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

[+L0ne.R 1848]

Saw this in another forum topic:

 

Quote

23 people logged a Find from watching a live streaming of someone else finding a cache. Something close to that number. And that's just ONE of the caches each of those people found virtually. Shameful. Someone mentioned that it's helping them keep their daily streak.

 

Seems to be the slippery slope created by group caching.

 

Where is the line drawn? Why is one style of group caching allowed and another not? 

 

A group logs finds on all caches found by at least one person in the group who signs with the group name, it's legitimate. GCHQ sanctions this.

 

Normally each member doesn't even have to see the cache, as long as someone signs the group-of-the-day name, it's legitimate.  

 

Want a T5 tree-climbing cache but you can't climb a tree, no problem. Watch someone else climb the tree and you get to count it as a cache you also climbed the tree to get. Actually you don't even have to watch, just as long as you get included in their group-of-the-day.

 

 

Either way a bunch of people watched and logged finds for watching someone find a cache. Can someone explain the thinking here? The line-in-the-sand?

 

Shouldn't the person who physically signed the log be the only person who gets to claim a find, the others write a note? No matter where those people are on the planet? 

 

 

 

 

 

[Keystone 3449]

The line in the sand has already been drawn, and it is above the low tide mark on this sandy beach.

[+cerberus1 3319]

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...  

[+RocTheCacheBox 208]

17 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

23 people logged a Find from watching a live streaming of someone else finding a cache. Something close to that number. And that's just ONE of the caches each of those people found virtually. Shameful. Someone mentioned that it's helping them keep their daily streak.

Once upon a time people had to invest time, effort and maybe even a few hundred dollars into this activity. The people that participated then tended to take the time to educate themselves about the do's, dont's and guidelines of geocaching.

 

Now you simply add a free and app to your smarter-than-you-phone and partake in the activity without the slightest knowledge of what those do's, dont's and guidelines are.  

 

I have no proof but would not be surprised to find out that most of them don't know whats wrong with what they are doing. I dont think the problem has been caused by "group" or "team" caching. Its been caused by ignorance and maybe lack of caring.

    

I try not to attribute to malice things that can be explained by ignorance.

Edited May 5, 2020 by RocTheCacheBox

[+niraD 3291]

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Shouldn't the person who physically signed the log be the only person who gets to claim a find, the others write a note? No matter where those people are on the planet? 

I've almost never geocached with a group where that was the standard for normal caches. Someone in the group usually signs for everyone else (either signing everyone's names, or signing a made-up team name to save space in the log). If one or two geocachers insists on signing the log themselves, that's fine. But most of us are content to have someone else sign for us.

 

I'm not going to impose more stringent standards just because the cache has a high terrain rating. The terrain rating isn't a "score" of some sort, and we don't "earn" it by finding the cache. It's just a way for the CO to communicate the general nature of the geocaching experience to potential seekers like us.

[+baer2006 788]

27 minutes ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

I have no proof but would not be surprised to find out that most of them don't know whats wrong with what they are doing. I dont think the problem has not been caused by "group" or "team" caching. Its been caused by ignorance and maybe lack of caring.

I have no proof either , but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that most of them were "high numbers" cachers, who just can't handle it to drop their averages during these times. Actually, the quote in the original posting mentions "streaking" as a motive.

 

As for that "line in the sand": If someone is physically present at the cache site, while someone else logs the cache (even if it's up in a tree), it's fine for me. As others have said, geocaching is in some way a team sport. And if the climber invites 30 geo-friends to an impromptu event, and all of them log the find - well, so what? But having someone else enter your name into a logbook, while you're nowhere near the cache, is not ok in my book. And watching the action via a live stream doesn't make a difference.

[+NYPaddleCacher 1827]

16 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

I have no proof either , but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that most of them were "high numbers" cachers, who just can't handle it to drop their averages during these times. Actually, the quote in the original posting mentions "streaking" as a motive.

 

As for that "line in the sand": If someone is physically present at the cache site, while someone else logs the cache (even if it's up in a tree), it's fine for me. As others have said, geocaching is in some way a team sport. And if the climber invites 30 geo-friends to an impromptu event, and all of them log the find - well, so what? But having someone else enter your name into a logbook, while you're nowhere near the cache, is not ok in my book. And watching the action via a live stream doesn't make a difference.

 

The way I see it, is the cache owner that puts a cache up in a tree most likely does so with the intention that climbing the tree is part of the experience.   For some, geocaching is a team sport, but certainly not everyone.  I assume that there are instance where a 2-3 cachers get together and each contribute in some part to finding a cache in a  tree, but there are also many cases where cachers are only spectators.  To me, that isn't much different than watching someone finding a cache in a youtube video then logging the find.  Both show a lack of integrity.

[+baer2006 788]

10 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

The way I see it, is the cache owner that puts a cache up in a tree most likely does so with the intention that climbing the tree is part of the experience.

And a puzzle owner intends that solving the puzzle is part of the experience. And then we have caches, where getting to the logbook is tricky. Or caches, where you have to "fish" the cache from high up in a tree with a telescoping rod. In all these cases, it's completely normal (in my GC community at least) that one cacher in a group solves the difficult task, and all log the find. Why should it be different for tree climbing?

