Jump to content

Can I Still Credit The Find?


sbirn
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

I drove about 120km from home today to find a cache. I was 5m away on foot when my SAR team sent out a call for a rescue so I had to turn and run. <SNIP!> Is anyone going to take particular offense if I log it as found?

I suppose there are only two people who have any right to care--the cache owner and yourself. But as long as you're asking for opinions, here's mine:

 

Your SAR activity entitles you to the admiration and appreciation of everyone who spends time in the outdoors or even knows someone who does. You are providing a service to us all and deserve our thanks. You have mine.

 

As for logging the cache? Nope. All the public service work in the world still doesn't change the fact that you didn't find the cache. Chalk it up to one more missed playtime opportunity while you did a good deed.

Link to comment
That's cool that you changed them to notes.  They should never be logged twice.  You didn't really find it if you knew where it was!

Burn 'im! Burn 'im! :blink:

ROTFLMAO! :rolleyes:

been a while since I've seen "The Holy Grail"

 

for W.E. I guess post count is more prestige than Find count.

 

I shouldn't talk though because my find to post count is atrocious!

Edited by geckoee
Link to comment
That's cool that you changed them to notes.  They should never be logged twice.  You didn't really find it if you knew where it was!

Burn 'im! Burn 'im! :blink:

ROTFLMAO! :rolleyes:

been a while since I've seen "The Holy Grail"

 

for W.E. I guess post count is more prestige than Find count.

 

I shouldn't talk though because my find to post count is atrocious!

65posts to 8caches isn't bad mine is 993 posts to 30 caches

Edited by wildearth2001
Link to comment

i do know someone who was allowed a find on a virtual in upper michigan. the cache owner didn't know they took down the sign in the winter. all that was there were the posts to hang it from. they took a pic to prove they were there and the sign wasn't. they were also asked if they were nuts for caching in 4 feet of snow. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I would say if you have not signed the bok you should not log it. I was looking for a cache last spring that was in tupperware, I found a tupperware container at the cache sight that was empty, I found the cache in another container 30 feet away.

I just saw this on one of my multis this AM they found one part of it i still loged a find.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=58022

 

This is not a find, I will e-mail them to let them know.

Link to comment

In my book it's not a find. But, I guess you could think of it the way this guy did; Roadside Park Cache

 

He knew the cache wasn't there but decided to log it anyway because he was in the "right spot". Now, to me that was bad form but to him just being in the location that the cache USE to be in was good enough to go back and call it a find....even though he didn't actually FIND it.

 

:D

Link to comment
He knew the cache wasn't there but decided to log it anyway because he was in the "right spot".  Now, to me that was bad form but to him just being in the location that the cache USE to be in was good enough to go back and call it a find....even though he didn't actually FIND it.

 

:P

Fascinating thought process. :D How do you find something that isn't there??

 

Let's all play pretend. You pretend to hide it and I'll pretend to find it.

 

GPSKitty

Link to comment
He knew the cache wasn't there but decided to log it anyway because he was in the "right spot".  Now, to me that was bad form but to him just being in the location that the cache USE to be in was good enough to go back and call it a find....even though he didn't actually FIND it.

 

:D

Fascinating thought process. :D How do you find something that isn't there??

 

Let's all play pretend. You pretend to hide it and I'll pretend to find it.

 

GPSKitty

That's kind of what I though. I sent him an email asking him why, and he said that since he was pretty sure he had found the cache location and the cache had been there AT ONE POINT IN TIME, he thought it was okay to log as a find.

 

What I found interesting was this; He first posted a note or a no find (can't remember which) stating that if he found out the cache was actually missing he would change his log to a FIND. Then he told me that he was sure we both had better things to do that argue about wether or not this should be a find for him. That statement was about the only thing I agreed with. :P

Link to comment

I big group of powercachers came to my city from down south. They hit about 30 or so caches that day. A couple of them were missing, and they replaced them with their pre-made caches. I thought that it was cool to replace a cache, since it didnt seem like anyone else was going to (including the owner). After they replaced it though, they logged it as a find. I thought that was a little strange. It almost seems like you are logging your own cache. I understand that you didnt pick the location, etc, but still...

 

I'm glad I havent had to deal with any of this. No one has tried to log my caches that didnt find them. If they did, we would probably get in a "deleting war" if they kept relogging their caches after I deleted them. I know I wouldnt give up...

