couch cachers

[+j0ckser]

Recently, I have discovered 2 geocachers in my area who have logged caches as 'found' but their caching handles do not appear on the log sheets. While they are relative newbies (one <100 finds, the other <200), they should have sufficient understanding about claiming a find. I have reached out to both... with no response. I do not believe that they just "didn't have a pencil"; I believe this is claiming a find without physical presence, and hoping the owner does nothing.

 

I know I can delete the log, but if this is a habit, and I'm the only one 'policing' my caches, then this pattern will continue. I can check one because 'his' handle is public to review other caches claimed; I cannot check the other as 'his' handle is private.

 

comments? suggestions?

[+cerberus1]

Curious... When one claims that all their info is "private", it still leaves notification to the CO and enters "found" on the cache?

That doesn't make any sense...      

If his name's not on the written log and it bugs you, delete it. 

 Why care if his pattern continues?  He's already made it so no one other than the CO can tell he's a faker...

This is why numbers don't mean a thing to us.  We've seen how they come by them...

[+lee737]

If you have messaged them and got no response, I'd delete the logs, especially the private one....

[+DarkZen_EvilCowPie]

1 hour ago, j0ckser said:

I can check one because 'his' handle is public to review other caches claimed; I cannot check the other as 'his' handle is private.

I'm not sure what this means. Is there a way to set your account as private?

[+barefootjeff]

3 minutes ago, DarkZen_EvilCowPie said:

I'm not sure what this means. Is there a way to set your account as private?

 

Yes, you can hide all your profile details as well as your list of finds. About the only thing you can't hide (yet) is your hides. See this recent Release Note.

[+MNTA]

Ask for a picture of the log if they don't have a pencil.

 

I'm almost to the point where I'm going to do that for all finds.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

On 5/20/2022 at 7:53 PM, MNTA said:

Ask for a picture of the log if they don't have a pencil.

 

I'm almost to the point where I'm going to do that for all finds.

 

Even for the ones with a physical signature?

[+MartyBartfast]

2 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Even for the ones with a physical signature?

 

That wouldn't be allowed as it would be an ALR...

 

[+MNTA]

8 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Even for the ones with a physical signature?

Absolutely how can you prove you actually signed it?

[+lee737]

11 minutes ago, MNTA said:

Absolutely how can you prove you actually signed it?

I'm hearing you, but the short answer is that finders aren't required to prove it apart from signing the log....

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, MNTA said:

Absolutely how can you prove you actually signed it?

How can you prove that you actually took the photo of the log?

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, MNTA said:

Absolutely how can you prove you actually signed it?

 

I'm only guessing, having never been through the process of a logging dispute, but I would imagine that, if a CO deletes your online log, the onus would be on them to provide some evidence that you didn't sign the physical log. For a nano scroll or a folded sheet in a micro, a photo of same would probably be accepted, but for a larger cache with, say, a 500 page logbook, that might be tedious as there's no requirement to sign the logbook in any particular order. I noticed in one of my caches that a recent finder had squeezed their name in between some 2018 logs a few pages in from the front of the logbook; I guess turning over a few more pages to the most recent logs was too much effort for them.

[+j0ckser]

On 5/23/2022 at 12:33 PM, MartyBartfast said:

 

That wouldn't be allowed as it would be an ALR...

 

ALR?

[+niraD]

2 minutes ago, j0ckser said:

On 5/23/2022 at 2:33 PM, MartyBartfast said:

That wouldn't be allowed as it would be an ALR...

ALR?

See the Help Center article Additional logging requirements (ALR).

[+NanCycle]

On 5/23/2022 at 10:26 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

I'm only guessing, having never been through the process of a logging dispute, but I would imagine that, if a CO deletes your online log, the onus would be on them to provide some evidence that you didn't sign the physical log. For a nano scroll or a folded sheet in a micro, a photo of same would probably be accepted, but for a larger cache with, say, a 500 page logbook, that might be tedious as there's no requirement to sign the logbook in any particular order. I noticed in one of my caches that a recent finder had squeezed their name in between some 2018 logs a few pages in from the front of the logbook; I guess turning over a few more pages to the most recent logs was too much effort for them.

