Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
L0ne.R

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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Do you suffer from being shorter than average, or are you one of those people who think of shorter people; tough; I'm okay mate! (I'm average height, but I understand the problems of shorter people.) Time after time shorter people struggle to reach the cache, while to others it's an easy/okay reach and don't time after time have trouble reaching it. Hiders not considering that can get tiresome for those that can't reach a cache. Fine, her husband reached it for her. She can have the find as far as I am concerned. This game is mostly biased towards taller people who don't have to struggle as much to merely reach the cache.

If I can't legitimately get to the cache and sign the log, I walk away empty handed. Is there another way to play?

Edited by fendmar

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, fendmar said:

If I can't legitimately get to the cache and sign the log, I walk away empty handed. Is there another way to play?

I deleted that comment you applied to (before you answered), because I reread what was written and decided it didn't apply, to the comment, "Whatever works for you. We all clearly play the game and interpret the "rules" differently. "

 

I will add though, that even for healthy, reasonably fit people, some people have a harder game to play than others. 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)"

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post

You said you felt height was an advantage in this game. If you had ever followed the game trails through George Bush Park you would think otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, fendmar said:

You should go back and do that cache the right way for such a significant milestone!

It sounds like it was a great trip for all involved. I can't see why they should redo anything to meet your aesthetic sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, niraD said:

It sounds like it was a great trip for all involved.

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

Edited by fendmar
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, fendmar said:

You said you felt height was an advantage in this game. If you had ever followed the game trails through George Bush Park you would think otherwise.

It's rare I have come upon a cache where being short was an advantage *, but I have come upon many where being tall was. I have come upon a cache where being large (either fat or very muscular) would likely have made it impossible to get to a cache. This cache was in a narrow gap between two skyscrapers. I am not fat, but I had to squeeze in sideways to get to the cache.

 

* One exception I can think of was a kilometre walk underground through stormwater pipes to reach a couple of caches. Even average height people of about 169cm (5.54 feet) were in places knocking their heads on the roof. I did, but fortunately we were all wearing helmets of some kind. I took the average Australian height of females  at 161.8 cm tall, plus average male of 175.6 cm tall, added together and divided by two. US average height is similar: "According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the average age-adjusted height for American men 20 years and older is is 69.1 inches (175.4 cm), or 5 feet 9 inches tall, and the average height of an American female over 20 years of age is 63.5 inches (161.5 cm), or 5' 3.5" tall.Dec 1, 2017"

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

It's rare I have come upon a cache where being short was an advantage *, but I have come upon many where being tall was. I have come upon a cache where being large (either fat or very muscular) would likely have made it impossible to get to a cache. This cache was in a narrow gap between two skyscrapers. I am not fat, but I had to squeeze in sideways to get to the cache.

 

* One exception I can think of was a kilometre walk underground through stormwater pipes to reach a couple of caches. Even average height people of about 169cm (5.54 feet) were in places knocking heir heads on the roof. I took the average height of females  at 161.8 cm tall, plus average male of 175.6 cm tall, added together and divided by two.

Do you measure everyone you cache with? Are you a mortician? Seems a strange fascination/obsession.

Edited by fendmar
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, fendmar said:

Do you measure everyone you cache with? Are you a mortician? Seems a strange fascination/obsession.

I looked up the Australia average height with the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Not strange at all. Strange is those tall males who think they are average height, and average height to them is male height; females aren't considered. As a female I was tired of that, so I looked up the facts. Actually before I found the actual figures I thought I was short. Turns out I am above average female height for an Australian. I was surprised. (I have been called shortie in another country.)

Why do you think knowing facts is strange? I find that strange.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

There's a thin line between whether someone one is physically there, or virtually there. They are both essentially there, doing the same thing, watching.

Yowza.

This is a hobby of location. One is there. The other is not. There is a world of difference between physical presence and virtual presence when the whole point of geocaching is to use GPS to arrive at a location, not watch people do so entirely from your couch. They aren't both "essentially there". One IS, and one ISN'T.  The latter can be punished by HQ.

 

 

5 hours ago, fendmar said:

Let's take my Everest example. If your friend brought the Everest summit logbook (Don't laugh many summits have logbooks it's really the origin of these type games, but I don't know if Everest has one specifically.) down the mountain to you and you signed the log would you claim you climbed Everest?

No. And the analog sort of breaks down. If someone brought the logbook from the top of a tree I didn't climb down so I could sign it, I wouldn't say I climbed the tree - but I would say I found the cache, and log it online. Natch.  (though I'd likely climb the tree anyway because I love climbing trees - but I wouldn't project that ethic on someone else, only encourage and hope they'd do it for their own enjoyment, if they'd enjoy it - otherwise, as long as they follow the rules, then whatev; I gave up caring about that years ago)

 

 

4 hours ago, fendmar said:

Right there on your profile, where it lists that tree climbing terrain rated cache as found. If I don't read your actual log and see that you didn't actually do the 5 star part I might be put in a situation where I am being misled.

