+garretslarrity Posted January 19 Posted January 19 Hey all, I have a question that I know has been asked here before, but with not seeing a clear answer to it and with the situation happening with one of my caches recently, I'd like to bring it up again. I recently placed a new cache, and a few days go by with no one looking for it. I then get an email from someone asking for help navigating to it. I quickly respond with where to start and how to best hike to it. They then confide that they were hoping to drive to it, as hiking isn't doable for them anymore. I then respond again making clear that it's not possible to drive right to it, but I encourage them to still try as it's a very easy and completely flat hike. No response afterwards. Another day or two goes by and the cache is finally found! Someone logs it (well, technically he Writes a Note since it's a Challenge he doesn't qualify for yet, but I digress) and leaves a nice message. Very shortly afterwards there's another find logged on it and it's the folks I was emailing with before. They also leave a very nice message, claim the FTF, and even post a picture of their name on the logbook. Happy to see that they went for it after my encouragement, I even send them an email congratulating them. No response there either. The next day, I just so happen to be at an event with the guy who first found it. There, he's talking about finding my cache and he mentions in passing (completely unprompted) that he had signed in those other folks because they couldn't make it there. I didn't push him on it, but it's clear that he didn't mean they found it as a group and he just wrote their name, rather they just were not there at all. So now I need to know if I should delete their log. To be clear, I do know that it is my responsibility as a CO to delete Found logs for those who don't sign the log or (in the case of Challenges) don't qualify. I have no hesitation doing so in those cases after performing log checks and checker checks. However, that's not the case here as their name is in fact on the log (with a picture too, so no debate there) and they do in fact qualify for the Challenge. I'm conflicted because I know they weren't there, but have also been told that the logbook is the source of truth. Plus the fact that the admission came from the other guy and not the folks whose log I would actually be deleting gives me further pause. I even re-read the hiding guidelines and the Ownership After Publication section of the Help Center, and I couldn't find anything that addresses this situation. I would really appreciate a response from either a Reviewer or a Lackey. While I appreciate hearing all sorts of opinions and perspectives from anyone in the community, I also know that I will hear directly conflicting views from community members, so frankly I will only take into account responses from Reviewers or Lackeys when making my decision. But with that, should I delete their log? Quote
+Max and 99 Posted January 19 Posted January 19 There's no rule that states you have to sign the log yourself. There just isn't. 1 Quote
+ecanderson Posted January 19 Posted January 19 2 hours ago, Max and 99 said: There's no rule that states you have to sign the log yourself. There just isn't. Pretty much implied here, and always considered to be the case as far as I've ever understood the rules: 1.5. Log a geocache Find a cache and sign the logbook Respect the environment and keep the cache area intact. Also, make sure to be stealthy when muggles are around. Find the cache. Sign the logbook. Trade SWAG or trackables. Put the cache back exactly as you found it. 1.7. Geocaching etiquette We like to keep things fun for everyone, so we have a few rules we encourage everyone to follow. Sign both the logbook and log your find online to get your smiley. Geocache owners love reading about your experience. 1 Quote
+Max and 99 Posted January 19 Posted January 19 (edited) Group Signatures - How do I...? - Geocaching Forums https://search.app/q2pvuxXB8vNVyWjU8 One of the Oct. 5, 2021 posts will help, which includes a quote from a lackey. Edited January 19 by Max and 99 1 Quote
+lee737 Posted January 19 Posted January 19 I wouldn't get bent out of shape over it..... it is just an extension of the tree-climbs-with-the-crowd-at-the-base-of-the-tree situation..... a big extension mind you - and I think you are within your rights to delete their log. Would I? Probably not..... 1 2 Quote
+Max and 99 Posted January 19 Posted January 19 9 minutes ago, lee737 said: I wouldn't get bent out of shape over it..... it is just an extension of the tree-climbs-with-the-crowd-at-the-base-of-the-tree situation..... a big extension mind you - and I think you are within your rights to delete their log. Would I? Probably not..... I am in complete agreement. Quote
+JL_HSTRE Posted January 19 Posted January 19 The irony of a challenge cache that they qualify for (or think they will in the future), at a location they can't physically get to because of their physical infirmities. Quote
+baer2006 Posted January 19 Posted January 19 6 hours ago, ecanderson said: Pretty much implied here, and always considered to be the case as far as I've ever understood the rules: 1.5. Log a geocache Find a cache and sign the logbook Respect the environment and keep the cache area intact. Also, make sure to be stealthy when muggles are around. Find the cache. Sign the logbook. Trade SWAG or trackables. Put the cache back exactly as you found it. 1.7. Geocaching etiquette We like to keep things fun for everyone, so we have a few rules we encourage everyone to follow. Sign both the logbook and log your find online to get your smiley. Geocache owners love reading about your experience. Sure. But then there is also a Guideline about logging caches online : Quote Found it You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook. You can also add a photo or a Favorite point to your online log. Please take time to write at least a few sentences when you log your find — this is how you say “thank you” to the cache owner for creating and placing the geocache. EarthCaches and Virtual Caches have different logging requirements. This seems to say that you are supposed to actually visit the location. In fact, it seems to cover group caching (because everyone is "at the coordinates", at least approximately ), incl. "one-tree-climber-plus-ground-crew", but not "signing the log for someone who is absent". In actual practice, it's a) usually impossible for the CO to prove that someone wasn't at the cache, and b) not worth the trouble to discuss with the in absentia loggers. 1 4 Quote
