Should clues be logged as finds

[+McDeHack]

Should clues count as logged finds?

On some caches with multiple clues each clue can be logged as a found virtual cache. Such as the Sherlock cache, The London Rainbow cache, and Catastrophe, Calamity.

Why I ask is that having found six clues to a cache ‘The London Pilgrimage’ I was not allowed to find the cache as it was on private property and I was shown the gate to leave. (See ‘I was nearly arrested’) So all the time that I spent has been wasted.

I would like some feedback on this.

[+kennamatic]

As one of the successful finders I'll jump in first. I don't want to give away too much but the cache isn't on private property. I know why you thought it was, as the school lies on the line between the main road and the cache. If your co-ordinates were placing it right in the school grounds then either your answers were slightly wrong or the gps was tracking inaccurately.

 

On the subject of logging clues as finds I mainly agree, having spent a number of hours finding all the parts required getting one find logged can be a bit disappointing, but then again I enjoy them more than straight caches so I guess it's my choice.

 

Maybe there's a way of rating multi-caches as a "2 find" or something to give a bit of extra recognition, 1st find for all the parts, and the 2nd find for the main cache. Any views?

 

Finding your caches - Losing my marbles.

[Ben Pid]

I think the Sherlock series is an example of this and I think its wrong that caches can be logged so easily, what with the Sherlocks and Reading's SP series your well on your way to 100 caches after 2days......does this make any sense??

 

As for McDehack's experience....all I gotta say on the matter is glad it wasn't me! hehe

 

Wheres yer cache mr Security guard,,,,,who had the gun this time though?

 

Pid

 

Watch out its a Golfcourse... (Team Dan and Pid)

[Ben Pid]

I think the Sherlock series is an example of this and I think its wrong that caches can be logged so easily, what with the Sherlocks and Reading's SP series your well on your way to 100 caches after 2days......does this make any sense??

 

As for McDehack's experience....all I gotta say on the matter is glad it wasn't me! hehe

 

Wheres yer cache mr Security guard,,,,,who had the gun this time though?

 

Pid

 

Watch out its a Golfcourse... (Team Dan and Pid)

[+The Hornet]

I've thought about this myself over the past few days. I've been doing the Rainbow, Pilgrim, Sherlock, Safari and X Marks the spot series this week and still have some sections to complete. I've also done the SP series in the past and have set some multi part caches of my own.

 

I've wondered if there could be some way of getting credit for completing a multi part cache which can only be logged as a single find, perhaps by incorporating the difficulty rating in some kind of scoring system.

 

Then again you have to consider what you are into geocaching for. I've had great fun going round London this week visiting parts I never knew existed as well as re-visiting familiar parts (apart from my experience on Hamstead Heath that is!).

 

Yes it's nice to see the 'caches found' clocking up but that's not what geocaching is about. I get as much fun finding individual elements of a single multi-part (e.g. Pilgrimage or Safari) as I do from solving 'multiple singles' such as the Sherlocks & Rainbows.

 

Let's enjoy the hunt, not the score.

[evilrooster]

I was looking at making my first cache a virtual treasure hunt just when the new rules came in. I posted a vague description of the cache(s) in the general forum..."Sort of like the Sherlock series of caches but more geographically and thematically unified" was how I described it.

 

The feedback I got was that it should be one virtual multi cache. So I did - Up the Close and Down the Stair.

 

On the one hand, it means that you spend at least 3 hours tracking all over the Old Town of Edinburgh for one find, and if you don't get all of it you get no credit for the effort you put in. On the other, you don't get seven finds for one unified effort, nor do I get seven hides for same.

 

I reckon that notfounds are a risk of caching - I have my fair share of them. And this risk applies to caches you spend a lot of time working on as well as ones you get in 10 minutes. And a good notfound log can be a contribution to the site, even more than a terse found log.

 

evilrooster

-the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

[Slytherin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kennamatic:

Maybe there's a way of rating multi-caches as a "2 find" or something to give a bit of extra recognition, 1st find for all the parts, and the 2nd find for the main cache. Any views?

---

That is what we do. On both our multi-caches we give one find for the clues and one find for getting to the box.

I think that's fair. Getting 8 finds for the Sherlock series and the Rainbow series is excessive I think.

[+John Stead]

I look at this with mixed feelings. One half of me looks at the total number of finds with some satisfaction (though there is no way I will catch up with Slytherin!), whereas the other half looks at each cache individually for the fun derived from the hunt and finding. So the GYCH was great fun and was not a way of scoring more points.

[+Chris n Maria]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slytherin:

Getting 8 finds for the Sherlock series and the Rainbow series is excessive I think.