I never assume that a Find log means the finder did everything necessary individually in order sign the logsheet. All it means to me (and by the guidelines) is that their name is in the logbook and the cache is available to be found as of that log date.  Then I read the log to find out the 'how' if I'm curious.  I recommend you adjust your expectations to match guideline requirements too ;)

 

 

3 hours ago, fendmar said:

Anybody who wants to answer this can. If I climbed the tree brought the cache down and drove it to your house for you to sign then took it back. Is that a find?

See now that's a different question.

Would *I* sign the logsheet and claim the find? Entirely depends on the CO's permission and their intended experience. Almost certainly, no. But I have on one or two occasions in my 10+ years of geocaching, under exceptional circumstances. Under the guidelines it's allowable (as a finder - name is in the logsheet) - but as a CO it runs the risk of consequential action by HQ especially if it's a common occurrence, because that's not in the spirit of the game. Now if it wasn't the CO, and some other geocacher decided to bring the log down and drive it around town for people to sign - no, I absolutely wouldn't sign it or claim it, and that user should see some form of consequence (much like providers of mass-lists of Trackable codes freely distributed for people to virtually log).

Additionally, if those people who sign don't want to draw attention of reviewers or HQ, they're now being obliged to lie about what they were doing the day they signed the log. If the Find log implies "I was there", but they were at home or in a restaurant, well... now the cacher is misleading others with their log, and if it's at the CO's behest then the Find log is misleading other readers and potentially misrepresenting the state of the cache.

 

 

3 hours ago, fendmar said:
3 hours ago, TmdAndGG said:

It is;).

Great now I gotta' question the legitimacy of summit logs. Thanks y'all.

You should check the debates in the forum about the legitimacy of people's claims to best 24-hour find counts. Oh THAT's a debate (and I'd wager more people claiming illegitimate counts than fighting to secure some form of official "record")

I firmly fall on the "explain the HOW and then compare with like stats" (if you must) because there are SO many strategies that you can't simply say whoever has the most wins.

 

Likewise, if someone summits a mountain, you bet I'd be more interested in their methodology, their skillset, training, the local weather, group size, strategies... Someone summitted with a helicopter? Great!  Someone summitted by climbing it solo? Great! Was one much more difficult and impressive than the other? Absolutely!  Heck the same can be said about fizzy grid counts. I keep telling people - the fact that people in my area are easily hitting 30+ fizzy loops does in no way reduce the accomplishment of someone in a remote area with little travel ability who can't possible reach that count, who's completed 3 loops only at night because they work 3/4 of the day 7 days a week.

The number comparison alone is not enough. Context is key.

 

Today when I see someone's find count (especially in my area where group caching is rampant, and solution sharing is the norm; or where Lab caches rack up +1 find for every stage), the number has much less meaning than it implies. I'm more likely to shrug at someone with 50,000 finds over 10 years than someone with 1,000 finds over 15 years. Context is key.

 

Tell me more than just your number.

 

A Find log only implies that their name is in the logbook. Not that they did every ounce of work needed to find all those 100+ 5/5's as if they're mountain climbs, 2 weeks camping trips, cave dives, scuba dives, etc... they could have just stood by for all of them and watched (being physically present - although I wouldn't be surprised if some are not legitimate virtual logs that just haven't been dealt with by cache owners). Big woop.  If I ever get to finding 100+ 5/5's, I will know the effort that I put into those. I'll know someone else will have put in more for theirs, and someone else will have put in less for theirs.  And all of that is just fine, because it's not a competition.

 

 

1 hour ago, fendmar said:

If I can't legitimately get to the cache and sign the log, I walk away empty handed. Is there another way to play?

 

That's entirely your choice. Some would say it's honourable one, others would say unnecessary. Do what you will.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, fendmar said:

You should go back and do that cache the right way for such a significant milestone!

 

I discussed my proposed attempt beforehand with the CO and this is what he had to say:

 

Quote

when crossing the creek, cascade gully, don't get too close to the Hawkesbury. Take someone with you too, the hide is pretty accessible but you may not feel confident where it is located. Its kind of a small hop down (about 1m) and quite close to the edge

 

And afterwards, once he'd read our logs:

 

Quote
Excellent work!!

 

It sounds to me like the CO thought we did it the right way. Furthermore, the Help Centre says this:

 

Quote
  1. Search for nearby geocaches on Geocaching.com.
  2. Download coordinates to your GPS device and navigate to a cache.
  3. Once you've found the cache — sign the logbook.
  4. Return the logbook and cache to their original location.
  5. Share your experience and log your “find”.

 

Which of those steps didn't we do? The ledge was only wide enough for one person so it wasn't physically possible for all of us to jointly remove it from its hiding place and put it back. Looking down from above:

 

Ledge.jpg.5a5300dfe9d65bc576ef952cdb80d587.jpg

 

I'd taken some rope to hang onto if I'd drawn the short straw but, with my wonky sense of balance, I was happy enough when another more agile member of our team volunteered to do the retrieval and replacement.

 

As I said before, it's not a competition and there are no prizes other than the memories of a great day out, and our team did everything the CO and the guidelines expected of us. Had I not done that one, I would still have reached my 1000th milestone on my next find, only that was a 1.5/1.5 micro that I barely remember doing. It makes no difference to anyone else, but for me personally it's a big difference.