Keystone Posted January 19 Posted January 19 6 hours ago, Max and 99 said: Group Signatures - How do I...? - Geocaching Forums https://search.app/q2pvuxXB8vNVyWjU8 One of the Oct. 5, 2021 posts will help, which includes a quote from a lackey. The October 2021 guidance from a Lackey was in the context of a group that logged finds on a tree climbing cache, where only one member climbed the tree. Assume everyone else who logged "Found It" was participating in the hunt in some way - whether driving, navigating, carrying ropes and ladders, or just cheering on the climber. At least they were there. I'm not a Lackey, but I think a different answer would be provided in a case where the "finder" never really attempted to get to the cache. I think that @baer2006 sums it up nicely in their post. 2 1 Quote
+arisoft Posted January 19 Posted January 19 (edited) 7 hours ago, ecanderson said: Pretty much implied here, and always considered to be the case as far as I've ever understood the rules: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=107&pgid=534 Quote You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook. I don't know why there are contradictory rules. The help center clearly defines that one must visit the coordinates to log a find. In the FTF hunt scene this find is bogus. I classify this as a scam. Next visitor is eligible for the FTF. Edited January 19 by arisoft Quote
+ecanderson Posted January 19 Posted January 19 7 hours ago, Max and 99 said: Group Signatures - How do I...? - Geocaching Forums https://search.app/q2pvuxXB8vNVyWjU8 One of the Oct. 5, 2021 posts will help, which includes a quote from a lackey. Implies that the 'group' is at least present for the find. Not agreeing that there "just isn't" anything that covers this. The OP triggered your response by talking about a situation where someone signed for a group that couldn't even make it to the cache site. I think that's covered pretty well. Quote
+garretslarrity Posted January 19 Author Posted January 19 2 hours ago, baer2006 said: Sure. But then there is also a Guideline about logging caches online : Quote Found it You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook. You can also add a photo or a Favorite point to your online log. Please take time to write at least a few sentences when you log your find — this is how you say “thank you” to the cache owner for creating and placing the geocache. EarthCaches and Virtual Caches have different logging requirements. This seems to say that you are supposed to actually visit the location. In fact, it seems to cover group caching (because everyone is "at the coordinates", at least approximately ), incl. "one-tree-climber-plus-ground-crew", but not "signing the log for someone who is absent". In actual practice, it's a) usually impossible for the CO to prove that someone wasn't at the cache, and b) not worth the trouble to discuss with the in absentia loggers. Thank you! This seems to be the piece of the guidelines I needed. Reading this now it seems clear that I can delete it, I probably should delete it, now the only question is if I actually want to... Will definitely first email them giving them a chance to explain. And as others have said the tree-climb case isn't relevant here. In that case the folks who didn't climb the tree were at least at the coordinates, and in this case they were not at all. Quote
+garretslarrity Posted January 19 Author Posted January 19 2 hours ago, Keystone said: The October 2021 guidance from a Lackey was in the context of a group that logged finds on a tree climbing cache, where only one member climbed the tree. Assume everyone else who logged "Found It" was participating in the hunt in some way - whether driving, navigating, carrying ropes and ladders, or just cheering on the climber. At least they were there. I'm not a Lackey, but I think a different answer would be provided in a case where the "finder" never really attempted to get to the cache. I think that @baer2006 sums it up nicely in their post. Thank you Keystone, I think that answers it. But do you have any info on what happens if I do delete it and they protest citing the fact that their name is on the logbook? Quote
+garretslarrity Posted January 19 Author Posted January 19 3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said: The irony of a challenge cache that they qualify for (or think they will in the future), at a location they can't physically get to because of their physical infirmities. Indeed. While it being a Challenge cache isn't the issue here (the issue would be exactly the same if it was a Traditional), I also don't think they would have cared to ask someone to sign them in if it wasn't. I guess some people think they're entitled to log a find on a Challenge cache *just* because they qualify. And I have some views on how Challenge caches should be hidden (the physical hide itself, that is), but that should probably be its own thread! 1 Quote
+Goldenwattle Posted January 19 Posted January 19 8 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said: The irony of a challenge cache that they qualify for (or think they will in the future), at a location they can't physically get to because of their physical infirmities. I think it's sad when someone has done what's necessary to qualify and then the cache is purposedly placed where some who have qualified can't get to it. You shouldn't place it in a place that's harder physically to get to than what it takes to qualify for the cache. Unless there's something I don't know, I would accept the log if they qualify. 1 Quote
