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

4 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

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.

 

 

 

Going on a team/group hike is different from the creation of an adhoc teams created for the purpose of logging finds on as many caches as possible. Practices such as "finding" caches using divide an conquer methods (e.g. splitting up to find a different set of caches) are often used and then somehow  the team magically dissolves when it comes time for individual geocachers  to log the finds on line.   The example of 90 caches may be rare, but the formation of adhoc teams created specifically to facilitate logging as many finds as possible (resulting in hundreds of finds in a day) is not so rare.  Team/Group hikes are often individual cacher, geocaching together and might result in a handful of finds and are not on the same side of the line as adhoc teams.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Going on a team/group hike is different from the creation of an adhoc teams created for the purpose of logging finds on as many caches as possible. Practices such as "finding" caches using divide an conquer methods (e.g. splitting up to find a different set of caches) are often used and then somehow  the team magically dissolves when it comes time for individual geocachers  to log the finds on line.   The example of 90 caches may be rare, but the formation of adhoc teams created specifically to facilitate logging as many finds as possible (resulting in hundreds of finds in a day) is not so rare.  Team/Group hikes are often individual cacher, geocaching together and might result in a handful of finds and are not on the same side of the line as adhoc teams.

 

Not sure why you responded to me, but the idea, as many have now expressed, is that all "team/group" outings aren't strictly for numbers.

The OP suggests that's all  caching in a group is about...

In fact, all we've attended have been a social gathering, similar to an event, but without that "smiley" too.

 - But if they still can't comprehend the difference between virtual and real life, they're probably not gonna get that either...

 

Edited by cerberus1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours 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 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. 

 

I thought you didn't like that geocaching has become a numbers game. Here you reveal that you consider it a competition, like a hockey game. Given that belief, your complaint makes more sense, but it conflicts with your complaint that geocaching is now all about the numbers.  So which is it: do you consider it a competition and you hate the cheating, or do you consider it a non-competitive activity?  Please choose one and stick with it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
23 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?

It's been suggested that this situation is absurd, however I know it happens with moving caches at events.

Edited by fendmar

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, on4bam said:

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.

 

Seems to me that is what you're saying unless I'm misconstruing.  Is the +1 the primary motivating factor for going out in a group or is it something else?  You don't mention anything else as a factor so I'm left to assume that you are referring to the +1 as the reason for caching in groups.  Are you referring to the "derogatory" + 1, where the cache and the experience don't really matter much to the finder, or the generic + 1 that just refers to a find in general?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

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. 

 

Some certainly were but I have some friends in southern IN and Louisville who are charter members who cached in groups frequently, including a husband and wife duo with separate accounts, who went caching together and still do, logging finds that they all found together.  Rather than have each of them drive separately, they carpooled to caches that were frequently more than 50 miles away to find a new cache in that first year or two.  I have another friend in Cincinnati who is a charter member who has cached in groups for years as well, long before PTs became a thing.  

 

You're not wrong in that it has changed but you seem to take it to extremes rather than realizing that there is one extreme (your 90 cachers at a time) and then another extreme, someone always caching alone, when it actually often falls somewhere in between.  Not every group of cachers that comes along does PTs, focuses only on challenges, or is concerned with how many finds a day they can get.  Some certainly do those things.  However, there are some groups that cache for the social experience that it provides, which is far different than caching alone.  Some groups cache because they want to do some hiking with friends, find a few caches, enjoy each other's company, and then write about how much fun they had with the group, who they spent time with, and what they did.  

 

You appear to assume that everyone who caches in groups has some nefarious ulterior motive that foregoes the experience a cache might provide and is just concerned about the numbers they accrue, for numbers' sake.  Some do but many do not.  There are other reasons people get together to cache than it just being about the numbers.  

Edited by coachstahly
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm saying that it's more interesting to go in groups in order to get that +1 that they may not get if caching alone (i.e. not climbing, not solving puzzles....) or in short, to get a +1 because someone in the group will do the hard work for them.

As an example, some one may find 19 out of 20 in a series when alone with 1 DNF because of the T5 but 20/20 because one person in the group does do T5's. Part of the incentive to go in a group to get that extra cache.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, fendmar said:

It's been suggested that this situation is absurd, however I know it happens with moving caches at events.

