Jump to content

Team Caching


AtoZ

Recommended Posts

If a group of people do a cache and the cache is found by the team, but only one person can actually access the cache then can the each member claim the cache or only the one person that was capable of reaching the cache. E.G. it was on the end of a pencil thin tree branch that took the praless of a monkey to reach and the cache was fixed to the end of the brach so it could not be removed.

A group of us did one cache and I was the only one with the skill to be able to get the cache and open it does everyone claim it. I think so since it was a team effort to get there but the owner thinks not, Not sure??????

cheers

Link to comment
If a group of people do a cache and the cache is found by the team, but only one person can actually access the cache then can the each member claim the cache or only the one person that was capable of reaching the cache. E.G. it was on the end of a pencil thin tree branch that took the praless of a monkey to reach and the cache was fixed to the end of the brach so it could not be removed.

A group of us did one cache and I was the only one with the skill to be able to get the cache and open it does everyone claim it. I think so since it was a team effort to get there but the owner thinks not, Not sure??????

cheers

How about starting with the cache name or a link to the cache?

Link to comment

By my rules, everbody was there everybody can log. The owner seems to think differently and it's their cache so their rules.

 

As Lap said, it would help to have a link to the cache in question. Normally everyone is able to log the cache directly in a group find. In this case though only one could of done it and had you not been there the group would of left with a DNF. So it's not looking all that cut and dry and the link might help.

Link to comment

I don't think there is any reason we need to know the specific cache or cache owner ... the likely result is that cache owner would be subjected to harrassment and ridicule. The final determination of whether any find claimed is legitimate lies with the owner of the cache. Some owners are more reasonable (stringent, lenient) than others. Such is life.

 

If a group of people do a cache and the cache is found by the team, but only one person can actually access the cache then can the each member claim the cache or only the one person that was capable of reaching the cache.  ... A group of us did one cache and I was the only one with the skill to be able to get the cache and open it does everyone claim it.  I think so since it was a team effort to get there but the owner thinks not,  Not sure??????

cheers

In the region I live, I notice that the standard practice is for all people present for the "group hunt" to sign the log and claim their find online, regardless of who found and/or retrieved the cache. Most cache owners don't appear to have a problem with that.

 

A less common practice in my region is for each member of the group hunt to spot the cache for him/herself, but no one physically retrieves the cache until each has spotted it for him/herself. Still, as I understand it, only one person retrieves the cache for all to sign.

 

Isn't that one of the reasons behind quite a few group hunts for caches with high difficulty ratings? So that people lacking a specific skill or activity could participate? But as stated at the top of this post, it's the owner's call.

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment

The is a 75 foot rappel requires you to stop after about 25 ft and lock off then to grab the cache stuck in a crack and open it grab the log book and sign it then replace the cache and unlock your self drop the remaining 50 ft on to the bottom. Most folks are not use to this. So people helped haul the rope and gear I just thought it was a team effort. There is a nother local cache that requites scuba that I had planed to do as a team, I didnt want to haul all the gear row the boat etc then make the dive by myself. But I don't know what it is all about. But I can see the oweners point of view he wanted an ELITE cache that only a few folks could do so I guess the owners rules.

cheers

Link to comment
The owner seems to think differently and it's their cache so their rules.

Okay, I'll try and stir up a bit of trouble here. :unsure:

 

Although most all of us like to support ethical caching and try to honor the effort and thus propriety of the cache owners, most geocaches are public domain. Not many cache "owners" could support any claim of "ownership" in a court of law even it they have full responsibility for it. <_<

 

On top of that, many cache hunters would have no clue what the owner's log preference might be. AND, geocaching is a very personal experience for many of us. We respect the cache owner, but I'll be damned if they have any business telling me whether or not I have the right to consider myself a "finder" of the cache or not. With a few exceptions (such as organized events or special caches where the "finder" gets unusual recognition, and should thus probably be hunting it alone or competitively to begin with), I believe the dicision to claim a find (or not) is entirely personal. Hauty cache owners be damned.

Link to comment
In the region I live, I notice that the standard practice is for all people present for the "group hunt" to sign the log and claim their find online, regardless of who found and/or retrieved the cache. Most cache owners don't appear to have a problem with that.

 

A less common practice in my region is for each member of the group hunt to spot the cache for him/herself, but no one physically retrieves the cache until each has spotted it for him/herself. Still, as I understand it, only one person retrieves the cache for all to sign.

 

Really? I've been on a number of group hunts and the latter method is far more common.

 

Isn't that one of the reasons behind quite a few group hunts for caches with high difficulty ratings? So that people lacking a specific skill or activity could participate?

 

No, its for people to meet each other, socialize and have an enjoyable time together.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
The owner seems to think differently and it's their cache so their rules.

Okay, I'll try and stir up a bit of trouble here. :unsure:

 

Although most all of us like to support ethical caching and try to honor the effort and thus propriety of the cache owners, most geocaches are public domain. Not many cache "owners" could support any claim of "ownership" in a court of law even it they have full responsibility for it. <_<

 

On top of that, many cache hunters would have no clue what the owner's log preference might be. AND, geocaching is a very personal experience for many of us. We respect the cache owner, but I'll be damned if they have any business telling me whether or not I have the right to consider myself a "finder" of the cache or not. With a few exceptions (such as organized events or special caches where the "finder" gets unusual recognition, and should thus probably be hunting it alone or competitively to begin with), I believe the dicision to claim a find (or not) is entirely personal. Hauty cache owners be damned.