I often sign logs out of order.  In the rare actual logbook, people skip pages, use only half a page, etc.  .  On the more usual log sheet--often the back of the paper is completely blank,  or lines are skipped.  I usually use the first blank space I see.  Has nothing to do with the effort of turning pages, has everything to do with wasted space.

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, NanCycle said:

I often sign logs out of order.  In the rare actual logbook, people skip pages, use only half a page, etc.  .  

On the more usual log sheet--often the back of the paper is completely blank,  or lines are skipped.  

I usually use the first blank space I see.  Has nothing to do with the effort of turning pages, has everything to do with wasted space.

 

Yep.     As one who used to have numerous "log full" notices (but of course no NM...), we'd find only one side of even the pages in books filled  

Because of that, we'd sign other's logs in the first open space. A CO questioning why, we explain our reasoning. Many do the same now.

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, NanCycle said:

I often sign logs out of order.  In the rare actual logbook, people skip pages, use only half a page, etc.  .  On the more usual log sheet--often the back of the paper is completely blank,  or lines are skipped.  I usually use the first blank space I see.  Has nothing to do with the effort of turning pages, has everything to do with wasted space.

 

Fair enough, although in this case they'd squeezed their name in between two others. After eight years, that cache's logbook is still only about half full so it's not as if space is a premium, it just struck me as odd when I saw it.

[+Ragnemalm]

Just remember to be nice to newbies. Do we know that they have noticed the message you sent?

[+retiredguy54]

I came across a geocacher that seems to be doing the same thing. It wouldn't be too much of an issue but when a cache is logged as found and it has disappeared it can be a problem. Some of the caches in Northern Nevada are miles apart and it's not fair to others to drive for miles and find out there is nothing there. One of my caches that was "found" was still under the snow on top of the mountain! Our family just made a check of our geocaches and did some collecting on a couple of more remote ones and none had been signed and all the logs were made on the same day with "TFTC" only. 

[+CheekyBrit]

Couch cachers kinda suck and really don't grasp the point of the game to get you out there and exploring as opposed to just digitally claiming an adventure. It used to really bug me but a similar forum thread covered the idea of not letting other's play style irritate you. Some things are harder to ignore, such as people who keep the caches they find and collect a bunch of containers that now need to be replaced or archived. But couch caching for the most part, while irritating, shouldn't detract from your personal enjoyment of the game. I think the term is imperturbable, or perhaps placid, even-tempered, coolheaded, or proactive describe it better. 

FTF may be claimed back from them with a photo showing your signature and not theirs. add brackets around FTF in your log and project-gc can still pick it up.

[+ras_oscar]

To the OP: Couch cachers have been a problem for a very long time. Many discussions have been had regarding what to do with them. If you are the CO and the log is not signed, you have the right to delete the log.  In truth, the practice is self regulating. The enjoyment in geocaching is the hunt, not the find. Someone sitting at home logging caches will quickly tire of the process, since little value is placed on numbers they know are not genuine. They will soon move on.

 

 

[+majordude]

Well, I am surprised that Geocaching doesn't use the GPS they are already using to verify finds. When Foursquare was a thing, if you wanted to log a visit to someplace in Augusta, Maine it would tell you that you are nowhere near there... so nope!

[+barefootjeff]

59 minutes ago, majordude said:

Well, I am surprised that Geocaching doesn't use the GPS they are already using to verify finds. When Foursquare was a thing, if you wanted to log a visit to someplace in Augusta, Maine it would tell you that you are nowhere near there... so nope!

 

I cache with a Garmin Oregon 700, using the GPX files I load onto it beforehand, and log my finds on my PC when I get home. I'm not sure how the Oregon is supposed to verify my finds since it doesn't communicate with anything and just produces the geocache_visits.txt log file based on what I tell it I've found. Not everyone caches with a phone or even caches in places that have any nearby phone coverage.

 

Also just being somewhere near GZ doesn't prove you found the cache. For many caches, getting there is easy but putting your name in the logbook is the tricky bit.