 

15 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

but there are also many cases where cachers are only spectators.  To me, that isn't much different than watching someone finding a cache in a youtube video then logging the find.  Both show a lack of integrity.

In a way I see you point. But still, to me watching from GZ or watching a video doesn't feel like the same (or even similar) at all. Maybe because mass gatherings at T5 caches are extremely rare in my community, while I'm sure that the option to log a T5 via video would draw dozens of "finders" for each occasion.

[+barefootjeff 3827]

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Shouldn't the person who physically signed the log be the only person who gets to claim a find, the others write a note? No matter where those people are on the planet? 

 

Usually on group outings here, the person who retrieved the cache passes the log around for everyone to sign. Some years ago one of my friends and mentors said:

 

Quote

if you don't write your own name in the log book, or weren't in a position where you were able to, please do not claim it as a find.

 

For me, that's a pretty good line in the sand. If I'm close enough to the logbook to write my name in it, even if someone else actually does the writing (as happened once when my hands were covered in mud), then it's a find. If I'm not, it's a WN.

 

Even if only one team member retrieves the cache, whether it's up a tree, on top of a boulder or in a cave, the others have usually contributed in other ways, often path-finding, lending a hand through tough terrain or scouring GZ for that elusive hiding place, and if there are multiple caches found on the trip, usually it's a different person who grabs each one. But even if they don't, just being part of the team is an important contribution. One of the best things about my 1000th find was the team who came along to help me get there and find it.

 

[+CAVinoGal 658]

Our local geocaching group normally meets once a month at a pizza place somewhere in the county, and it's been a tradition that the host and/or another cacher will provide a few (sometimes only 1, sometimes as many as 5) "pre-publication" FTF opportunities that get raffled off - everyone gets a ticket for attending the event, so everyone has an equal chance.  And typically, everyone who wins, shares, and the whole group tags along or splits up among the "winners".  It's totally optional to share or tag along, but it's tradition for this group.  

 

If I didn't win one of the opportunities, I'll tag along to one of the pre-publication "finds" - and log it as part of the group.   It's a real adventure sometimes, as our events are mostly in the evening, so it's usually dark, and some of the locations are, shall we say, interesting in the dark!  I can recall only 2 "mass" finds with 20 or more people in the group that I claimed as a find.  In each case, I did see the cache, and the hiding spot.  Other "after event" groups are typically less than 8 or 10 people and I probably have only a handful of those finds.

 

The vast majority of my "group" finds are hiking with 2 or 3 others, and the actual "finds" are made by various ones throughout the day; puzzles we've solved on our own and agreed on the final coordinates, or shared if one of the group got stumped.  Sometimes we'll let each of the group discover the cache, but sometimes, if we've been searching for a bit, the first one to spot it calls it.  One person signs all the names (just more efficient that way) or the team name for the day if the log is small, and we'll rotate the signing duties as well throughout the day.  My logs will note if we signed as a team or individual names, and if it's a team signature I'll also state the geo-names of each team member.

 

Group caching is not my typical modus operandi, nor is it for most of the cachers I know.  Occasionally, yes, we do a "group" thing becasue it's part of an event, and we're not doing it to inflate our numbers or claim finds we never made.  To split up and cache separate routes, and then claim "group" on all caches that day  - NO.  That' s not right.  The cachers I regularly hang with wouldn't do that either, so it hasn't been an issue in my short career.

[+Mudfrog 590]

Quote

Shouldn't the person who physically signed the log be the only person who gets to claim a find, the others write a note? No matter where those people are on the planet?

 

Myself, I have to make it to ground zero, then to the container, then to the logbook, before i consider logging a cache as found. I'm such a stickler that even after watching another person climb and sign for everyone, I've climbed afterward to prove to myself that i really got a cache. I don't have a problem with someone else signing my name if I know for a fact the cache, in its hiding spot, is reachable by me.

 

At the same time, and this is a bit hypocritical on my part,, there have been quite a few times where I made a challenging grab and then passed the cache to others waiting so they could sign. It seems that most cachers, cache owners, don't have a problem with this. Me, It's either I get it myself or log the DNF.

 

Imo, virtually logging a physical cache is plain silly and a great example of how NOT to geocache. 

[+MNTA 196]

9 hours ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

Once upon a time people had to invest time, effort and maybe even a few hundred dollars into this activity. The people that participated then tended to take the time to educate themselves about the do's, dont's and guidelines of geocaching.

 

Now you simply add a free and app to your smarter-than-you-phone and partake in the activity without the slightest knowledge of what those do's, dont's and guidelines are.  

 

 

Um the app might be free but the phone is crazy expensive. 

 

Several times I'm the booster or the human ladder. Sometimes I'm the climber. Sometimes I take the pictures. Sometimes I let my kids do it because they enjoy it. Sometimes I say not today. In all but that last one I claim a find.

[+Goldenwattle 1654]

21 minutes ago, MNTA said:

but the phone is crazy expensive.

