Jump to content

Faked Finds


lostinjersey

Recommended Posts

I was reading a forum thread which referenced this thread (since closed) which discussed an individual who was faking the photos to nab locationless caches. I decided as a precaution to check out and see if this guy went & logged any finds on mine. I did find one & I it looks fake but I cant specifically say why. In my poking around I noticed that there are some more chapters to this story... In addition to faking locationless, this guy also has logged multiple finds on the same locationless cache

here: Now he did use two different locales, and the placer doesn't say "one log per geocachers" however that is a generally accepted rule unless otherwise specified.

 

He does log a double find on a real cache here and also uses the same location on these two different locationless caches: Cache Bay and It's not a Cache as we know it, each of which had identical requirements.

 

Then I noticed that this individual had logged 6 finds on Vancouver Transit, a moving cache where multiple finds are ok. I go to email the Vancouver Transit owner, and I find that

IT'S HIS OWN CACHE. icon_eek.gif This cheater created a cache, called himself "The TransLink Board" so no one would know and has been logging finds on it.

 

What I've taken from this is that placers need to be more vigilent in checking logs to make sure they are real, be it a physical cache, virtual or locationless. Furthermore why does the site allow logging finds on caches you created? After all how we can trust any finds count total, or any log or any story if we know that people are cheating and faking it? Who is to say which logs are real and which aren't? Which photos are genuine and which haven't been photoshopped?

 

alt.gif

 

www.gpswnj.com

 

[This message was edited by Gwho on November 17, 2002 at 08:32 AM.]

Link to comment

Why are you bringing up that old story again?

 

There's this guy who used elements from my multi-virtual (and now archived) "Inclement Weather Cache" in order to claim at least two Locationless Caches. Isn't that "triple dipping?" While his claim on my cache was entirely legitimate, I probably should have contacted the owners of the Locationless Caches and notified them of the situation.

 

I think this is par for the course for those who claim a lot of Locationless finds; it seems to me the people who claim the Locationless Caches in this manner are mostly interested in maximizing their count while minimizing their effort. Or perhaps they think they are being clever.

 

Are they?

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on November 17, 2002 at 08:02 AM.]

Link to comment

For a moment there I thought you were going to raise a complaint about my HOW low CAN YOU GO? locationless cache: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=21187

I agree it's not cool at all to log your own caches. Beyond that, what I may consider cheating is another person's "cleverness" so we all need to let it roll off our backs and not get too uptight about it. Having said that, I do enfore the rules of my locationless cache to the best of my ability. I have had to delete some postings when people did not follow the rules. And who do they blame because they did not follow the rules? Me, of course.

 

banner-small.gif

Link to comment

If this same cacher has been using questionable means to inflate his own 'found' count since the faked photo nonsense hit the fan this past summer, he truly is beyond help icon_frown.gif . Mind you, note my use of the word 'If' ...personally, I have neither the time nor the impetus to go hunting through cache logs and old forum posts to try and determine for myself whether these latest allegations are warranted. GeoCaching is just a game (and a free one at that - there's nothing 'at stake' here), not a competition ...those who cheat are only cheating themselves icon_rolleyes.gif .

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Cache Canucks:

GeoCaching is just a game (and a free one at that - there's nothing 'at stake' here), not a competition ...those who cheat are only cheating themselves icon_rolleyes.gif .


 

Yes, it's a great game, but No, those who cheat are not only cheating themselves. At the very least, they are also cheating the owner of the cache and all those who made legitimate claims to the cache.

 

I believe those who cheat are also cheating all responsible geocachers by cheapening their legitimate efforts ... especially when the cheating is overlooked (and therefore deemed acceptable) by a significant part of the geocaching community. Cheating is wrong, and it does matter.

 

[end of today's sermon]

Link to comment

Months ago I was vacationing in LA with the wife. One of the days my brother-in-law took us out on his boat. While out on his boat, we ended up coming across a huge natural arch. Now I have a locationless cache called Natural Arche. I couldn't decide if I should log it or not. I posted a thread on the forum asking for advice. After discussion it came across as not being a problem since I didn't know of the arch before I set up the locationless.

 

Also a few months ago, while geocaching with a group a friends, I visited Mission San Juan Babtista. I took the required photo with gps etc etc. I logged it as 1) California mission, 2) 100 year old church, 3) Site of a Movie. It fit each one of those requirments so why not.

 

george

 

39570_500.jpg

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:
Originally posted by Cache Canucks:

GeoCaching is just a game (and a free one at that - there's nothing 'at stake' here), not a competition ...those who cheat are only cheating themselves icon_rolleyes.gif .


