the log).

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

The reason I don't care if someone signs a log without actually climbing the tree, claiming a find by some sort of divide and conquer trick, or similar, is that these don't distort the state of the cache.  In all cases, the cache was found by someone and it was logged as found.

 

I retrieved my caches and stopped hiding because of behaviour like this. I enjoyed creating and hiding caches but the above behaviour started to become the norm rather than the exception.  I did not want my caches feeding into it. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

What does bug me is techniques which make a cache look like it is there when it isn't, and vice versa.  An armchair found log when the cache is actually missing.

 

It's all part of the +1 behaviour. The slippery slope. An increase in the find count at any cost.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

I get the "I held the ladder" type of log. I can live with that.  For me, if I was at GZ and played no part in the locating or retrieval of a cache, I wouldn't claim it. In fact, I'd regret being there, because then even a subsequent find on a later visit wouldn't feel like it was fully 'mine' if I had learned where it was. My one instance of claiming a find on a long-standing nemesis cache that was found by a group I was with, but not BY me, still feels wrong.

 

To those who've said that it ultimately makes no difference if non-direct-participants sign a cache, consider this:

 

So let's say you place an 'extreme' cache, either way out in the woods, or up a cliff, or at an amazing statue or overlook or a very tricky and fun puzzle. You're very proud of it and look forward to delighted finders.

 

Somebody bags it, and signs the names of their entire team, including the people who didn't make it up early this morning, then shows it to five people through FaceTime from GZ, and logs THEM in.

 

Then he takes it home to his other friend who's laid up with a broken leg and lets HIM sign it, 'cause, it just ain't fair that he can't get out. Why should be penalized?

 

Now, your pride and joy says that it's had forty finds on the first day of its existence. To people viewing the cache page, not so special.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

There's a cache atop an unclimbable 50 foot concrete monolith on the campus of Wright State University.  A group of us tackled this cache by getting a line over the top and knocking the cache loose.  It was returned with a running line and a release knot.  Are the purists saying that only one person can legitimately claim the find?  And that all the others should have taken turns knocking it down and then replacing it for the next one in the group?  Ridiculous.

 

There's a multi-cache that requires you to collect numbers along the way that are the combination to the lock on the ammo can.  Does the first person unlock the cache, sign in, then relock and replace the cache so that each person does the cache "the way it was intended"?  Ridiculous.

 

Yes, the original post that described the people who never left home but logged the cache is an example of unacceptable behavior.  But in-person group hunts where all contribute are another matter altogether.  If you choose to go on group hunts, then be prepared to stretch your "ethics" a bit.  How much stretch is, of course, up to the individual.

  • Upvote 6
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, egroeg said:

There's a cache atop an unclimbable 50 foot concrete monolith on the campus of Wright State University.

 

I drive by that often and occasionally can even see it up there. Its been on my to-do list for quite a few years, But, The sons have grown. married and have things to do now. Maybe someday. 

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

What does bug me is techniques which make a cache look like it is there when it isn't, and vice versa.  An armchair found log when the cache is actually missing.

 

Absolutely. And that's why the example given - "A geocache finds the geocache but takes it to people to have their name signed in the logbook, then returns it."  Technically speaking, the cache was found, find logs imply the cache is findable, and everyone's names are in the logbook. So, "what does it matter to you?"

Of course, it would be ludicrous to allow that. Not because of the log-signing technicality, but because it's not geocaching. :)

Link to comment
21 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I've logged DNFs when I've been unable to reach the cache, such as when I realise on reaching GZ that I can't get to where it's hidden and will need to return with a ladder, some rope or a helper. Most recently, I DNFed a multi-stage EarthCache when big seas prevented me from getting to all the waypoints. It's rare for one of my DNFs to mean the cache is missing, it just means this Blind Freddy couldn't find it.

 

Likewise I've had DNFs logged on my own hides when searchers have been defeated by the terrain, failing light, approaching storms, swarms of mozzies or, most recently, when the seeker didn't understand that finding a multi means more than just going to the listed coordinates. Or just that they looked everywhere except the place I'd hidden it - I've had ten of those on GC5H5G2 but it's never been missing.

But why DNF?    In those circumstances, if there is something that others might need to know, I'll do a Write Note.  If it purely my issue and not affecting others, I probably won't log anything, but I might put a personal note on the cache.

 

No, one DNF doesn't mean a cache is likely to be missing,    The cache you quoted has 57 finds and 10 DNFs and, as far as I can see, only once was there two consecutive DNFs.  Every one that I looked at had the cacher at GZ, searching and not finding.  Exactly what I would regard as a valid reason for a DNF.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Absolutely. And that's why the example given - "A geocache finds the geocache but takes it to people to have their name signed in the logbook, then returns it."  Technically speaking, the cache was found, find logs imply the cache is findable, and everyone's names are in the logbook. So, "what does it matter to you?"

Of course, it would be ludicrous to allow that. Not because of the log-signing technicality, but because it's not geocaching. :)

Of course it would be ludicrous to allow it, but how would you ever police it?  The home finder's log would just read "Found with the help of xxxxxx.  TFTC."    I wonder how TPTB would react if the CO deleted a log which read "Had a broken leg, so xxxxxx brought me the cache to sign at home."  Their attitude is usually "name in log = OK", but in this case?

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

But why DNF?    In those circumstances, if there is something that others might need to know, I'll do a Write Note.  If it purely my issue and not affecting others, I probably won't log anything, but I might put a personal note on the cache.