That's why after I got my smart phone, it was several years before I turned on data. It was far cheaper to buy a GPS than pay for data.

[+JL_HSTRE 581]

If you're only there via video then you didn't find the cache.

 

The geocaching community shouldn't tolerate such behavior. I don't just mean Groundspeak.

 

But I'm sure there will be much wringing of hands and lamenting that "I wouldn't do it but it's not my place to judge how other people cache."

[+JL_HSTRE 581]

14 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

For some, geocaching is a team sport, but certainly not everyone.  I assume that there are instance where a 2-3 cachers get together and each contribute in some part to finding a cache in a  tree, but there are also many cases where cachers are only spectators.  To me, that isn't much different than watching someone finding a cache in a youtube video then logging the find.  Both show a lack of integrity.

 

What if the cache is clearly supposed to be in the tree, but has fallen to the ground?

 

The core principle of geocaching is location. We can certainly quibble about what must be done at the location, but we should all be able to agree that you must be physically at the location in the first place.

[+RocTheCacheBox 208]

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

Um the app might be free but the phone is crazy expensive.

 

No doubt they can be. But that misses the point.

 

I know of no one that has bought a smart phone for the intent of going geocaching. (I'm sure someone has, somewhere.) Most that download the app purchased that phone for its many other features. 

I know many people, myself included, that spent well over $100 on a hand held gps unit so they get into the activity because phones simply were not capable at the time.  

Edited May 5, 2020 by RocTheCacheBox

[+Goldenwattle 1654]

34 minutes ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

I know many people, myself included, that spent well over $100 on a hand held gps unit so they get into the activity because phones simply were not capable at the time.

And even when phones were capable, data was too expensive, at least in Australia. I had the chance to find out how much better GPSs are to use than phones. I now have a phone and now data is cheaper have used it to geocache, but still keep going back to the more user friendly GPS.

[+NYPaddleCacher 1827]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

And even when phones were capable, data was too expensive, at least in Australia. I had the chance to find out how much better GPSs are to use than phones. I now have a phone and now data is cheaper have used it to geocache, but still keep going back to the more user friendly GPS.

 

It may be worth noting that cellular data is not required to use a smartphone for caching.   You can download data and maps from a wifi connection,  then use it without data out in the field (even in airplane mode).  

[+cerberus1 3319]

2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

If you're only there via video then you didn't find the cache.

The geocaching community shouldn't tolerate such behavior. I don't just mean Groundspeak.

 

I agree, and if the OP simply discussed this "virtual" craziness, they'd probably have an agreeable crowd.    

 

  - But they had to throw in yet-another "irk"  that bugs them into the mix,  lessoning its importance.

[+Goldenwattle 1654]

7 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

It may be worth noting that cellular data is not required to use a smartphone for caching.   You can download data and maps from a wifi connection,  then use it without data out in the field (even in airplane mode).  

The main problem I have with phones, is that they are not as user friendly as my Garmin etrex30. I only use a phone in an emergency, as they are clumsy to use. And last time I did use the phone (because I had left my GPS at home) it was so slowwww, and not everything loaded. I suspect problems with the tower. When data was too expensive, I had little wish to use a phone, except when I hadn't loaded a cache on my GPS. Then I would find a cafe (if one was available) and load the cache on the phone.

[+L0ne.R 1848]

18 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

The way I see it, is the cache owner that puts a cache up in a tree most likely does so with the intention that climbing the tree is part of the experience.   For some, geocaching is a team sport, but certainly not everyone.  I assume that there are instance where a 2-3 cachers get together and each contribute in some part to finding a cache in a  tree, but there are also many cases where cachers are only spectators.  To me, that isn't much different than watching someone finding a cache in a youtube video then logging the find.  Both show a lack of integrity.

 

Exactly my point. Both show a lack of integrity.

 

GCHQ says one form of lack-of-integrity is legitimate, while another form is not. Both forms should not be sanctioned by GCHQ. 

[+cerberus1 3319]

12 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

GCHQ says one form of lack-of-integrity is legitimate, while another form is not. Both forms should not be sanctioned by GCHQ. 

 

Excuse me, but your own example speaks of "virtual" people fake-logging a find,  versus a photo of people at the location.

That's a world of difference between the two... 

You've been around long enough to remember "The Language of Location ".   This is a location-based hobby.

 

 

Edited May 5, 2020 by cerberus1
sad...not worth it...

[+Mudfrog 590]

9 hours ago, MNTA said:

 

Um the app might be free but the phone is crazy expensive. 

 

No matter what they paid for it, everyone already has a phone before they install the geocaching app. You can bet your sweet bippy, the phone wasn't bought just to use with geocaching. Of course if they happen to think like me, they wouldn't have paid much (think less than $60 at most, so far) for a phone in the first place.  

 

[+niraD 3291]

4 hours ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

I know of no one that has bought a smart phone for the intent of going geocaching. (I'm sure someone has, somewhere.)

I know a family where they bought the kids used smartphones (with no data plan) for geocaching. The kids either downloaded data in advance, or used WiFi to tether to Dad's phone (which did have a data plan).