 

There are no more moving caches and if someone is doing it, someone should file the NA.  Those moving caches were given the option to be archived or turned into a trackable I think (is that right?).  Now if you're referring to someone finding a cache (NOT the CO) and bringing it to the event so others can sign the log to claim the find, that also falls into what STNolan described as "we all know what cheating the system looks like when we see it."  

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, fendmar said:

It's been suggested that this situation is absurd, however I know it happens with moving caches and events.

 

Something similar happened in my area. A popular old-time geocacher (caching since the early 2000s) took a film canister to an event to use as a pocket cache--passed around for people to sign, then turned the pocket cache into a throwdown so people could "legitimately" log a find. He put it in a tree where a small cache had gone missing and the CO stopped caching about a year before. 34 people attended the event, 16 people at the event logged the pocket/throwdown as found. It was reported and archived by a reviewer that week. But those event goers got to keep their finds. Dishonest group behaviour was rewarded.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, on4bam said:

I'm saying that it's more interesting to go in groups in order to get that +1 that they may not get if caching alone (i.e. not climbing, not solving puzzles....) or in short, to get a +1 because someone in the group will do the hard work for them.

As an example, some one may find 19 out of 20 in a series when alone with 1 DNF because of the T5 but 20/20 because one person in the group does do T5's. Part of the incentive to go in a group to get that extra cache.

 

And the problem with that is?  In some situations I can certainly see there being an issue but in others, does it really matter?  For example, a paddle cache where only one person in the group of 8 paddles out to the island and then the rest of the group claims the find.  However, if it's a tree climb (which wouldn't be a 5 unless tree climbing equipment was needed) and each person is there, I have no issue with them claiming the find, even if I'm the one that went up in the tree to get the cache (which I've done).  Neither does GS.  

 

This example is NOTHING like the virtual example that the OP started with because all the members of the group were there, physically, at the location.  I just happened to be the one who went up the tree in that particular group setting.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

There are no more moving caches and if someone is doing it, someone should file the NA.  Those moving caches were given the option to be archived or turned into a trackable I think (is that right?).  Now if you're referring to someone finding a cache (NOT the CO) and bringing it to the event so others can sign the log to claim the find, that also falls into what STNolan described as "we all know what cheating the system looks like when we see it."  

I didn't know they got shut down. What a shame. This was before then.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Something similar happened in my area. A popular old-time geocacher (caching since the early 2000s) took a film canister to an event to use as a pocket cache--passed around for people to sign, then turned the pocket cache into a throwdown so people could "legitimately" log a find. He put it in a tree where a small cache had gone missing and the CO stopped caching about a year before. 34 people attended the event, 16 people at the event logged the pocket/throwdown as found. It was reported and archived by a reviewer that week. But those event goers got to keep their finds. Dishonest group behaviour was rewarded.  

 

And no one here is saying that this is a good thing.  This is yet another of the ""we all know what cheating the system looks like when we see it."  You take these bad situations and seem to imply that these things happen EVERY time a group gets together.  It doesn't. Maybe it does sometimes (it obviously did at least once) but it's certainly not happening every time.  It's certainly not happened at any of the events I've ever attended.  I did bring one of my gadget caches to one of my events and said that if anyone could get it open to access the log, then they could claim the find.  The cache was a cryptex and I gave all of them the same clue that was on the cache page.  Only one person did.  However, that was an exception, not a normal occurrence.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 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

 

I'm curious what you define as a "cliff cache" or how you know when I'm claiming one. There's no special terrain rating or attribute for caches that are on cliff-top ledges. The Cliffs/Falling Rocks attribute just means there are cliffs or falling rocks somewhere nearby, not that you have to climb the cliff (or be hit by the falling rock), and most of my own hides have that attribute. There are Difficult Climb and Climbing Gear Required attributes but the cache in question didn't have either of those, and in any case they don't imply cliff-climbing either - on one of those I've done, the climbing gear required was a ladder to reach up into the rafters of a pergola in a park with the nearest cliff many kilometres away.

 

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, fendmar said:

Attributes

 

Which one? What attribute specifically identifies a cliff cache? Cliffs/Falling Rocks doesn't, Difficult Climbing doesn't, Climbing Gear Required doesn't, Hazardous Area doesn't, Scenic View doesn't, and I can't see any other attributes that have anything at all to do with cliffs.