If the rules are listed in the cache page, and you are not wanting to comply with them, best to just not do the cache. it would not be reasonable to expect the cache owner to bend the rules for any one persons personal take on that cache.

 

This cache in question needs to be listed so we can read the page and see what it says. I have one cache remaining where there is a rule to comply with. Were you to find it and refuse to follow it (and keep your log) would it be fair to the other finders who did follow the rule? Not at all.

 

Oh, and it is my cache and I'll lay odds that while the courts would rather not see the case they would uphold it as the cache owners property just the same as if someone stole your soda off your park bench when you werent looking. Wrong is wrong whether or not the magnitude of the offence is stealing your car or your soda. Naturally one gets a lot more attention than the other.

Link to comment
If a group of people do a cache and the cache is found by the team, but only one person can actually access the cache then can the each member claim the cache or only the one person that was capable of reaching the cache.

 

If they don't sign the logbook, then they cannot log... is this not one of the basic principles?

 

If you toss the logbook down to them and they sign it, then they can log.

 

Edit:typo

Edited by Delta-S
Link to comment
If the rules are listed in the cache page, and you are not wanting to comply with them, best to just not do the cache.  it would not be reasonable to expect the cache owner to bend the rules for any one persons personal take on that cache.

I must be feeling ornery today. <_< Too much work I don't want to get going on I suppose.

 

At any rate, I think we need to differentiate between logging a cache find on geocaching.com vs. logging the find in the physical log book or ones personal records. If there are special rules listing what can and cannot be logged on geocaching.com, then of course those rules should be respected as far as the on-line log goes.

 

But, caches are placed primarily on public property, and to suggest that someone doesn't have the right to or shouldn't hunt for a cache unless they follow the cache owners "rules" is obserd. Respect the community and it's wishes in public such that you don't spoil the fun for others. :unsure: But within the bounds of not spoiling it for others, do what you darn well please in the privacy of your own group hunt (consenting participants only please). :ph34r:

Link to comment

It is pretty easy to find which cache is being discussed. In looking at the cache page, a group of people hiked a good distance to get to this cache, and their names are mentioned in the two recent "found it" logs, but only two members of the group have "found it" logs. Both of their logs mention rappelling down to access the cache. One can speculate that the logs of the other finders were deleted by the cache owner.

 

There then appears a note log from the cache owner, several days later, which states:

 

I just want to be clear on this point. If you want to log this cache as a find you actually have to find it! i.e. If you don't rappel down to the box you didn't find it.

 

Sorry but you can't log a 5 difficulty by walking to it's vicinity.

 

Nothing on this point is stated in the cache description itself.

 

I found the cache owner's insistence on strict logging compliance to be especially ironic in view of the fact that he logged a find on his own cache while performing a maintenance visit and retrieving a travel bug from his cache.

Link to comment

Many of the arguments (Pro & Con) here are valid.

 

In my experience, people who "TRY" to exercise control over another's caching activity usually get their comeuppance. Everyone who saw the famous episode of Seinfeld *knows* what happened to the Soup Nazi. Word of mouth about Cache Nazi's travels fast. It's a favorite subject at events and on the various geocaching forums. Their caches seldom get visited or go missing entirely. (There is no shortage of type "A" personalities in this sport.)

 

Personally, if *I* had signed that log. I would claim a find.

 

If it was my cache, the more the merrier, unless someone actually claimed that they didn't sign the log in their online entry.

 

"Everyone plays their own game. There is no sense in trying to police another's mindset as long as it falls within the general parameters of the game." Me (quoting myself from the poll that I posted on 10/23/03.)

 

No one is handing out gold bars to the person with the best stats. (Yes, that's what this thread is about. *STATS*)

 

The criteria is too subjective for stats to have anything but a personal value. I'm proud of my own stats, but some other type "A" personality would consider the fact that I log my own hosted events as a find and that I consider counting coup on travel bugs to be a valid practice, to be cheating. I don't care. I neither ask permission, nor do I need validation in how I choose to play *MY* game. I play within the guidelines and that's enough for me. I don’t spend a bunch of time looking over the fence into my neighbor’s yard and worrying if they used miracle grow on their prize winning tomatoes if you ken my meaning. What’s the effing point???

 

I have only deleted one find on one of my caches. I did it to keep “The Cache Exterminator” from getting any validation that his efforts to disrupt one of my caches had worked. I quickly emailed the finder and told her to log her find again without mentioning the jerk.

 

It’s unfortunate that the cache owner in this question feels the need to exercise such control over another’s subjective notion of a find, but I don’t feel the finger of shame needs to be pointed at him either. He is, after all, playing his own game. Even if it means that fewer people will want to play it with him.

 

SNOOGAV.jpg

Link to comment
Isn't that one of the reasons behind quite a few group hunts for caches with high difficulty ratings? So that people lacking a specific skill or activity could participate?

 

No, its for people to meet each other, socialize and have an enjoyable time together.

 

Oh. I thought that's why there are "event caches" at beer joints every few weeks. I would certainly not argue that socializing is not also a reason for group hunts, Brian.

Link to comment
Isn't that one of the reasons behind quite a few group hunts for caches with high difficulty ratings? So that people lacking a specific skill or activity could participate?