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have found caches that have wandered away from where the CO placed it; up to hundreds of metres. I discovered one for instance, 200 metres away lying out in the middle of a paddock. Maybe an animal carried it there. It had no name on it, so I signed the log and hid it in a nearby stump and took the coordinates. Later on my computer, I was able to work out which cache it was and log my find. I gave the coordinates of where it was now. Should I log that, because I didn't go to GZ?

What about puzzle and multicaches you stumble across accidentally without solving them? I have done that several times. I will sign any log I find. The last one was a puzzle cache sitting uncovered out in the open. I could see where it was likely to be hidden, and it was lucky I stumbled on it, as a muggle could have found it. I signed the log and re-hid it safely. I logged it online as I told how I had found it and that the cache and log were good and now safely hidden again. As far as I was concerned, I found (rescued) it and I should be able to log it. And if someone thinks I shouldn't log it because I didn't go to GZ, what about those COs who have the coordinates way out? You might find the cache, but it wasn't GZ. One can nitpick 'forever'.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, fendmar said:

If I can't legitimately get to the cache and sign the log, I walk away empty handed. Is there another way to play?

 

Legitimately? You're certainly entitled to play like that, but the official rules of the game aren't that strict. Getting help retrieving the cache, either with a tool or another person, doesn't make the find illegitimate under the rules. As I said earlier, the standard I apply to myself is that I must either sign the logbook personally or have been close enough to it to have done so. There was a cache I did with a group a few years ago that involved rock-hopping across a fast-flowing river to get to GZ. The other two got across but I baulked, instead staying on the far bank and photographing the others making the find.

 

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

 

Even though they'd written my name in the logbook, I didn't log it as a find as it didn't meet my personal criterion. When the CO read my note, he almost insisted that I change it to a find but I declined, saying I'd prefer to go back when the river was a bit lower and and sign the logbook myself. And that's how it turned out, after a few months of little or no rain, the river dropped and I was able to get across, retrieve the cache and sign the log myself.

 

image.png.d6315c2746bcdee9874a319abf9bbac8.png

 

There are many ways to play this game within the scope of the guidelines. The basic requirement for an online find is a signature in the logbook and anything beyond that is a matter of personal preference.

 

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

A group meeting to find this cache.  Someone brought the ladder.  Picture of me climbing the ladder.  I did not get off onto the roof of the water tower.  But I was handed the cache to sign the log.  Not everyone climbed the ladder.

Assent.jpg

:)

IIRC, I did that one with a two-story fire escape ladder and a sapling.    :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, fendmar said:

If I can't legitimately get to the cache and sign the log, I walk away empty handed. Is there another way to play?

If only we had a common definition of the word "legitimately" as it applies to this situation.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay here's another example that might hit a bit closer to home for some. There is a multicache in my area that is a 10+ mile hike, where you end up at the final pretty close to the parking area where you start. If someone doesn't do any of the 10+ mile hike and goes straight to the final because someone else gave them the numbers is that a legitimate find?

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, fendmar said:

is that a legitimate find?

Define "legitimate".

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, niraD said:

Define "legitimate".

I'd suggest a dictionary.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, fendmar said:

Okay here's another example that might hit a bit closer to home for some. There is a multicache in my area that is a 10+ mile hike, where you end up at the final pretty close to the parking area where you start. If someone doesn't do any of the 10+ mile hike and goes straight to the final because someone else gave them the numbers is that a legitimate find?

 

If they've signed the logbook, then yes, it's legitimate under the rules. It's not something I'd do, but I wouldn't complain if someone did it on one of my multis. In fact, thinking back, someone has and I didn't complain, instead I had a good laugh. The terrain 4 multi, GC6E1W2, has 3 virtual stages down a series of waterfalls, with the final near the tidal limit of the creek. At each stage, you have to match a photo with the particular falls. and with 4 options at each waypoint, there are 64 possible locations for the final. Someone, who didn't want to go clambering down the falls, worked out those 64 sets of coordinates, eliminated the ones that fell on private property, water, were inside the national park or were within 161 metres of another cache, leaving her with I think about half a dozen options. She bush-bashed her way to each of those through thorny lantana thickets before finally discovering the easy walk to the cache. Afterwards it became a standing joke between us at events, as I'm sure it would have been easier for her just to have visited the waterfalls.

 

I also have a D4 puzzle cache where a couple of people found it without solving the puzzle. Using the trackhead waypoint I provided, satellite images and the national park boundaries that limited the possible locations, they took a punt on where it might be, saw something matching the hint and sure enough, there it was. That doesn't bother me in the slightest, instead I'm glad they enjoyed the cache in their own way and I applaud their ingenuity.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, fendmar said:

I'd suggest a dictionary.

le·git·i·mate /ləˈjidəmət/ adjective: conforming to the law or to rules

 

Hmm... Which law? Which rules?

 

Here's the reality. The shortcutting geocacher's name is on the log. If the CO deletes the Find log and the geocacher appeals, then Groundspeak will restore the Find log. Yes, I've seen it happen. Yes, the CO was upset by Groundspeak's decision and committed geocide not long after. But the Find log conformed to Groundspeak's laws/rules/guidelines, the Find log was considered legitimate by Groundspeak, and Groundpeak restored the Find log.

