Twist on claiming a find.

1.6k · April 11, 2003

I generally follow the guildline of you can only claim a find if you sign the logbook or do whatever the owner requires within reason. Basically, you signed the log, then it's a find.

Here's my dilemma: what if I have a cache that is very hard to get to, you're not likely to trade and SL at the cache site, and thus it's hard to return the cache? What would you do if you were the owner and got a log that said they thought it was too hard to replace the cache so they didn't?

Do you think it right to require that you return the cache to it's hiding spot to claim it as a find?

CR

April 11, 2003

I think we're going to need more details on this one.

It sounds to me like you're asking if it's alright to move someone else's cache. If you don't return it to it's hiding place, how while the next person find it?

If you can get to within a few feet of the cache and can see it, but can't touch it or open it (on another thread there were pictures of a cache suspended under a bridge,) a picture of the cache might suffice. Check with the cache owner.

On a similar line: a local newbie placed a cache with a padlock on it and said that he was going to be placing keys to the lock in several other caches in the area. He didn't. I got tired of waiting and took my lockpicks (Criminal is not the only cacher with lockpicks) and a camera out there. I couldn't pick the lock so I took a picture to prove that I was there and treated it as a virtual.

RichardMoore

www.geocities.com/richardsrunaway

38.2k · April 11, 2003

I guess its a find, but I'd be pretty pissed at the finder.

"You can only protect your liberties in this world, by protecting the other man's freedom. "You can only be free if I am" -Clarence Darrow

April 11, 2003

If the finder can't take the time, effort, etc... to replace a cache properly, I would certainly deny the find to him. We have some basic standards here that *should* be non-negotiable. I don't know the particulars of the cache of which you speak, but the finder should have realized before taking the cache that it might be difficult to return it.

The only thing a cache owner can do is deny the find. There needs to be some way to discourage lazy cachers.

¢

2.8k · April 11, 2003

We had a cache around this area called Tree Hugger. There was some debate as to whether being able to lay your hands on it was a find. In this case I think the potential finder agreed with the cache owner that it wasn't a find since he was unable (or unwilling) to open the container.

He also happened to break his GPSr when it fell out of his pocket

April 11, 2003

If it is very difficult to get to and that fact is clearly stated on the cache page, No credit.

There are some caches that are quite high and hard for a short guy to get to. If I can't get to it, I don't claim it. On one cache I had to leave to find something to stand on, then come back and finish the find.

It seems to me that if climbing is required, the cache page should clearly state that. One recently was ten feet off the ground but you wouldn't know that until you decrypted the hint. I got to it but did not like it.

1.4k · April 11, 2003

I was goint to link to the same cache as marathonman there. Just being able to see the cache is not a find and just being able to touch the cache is not a find. There are also a couple of caches that have locks on them. I could find them and even pick them up and put them back, but if I can't open it up to log it, no find.

---Real men cache in shorts.

3.1k · April 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Smitherington:
On one cache I had to leave to find something to stand on, then come back and finish the find.

Sorry. In my case, it wasn't meant to be a physical feat, so I'd have given credit for a description (Made for a good log, though). In the case of Tree Hugger, I can understand denying the find. If the difficulty isn't hinted at, at LEAST in the star ratings, I'd say give them the find -- I'm not a stickler for the logbook thing.

If it did have warnings, and the finder still went after it then didn't put it back, like BrianSnat said I'd probably give the find, disable the cache until I replaced it, and been mad.

"Winter's just the curtain. Spring will take the bow"

-- Richard Shindell, Spring

1.6k · April 11, 2003

Okay, here's more info.

This is not the actual place but is similar. I don't know exactly the rating and will be going to chat to discuss particulars, but it is most definitely a 5 on terrain. Difficutly is a different story. It's only about a quarter mile walk on asphalt to get within about 50 to 100' of the cache. That last distance is the kicker. You should be able to locate the cache is very short order. Figuring out how to actually reach it is the trick, so I don't know if actually being able to put your hand on the cache should be considered part of the difficulty rating. I figure the mental preparation of figuring out how to reach the cache should be considered part of difficulty, but that's an entirely different question.

Here is something along the lines I'm thinking about. Near me is an abandoned bridge. Foot traffic is allowed. Near, but not under the bridge is another structure that is well below the bridge but well above the water--I estimate 20' or so. The structure does not have a way to climb it, it's shear concrete, so equipment will be needed to get yourself on top of this structure. The top of this structure is flat and you will be able to see the cache from the bridge plain as day. You can't wade the water and you would have to be a very strong swimmer.