 

Yes, it's a great game, but No, those who cheat are not only cheating themselves. At the very least, they are also cheating the owner of the cache and all those who made legitimate claims to the cache.

 

I believe those who cheat are also cheating all responsible geocachers by cheapening their legitimate efforts ... especially when the cheating is overlooked (and therefore deemed acceptable) by a significant part of the geocaching community. Cheating is wrong, and it does matter.

 

[end of today's sermon]


I agree, cheating is wrong. However, where we seem to part ways is whether or not, in the grand scheme of things, does something like faking a cache find really amount to a hill a'beans? Were the cache hunts that you and I have done been made any less enjoyable? Is the satisfaction that comes from placing a cache and knowing that folks like you and I legitimately seek them out and find them been made any less rewarding? Was some type of prize or award falsely claimed as a result?

 

Yes, cheating is wrong ...but there will always be those who cheat. For reasons discussed at length in the infamous 'faked photo' thread, when it comes to GeoCaching, there really isn't a whole lot that can be done about it (even if a user's account is deleted, there's nothing stopping h/she from re-registering with a different name/profile). So you're really left with two alternatives ...rant yourself into a knot and type forum posts in protest until your fingers turn numb (keeping in mind that cheaters rarely have a conscience and really don't give a dadgum what you think), or simply acknowledge that - on occasion - this sort of thing is bound to happen, but it needn't detract from the enjoyment that you and other honest cachers derive from the game (...unless of course, you let it).

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

and also uses the same location on these two different locationless caches: Cache Bay and It's not a cache as we know it, each of which had identical requirements.

 


 

On the subject of "Cache Bay" and "Its a cache Jim, but not as we know it", GWho logged a note (on Its a cache Jim) and selected the "Cache should be archived" option on the grounds that it was a duplicate locationless. Cache Bay was a regular cache until it dissapeared and was converted to "locationless" about a month after our "Its a cache Jim" was set up. To be fair, trying establish whether or not a cacher has logged both is not worth the the trouble or effort. Much easier to just archive ours and save an arguement and the trouble.

 

I can understand the point though. Problem is, where does this end ? Do we really have to check that every log is genuine ? Sure, some are obvious, but others ...

 

I guess we will have to visit each of our caches to check the logbook against all logs on the site in case anyone is cheating by not actually visiting any caches at all.

 

As I said, how far do you go ?

 

Tim & June (Winchester)

 

See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong ! icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

Then I noticed that this individual had logged 6 finds on http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=6614, a moving cache where multiple finds are ok. I go to email the Vancouver Transit owner, and I find that

_IT'S HIS OWN CACHE_. icon_eek.gif This cheater created a cache, called himself "The TransLink Board" so no one would know and has been logging finds on it.


We have always known who started this cache and he has never in anyway kept that a secret. (he always names his caches with a humorous pseudonym). You only have to read his find logs to confirm he is the owner. In fact others have modeled their moving caches on his excellent format, of which he has been very generous in allowing them to use. Vancouver Transit is almost “legendary” in the Vancouver area. I, (and I suspect most other geocachers in the vicinity) consider Vancouver Transit to be “our” cache - as most of us have both hidden it and found it (usually on multiple occasions). In my book, there is nothing unethical with the starter of this cache from finding it multiple times and posting each as a find. The brilliance of this cache is that each find is as difficult as the proceeding one.

 

This person suffered considerable (and well deserved) embarrassment from the exposed fake locationless finds he posted in the past - and there is no reason to rehash his past indiscretions here again.

 

So what’s your point??

 

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

geol4.JPG

Link to comment

I think it's bad form to log your own cache under any circumstances. I've seen caches where the owner logs a find on their cache each time they make a maintenance trip. What the heck is that! To me, logging a find on your own cache, real, virtual, locationless, event, or whatever is cheating, plain and simple.

 

There are an awful lot of people out there who just want to pad their find counts and throw honesty out the window.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs, but by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" -Max Beerbohm

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

We have always known who started this cache and he has never in anyway kept that a secret. (he always names his caches with a humorous pseudonym). You only have to read his find logs to confirm he is the owner. In fact others have modeled their moving caches on his excellent format, of which he has been very generous in allowing them to use. Vancouver Transit is almost “legendary” in the Vancouver area. I, (and I suspect most other geocachers in the vicinity) consider Vancouver Transit to be “our” cache - as most of us have both hidden it and found it (usually on multiple occasions). In my book, there is nothing unethical with the starter of this cache from finding it multiple times and posting each as a find. The brilliance of this cache is that each find is as difficult as the proceeding one.