 

Do I think shortcutting a 10+ mile hike to grab the final is lame? Sure. Do I think sharing lists of puzzle/multi final coordinates is lame? Sure. Do I think the geocacher should be ridiculed if he boasts about completing a grid or finding a high-terrain cache? Sure.

 

But that isn't the same as the group caching that you're kvetching about.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, fendmar said:

I'd suggest a dictionary.

 

From the Macquarie Dictionary: "Born of parents legally married".

 

Or do you mean "In accordance with the law, or any established rules." So which law or established rule says you can't get help finding a cache?

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Y'all are fantastic. Now I know why I keep coming back!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, fendmar said:

Y'all are fantastic. Now I know why I keep coming back!

d6b5eef76a1b86921b088dc8c4645dd7.jpeg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, fendmar said:

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

 

What makes you think there weren't any cliffs on our route to GZ? We started from the eastern side of Jolls Bridge down the bottom of the map and GZ was on the cliff-tops above the river on the western side of Cascade Gully. After crossing over at the dam, finding a way up the cliffs along that gully to the top was pretty daunting and exhausting.

 

image.png.dc66a250d4d9f022a3d3664ebe547874.png

 

This is looking north towards Cascade Gully and GZ from a vantage point somewhere near The Vines.
 

Gully.jpg.4faa74dd724131cdd5c4e07abc8be166.jpg

 

This might give you a bit of idea of the first line of cliffs we faced on the western side of the dam, and that was just the beginning of the climb to the top of the spur.

 

Cliffs.jpg.3372859ee9d2f1f7722daadad1fd00e5.jpg

 

Each time we reached the top of a cliff line and tried to head south towards GZ, we'd come to a drop-off and would have to back-track, zig-zagging our way up the next cliff line. I reckon we earned the 4.5 stars of terrain just in those couple of hundred metres getting up from the dam. And of course going back down wasn't any easier.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, niraD said:

Do I think shortcutting a 10+ mile hike to grab the final is lame? Sure. Do I think sharing lists of puzzle/multi final coordinates is lame? Sure. Do I think the geocacher should be ridiculed if he boasts about completing a grid or finding a high-terrain cache? Sure.

 

Do I think hiding a multicache final right at the start of a 10-mile roundtrip hike is lame?  Yup.   IMO it displays complete contempt for the finders from the CO.  Sort of a "ha-ha, got you!" attitude.  Now, if the cache is at the end of a 5-mile one-way hike, that's great.

 

Sorry.  That is off-topic.  For group finds, I say we do everything the way OP says we should in the (likely vain) hope she will stop complaining.

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

Do I think hiding a multicache final right at the start of a 10-mile roundtrip hike is lame?  Yup.   IMO it displays complete contempt for the finders from the CO.  Sort of a "ha-ha, got you!" attitude.

 

Sometimes it's a necessity. Most of my Chasing Waterfalls caches are like that, although the hike isn't that long. The waterfalls are within national parks where only virtual waypoints are allowed so the physical cache has to be on public land outside the park boundary, which is usually close to the road.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, fendmar said:

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

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

Share this post


Link to post

About this thread:

This whole thing is only an issue if the +1 is important.Group caching makes it interesting for people wanting to log caches they would not normally be able to log.

For us, geocaching is a way to make walks/bike rides more interesting because caches "guide" us through none/less known territory instead of going to the same known areas. The walk/ride is the goal, geocaching is extra. I know the for many geocaching is the goal and that makes the +1 more important.

 

 

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, fendmar said:
9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Do you suffer from being shorter than average, or are you one of those people who think of shorter people; tough; I'm okay mate! (I'm average height, but I understand the problems of shorter people.) Time after time shorter people struggle to reach the cache, while to others it's an easy/okay reach and don't time after time have trouble reaching it. Hiders not considering that can get tiresome for those that can't reach a cache. Fine, her husband reached it for her. She can have the find as far as I am concerned. This game is mostly biased towards taller people who don't have to struggle as much to merely reach the cache.

If I can't legitimately get to the cache and sign the log, I walk away empty handed. Is there another way to play?

 

Of course there is: teamwork. ;-)

 

So another exercise in line-drawing...

 

I'm below average height.  (With the exception of economy travel on airlines, I'd be hard-pushed to come up with many times that I've seen this as an advantage.  Times that I'd like to have been taller ... well, how long have you got?)  Somebody of average height can easily stretch up to reach that micro on the street sign.  I can't.  But I am with one of my kids, and I can lift him up to grab and replace the cache.  Alas, he can't lift me.  (I might be short, but I weigh more than I'd like!)

 

Is that a 'legitimate' find for me?  Is it a 'legitimate' find for my son?

 

I'd say of course it's legitimate - we've already seen the dictionary definition ("conforming to the law or to rules") and we know what the Geocaching guidelines have to say.  This beaks no laws or rules that I can see.  Is it ethical?  In this case, I think it's absolutely ethical - great teamwork; neither of us could have done it without the other.  Would you agree?