 

Actually, I think they bought only 2 of the smartphones used. The eldest kid got Dad's old phone.

[+barefootjeff 3827]

9 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Exactly my point. Both show a lack of integrity.

 

GCHQ says one form of lack-of-integrity is legitimate, while another form is not. Both forms should not be sanctioned by GCHQ. 

 

As a kid I loved climbing trees, but at 15 I weighed little more than half what I now weigh at 65, my bones were more fall-tolerant and I didn't have the inner ear malady that's messed up my sense of balance. But there are some trees I'll still climb:

 

 

There are some where I cart along my telescopic ladder:

 

 

Sometimes I've used someone else's ladder because mine wasn't long enough:

 

 

Sometimes I've used a more agile friend to retrieve the cache for me:

 

 

And on a multi with a waypoint beyond my reach in a tree, I've used a process of elimination to locate the next waypoint:

 

 

Hiring a cherry-picker is an option I've yet to explore.

 

The rules of this game say to claim a find you must sign the log and in all these cases I've done that. Any attempt by the CO to stipulate how I put my name in the log would be an ALR.

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+NYPaddleCacher 1827]

7 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

7 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

GCHQ says one form of lack-of-integrity is legitimate, while another form is not. Both forms should not be sanctioned by GCHQ. 

 

Excuse me, but your own example speaks of "virtual" people fake-logging a find,  versus a photo of people at the location.

That's a world of difference between the two... 

You've been around long enough to remember "The Language of Location ".   This is a location-based hobby.

 

Location is not just two dimensional.  A cache at the base of a tree will have a different terrain than a cache 30 feet up a tree that requires climbing the tree to open the container and sign the log.   Those people standing around at the base of the tree were not "at the location".  Even though they were closer to GZ than those "finding" the cache from their cache, in both cases they're claiming to have found the cache.    Yes, they might have their name in the log book, but unless they went up into the tree they didn't go to location of the cache.  Others may draw the line differently, but to me, claiming a find on a cache when you didn't actually go to GZ is on the wrong side of it.

[+Clancy's Crew 41]

In the big picture, if the find is within GCHQ rules, the "finder" can take the smiley.  Depending on their participation in getting the log, whether they do take the smiley is an indication of their intent and the driver for engaging in geocaching.

 

During the peak of my extreme caching time, we had a group that did many 5/5 caches together.  The 5 difficulty caches that required solving a puzzle generally was done by each of us, with varying levels of hints flying around in the days before the trip as we all tried to figure out the puzzle.  The funny part of the actual caching was that each of us had our own climbing equipment, kayak, snorkel/face mask, etc., and it would take FOREVER sometimes to do a stage in some of the multi stage monsters we did because each of us wanted to, [needed to], do the climb, dive to the bottom of the lake, etc.  We were each AFTER THE EXPERIENCE, and to a less extent, after the bragging rights (and pictures of the adventure) for a difficult cache.

 

We were AFTER THE EXPERIENCE.  For some people, that is belaying so someone else can safely summit a trad rock climbing cache, but they are still getting the experience.  It is up to each individual to determine whether they want to sign the log (or have it signed for them), even if the rules allow them the smiley.

 

If you want to sign a log that someone else retrieved and didn't meaningfully help in the effort, I guess you aren't into the sport for the experience, you must be after something else.  I may not agree with whatever that is, but it is your life.

 

I like climbing trees...  period.

 

[+Goldenwattle 1654]

34 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

A cache at the base of a tree will have a different terrain than a cache 30 feet up a tree that requires climbing the tree to open the container and sign the log.

Try telling that to some beginners. I've had this discussion with a beginner with only a mere hundred or so finds, when I told them their cache up a tree wasn't 1.5T. They told me to go read the definitions and I was wrong and they were right, because the walk to the tree was short and flat.

 

I believe though that it can be a combined effort to reach the cache. I have been to a tree where one person made the climb, but they were only able to do that, because the other two of us held the rope so that they could get to the cache. Without that combined effort, no-one would have reached the cache. Then people use tools. Someone might turn up with a long ladder, or even a long pole which they can use to reach up, grab the cache and lower it down, without ever doing the climb. Then by extension of a tool, someone else arranges for another person to fetch the cache for them, which is no different to using a long pole or ladder, in the sense that the human is another tool. They bring a human with them, rather than a pole. There can be more than one way to attain the cache. But under your idea that you must actually climb the tree, none of those methods are acceptable, as using a ladder or a tool to reach the cache (no matter how inventive) did not involve climbing.

 

Then what is the difference with using a tool (whether human or otherwise) to get a cache up a tree to avoid the climb and then using a tool (boat) to get a cache on an island to avoid swimming? I don't see the difference. Yet many are happy to sit in a boat to paddle to the island, rather than swim. I have swum to (some) islands to get my find, while others have taken a boat, but I don't mind the people in the boat also log the find, whether they paddled or were passengers. If you think people need to climb a tree to claim the smilies, you must then believe that people need to swim to islands to claim that find too. No different.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Goldenwattle

[+niraD 3291]

36 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I believe though that it can be a combined effort to reach the cache.