 

Why DNF? Because I was trying to find the cache but it defeated me. Why does a DNF log have to imply the cache is likely to be missing? Particularly when ninety percent of the time it isn't. The DNF is a record of my caching history, and my failures are just as important as my successes, or maybe more so since we don't learn from our successes. It also puts the helpful blue frowny on the map to remind me that I need to go back better prepared.

 

Finding the cache is all about overcoming the obstacles the CO has placed in the way of that. Tough terrain is just as much an obstacle as a well-camouflaged micro in a haystack, so why should the latter qualify for a DNF if my attempt is unsuccessful but not the former?

 

I won't log a DNF if I'm interrupted in my search due to factors completely unrelated to the cache, such as running out of time on a multi-stage multi or a phone call telling me I'm wanted elsewhere, but if I'm defeated by the cache or its environment then to me that's just as much an unsuccessful attempt as spending half the day scouring that haystack for the micro.

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

I swam out to retrieve a cache and then swam back with it for another to sign the log. It's in that waterproof container. Then swam back and returned it. (I have done this three times for different caches.) That didn't worry me a bit, that I was the one to fetch it and the other person didn't. (They do the tree climbing.) But they took nice photographs :grin:. Most people take the easy way out for that and take a boat. No different than a ladder or long pole to fetch a cache from a tree - no difference. I don't worry about that some people use a tool - the boat. Same as I don't worry about someone using a tool (ladder or long pole) to get a cache from a tree. I also don't worry about any mere passengers in the boat, or 'passengers' standing about the bottom of the tree watching and taking photographs. They are there to give encouragement and be a safety factor, plus hold the rope if need be. People get all worked up about about tree climbs, but I hear no mention of other situations, such as of them taking a boat instead of swimming. Apparently that's okay, when by their argument (not mine) it's cheating.

Golden-retriever retrieving.

Golden(wattle)retriever & GPS & Log in container.jpg

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I swam out to retrieve a cache and then swam back with it for another to sign the log. It's in that waterproof container. Then swam back and returned it. (I have done this three times for different caches.) That didn't worry me a bit, that I was the one to fetch it and the other person didn't. (They do the tree climbing.) But they took nice photographs :grin:. Most people take the easy way out for that and take a boat. No different than a ladder or long pole to fetch a cache from a tree - no difference. I don't worry about that some people use a tool - the boat. Same as I don't worry about someone using a tool (ladder or long pole) to get a cache from a tree. I also don't worry about any mere passengers in the boat, or 'passengers' standing about the bottom of the tree watching and taking photographs. They are there to give encouragement and be a safety factor, plus hold the rope if need be. People get all worked up about about tree climbs, but I hear no mention of other situations, such as of them taking a boat instead of swimming. Apparently that's okay, when by their argument (not mine) it's cheating.

 

Yeah, there's a river cache I think I mentioned earlier where my two companions made it across to GZ but I stayed on the far shore just doing the photos (and logged a WN). The other two logged finds even though only one of them got in the water to retrive the cache from under that boulder for them both to sign. They both made it to GZ and signed the log, no need for them both to get wet.

 

2518b782-c9ab-4f96-888d-afd2b9dc675b_l.j

 

I had my turn a few months later when the river level had dropped more to my liking.

 

image.png.d6315c2746bcdee9874a319abf9bbac8.png

 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
13 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

But why DNF?  ...

 

Why DNF? ...  The DNF is a record of my caching history, and my failures are just as important as my successes, or maybe more so since we don't learn from our successes. It also puts the helpful blue frowny on the map to remind me that I need to go back better prepa

 

At the risk of veering off-topic - DNF = Did Not Find.  The issue here seems to be our individual definition of "FIND" - are we using the geocaching definition, or the more generally understood definition?  BFJ, and I use the DNF log if we can see it but not reach it or retrieve it to sign the log; it's NOT a find by geocaching's definition,, and by logging the DNF it puts the blue frowny on the map as a reminder.  I also mention in my log WHY it was a DNF.

 

Of course, if I can't find it at all, and never see the container, that goes in as a DNF also, as well as whether I think it's really missing or if I think I just didn't see it.

 

Back on topic, Found it logs for caches brought to you by another retriever - there are extremes.  Some won't sign the log or claim the find unless they have personally retrieved the cache.  That's allowable, geocaching as intended.  This thread is about groups, and either group signatures or pass around logs, or one signs all cacher's names. There are degrees and variations of behavior and I think a majority of us agree that most of the behavior is acceptable, and allowed, and we've all (or most of us) participated in "groups" of various sizes and claimed finds on caches where we did not personally retrieve the cache or sign our own name in the logbook, or we've been the one to retrieve the log and sign names for more than ourselves.  This too is allowed, and is even the "norm" for a lot of group caching.  People rarely cache alone in my area, myself included.  And then there's the other extreme of armchair or virtual logs by those who never went to GZ or even near GZ.  I think we can all agree that those logs are not real finds, but only logged for the stats.

 

As Keystone said on the first page of this long thread: "The line in the sand has already been drawn, and it is above the low tide mark on this sandy beach."

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

At the risk of veering off-topic - DNF = Did Not Find.  The issue here seems to be our individual definition of "FIND" - are we using the geocaching definition, or the more generally understood definition?  BFJ, and I use the DNF log if we can see it but not reach it or retrieve it to sign the log; it's NOT a find by geocaching's definition,, and by logging the DNF it puts the blue frowny on the map as a reminder.  I also mention in my log WHY it was a DNF.

Still veering OT...

So you're saying that the majority of members ("generally" understood)  disregard the definition of DNF by the site ?