 

No, its for people to meet each other, socialize and have an enjoyable time together.

 

Oh. I thought that's why there are "event caches" at beer joints every few weeks. I would certainly not argue that socializing is not also a reason for group hunts, Brian.

Well I can't think of a group hunt yet that was put together so "that people lacking a specific skill or activity could participate". They were all, at least the ones I'm aware of, chiefly put togethr for social reasons.

Link to comment
Well I can't think of a group hunt yet that was put together so  "that people lacking a specific skill or activity could participate".

I can. If memory doesn't fail me, that was precisely the reason for the earliest group hunts in our region. I can think of a tree or two people couldn't/wouldn't climb, a reach or two where long arms were required and people wouldn't/couldn't "stick their arm in there," a hazardous climb or two where people afraid of heights (or who were of a certain girth) could not access the cache. Not to mention several caches that were just plain well-hidden where people who had previously failed on their own joined forces for another try (or two.) Oh, yes ... it would be remiss not to include the many group efforts at solving "puzzle" or "mystery" caches.

 

The purely social group hunt in our area appears to have gained in popularity only within the past year to year-and-a-half.

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment
I must be feeling ornery today. <_< Too much work I don't want to get going on I suppose.

 

At any rate, I think we need to differentiate between logging a cache find on geocaching.com vs. logging the find in the physical log book or ones personal records. If there are special rules listing what can and cannot be logged on geocaching.com, then of course those rules should be respected as far as the on-line log goes.

 

But, caches are placed primarily on public property, and to suggest that someone doesn't have the right to or shouldn't hunt for a cache unless they follow the cache owners "rules" is obserd. Respect the community and it's wishes in public such that you don't spoil the fun for others. :unsure: But within the bounds of not spoiling it for others, do what you darn well please in the privacy of your own group hunt (consenting participants only please). :ph34r:

Nice rant deleted because I re-read your post and we pretty much agree "in principal" just not a few specifics.

 

I'll add that when you seek a cache you really should try to comply with the owners theme/rules as that too is part of the spirit of the game. While finding a NASCAR hotwheel can be PITA at times, the hunt itself for the theme item is also a quest of sorts.

Link to comment
I'll add that when you seek a cache you really should try to comply with the owners theme/rules as that too is part of the spirit of the game.

That may be part of the spirit of your game and frankly it is also a big part of the spirit of my game. :D But, since when SHOULD we, as free citizens out having fun feel compelled to follow what someone else thinks we SHOULD do just because we are hunting for something that they hid. :ph34r:

 

If we choose to participate according to the cache "owner's rules, more power to us. :unsure: If we choose to have fun by breaking the "rules", why not, :huh: so long as we don't spoil it for others, aren't we out here to have fun. I guarantee that my wife doesn't have fun doing things the same way I do, or even the way I think she SHOULD, but she sure as heck has the right to have her own fun. <_<

Link to comment
I'll add that when you seek a cache you really should try to comply with the owners theme/rules as that too is part of the spirit of the game.

That may be part of the spirit of your game and frankly it is also a big part of the spirit of my game. :D But, since when SHOULD we, as free citizens out having fun feel compelled to follow what someone else thinks we SHOULD do just because we are hunting for something that they hid. :ph34r:

 

If we choose to participate according to the cache "owner's rules, more power to us. :unsure: If we choose to have fun by breaking the "rules", why not, :huh: so long as we don't spoil it for others, aren't we out here to have fun. I guarantee that my wife doesn't have fun doing things the same way I do, or even the way I think she SHOULD, but she sure as heck has the right to have her own fun. <_<

23 posts and you have flipped me more crap than some mods all year. I look forward to seeing you in other threads!

 

Edit: Ok it wasn't actually crap. Just a good debate.

Edit 2: Back on topic. Log the dang cache. The owner wasn't clear on it. Make them work at deleting your logs for not following rules that they didn't have yet.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

I know which cache is being discussed here and two of the cachers involved are good friends of mine (I haven't met the others in person yet!). I got invited on this caching trip and, unfortunately, couldn't make it.

 

My real issue with this cache is that the owner's rule about "if you didn't go down the mountain, you can't claim it" was NOT posted on the cache page when this group of people went to find the cache. He only added it as an afterthought.

 

If this had been my cache, I would let them log it as a find. Their name is in the logbook and they did indeed help out the group when looking for this cache. If I suddenly had a change of heart and decided to change the 'rule', I would leave those logs as is and consider them grandfathered in since the log was signed before the rule was made.

 

Anyway, this just really disappoints me because the two cachers that are good friends of mine had a great day caching with some new friends and truly put forth a great effort on their hunts that day (they found other ones, not just that one). I can only imagine how I would feel if I logged a difficult cache as a find and then the owner decided that he was going to delete it because of a rule he just thought of.

 

To me, being able to log this as a find is not about the numbers or stats. It is about feeling a sense of accomplishment that your group went for it and succeeded when MANY others wouldn't even attempt such a thing. Then the cache owner decides that I accomplished nothing and my efforts were worthless?