---

 

Hmmm, Not so sure myself - I did the Sherlock series in my lunchbreaks. This meant 6 seperate trips to find 1 (sometimes 2) cache each. Personally theref ore I consider them 8 finds - the same with the catastrophy caches. Whereas Safari is more like 1 caching expedition - so 1 find. IMHO Pilgramage should have been split up as it is spread over quite a distance.

 

Chris

"We're not lost - we just don't know where we are"

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

[+paul.blitz]

I think that "The Walls" cache (1,2 and final) is a good way of logging one major cache in 3 parts. You have to find 5 virtual caches for the first part before you log it, 5 virtual caches for the second part and then you use the bits of data you got at all the sites to find one, final cache.

 

Good idea, and it works!!

 

Team Blitz

 

Ok, we've found it, now where did we put the car?

 

[This message was edited by Team Blitz on August 03, 2002 at 03:34 AM.]

[Ben Pid]

I dont see any prblem with logging multiple finds in this way. If a planter doesnt want multiple finds for the cache he/she should simply put all the clues on one page as i think the Hornet has done with Hornets Hide 10? (sorry if this is the wrong cache?!? Im not sure why everyone is so bothered about other people getting lots of finds, its supposed to be for fun, as far as im aware there is no prize for most caches? Dan.

 

Watch out its a Golfcourse... (Team Dan and Pid)

[Ben Pid]

I dont see any prblem with logging multiple finds in this way. If a planter doesnt want multiple finds for the cache he/she should simply put all the clues on one page as i think the Hornet has done with Hornets Hide 10? (sorry if this is the wrong cache?!? Im not sure why everyone is so bothered about other people getting lots of finds, its supposed to be for fun, as far as im aware there is no prize for most caches? Dan.

 

Watch out its a Golfcourse... (Team Dan and Pid)

[Ben Pid]

Sorry that was me not Pid, i was logged in as him to check our caches which are under his name.

 

Watch out its a Golfcourse... (Team Dan and Pid)

[+jeremyp]

It's up to the person who places the cache.

 

I attempted three today, one a multi in several parts and two normal caches. I'd rate both the normal caches as being easier than most of the Sherlock and Rainbow caches. In fact, Rainblow had a cache that took me nearly an hour and Sherlock 3 took three separate visits. The multi was vicious and I failed at it. When I succeed I'll only get one log for it. How is this fair?

 

It's fair because nobody ever said all logs had to be indicative of a minimum level of difficulty. There is no competition, there are no prizes for reaching 100 (other than recognition on this forum). You log the cache to show the hider that you found it and as a record for yourself.

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

[+McDeHack]

Further to this discussion on here, it seems there are many views as what should count as a cache find.

Surly the object is to arrive at a location that a GPS devise leads one to.

Be it a virtual or a hidden object.

So finding the location, and the required information, or an object must count as a cache find.

I will agree that it is the fun of the hunt that counts be it out in the wilds or around a built up area.

Who ever said the amount of finds does not count? Then why are congratulations sent to whom ever has found their first one hundred caches? For some, numbers do count and I will confess that I am now trying to increase my number of finds.

Another confession that I will make is that today I found a cache without the aid of my etrex or Street pilot. At hone, I typed in the co-ords into Mapsouce. I recognised the spot, and during the day when I dropped a job close by. I went to the spot and found the clues to log yet another virtual find to my list.

Now should this count as a find?

[+jeremyp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by McDehack:

Surly the object is to arrive at a location that a GPS devise leads one to.

---

The object is to get to a location that somebody else has posted on a web page.

quote:

---

So finding the location, and the required information, or an object must count as a cache find.

---

Yes, which is why I have no problem with logging a find for each cache in the Sherlock/rainbow series.

quote:

---

Who ever said the amount of finds does not count? Then why are congratulations sent to whom ever has found their first one hundred caches? For some, numbers do count and I will confess that I am now trying to increase my number of finds.

---

It's nice to get a bit of recognition from other cachers. But that is the only reward you get for reaching 100. Therefore, there is no point in worrying unduly about "soft touch series".

quote:

---

Another confession that I will make is that today I found a cache without the aid of my etrex or Street pilot. At hone, I typed in the co-ords into Mapsouce. I recognised the spot, and during the day when I dropped a job close by. I went to the spot and found the clues to log yet another virtual find to my list.

Now should this count as a find?

---

OF course it should. There are no rules to say you *have* to use an electronic GPS receiver to find a cache. I actually privately rate caches I find without a GPSr more highly. It gives me a greater sense of achievement to navigate my way to a place without whizz bang technology. I've never done this outside London though.