We haven't seen that.    Maybe it's area specific ?    Please explain.  Thanks.  :)

 

The site said in a blog  that "If you’re just joining the geocaching adventure, DNF stands for Did Not Find. It’s a log type when you’re searching for a geocache, and guess what, didn’t find it. "   

Seems to me, the "geocaching" definition is it's a DNF if you didn't find it.     

Doesn't say anything about "stopped on the way to...",  "saw it but couldn't reach...", or any of the other variations individuals want it to mean.

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

The site said in a blog  that "If you’re just joining the geocaching adventure, DNF stands for Did Not Find. It’s a log type when you’re searching for a geocache, and guess what, didn’t find it. "   

Seems to me, the "geocaching" definition is it's a DNF if you didn't find it.

Different people define "searching" differently. Do I have to arrive at GZ to start the search? Or can my search start before I arrive at GZ? What if I think I arrived at GZ, but my coordinates were wrong?

 

And as CAVinoGal indicated, is "find" defined as qualifying to post a Find log (retrieving and signing the log) or in the more general sense of identifying where something is located?

 

The definition of DNF depends on how these other concepts are defined, and there is a fair bit of disagreement on those other concepts. And then there are people who base their decision on the effect a DNF log may or may not have on the CHS.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, niraD said:

Different people define "searching" differently. Do I have to arrive at GZ to start the search? Or can my search start before I arrive at GZ? What if I think I arrived at GZ, but my coordinates were wrong?

And as CAVinoGal indicated, is "find" defined as qualifying to post a Find log (retrieving and signing the log) or in the more general sense of identifying where something is located?

The definition of DNF depends on how these other concepts are defined, and there is a fair bit of disagreement on those other concepts. And then there are people who base their decision on the effect a DNF log may or may not have on the CHS.

 

That's odd, merriam-webster defines "searching" as, " to look into or over carefully or thoroughly in an effort to find or discover something: such as. a : to examine in seeking something searched the north field. b : to look through or explore by inspecting possible places of concealment or investigating suspicious circumstances." 

Everything else seems to simply be an excuse why one couldn't find it, and expressed in a Write Note.   :)

 

Edited by cerberus1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
42 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

That's odd, merriam-webster defines "searching" as, " to look into or over carefully or thoroughly in an effort to find or discover something: such as. a : to examine in seeking something searched the north field. b : to look through or explore by inspecting possible places of concealment or investigating suspicious circumstances."

So, when does the "effort to find or discover" a geocache begin? Does it begin when you arrive at GZ? Or does it begin earlier?

 

And how much effort is required before a DNF is justified? If I arrive at GZ and search for 5 minutes, is that enough? For 10 minutes? For 30 minutes? For an hour? Does it matter whether the cache is rated as D1 or D4?

 

42 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Everything else seems to simply be an excuse why one couldn't find it, and expressed in a Write Note.   :)

Sure, if everyone agrees perfectly, then the line between DNF and Write Note is crystal clear. Meanwhile, in reality...

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

Of course it would be ludicrous to allow it, but how would you ever police it?  The home finder's log would just read "Found with the help of xxxxxx.  TFTC."    I wonder how TPTB would react if the CO deleted a log which read "Had a broken leg, so xxxxxx brought me the cache to sign at home."  Their attitude is usually "name in log = OK", but in this case?

You don't police it. You deal with situations as they arrive in their own context.  And HQ has the final judgment if it comes to that.

 

As demonstrated by goldenwattle:

15 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I swam out to retrieve a cache and then swam back with it for another to sign the log. It's in that waterproof container. Then swam back and returned it.

 

Many wouldn't dispute that. Some would. Who knows which way HQ would decide if it went to appeals. In my area we had an event that took place on water. People who didn't have a boat and couldn't get there logged them attended from the shore. There were complaints. Now we can't hold 5T events in the middle of a lake.

 

And there's Jeff's example:

14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

there's a river cache I think I mentioned earlier where my two companions made it across to GZ but I stayed on the far shore just doing the photos (and logged a WN). The other two logged finds even though only one of them got in the water to retrive the cache from under that boulder for them both to sign. They both made it to GZ and signed the log, no need for them both to get wet.

 

To what degree does someone need to "be there" to log the find if they didn't sign it? Deal with it on individual circumstances.

 

But the key is this:

2 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

There are degrees and variations of behavior and I think a majority of us agree that most of the behavior is acceptable, and allowed, and we've all (or most of us) participated in "groups" of various sizes and claimed finds on caches where we did not personally retrieve the cache or sign our own name in the logbook, or we've been the one to retrieve the log and sign names for more than ourselves.  This too is allowed, and is even the "norm" for a lot of group caching.

 

That is why it's hard to draw a line in the sand. And that's why this thread is about virtual logging a cache from home whether watched online by the finder sharing, or similarly brought to their home by the finder and returned.  It's very different than someone at/near the cache but not doing the necessary single task to sign the log themselves.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Going back to the original premise about what constitutes a find and where you/we/Groundspeak personally draws the line. 

 

Tree climb.

 

Bob calls his friends who regularly group cache together. He calls them to come watch as he climbs a tree. He will climb the 20 feet up the tree, no ropes and ladders needed.
 

 

  • Bob signs the log with his name only. 
     
  • 15 people show up at ground zero and watch him climb. Bob signs "group  of the day" and 16 people log the find (Bob plus the people watching from the ground).
     
  • 2 more people from the group that Bob contacted show up afterwards at the pub for a beer with the group. They each log a find. 
     
  • 2 more people couldn't make it at all, but log their "group" find. 
     
  • 1 person couldn't make it to ground zero but asked one member of the team to stream it live for him. He logged a find. 
     