Absolutely. When I'm with a group, I prefer "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" style geocaching, so everyone has the opportunity to find the cache. But I've been in groups that insisted on "Three Musketeers" style geocaching, where everyone declares victory as soon as anyone finds the cache. In groups using "Three Musketeers" style geocaching, some members of the group may still be on the way to GZ when the cache is found, but everyone still logs a Find.

 

I don't usually like "Three Musketeers" style geocaching, but it's been used by groups since long before I started geocaching. I consider myself lucky if I'm in a group and the others wait until after I've spotted the hide before declaring the cache found for everyone.

 

If "Three Musketeers" style geocaching is used for ground-level caches, then I see no reason why it cannot also be used for elevated caches.

[+CAVinoGal 658]

58 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

using a tool (whether human or otherwise)

This made me chuckle - in some logs I've joked about using my husband as a TOTT, for those caches that are just out of reach for me (I'm a bit vertically challenged, he's more average height and can reach several that I can't).  He's my TOTT of choice for those!  On the other hand, I enjoy solving puzzles more than he does - we cache together a lot, and he uses my solutions and we both claim the find.

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by CAVinoGal

[+niraD 3291]

1 minute ago, CAVinoGal said:

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

using a tool (whether human or otherwise)

This made me chuckle - in some logs I've joked about using my husband as a TOTT, for those caches that are just out of reach for me (I'm a bit vertically challenged, he's more average height and can reach several that I can't).  He's my TOTT of choice for those! 

I once found a cache that actually recommended bringing a small child as a TOTT, the idea being that the easiest way to retrieve the cache would be to lift a small child up to where the child could easily walk a few feet to retrieve the cache.

[+CAVinoGal 658]

13 minutes ago, niraD said:

When I'm with a group, I prefer "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" style geocaching, so everyone has the opportunity to find the cache. But I've been in groups that insisted on "Three Musketeers" style geocaching, where everyone declares victory as soon as anyone finds the cache

 

When hubby and I are together, once of us will usually anounce "I see it" and, depending on how long we've been looking and how frustrated we are getting, wait till the other has found it or just point it out.  Same goes for larger groups...

[+niraD 3291]

1 minute ago, CAVinoGal said:

When hubby and I are together, once of us will usually anounce "I see it" and, depending on how long we've been looking and how frustrated we are getting, wait till the other has found it or just point it out.  Same goes for larger groups...

That's the "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" method, more or less. The longer it takes some people to find the cache, the more freely the hints flow. Sometimes it gets to obvious "warmer" and "colder" hints. And sometimes, the ones who haven't found it yet just give up, which is okay too. It's their choice.

[+L0ne.R 1848]

25 minutes ago, niraD said:

Absolutely. When I'm with a group, I prefer "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" style geocaching, so everyone has the opportunity to find the cache.

 

In the case of holding a ladder or ropes, it can be done the "Huckle Buckle" way too. Each person takes a turn holding the ropes and everyone has the opportunity to visit the cache and sign the log. 

[+barefootjeff 3827]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Location is not just two dimensional.  A cache at the base of a tree will have a different terrain than a cache 30 feet up a tree that requires climbing the tree to open the container and sign the log.   Those people standing around at the base of the tree were not "at the location".  Even though they were closer to GZ than those "finding" the cache from their cache, in both cases they're claiming to have found the cache.    Yes, they might have their name in the log book, but unless they went up into the tree they didn't go to location of the cache.  Others may draw the line differently, but to me, claiming a find on a cache when you didn't actually go to GZ is on the wrong side of it.

 

That may be true, but nowhere in the cache's coordinates does it specify elevation. That third coordinate isn't stored in the database. I would consider being at the location specified by the coordinates and having written my name in the logbook to be sufficient to log an online find, but yes I know others may differ.

 

As another example, consider a T4 cache I did a few years back that's at the end of a 5km undulating hike. The cache is tucked in behind a ledge about a metre down from the top of a small cliff, with the CO's obvious intention being to climb down onto the ledge to retrieve it, but with my wonky sense of balance and nothing to hold onto, I didn't want to risk it so I trudged back to the car and logged a DNF. Some time later I returned with a ladder, safely accessing the cache from below and thus circumventing its T4 rating. Does doing it that way invalidate the find?

 

[+niraD 3291]

35 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

In the case of holding a ladder or ropes, it can be done the "Huckle Buckle" way too. Each person takes a turn holding the ropes and everyone has the opportunity to visit the cache and sign the log. 

Maybe they could. But should they be required to, or expected to? I don't think so.

 

And for what it's worth, I have belayed for people who would not have been able to belay me.

[+thebruce0 2484]

On 5/4/2020 at 5:33 PM, NYPaddleCacher said:

I assume that there are instance where a 2-3 cachers get together and each contribute in some part to finding a cache in a  tree, but there are also many cases where cachers are only spectators.  To me, that isn't much different than watching someone finding a cache in a youtube video then logging the find.  Both show a lack of integrity.