Link to comment
A couple of them were missing, and they replaced them with their pre-made caches. I thought that it was cool to replace a cache, since it didnt seem like anyone else was going to (including the owner). After they replaced it though, they logged it as a find. I thought that was a little strange. It almost seems like you are logging your own cache.

 

This seems to be a pretty popular practice, but I wonder how they know the cache was actually missing and if it is, where the original was hidden. Placing your own cache and logging it as a found seems like a cheesy way to pad numbers. Of course you found the cache....it was in your backpack moron!

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

If it were I, I wouldn't log it, but I might leave a note. As a cache owner, I like hearing the stories of the hunt, so I don't mind notes. To me, the DNF means that try as I might, I couldn't find it. If I run out of time and have to leave before I can really look for it, I don't consider that a DNF, and I may or may not write a note. Either one, however, irks me enough where I do my best to get back to that cache so I CAN find it!

Link to comment
A couple of them were missing, and they replaced them with their pre-made caches. I thought that it was cool to replace a cache, since it didnt seem like anyone else was going to (including the owner). After they replaced it though, they logged it as a find. I thought that was a little strange. It almost seems like you are logging your own cache.

 

This seems to be a pretty popular practice, but I wonder how they know the cache was actually missing and if it is, where the original was hidden. Placing your own cache and logging it as a found seems like a cheesy way to pad numbers. Of course you found the cache....it was in your backpack moron!

Yeah, I've read online logs where the cacher couldn't find the cache at the location, pronounced it missing and replaced it with their own handy dandy cache, logging it as a find. The "missing" cache is subsequently found and then there are TWO caches, both of which then have log books that are being logged into on an ongoing basis. No one knows which one they are finding.

Only the cache owner should replace a cache. I don't understand the archive process well enough to comment on it, but I guess a cache can be deemed abandoned and adopted by someone else.

But to drop off a cache and then say "Found It!". I don't think so.

 

GPSKitty

Link to comment
Yeah, I've read online logs where the cacher couldn't find the cache at the location, pronounced it missing and replaced it with their own handy dandy cache, logging it as a find. The "missing" cache is subsequently found and then there are TWO caches, both of which then have log books that are being logged into on an ongoing basis. No one knows which one they are finding.

 

That's retarded. I can't believe something like that would happen.

 

The archive process is just that, a process. You can't just go out there, say it's gone, and throw another one down. If has been confirmed missing, replacing it would be cool, but only after confirmation.

 

As for adopting, I have an adopted cache. It was funny, because I found it, and only a month later, did it seem that no one was taking care of it. It was badly in need of maintenance. I emailed the owner, and administrators, etc. Finally, they granted the cache over to me. I actually haven't deleted my find yet. I guess I don't know if I should either. I found it, then a month later, it became mine. What happens? :D

Link to comment
Yeah, I've read online logs where the cacher couldn't find the cache at the location, pronounced it missing and replaced it with their own handy dandy cache, logging it as a find. The "missing" cache is subsequently found and then there are TWO caches, both of which then have log books that are being logged into on an ongoing basis. No one knows which one they are finding.

 

That's retarded. I can't believe something like that would happen.

 

The archive process is just that, a process. You can't just go out there, say it's gone, and throw another one down. If has been confirmed missing, replacing it would be cool, but only after confirmation.

 

As for adopting, I have an adopted cache. It was funny, because I found it, and only a month later, did it seem that no one was taking care of it. It was badly in need of maintenance. I emailed the owner, and administrators, etc. Finally, they granted the cache over to me. I actually haven't deleted my find yet. I guess I don't know if I should either. I found it, then a month later, it became mine. What happens? :D

I don't think you should delete your find on that one, because you found it before it was "yours"....to me, that's still a legitimate find.....

Link to comment
Yeah, I've read online logs where the cacher couldn't find the cache at the location, pronounced it missing and replaced it with their own handy dandy cache, logging it as a find. The "missing" cache is subsequently found and then there are TWO caches, both of which then have log books that are being logged into on an ongoing basis. No one knows which one they are finding.

 

That's retarded. I can't believe something like that would happen.

 

The archive process is just that, a process. You can't just go out there, say it's gone, and throw another one down. If has been confirmed missing, replacing it would be cool, but only after confirmation.