Edited July 6, 2022 by barefootjeff

[+majordude]

Well, it's a game. And you can game a game. I think being in the vicinity of cache at least proves you attempted to find it versus logging a catch across the world. Also, I'm not really sure I understand the point of signing a log book because it's not like you get credit for checking in and then the owner verifying your login. You could claim you found 100 caches today and there aren't any checks or balances.

[+Max and 99]

1 minute ago, majordude said:

Also, I'm not really sure I understand the point of signing a log book because it's not like you get credit for checking in and then the owner verifying your login. You could claim you found 100 caches today and there aren't any checks or balances.

I invite you to test that out on one of my geocaches.

[+majordude]

Why, what happens?

[+barefootjeff]

41 minutes ago, majordude said:

Well, it's a game. And you can game a game. I think being in the vicinity of cache at least proves you attempted to find it versus logging a catch across the world. Also, I'm not really sure I understand the point of signing a log book because it's not like you get credit for checking in and then the owner verifying your login. You could claim you found 100 caches today and there aren't any checks or balances.

 

I draw your attention to this paragraph of the Guidelines:

 

 

If I see an online log on one of my caches that makes me suspicious, I'll visit the cache to check the logbook and, if I don't find anything in there matching the online log, the logger will be asked for an explanation. Yes, it's a game and there aren't any prizes for finding caches, so I'm fairly lenient compared to some COs, but if you can't convince me you got to the cache, opened it but for whatever reason couldn't sign the logbook, then I'll delete your log and make sure everyone in the local community is aware of your antics. All my caches have pencils in them, which I regularly check and sharpen if need be, so "forgot my pen" isn't an acceptable excuse.

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, majordude said:

Well, I am surprised that Geocaching doesn't use the GPS they are already using to verify finds. When Foursquare was a thing, if you wanted to log a visit to someplace in Augusta, Maine it would tell you that you are nowhere near there... so nope!

I use a Garmin GPS. There is no way for that to verify a find. 

Besides, many caches are where there is no mobile service. I was in such a place today.

 

PS. Welcome to geocaching. You will learn the rules we play by with experience.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Goldenwattle

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, majordude said:

Well, it's a game. And you can game a game. I think being in the vicinity of cache at least proves you attempted to find it versus logging a catch across the world. Also, I'm not really sure I understand the point of signing a log book because it's not like you get credit for checking in and then the owner verifying your login. You could claim you found 100 caches today and there aren't any checks or balances.

Yes there is a reason to sign the log. It's not just being in the area, it's actually finding the cache. That's why cache difficulty is rated; some are harder to find than others. That's part of the challenge. Your suggestion would mean no cache could be rated harder than others. You want to change the game to suit you. I suggest if you can't find a cache log a DNF. There are high rated caches. I check all logs, as all COs are meant to do to confirm the find. I mightn't get around to doing this for months (my longest was 2.5 years) but I will check the log eventually, and if I didn't find your signature, although I could just delete your log for not signing, I would give you a chance to prove you were there. I would message you and first ask you to peruse the photograph of the log and point out your signature (I did once miss seeing someone's signature, thanked them and apologised). If you signature is not there I would ask for other proof. Well, yes it's a game, and that's how it's played.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Goldenwattle

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, majordude said:

Why, what happens?

I imagine they meant your log would be deleted.

[+majordude]

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I draw your attention to this paragraph of the Guidelines:

 

 

If I see an online log on one of my caches that makes me suspicious, I'll visit the cache to check the logbook and, if I don't find anything in there matching the online log, the logger will be asked for an explanation. Yes, it's a game and there aren't any prizes for finding caches, so I'm fairly lenient compared to some COs, but if you can't convince me you got to the cache, opened it but for whatever reason couldn't sign the logbook, then I'll delete your log and make sure everyone in the local community is aware of your antics. All my caches have pencils in them, which I regularly check and sharpen if need be, so "forgot my pen" isn't an acceptable excuse.

Ah! Good!

[+cerberus1]

11 hours ago, majordude said:

Well, it's a game. And you can game a game. I think being in the vicinity of cache at least proves you attempted to find it versus logging a catch across the world. Also, I'm not really sure I understand the point of signing a log book because it's not like you get credit for checking in and then the owner verifying your login. You could claim you found 100 caches today and there aren't any checks or balances.