+arisoft Posted January 19 Posted January 19 5 hours ago, garretslarrity said: Indeed. While it being a Challenge cache isn't the issue here (the issue would be exactly the same if it was a Traditional), I also don't think they would have cared to ask someone to sign them in if it wasn't. I guess some people think they're entitled to log a find on a Challenge cache *just* because they qualify. In the case you decide not to remove the bogus log, may I ask you to sign it for me too, when you visit the cache next time. I need only two finds more to fullfiull the challenge and it would be great to have a find. Thank you for considering my request. 2 1 Quote
+garretslarrity Posted January 20 Author Posted January 20 2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said: You shouldn't place it in a place that's harder physically to get to than what it takes to qualify for the cache. Yeah hard disagree on this piece. Surely you wouldn't say that every puzzle cache should be a Terrain 1 just because it can be solved while sitting at a computer. 1 Quote
+garretslarrity Posted January 20 Author Posted January 20 2 hours ago, arisoft said: In the case you decide not to remove the bogus log, may I ask you to sign it for me too, when you visit the cache next time. I need only two finds more to fullfiull the challenge and it would be great to have a find. Thank you for considering my request. For you? Absolutely! Plus since you've never found a cache in California or anywhere in the US, it'll be a new state and country on your map too! /s 1 1 Quote
+Goldenwattle Posted January 20 Posted January 20 (edited) 4 hours ago, garretslarrity said: Yeah hard disagree on this piece. Surely you wouldn't say that every puzzle cache should be a Terrain 1 just because it can be solved while sitting at a computer. The difficult bit should be qualifying for the challenge, not logging it. People should consider for the final challenge, the less able people than themselves, and have some empathy. A tree climbing challenge might be an exception. A puzzle challenge is not, because there are puzzles with low terrain ratings. Edited January 20 by Goldenwattle 1 Quote
+funkymunkyzone Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Wouldn't be the first time I've seen an FTF claimed by some who never even visited the cache. I was randomly scanning the map the other day (actually as a result of seeing a news item) and came across an earthcache on a remote island. Earthcache had some requirements including a specific photo. All of the photos fromt he group were extremely obviously from somewhere else, not even just somewhere else, but somewhere else quite identifiable as being nowhere near the T5 earthcache. What can you do? Just laugh at how some people cheat. 1 Quote
+Goldenwattle Posted January 20 Posted January 20 17 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said: Wouldn't be the first time I've seen an FTF claimed by some who never even visited the cache. I was randomly scanning the map the other day (actually as a result of seeing a news item) and came across an earthcache on a remote island. Earthcache had some requirements including a specific photo. All of the photos fromt he group were extremely obviously from somewhere else, not even just somewhere else, but somewhere else quite identifiable as being nowhere near the T5 earthcache. What can you do? Just laugh at how some people cheat. The CO should be policing their cache. However, that armchair log should not stop a person who logs the real FTF from logging first to find. They can write FTF to visit the coordinates and really log it. I once did a long distance multicache, with many WPs and about a 9,000km return drive and was the first to do this. However, someone claimed FTF by sitting at their computer, finding the answers online, or ringing roadhouses to ask them questions. They did sign the log so couldn't be deleted. The CO of that cache will delete spurious logs and I imagine wanted to delete this one, but couldn't. I was pissed off after my effort, so I logged FTF who actually visited the WPs and did the trip. 1 Quote
+barefootjeff Posted January 20 Posted January 20 7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said: I think it's sad when someone has done what's necessary to qualify and then the cache is purposedly placed where some who have qualified can't get to it. You shouldn't place it in a place that's harder physically to get to than what it takes to qualify for the cache. Unless there's something I don't know, I would accept the log if they qualify. One of my challenge caches (GC752YF) requires 20 finds with the Takes more than 1 hour attribute and I wanted the cache itself to be in a scenic location that takes more than an hour to get there and back. In the challenge description I say this: In this age of instant gratification, one might easily think that geocaching is all about the quick smiley, be it power trails, park-and-grab or that bison on a fencepost. But not everything's like that, there are still some caches that take time to savour like a slow-cooked winter meal. Stroll along the track, climb that hill, listen to the birds, soak up the views, find those far-flung waypoints and take heaps of photos. For the actual cache I settled on Scopas Peak in Brisbane Water National Park, which for me ticked all the boxes for what would be the epitome of caches that are likely to have that attribute. Being a long hike to the top of a mountain, there is of necessity some elevation change involved, enough to give that cache a terrain 3.5 rating. I would have expected most qualifying caches to have a similar or even higher terrain rating, but no, a quick search shows up quite a number of terrain 1 and 1.5 caches that have that attribute. Some are Wherigos, which