 

As for adopting, I have an adopted cache. It was funny, because I found it, and only a month later, did it seem that no one was taking care of it. It was badly in need of maintenance. I emailed the owner, and administrators, etc. Finally, they granted the cache over to me. I actually haven't deleted my find yet. I guess I don't know if I should either. I found it, then a month later, it became mine. What happens? :D

I would keep the find, I have 3 adopted caches, 2 of which I found after adopting. I logged the find as I did not hide the caches. I also left the hidden name the original and added (maintained by Car37&Shnde) after the hiders name. I am presently getting someone more local to adopt 2 of the caches in question for maintenance, but still see nothing wrong with keeping your find on adopted caches. You did in fact have to go out and find it.

Edited by Car37&Shnde
Link to comment
A couple of them were missing, and they replaced them with their pre-made caches. I thought that it was cool to replace a cache, since it didnt seem like anyone else was going to (including the owner). After they replaced it though, they logged it as a find. I thought that was a little strange. It almost seems like you are logging your own cache.

 

This seems to be a pretty popular practice, but I wonder how they know the cache was actually missing and if it is, where the original was hidden. Placing your own cache and logging it as a found seems like a cheesy way to pad numbers. Of course you found the cache....it was in your backpack moron!

Yeah, I've read online logs where the cacher couldn't find the cache at the location, pronounced it missing and replaced it with their own handy dandy cache, logging it as a find. The "missing" cache is subsequently found and then there are TWO caches, both of which then have log books that are being logged into on an ongoing basis. No one knows which one they are finding.

Only the cache owner should replace a cache. I don't understand the archive process well enough to comment on it, but I guess a cache can be deemed abandoned and adopted by someone else.

But to drop off a cache and then say "Found It!". I don't think so.

 

GPSKitty

Once here a cache went missing and was archived. Another person replaced it and somehow arranged for it to be unarchived. Then the person who replaced it registered it on Navicache under his own name. So the cache was listed on one service as owned by one person and listed on the other as owned by someone else. The original cache owner wasn't angry about it, but it would have bothered me if I owned the cache.

Link to comment

Since y'all have jumped all over the original poster, let me try hard to muddy the water some:

 

On several of my caches, the whole family has gone, on others, it's been just me, or me and the kid. Zat ok? If not, all the families who cache together under one username would have to get multiple names, which seems just ridiculous.

 

This past weekend I was (by myself) working on part 2 of a 3 part multi when 2 other cachers I'd never met came along. We agreed to join up, and all 3 of us logged the find. Strictly speaking, I found the 1st, one of the others actually found the other 2. Zat ok? I mean, I could have left, but it was really fun to meet some new people this way, and I was certainly involved in the hunt.

 

And how about organized teams? How does that work?

 

If the original poster had had his honey along, and had left her there saying "I'll be back in four or five hours to pick you up, keep looking!", and she had found it, and they shared a username, assuming she were still speaking to him, would they log it? Suppose they each had their own username, could they each log it?

 

Probably all you lawful good types would say no to the 2nd part. Well tell me, what's so different between that and my family caches where my husband is always the one who finds it?

 

Ok, I'm done now :D

Link to comment

Yeah. I figured I should keep the find also. I kept the original user name, but added "New and Improved". I also left original hiders, and added that it was now mine by adoption. That cache has been there since 2001, so I didnt feel right taking away someones cache that had lasted for so long, even though it was in need of help.

Link to comment
Since y'all have jumped all over the original poster, let me try hard to muddy the water some:

Not too muddy there. The spirit of the game is to find caches. It's OK if the entity that finds the caches is comprised of more than one person. Your hypotheticals are all OK and very different than the person discussed in this thread.

Link to comment
Since y'all have jumped all over the original poster, let me try hard to muddy the water some:

The difference is you or your team found the cache and signed the log.

Thanks for the explanation. But as usual I am not being clear.

 

The point I was trying to make, too indirectly, is that all rules are arbitrary. It's only when you've been doing something for a while they seem like the only possible way things could be.

 

So when a newbie asks for a rule clarification, it's always good to give a straightforward explanation (as many responders in this thread have done). Like, "No, you have to have signed the logbook for it to count."

 

Now that the "entity" rule has been explained to me, I think I'll go off and form a mailing list of a couple hundred cachers, we could call ourselves

Virtuoso_Cacher, and everytime one of us finds a cache, we'll all log it.

 

Just kidding! Just kidding! Anyway, somebody's probably done it.

Link to comment
I'm not sure what kind of pretzel logic you could use, to call not finding something, a find.

 

Not trying to be a smart@ss, but why would you even have to ask?