 

If not, fair enough.  I respect that - you clearly play a far 'purer' version of the game than me.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, on4bam said:

This whole thing is only an issue if the +1 is important.Group caching makes it interesting for people wanting to log caches they would not normally be able to log.

 

So you're basically saying that any group that goes out caching together is only created in order to get caches some or all of them normally wouldn't be able to get and that the +1 is the sole reason they're out there?  

 

Group caching falls into two different categories for me, based on my experiences and what some of my friends have done.  One is all about the +1.  Trying to get as many finds as possible over the shortest amount of time.  The ET highway, PTs, etc...  And I'm not talking about leapfrogging or one small group going in one direction, another going in the other direction and all of them claiming the finds for both small groups.  I'm talking about a group visiting each cache and dividing up responsibilities in order to streamline the process to be able to get as many finds as they can. I'm thinking of something like the ET highway, which friends did, where one drove, one had a stamp, one's job was to retrieve and replace, and the other was to mark each cache as it was completed to track their progress and they all swapped out occasionally.  While it's not my preferred manner of caching (much less the mind numbing repetition of finding the same type of cache), each and every one of them would have been able to log them on their own, had they so desired, so I'm not sure what the point is of you bringing up the notion that they wouldn't normally be able to log them individually.

 

The other is a different type of group caching.  I've gone group caching in three different sections of the national forest in my state and the terrain has typically ranged from a 1.5 to a 3.5.  Everyone on each of our hikes did the entire hike and every cache could probably have been logged normally by every cacher in the group on an individual basis, had they desired.  The reason we opted to join the hike was to enjoy each other's company, enjoy the hike in a new area (for some of us), and also find a few caches along the way.  It wasn't like there was a cache hidden every .10 miles apart in any of these hikes, creating a vast amount of caches for us to find.  In some cases, it was .35 between caches or some variation therein and typically less than 20 caches over a minimum 5 mile hike.  The caches were placed just like you state, guiding us along the marked trails to bring us to areas worth an extra visit - a small cave used by native americans and settlers with mortar holes where items were ground, a large honeycomb weathered rock, an unusual limestone ledge, a waterfall, an old foundation from an early settler.  The caches were nice but the company, the hike, and the areas we got to explore are what I remember so much more than the actual cache at each of those locations.  Before you ask, "Would you have gone if there were no caches there?", the answer is yes.  I've hiked some of those trails that have no caches and I've hiked some with caches, by myself and with others.  It's not always about the +1 for each member of the group; sometimes it's about the camaraderie we share as we're doing the hike.  The geocaching is an extra bonus.  

 

So you saying that group caching is only for those that want a +1 they normally wouldn't be able to log appears to diminish the experiences I've had in my group hikes and that my sole reason for venturing out with other cachers (some of whom are my friends) is due to the +1 that the cache represents, not the opportunity to hang out with friends, hike a new trail, and see some great sights.  Do I have that right or are you trying to say something else?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Before you ask, "Would you have gone if there were no caches there?", the answer is yes.  I've hiked some of those trails that have no caches and I've hiked some with caches, by myself and with others.  It's not always about the +1 for each member of the group; sometimes it's about the camaraderie we share as we're doing the hike.  The geocaching is an extra bonus.

 

Yes. A few months after my 1000th find, another member of our group reached that milestone so I joined in the hike to his chosen cache, a terrain 3 near the summit of Mount Wondabyne. My log on that was a WN as I'd previously found it and I own the other two caches we visited on the return leg so at the end of that day's hiking I had a +0. But I wouldn't have missed that day for the world.

 

Most of my caching is done solo, but the dozen or so group outings I've been on have been great fun. Some have been kayak paddles, some hikes to higher terrain caches like the T4.5 Mount Royal Run (GCYB2C) where safety-in-numbers is an important consideration, but some just a good hike with a bunch of friends with a few caches found along the way or sometimes even just one, like the T4 Tower Power on Mount Warrawolong (GC348Y5) or the spooky Martinsville Pioneer Cemetery night cache (GC7DXEY).

 

5649ee5c-9c02-4889-965a-195f1a2fba22_l.j

 

On all of those, the person who found the cache passed the log around for everyone to sign, not because any of us were trying to fill elusive grid squares, maintain a streak or out-statistic everyone without putting in any effort, but simply because it was convenient and sensible. Why is that so evil?

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/5/2020 at 10:45 PM, JL_HSTRE said:
On 5/5/2020 at 11:12 AM, 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.

 

I used "data" as short for cellular data, and specifically cache information and maps that facilitate finding the cache.  The GPS has still worked for me using several different phones.  Perhaps your phone turns of location services when it goes into airplane mode.  

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

5649ee5c-9c02-4889-965a-195f1a2fba22_l.j

What the heck is that thing on the left hand side? Is that part of the "spooky":yikes:?

 

 

  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, fendmar said:

Technically if someone hands you a cache from up in a tree you haven't been to the coordinates either. We live in 3d.