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

[+paul.blitz]

quote:

---

The multi was vicious and I failed at it. When I succeed I'll only get one log for it. How is this fair?

 

---

 

If this cache was our one jeremy, sorry, we will go up and check it in the next few days. The third is the most difficult but both subarite and djh found it.

 

Team Blitz

 

Ok, we've found it, now where did we put the car?

[+paul.blitz]

quote:

---

The multi was vicious and I failed at it. When I succeed I'll only get one log for it. How is this fair?

 

---

 

If this cache was our one jeremy, sorry, we will go up and check it in the next few days. The third is the most difficult but both subarite and djh found it.

 

Team Blitz

 

Ok, we've found it, now where did we put the car?

[LazyLeopard]

In the end it's down to the cache hider. The Sherlock and Cluedo series are both sets of caches that each individually take a bit of finding, and having each step as a separate cache does make sense to me, as there's a fair distance between them. The Tomb Raider caches make sense as single finds though, as all the steps along the way are within sensible walking distance and could be found within a few hours. I havn't tried the Rainbow caches or the London Pilgrimage yet...

 

Purrs... LazyLeopard http://www.lazyleopard.org.uk

[+jeremyp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Team Blitz:

 

If this cache was our one jeremy, sorry, we will go up and check it in the next few days. The third is the most difficult but both subarite and djh found it.

 

Team Blitz

 

Ok, we've found it, now where did we put the car?

---

 

No need to be sorry. If every cache was easy, we'd all soon get bored. Even if it turns out that cache 3 is missung, it's not your fault.

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

[+jeremyp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Team Blitz:

 

If this cache was our one jeremy, sorry, we will go up and check it in the next few days. The third is the most difficult but both subarite and djh found it.

 

Team Blitz

 

Ok, we've found it, now where did we put the car?

---

 

No need to be sorry. If every cache was easy, we'd all soon get bored. Even if it turns out that cache 3 is missung, it's not your fault.

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

[+paul.blitz]

It took us 5 minutes but we found it...but not where we put it! It was about a metre away from where it was! I admit that we were scared that we'd lost it, but I (Michael) found it, it was on the left as you came in.

 

As for the "non-cows", i think that you're talking a load of bullocks jeremy!

 

On th subject of cows, my dad says that they're just big rabbits! and that you might have trouble milking the ones with the horns

 

If anyone is wondering which cache we're taking about, then it our "Up and down again"cache on Stockbridge downs

 

Michael aka 1/2 of

 

Team Blitz

 

Ok, we've found it, now where did we put the car?

[+paul.blitz]

It took us 5 minutes but we found it...but not where we put it! It was about a metre away from where it was! I admit that we were scared that we'd lost it, but I (Michael) found it, it was on the left as you came in.

 

As for the "non-cows", i think that you're talking a load of bullocks jeremy!

 

On th subject of cows, my dad says that they're just big rabbits! and that you might have trouble milking the ones with the horns

 

If anyone is wondering which cache we're taking about, then it our "Up and down again"cache on Stockbridge downs

 

Michael aka 1/2 of

 

Team Blitz

 

Ok, we've found it, now where did we put the car?

[+paul.blitz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeremyp:

 

No need to be sorry. If every cache was easy, we'd all soon get bored. Even if it turns out that cache 3 is missung, it's not your fault.

 

---

 

When we created "Up & Down again", we decided to make it a bit more "challenging" for that very reason.... there's always an interesting balance between (a) being in a nice / interesting place; ( not making it too hard; © not making it too easy.

 

As long as the more difficult ones are clearly marked, then the "less able" can always avoid them, and leave them for us "professionals"!

 

Pesonally, I enjoy the more challenging ones, even if you only get one log.... after all, it's the fun of the game that I enjoy, not just the scoring of goals!

 

Paul Blitz

 

Team Blitz

 

Ok, we've found it, now where did we put the car?

[+jeremyp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Team Blitz:

It took us 5 minutes but we found it...but not where we put it!

---

Oh no! That means I've got to go back into those horrible spikey trees

 

I hope you liked my photos of your "rabbits".

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

[+jeremyp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Team Blitz:

It took us 5 minutes but we found it...but not where we put it!

---

Oh no! That means I've got to go back into those horrible spikey trees

 

I hope you liked my photos of your "rabbits".

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

[+paul.blitz]

quote:

---

Oh no! That means I've got to go back into those horrible spikey trees

 

I hope you liked my photos of your "rabbits".

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

---

 

Yep, we're evil aren't we!

 

The cache is back in its rightful place and the clue has been updated.

 

Team Blitz

 

Ok, we've found it, now where did we put the car?