makes sense if just doing the Wherigo takes more than an hour, and likewise for EarthCaches and multis I suppose, but there are traditionals amongst those too. Looking at the logs on a roadside 2/1 traditional with the attribute, a recent finder says they found it in about 5 minutes, so I have to wonder what about that cache would be expected to take more than an hour. Perhaps I did the wrong thing putting that challenge cache at the end of a long hike to the top of a mountain, and should have just hung a micro in a bush close to a road, but a few years back someone locally did just that on a difficult challenge and copped a lot of flack from those who want to keep their local area clear of unfound caches. It seems no matter where you put a challenge cache, someone's not going to like it. For the sort of challenge caches that interest me, getting to the actual cache is just as much a part of the challenge as doing all the qualifying caches. I get the greatest satisfaction and sense of achievement when the challenge cache itself really is the epitome of its qualifiers. 2 Quote
+lee737 Posted January 20 Posted January 20 3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said: The difficult bit should be qualifying for the challenge, not logging it. People should consider for the final challenge, the less able people than themselves, and have some empathy. A tree climbing challenge might be an exception. A puzzle challenge is not, because there are puzzles with low terrain ratings. Clearly there are mountains of caches around of all difficulties and terrains, that should suit any 'less-able' geocachers around - challenges/puzzles/whatever. Some cachers wish to place higher terrain caches - it is their choice, and we should just appreciate they are hiding them at all. For those who need to clear out there local area.... well, I guess sometimes we run into obstacles we just can't conquer! It happens to us all..... Quote
+baer2006 Posted January 20 Posted January 20 10 hours ago, Goldenwattle said: I think it's sad when someone has done what's necessary to qualify and then the cache is purposedly placed where some who have qualified can't get to it. You shouldn't place it in a place that's harder physically to get to than what it takes to qualify for the cache. I looked at the OP's challenge cache. From what I could get via Google Maps, it's not like an extremely difficult place to reach. About 3 km / 250 m elevation (one way) over easy hiking trails. Not every cache has to be a park&grab, including Challenge finals. 6 Quote
+Goldenwattle Posted January 20 Posted January 20 20 minutes ago, baer2006 said: I looked at the OP's challenge cache. From what I could get via Google Maps, it's not like an extremely difficult place to reach. About 3 km / 250 m elevation (one way) over easy hiking trails. Not every cache has to be a park&grab, including Challenge finals. That's not easy for everyone. Can you imagine many 80 yr olds managing that for instance, but they have completed the challenge. I would give them the find if they convinced me that they couldn't make it. 1 Quote
+lee737 Posted January 20 Posted January 20 1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said: That's not easy for everyone. Can you imagine many 80 yr olds managing that for instance, but they have completed the challenge. Where do we draw the line??? What if I'm poor and can't make the airfare to the US, but qualify for a bunch of challenges there.... can I log them too? Sorry - this game wasn't built on convincing someone you 'couldn't make it'..... 7 1 2 Quote
+funkymunkyzone Posted January 20 Posted January 20 2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said: The CO should be policing their cache. However, that armchair log should not stop a person who logs the real FTF from logging first to find. They can write FTF to visit the coordinates and really log it. I once did a long distance multicache, with many WPs and about a 9,000km return drive and was the first to do this. However, someone claimed FTF by sitting at their computer, finding the answers online, or ringing roadhouses to ask them questions. They did sign the log so couldn't be deleted. The CO of that cache will delete spurious logs and I imagine wanted to delete this one, but couldn't. I was pissed off after my effort, so I logged FTF who actually visited the WPs and did the trip. I've never been to the country in question, so maybe I should fly there and do the cache for real, and then log the FTF 1 Quote
+MartyBartfast Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Looking at the 2 logs on that cache the one who signed the logbook says: Quote I thoroughly enjoyed the trails and opportunity to do a little off off trail travel the one who didn't says: Quote A great big thanks goes to ********* for getting me up here And looking at the satellite view it seems to be possible to get within a hundred yards or so in a 4x4, so perhaps the FTFer got very close but just didn't make the last yard, so maybe didn't make it to GZ but not exactly an armchair log either. Quote
+arisoft Posted January 20 Posted January 20 8 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said: I was randomly scanning the map the other day (actually as a result of seeing a news item) and came across an earthcache on a remote island. Earthcache had some requirements including a specific photo. I have FTF for a such Earth Cache. The cache was published after we visited the island and it required to take some measurements and a photo. Luckily, we took a picture of that place during our visit. I send answers to the cache owner, not for claiming the FTF, but just because I had them and it was possible to log a find later. Surprisingly, the owner sent a message telling that many other people had asked about the FTF. He said that I was the first one to send answers, so I could log the FTF. It is verified from the HQ that, for example, virtual caches can be logged found, if the player has visited the place before the cache was published. Quote