 

Share this post


Link to post

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

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, fendmar said:

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

 

I don't know why some people can't accept that there are some caches best done as a group, where each member of the group offers their individual skills to help achieve the overall objective, which is getting their signatures in the logbook. Some caches even have this attribute:

image.png.c19a84a7ca9b3c882c872aab5c3a5096.png

to indicate that they can only be done as a group effort.

 

What's wrong with a group of cachers going out to do a challenging cache that's probably beyond any of their individual abilities to complete, but together they can? Where's the harm in that? Where in the guidelines does it say that all finds have to be solely an individual effort? I'll say it again: caching is not a competitive sport, for many, including me, it's about having an enjoyable time in the great outdoors and sharing those experiences through my logs and photos. And for those people, the sign the logbook -> log the find rule works perfectly well.

 

It's got nothing to do with entitlement, it's about being part of a shared adventure that would have otherwise have been too difficult or too dangerous to do alone.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Some caches even have this attribute:

image.png.c19a84a7ca9b3c882c872aab5c3a5096.png

to indicate that they can only be done as a group effort.

 

And, even then, some people have the skills or resources to accomplish the task solo. Point being that attributes rarely ever mean anything with absolute certainty. They're just a guide to a likely indicator of context for the cache listing or experience. (apart from the obvious requirements now like having the wheelchair accessible attribute on 1.0 Terrain ratings)

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

And, even then, some people have the skills or resources to accomplish the task solo. Point being that attributes rarely ever mean anything with absolute certainty. They're just a guide to a likely indicator of context for the cache listing or experience. (apart from the obvious requirements now like having the wheelchair accessible attribute on 1.0 Terrain ratings)

 

Not only that, but attributes don't appear anywhere on the geocaching.com Public Profile page. All it shows is the total number of finds and their breakdown by D/T rating, cache type, cache size, day/month/year and geographical dispersion. Where is this public fraud where I'm supposedly claiming to have climbed cliffs or trees?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, fendmar said:

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

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

 

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

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

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

The reductio ad absurdum is "if you look at the cache being found, then that's sufficient to log it found", where the other end of the spectrum is if you don't do exactly the work the owner intends for you to do then you can't log it found.  Neither are allowable by the guidelines.  As geocachers we sit in the middle, in what is allowable - being what we personally choose for our own logging ethic.  Then, we can either live doing it our own way or we can encourage others towards a certain ethic - but we can't demand it, because at that point it's no longer about what's allowed or not, but our personal opinion about what's 'ethical', for lack of a better term.

 

Logging by watching from your couch is not allowed even if your name is in the logbook.

Logging by being at the cache location when someone else does the work is allowed if your name is in the logbook. (whether it's something you personally would or wouldn't do)

That IS THE distinction. It's not an opinion, it's guidelines, it's how the game is played.

Of course, people can lie, and that's a whole other issue.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

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

 

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

 

Yep. The "Tree climbing required" attribute doesn't literally mean you must climb the tree, any more than the "Boat required" attribute means you must use a boat, as those would be ALRs that are not allowed. The tree-climb attribute really just means the cache (or waypoint) is in a tree and likely out of reach of someone standing on the ground, although I've found one with that attribute that was at the base of the tree and another that was in a guard rail (that one has me scratching my head, all I can think of is that there are nearby trees you or your kids can climb if they want to), and the boat attribute just means there's a body of water between the access point and the cache (or waypoint). How to overcome those obstacles is entirely up to the seeker and as long as they've signed the log, it's a legitimate find.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

stolen valor.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Stolen valor?

Who's lying about what?

 

If the name is in the log book, that's all the Find log implies. There's no lying.

Lying is saying "I climbed the tree" when I didn't. Or "I swam" when I used a boat. None of that is implied by the existence of the Find log. Only that the cache has been found was in good findable condition as of that log's date.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


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

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

 

stolen valor.

 

So now I'm a thief as well as a liar. I'll ask you again:

 

Where in any of the logs I've written or on my Public Profile page am I claiming to have done anything I haven't done?

 

Under the rules of this game, a find is allowed once the logbook is signed, and that's it, any other requirements are specifically outlawed as ALRs (with the exception of challenge caches, virtuals and ECs which have their own rules).

 

I don't know which game you're playing, but it clearly isn't the same one I am. Sure, you can set your own rules that go beyond what HQ have done, but you can't expect everyone else to abide by them.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I don't know why some people can't accept that there are some caches best done as a group, where each member of the group offers their individual skills to help achieve the overall objective, which is getting their signatures in the logbook.