 

That's not rhetorical, I really want to know what the logic sequence was in the thought process, that would log a find for that. I'm not saying you're trying to cheat, or up your find count, heck for all I know, you don't give a crap about numbers.

 

I think where it would break down for me, is when you come to the word "find" and try to rationalize changing the definition for it. Trips me up every time.

 

Try telling the IRS you paid your taxes, when you wrote the check, got in your car, drove to the post office, but didn't put the check in the mail box. :ph34r:

It all depends on what your definition of the word 'not' is. :mad:

Used in a sentence-I did not have relations with........... :D

Link to comment
I'm not sure what kind of pretzel logic you could use, to call not finding something, a find.

 

Not trying to be a smart@ss, but why would you even have to ask?

 

That's not rhetorical, I really want to know what the logic sequence was in the thought process, that would log a find for that. I'm not  saying you're trying to cheat, or up your find count, heck for all I know, you don't give a crap about numbers.

 

I think where it would break down for me, is when you come to the word "find" and try to rationalize changing the definition for it. Trips me up every time.

 

Try telling the IRS you paid your taxes, when you wrote the check, got in your car, drove to the post office, but didn't put the check in the mail box.  B)

It all depends on what your definition of the word 'not' is. :lol:

Used in a sentence-I did not have relations with........... B)

I was thinking of that very thing when I wrote that post B) and of how sad it was, that it came out of the mouth of somebody I voted for (twice). I'm a lot better now.

Link to comment
by 5m do you mean 5miles or 5meters??

Wow...took me a little while to get back to this after a busy week.

 

First, thanks for all the responses. to answer your question...5 meters. I had started to pace back and forth to correct down to which of two trees it was hidden under when I got the call.

Link to comment
swim the hard way. He only has two virtuals and those were back in June. He's still learning what constitutes a traditional find. And sorry, I don't think close is good enough.

Not really. I just seem to have discovered that some people take this WAYY more seriously than I do. To each their own. It's a nice passtime, but that's it for me.

Link to comment
If you saw the container, why couldn't you have taken a minute to sign the log? You said that you drove 120km to get to the site, and I'm assuming that you had to drive 120km to

[...]

asked). It would take you a couple hours to drive that far so a minute isn't going to make that much difference.

Why not take a minute to sign? If it were three of your friends stuck on the side of a cliff with only a general area description, and with about an hour of daylight left....would you want to hear that one of the responders took a few minutes to sign a cache log before heading out?

 

I got to the trailhead in about 40 minutes, ran about 3-4km with gear and caught up with the ground team already en-route.

 

But to everyone who responded...thanks for the time. A lot of valid points (missing caches, etc) that make sense. There IS a reason I asked after all.

 

Of the many responses, only one was outright insulting, and to that Prime Suspect, I think you really need to investigate life's priorities.

Link to comment
Is anyone going to take particular offense if I log it as found?

Yes, as you didn't find it.

 

In my book, even just placing your hands on the cache doesn't constitute a find. You actually have to retrieve the cache, open it, sign the log, and hopefully, put it back where you found it.

 

It's not a DNF either, really, as it sounds like you didn't get a chance to look for it.

 

If you want, you can post a note of your adventure, but quite frankly, it doesn't sound like much of an adventure. Could recount the SAR activity if appropriate, though.

Link to comment

Something I wish more people considered when using find/not find/note -- and I think this's been said a time or two in this thread, but this is the critical thing for me: a find tells the cache owner that the cache is okay, it's there, it's reachable and findable. A DNF says the opposite may be true.

 

A DNF says the cache owner may have something to worry about -- MAY. I was accused, briefly, a week or two ago of playing some form of statistical gamesmanship when I stated that I wasn't posting a DNF on a cache that I only visited the area of but didn't actually search for. I saw that there was three feet of snow on the ground and said "I've dug under enough snow today, I'll come back in a month." When I told the person questioning my actions my reasoning (that I didn't want to alarm the owner by posting a DNF) he said "oh, that makes sense."

 

(Parenthetically, I've posted two DNFs recently and had the owners show up a few days later and say "you're right, the cache is gone, I'm archiving it, thanks.")