  • Susan happens to be a geocacher who stumbled upon this climbing event and watches Bob climb the tree. However she is not part of the group. She logs a find. 
     
  • Mary shows up 10 minutes after the group left. She looks up into the tree, like 15 people before did 10 minutes ago. Sees the cache, like 15 people did 10 minutes ago did. She logs a find. 
     

My opinion, the most cut n dry, the most authentic, legitimate find is Bob's find.  The rest log notes (or DNF, or nothing).

 

Where do you draw your line and why? 

 

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

So you're saying that the majority of members ("generally" understood)  disregard the definition of DNF by the site ?

We haven't seen that.    Maybe it's area specific ?    Please explain.  Thanks.  :)

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear - by "generally understood" I meant the common, everyday, (including non-geocachers!) definition of "find".  Some geocachers use this as their definition of a find, and some  use the geocaching definition, not only found the container but also signed the log to claim and log it as a "find".  Conversely, logging a DNF for some is not being able to sign the log, whether they spotted the cache or not, and others log a DNF only if they couldn't or didn't find the container, for whatever reason.

 

I did NOT say, or mean to imply, a majority of members, not at all.  I only meant to point out the confusion and disagreement on a DNF can be related to how people define a "find", the geocaching way or the layperson's (non-geocaching) way.  That's all I said.

 

Back to the line in the sand...

29 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Going back to the original premise about what constitutes a find and where you/we/Groundspeak personally draws the line. 

 

Tree climb.

 

Bob calls his friends who regularly group cache together. He calls them to come watch as he climbs a tree. He will climb the 20 feet up the tree, no ropes and ladders needed.
 

  • Bob signs the log with his name only. 
     
  • 15 people show up at ground zero and watch him climb. Bob signs "group  of the day" and 16 people log the find (Bob plus the people watching from the ground).
    *******************************************************************************************************************************************************************
  • 2 more people from the group that Bob contacted show up afterwards at the pub for a beer with the group. They each log a find. 
     
  • 2 people couldn't make it but log their "group" find. 
     
  • 1 person couldn't make it to ground zero but asked one member of the team to stream it live for him. He logged a find. 
     
  • Susan happens to be a geocacher who stumbled upon this climbing event and watches Bob climb the tree. However she is not part of the group. She logs a find. 
     
  • Mary shows up 10 minutes after the group left. She looks up into the tree, like 15 people before did 10 minutes ago. Sees the cache, like 15 people did 10 minutes ago. She logs a find. 

My opinion, the most cut n dry, the most authentic, legitimate find is, Bob's find. The rest log notes (or DNF, or nothing). Where do you draw your line and why? 

 

 

OK, I've drawn my line in the sand!  However, I don't know of any groups of 15 that "regularly" cache together.  Or go out specifically to get a single cache like that.  I regularly cache with my husband, and he or I would climb and sign for both of us.  Or a group of 3 or 4 of us would be out on a day of hiking, and sometimes one sometimes another of us will be the one to find the cache and sign the log for all of us.  A tree climb may be part of that day, it may not.  Smaller groups are far more typical than the scenario you presented, but if I had to draw a line, that's where it would be, and the # of cachers present is irrelevant to my decision.  I have been at an event where 15-20 of us watched the winner of the FTF prize grab the cache, and then pass it around for all to sign, and yes,  did claim that as a find.  It is far from the typical though, maybe 1 or 2 of my 1800+ finds.

 

ETA: I'd move Susan up to just above my line - most "groups"  I have been part of would include her as part of the group and let her log it along with the group.

Edited by CAVinoGal
Added info
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Now we can't hold 5T events in the middle of a lake.

This forum really needs a "Sad" response.

:sad:

 

 

10 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Where do you draw your line and why? 

I don't care that the cache is up a tree. Terrain doesn't change the rules for logging a find.

 

Personally, I wouldn't log a find unless I was involved somehow in the search. Standing around watching isn't enough. But to be fair, I don't see many people on group geocaching trips just standing around watching, the way the strawman is usually presented in these discussions.

 

But for geocaching in general, groups are allowed to have one person sign for everyone (either signing a temporary group name, or writing the names of everyone in the group), so you can't interpret "signed the logbook" as meaning that each person wrote his or her own name. And there is no requirement for finders to have done everything themselves, or for groups to have divided the work evenly among all members, or for any one member of a group to have contributed at least a minimal amount of effort, so you can't interpret "visited the coordinates" to mean anything more than being present when the cache was found.

 

None of the other people in your example (besides Bob and the 15 people who were there when he climbed the tree) should log a Find though. Except maybe Susan, if she was welcomed into the group, at least while they were at this particular cache.

 

 

I've never gotten an answer from any of the hardliners in this thread about the type of situation I've described.

 

Let's say there is a 5/5 multi-stage puzzle cache. Arthur solves the puzzle on the cache page. The whole group goes to the first stage indicated by the puzzle solution. Betty climbs the tree to retrieve the first stage container. Chuck solves the puzzle inside the first stage, and they all set off for the final location. Darlene dons scuba gear, swims into the lake, and retrieves the underwater cache. She hands the container to Ed who uses the tool he brought to open it, then hands the log to Felicia, who signs for everyone using the waterproof pen she brought.

 

None of them did everything required to complete the cache. Their contributions to the overall effort were clearly different. Can any of them claim a "legitimate" Find?

 

Personally, I would hope they'd all post Find logs, and I'd hope to read about their adventure.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
49 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Tree climb.

 

Bob calls his friends who regularly group cache together. He calls them to come watch as he climbs a tree. He will climb the 20 feet up the tree, no ropes and ladders needed.
 