 

If it were me, I would log my find as a note. I would say that I did indeed help find this cache and my name is in the logbook but the rules have changed and I am not allowed to log it as a find. But then again, I can be a trouble maker sometimes. <_<

 

Opinions on whether this was a valid 'find' or not is what the OP was asking about. I think it was a valid find. That is how I feel but I am sure many others will feel differently. :unsure::ph34r::huh:

Edited by Imajika
Link to comment

Hey all,

 

I was one of the cachers on this trip, and I was one of the ones who had a 'find' deleted because we hadn't actually completed the rope trip down. Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier, but I wasn't aware our adventure was being discussed here until a friend mentioned it to me.

 

My take on it is about as mixed as everyone else here. When AtoZ and Vader did the original rope drop I hadn't even considered that I would log it as a find, which was fine with me. There was no way I was skilled enough to rappell down that cliff face, so I was happy just to be there for 'moral support'. But, AtoZ was nice enough to sign the log book for all of us once he got there, and after he did, I had to agree with him. We'd all went out there together, encouraged and cajoled each other on the log hike up the mountain, and we were around for the setup for the rappell, etc. As a group, it didn't seem to be in the spirit of our adventure for us not to all log in the find as we had all participated in one way or another on the journey. It was a shared experience and therefore a shared find.

 

In my opinion, the option should go to the actual finder. If after all the work AtoZ did to get down to the cache he felt we deserved to go into the book with him, then I am proud to have my name there. It means he thought enough of us to count us in on his 'find' and thats enough for me. None of the cachers that were there that day are the kind to worry about the number of finds on our stat page. We were there for a unique experience and to enjoy the trip with each other. AtoZ understood this and put our names in the book because we had done it, ultimately, together.

 

Perhaps another 'finder' on this or a similar cache would feel that the group shouldn't share the find. He got to the log book, and I think that should be his decision. Had I ASKED AtoZ to add me to that book even though I knew I couldnt get to it, I would have felt ashamed. But if in his mind we merited sharing his find with him, and added us because of that unprompted, who is to say we didn't?

 

So, ultimately, I guess I have to say I felt it was wrong for our find to be deleted, but I don't want to take the power out of the cache-placer's hands just because he doesn't agree with my vision. I'm going to go back to that page and log a note to let people know I was there and what a great time I had with my friends, because thats what it was all about for me. Ultimately, I don't care about the smiley. The day this becomes all about numbers for me is that day I put my garmin up on ebay.

 

So, there's my take. Happy caching all!

Link to comment

A solution:

 

Wait until this weekend; log it as a find on that date and put in the log that you had to go all the way back out and do the rapel and sign the book, but you made darn sure to sign it with the date you were originally there and you can't help it if your handwriting looks like your friend's.

 

The part about the handwriting is optional. If he wants to be a stickler after you say that you went there the following week and jumped down the cliff yourself, he'll have to check the logbook...and that's when he'll find your name signed in. If you claim to backdate the log, there's no way to validate one story over the other.

Link to comment
Wait until this weekend; log it as a find on that date and put in the log that you had to go all the way back out and do the rapel and sign the book, but you made darn sure to sign it with the date you were originally there and you can't help it if your handwriting looks like your friend's.

 

HAHAHAHA

 

Sneaky and I have to admit such a thing never occurred to me. :unsure:

 

Ultimately though, its not really about the find anyway. I went and wrote my little note thanking all my friends for a great time. Hopefully the cache owner leaves that there, and that'll be good enough for me.

 

If I ever need to get my numbers up though, maybe I'll use that trick:

 

I visited this and all the other 500 finds I listed tonight, but I accidentally signed the logbook with someone else's name and handwriting and last weeks date. <_<

Link to comment
I was one of the cachers on this trip, and I was one of the ones who had a 'find' deleted because we hadn't actually completed the rope trip down. ...  My take on it is about as mixed as everyone else here. When AtoZ and Vader did the original rope drop I hadn't even considered that I would log it as a find ...  There was no way I was skilled enough to rappell down that cliff face, so I was happy just to be there for 'moral support'. But, AtoZ was nice enough to sign the log book for all of us once he got there ... As a group, it didn't seem to be in the spirit of our adventure for us not to all log in the find as we had all participated in one way or another on the journey. It was a shared experience and therefore a shared find.

You said it yourself: "It was a shared experience and therefore a shared find." No "plurals" anywhere in the sentence. So the person who found the cache should log it online and mention all of your names in his log. Feel free to add your own stories to the webpage with an "I was almost there, too" note.

 

As I stated in an earlier post, the cache owner had the discretion to allow or deny any online log. But I do consider it cheesy to claim a find when one hasn't in the very least personally handled and signed the logbook.

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment

My wife doesn't consider herself a geocacher, she just accompanies me every now and then when I'm caching. Still, on several occasions she has actually been the one who found the cache when I was still staring at my GPSr.

 

Should I now delete all my find logs where I wasn't the finder? :lol:

Link to comment
My wife doesn't consider herself a geocacher, she just accompanies me every now and then when I'm caching. Still, on several occasions she has actually been the one who found the cache when I was still staring at my GPSr.

 

Should I now delete all my find logs where I wasn't the finder? :lol:

Did you sign the logbook? :( I guess you should refer the question to each cache owner for his/her official determination. :o

Link to comment

Of all my finds, the only one that I have a qualm about is one where the cache was on the supports of a RR bridge. Several of us went for this one. Two people climbed down below the tracks to the support. Me and one other person attempted to, but could not squeeze between the ties (not a cache for anyone over a 36 inch waist).