+niraD Posted January 20 Posted January 20 11 hours ago, Goldenwattle said: The difficult bit should be qualifying for the challenge, not logging it. If the point were merely to qualify, then it would be some sort of online badge or souvenir. But it's a cache, so like all caches, the point includes visiting the location and signing the log. 4 1 Quote
+garretslarrity Posted January 20 Author Posted January 20 14 hours ago, Goldenwattle said: The difficult bit should be qualifying for the challenge, not logging it. People should consider for the final challenge, the less able people than themselves, and have some empathy. A tree climbing challenge might be an exception. A puzzle challenge is not, because there are puzzles with low terrain ratings. I think you misread my post- I was only using puzzle caches as an illustrative example, my cache is not a puzzle challenge. 1 Quote
+garretslarrity Posted January 20 Author Posted January 20 9 hours ago, MartyBartfast said: And looking at the satellite view it seems to be possible to get within a hundred yards or so in a 4x4, so perhaps the FTFer got very close but just didn't make the last yard, so maybe didn't make it to GZ but not exactly an armchair log either. It may look it on the satellite map as the main trails are quite wide, but I can confirm that you cannot drive on them. Quote
+garretslarrity Posted January 20 Author Posted January 20 11 hours ago, barefootjeff said: One of my challenge caches (GC752YF) requires 20 finds with the Takes more than 1 hour attribute and I wanted the cache itself to be in a scenic location that takes more than an hour to get there and back. In the challenge description I say this: In this age of instant gratification, one might easily think that geocaching is all about the quick smiley, be it power trails, park-and-grab or that bison on a fencepost. But not everything's like that, there are still some caches that take time to savour like a slow-cooked winter meal. Stroll along the track, climb that hill, listen to the birds, soak up the views, find those far-flung waypoints and take heaps of photos. For the actual cache I settled on Scopas Peak in Brisbane Water National Park, which for me ticked all the boxes for what would be the epitome of caches that are likely to have that attribute. Being a long hike to the top of a mountain, there is of necessity some elevation change involved, enough to give that cache a terrain 3.5 rating. I would have expected most qualifying caches to have a similar or even higher terrain rating, but no, a quick search shows up quite a number of terrain 1 and 1.5 caches that have that attribute. Some are Wherigos, which makes sense if just doing the Wherigo takes more than an hour, and likewise for EarthCaches and multis I suppose, but there are traditionals amongst those too. Looking at the logs on a roadside 2/1 traditional with the attribute, a recent finder says they found it in about 5 minutes, so I have to wonder what about that cache would be expected to take more than an hour. Perhaps I did the wrong thing putting that challenge cache at the end of a long hike to the top of a mountain, and should have just hung a micro in a bush close to a road, but a few years back someone locally did just that on a difficult challenge and copped a lot of flack from those who want to keep their local area clear of unfound caches. It seems no matter where you put a challenge cache, someone's not going to like it. For the sort of challenge caches that interest me, getting to the actual cache is just as much a part of the challenge as doing all the qualifying caches. I get the greatest satisfaction and sense of achievement when the challenge cache itself really is the epitome of its qualifiers. I love this. A few weeks ago I did over a dozen challenge caches in one day, all of them LPCs. It was so unsatisfying. Especially for the ones where I had to work hard to qualify. I got the smiles, but I didn't have fun getting them. So I vowed to make all of my future challenges better than that, to put them in good locations, and to make them themed. And if my style of hide doesn't appeal to someone, Southern California has more accessible caches than anyone could possibly find. Also I just looked at your cache, and that is a truly fantastic Geocache. Exactly the kind I'm hoping to create! Great job!! 1 Quote
+funkymunkyzone Posted January 20 Posted January 20 4 hours ago, arisoft said: I have FTF for a such Earth Cache. The cache was published after we visited the island and it required to take some measurements and a photo. Luckily, we took a picture of that place during our visit. I send answers to the cache owner, not for claiming the FTF, but just because I had them and it was possible to log a find later. Surprisingly, the owner sent a message telling that many other people had asked about the FTF. He said that I was the first one to send answers, so I could log the FTF. It is verified from the HQ that, for example, virtual caches can be logged found, if the player has visited the place before the cache was published. No problem with that at all... From the GSA website: Quote Somebody logged my EarthCache, but it appears they visited the location before my EarthCache was published. Should I allow the log, or delete it? There is no rule that says somebody has to visit the location after publication in order to make a log. HOWEVER, in GSA’s view, somebody has not actually visited an EarthCache if there was no EarthCache there at the time of their visit! GSA has no problem with a cache owner deleting a log from somebody who has clearly not visited the EarthCache after its publication date. If a cache owner wants to allow such logs to stand, that's fine too. (That's up to the cache owner. Maybe in some cases they would feel as though the person logging the cache did get a good lesson, by combining an earlier visit with solving the cache's logging tasks after the fact. The cache owner can be the judge of that.) But the one I was referring to, the "FTFers" quite obviously never went anywhere near the T5 earthcache and their photos were not the ones required but were taken at a completely different low-T-rating geocache. Anyway, not intending to make a big thing about this one, just mentioned it as an example... people cheat and others laugh at them. Quote