Bob signs the log with his name only. 
15 people show up at ground zero and watch him climb. Bob signs "group  of the day" and 16 people log the find (Bob plus the people watching from the ground).
2 more people from the group that Bob contacted show up afterwards at the pub for a beer with the group. They each log a find. 
2 more people couldn't make it at all, but log their "group" find. 
1 person couldn't make it to ground zero but asked one member of the team to stream it live for him. He logged a find. 
Susan happens to be a geocacher who stumbled upon this climbing event and watches Bob climb the tree. However she is not part of the group. She logs a find. 
Mary shows up 10 minutes after the group left. She looks up into the tree, like 15 people before did 10 minutes ago. Sees the cache, like 15 people did 10 minutes ago did. She logs a find. 
My opinion, the most cut n dry, the most authentic, legitimate find is Bob's find.  The rest log notes (or DNF, or nothing).

Where do you draw your line and why? 

 

Which is it ?         

We've never seen that happen.  You have ?   "Come watch me" isn't like anything we've ever seen with people caching in a group.   Sheesh...

Your "example" just doesn't make sense.  :)

 

We have seen numerous examples of folks chipping-in somewhere during the day, each sharing something, and all getting finds for the fun day together.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:
  • Bob signs the log with his name only. 
     
  • 15 people show up at ground zero and watch him climb. Bob signs "group  of the day" and 16 people log the find (Bob plus the people watching from the ground).
     
  • 2 more people from the group that Bob contacted show up afterwards at the pub for a beer with the group. They each log a find. 
     
  • 2 more people couldn't make it at all, but log their "group" find. 
     
  • 1 person couldn't make it to ground zero but asked one member of the team to stream it live for him. He logged a find. 
     
  • Susan happens to be a geocacher who stumbled upon this climbing event and watches Bob climb the tree. However she is not part of the group. She logs a find. 
     
  • Mary shows up 10 minutes after the group left. She looks up into the tree, like 15 people before did 10 minutes ago. Sees the cache, like 15 people did 10 minutes ago did. She logs a find. 

 

How about we forget that the cache is a tree-climb and instead have it in a hollow at the base of a tree. Bob looks in the hollow with his torch to make sure there aren't any snakes, then reaches in, retrieves the ammo can, opens it, signs the log then passes it around the group standing there watching for them each to sign. While they're doing that, Susan arrives so they pass the logbook to her as well, then she's given the honour of putting it back in the hollow. Mary shows up 10 minutes later, sees the hollow in the base of the tree where her GPSr is pointing but she's deathly afraid of snakes so walks away shaking her head and logs a DNF.

 

Are the group logs legitimate? Is Susan's? Is Mary's DNF legitimate? Does it being at the base of the tree instead of the top make any difference?

 

With the slight easing of restrictions here, this morning I'm meeting a couple of caching friends at Wondabyne for some exercise along the Great North Walk and a picnic up the top, both of which are now allowed for a small group provided we keep our distance from each other. Along the way we plan to visit a couple of caches. Both are mine so it'll be a +0 geocaching day for me, but the other two haven't found them yet. I imagine at each one, one will reach into the hollow and retrieve the cache, after checking for snakes of course, then hand the logbook to the other to sign. I expect they'll both log finds for each one. Is that okay?

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, niraD said:

Different people define "searching" differently. Do I have to arrive at GZ to start the search? Or can my search start before I arrive at GZ? What if I think I arrived at GZ, but my coordinates were wrong?

 

And as CAVinoGal indicated, is "find" defined as qualifying to post a Find log (retrieving and signing the log) or in the more general sense of identifying where something is located?

 

The definition of DNF depends on how these other concepts are defined, and there is a fair bit of disagreement on those other concepts. And then there are people who base their decision on the effect a DNF log may or may not have on the CHS.

 

A scenario I've used before is if I leave my vehicle and start navigating to the cache, but before I get to GZ, encounter an obstacle such as a flooded river or bridge out, I would post a DNF, because it would be likely that a subsequent seeker of the cache would have the same results as I;  not finding the cache.

 

If, however, I was navigating to the same cache and there was a torrential downpour and I wasn't dressed for it and decided to return to my vehicle before I got to GZ I might post a note or no log at all because it would be a mere coincidence if a subsequent seeker would encounter the same experience.  

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

As demonstrated by goldenwattle:

21 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I swam out to retrieve a cache and then swam back with it for another to sign the log. It's in that waterproof container. Then swam back and returned it.

 

Many wouldn't dispute that. Some would. Who knows which way HQ would decide if it went to appeals. In my area we had an event that took place on water. People who didn't have a boat and couldn't get there logged them attended from the shore. There were complaints. Now we can't hold 5T events in the middle of a lake.

My basic argument was not so much that, but in response to others being negative about people not actually climbing the tree to get a cache, but using a ladder, a long pole or even having the cache brought down to them to sign. I was using the example of people getting a cache out on an island or in the example case I gave, a post out in the water, by taking a boat instead of swimming. In my mind taking a boat to get a cache out on an island/post in the water = ladder/pole to get a cache up a tree. Climbing the tree = swimming to the island. But by not answering my questions (repeated a second time when they said they didn't know what questions I was asking) I can only conclude they didn't  want to admit they have double standards and while complaining about people not climbing the tree, they have almost certainly taken a boat to get a cache on an island rather than swam. I don't care if they have taken a boat, because as I find using a ladder or long pole legit, so I do with the boat. Or using another person as the tool either, as long as they went to GZ. If one doesn't believe people have the right to claim a find for not climbing a tree, than by extension, that includes other caches and how they are found.