 

One of the two who made it down to the support spotted the cache, which was attached to the bottom of a narrow metal beam, about 10 feet out from the bridge support. The other made his way out on the beam, which was suspended 40 some feet over a shallow stream, to grab the cache. My part involved reaching down through the RR ties to grab the cache from the second person, so he could make his way back across the beam without worrying about carrying the cache. When he went back to replace the cache, I also handed it back to him once he got back into position to replace it.

 

I claimed the find for several reasons. I helped with the retreival, I personally signed the log and the owner was there and said it was OK. I don't think I would have have claimed the find if my part was limited to cheering on the other participants and having them sign the log for me. I've long considered changing my find to a note, because its the only find that makes me feel uncomfortable for claiming.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
... I claimed the find for several reasons. I helped with the retreival, I personally signed the log and the owner was there and said it was OK.

Let's see, Brian:

 

1. Personally signed the log

2. The cache owner determined an online "found it" log would be appropriate.

 

Precisely the "terms" recommended in this thread.

 

"Attaboy!"

Link to comment

Okay... you know what, I personally thought I handled this politely and with class, but someone has gone and attacked me personally in the log for this cache:

 

August 24 by n0wae (641 found)

 

Switchdoc,

Controversy? There is no controversy...you claimed a cache you didn't find. If it was a one star cache it would be cheesy enough but to do it on a 5 star technical cache is an outrage. I dare you to post a thread in the forums asking if it was ok for you to claim this cache without going to it or signing the log. Your same post as a note would have been fine but you claimed the cache without doing it. An then to log on with a sock puppet account and bash the cache owner is shameless. At least he rappelled the cliff to place the cache. This cache isn't hidden...it's in plain sight. The challenge isn't finding it but rather the skills and guts it takes to go to it. It might not be politically correct for Big_G to claim his own cache but he has the skills and guts and was good enough to place a unique cache for other cachers to earn. You didn't earn it...You cheated and got caught.

 

Let me respond to this because I am so angry I can barely even think straight. Lets take this point by point

 

Controversy? There is no controversy...you claimed a cache you didn't find. If it was a one star cache it would be cheesy enough but to do it on a 5 star technical cache is an outrage.

 

OKay, first of all there IS controversy as anyone who has read this thread can attest to. Some people think the way the find was logged was 100 percent appropriate, other think it should be a no find. There IS controvery here, and I merely alluded to it in my note because someone below me had made a post to the log about it before I wrote my note. I mentioned it not to say I thought it should be a find, but to note that it DID NOT MATTER TO ME WHETHER IT COUNTED AS A FIND OR NOT, I WAS JUST HAPPY ABOUT THE TRIP. Apparently n0wae would rather bash people then take the time to research what the truth is in a matter.

 

I dare you to post a thread in the forums asking if it was ok for you to claim this cache without going to it or signing the log.

 

I DID in fact respond to to the forum topic started about this find, and that topic did receive some support from the 'this is okay as a find' point of view. Your dare is ridiculous. Certainly people have different opinions about whether this is a find or not. I am not afraid of that, and I am certainly not afraid of the community outrage you were apparently thinking would be heaped upon me if I 'dared' to post about this. Its fairly obvious there are mixed feelings about this, but everyone in the geocaching community except you, n0wae, responded with class and dignity.

 

Your same post as a note would have been fine but you claimed the cache without doing it.

 

Sure I claimed it as a find orginally! I thought it was! When it was deleted, then it wasn't!

 

So, I came back and wrote a note. Here are the exact details so that no one here will be confused:

 

To begin with, when I logged in, this had recently been added to the log:

 

" August 23 by Ranger One (0 found)

Interesting how a cache owner who is so concerned about finders following protocol in order to log this cache, has violated another long standing protocol by logging a find on his own cache."

 

I had not been planning to mention anything at all about the fact my find had been deleted. But when I saw Ranger One's post I figured I should sasy something so someone coming after me might know what was going on, and to indicate that I was fine with the fact it had been labeled as a note only. So I wrote:

 

"Controversy about a find versus not-find nonwithstanding, I wanted to put a note in to let people know I was here and what an amazing time I had with my friends Vader, Spammer, AtoZ, and TheWife (who really is my wife). "

 

Where the heck do you see me arguing I found this or trying to claim it as a find? All I said was I was there (meaning on the trip) and I had a good time! Again, n0wae you don't have your facts straight. When I logged it as a find I thought it was. When the cache owner said it wasn't then it wasn't so I posted a note. I even tried to defuse the situation by saying the find wasn't what was important to me. And STILL you come out with venom and claws. You seriously need to rethink how you relate to people.

 

But, for now, lets continue shall we? I am not done with you.

 

An then to log on with a sock puppet account and bash the cache owner is shameless.

 

What the hell are you talking about??? I most certainly did NOT do this, and because I know that for a fact, I have to assume you are just making this up in an attempt to discredit me. If you had read my post on this topic you would see that I was polite and respectful to the cache owner, UPHOLDING HIS RIGHT to delete my find. I stated my opinion openly and honestly in my response to this topic. I was respectful to the community and the the cache-owner. I don't have a major problem with the fact that this wasn't a find. I don't need to attack the cache owner. I have no issues with Big_G at all. I don't even know him!

 

This cache isn't hidden...it's in plain sight. The challenge isn't finding it but rather the skills and guts it takes to go to it. It might not be politically correct for Big_G to claim his own cache but he has the skills and guts and was good enough to place a unique cache for other cachers to earn.