Absolutely. Some of my favorite caches have been multi-stage mystery/puzzle caches where the CO encouraged attempting the cache in a small group. By fendmar's standard, none of the group members could have logged a Find. One person found the first stage. Another solved the puzzle to get the location of the second stage. Another climbed the tree to retrieve the second stage. Another found the third stage. Another solved the puzzle to get the location of the fourth stage. And on and on and on. No one did everything required to find the cache, because we were working together as a team.

 

And then there were Venona's ACTIVITIES, which included killer D5 puzzles that were designed to be solved by a group, collaborating in an online forum. If the person who solved the puzzle didn't allow others to retrieve the cache, then that person would receive a RED MARK from Venona himself for SELFISHLY DISRESPECTING SPIRIT ACTIVITIES. (I miss Venona.)

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, fendmar said:

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

 

stolen valor.

 

A person who lies about their military service is not comparable to anything a cacher could do in this hobby.

Maybe it's telling you don't know the difference...

 

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

could be telling some don't see the similarities

  • Funny 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

could be telling some don't see the similarities

You refuse to answer my questions.

Edited by Goldenwattle
Spelling mistake

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, TmdAndGG said:

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

 

 

 

18 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

They were being stalked by a bunyip.l

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, colleda said:

They were being stalked by a bunyip.l

Then keep the children close at hand :laughing:.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Then keep the children close at hand :laughing:.

 

He gets around. He showed up at this ghostly gathering at another cemetery cache last year.

 

DSC_0125.thumb.jpg.245fab51b8a1a2d8d8e579111e15f2ec.jpg

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


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

could be telling some don't see the similarities

You reuse to answer my questions.

And mine.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

And the problem with that is?  In some situations I can certainly see there being an issue but in others, does it really matter?  For example, a paddle cache where only one person in the group of 8 paddles out to the island and then the rest of the group claims the find.  However, if it's a tree climb (which wouldn't be a 5 unless tree climbing equipment was needed) and each person is there, I have no issue with them claiming the find, even if I'm the one that went up in the tree to get the cache (which I've done).  Neither does GS.  

 

This example is NOTHING like the virtual example that the OP started with because all the members of the group were there, physically, at the location.  I just happened to be the one who went up the tree in that particular group setting.

 

Exactly... not seeing the problem IS the problem.

Finding a T5 (or any other cache) means solving the puzzle if it's a mystery, going to GZ, retrieving the cache, log on paper, replace cache... If caching in group means "just standing at GZ" is "finding it" then there is a problem. While watching someone finding a cache via live streaming is another level, watching someone finding a cache standing nearby is still not "finding a cache" just like supporting your sports team from the grandstand (or coach watching TV) is not winning a game yourself.

 

What is a team account is used for those team caching trips where the team gets the +1 but not the individual cachers and keep the personal accounts to log +1 on caches found by the person holding that account?

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, on4bam said:

If caching in group means "just standing at GZ" is "finding it" then there is a problem. While watching someone finding a cache via live streaming is another level, watching someone finding a cache standing nearby is still not "finding a cache" just like supporting your sports team from the grandstand (or coach watching TV) is not winning a game yourself.

 

In any group caching venture, it's likely only one member of the group will make the "find", as in spot the cache. At that instant, everyone else is likely to be "just standing at GZ". Harking back to my Hawkesbury Heights #5 Suspended Splendor example, the four of us spent all morning hiking to GZ through steep mostly trackless bushland, arriving there about noon. The cache page includes helper photos showing the ledge where the cache is hidden and I was the first to spot that, but one of the others offered to climb down and retrieve the cache from its hiding place in a gap at the back of the ledge. The ledge was only wide enough for one person to do that, so only one member of our group could have physically made that find. By your reasoning, I guess the other three were just freeloaders along for the ride. Why bother? Except the one who retrieved the cache probably wouldn't have ventured out there by himself due to the rugged terrain between the nearest road and GZ, and the end result would have been no finds at all that day on that cache. Is that the outcome you desire?

 

Would you still be objecting if that same group of cachers was instead doing a magnetic mint tin in a guard rail and only one of the group retrieved the cache before handing it around to the others to sign? Or should each one retrieve the tin, open it, extract the log, sign it, put it back in the tin and then put the tin back in the guard rail before allowing the next in line to do the same thing?