+Mausebiber Posted January 20 Posted January 20 On 1/19/2025 at 6:02 PM, garretslarrity said: Thank you! This seems to be the piece of the guidelines I needed. Reading this now it seems clear that I can delete it, I probably should delete it, now the only question is if I actually want to... Will definitely first email them giving them a chance to explain. You want to delete a log entry just based on "hearsay" (this is information which you have been told but do not know to be true.) Give the finder a chance to explain, as you already mentioned above. Quote
+garretslarrity Posted January 20 Author Posted January 20 29 minutes ago, Mausebiber said: You want to delete a log entry just based on "hearsay" (this is information which you have been told but do not know to be true.) Give the finder a chance to explain, as you already mentioned above. I agree 100%. That's why I have not yet deleted it, and have instead sent them an email. No response yet. 1 Quote
+Goldenwattle Posted January 20 Posted January 20 5 hours ago, niraD said: If the point were merely to qualify, then it would be some sort of online badge or souvenir. But it's a cache, so like all caches, the point includes visiting the location and signing the log. Yes, that's why it should not be difficult to log. The difficulty is the challenge. If they could prove they attempted to get to the cache and explained their difficulties I would allow them to log. Look, I probably delete more logs than many people here, as I'm strict on signing the log, or showing other proof. But they are ordinary caches. To deny someone being able to log a challenge cache after they have worked on the challenge and qualified because of their handicap, is just cruel. You make allowances. But lets expand this and go back to the old access issues shall we, and say people have to accept their handicaps and realise they won't be able to go in every shop if they are in a wheelchair or can't climb stairs. How is this different? 1 2 Quote
+Goldenwattle Posted January 20 Posted January 20 (edited) 3 hours ago, garretslarrity said: I think you misread my post- I was only using puzzle caches as an illustrative example, my cache is not a puzzle challenge. That made it confusing and people were taking, not surprisingly, you literally. If an ordinary cache if they haven't signed the log and can't provide other proof of find such as a photograph, then delete the log. I do, although I am easier on very beginners and explain they must sign the log next time. Though if they fail to sign next time they log one of my caches, I will delete that, and the earlier one. For challenge caches fulfilling the challenge is the main thing, and I have sympathy for people who do fulfill the challenge, but because of physical limitations can't get to it. I sometimes used to take someone, a non geocacher, who was in a wheelchair for an outing when I did a few drive by caches. They would comment that some of the placements were unfair. I explained that not all caches are for everyone. It did seem though that often the majority were unreachable for handicapper people. Sad, but hard to alter this. However the challenge caches I was referring to are a different category. Surely though most people sign the log (a note if they don't qualify yet) before attempting the challenge. I do. Multicaches can be more problematic with not knowing how difficult the final is. I do know of a very long and hard multicache that had the final in a much harder spot than any of the WPs; in the bush up a steep hill after a walk, where the CO allowed a log for an elderly person who couldn't make it up the final hill. I managed to log that cache, so knew what the problem was. This CO is known for being willing to delete logs too, but obvious is capable of sympathy, as they allowed the log. Just completing that multi was an accomplishment in itself. I have taken years to complete some of those multis. I did a hard challenge once. Log a cache in every state in Australia in a calendar year. It was a very well hidden cache and I didn't think I was going to find the cache, after all that effort - driving thousands of kms - to log half of the states. (I completed the finds after I signed the log.) The 1.5D/T rating didn't indicate it was hard to find. Fortunately I did manage to find the cache. Needed to roll the empty fuel barrel aside in the plane wreck and search the infrastructure to make the find. Edited January 21 by Goldenwattle 1 Quote
+Goldenwattle Posted January 21 Posted January 21 14 hours ago, lee737 said: Where do we draw the line??? What if I'm poor and can't make the airfare to the US, but qualify for a bunch of challenges there.... can I log them too? Sorry - this game wasn't built on convincing someone you 'couldn't make it'..... That's taking it to ridiculousness. Stick to caches near you. I do, unless actually travelling. It's about being able to get to near the challenge cache but can't make the last bit. Say, finding 1000 traditional cache and then you go to the final and find it's up a tree on top of a hill. However, often with challenge caches I sign and log a note before attempting to qualify, although I qualify for many when I sign with now over 15,000 finds. It's multicaches that can be the most problematic re the final WP with the cache. After doing say 10 - 20 WPs that were not physically hard, then to find the cache is up a steep hill or tree could be very disappointing for the less able. The terrain rating is not necessarily a guide there, as if a lot of travel was needed, the higher terrain could have been for that. 1 Quote
