Jump to content

Caching Etiquete - Log Ones We Used To Own?


rev n doc
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

In prep for our move to the east midlands we have had our caches adopted (thanks to mongoose39uk, the new owner), however this means that all though created by us they now appear as the 3 nearest caches that we havent visited.

 

do other cachers think its ok to log a find on caches you made but no longer own, we of course would not count them in our COTM stats as we already earned points when we placed them.

 

Keith

Link to comment

Erm, thats a toughie. For the same reason why I don't do locationless caches, I wouldn't want to log my own as finds as my total cache number wouldn't be accurate. Actually that doesn't explain why I hate locationless but never mind!

It's up to you, if you can "live" with knowing that when you reach a milestone (e.g. 200) you've only really done 197, fine go ahead; I certainly have no problems with others doing it. Or can you manage ignoring your top 3 caches on your list until you move?

MarcB

Link to comment

You have to think what scoring a find entails:

 

You have searched for and successfully found a cache. Be it a virtual, Locationless (OK you still have to find a matching location even though I think they are a cop-out), or Normal cache.

 

If you know the cache and placed it I think that scoring it because you have handed it over strikes me as point scoring and nothing else. Likewise the person who has adopted them should not be able to score them if you have given the exact loactions (Unless they have already found them of course).

 

Like a lot of things in this hobby it is all based on trust so if you want to score them after they are handed over and the Geocacher who has adopted them wants to score them post passover then that is up to you. Personally I would not count them.

 

thanks

 

Chris

Link to comment

Rev n Doc are listed as the placers of the caches and i as the person adopting them.

 

I may have a solution.

 

A temporary but minor variation in the location of the caches for a short period to allow a legitamate search.

 

If this is acceptable just let me know when and I will make the changes.

 

I think this would keep everyone happy!

 

Cheers

 

Tony

Link to comment

Why? :o

 

* What outcome are you hoping to achieve from logging them as a find?

 

* Why is it important to you to log them?

 

Questions I would ask myself if I was contemplating such a thing.

 

What does it matter what other people think anyway? Only you have to live with your decision!

Link to comment

Lassitude,

 

I've just spent the whole evening finding a Locationless (A Pair of Quintuplets GC338E). It involved wading waist-deep in the sea, climbing a 200 foot cliff, clambering over barbed wire, avoiding bulls, and four miles of walking.

 

Some cop-out!

 

I've done all the traditional geocaches I can get to without spending £100+ on travel costs (except one), so locationless have their uses (not as worthwhile as trad caches of course, but as you can see, can be a challenge and are useful when the traditionals are exhausted). I think strict quality control is essential for these, however, as some are just a bit too silly :o .

 

To reply to the main thread, I would never want to log one of my own caches even after adoption. Geocaching may seem pointless to some people but that seems pointless even to a geocacher: the stats don't matter that much, surely?

 

HH

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

I think they said that they didn't want them appearing in the search of caches yet to be found.

 

I have a similar problem. I have been searching for caches working in order starting with nearest to home.

 

I have now got to a cache that has been removed by vandals. It seems that the owner will not relace it. Others have claimed it as a virtual as they have in their opinion got to the required location.

 

So what should I do? Claim it as a virtual so it gets cleared off my list or just live with the knowledge that everytime I do a search for not found, this will come up top of the list?

Link to comment
Lassitude,

 

I've just spent the whole evening finding a Locationless (A Pair of Quintuplets GC338E). It involved wading waist-deep in the sea, climbing a 200 foot cliff, clambering over barbed wire, avoiding bulls, and four miles of walking.

 

Some cop-out!

 

I've done all the traditional geocaches I can get to without spending £100+ on travel costs (except one), so locationless have their uses (not as worthwhile as trad caches of course, but as you can see, can be a challenge and are useful when the traditionals are exhausted). I think strict quality control is essential for these, however, as some are just a bit too silly  :o .

 

I'm going to stick up for Lassitude here...

 

A pair of quintuplets (and other co-ordinate based locationlesses such as the one which requires you to log it at a certain time and place) is one of the few locationless I agree with. With these you *need* a GPS (which fulfils the GEO part of Geocaching at least) and it takes a fair amount of skill.

 

But with the normal locationless (such as "find a church with a tower" or whatever) it is neither a cache (something that is hidden) or requires a GPS (apart from taking a picture with it in, which could theoretically be photoshopped in to any old picture off the internet).

 

MarcB

Edited by MarcB
Link to comment
I think they said that they didn't want them appearing in the search of caches yet to be found.

 

I have a similar problem. I have been searching for caches working in order starting with nearest to home.

 

I have now got to a cache that has been removed by vandals. It seems that the owner will not relace it. Others have claimed it as a virtual as they have in their opinion got to the required location.

 

So what should I do? Claim it as a virtual so it gets cleared off my list or just live with the knowledge that everytime I do a search for not found, this will come up top of the list?

Unless I could find a piece of the cache (such as the lid, logbook or cache item) I would log it a DNF or Should Be Archived. :o

Link to comment

Thanks for all your replies, :o we just wanted to know what the "done thing" was. We've looked at other adopted caches, and the original owners haven't logged those either.

Thanks to Tony (Mongoose) for his kind offer, but there's no need to move the caches, we won't be logging them.

We'll look forward to placing lots of new caches in Northampton when we get there! :lol:

Link to comment
I have now got to a cache that has been removed by vandals. It seems that the owner will not relace it. Others have claimed it as a virtual as they have in their opinion got to the required location.

This sounds very much like "lack of maintenance" and the cache should be looked at with a view to getting it archived.

 

You could post a "Should be archived" note which will eventually find its way to me. Alternatively just send me the details and I'll check it out.

Link to comment
I have now got to a cache that has been removed by vandals.  It seems that the owner will not relace it.  Others have claimed it as a virtual as they have in their opinion got to the required location.

This sounds very much like "lack of maintenance" and the cache should be looked at with a view to getting it archived.

 

You could post a "Should be archived" note which will eventually find its way to me. Alternatively just send me the details and I'll check it out.

E-mail on its way.

Edited by kbootb
Link to comment

rev n doc,

 

I think you've made the right decision - although I understand about having your search cluttered by adopted caches, it's surely better than having three bogus finds on your record for ever more! Ideally, the Groundspeak software should have an option to allow you to exclude caches for which you've posted a note - then you could just post the note to say it's been adopted and it would disappear from the search.

 

MarcB - sorry, this should have been a separate thread - I think the reason that Quintuplets seems to be an acceptable Locationless is that really it's a group of Virtual caches. You have to get to a spot which the cache setter has defined, and return a photo proving your visit. It's just that there are many of these spots and they haven't actually been listed in the cache description, although they could be, in principle.

 

For this cache I think you should be able to log it even if someone else already has - you can easily find out exactly where the nearest one is, it's actually getting there that is the challenge. The fact that a particular site is visited repeatedly is perhaps in the essence of Geocaching.

 

I know the photo can be faked, but the usual Virtual Cache question is also open to abuse - such cheating has its own punishment attached however so I wouldn't be worried about that at all.

 

HH

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 1
×
×
  • Create New...