 

Team geocaching has been around and accepted by geocachers almost since the beginning of geocaching and it requires that members of the team arrive at or close to the  2 given coordinates of the cache which do not include altitude. Tools are allowed to be used to retrieve a cache. Ladders, long polls, scuba gear, drones and even other humans can be used to overcome the altitude obstacle. In the case of Mt. Everest, as far as geocaching goes, the summit STILL has a latitude and longitude that the cache would have to be at to allow it to be logged. Base camp is WAY off those coordinates.

 

Currently geocaching is based on 2 coordinates. Latitude and longitude. For the sake of this debate, when altitude becomes an added requirement you will have a valid point. Until then, you dont.

Edited by RocTheCacheBox
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

Team geocaching has been around and accepted by geocachers almost since the beginning of geocaching

 

Yes. But it has changed. In the beginning a "team" account was mostly a family account. When they went caching they recorded their finds to their family account. 

 

Fast forward to the power trail era and now people join groups-for-a-day to pick up as many caches as they can. When we work as a "team" we get more finds which we can use to qualify for challenges, grid fill or complete a large power trail. On New Years Day a few years ago I had a team of 90 people "visit" my cache. They were looking to get as many non-trads in one day on a special day to qualify for jasmer challenges and get a special souvenir, and they had a goal to surpass their previous month's record finds. I think they "found" 65 non-trads that day over 3 cities/towns. 

 

They don't create a team-of-the-day account and record all those finds into the one account to memorialize their day. 

Edited by L0ne.R
spelling error
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, on4bam said:

About this thread:

This whole thing is only an issue if the +1 is important. Group caching makes it interesting for people wanting to log caches they would not normally be able to log.

For us, geocaching is a way to make walks/bike rides more interesting because caches "guide" us through none/less known territory instead of going to the same known areas. The walk/ride is the goal, geocaching is extra. I know the for many geocaching is the goal and that makes the +1 more important.

 

Odd, I haven't found what you describe in any group caching we've ever been on.  

You said earlier you never go caching in groups,  so curious where you've experienced this.  :)

 

The other 2/3rds has friends from this hobby she still chats n plays online games with, and she hasn't cached for a while.   

Some of our friends  have helped us out more than a few times, some having nothing to do with this hobby. We've done the same for them.

Aren't people friendly where you are ?  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 In the beginning a "team" account was mostly a family account. So when they went caching they recorded their finds to their family account. 

 

Fast forward to the power trail era and now people join groups-for-a-day to pick up as many caches as they can. When we work as a "team" we get more finds which we can use to qualify for challenges, grid fill or complete a large power trail. On New Years Day a few years ago I had a team of 90 people "visit" my cache. They were looking to get as many non-trads in one day on a special day to qualify for jasmer challenges and get a special souvenir, and they had a goal to surpass they're previous month's record finds. I think they "found" 65 non-trads that day over 3 cities/towns. 

 

The don't create a team-of-the-day account and record all those finds into the one account to memorialize their day. 

 

That's weird ... we went on team/group hikes when we started in '04.  We didn't have "power trails" then...

Most "family" accounts we're aware of also had a kid or two with a separate account.  Some created new accounts years later.

They entered finds in their family account, and their "other" accounts.  

We're a "team" account, yet the other 2/3rds has a separate account created for all the coins (pre "collection" days...), so we didn't have to scroll over a couple hundred coins just to log a find.  She has some finds on it.

Your example of 90 cachers is rare, and not the norm.   You know that...

I'm not as big on "group caching" as the other 2/3rds, but days we'd go, the only reason we'd have more caches than normal was because I wouldn't have done them solo.   

 - Many of those people aren't in the best health (older folks mostly), and they cache for the chit chat  with friends along the way, with it lucky if a terrain's  2.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, fendmar said:

Okay here's another example that might hit a bit closer to home for some. There is a multicache in my area that is a 10+ mile hike, where you end up at the final pretty close to the parking area where you start. If someone doesn't do any of the 10+ mile hike and goes straight to the final because someone else gave them the numbers is that a legitimate find?

 

I hid a 15 stage multicache a few years back (it has since lost a stage or two). The first few cachers were able to skip the first NINE stages of the cache because they had local area knowledge - even more than I did as the cache CO.

 

Was that the experience I attempted to lay out for finders - No

Did they cheat - No

Did they sign the cache log - Yes (I verified their signatures in the log book)

 

I have since changed some of the descriptions to make it harder to skip around, but at the end of the day the cache owner can only frame an expected way forward for finders they cannot CONTROL the manner in which they experience the cache. I for one think those finders missed out on some seriously amazing views by skipping the first 9 stages; but that's on them.

 

If someone shares the final location of one of my caches, I'm disappointed that they didn't get the full experience that I had planned, but at the end of the day they signed the log. If enough people stop getting the experience that I intended because of coordinate sharing, I would probably disable the cache, but again that's on me as a CO.

 

15 hours ago, fendmar said:

Anybody who wants to answer this can. If I climbed the tree brought the cache down and drove it to your house for you to sign then took it back. Is that a find?