 

I didn't attack Big_G for logging his own cache as a find. There were others here who felt that was inappropriate but I don't care either way to be honest. I mean it's just a little number on a little stat sheet. Sheesh.

 

You didn't earn it...You cheated and got caught.

 

Okay for starters, when AtoZ signed the log, he thought we had ALL earned it.

 

Secondly, I didnt cheat. CHEATING would have been to let AtoZ sign the logbook for me and then write up my find on the site like I had done the rappell when I hadn't. I didn't do that. I was completely honest, fully aware that if the cache-owner disagreed he may delete the log. He did, and I accepted it. I wrote a post in the forum explaining my position but, and let me capitalize this again, I UPHELD THE CACHE-OWNERS RIGHT TO DELETE MY FIND. Go read my post, its right there.

 

In fact, here, let me quote it for you:

 

So, ultimately, I guess I have to say I felt it was wrong for our find to be deleted, but I don't want to take the power out of the cache-placer's hands just because he doesn't agree with my vision.

 

I go on to say that I am going to write a note because I want people to know I was there. There being, on the side of a mountain, exhausted, and scared out of my mind with four great cachers who understand this isn't a game about numbers but about adventure and friendship.

 

The very fact you had to attack me for this means you don't understand that. If you just want to have the highest score, go play a video game.

 

-Switchdoc

 

edit: spelling

Edited by switchdoc
Link to comment

Just one more quick thing...

 

I am assuming that Ranger One is the account n0wae thought was a sock puppet since it shows zero finds and was the account under which the log about Big_G logging his own cache was listed.

 

Doing a bit of research shows that this account has been active and posting since February of this year, which is way before I began caching or posting on these forums. Only 18 posts, but reading them should be enough to show you it isn't a brand new account, and that it isn't me.

 

-Switchdoc

Link to comment

I had to EDIT this since I didn't really read SDoc's long diatride, but I DIDN"T NOT WANT TO CAUSE SUCH and out cry. I didnt mention names on either side, maybe we need differant login names on the Forum then on the cache pages so people dont look us up. Yes I am guilty of that crime to so just take me a way and hang me over TOWER CAVE, but your have to haul me there first, LOL. Okay can we just play nice now.

 

Boy has this been, well not really kind of sort of a heated debate. But I can understand the cache owner's spirit now that I have given it some thought. It was ment to be an adventure cache. It took a few minutes to set up and then a few minutes to jump over the edge and a few minutes to sign the log and replace it and then climb back up the hill. I know the owner just want to have some unique experiances with this cache. So I can understand after a few minutes thought but it just caught me off guard when I looked to see the deletins on the cache page, I guess I'm still new at this. But still I thought it was a team effort so why shouldnt the whole team take credit. And in the future I'll checke with the cache owner to see if I will violate any rules before I sign the log book. No one coimbs Mt Everest all by themselves, just a thought.

Cheers

 

Ol and thanks for all the responses.

Edited by AtoZ
Link to comment

I didn't mean to get quite so heated AtoZ, as I too have no issues with the no-find on the cache.

 

The diatribe was prompted when, after all the great discussion here, (which convinced me after going back and reading it that the cache-owner is right in deleting the log for this btw) n0wae logged the venomous entry to the cache log, publicly calling me a liar and cheat and accusing me of disparaging Big_G via a sock puppet account.

 

Regardless of whether I was right or wrong, there was no need for that. I'm new, I'm still learning, but I'm one of the good guys. I am environmentally wary, I trade up or even, and I love and respect the activity, I love racking up finds but I know its not all about numbers. I try my best to do only things that put geocaching in a positive light.

 

To those who took the time to give opinions and even gentle correction, thank you. I have a better understanding of how this should work.

 

lets consider this one closed. :lol:

Link to comment

First, in my area if folks go out together they don't share finds. Each finder keeps it a secret until everyone's found it.

 

So my attitude is, "if you haven't done the work, why would you claim credit?"

 

However, the owner could have avoided bad feelings if he clearly made this restriction on the cache page.

 

Not having done so, he could have been excessively courteous and allowed the finds to stand and changing the cache page.

 

However, he opted to hold folks to an unpublished but common social standard.

 

I'm fine with that.

 

How the argument comes, "but we all helped carry gear and participated". So then make a team sock-puppet account and credit the find to that!

 

If the individuals who rappelled couldn't have without the support team--were I them I wouldn't claim a find.

 

That's like saying, I drove the car and navigated so I should get credit for you jumping out in the rain and hiking up the hill to bring the logbook back to me!?!!

 

Just like the husband whose wife finds some of them--that's a team effort with one find credited to their mutual account.

 

However, there's NO call for bad-mouthing anyone. The owner made a mistake not mentioning his stringent logging requirements, that's all.

 

That doesn't eliminate his responsibility or perogative to remove what he considers false finds.

 

It's hardly "cheating" however since he didn't delineate such.

 

So the owner can get off his high horse and edit the cache page. The 'finders' can accept that the owner has the power of the delete button.

 

Enjoy,

 

Randy

 

PS: Evil options include posting a note, then editing that to a "find" months down the road if the numbers mean that much to your ego, or deleting all your finds from any of the owners cache pages and never logging another cache of his again. But yeesh, you enjoyed the experience and that can never be taken away from you, don't mar it by harping on these negative repercussions!