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

In any group caching venture, it's likely only one member of the group will make the "find", as in spot the cache. At that instant, everyone else is likely to be "just standing at GZ". Harking back to my Hawkesbury Heights #5 Suspended Splendor example, the four of us spent all morning hiking to GZ through steep mostly trackless bushland, arriving there about noon. The cache page includes helper photos showing the ledge where the cache is hidden and I was the first to spot that, but one of the others offered to climb down and retrieve the cache from its hiding place in a gap at the back of the ledge. The ledge was only wide enough for one person to do that, so only one member of our group could have physically made that find. By your reasoning, I guess the other three were just freeloaders along for the ride. Why bother? Except the one who retrieved the cache probably wouldn't have ventured out there by himself due to the rugged terrain between the nearest road and GZ, and the end result would have been no finds at all that day on that cache. Is that the outcome you desire?

 

I think you perfectly know that's not how most group cache trips are done. Your example is a "group effort" and an exception. Many tend to go on these group trips (as mentioned before) for the ride. I've seen logs where it was mentioned why some of the group went along. "Went with xxx who love to climb so we set out early to get this series of high T caches".

Where to draw the line? Would a cacher go out and find the cache without the group or do they go in a group because they would, for any reason, not be able to find it themselves?

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, on4bam said:

I think you perfectly know that's not how most group cache trips are done. Your example is a "group effort" and an exception.

 

Sorry, but that's very much the norm for all the group caching trips I've done. Mount Royal, Mount Warrawolong, Mount Vincent, Empire Bay, Chipping Norton Lake, the Illawarra escarpment, a couple of Hawkesbury River group kayak paddles, the cemetery night caches, even the day spent walking through inner Sydney where we all contributed to the searches and finds. I've never been on a group outing where one person did all the work and everyone else just stood around watching.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, barefootjeff said:

 

Sorry, but that's very much the norm for all the group caching trips I've done. Mount Royal, Mount Warrawolong, Mount Vincent, Empire Bay, Chipping Norton Lake, the Illawarra escarpment, a couple of Hawkesbury River group kayak paddles, the cemetery night caches, even the day spent walking through inner Sydney where we all contributed to the searches and finds. I've never been on a group outing where one person did all the work and everyone else just stood around watching.

Of course, that because of your location. We can only dream of long hikes for just 1 cache unless we leave 10's of caches along the way unfound.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, on4bam said:

 

I think you perfectly know that's not how most group cache trips are done. Your example is a "group effort" and an exception. Many tend to go on these group trips (as mentioned before) for the ride. I've seen logs where it was mentioned why some of the group went along. "Went with xxx who love to climb so we set out early to get this series of high T caches".

Where to draw the line? Would a cacher go out and find the cache without the group or do they go in a group because they would, for any reason, not be able to find it themselves?

 

You deleted in you reply: "Would you still be objecting if that same group of cachers was instead doing a magnetic mint tin in a guard rail and only one of the group retrieved the cache before handing it around to the others to sign? Or should each one retrieve the tin, open it, extract the log, sign it, put it back in the tin and then put the tin back in the guard rail before allowing the next in line to do the same thing? "

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, on4bam said:

I think you perfectly know that's not how most group cache trips are done. Your example is a "group effort" and an exception.


Really?  I've never done any group trips that don't involve some group effort.  It's not always the same cacher making the find, or doing the higher T rated cache (like climbing a tree), or anything else related to what my group caching has been like.  Like L0ne.R, you seem to think that our experiences are in the minority and exceptions while most everyone else in group caching just tags along and only one person carries the weight for the entire group.  I'm not denying that that happens.  However, I am saying that for someone who hasn't cached with groups, you seem pretty sure what group caching is all about, and it's a cynical view that assumes most everyone is in it for the +1 rather than the other things that many of us have mentioned already.  

 

 

1 hour ago, on4bam said:

If caching in group means "just standing at GZ" is "finding it" then there is a problem. While watching someone finding a cache via live streaming is another level, watching someone finding a cache standing nearby is still not "finding a cache" just like supporting your sports team from the grandstand (or coach watching TV) is not winning a game yourself.

 

So by this logic, as Jeff has pointed out, even if it's a pair of cachers out caching and they have agreed not to use "cheeseburger/huckle buckle", only one person can find a cache and the other cacher has no claim to the find as they're "just standing at GZ".  Were they actively searching for the cache before it was found?  Are they 3 miles out from the parking lot where we started with 3 miles left to get back?  Have they managed to find one of the caches we've found previously?  Are they at GZ?  The answer to the virtual finds is absolutely not, which is why there's very little debate amongst all of us here.   