+MNTA Posted January 21 Posted January 21 18 hours ago, Goldenwattle said: The difficult bit should be qualifying for the challenge, not logging it. People should consider for the final challenge, the less able people than themselves, and have some empathy. A tree climbing challenge might be an exception. A puzzle challenge is not, because there are puzzles with low terrain ratings. I reluctantly agree my challenge caches are the most boring side of the road urban caches you can find. Save the good spots for everyone with no ALRs. Quote
+lee737 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 3 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said: That's taking it to ridiculousness. Of course it was. But there are very few rules in this game - but the main one (only one?) for finders of physical caches is you need to sign the log - not explain why you couldn't. Let's not cheapen this game further by going down there. Yes - if you are in a party, and one does the tree climb or rock climb, or hill climb, they may log for others, everyone is forced to turn a blind eye here, but starting to offer 'log if you can explain why it was too hard' is a slippery slope we should steer miles away from - regardless of somebody's disability/age/fitness level. 4 1 1 Quote
+barefootjeff Posted January 21 Posted January 21 47 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said: I do know of a very long and hard multicache that had the final in a much harder spot than any of the WPs; in the bush up a steep hill after a walk, where the CO allowed a log for an elderly person who couldn't make it up the final hill. I managed to log that cache, so knew what the problem was. This CO is known for being willing to delete logs too, but obvious is capable of sympathy, as they allowed the log. Just completing that multi was an accomplishment in itself. I have taken years to complete some of those multis. I have a multi (GC6JMDK) much like you describe. It has three virtual waypoints, all on train stations so they'd be T1 (well maybe T1.5 as I don't know if Wondabyne station is all that wheelchair-friendly, but the waypoint information could be easily read from a wheelchair once on the platform). The final, though, is a terrain 4 steep climb and bush-bash through thick scrub to a beautiful cliff-top vantage point looking down on Wondabyne station and the waterway it's on. I did wonder at the time I was creating it whether there was too much of a disconnect between the waypoints and the final, but in the end decided that it fitted together pretty well, particularly with the regular-sized themed container I was able to place there. That cache has had 40 finds and received 29 FPs, although the last find was in 2020, but nobody has ever asked to be allowed to log a find because they found the waypoints but couldn't do the climb. The challenge in doing that cache isn't getting the waypoint information or solving the field puzzle, it's all about getting to GZ and, out of fairness to those who have made the effort to get their name in the logbook, I'd have to politely decline any such request. The same goes for my two challenge caches. Satisfying the challenge checker and getting your name in the logbook are both integral parts of the challenge, in fact I made those two challenge caches because getting to GZ was challenging. Both aspects, the qualifying and the find, require some effort and the feedback I've received from those who've done them is that they appreciated that. 37 minutes ago, MNTA said: I reluctantly agree my challenge caches are the most boring side of the road urban caches you can find. Save the good spots for everyone with no ALRs. The biggest compaint I've heard at events about challenge caches is about the side-of-the-road ones with very difficult qualification tasks, because they know the cache is there within easy reach to sign the log but they can't claim a find on it. The remote mountain-top ones are out-of-sight out-of-mind for most cachers and their existence doesn't seem to bother them as much even if they don't have much hope of qualifying. There's a challenge cache, GC5KEY1, that I've been fondly looking at since the day it was published. It requires 40 finds, each of terrain 4 or higher with the Scenic View, Cliffs/Falling Rocks and Difficult Climb attributes. In the ten years since it was published, I've managed to get to 28 qualifying finds, so still a ways to go. The physical cache is a terrain 4.5 slog along a remote ridge north-west of Newcastle, something that even now I'd be uncomfortable attempting alone and would want to go to with a group, but having just turned 70 I'll likely be nudging towards 80 by the time I qualify. Would I be asking the CO to let me log a find if I qualify but can't get to GZ on account of my age? No way, a large part of the appeal of that challenge is its challenging hide, and claiming a smiley without getting all the way to GZ and writing my name in the logbook would be cheating. If the final for that was just a boring roadside micro, I'd have little interest in bothering to qualify. For me, the appeal of that challenge is the combination of the effort required to qualify plus the effort required to find the cache. The same goes for some of lee737's challenges I've done, like the "Boat required" challenge that required a boat to get to or the "Tree Climb" challenge that was in a tree (I used my ladder for that one). He and his son Samuel737 have other challenge caches that I'd be unable to get to the cache even if I qualified, but that doesn't bother me. I don't have to find them all. 2 1 Quote