Link to comment
First, in my area if folks go out together they don't share finds. Each finder keeps it a secret until everyone's found it.

 

So my attitude is, "if you haven't done the work, why would you claim credit?"...

I find it varies by group.

 

Some are "all for one and one for all" and some are "find your own dadgum cache".

 

When groups mix it gets interesting.

Link to comment

I am completely amazed!

 

A cache is a gift of aventure to the community by the cache owner. It is not a highly structured control system to enable a cache owner to force others to comply to his or her various whims.

 

If you gave someone a camera to take pictures of their geocahcing activities with, would get angry or consider it wrong to use the camera for other activities as well? Get a grip!

 

I fully support switchdoc on this issue. He/she was out to have fun and did. Even shared the fun with the community. GO SWITCHDOC!. But then, getting trashed for not following a bunch of vague cache owner rules is horrible! This is supposed to be a fun activity, not ethics test. If the cache owner wanted to leave a polite comment about his/her personal wishes for logging the cache and then delete the find or turn it into a comment, that might be okay, but this grandstanding by holier than thou cache ethisists is rediculous.

 

I'm going to cache however I please, whenever I please, as long as I please, and until I do something that infringes on the fun or safety of someone else, I'll be darned if I'm going to give a rip about what anyone else thinks of my ethics.

 

I mean really, who's joy (other than the "finder's") is diminished in any way by whether or not someone logs a find on some particular cache or not.

 

Whew. That felt good!

 

Cheers,

The Puzzled Puzzler

Link to comment

I didn't even check this thread out until 4 a.m. when I couldn't sleep. I think it's all over, isn't it?

When our group goes out, the ftf then steps away and waits for others. I've been first, I've been last. I suspect that sometimes someone gets by-passed in the confusion. But we've never tackled a rating that would exclude my 76 year-old dad.

I respond negatively to this:

On top of that, many cache hunters would have no clue what the owner's log preference might be. AND, geocaching is a very personal experience for many of us. We respect the cache owner, but I'll be damned if they have any business telling me whether or not I have the right to consider myself a "finder" of the cache or not. With a few exceptions (such as organized events or special caches where the "finder" gets unusual recognition, and should thus probably be hunting it alone or competitively to begin with), I believe the dicision to claim a find (or not) is entirely personal. Hauty cache owners be damned.
, but he was just "trolling," wasn't he? No one really thinks like this, unless he's in the wrong sport.

:o Getting the proper instructions, for logging, into the cache page will be good. Because of that technicality, as someone suggested, the owner might grandfather in these cachers in question. That would be in keeping with the spirit of the sport, just as obeying the owner's cache page is in keeping with the spirit of the sport. Remember, we have different personalities - and I think this owner must be proud of his abilities in placing this cache, and likely has some personal need which is expressed in his newly-listed rule. His call. B)

Link to comment
... This is supposed to be a fun activity, not ethics test. ...

Many people believe, though not necessarily the people who have posted to this thread, that the manner in which people "play" is a direct reflection of the manner in which they lead their lives; so perhaps geocaching is some sort of "ethics test."

Link to comment

  Well I can't think of a group hunt yet that was put together so  "that people lacking a specific skill or activity could participate".

 

I can. If memory doesn't fail me, that was precisely the reason for the earliest group hunts in our region. I can think of a tree or two people couldn't/wouldn't climb, a reach or two where long arms were required and people wouldn't/couldn't "stick their arm in there," a hazardous climb or two where people afraid of heights (or who were of a certain girth) could not access the cache.

 

You probably don't mean Where to go? Vertigo!, at least I don't remember meeting you there. Anyway, that was truly a collaborative effort: the more experienced cachers spotted the cache after some search and allowed the newbies like me and Dave to go retrieve it.

Doesn't seem to me much different eg. from the island multicache I did recently with my sister: I needed a paddling partner for our double kayak and she was glad to have me there when she found the stage 1: a micro a little bit up in the tree, which I could reach from the ground.

[edit: fixed the url]

Edited by haggaeus
Link to comment
You probably don't mean Where to go? Vertigo!, at least I don't remember meeting you there. Anyway, that was truly a collaborative effort: the more experienced cachers spotted the cache after some search and allowed the newbies like me and Dave to go retrieve it.

No, there was no reason for me to attend the group hunt you mentioned ... I had logged the FTF on that cache two years earlier. Sounds like those "more experienced cachers" would have potentially made excellent high-level military officials. :o

Link to comment
Sounds like those "more experienced cachers" would have potentially made excellent high-level military officials. :o

Cute. B)

 

That is an interesting cache. The logs indicate there is a fence around the area leading to the bridge. That indicates to me that whoever put the fence there intends the bridge to be off limits. If the bridge is off limits, why is this one still listed?

Link to comment
No,  there was no reason for me to attend the group hunt you mentioned ...  I had logged the FTF on that cache two years earlier.

That's no reason :o there were some previous finders just watching (I don't think they logged the second find). Yes that probably belongs to the socializing part of the hunt (I think most of the group went to celebrate the find afterwards), but the caching part was also fun.

Fro: is the fence new? I don't remember even stepping over a fallen one.

Link to comment
... there were some previous finders just watching ... Yes that probably belongs to the socializing part of the hunt (I think most of the group went to celebrate the find afterwards)

I really don't consider that entertainment ... I think that is the type of situation where in a show of "bravado" someone could "overextend" their ability with an unfortunate consequence.