 

1 hour ago, on4bam said:

Many tend to go on these group trips (as mentioned before) for the ride. I've seen logs where it was mentioned why some of the group went along. "Went with xxx who love to climb so we set out early to get this series of high T caches".

 

Why do you assume that more often than not, most group trips are made up of a bunch of freeloading cachers?  You, like L0ne.R, seem to think this style of group caching is the norm and what Jeff and I (and others on here) do is an exception to the norm.  It most certainly does happen but for a pair of avowed isolationist cachers, you two seem to have group caching all figured out, despite the fact that there are many of us on here who are stating that it's not always done the way you two think it is.

 

The debate surrounding group caching and legitimacy of finds, despite repeated attempts to discount the validity of finds within a group setting, is moot as GS has repeatedly come down on the side of allowing finds to stand within a group setting. For lack of a better phrase, you're applying a "purity" test to something that GSHQ has already weighed in on and approved of.  Has it been abused?  I'm sure it has.  Is it being abused? I'm sure it is.  Do "most" group cachers do it? If all we're able to provide is anecdotal evidence, then how can anyone answer this?  My anecdotal evidence (and personal experience) shows me that my group caching is different than what you and L0ne.R are describing, as does Jeff's, as does Cerberus', as do my charter member friends'.  The following posters have all weighed in with their thoughts about group caching and have come down on the same side as GSHQ has, that it's permitted and the find is allowed -  niraD, CAVinoGal, MNTA, Clancy's Crew, GW,  Bruce, JL, RocTheCacheBox, IceColdUK, and STNolan - but I bet if you ask them, they will agree that not all group caching is equal and that what L0ne.R and you are saying has some elements of truth, but not to the extent the two of you appear to believe it exists.  Some of them have even provided their anecdotal personal experiences as examples of what their group caching entails and it doesn't sound like their group caching meets the standards of what you think most group caching does.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

The following posters have all weighed in with their thoughts about group caching and have come down on the same side as GSHQ has, that it's permitted and the find is allowed -  niraD, CAVinoGal, MNTA, Clancy's Crew, GW,  Bruce, JL, RocTheCacheBox, IceColdUK, and STNolan - but I bet if you ask them, they will agree that not all group caching is equal and that what L0ne.R and you are saying has some elements of truth, but not to the extent the two of you appear to believe it exists.

 

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

 

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

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 5/7/2020 at 3:02 PM, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Going on a team/group hike is different from the creation of an adhoc teams created for the purpose of logging finds on as many caches as possible. Practices such as "finding" caches using divide an conquer methods (e.g. splitting up to find a different set of caches) are often used and then somehow  the team magically dissolves when it comes time for individual geocachers  to log the finds on line.   The example of 90 caches may be rare, but the formation of adhoc teams created specifically to facilitate logging as many finds as possible (resulting in hundreds of finds in a day) is not so rare.  Team/Group hikes are often individual cacher, geocaching together and might result in a handful of finds and are not on the same side of the line as adhoc teams.

 

You're right.  Not all group caching is equal.  However, for L0ne.R and on4bam, it seems they believe that the quest for numbers is what group caching is all about.  Most group cachers do it.  "Most" implies a significantly higher percentage than half.  3 out of 4 or higher?  75% of group caching is done purely for numbers.   "I've seen logs where it was mentioned why some of the group went along. "Went with xxx who love to climb so we set out early to get this series of high T caches".  So these logs prove that most group cachers cache for numbers?  All they prove is that for that cacher, it confirms what on4bam believes, that it was all about the numbers.  However, they've taken that affirmation and applied it to "most" group cachers.  All that, despite numerous other cachers on here stating their own personal group caching experiences and on4bam stating that Jeff's example is an exception, which means that all the rest of us are exceptions as well.  Doesn't that seem to throw that claim out the window?  Where is the factual proof that most group cachers cache purely for numbers?