 

This person suffered considerable (and well deserved) embarrassment from the exposed fake locationless finds he posted in the past - and there is no reason to rehash his past indiscretions here again.

 

So what’s your point??


 

raising past indiscretions would be pointless. Creating caches & then logging finds? that's a new chapter in the book if you ask me. Maybe you knew it was his cache, but I didn't and I'm sure there are others who didn't either. I don't think any cache should be allowed to be logged multiple times. I guess you disagree with that, which is your right & I don't begrudge that per se. I just find it surprising that anyone would defend that because if that was acepted behavior, then why aren't more people doing it? I think it's because it generally frowned upon.

 

I agree w/Marc that it cheapens the sport to let this go on, and simply looking the other way only encourages it. yes there are exceptional situations, sometimes people do things with permission or maybe they don't adhere exactly to the rules, but for most people that is an exception. When it is repeated many times in many ways that indicates something else is going on. Something that deserves attention.

 

It's one to say "it's only a game, I'll let this rule infraction slide." it's quite another to say "you don't have to follow any rules at all, do what you want" thinking it doesnt affect those who bust their butt to make sure they do follow the rules. It does.

 

alt.gif

 

www.gpswnj.com

Link to comment

Cheating at Geocaching is like:

 

Cheating at solitaire

Buying a new mystery novel and reading the last chapter before beginning it

Having two PCs, and logging into the same chat room twice to have an enjoyable conversation - with yourself

 

I just don't get it... there is nothing to be gained (money, fame, whatever), and so much to be lost... In the simple equation of 'what's in it for me' - there doesn't appear to be - anything.

 

Sigh.

 

-Jif

Link to comment

A year ago I made a benchmark one of my virtual caches (BP - I know. shhh). When benchmark caching become a separate category I posted this benchmark as a "find"

 

Similarly when I did a whole bunch of COvered BRdiges caches (both virtual and conventional) I noticed someone created a locationless COver BRidge cache in Ohio so I posted a "find there".

 

Will I be banned from the Geocaching Hall of Fame?

 

Alan

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

 

Then I noticed that this individual had logged 6 finds on http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=6614, a moving cache where multiple finds are ok. I go to email the Vancouver Transit owner, and I find that

_IT'S HIS OWN CACHE_. icon_eek.gif This cheater created a cache, called himself "The TransLink Board" so no one would know and has been logging finds on it.


 

I don't get what you're upset about. The Vancouver Transit is a traveling cache. Once it's been moved why shouldn't the originator have a chance to hunt it? At that point, he doesn't have any advantage over anyone else (with the possible exception of knowing what type of container was used, which isn't much of an advantage). Each time it's moved, it essentially becomes a new cache.

 

Now logging each stage of a multi-cache - that's a no-no, and I saw an example of that on one of the caches you mentioned. The cache owner should have deleted the first log.

 

3608_1400.gif

Link to comment

In There is no substitute for Victory cache listed in the first message, 3 of the 4 people that found it logged a find for the first waypoint and a find for the final. What's with that? Dang, I need to go back and add to my logs. I think the NW is king of the multistage caches, that would add to my numbers greatly. The cache placers should be monitoring this. If they want it counted as two finds, it needs to be two different caches and the coordinates for the second are found at the first.

 

I do think it's fair to log one find with as many virtuals as it applies to. You are only counting each cache once, and somebody else could use the thing you found for any of the others if you didn't.

 

"Finding" your own cache? Just silly, it's already counted in your numbers as a cache placed. One cache, one count I say. The moving cache does sound like a different beast though.

 

smiles_63.gif ---Real men cache in shorts.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

"...I agree w/Marc that it cheapens the sport to let this go on, and simply looking the other way only encourages it..."


Fine ...if that's how you really feel, what are you (or anyone else) going to do about it? As unlikely as it would ever be, the most serious course of action available to GeoCaching.com would be to delete an offender's account. Then what? If a person was dishonest enough to warrant that kind of penalty in the first place, he/she wouldn't think twice to simply re-register using a different name/profile (but I'm repeating myself). With the tens of thousands of cachers worldwide, do you really think that the few confirmed incidents of cheating which have come to light in the forums represent anything more than a mere fraction of those which exist? And I'm not talking the fuzzy grey area incidents where the definition of a legitimate find may be subject to debate, I'm talking about full blown, out and out intentional deception and lying. I'd like to think that I have as much faith in the common decency of my fellow man(or woman) as the next person, but the math alone would suggest that these types of cachers probably number in the 100's at least ...the vast majority of whom you'll never know about. I'm not saying that it's right, I'm just again asking the practical question 'What are you going to do about it?'.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

"...It's one to say "it's only a game, I'll let this rule infraction slide." it's quite another to say "you don't have to follow any rules at all, do what you want..."