Link to comment

This is a lose-lose topic. No matter what someone posts, someone else has a different view. I don't think it makes any of the views wrong since I don't think this is a right or wrong subject.

 

As for the Vertigo cache, I'm not sure how it's any different then any group hunt. Sure, if someone walks up and spots it immediately they might walk away and not say anything, but I don't think I've been on a group hunt with 15 people and we waited for all 15 to spot it before retrieving it.

 

Plus there are group hunts when everyone is looking for a while, no one has found it and the 1st person that finds it retrieves it.

 

In both those cases I don't see anything wrong with each person/team logging the find. In fact, it's the only way I've seen the game been played with all the group hunts I've been on. In addition I don't think the site even mentions that you must be the individual that retrieves the physical cache from its hiding place in order to log it as a find.

 

As for Brian's concern, I have no doubt in my mind that your log stands!! It was an adventure climbing down there and I'm glad Haggaeus (glad to see him still posting) had longer arms so I didn't have to over extend myself. But if it would make you feel better, bring your chain saw and I'll go back with you, hack up the railroad ties so you can climb down and let you reach for it!

Link to comment
This is a lose-lose topic. No matter what someone posts, someone else has a different view. I don't think it makes any of the views wrong since I don't think this is a right or wrong subject.

So how does open discussion make a topic a lose-lose proposition instead of a win-win 'one'? In situations where there is no clear "right or wrong," is it better to be exposed to as many viewpoints as possible, or as few?

 

I suppose it depends on how intransigent the individual's opinions are.

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment
If a group of people do a cache and the cache is found by the team, but only one person can actually access the cache then can the each member claim the cache or only the one person that was capable of reaching the cache

 

A "team" is a team, even in the Olympics all members of a winning team get a medal. :o

Link to comment
This is a lose-lose topic. No matter what someone posts, someone else has a different view. I don't think it makes any of the views wrong since I don't think this is a right or wrong subject.

So how does open discussion make a topic a lose-lose proposition instead of a win-win 'one'? In situations where there is no clear "right or wrong," is it better to be exposed to as many viewpoints as possible, or as few?

 

I suppose it depends on how intransigent the individual's opinions are.

A win-win occurs when all parties are willing to compromise and reach a common goal. In discussions of this sort, there's no giving in. I don't think you'll get folks to say "Ok, from now on, unless my hand physically retrieves the cache I won't log it." and I don't think you'll say "Ok... if you go on a hike and someone retrieves the cache, but you are there, you can sign the log." If I'm incorrect on the latter, I don't see how you can make the statements you made in previous posts in this thread.

 

But for me - I play it the way I like it, which from what I've seen with the others that I've group hunted with, play it the same way. If I had to throw out a number and say I've been in different groups of probably 50 people in total and not seen anyone not log the cache at the cache site or online just because they didn't physically retrieve the cache.

Edited by Team DEMP
Link to comment
A win-win occurs when all parties are willing to compromise and reach a common goal. In discussions of this sort, there's no giving in.

 

Re-reading the thread, I see few "common goals" but many "self-interests." Was a compromise being sought? No. As I see it, the original purpose of this thread was to pressure a cache owner to "give in." But the official position of the website is absolutely clear ... online logs appear at the discretion of the cache owner.

 

The rest of us are here to offer our viewpoints and opinions. Why? To help us (as a community) to better understand how other geocachers feel about the situation by sharing how we (as individual members of the community) have acted/reacted to similar situations or would be likely to act/react in a similar situation.

 

The more opinions and positions to contemplate, the better. We, as a community, "win."

 

But for me - I play it the way I like it, which from what I've seen with the others that I've group hunted with, play it the same way.

 

Go ahead. But be quick to compromise should a cache owner ever decide to challenge individual online logs from a group hunt in which you participated.

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment
so perhaps geocaching is some sort of "ethics test."

An ethics test written by whom? Graded by whom?

 

Based on your argument, all of life is an ethics test and thus the argument ends without any valid point being developed. But then since we don't all share exactly the same idea of "ethical" in every detail of each case, we have to operate on a more loosely defined set of ethics that we do all share (and not try and hold each other up to our own personal ethical details - just the overall spirit).

 

IMHO, geocaching does share a number of ethical ideals, such as fun being a high priority, responsibility and respect for the wild (and not so wild) spaces we all share.

 

BUT, I don't believe that my idea of what is fun will always agree with your idea of what is fun. And, although it appears that this is not a shared geocaching ethic in this forum, I would like to propose that geocaching in whatever manner is most fun for each one of us is the highest moral achievment this sport has to offer, with the one caviate, that one person's fun should not interfere with the fun of another participant.

 

So, where does that leave us regarding our daconian cache owner and our free spirited cacher? Does the draconian fun for the cache owner take precidence over the joy of the cache logger that didn't rappell down the side of a cliff?

 

I don't see a clear right an wrong here, I see two views that require each person to be appreciative and understanding of the other. I would suggest that only the nastiness expressed by some people is the ethical breakdown in this story. Neither the cache owner or cacher can be faulted in their initial intent, only in any unpleasantness that followed and reduced the "fun" for all.

 

Of course, most of the unpleasantness seems to have come from this forum by people not directly involved. Oops, sorry.

 

Cheers,

The Puzzler

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...