 

On the flip side, I've seen a local guy recently posting "found, but forgot to sign the logbook, d'oh!" for some local caches and I have my suspicions. I was out in the cold hunting some of the same caches and found the vicinity of one that he'd allegedly found a month earlier (when there was a LOT more snow and ice on the ground) to be completely encased in ice and snow. I mean, SERIOUS ice and snow. And even after using the hint I had to conclude "it's encased in there somewhere." Yet, this novice cacher posted a month earlier that the cache was found just hunky-dory. As a cacher, I now am wondering "a) if HE was able to find it when there was MUCH MORE ice and snow about, why the heck can't I?" and "B) should I keep at this when it's entirely possible the other cacher was fibbing and it's not reachable this time of year?"

 

I realize that the latter example only tangentially applies to the SAR team guy who started this thread. But my reason for bringing it up is this: if he doesn't KNOW the cache was there, but was only theoretically close to it according to his GPSr, by posting a find he could be misleading a fellow cacher into hunting forever for a cache that'd actually been plundered or muggled or something.

 

So my rule of thumb is: don't post a "FOUND" unless you know for a fact that you were able to get to the cache, open it, and sign the logbook. And don't post a "DNF" unless you're dang sure that you actually really searched.

 

-- Lemur (1/2 of "Otter and Lemur" aka "furrs")

Edited by furrs
Link to comment
I got to the trailhead in about 40 minutes, ran about 3-4km with gear and caught up with the ground team already en-route.

Well? Did you find the missing people? Why were they on the side of a cliff anyway? And does the rescue team get to yell at the people they rescue if they're idiots? B)

 

RichardMoore

Link to comment
Well?  Did you find the missing people?  Why were they on the side of a cliff anyway?  And does the rescue team get to yell at the people they rescue if they're idiots? B)

 

Sometimes I wish we did get to fine the serious idiots who don't take basic precautions for their own safety (like the ice fishermen the Coast Guard has to rescue from Lake Champlain every spring), but in all seriousness, everyone slips up and does dumb things now and then. I've gone out caching solo in what I thought were reasonable conditions only to find that I was coming down with something, exhausting myself, running out of water, in way-too-snowy-and-cold temperatures, and if I'd been just a little more the worse for wear, I'd have needed rescue. I learned from that one, but... hindsight is 20-20. B)

 

-- Lemur (1/2 of "Otter and Lemur" aka "furrs")

Edited by furrs
Link to comment
Well?  Did you find the missing people?  Why were they on the side of a cliff anyway?  And does the rescue team get to yell at the people they rescue if they're idiots? :blink:

 

Sometimes I wish we did get to fine the serious idiots who don't take basic precautions for their own safety (like the ice fishermen the Coast Guard has to rescue from Lake Champlain every spring), but in all seriousness, everyone slips up and does dumb things now and then. I've gone out caching solo in what I thought were reasonable conditions only to find that I was coming down with something, exhausting myself, running out of water, in way-too-snowy-and-cold temperatures, and if I'd been just a little more the worse for wear, I'd have needed rescue. I learned from that one, but... hindsight is 20-20. :D

 

-- Lemur (1/2 of "Otter and Lemur" aka "furrs")

Been there, done that. I personally have a tendency to forget to drink enough water during the summer.

That's why I said if they're idiots. From there it's just a matter of defining what an idiot is.

If the Coast Guard is rescuing the same guy every year (and you know they are), he's an idiot. And he should be fined for the cost of the rescue.

If a climber makes a mistake in judging the conditions or his own ability, let's hope he lives to learn from his mistakes. But if it is someone who puts himself in a knowingly dangerous situation just for the thrill, without taking basic precautions, and thus endangers the lives of those who go out to rescue him, he's an idiot. And the search and rescue crew should be allowed the emotional release of telling him what he did wrong, loudly.

Link to comment
Well? Did you find the missing people? Why were they on the side of a cliff anyway? And does the rescue team get to yell at the people they rescue if they're idiots? :wub:

They were on the side of a cliff. They were searching for a small waterfall in a wadi (dry river bed) which was running because of some recent rain. They went way past the fall up the bed, gained elevation including scrambling up some 10-foot or so steps (at least they did it in daylight...we had to do this by headlamp). They finally climbed to where they couldn't go up and couldn't safely get back down either.

 

Rather than lower to us, the team above decided to raise them 80m to the top of the cliff. Three people, up 80m, one of whom weighed 110kg. I got home a little later than planned. :D

 

No...I sometimes wish we could yell at some people. But as you said, we've all done some dumb things in the past. Nobody is forcing me to volunteer, so I can't justifiably yell at them. They didn't necesarily choose to get into a dangerous situation intentially. I did to go in after them. Who'se the dumb one? hehe

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...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...