At least the big group is AT the cache area - language of location.  Watching virtually from home is very different than a group going to log a find where 1 of 30 does all "the work".  (and that is not me condoning the latter - only drawing the distinction)

 

On 5/4/2020 at 9:11 PM, Mudfrog said:

even after watching another person climb and sign for everyone, I've climbed afterward to prove to myself that i really got a cache.

For tree climbs, if it looks like a fun climb, then absolutely I'll do the same   (and I hope with my tree climb trail that people who enjoy climbing will make the effort to climb and do them, even if someone else they're with does it 'for the group'). I don't expect everyone to make the climb if others tag along, but I hope that people will, because the whole point of the cache is to enjoy the climb, if you're able.

 

10 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

And even when phones were capable, data was too expensive, at least in Australia. I had the chance to find out how much better GPSs are to use than phones. I now have a phone and now data is cheaper have used it to geocache, but still keep going back to the more user friendly GPS.

 

It may be worth noting that cellular data is not required to use a smartphone for caching.   You can download data and maps from a wifi connection,  then use it without data out in the field (even in airplane mode).  

 

This. Also, "user friendly" is highly subjective. I vastly prefer my iphone than a handheld GPS for its usability. That's very much a personal stance.

 

 

This discussion boils down to that age old difference between what's allowed, and what's good etiquette. It's certainly allowed for 30 people to log a find when 1 person does the work. Is it good etiquette?  But it's not allowed for 30 people to log finds - when it's clearly virtual - on a cache one person finds while streaming online. That's bad etiquette, and it's breaking guidelines. That said - IF those people gave the impression they were all there and there's no way to prove that they watched online, then it would become he-said-she-said, and likely their logs would be allowed to stand.  But is it good etiquette?  Lying about that would be on their consciences.

But in this case, if they were overt about logging the finds thanks to 1 person live streaming their find, well, I don't think there's any question that that should constitute deletion.

[+L0ne.R 1848]

33 minutes ago, niraD said:

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

In the case of holding a ladder or ropes, it can be done the "Huckle Buckle" way too. Each person takes a turn holding the ropes and everyone has the opportunity to visit the cache and sign the log. 

Maybe they could. But should they be required to, or expected to? I don't think so.

 

Personally  I would say 'expected to'. If it is claimed  that one found a tree-climbing style cache but actually only watched (either by standing near the tree or holding ropes or a ladder), I don't see how that is a legitimate truth.  Similar to going to a climbing gym, holding the ropes then claiming one has climbed to the top of the wall, the achievement did not occur. Same for holding a ladder so someone else could safely get to the roof of a house. To claim that one has, by-proxy, also climbed onto the roof of a house is not a legitimate claim. 

 

I don't see how someone can be bothered by the group streaming behaviour but not similarly bothered by a behaviour that is almost equivalent. They are both by-proxy behaviours.  The way I see it, by-proxy is not a legitimate style of play. 

Edited May 6, 2020 by L0ne.R

[+niraD 3291]

3 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Personally  I would say 'expected to'. If it is claimed  that one found a tree-climbing style cache but actually only watched (either by standing near the tree or holding ropes or a ladder), I don't see how that is a legitimate truth.  Similar to going to a climbing gym, holding the ropes then claiming one has climbed to the top of the wall, the achievement did not occur.

If I go to a climbing gym with youth from my church, and spend all my time belaying the youth rather than actually climbing myself, then I have still been an active participant in my church's youth trip to the climbing gym.

 

And that seems to be the heart of the disagreement. Does the Find log represent being part of the group that went to the climbing gym? Or does the Find log represent making it to the top of the climbing wall? 

 

3 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I don't see how someone can be bothered by the group streaming behaviour but not similarly bothered by a behaviour that is almost equivalent. They are both by-proxy behaviours.  The way I see it by-proxy should both be considered not legitimate styles of play. 

Groundspeak has chosen to define a Find as "visited the coordinates and signed the logbook". The group that accompanies the climber to the tree has "visited the coordinates"; the group that watches the streaming video has not.

 

As for "signed the logbook", I believe that Groundspeak has already come down on the side of allowing one member of a group to sign for others, or allowing one member of a group to sign an informal team name to represent everyone in the group. Like it or not, that is the norm for group geocaching trips. I see no reason why caches with high terrain ratings should be special in that regard.

[+JL_HSTRE 581]

11 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

It may be worth noting that cellular data is not required to use a smartphone for caching.   You can download data and maps from a wifi connection,  then use it without data out in the field (even in airplane mode).  

 

GPS signal isn't data?

 

I thought I tried my cellphone (albiet a previous model) in Airplane Mode to save battery life but found it that prevented the GPS from working. 

 

10 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

GCHQ says one form of lack-of-integrity is legitimate, while another form is not. Both forms should not be sanctioned by GCHQ. 

 

Lets say three people go to a cache that requires climbing a tree. Three scenarios:

 

1. The cachers arrive to find the cache has fallen on the ground before they arrived. Can they still log it?

 

2. The first person climbs, grabs the cache, and then accidentally drops it to the ground. Do the two people on the ground still need to climb?