As for an event out on an island, I have been to one like that. A small commercial passenger boat was hired to take us out there. A few chose to paddle their own boats to the island, but most of us went on "HMS Unsinkable" as someone jested. (Not the boat's actual name.)

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, niraD said:

So, when does the "effort to find or discover" a geocache begin? Does it begin when you arrive at GZ? Or does it begin earlier?

 

And how much effort is required before a DNF is justified? If I arrive at GZ and search for 5 minutes, is that enough? For 10 minutes? For 30 minutes? For an hour? Does it matter whether the cache is rated as D1 or D4?

I believe the search begins when you arrive at GZ and actually begin searching. Up to then it should be WN, as you haven't begun to search; which could be a very interesting story of why you didn't get to GZ. WNs don't need to be boring. How long a search is up to you. I tend to make a WN if I didn't actually search, whether I got to GZ or not (particularly if not), but DNF if I made some effort at actually searching. I have arrived at GZ, seen the mess hole it is, and thought, "You're kidding", not being in the mood that day (or would ever be in the mood for what I confronted) and left. Although I got to GZ I never actually began searching, so a WN. Unless I am annoyed enough at the pile of rubbish I found I needed to dig through, and then I might make a DNF to get a DNF recorded, and write something like, "I glanced around and didn't spot the cache. I wasn't digging through that disgusting pile of dumped rubbish to search further. DNF! The area is a garbage dump." On a personal note, I owned a cache that happened to. It turned into a garbage dump. I archived it, as I thought it was rude of me to expect someone to need to dig through garbage to find my cache. My cache is possibly still there, but I wasn't going to bring a shovel to dig through the dumped rubbish to find out.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Going back to the original premise about what constitutes a find and where you/we/Groundspeak personally draws the line. 

 

Tree climb.

 

Bob calls his friends who regularly group cache together. He calls them to come watch as he climbs a tree. He will climb the 20 feet up the tree, no ropes and ladders needed.
 

 

  • Bob signs the log with his name only. 
     
  • 15 people show up at ground zero and watch him climb. Bob signs "group  of the day" and 16 people log the find (Bob plus the people watching from the ground).
     
  • 2 more people from the group that Bob contacted show up afterwards at the pub for a beer with the group. They each log a find. 
     
  • 2 more people couldn't make it at all, but log their "group" find. 
     
  • 1 person couldn't make it to ground zero but asked one member of the team to stream it live for him. He logged a find. 
     
  • Susan happens to be a geocacher who stumbled upon this climbing event and watches Bob climb the tree. However she is not part of the group. She logs a find. 
     
  • Mary shows up 10 minutes after the group left. She looks up into the tree, like 15 people before did 10 minutes ago. Sees the cache, like 15 people did 10 minutes ago did. She logs a find. 
     

My opinion, the most cut n dry, the most authentic, legitimate find is Bob's find.  The rest log notes (or DNF, or nothing).

 

Where do you draw your line and why? 

 

I have never known or heard of that situation. Sounds like fantasy to me. Only those at GZ get to sign. We all know who was there and we signed the log at GZ. Only once have I experienced more than about five people at one of these tree situations, and a couple of those  (I was one) also held the rope that allowed the climber to reach the cache. The names of those present were put in the log. Anyone later who met up at the pub wouldn't have their name in the log. They can be an armchair logger and claim they were there, but all the CO need do is check the log and not find their signature and delete them. They can't claim a find if their name isn't in the log.

Once only I have been in a group of 30 when we went underground for a cache in a tricky place. Several sections; the fist alone would have been a km walk underground. The organiser had everyone present sign a log sheet she had. Then the actually log had a group name put on it to save it being filled (very small logs) and saved the CO needing to go underground to replace it, if 30 people had each signed it. And chances too with it being handed around, someone would have dropped and lost it in the dark water. Pitch black in there, except for our lights. The organiser than consulted the log everyone present had signed and listed the names of those who made the find in her log to let the CO know who was actually there and stop others claiming the find. I'm sure the CO would have deleted any who pretended to be in our group.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I believe the search begins when you arrive at GZ and actually begin searching. Up to then it should be WN, as you haven't begun to search; which could be a very interesting story of why you didn't get to GZ. WNs don't need to be boring. How long a search is up to you. I tend to make a WN if I didn't actually search, whether I got to GZ or not (particularly if not), but DNF if I made some effort at actually searching.

 

For many of the most memorable caches I've done (some of which I've DNFed on my first attempt), a big part of the search is finding a way to GZ from the starting point. One of the caches I visited today is a good example of that. Even though it's one of mine, the final few hundred metres are through trackless scrub dotted with rock shelves, and although I have four or five waypoints marked along the way on my GPSr, I seem to end up taking a different route each time. I certainly wouldn't be at all troubled by someone logging a DNF if the going got too much for them on that section, but I would hope no-one would log a DNF once at GZ as the bright red regular-sized cache is in a pretty obvious spot and not concealed although you have to get within a few metres to see it. It would be a real shame for anyone to walk all that way and not be able to find it.

Link to comment
On 5/15/2020 at 3:13 PM, L0ne.R said:

Tree climb......et al...

 

"Tree climb" hide - base of tree hide (Jeff's point but taken a tad bit further)  - I'm mainly focusing on what your response would be regarding the changed scenario at the end of this post, in italics.  You provide one hypothetical while I'm providing a different one, slightly modifying yours.  