I've already run this past an approver and there doesn't seem to be a problem getting it approved.

My concern is someone coming along and simply knocking the cache off the structure and not being able to put it back.

While it is an option, I don't want to secure it to the structure. I just want to place it.

With proper ratings, can this cache require that the cache be left on top of the structure in order to claimed to be a find? I know all about the argument about me being the owner yada yada yada, but can I rightly make that a requirement?

Thanks for the input.

CR

20.7k · April 11, 2003

How will you know (except through the posts of the finder) whether it was not replaced correctly or fell off due to natural factors such as wind?

1.6k · April 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:
How will you know (except through the posts of the finder) whether it was not replaced correctly or fell off due to natural factors such as wind?

...or simply knocked off by a muggle?

I won't. It'd have to be an appeal to one's sense of honor. It's not that I'm going to enforce a no find.

It will be fairly easy to check to see of the cache is there, but I'm not going to be rushing out after every find to see. Checking the log will be a bit more difficult to say the least.

On the wind part, I'm thinking of using a SAW box attached to a large piece of plywood and that having rubber feet. That should make it stand up to some pretty good winds better than just the box by itself. It does get windy out there!

CR

20.7k · April 11, 2003

I see no problem with posting a requirement on the page that it is replaced correctly. Good luck.

9.4k · April 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:
How will you know (except through the posts of the finder) whether it was not replaced correctly or fell off due to natural factors such as wind?

I had a cache that was placed in a tree (5' off the ground) that was consistently found on the ground. One cacher even said that they dug a hole so it wouldn't be out in the open like that. I eventually archived it because it was plundered, but that's another story.

April 11, 2003

Ah, yes. If it is a level 5 terrain it does make a differance. The searcher should go out there prepared for it. 'Being prepared' does not mean deciding that it is too hard to put back the way they found it. If you can get to it to sign the log, you can put it back. Or to look at it another way, 'It's too cold and wet out here, so I'm going to take the cache home and open it.' Not acceptable!

But I still say that if you can lay your hands on the cache, it's a find. Check the Guide to Finding A Cache, Step 4, Item 1. 'Usually you take and leave an item, and enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book. It's an accomplishment enough to locate the cache.'

But you still have to put the cache back. It shouldn't be a requirement in the description. It is the last step in a find (see Guide to Finding A Cache, Step 4, Item 2). If you didn't put it back, you didn't complete the find.

RichardMoore

www.geocities.com/richardsrunaway

April 11, 2003

Maybe a dumb question, but.. How will you prevent someone who is not a geocahcer from taking the cache if it can be seen plainy from the bridge?

April 11, 2003

Why not make it a multi that has the first part (the hard to get to part) as a micro with coords of the second part with the log book.

"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." -George Burns

April 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Squeaks:
Maybe a dumb question, but.. How will you prevent someone who is not a geocahcer from taking the cache if it can be seen plainy from the bridge?

Good point my friend.

Where you all at?

1.6k · April 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Squeaks:
Maybe a dumb question, but.. How will you prevent someone who is not a geocahcer from taking the cache if it can be seen plainy from the bridge?

This is a concern. But it will be hard to get to. It's not as if you can simply throw a rock and knock it off. If you're in a boat you could throw a line up there in such a way to drag it off there.

It's all a risk I'm willing to take in respect to muggles. I'm sure there will be those who will look at it and wonder what the heck that is. Hopefully, once they get it and can't put it back they'll contact me to arrange to return it.

Hopefully, no one will leave a TB in there!

CR

April 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by RichardMoore:
But I still say that if you can lay your hands on the cache, it's a find. Check the Guide to Finding A Cache, Step 4, Item 1. 'Usually you take and leave an item, and enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book. It's an accomplishment enough to locate the cache.'

It always amazes me how ambiguous the English language is. By this I mean your interpretation of this could be what the writer meant. But I always thought it meant:

Usually you trade items and log it, but some people just log it, because it's an accomplishment enough to locate the cache.

Of course I am not sure which of these two matches what the writer meant. But the rule I use for myself is that I have open physical caches and sign the log book before I count it as a find. An in case the cache is missing it's log book I carry a spare.

I think not putting it back is covered in the FAQ where it says

quote:
Can I move a cache once I find it?