 

3. What if the first person to climb deliberately throws the cache down then it is thrown back up after signing? Or a person climbs, brings the cache down, and then the same person (or one of the other people) climbs again to replace it?

 

I've done some tree cimbers where you really need someone in the tree and at least one other set of eyes on the ground helping give directions. 

 

If every person in the group has to make the climb does that mean if it was a field puzzle all three would need to solve the puzzle separately instead of working together? Does each person need to individually find the container instead of all look and once one person finds the search is done?

 

What if it's a Wherigo? Do all three people need to run the cartridge? What if the app crashes near the end for only 1 of the 3?

 

This is a very slippery slope.

 

Geocaching gets people outdoors and takes them places. When they get to that place they should make an honest effort to help find the cache. But logging restrictions should not deliberately make geocaching inefficient and punish teamwork.

 

It's the difference between deliberately leapfrogging a series vs the rest of the group moving on after the find while one person stays to sign the log and rehide the cache.

[+barefootjeff 3827]

24 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Personally  I would say 'expected to'. If it is claimed  that one found a tree-climbing style cache but actually only watched (either by standing near the tree or holding ropes or a ladder), I don't see how that is a legitimate truth.  Similar to going to a climbing gym, holding the ropes then claiming one has climbed to the top of the wall, the achievement did not occur. Same for holding a ladder so someone else could safely get to the roof of a house. To claim that one has, by-proxy, also climbed onto the roof of a house is not a legitimate claim. 

 

When I log a find on a cache that involves climbing, be it a tree or on rocks, I'm not claiming to have climbed the thing, all I'm claiming is that I signed the cache's logbook. In fact I'll state quite clearly in my log that I used a ladder instead of picking my way up through the branches, or rope, a grabbing tool, an agile friend or a borrowed child. For the latter, there's a cache near here where the CO says on the cache page, "In order to find this cache you will have to be agile and non-claustrophobic. Or just talk one of the youngin's into doing the dirty work for you." After trying to squeeze into the narrow space and fearing I might become stuck, I instead took the CO's advice and used the services of a youngin.

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+cerberus1 3319]

I remember a forum regular once mentioned that a family's members that occasionally cache separately shouldn't be able to "add a smiley" to their joint account.

 

I feel most realize that geocaching.com isn't gonna change their opinion on what constitutes a find.    

By the OP's uncompromising belief on who can claim a find,  would everyone in a family have to sign that log just in case they'd like to have an account of their own someday  (to backdate finds) ? 

After all ... they were all there, but only mom signed that log.

Sheesh...

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by cerberus1
splleling

[+TerraViators 43]

If it hasn't been stated, I believe the line in the sand is dictated by profile statistics for most. 

I enjoy the statistics, patterns, color shadings and illuminations.  However, If statistic generators are not part of the game, I believe some of this behavior wanes.

[+barefootjeff 3827]

4 minutes ago, TerraViators said:

If it hasn't been stated, I believe the line in the sand is dictated by profile statistics for most.

 

I must be the odd one out, then, because the only times I look at my statistics page is when I'm working towards a challenge cache, approaching a milestone or, at present, watching my "Longest slump" statistic climb to new heights. A quick look at my statistics will show they're nothing to brag about anyway. Coming from a background in hiking, I like doing higher terrain caches because they get me out into the sort of places I enjoy and often set me interesting challenges. But I have a medical condition that makes some climbing precarious for me, so rather than sit at home complaining on the forums about all the caches I can't get to, I'll devise other ways to overcome that impairment, be it ladders, ropes, helpful friends or whatever.

 

The requirement for logging a find is that you sign the logbook and, apart from challenge caches, the CO isn't allowed to add to that. They can put their cache up a tree, on a cliff-top ledge or on an island, envisaging seekers will climb to it or paddle a kayak to it, but they can't stop them using other methods of getting to the logbook and adding their name, such as a ladder, a cherry-picker, a helpful friend, a power boat, a water taxi or even a helicopter. The task they've set is to sign the logbook, nothing more and nothing less. Climbing the tree unaided, scaling the cliff, paddling a kayak, swimming or solving a puzzle might be their suggested, even preferred, way of achieving that, but they can't make that the only way.

[+baer2006 788]

8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

"In order to find this cache you will have to be agile and non-claustrophobic. Or just talk one of the youngin's into doing the dirty work for you." After trying to squeeze into the narrow space and fearing I might become stuck, I instead took the CO's advice and used the services of a youngin.

"Tools" like this can come in very handy. When I started caching with my son 12 years ago, he was 8. There are dozens of caches in small tunnels, tubes or other really tight places, where I was never at the hide, because my son did the "dirty work". We've always considered ourselves as a team, and therefore I never even thought about _not_ logging such a cache as a find for me. And even though the pure size difference between us became less and less significant over the years, my own agility didn't exactly improve. So up this day, when we're caching together and a "tight spot" cache comes up, he's doing the T-rated job. Unfortunately, the "tool" is rarely available nowadays, with all the distractions... (chess club, university, girlfriend)

[+thebruce0 2484]

10 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

GPS signal isn't data?