 

I attended the Block Party (GC4CPG0) at HQ in 2014. During that event hey brought out the giant treasure chest that is the GCHQ cache (GCK25B) into the pavilion next to HQ for people to sign the log. The cache was brought from GZ 30' outside to me (in the pavilion). Is that find not legitimate? I took a tour of HQ so I've been to GZ, but the log was not at the intended location at the moment in time.

 

Your analogy seems to be an example of Reductio ad absurdum and at the end of the day I think it boils down to "we all know what cheating the system looks like when we see it."

 

16 hours ago, fendmar said:

Right there on your profile, where it lists that tree climbing terrain rated cache as found. If I don't read your actual log and see that you didn't actually do the 5 star part I might be put in a situation where I am being misled.

 

Terrains are outside the control of the  finder though. Same with attributes. Those are solely the responsibility of the cacher owner.  If I go out and find a pill bottle in the desert with the scuba diving attribute, and you see it on my profile, you would assume I went scuba diving to find a cache. I did NOT go diving to find a cache in the desert. Is it my fault that my profile now displays this attribute? What if the cache owner incorrectly labeled a terrain rating? Or if you found one of the few remaining "Liar's Caches" that are out there? Those statistics may give you an indication of my caching history but the only way to actually know MY experience is to review my found it logs. Those are the only aspects of the cache experience I control. In that case you're being misled because you didn't look for the correct information. 

 

It's akin to coming into my house, picking up a book with a picture of a dolphin on the front of it and taking it home to read without asking me about it and then being bothered by the fact that the book is actually about elephants. I didn't write the book or design the cover, and if you had asked about my experience (aka read my logs) then you would have a better notion about what actually occurred. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

So you're basically saying that any group that goes out caching together is only created in order to get caches some or all of them normally wouldn't be able to get and that the +1 is the sole reason they're out there?  

 

So you saying that group caching is only for those that want a +1 they normally wouldn't be able to log appears to diminish the experiences I've had in my group hikes and that my sole reason for venturing out with other cachers (some of whom are my friends) is due to the +1 that the cache represents, not the opportunity to hang out with friends, hike a new trail, and see some great sights.  Do I have that right or are you trying to say something else?

 

Where did I say they are ONLY in it for that +1? You're reading things that aren't there. I said it makes it more interesting for people wanting a +1 to go caching in groups.

 

 

26 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Odd, I haven't found what you describe in any group caching we've ever been on.  

You said earlier you never go caching in groups,  so curious where you've experienced this.  :)

 

The other 2/3rds has friends from this hobby she still chats n plays online games with, and she hasn't cached for a while.   

Some of our friends  have helped us out more than a few times, some having nothing to do with this hobby. We've done the same for them.

Aren't people friendly where you are ? 

 

Good for you!

My experience comes from reading logs and THIS THREAD ;) (and other threads).

 

Yes, people are probably as friendly as anywhere else but as far as geocaching goes we're keeping to ourselves (a plus in these times B) ). We avoid events and avoid the new caches placed for events. Standing in line to write in the log is not my idea of fun. The few friends we have in geocaching we know a lot longer, they are radio amateurs that we see during club meetings and "on air" but geocaching is almost never a topic of conversation. No problem to have a talk when (and if) we come across other geocachers but we wouldn't call them "friends".

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

Do I think hiding a multicache final right at the start of a 10-mile roundtrip hike is lame?  Yup.   IMO it displays complete contempt for the finders from the CO.  Sort of a "ha-ha, got you!" attitude.  Now, if the cache is at the end of a 5-mile one-way hike, that's great.

I recall discussion of cache owners doing this on purpose, not as a "gotcha" but as a courtesy, to take seekers on a long loop hike, with the final at the end of the hike, and therefore near the parking.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, STNolan said:

I have since changed some of the descriptions to make it harder to skip around, but at the end of the day the cache owner can only frame an expected way forward for finders they cannot CONTROL the manner in which they experience the cache. I for one think those finders missed out on some seriously amazing views by skipping the first 9 stages; but that's on them.

 

If someone shares the final location of one of my caches, I'm disappointed that they didn't get the full experience that I had planned, but at the end of the day they signed the log. If enough people stop getting the experience that I intended because of coordinate sharing, I would probably disable the cache, but again that's on me as a CO.

 

Exactly. That's me as a CO as well.   I used to love being a CO and hiding caches. My goal was to fascinate, amuse, and delight finders. It worked for at least a decade. Very rewarding. But then PTs and challenges happened. Caching in group-of-the-day teams became popular in my area--divide-and-conquer behaviour where actually visiting a cache didn't matter. Cut n paste group logs became popular. My caches were used to supply a heavy demand for  challenge qualifiers, souvenirs, numbers, stats, grid-filling.  When the group-of-the-day culture grew and attracted more numbers--15-30 per group on average--that's when I stopped feeding into a system that makes cache ownership more about providing +1s. 

 

Either "on location" physically or virtually, this proxy behaviour can have a negative effect on COs. 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Caching in group-of-the-day teams became popular in my area. Divide-and-conquer behaviour where actually visiting a cache didn't matter became an increasing group behaviour.

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

 

Divide-and-conquer "shortcuts" are just another form of armchair logging.