...where was that said?

 

[This message was edited by Cache Canucks on November 17, 2002 at 05:14 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Cache Canucks:

 

Fine ...if that's how you really feel, what are you (or anyone else) going to do about it? As unlikely as it would ever be, the most serious course of action available to GeoCaching.com would be to delete an offender's account.


 

No, no ... there's an entirely new and most effective form of punishment available through geocaching.com. It's called ABUSE BY EXCESSIVE E-MAIL NOTIFICATIONS, and it's a terrible fate ... it's almost too cruel.

 

It started off innocently enough; geocacher BrianSnat created a travel bug with a goal that it should "sign into every geocache in NJ."

 

The TB came into my hands on two occasions, I moved it on and added it to my watch list ... and since then I have received the occasional e-mail notification each time the bug was picked up and moved. Until this weekend.

 

The travel bug was most recently picked up by a geocacher who has apparently made it his life's calling to literally bring the TB to every cache in NJ ... the past two days I've received a minimum of 38 e-mails detailing it's movements.

 

icon_eek.gificon_eek.gifMake it stop ... MAKE IT GO AWAY!!! icon_eek.gificon_eek.gif

 

(Yes, I just deleted it from my watch list, but one must agree that it was a most effective form of torture.)

Link to comment

I still get a laugh at reading how so many people here feel cheated by this kind of behavior. If I walked past someone cheating at solitaire or having a chat with himself using two PCs, I'd laugh and maybe shake my head ... I wouldn't get upset.

 

Despite the geocaching.com intoduction ("geocaching is an entertaining adventure game ...") I do not think of it as a game. It's a pass-time that requires little to no interaction with others. I find it a wise decision on Jeremy's part not to include a statistics page on the site. If you want to compare yourself against others, you'll have to go to a third-party site like Dan Miller's.

 

Cheating? No ... Padding? Yes ... So what?

Link to comment

Actually cheating like this can hurt. By the offender's illegitimate logging of these locationless caches, it prevented other geocachers from being able to log them, as most locationless caches only allow one log per location (why do locationless caches have locations anyway? I never figured this out).

 

I recall in another thread where a geocacher went to log a locationless cache in his area, only to find that this cheater had already logged it. Because of the illegit log, this geocacher had to drive several hours to find a similar one to log.

 

Even cheating with real caches can inconvenience other Geocachers. Suppose someone posts a false find for a cache that is actually missing. Another Geocacher sees there was a recent find and because of that chooses to look for a cache that isn't there. A waste of his time.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs, but by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" -Max Beerbohm

Link to comment

For the most part, I agree, who cares if someone is padding. However, many locationless caches only allow one person to log a specific site. Faking a find in these cases denies everyone else the chance to log that site legitimately. As I recall, someone in the infamous "hand" thread was directly affected in this way by the fake logs.

 

Edit: Oops, timing is everything. What BrianSnat said.

migo_sig_logo.jpg

Mein Vater war ein Wandersmann, und ich hab' auch im Blut.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

 

are others who didn't either. I don't think any cache should be allowed to be logged multiple times. I guess you disagree with that, which is


 

There are always exceptions. Some would make an exception for physical caches that have been moved and the cache owner re-used the same cache page but changed the coordinates. Then you can log it a second time.

 

I personally don't. Once it's off my list, it's off my list.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

No, no ... there's an entirely new and most effective form of punishment available through geocaching.com. It's called _ABUSE BY EXCESSIVE E-MAIL NOTIFICATIONS_, and it's a terrible fate ... it's almost too cruel.

 


 

OOPS! I'm sorry.

 

BrianSnat must be going bananas. He's watching both Sammy Sturgeon AND the Cooper Key Bug. icon_eek.gif

Link to comment

Travelling caches are an exception to both multiple logs and logging your own cache. Suppose instead, the cache was archived each time it was found and the finder had to create a new cache page for it. All that remained the same would be the container. There'd be no question whether the original owner could log the new cache, right? But it'd be a tremendous waste of the site's resources.