Unless there's a note in the cache containing instructions on moving it to a new location, don't move the cache!

To me "don't move the cache!" means put it back.

April 11, 2003

You can make any sort of requirements as you seem fit to require, but how are you going to force a finder to follow them? What is to prevent the finder from simply removing the cache? They can claim they replcaed it and someone else must have found it later.

If you refuse to let the finder count it as a find then they may go back and remove the cache completely.

Gee this is supposed to be fun, lets not make the requirements so difficult that many can not (or will not) be able to do all the requirements need to be able to log it.

3.1k · April 11, 2003

I like flat_lander's solution. A micro wouldn't be as attention-grabbing as an ammo can sitting out there, someone's not as likely to be able to yank it down, and finders don't need to make two trips up the structure. Maybe not as cool as seeing an ammo can sitting out there, but it solves a lot of problems.

This is an interesting discussion. I'm also planning one where the cache will be visible but not easily reached, though not nearly as complex as this one. It sounds great.

"Winter's just the curtain. Spring will take the bow"

-- Richard Shindell, Spring

April 11, 2003

I also agree that flatlander's idea may be the best solution. You could also place a plaque with the coords and skip the container. .

1.6k · April 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Dinoprophet:
Maybe not as cool as seeing an ammo can sitting out there...

See, that's the whole point of this cache and another one that will be even harder. People will be able to see it and say to themselves, "it's just right there!" When you have nothing better to do, or you can't sleep because you're puzzling over the problem, you can go there and look at it. You'll stand there trying to figure out how to get to it.

I'm a big fan of that computer game The Incredible Machine. If you're not familiar with it, it gives you a task to do and tools to do it with. Your job is to use those tools to get the task done and you can do it in any manner that will work. There can be multiple paths or ways to reach your goal.

This is what I'm trying to do with this cache. You can see it, but how do you sign the log and return it for the next person? I don't want to tell people what they need on this cache hunt, that's up to them. I want them to determine if they're going to use a boat or somehow retreive and return the cache from the bridge. Heck, if they want, they can rent a helicopter or drive a boom truck past the "NO MOTOR VEHICLES" sign. It's up to them.

But I want the lure. The tease.

CR

April 11, 2003

No credit for the find. It's as simple as that. Contact the logger and indicate you will allow the find when notification is received that cache has been properly replaced.

I've never been lost, but I was a might bewildered for three days once. Daniel Boone

April 11, 2003

This thing is sounding better and better. You've already got me trying to figure out how I would get the container and put it back. I wish I could try for the cache once you place it, but it's a little too far for me to drive right now.

One suggestion, make sure the local authorities know what it is. I can picture the phone call, 'Hello, 911? There's this mysterious box under the bridge over by...' On the other hand, I might make the call (anonymously). The police retrieve the box, I happen to be there when they do, I tell them what it is and ask them to put it back. Hmm. Just might work.

RichardMoore

www.geocities.com/richardsrunaway

3.1k · April 11, 2003

Yeah, I kind of thought that was the idea.

Whatever you do, it sounds awesome. If I'm ever in the area once it's in place, I'll definitely at least go look at it.

And yes, I love The Incredible Machine!

"Winter's just the curtain. Spring will take the bow"

-- Richard Shindell, Spring

24.7k · April 11, 2003

They got the find, but are dorks anyway!

==============================

Wherever you go there you are.

4.7k · April 11, 2003

if part of the puzzle is getting it open, it needs to get opened. if the puzzle is putting it back, it has to be put back.

if either of these things is difficult, i assume they're part of the show.

i drove over the ice with a stepladder to get one i couldn't reach. i had been able to touch it, but not get it down.

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.

April 11, 2003

Ah, if only there were more caches like this. I actually got a call-back to audition for the TLC show "Escape from Experiment Island" but didn't get picked as I'm not argumentative enough--thankfully.

On the initial query: it depends. I fall in the "the find recorded on the web is a virtual accounting of the physical log" camp. The very first cache I tried (before the GPS arrived) was a micro magnetically stuck to a submarine on display here in town. I figured out where it SHOULD have been, but it wasn't. I emailed the owner with my detailed description, sure enough--he even sent pics confirming it wasn't there. He told me to log it as a find. I haven't yet (30 finds later). Others HAVE found it in a different location and returned it there. I don't feel it's found until I've signed.

Integrity. It used to be a word in both the English AND American dictionaries!