 

They aren't the same thing at all.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Exactly. That's me as a CO as well.   I used to love being a CO and hiding caches. My goal was to fascinate, amuse, and delight finders. It worked for at least a decade. Very rewarding. But then PTs and challenges happened. Caching in group-of-the-day teams became popular in my area. Divide-and-conquer behaviour where actually visiting a cache didn't matter became an increasing group behaviour. Cut n paste group logs became popular. My caches were used to supply a heavy demand for  challenge qualifiers, souvenirs, numbers, stats, grid-filling.  When the group-of-the-day culture grew and attracted more numbers--15-30 per group on average--that's when I stopped feeding into a system that makes cache ownership more about providing +1s. 

 

Either "on location" physically or virtually, this proxy behaviour can have a negative effect on COs. 

 

Please explain how any of what you just said has anything to do with "someone else does it for you" (proxy)Thanks.   :)

This seems to be merely dissatisfaction about a situation or behavior of individuals, or just a mild rant.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

Of course there is: teamwork.

All the discussion of climbing Mount Everest got me thinking about team events. I used to play (American) football back in school. I never carried the ball across the goal line. I never kicked the ball between the goalposts. I never scored a goal. But I won a bunch of games because someone else on my team did those things, and I contributed by doing other things, things that I was much better at than they were. Likewise, group geocaching is a team activity, not a solo activity.

 

More recently, I've learned a bit about hockey. (Mrs niraD is now a fan, so I've picked it up too.) One of the things I find interesting about hockey is that they keep track of points, which include both goals and assists. So if someone says that a certain player scored 100 points last season, that doesn't mean he hit the puck into the goal 100 times.

 

Some people want to treat geocaching Finds like hockey goals. Others treat geocaching Finds like hockey points.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, niraD said:

All the discussion of climbing Mount Everest got me thinking about team events. I used to play (American) football back in school. I never carried the ball across the goal line. I never kicked the ball between the goalposts. I never scored a goal. But I won a bunch of games because someone else on my team did those things, and I contributed by doing other things, things that I was much better at than they were. Likewise, group geocaching is a team activity, not a solo activity.

 

More recently, I've learned a bit about hockey. (Mrs niraD is now a fan, so I've picked it up too.) One of the things I find interesting about hockey is that they keep track of points, which include both goals and assists. So if someone says that a certain player scored 100 points last season, that doesn't mean he hit the puck into the goal 100 times.

 

Some people want to treat geocaching Finds like hockey goals. Others treat geocaching Finds like hockey points.

 

The way I see it Gretzky put the puck in the net. Lindros doesn't claim that he by-proxy, because he is a member of the team, put the puck in the net.

 

In geocaching standards the team win would go on the team account. The team won the game (is that a thing in geocaching, that we win geocaching?) Gretzky scored the goals. They don't individually claim to have put the puck in the net because Gretzky did, and then everyone nod in agreement and claim that they too put the puck in the net because they watched Gretzky do it on live streaming. 

Edited by L0ne.R
spelling
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

The way I see it Gretzky put the puck in the net. Lindros doesn't claim that he by-proxy, because he is a member of the team, put the puck in the net.

 

In geocaching standards that team win would go on the team account.

The team won the game (is that a thing in geocaching, that we win geocaching?) Gretzky scored the goals.

They don't individually claim to have put the puck in the net because Gretzky did, and then everyone nod in agreement and claim that they too put the puck in the net because they watched Gretzky do it on live streaming. 

Wow...

Have you ever participated in organized sports ?   Every action by every player is for the benefit of the team. 

Nobody would know of Gretzky if he didn't score goals, but everyone contributed in some way.  The guy on the bench contributed last game...

 

It seems you're saying that if unrelated people in this hobby want to work as a team, they must all be members of a "team account".

This hobby hasn't worked that way since we started.  Doesn't make sense.  You remember it that way at some time ? 

When unrelated people cache together, be it two or 90, their shared day "as a team" counts individually at the end of the day.

We do know of a few "team accounts" of unrelated people that place caches.  None we know of use that account for finds. 

Why would they ?

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

In geocaching standards that team win would go on the team account.

Or, for a group playing "Three Musketeers" style, it would go to everyone in the group, no matter what their geocaching.com account status was.

 

I'll grant you that it's silly for the folks watching on TV at the sports bar to claim that they won the game. But everyone on the team (including the coaches who never set foot on the ice) won the game.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

We do know of a few "team accounts" of unrelated people that place caches.  None we know of use that account for finds. 

Why would they ?

 

Because they can't anymore ;)

Chances are the whole "team" will log finds on the caches placed under the team name though.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Because they can't anymore ;)

 

Chances are the whole "team" will log finds on the caches placed under the team name though.

 

Why would they want to ?  Please explain.  Thanks.  :)

It seems (to me...)  that logging under a team account serves no individual purpose.

 

We have found "team member" names inserted in many caches placed though.  Usually in the middle of the log somewhere...    

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/5/2020 at 5:26 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

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.

 

 

An opportunity to post pictures of yourself is never wasted. Love that ladder.. I had one in my shopping cart just yesterday but then couldn't pull the trigger on the $350. :-(

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×
×
  • Create New...