 

No one on here is saying that these types of groups don't exist.  They absolutely do.  However, there are a couple posters on here that think that this happens for "most" group caching, when in fact, it happens far less than they think.  I don't have a number and can't even guess because that's all it would be - a guess. There are no spreadsheets, no facts, no proof of any sort that most group caching is done for the numbers.  The best any of us can do is say that some group caching is done for numbers and some group caching is done for completely different reasons.  No one can assign anything that implies some sort of percentage because there's no way either side can support that claim with anything resembling facts, only anecdotal evidence. However, one thing that is irrefutable is the fact that GSHQ has consistently come down on the side of group cachers being allowed to claim a find when out with a group.  

Edited by coachstahly
caching name wrong
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Not sure why you responded to me, but the idea, as many have now expressed, is that all "team/group" outings aren't strictly for numbers.

The OP suggests that's all  caching in a group is about...

In fact, all we've attended have been a social gathering, similar to an event, but without that "smiley" too.

 - But if they still can't comprehend the difference between virtual and real life, they're probably not gonna get that either...

 

You were the most recent to mention team/group outings.  That's why I followed up your post.

 

I didn't interpret the OP as suggesting that group caching was all about the numbers.  I read it as, there's a line where geocaching as a group crosses over into questionable practices.  My post was simply an attempt to clarify where that line lies.  

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

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

 

Same here.  Most consider it more of an event than searching for caches. 

The last I was at, one of the older gals chatting with her friend in the back said, "Oh, we're here..."

 - That's how concerned with "numbers" they are.  :)         And innocuous... 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, on4bam said:

Of course, that because of your location. We can only dream of long hikes for just 1 cache unless we leave 10's of caches along the way unfound.

 

 

And what's wrong with leaving 10s of caches unfound?  Are you saying that you have to find everything?  If so, then that's not much better than the group cachers you've mentioned because it's all about the numbers and the quest to find as many as you can.  Seems to me that you're somewhat contradicting your own statement on the third page that the geocaching is extra and therefore the finds aren't really that important. "The walk/ride is the goal, geocaching is extra."  If the goal is a long hike, then skip the 10s of caches along the way.  You don't have to dream. The ability is already at your fingertips.  However, you just stated that you prefer to find the 10s of caches along the way rather than do a long hike for just 1 cache.

 

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

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

And what's wrong with leaving 10s of caches unfound?  

Yep.

I've cached this way since starting.  More like 90% now.  The other 2/3rds...not so much.   :)

Folks used to hound her (they know I don't care... ;-), when I'd walk past a string of caches to get to the one at the end, usually a cliff edge with an awesome view, asking "what gives?"

"What gives" is all those people placed their caches on the back of that one at the end after they did it, and (to me) a cache every .10 to  get there now shows no imagination and kinda tacky.

Funny how we hear about people who just can't pass those by, like we're missing out on something, then say how others are all about the numbers.  :D

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Eureka! GS should change the system to allow the actual finder to tag the people that assisted and didn't actually do the cache and give them a +1 as an assist stat on their profile. Problem solved and now the people that sit at home in front of the live-stream and assisted can get something, too.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, fendmar said:

Eureka! GS should change the system to allow the actual finder to tag the people that assisted and didn't actually do the cache and give them a +1 as an assist stat on their profile. Problem solved and now the people that sit at home in front of the live-stream and assisted can get something, too.

Are you going to have the "actual finder" tag the fans watching via live-stream too? Because there's a huge difference between an assist (which still counts as a point) and a fan watching from home (or from a sports bar, or wherever).

 

I'll say it again: People have been going on group caching trips and playing "Three Musketeers" style (where everyone declares victory once anyone spots the cache) for longer than I've been geocaching. You aren't going to change that, no matter how much you gripe and complain that it isn't fair to those who did all the work themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, fendmar said:

Eureka! GS should change the system to allow the actual finder to tag the people that assisted and didn't actually do the cache and give them a +1 as an assist stat on their profile. Problem solved and now the people that sit at home in front of the live-stream and assisted can get something, too.

 

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

 

Capture.JPG.8a36c86652c43b4feafe4de253426be6.JPG

 

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

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, niraD said:

Are you going to have the "actual finder" tag the fans watching via live-stream too? Because there's a huge difference between an assist (which still counts as a point) and a fan watching from home (or from a sports bar, or wherever).

 

I'll say it again: People have been going on group caching trips and playing "Three Musketeers" style (where everyone declares victory once anyone spots the cache) for longer than I've been geocaching. You aren't going to change that, no matter how much you gripe and complain that it isn't fair to those who did all the work themselves.

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

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...