+Goldenwattle Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) 26 minutes ago, barefootjeff said: The challenge in doing that cache isn't getting the waypoint information or solving the field puzzle, it's all about getting to GZ That's different to the one I mentioned. The challenge for that one was driving thousands of kms (and maybe short walks) likely over many weeks, which might for some take several years to complete. Mainly in flat country. The cache was in hilly country, different to most of the route. Great view. I have a black version similar to that train, which I bought for a cache, but have yet to use it. I did have a small train cache (Fyshwick Choo Choo GC55AQQ), hidden under a concrete slab in a tunnel, initially on a track, until the track disappeared. Then some landscaping was done in the area and soil dumped on the concrete slab. It collapsed leaving a squashed Choo Choo trapped and un-rescuable. Archived. Edited January 21 by Goldenwattle Quote
+thebruce0 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 On 1/20/2025 at 3:58 AM, barefootjeff said: Perhaps I did the wrong thing putting that challenge cache at the end of a long hike to the top of a mountain Nah, perhaps another good rule of thumb is: The challenge presented includes the finding of the challenge cache. <1hr hikes for the challenge, but you don't qualify to log the challenge cache found online until you also find the >1hr hike cache itself. It's all part of the challenge (to sign the log, by fulfilling all other requirements, including that required to find that log itself, specifically). That's the same standard for regular geocaches - you 'qualify' to log the cache found online, by a) having the physical log signed, b) doing the required task (sending all requested info/pics), c) qualifying for a statistic, or a combination of them depending on type. 19 hours ago, garretslarrity said: 20 hours ago, Mausebiber said: You want to delete a log entry just based on "hearsay" (this is information which you have been told but do not know to be true.) Give the finder a chance to explain, as you already mentioned above. I agree 100%. That's why I have not yet deleted it, and have instead sent them an email. No response yet. Yep at some point you as the CO have the right to make a judgment call. And as mentioned if it's seen as an error after you've deleted the log (that it's a legitimate find) then the user can have it restored by a reviewer or appeals. No issue. But you can make a reasonable call and delete the log if you feel they're not responding and so it isn't legitimate. You have nothing else to go on, apart from checking a physical log if it's a physical cache. To insert my 2p on the OP: I do believe personally that good etiquette is to make the challenge cache itself no more difficult to sign than the work required to statistically qualify, and it's just nice if it's also on-theme to the challenge. But none of that is a requirement. You can have a challenge cache for 1/1's with the cache itself located on an island requiring a kayak as a 5 Terrain. The reason I say that's okay is (as mentioned above) that for any physical geocache you "qualify" by completing whatever task is required - whether that's only having your geocaching name signed in the log, or whether it's an ALR (ie, "Additional" requirement) such as a challenge cache, with an additional statistical qualification. So it's best if we look at the "challenge" of a challenge cache as the additional presented statistical qualification, on top of whatever D/T is required to sign the challenge cache log. Then it can be logged as found online. As for the guidelines that say "visit the coordinates" and "sign the logbook" - in practice, we all know this is absolutely the spirit of the hobby. Practically speaking tho, it's extremely hard to enforce that requirement, as we well know when reviewers are asked to adjudicate arguments of he-said/she-said over what happens in the field far out of the adjudicator's realm. So in practice, it's boiled down to a simple verifiable basis: The CO can verify if the user's name by which they were geocaching is legible in the physical log (without arguing over spelling or short forms or group names or who held the pen). If not, the CO has the right to judge the log as invalid and delete it. Appeals likes to stick to facts, so if the log can be proven legitimate, they can reinstate it. The ideal here is if everyone stays away from legalistic precision, letter of the law, and focuses on the spirit of the activity (whether owning or finding), then there won't be any problems. Ideally. 1 1 Quote
+geodarts Posted January 21 Posted January 21 I am partially disabled as a result of an accident and can no longer do a number of caches that would have once presented no problem. I understand that it can be frustrating. I have been to the finals of multis where I could not get the cache, although I am not a stickler and have no problem if my wife or a friend can retrieve the cache or sign the log as long as I am there. We all draw the line in somewhat different ways. I have allowed people to log an earthcache for a prior visit but do not personally log a find in similar situations. On the other hand, on a recent trip, I logged a find on a multistage puzzle where I could not open the cache container -- the container was the top half of a pen and the log was jammed in, trying to retrieve it was just making the problem worse. Some people would not log that. I would not log a cache playing leap frog, others do. And so it goes. A challenge cache is still a cache. On one on trip I could not log some challenges I had planned to do because the pain levels were shooting through the roof and I could not walk any more. I don't need any more smilies than what I have (and never use the three initials (FTF) in a log should that be in play) so that makes things simpler for me. So at bottom I wouldn't ask to log something based on my disabilities. But its also a game. I'm easy. If someone asked me to allow a find based on a disability I might leave it up to them, but would be curious why the person claiming a find really felt comfortable in doing so. Maybe they were waiting in the car or doing something to participate. In any case they should have checked with the CO and wait until after it had otherwise been found. Quote
Recommended Posts
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.