 

I thought I tried my cellphone (albiet a previous model) in Airplane Mode to save battery life but found it that prevented the GPS from working. 

 

GPS signal is GPS signal, not cellular data. Older phone models did group GPS use in with wireless functions to disable when switching to Airplane mode. In some models you could turn location services back on when airplane mode was enabled. That's not an issue these days. And even if it still is with some phones, GPS signal is still not cellular data and cellular data is never a requirement for phones that have true GPS reception.

 

--

 

You know, I'll mention it again - I think there's a strong distinction between what is allowed and what is considered reasonable etiquette - the former is very loose and the latter is very very subjective.  I think it's ok for someone to say "one should climb the tree as intended to log it found" if they realize it's an opinion and a personal ethic, not an enforceable rule.  We can debate endlessly about when "it's okay" for someone to log (for example) a treeclimb cache without climbing the tree, if there is no distinction in the arguments as to whether someone is allowed to do it, or whether it can be denied by the cache owner.

 

I think everyone can agree it's allowed.  It's very clear from HQ that it is.  The question is on etiquette, and if anyone think it shouldn't be allowed, they have a very long arduous case to make to have the guidelines changed to force other people to have to adhere to that ethic - but abide by it personally? Go right ahead.

Of course, one has every right to rant about it as another "irk" (but that should likely be taken to the 'what irks me' thread :P)

[+CAVinoGal 658]

12 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Personally  I would say 'expected to'. If it is claimed  that one found a tree-climbing style cache but actually only watched (either by standing near the tree or holding ropes or a ladder), I don't see how that is a legitimate truth.  Similar to going to a climbing gym, holding the ropes then claiming one has climbed to the top of the wall, the achievement did not occur. Same for holding a ladder so someone else could safely get to the roof of a house. To claim that one has, by-proxy, also climbed onto the roof of a house is not a legitimate claim. 

 

I don't see how someone can be bothered by the group streaming behaviour but not similarly bothered by a behaviour that is almost equivalent. They are both by-proxy behaviours.  The way I see it, by-proxy is not a legitimate style of play. 

 

12 hours ago, niraD said:

And that seems to be the heart of the disagreement. Does the Find log represent being part of the group that went to the climbing gym (and participated in some way, holding ropes, etc)? Or does the Find log represent making it to the top of the climbing wall? (My additions in bold)

 

As I stated a few posts back, I have a handful of "group" finds after events where I was part of a large contingent who all claimed the find.  Those make up a relatively insignificant portion of my finds (0.003%).  However, if "by-proxy" is defined as "making it to the top of the wall" or "climbing onto the roof" rather than merely holding the ladder or ropes, than I would guess at least half my 1800+ finds would be considered illegitimate finds by L0ne.R, and likely even more.  A majority of my finds are with my husband and/or a group of two or three friends - I rarely cache alone.

 

Example: A couple of days ago, hubby and I were caching in a residential neighborhood.  Coordinates led us to a bush, in full bloom, and covered with honeybees.  I. don't. like. bees.  But I bravely walked around and was the first one to spot the camoed container hanging about eye level, 24" into the bush.  Hubby reached in and grabbed it (it would have been a real stretch for my short arms anyway), passed it out to me so I could sign our names on the log, then I passed it back to him to rehang in the bush.  We both claimed the find on our separate accounts.  If we had a third person, we all would have claimed it as well.  This is how we geocache as a "group".  I never considered it was NOT the way to do things.  And I still feel that those kinds of "finds" are legitimate.

[+CAVinoGal 658]

Here's another example, more in line with the "tree climb" argument/discussion - that's my husband in the tree while three of us stayed on the ground, and I took photos - and claimed the find.  I went back and read my log for that one - I actually did attempt it, but couldn't reach it even after climbing.

Found it

Sep/22/2018

After a private wine tasting at a nearby winery, we decided to stop for one more cache that was right on the way back home. We didn't know till we started looking that it involved a tree climb. I tried first, got part way there and realized there was no way I was going to reach it.

I shimmied back down, and WB made the climb, reached the container, tossed it down to us, and we signed our names (and his). It took a couple of tosses, but WB finally had the container back in place.

It was a challenge, and even more so after visiting a couple of wineries before attempting the retrieval! But we did it, and then headed into Napa for some dinner.

[+L0ne.R 1848]

 

22 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

half my 1800+ finds would be considered illegitimate finds by L0ne.R

 

No. My beef is with the by-proxy finds and the hypocrisy. 

 

I agree with bruce0 that it boils down to ...

 

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I think everyone can agree it's allowed.  It's very clear from HQ that it is.  The question is on etiquette.

 

[+cerberus1 3319]

24 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

No. My beef is with the by-proxy finds and the hypocrisy. 

 

Sorry, but that's not an answer.  You make no distinction why, yet still include "someone else does it for you."

 - On a thread that started as fake virtual cache finds...

This is a family-friendly hobby,  CAVinoGal's example the same as thousands of others.  

Most we know have family accounts.  One has seven family members.  Maybe half the kids now have their own account as well.

But it shouldn't make a difference whether we're related or not... 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by cerberus1