 

"Bob calls his friends who regularly group cache together. He calls them to come watch as he climbs a tree. He will climb the 20 feet up the tree, no ropes and ladders needed."   I don't know anyone who calls a group to say, "Come watch me climb a tree so we can all get a find."  I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I don't think it happens frequently.  I also don't see groups frequently getting together for just one cache like THIS one.  There are some other singular caches that groups are more likely to attempt (Jeff's example is a good one) but a 20 foot tree climb as the ONLY cache a group would attempt isn't what I would consider a typical reason for a group to be called in for.  In most groups where a tree climb is done, it's usually the first person at GZ that's willing to go up the tree that volunteers.  Sometimes that might be Bob while some other time it might be someone else in the group.

 

"Bob signs the log with his name only. " - Like Cerberus, I'm a bit confused here.  Which version of the hypothetical are you attempting to point out?  Is he with the group or is he by himself?  If by himself, then this is the way it's supposed to be.

 

"15 people show up at ground zero and watch him climb. Bob signs "group  of the day" and 16 people log the find (Bob plus the people watching from the ground)." - This is typically what happens since many tree climbs actually preclude multiple people up in trees.  Some trees may be able to support more than one up but realistically you're looking at 1, maybe 2 up in the tree at a time.  Groundspeak has sanctioned this and I have no issues with it as everyone is at the posted coordinates.  

 

"2 more people from the group that Bob contacted show up afterwards at the pub for a beer with the group. They each log a find. " - Nope.  I don't think you'd find anyone on here agreeing that their actions warranted a find on this cache.  That certainly doesn't mean it doesn't happen but this is another of those "I'll know it when I see it" type of examples that goes against what is sanctioned by GS.  Even the situation that Jeff and I are raising, it wouldn't be accepted.

 

"2 more people couldn't make it at all, but log their "group" find." - See above.  Exact same answer, exact same reply.

 

"1 person couldn't make it to ground zero but asked one member of the team to stream it live for him. He logged a find." - See above. Exact same answer, exact same reply.

 

"Susan happens to be a geocacher who stumbled upon this climbing event and watches Bob climb the tree. However she is not part of the group. She logs a find." - As already mentioned by some other replies, it would depend upon the group's response toward her and how much interaction they would have with her during AND after for me to make a determination of her legitimacy of claiming a find.  

 

"Mary shows up 10 minutes after the group left. She looks up into the tree, like 15 people before did 10 minutes ago. Sees the cache, like 15 people did 10 minutes ago did. She logs a find. "  Nope.  See my "exact same answer, exact same reply" points.  

 

On 5/15/2020 at 8:26 PM, Goldenwattle said:

My opinion, the most cut n dry, the most authentic, legitimate find is Bob's find.  The rest log notes (or DNF, or nothing). - not sure why it quoted GW, unless I used GW's thread as the point for quoting.  This is L0ne.R's quote, NOT GW's quote.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that Bob's find is the one with the strongest claim to legitimacy.  It's the rest of the group that you seem to feel doesn't get the right to log this cache as a find, despite GS allowing a situation as yours to stand.  There's no real slippery slope presented here because GS has already come down with their version of what they would consider a legitimate find in situations like what you've described.  Your second bullet point (the first being Bob signing only his name) is the end of the slope.  The 3rd, 4th, and 5th are all illegitimate, while your 6th would depend on other factors that would involve more examination of her role in the group for me to have anything close to what you appear to want, which is a definitive answer about her involvement and her claim to a find.   

 

My question to you revolves around what Jeff and I have posited, regarding a group finding a cache that's at the base of the tree instead of 20 feet up it.  Who gets to claim the find?  I'm pretty sure that almost all of us are in agreement that bullet points 3, 4, and 5 aren't valid and shouldn't be claimed as such, even if the cache were at the base of a tree instead of 20 feet up.  I want to hear your answer for the slightly changed version of events that Jeff and I are describing, as well as why you think the finds are valid or not.  I italicized the ones that many of us feel could be/are considered a legitimate claim to a find but are a slight variation on your scenario.  The plain font sentences are pretty cut and dried and don't really require much thought amongst the forum regulars.

 

base of tree hide

Bob calls his friends who regularly group cache together. He calls them to come watch as he finds a cache at the base of a tree.  He will find the the cache at the base of the tree, no real help needed.

15 people show up at ground zero and watch him find the cache at the base of the tree. Bob signs "group  of the day" and 16 people log the find (Bob plus the people watching from around GZ).

2 more people from the group that Bob contacted show up afterwards at the pub for a beer with the group. They each log a find. 
2 more people couldn't make it at all, but log their "group" find. 

1 person couldn't make it to ground zero but asked one member of the team to stream it live for him. He logged a find. 

Susan happens to be a geocacher who stumbled upon this finding event and watches Bob find the cache at  the base of the tree. However she is not part of the group. She logs a find. 

Mary shows up 10 minutes after the group left. She looks at the base of the tree, like 15 people before did 10 minutes ago. Sees the cache, like 15 people did 10 minutes ago did. She logs a find.

 

Edited by coachstahly
clarification
Link to comment
On 5/16/2020 at 6:56 AM, barefootjeff said:

With the slight easing of restrictions here, this morning I'm meeting a couple of caching friends at Wondabyne for some exercise along the Great North Walk and a picnic up the top, both of which are now allowed for a small group provided we keep our distance from each other. Along the way we plan to visit a couple of caches. Both are mine so it'll be a +0 geocaching day for me, but the other two haven't found them yet. I imagine at each one, one will reach into the hollow and retrieve the cache, after checking for snakes of course, then hand the logbook to the other to sign. I expect they'll both log finds for each one. Is that okay?