On the more detailed query of this cache, think about it this way. If you go back to pickup the log book and the cache isn't there--as far as you are concerned there were never any documented finds!

Okay, that's harsh (and I wouldn't discredit any), but to my point. Yes, returning it is necessary, but it wouldn't hurt to put that in the description simply to remind folks to think of that step ahead of time--call it consideration.

Heck, even simple cache's request that as so many have been "relocated".

Enjoy,

Randy

PS: If the placing technique is totally different from the recovering technique, you could give it away in the hint to be more assured it gets returned properly.

PPS: (I'm thinking about a hot-air balloon myself! [Cheaper than a chopper..])

20.7k · April 11, 2003

I think it should be placed as proposed. Heck, from the description, I have a pretty good idea as to how to retrieve and replace the cache. I suspect that the replacement technique is basically the same (except in reverse) of the recovery.

Now I just have to find an excuse that the spouse will buy to let me take a trip to SC.

April 11, 2003

I Don't consider it a find, if I can't sign the log.

If I retrieved a cache, sign the log, but am UNABLE, for some unforeseen reason, to put it back, I would make sure I hid it well enough to keep it from being plundered, and email the cache owner as soon as I could, offer to help any way I could, but I would log a note on the cache page not a find. If I can't put it back where I found it, I consider it a Did Not Finish, not a find. Hasn't happened yet, (I'm a Noob) but it seems simple to me.

The cache Sissy-n-CR has planned sounds great, as is.

_________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures

3.1k · April 11, 2003

I'm pretty easy when it comes to allowing finds. I haven't disallowed a single one yet, even for those that didn't sign the log.

BUT

I myself would not consider logging a find without signing the book or replacing the cache. I was tempted recently to delete a log out of spite when a cacher moved my cache to the location where his GPS said it should be. I didn't of course but I did go back and put it where the previous 35 cachers found it.

A level 5 category cache is expected to be difficult. Someone who couldn't replace it shouldn't log it, I wouldn't.

Don't hate me cause I'm beautiful

1.3k · April 12, 2003

Whip out the trusty "8" ring, and have at it!

"I'm not moving my car 'till you get my food right!"

April 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BloenCustoms:
Whip out the trusty "8" ring, and have at it!

"I'm not moving my car 'till you get my food right!"

What's an 8 ring?

RichardMoore

www.geocities.com/richardsrunaway

1.6k · April 12, 2003

I believe he is refering to a piece of equipement used in rappelling or belaying. The structure is too far away from the bridge to rappel to directly.

CR

3k · April 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
Near me is an abandoned bridge. Foot traffic is allowed. Near, but not under the bridge is another structure that is well below the bridge but well above the water--I estimate 20' or so. The structure does not have a way to climb it, it's shear concrete, so equipment will be needed to get yourself on top of this structure. The top of this structure is flat and you will be able to see the cache from the bridge plain as day. You can't wade the water and you would have to be a _very_ strong swimmer.

I've already run this past an approver and there doesn't seem to be a problem getting it approved.

My concern is someone coming along and simply knocking the cache off the structure and not being able to put it back.

Make sure you use a VERY rugged/durable container. If I remember correctly, the container at a somewhat similar cache in our area has needed replacement at least twice ... most likely from damage incurred while replacing the cache.

I saw a response you wrote concerning a denied virtual cache in another thread this morning, and when I saw that an approver "didn't see a problem" with your idea, I wondered (based on the small amount of information you posted here) how the approver would know the abandoned bridge and other structure were public property (or private property accessible to the public) and had not been condemned or otherwise placed off-limits.

Don't get me wrong ... it sounds like a terrific cache; one that I would very much like to attempt, but after reading in that other thread how difficult it is getting a virtual cache approved, the potential problems associated with this cache were so glaring that I couldn't imagine an Admin. didn't foresee any potential problems with your physical cache proposal.

Incidentally, I think the precedent for logging finds for caches placed on/near/in bodies of water has already been set ... I noticed in a thread a few days back that the guy who sent a cache downriver while he was in the process of destroying the stump in which it had been hidden was allowed a "find."

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on April 12, 2003 at 06:30 AM.]

1.6k · April 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
...how the approver would know the abandoned bridge and other structure were public property (or private property accessible to the public) and had not been condemned or otherwise placed off-limits.