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

Mein Vater war ein Wandersmann, und ich hab' auch im Blut.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Cache Canucks:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

"...It's one to say "it's only a game, I'll let this rule infraction slide." it's quite another to say "you don't have to follow any rules at all, do what you want..."


...where was _that_ said?


 

No where. not in those words. But that's how I interpret the attitude of "shurg your shoulders. What can you do?" to answer that question: when you see it (and its obvious or repeated), tell the cache owner, report it to admin, or post a thread if it's really obnoxious.

 

That said, I do know that there are some owners who will allow exceptions to the rules. Just today i was asked if I would aloow two users to each log a find on a locationless that they sought together. I can accept that. I told them to say so in their log that permission was given. that way no one will look at it negatively. I think any exceptions should be stated clearly that theya re exceptions.

 

alt.gif

 

www.gpswnj.com

Link to comment

A number of you have expressed the idea that a moving cache is ok to log multiple times. heck even jeremy said that to me. Well gee why don't we just call it the "self-perpetutating find count inflating cache" then. A cache is specifically supposed to stay within a small predtermined area so that the locals can keep loging it & logging it & logging it & logging it... Git my point? There should be a max limit of 3 or something.

 

And as I said, don't get me started on someone finding his own cache, even if it is moving. It's his responsibility, his cache container, his duty to keep up on it. No way should he be allowed to log finds on it. Otherwise cache maitenance could be considered a find then. Which I've heard other people have done. Krikey!

 

alt.gif

 

www.gpswnj.com

Link to comment

Re: Borders cache, logged twice.

 

The cache owner was emailed PRIOR to logging the find. The cache owner responded that the cache should be logged. Any problems with that, take it up with the cache owner.

 

Re: Victory Island cache, logged twice

 

All the multi caches by this hider are in fact 2 completely separate caches. The second parts are full caches in their own right that are printed out and obtained from the first part. Why they are not two separate caches is anyones guess. They involve very expensive all day trips (including $100 ferry rides) to from one part to the other. Very few, if any cachers will ever reach the second stages. The cache owner was emailed PRIOR to logging the find. The cache owner responded that the cache should be logged. Any problems with that, take it up with the cache owner.

 

Re Disappearing second logs...

 

As was previously pointed out, all of the double logs on these caches (which were all logged before mine) have mysteriously disappeared in the last day, except mine, shortly after this thread appeared.

 

Re: Vancouver Transit, logged twice (including by the cache owner)

 

This cache is moved every few days. It is a completely new cache at that point. The instructions on the page clearly state it can be logged over and over by anyone. That includes the owner.

 

The "small predetermined area" it is to be contained to (Vancouver Lower Mainland) is over 10,000 square kilometres. I don't know what its like in NJ. But ten thousand square km in BC is a very large area.

 

VANCOUVER TRANSIT CACHE clones... that I know of.

 

I am sure there are many more. They have ALL been found by the same cachers more than once INCLUDING their own cache owners. Any problems with that, take it up with the following cache owners.

 

London Transit

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=12743

 

Oakland Transit

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=16516

 

Prince George Transit

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=29706

 

Kamloops Transit

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=34557

 

Vancouver Island Transit

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=40962

 

Vancouver Transit

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=6614

Link to comment

I had a very lengthy reply for this one very early today, but it got lost in the shuffle online, and vanished. Rather than recreate it entirely, here's my thoughts:

 

Gwho- you were not likely meaning anything malicious by starting this thread. Given the nature of the previous thread, and the outcome of that one, you have every right to be alarmed. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

You are probably 35/65 here.

 

1) Vancouver Transit is a travelling cache. Every new location is unique. We need more of these types of caches. Logging it more than once isn't padding anything. I've found it 4 times in the last two months.

 

2) Same picture/location, multiple logs on different locationless caches. Nothing new here. Locationless caches suck. I have a stack of 30 ready to do if I want, but the 'take a picture with your GPS' thing, ahh, bytes. icon_wink.gif MrG's ratio is 'about' 33% locationless, 66% real overall. And he's not alone. Gwho- your ratio is even worse!! But you can't beat him up on this one! This is a different subject altogether. Start another thread dedicated to this one. I'd like to see a different rating system myself. I know what some people mean by double dipping. Go out and find the Artesian Well Cache for which another cacher has so kindly provided an additional link for the Artesian Well *Virtual*. I mean, like, go figure. BUT THIS IS A SEPARATE DISCUSSION.

