+Lean Wolf Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 I've noticed that there actually are caches with several logged finds by the same cacher. I didn't even know it's possible. I would think that you wouldn't do it because of some "fair game" priniciple, but since it's possible it's obviously done. I also noticed that all those finds actually count in the personal stats. Should it really? I don't go for the numbers, but still, numbers are magical and I'm aiming for something special for my 100th cache. If I'd "cheated" myself that way, that 100th cache wouldn't be anything special, would it? Cause it really wouldn't be #100. But then again, it is my belief no man ever understands quite his own artful dodges to escape from the grim shadow of self-knowledge. (Quiz time: Who wrote that?) Shouldn't it be impossible to log more than one find per cache? And if it should be possible, by some reason I can't find out right now, should the stats really count more than one find per cache? Link to comment
AJK Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 One cache listing, with one cache box, when the cache has not been moved to a significantly different place = one find (or should be) However, some caches (2 in my area) have two boxes associated with one listing, hence two finds = fine There are those that say who care's anyway - as you say, you'd only be cheating yourself. Link to comment
+Byron & Anne Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 I thought we outlawed the words "fair" and "cheating" when it comes to geocaching. If we haven't, maybe we should ban them. Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 To allow or disallow logging multiple finds is at the discretion of the cache owner. Link to comment
Pantalaimon Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 I thought we outlawed the words "fair" and "cheating" when it comes to geocaching. If we haven't, maybe we should ban them. Well, that's no fair! Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 I thought we outlawed the words "fair" and "cheating" when it comes to geocaching. If we haven't, maybe we should ban them. Well, that's no fair! I guess I can't say most things are fair game anymore. Link to comment
+Lean Wolf Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 (edited) I thought we outlawed the words "fair" and "cheating" when it comes to geocaching. If we haven't, maybe we should ban them. Why should we outlaw and ban the words "fair" and "cheating" in geocaching? Edit: It's hard to advocate freedom of action when you're using words like "outlaw" and "ban". Perhaps we should ban them? Edited October 15, 2004 by Lean Wolf Link to comment
+Lean Wolf Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 To allow or disallow logging multiple finds is at the discretion of the cache owner. I know that. Link to comment
+Boo & Kitty Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 There are instances, such as this one: Tour of Stone Mountain, which started out as a standard traditional. The cache dissapeared one day. So, rather than just replacing that one or archiving it and moving on, the waypoint and cache page were recycled. The cache now has a new name, new type, and new starting location. The only thing similar to the original cache is the waypoint, cache page and general vicinity. Link to comment
Jeremy Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 So, rather than just replacing that one or archiving it and moving on, the waypoint and cache page were recycled. I wish people wouldn't do this. Eradicating the old cache description makes it difficult to figure out what the old cache was. Link to comment
+Amazingracer Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 The cache Boo speaks of was an attempt to save the waypoint. And nothing else really, when in actually it the original cache box shoudlve been replaced at the same spot and carry on. Thats what I did on my recycled caches, just simply replaced the cache box and got GC to move the cache to my account. Nothing more, nothing less. KISS. Link to comment
+Boo & Kitty Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 So, rather than just replacing that one or archiving it and moving on, the waypoint and cache page were recycled. I wish people wouldn't do this. Eradicating the old cache description makes it difficult to figure out what the old cache was. Please understand that I'm just reporting on what happened. I don't particularly advocate the way the above example was handled. But, regarding waypoint "recycling" I do have a semi-serious question: Presently the numbering system consists of up to 4 digit numbers in base 36. Unless I've overlooked something, this allows for a possibility of up to 1,679,616 waypoints. So what happens when waypoint numbers have been assigned up through GCZZZZ? Link to comment
+Boo & Kitty Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 (edited) Joseph Conrad, btw. Huh? Edited October 17, 2004 by Boo & Kitty Link to comment
CharlzO Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 The quote from the first post was by Conrad. Just figured I'd get my answer in lol. Link to comment
Recommended Posts