 

For us it's never been a game. Games need points, prizes, and there's winners/losers. This hobby doesn't have that (though they have stats).

We think of it as an outdoors location hobby and joined when "the language of location" was a thing.   

Of course there are "checks n balances", logs are a part of maintenance.  COs decide how strictly they'll keep track.

On our easier hides, meant to teach the hobby mostly, we'd be more lenient with logging, but would delete if it's obviously being abused by someone who repeatedly doesn't see the point.

I check our 5T hides though, and there's no excuse there.  We'll delete if no signature.

Those people worked hard to sign those cache logs, and someone "in the vicinity" isn't fair to those who rope climbed or paddled for hours. 

[+RecipeForDisaster]

51 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

For us it's never been a game. Games need points, prizes, and there's winners/losers. This hobby doesn't have that (though they have stats).

We think of it as an outdoors location hobby and joined when "the language of location" was a thing.   

Of course there are "checks n balances", logs are a part of maintenance.  COs decide how strictly they'll keep track.

On our easier hides, meant to teach the hobby mostly, we'd be more lenient with logging, but would delete if it's obviously being abused by someone who repeatedly doesn't see the point.

I check our 5T hides though, and there's no excuse there.  We'll delete if no signature.

Those people worked hard to sign those cache logs, and someone "in the vicinity" isn't fair to those who rope climbed or paddled for hours. 

Exactly. You know, a good analogy might be learning an instrument and striving to perfect playing it. Sure, you can play a recording of someone else and pass it off as your own playing("it’s only cheating yourself"), but…. is that really playing the instrument? Is it satisfying? Can you call yourself a musician?

[+EthisEthat]

On 7/6/2022 at 2:30 PM, majordude said:

Well, it's a game. And you can game a game. I think being in the vicinity of cache at least proves you attempted to find it versus logging a catch across the world. Also, I'm not really sure I understand the point of signing a log book because it's not like you get credit for checking in and then the owner verifying your login. You could claim you found 100 caches today and there aren't any checks or balances.

I hide some terrain heavy caches, and none of them are 5km into the bush. If you were standing at the bottom of the tree, but the actual cache is 10m up the tree, can you count that as a find even if you were at the tree? No. 

For me, if my cache is more difficult or more physically challenging to get to and sign, I will be more likely to check the log and police it than if it was just a simple cache. It just isn't fair for all the people that put in the effort. I still police the easier ones, I just don't do it as often and I'm not as strict. 

[+horn38]

OmeErik,  Kanga, polyanthum all 3 posted they have logged a find to my coin but its still in my hands? is this "Couch logging"? 

 

[+niraD]

36 minutes ago, horn38 said:

OmeErik,  Kanga, polyanthum all 3 posted they have logged a find to my coin but its still in my hands? is this "Couch logging"? 

Maybe. Or maybe they're all just late logging that they discovered (not found) your coin, for example at an event that you attended together...

[+kunarion]

42 minutes ago, horn38 said:

OmeErik,  Kanga, polyanthum all 3 posted they have logged a find to my coin but its still in my hands? is this "Couch logging"? 

 

 

Kanga and polyanthum at least may cache together, and both seem to log any code they find in any way (not an uncommon practice).  Are there clues in the Discover logs about where the Tracking Code was found?  There are several ways a coin may be legitimately logged, and without specifics, I could only guess.

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by kunarion

[+cerberus1]

20 hours ago, horn38 said:

Three posters posted they have logged a find to my coin but its still in my hands? is this "Couch logging"? 

 

I couldn't find any loggers on any coins to see if it might be legit, so just guessing...

There used to be a few sites that had someone using numbers generators with pages of trackable codes. Like a codes generator, they simply stop on a group of numbers/characters that sticks.   A lot of people were ticked about that, some numbers were even on unactivated coins. Not nice.

But I find a lot of trackable codes by error of the owner, who posted the trackable with the code visible themselves. Why I looked...

Sometimes the owner isn't aware, not checking on their pages, and a previous finder left a pic with the code visible.

Using any search you choose (I still google); you'd see hundreds of codes with a pic. I leave a note with the Discover log where I saw it.

I'm fine if the TO deletes, but hopefully they read where it happened, JIC it's something they did...