 

3) Multi-stage caches. The typical rule is, one credit when found. But, the additonal effort required for some 'warrants' an additional credit. Cache owner may say 'okay', but this is a grey area. I would prefer to see second parts as separate caches, referencing the first cache WHEN WARRANTED. But again, this is 'sorta' up to the cache owner. And this is a different issue, but I agree mostly. One find per cache page.

 

4) Same locationless cache, multiple logs. Okay, locationless caches still suck. Can I log every border monument in the Fraser Valley if it has a road connected to it? Maybe Canbill wanted to log that second MrG find? This complaint has merit. Even if the cache owner says 'okay', it breaks the spirit of caching, and prevents local cachers from finding local caches. Again, *my opinion*, but using this website to collect the world's largest database of yellow jeep pictures is a waste of gigabytes.

 

Nuff said.

 

I'm nobody. I like to write long stories about trips to Vancouver Island.

 

But I do recommend this thread be closed. The personal attacks are not warranted. The point and a half with merit belong in another thread.

 

Final score: MrG 66 Audience 33

 

Kinda like his locationless/real ratio!! icon_smile.gif

 

Let's just admit it, we all care about that silly number that shows up by our name in one way or another. I could make mine say 75 by next week, but like, who cares...

 

Is there a geocoin 777 around anywhere? I gotta go to the island again.

 

[This message was edited by canadazuuk on November 19, 2002 at 12:41 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:

 

2) Same picture/location, multiple logs on different virtual caches. Nothing new here. Virtual caches suck. I have a stack of 30 ready to do if I want, but the 'take a picture with your GPS' thing bites.


 

Just to clarify, you are talking about locationless caches here. Virtual caches are an entirely different thing altogether:

 

Locationless = "Reverse" cache; you find an object that fits the requirements, log the coordinates, and post with photo of GPSr.

 

Virtual = A specific location to which you navigate with GPSr; no container is present, you instead locate specific info at that location that is required to log the cache.

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

 

Just to clarify, you are talking about locationless caches here. Virtual caches are an entirely different thing altogether:

 


 

Point noted, and my original reply is edited.

 

I think the whole virtual/locationless thing is not well understood. Even notice the name of the 'locationless' Artesian Well cache above!! icon_smile.gif

 

Geocaching needs to keep growing, and new forms of it are bound to come up. With growth, there is pain. This is one example of pain.

 

I still vote for more 'travelling' caches. 'Vancouver Transit' is indeed legendary.

 

Please take a hard look at the different issues here carefully. The intent should not be anywhere near so malicious. A valid point with merit could be lost amongst the bashing. MrG has created many caches under 'different' aliases- there was NO INTENT to 'hide' his name from that cache, so he could log it in secret. Please review the facts, and agree you will. (Heck, I've even got myself an alias: 'Abbotsford Microcache Society'...)

 

Now, do I go and log Pier Pressure today or what?

 

[This message was edited by canadazuuk on November 19, 2002 at 01:46 PM.]

Link to comment

Oh dearie me!

 

After some poor guy got embarassed when publicly congratulated for finding 100 caches, only to discover that he'd logged two caches twice, I wrote some geocacheuk.com pages to list people logging caches twice and people logging their own caches.

 

If I'd realised how hot under the collar some people get about OTHER PEOPLE's stats, I'd have thought twice!

 

In my experience, most double/self logging appears to be a result of people moving travel bugs about and forgetting to use 'post a note', rather than 'found it'.

Link to comment

I recently had a 'find' logged on one of our caches by a person or group who said 'we hope you will allow our imaginary geocacher to log your cache'

 

What's up with that? This imaginary cacher logged four caches with simialar themes on the same day --- ours in OHIO, Two near Seattle, and one in Peru, South America. They all had alien themes. Since then the imaginary geocache has logged several other alien theme caches around the country.

 

Not being familiar with this thread at the time I emailed the person/group that I didn't care and would leave the log on the site. Now I want to know what the rest of you think about this.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Teasel:

...If I'd realised how hot under the collar some people get about OTHER PEOPLE's stats, I'd have thought twice!

 

In my experience, most double/self logging appears to be a result of people moving travel bugs about and forgetting to use 'post a note', rather than 'found it'.


 

Of course, you also have uber-cachers who create a cache with an alias and then log it as a find with their primary account, all the time congratulating themselves over their high find count.

 

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

 

Of course, you also have uber-cachers who create a cache with an alias and then log it as a find with their primary account, all the time congratulating themselves over their high find count.


 

That's not so bad because you can log those caches too, unless of course they archive the caches before anyone else has a chance at those.

 

Depending on which uber-cachers you mean, I've logged some of those myself.

Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...