 

Yesterday's post-lockdown group outing went much as expected, with Mighty Minions, lee737 and his son samuel737 making up the group. The first cache we visited was GC9565 hidden in 2002 and still with its original logbook and what could well have been its original container. MM and I had both previously found this one, so we relied on memory to help guide Lee and Samuel through the low scrub to GZ where they made a quick find.

 

Next was one of my hides, GC6JMDK hidden in 2016. After leaving the Great North Walk track for the bush-bash to GZ, the others were grateful I'd come along to help guide the way although there were a few spots where I had to back-track. As we approached GZ, I dashed on ahead to make sure the cache was still there then stood back as the others began their search. lee737 made the find and logged a verbal NM when he discovered the lead in the pencil had broken, so I responded with an instant OM as I fished a replacement pencil from my backpack. He then handed the logbook around as we all took photos and had a well-earned break.

 

GC6JMDK.jpg.8b9d0be082b0dce29371326a17d96c4f.jpg

 

Once back on the main track, we headed north, making a slight detour to GCZMRX hidden in 2007. This was one I'd previously found but the others hadn't. MM was in the lead as we approached GZ and made the find, again handing the logbook around for the others to sign.

 

The final cache of the day was another of mine, GC752YF hidden in 2017 under a rock shelf close to the GNW on Scopas Peak. I stood back and watched while samuel737 scampered down the rocks to spot the cache, leaving it to his dad to reach in and grab it. Again the logbook was handed around for signing before we pulled out our picnic lunch and posed for the group photo.

 

GC752YF.jpg.3d8ff183f3601f2743465a0d3d51445f.jpg

 

This was pretty typical of all the group caching trips I've done, with everyone working as a team along the way and, at each cache, one person making the find and passing the log around. Everyone who signed the logs, and even those who didn't, was at GZ at each of the caches and played a part in the navigation. As I mentioned earlier, finding the way to GZ on these sorts of caches is usually much harder than finding the container once at GZ, even when one of the team is the CO!

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 5/6/2020 at 7:51 PM, Goldenwattle said:

When I place a cache and consider the rating I am thinking of the average female height of about 161.8 cm tall (5.3 Feet) (for my country). That way, most can play the game equally. That average height is about the same for the US too, which is "63.5 inches (161.5 cm)"

HaHa!  I completely understand your process.  It made me laugh, however, to consider a human's height to a tenth of a centimeter, when placing a geocache.

Edited by TerraViators
Link to comment
On 5/15/2020 at 8:12 PM, Goldenwattle said:

I believe the search begins when you arrive at GZ and actually begin searching. Up to then it should be WN, as you haven't begun to search; which could be a very interesting story of why you didn't get to GZ. WNs don't need to be boring. How long a search is up to you. I tend to make a WN if I didn't actually search, whether I got to GZ or not (particularly if not), but DNF if I made some effort at actually searching. I have arrived at GZ, seen the mess hole it is, and thought, "You're kidding", not being in the mood that day (or would ever be in the mood for what I confronted) and left. Although I got to GZ I never actually began searching, so a WN. Unless I am annoyed enough at the pile of rubbish I found I needed to dig through, and then I might make a DNF to get a DNF recorded, and write something like, "I glanced around and didn't spot the cache. I wasn't digging through that disgusting pile of dumped rubbish to search further. DNF! The area is a garbage dump." On a personal note, I owned a cache that happened to. It turned into a garbage dump. I archived it, as I thought it was rude of me to expect someone to need to dig through garbage to find my cache. My cache is possibly still there, but I wasn't going to bring a shovel to dig through the dumped rubbish to find out.

 

Sorry, GW; I disagree with you.

 

My search for a cache begins at the moment I decide "I'm going for THIS cache" and take some overt action.

For example:

  • When I end another cache hunt on a trail by 'finding' or 'not', and turn my exclusive attention to the next,
  • When I set out from my house for a single cache,
  • When I finish my OTHER activity on a trip out of the house and decide to go for that cache NOW,
  • When I change my mind and stop at a cache site I know is there on my way by, but had no intention to hunt,
  • etc.

I don't have to wait until I'm standing there looking through a bush to consider myself "Geocaching".

 

And what does that mean, anyway: "Get to GZ?" How close do you have to be? Some "GZs" are bigger than others! Walk up to a signpost / walk up to a rock field? Is it the point where you feel close enough to put away your device and use your geosenses? What if you fail, then take it out again and discover you're WAY off? Does that count?

 

It makes no sense to me to invalidate my activity on a hunt just because I didn't get to a location. What if you worked your behind off getting to a cache, then discovered it was an unexpected multicache? What if you're two stages into a three-way, but run out of time? You never reached the ACTUAL Ground-Zero, so does that get the same logging status as "Looks like it might rain, so I'm not getting out of the car"?

 

A DNF is MY caching history. If I want it marked on my map so I can go avenge it, I'm not going to just file a NOTE log. I'm not going to keep a list, and I'm not going to use GSAK.

 

For ME, my hunt starts when I say it does, I'm dedicated to a cache, and if I don't end up signing the log, it most likely a DNF, regardless of the reason.

 

Edited by TeamRabbitRun
  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 5/8/2020 at 9:28 PM, fizzymagic said:

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

IMO, it's a non-competitive activity that some use as a competitive measure with their friends and selves.  It is competitive if you make it.

Edited by TerraViators
Link to comment
5 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

When I set out from my house for a single cache

So your car breaks down half way there and you get no further, and so you would log a DNF to add to the chance of the CO getting the attention of the automated system. Why would you do that?

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...