I've written him with detailed descriptions and aerial photos. The bridge is prohibited to motor-vehicle use but is still serviceable. Signs display where you can fish and where you can't and detail other information that lets you know it's open to the public. The structure is nothing like a water treatment plant intake or anything like that. It is also an abandoned piece of property. (Maybe, more accurately, a piece of public property that is no longer useful to the public at large. Though I have a use for it--to hold up my cache!)

The only reason I'm not giving detailed information is I don't want someone to jump my spot. It's not likely, but still...

As a matter fact, as soon as I get a chance I'm gonna head out there to get some readings, take some pics, and grab a waypoint. I want to mark the cache with "geocaching.com," waypoint, and a URL directly to the cache page, all large enough to be read with a pair of binoculars.

CR

April 12, 2003

Just a thought...

How many cache owners compare log book entries to online logs and delete online logs not in the physical log book?

SeventhSon

== If at first you don't succeed, skydiving isn't for you. ==

1.3k · April 12, 2003

Trusty 8 ring.

"I'm not moving my car 'till you get my food right!"

April 12, 2003

I am not saying this will happen but I can see how a noncacher may see the cache as a target to shoot at, with reals guns perhaps, or paintball guns, or even BB guns.

On a side note, I can even see how the cops may come along at the wrong time and catch a geocacher on top of the "abandoned" public building and write a citation for trespassing.

I can also see someone taking a nasty fall and and getting hurt, then they or their insurance company filing a lawsuit againt the owner of the property.

Too many possible bad things I believe.

3k · April 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

... I've written him with detailed descriptions and aerial photos. The bridge is prohibited to motor-vehicle use but is still serviceable. Signs display where you can fish and where you can't and detail other information that lets you know it's open to the public. ...

Good work. A "tip-o-the-hat" to ya!

1.6k · April 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by rayt333:
I am not saying this will happen but I can see how a noncacher may see the cache as a target to shoot at, with reals guns perhaps, or paintball guns, or even BB guns.

I'm not too worried about that as the brdige is probably still considered right-of-way and only rimfire or stronger could do more than a dent at this distance.

quote:
On a side note, I can even see how the cops may come along at the wrong time and catch a geocacher on top of the "abandoned" public building and write a citation for trespassing.

It's not a building. If people are allowed on the bridge, I don't see how the authories will have much of a complaint with this.

quote:
I can also see someone taking a nasty fall and and getting hurt, then they or their insurance company filing a lawsuit againt the owner of the property.

You can only fall from the bridge or structure. You will either hit the water or your boat. The water is pretty deep here. I doubt there is anyway anyone can jump far enough to make it to the structure. I think this is probably safer than climbing a tree if you take a fall.

CR

5.9k · April 13, 2003

quote:
SNIP
On a similar line: a local newbie placed a cache with a padlock on it and said that he was going to be placing keys to the lock in several other caches in the area. He didn't. I got tired of waiting and took my lockpicks (Criminal is not the only cacher with lockpicks) and a camera out there. I couldn't pick the lock so I took a picture to prove that I was there and treated it as a virtual.

RichardMoore

Please say it wasn't a Master padlock, they're so easy to pick, you should be ashamed of yourself....

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

April 14, 2003

Sorry, Criminal.

It was a Master lock. My only defense is that it was in the upper teens out there, 8 inches of fresh snow with more coming down, it's been over 8 years since I tried to pick a pin tumbler padlock, my education was from a correspondence course, and it was one of the really good Master padlocks.

If I'd have had a way to hold the lock steady I might have been able to pick it.

Consider me suitably shamed.

RichardMoore

www.geocities.com/richardsrunaway

April 14, 2003

How about when:

A) It's winter and the cache tube is frozen shut. The cacher is unable to get it open, but they take a pic of themselves holding the cache (either they don't know how to make a wrench out of a green sapling, or they are thoughtful enough not to try the yellow snow trick.)

The cacher gets to the site, but the cache has been plundered. They claim a find anyway.

In the case of A) I would take that as a find, but I've seen some cases of when the person actually claims a find because they claim to find the place where the recently gone missing cache 'was'. I personaly only claim when I go back to a replaced cache and sign the book itself.

It all depends on the situation I guess.

1.3k · April 14, 2003

Maybe when you log the cache, insted of the button saying "I found it!", it should read "I signed the logbook!" thereby eliminating these so called finds.

"Searching with my good eye closed"

Twist on claiming a find.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation