Proper Geocaching etiquette

[+Reno8]

Sorry for getting off topic on the other thread. Hopefully a moderator can cut and paste the off topic posts from the other thread on here

Edited August 17, 2016 by Reno8

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Sorry for getting off topic on the other thread. Hopefully a moderator can cut and paste the off topic posts from the other thread on here

 

Unfortunately it will be unlikely that we'll see the relevant posts moved from that other thread.

 

I also think that the title of this new thread is a bit misleading. The thread drift in that other thread was more than simply an issue of etiquette, but a matter of honesty and integrity, specifically about the fudging of dates and other information in logs for the purpose of qualifying for a souvenir or challenge cache.

 

 

[+Reno8]

Etiquette means a code of behavior so proper etiquette encompasses honesty and integrity IMO!

Edited August 17, 2016 by Reno8

[cezanne]

but a matter of honesty and integrity, specifically about the fudging of dates and other information in logs for the purpose of qualifying for a souvenir or challenge cache.

 

I do not agree at all as there is no guidance on which date should be used for challenge caches and Earth caches. Using terms like "fudging of dates" can be quite inappropriate depending on the actual situation.

 

Even if a souvenir were involved (which not necessarily must be the case), there is no reason to automatically doubt properties like honesty and integrity. It could even well be that the logs mention very clearly what has been achieved in which day. When doing caches with multiple parts (like challenge caches and Earth cache) there is simply no way that is 100% sound except one does everything on the same day which often is not possible.

 

I cannot see much of a difference whether someone who for example visited the location of an EC 9 months ago but never felt motivated to deal with the questions and then decides 9 months later to give it a try (for whatever reason is not relevant in my opinion, like it is not questioned whether someone who attends an event on a day with a souvenir has a real interest in socializing) and logs the EC with the current date and someone who is in the same situation but back dates the log. In both cases those who do not look carefully at the log can be misled (in case of a GZ for example which is currently not reachable many of those who have a cache on their watchlist will not look at the logged date anyway and assume that it is a current log).

 

Another reason for using the current date might also be that many cachers will not recall the date of their visit to GZ - that can easily happen if one is not using field notes and not taking notes for unfinished caches (which is not a requirement at all). You can have your personal preferences but I think that one needs to be more careful when it comes to questioning the integrity and honesty of someone else.

[+dprovan]

Not really enough to go on, but my general reaction to "geocaching etiquette" is that using the term does nothing except conflate the two independent concepts of the accuracy of geocache and the standards of social interaction. It's a mistake to claim an EarthCache on the wrong date just to get a souvenir, but it's rude to claim via a find that a cache is there when it isn't.

[+Reno8]

I know of a few challenge caches where people have signed the log (they were in the area)and wrote a note to the cache page saying that they do not yet qualify but will in the not so distant future. When they end up qualifying for it (it could be 6 months later or more after they posted the note)then they post a found it log. Should they have gone back to their original note and then change it to a "found" it log or post a found it log 6 months later when they actually qualify for it? Maybe they should just log a found it when they actually qualify for it and sign the log. Co's don't seem to mind the whole "note" thing as long as they qualify for it when they post a "found" it log.

 

If it was my cache I wouldn't mind the whole note thing as long as they qualified for it when they post the "found" it log. Every CO is different though. That's probably one reason why they had a moratorium on challenge caches for a while. The CO's should make it clear on the cache page what is acceptable and what is not

[cezanne]

It's a mistake to claim an EarthCache on the wrong date

 

The issue is just that there is no rule and not even a guidance from GS what the right date for an EC log is (just the same situation as for challenge caches). There are only personal preferences - nothing more.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

but a matter of honesty and integrity, specifically about the fudging of dates and other information in logs for the purpose of qualifying for a souvenir or challenge cache.

 

I do not agree at all as there is no guidance on which date should be used for challenge caches and Earth caches. Using terms like "fudging of dates" can be quite inappropriate depending on the actual situation.

 

Even if a souvenir were involved (which not necessarily must be the case), there is no reason to automatically doubt properties like honesty and integrity. It could even well be that the logs mention very clearly what has been achieved in which day. When doing caches with multiple parts (like challenge caches and Earth cache) there is simply no way that is 100% sound except one does everything on the same day which often is not possible.

 

I cannot see much of a difference whether someone who for example visited the location of an EC 9 months ago but never felt motivated to deal with the questions and then decides 9 months later to give it a try (for whatever reason is not relevant in my opinion, like it is not questioned whether someone who attends an event on a day with a souvenir has a real interest in socializing) and logs the EC with the current date and someone who is in the same situation but back dates the log. In both cases those who do not look carefully at the log can be misled (in case of a GZ for example which is currently not reachable many of those who have a cache on their watchlist will not look at the logged date anyway and assume that it is a current log).

 

Another reason for using the current date might also be that many cachers will not recall the date of their visit to GZ - that can easily happen if one is not using field notes and not taking notes for unfinished caches (which is not a requirement at all). You can have your personal preferences but I think that one needs to be more careful when it comes to questioning the integrity and honesty of someone else.

 

When I used the phrase "fudging of dates" I am referring to cases where someone *intentionally* logs a cache with a specific date for the purpose of obtaining some sort of advantage (e.g. obtaining a souvenir, meeting the criteria for a challenge).

 

If someone doesn't remember the actual date that they found a cache, there isn't any intent to deceive anyone.

 

I don't think I've ever heard of someone trying this but consider the following scenario.

 

After a few years playing the game someone has found every virtual cache within 100 miles of where they live. Then GS creates a souvenir which requires one to log a find for a virtual cache on a specific weekend in August. Rather than drive more than 200 miles round trip, they figure they'll just delete the find on their most recently found virtual cache an log a new find (after all they've got the answers to any required questions) on the souvenir weekend. They can justify their actions because they're not trying to log the same cache twice. The might even explicitly mention in the log that they visited the location months ago and it really has no impact on the CO or other caches, but there was still an intentional gaming of the system to obtain the souvenir.

 

 

 

[+Reno8]

The scenario you posted above is NOT even close to what we are discussing!

[cezanne]

When I used the phrase "fudging of dates" I am referring to cases where someone *intentionally* logs a cache with a specific date for the purpose of obtaining some sort of advantage (e.g. obtaining a souvenir, meeting the criteria for a challenge).

 

If someone doesn't remember the actual date that they found a cache, there isn't any intent to deceive anyone.

 

Yes, I'm aware of the difference. However the case where someone forgot the date was just one aspect I addressed.

 

The problem with your first statement is that it is hard to draw a line. Someone who always logs ECs at the date when qualifying for a log (i.e. having obtained and sent the answers) might feel motivated to sit down and do all the work for answering the questions for an EC due to the existence of a souvenir and then log the EC on that day instead of logging it say a month later with the date one month later because the work got delayed.

 

I have experienced ECs where it took me quite a while until I found the motivation to sit down at home, invest research and reformulate my answers many times before finally sending them away. While I choose the date of my visit, it does not feel fully consistent either. That's the nature of such caches when quite a while lies between the visit to the cache site and the actual qualification process (with which I do not mean just sending away answers one has obtained long ago).

 

In a sense each intentional visit to a cache to get a souvenir has the same motivation behind than what would occur above.

 

You seem to assume that everyone logs ECs the day they have visited the location but that's by far not the standard regardless of souvenirs, challenge caches and whatsoever else.

 

Do you intend to say that someone who always logs ECs with the date of the obtained qualification needs to change her/his approach just due to the existence of a souvenir?

 

Your example with deleting a virtual cache log addresses a completely different issue.

Edited August 17, 2016 by cezanne

[+CanadianRockies]

I know of a few challenge caches where people have signed the log (they were in the area)and wrote a note to the cache page saying that they do not yet qualify but will in the not so distant future. When they end up qualifying for it (it could be 6 months later or more after they posted the note)then they post a found it log. Should they have gone back to their original note and then change it to a "found" it log or post a found it log 6 months later when they actually qualify for it? Maybe they should just log a found it when they actually qualify for it and sign the log. Co's don't seem to mind the whole "note" thing as long as they qualify for it when they post a "found" it log.

 

If it was my cache I wouldn't mind the whole note thing as long as they qualified for it when they post the "found" it log. Every CO is different though. That's probably one reason why they had a moratorium on challenge caches for a while. The CO's should make it clear on the cache page what is acceptable and what is not

It isn't up to the CO to determine the acceptability. Groundspeak has made it clear that it's perfectly acceptable to date a challenge cache's online "Found It" log as either the date one signed the physical log or the date one completed the challenge's requirements (assuming that date comes after they signed the physical log).

 

I assume Groundspeak has a similar attitude towards dating online "Found It" logs for EarthCaches, Virtuals, and Webcam caches, but I don't remember them ever stating this.

 

As a challenge cache owner, I personally prefer it when geocachers do not change their "Write Note" logs to "Found It" logs upon completing the challenge requirements, because I don't receive an email notification when this happens. That makes it more problematic to verify successful completions. Even so, I don't express my preference on the cache page, and I certainly wouldn't deem it to be "unacceptable" when geocachers do convert "Write Note" logs to be "Found It" logs.

Edited August 17, 2016 by CanadianRockies

[+The A-Team]

If it was my cache I wouldn't mind the whole note thing as long as they qualified for it when they post the "found" it log. Every CO is different though. That's probably one reason why they had a moratorium on challenge caches for a while. The CO's should make it clear on the cache page what is acceptable and what is not

It isn't up to the CO to determine the acceptability. Groundspeak has made it clear that it's perfectly acceptable to date a challenge cache's online "Found It" log as either the date one signed the physical log or the date one completed the challenge's requirements (assuming that date comes after they signed the physical log).

Where have they said this? The Challenge Caches Help Center article says:

7. Signing Log - Cachers may sign a challenge cache's physical log at any time. However, the challenge cache may be logged as found online only after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented.

...which says that you can sign the log in advance of meeting the challenge cache's requirements, but it doesn't say anything about the date that should be used for the "Found it" log. AFAIK, Groundspeak has never waded into the "what date should I use" discussion/argument.

[+CanadianRockies]

If it was my cache I wouldn't mind the whole note thing as long as they qualified for it when they post the "found" it log. Every CO is different though. That's probably one reason why they had a moratorium on challenge caches for a while. The CO's should make it clear on the cache page what is acceptable and what is not

It isn't up to the CO to determine the acceptability. Groundspeak has made it clear that it's perfectly acceptable to date a challenge cache's online "Found It" log as either the date one signed the physical log or the date one completed the challenge's requirements (assuming that date comes after they signed the physical log).

Where have they said this?

It was a comment made on one of this forum's challenge cache threads, sometime during the past year. I'm 90 percent certain it was a lackey who commented, but it might have been a reviewer.

[+Reno8]

I've done some Earth/Virtual Caches where it states on the cache page that the CO has to verify your answers before you can log it as found. I did one a while back and sent my answers to the CO and didn't hear back for 2 weeks. When I finally heard back and got the OK I wasn't able to log it for another week. Now do I use the date I actually visited GZ, do I use the date I heard back or do I use the date when I could actually log the cache? I used the date that gave me the go ahead but I was pissed they took 2 weeks to get back to me. I know people get busy but you have a responsibility to get back to people in a reasonable amount of time. 2 weeks to me was not reasonable. Some cachers that now have the go ahead might wait a few more days if there is a souvenir available to log it. That would probably be considered bad etiquette but technically there are no guidelines to say what's right and what's wrong for those type of caches.

 

I know they added some guidelines to Challenge Caches after the recent moratorium on them. I haven't read the new guidelines yet so maybe they did address that issue. I do know they have to have a checker now.

[+The A-Team]

I've done some Earth/Virtual Caches where it states on the cache page that the CO has to verify your answers before you can log it as found.

I was 99% sure there was a guideline somewhere that prohibited this, but I can't find it now on either the EarthCache.org guidelines or the guidelines or Help Center on this site. Was that prohibition lifted and EarthCache/Virtual owners can again hold your log hostage until they're good and ready (if they ever respond at all)?

Never mind, I found it. 4.11. Logging an EarthCache or Virtual Cache

For EarthCaches and Virtual Caches, you may also log your find on-line without waiting for an answer from the cache owner.

Therefore, you don't need to wait for the CO. You can log your find right away.

Edited August 17, 2016 by The A-Team

[+Reno8]

Thanks! Good to know for future reference.

[+MKFmly]

As geocaching is ofttimes referred to as the "language of location"; for us the date you visited the cache (any cache) is the "found" date, despite most alternate logging requirements, personal timelines, research time, etc. We also appreciate the conflict created with pre-signing grandfathered challenge caches (prior to qualifying) and are flexible enough to accept that deviation from the above stated position because it makes good sense. In our mind Location>>>ARL, YMMV.

 

It just seems the simple thing to do, regardless of any of the edge cases we can craft to obfuscate the situation while discussing the relative merits of 0.001 % of finds.

[+thebruce0]

But I'm not against a case where I might visit the earthcache, but do the homework after I get home and date the find then. I do start with the intent to log it the day I visited GZ though, but for whatever reason I wouldn't be against logging it the date I did the work and completed the requirements (though I don't really see a strong reason for that unless the post date for the Found log were important to me - like for a souvenir).

Earthcache is the only cache type where to me that would be an acceptable option, imo (the logic being similar to the challenge cache qualification ALR). Challenge caches are the only other exception, and that one is clearcut - Found it log must be posted the date all requirements are complete. Post a note when found, then a Find when qualified; or vice versa, if not already qualified when found. That's how I practice my dating methods.

Why would you view that as an acceptable option for EarthCaches and Challenge caches but not for a virtual cache that requires answers to be sent to the CO or a photograph to be uploaded? And what about a Webcam cache that requires a webcam photo to be uploaded? If I visit the webcam site on Monday and don't bother uploading the photo until Friday, then doesn't the same principle apply? I haven't completed the "Found It" requirements until Friday.

I'd considered adding Virtual to the list but decided to leave it out because I was lazy =P. Yes I would group Virtuals with ECs as they are effectively identical now.

Webcam - perhaps; I would personally log it the day I was at the webcam and the photo was taken (just as I'd most always log the Earthcache the day I was at gz, as mentioned earlier), since the only thing left to do is post the log.

Edited August 17, 2016 by thebruce0

[+dprovan]

It's a mistake to claim an EarthCache on the wrong date

The issue is just that there is no rule and not even a guidance from GS what the right date for an EC log is (just the same situation as for challenge caches). There are only personal preferences - nothing more.

We can discuss what date is the right date in a thread on that topic. Here with the topic being "geocaching etiquette", regardless of what you think is the right date, a log with a wrong date is a mistake, but it's not a matter of etiquette.

[+dprovan]

The scenario you posted above is NOT even close to what we are discussing!

What the heck are we discussing? Everyone's talking about dates. What's that got to do with "proper geocaching etiquette"?

[+dprovan]

Where have they said this? The Challenge Caches Help Center article says:

7. Signing Log - Cachers may sign a challenge cache's physical log at any time. However, the challenge cache may be logged as found online only after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented.

...which says that you can sign the log in advance of meeting the challenge cache's requirements, but it doesn't say anything about the date that should be used for the "Found it" log. AFAIK, Groundspeak has never waded into the "what date should I use" discussion/argument.

Oh, I don't know. That seems pretty clear: they specifically say you may log it as found after the challenge tasks have been met. I can't see how that could be interpreted any other way than that the time of the find, and hence the proper date on the found log, is the latter of the two dates.

[+cheech gang]

 

Everyone's talking about dates. What's that got to do with "proper geocaching etiquette"?

 

It's always a good idea to exhibit proper etiquette on a date.

[+Mudfrog]

But I'm not against a case where I might visit the earthcache, but do the homework after I get home and date the find then. I do start with the intent to log it the day I visited GZ though, but for whatever reason I wouldn't be against logging it the date I did the work and completed the requirements (though I don't really see a strong reason for that unless the post date for the Found log were important to me - like for a souvenir).

Earthcache is the only cache type where to me that would be an acceptable option, imo (the logic being similar to the challenge cache qualification ALR). Challenge caches are the only other exception, and that one is clearcut - Found it log must be posted the date all requirements are complete. Post a note when found, then a Find when qualified; or vice versa, if not already qualified when found. That's how I practice my dating methods.

Why would you view that as an acceptable option for EarthCaches and Challenge caches but not for a virtual cache that requires answers to be sent to the CO or a photograph to be uploaded? And what about a Webcam cache that requires a webcam photo to be uploaded? If I visit the webcam site on Monday and don't bother uploading the photo until Friday, then doesn't the same principle apply? I haven't completed the "Found It" requirements until Friday.

For that matter, any cache type? Yea, most of us know better, but it wouldn't surprise me if some people came to the rationalization that a cache isn't complete until they log it found online. With this line of thinking, they probably wouldn't see anything wrong with purposely waiting to log some of their caches on those special, more productive dates.

 

Actually, i do know one person that did this with traditionals. Their reason was a bit different, to keep their consecutive day streak going.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Mudfrog

[cezanne]

It's a mistake to claim an EarthCache on the wrong date

The issue is just that there is no rule and not even a guidance from GS what the right date for an EC log is (just the same situation as for challenge caches). There are only personal preferences - nothing more.

We can discuss what date is the right date in a thread on that topic. Here with the topic being "geocaching etiquette", regardless of what you think is the right date, a log with a wrong date is a mistake, but it's not a matter of etiquette.

 

You seem to have missed how this thread originated. The title "geocaching etiquette" was not ideally chosen (see post #2). The original question was to start a discussion on doing something like this:

Visiting an EC location on July 1, answering the questions for the EC at July 8, sending the answers on July 8 and logging on July 8. In the specific example a connection to a souvenir on July 8 was mentioned, but actually that's in my opinion not the main point as as I explained above there is no general rule for choosing the right date for an EC log, just personal preferences.

 

By the way, I own a virtual cache that is coupled to a multi stage mystery cache and I often cachers log the virtual with a later date (the date when they actually managed to come up with all answers which can be days or weeks later as after a visit to the locations some require hours to come up with all required answers as not everything can be found at the cache location itself). In such cases I find both date choices ok (the date of the visit of the location and the date when the answers have been sent).

 

In the example when someone visits an EC location on Saturday and sends the answers on Sunday morning (and actually has obtained them already on Saturday), it is quite natural to log the EC with the date of Saturday, but in many cases there is more time in between and it's not just a question of sending the e-mail but finding the answers and deciding whether at all one can come up with something reasonable or whether one better refrains trying to send something and just a writes a note or no log at all for the EC.

[+barefootjeff]

It's a mistake to claim an EarthCache on the wrong date

 

The issue is just that there is no rule and not even a guidance from GS what the right date for an EC log is (just the same situation as for challenge caches). There are only personal preferences - nothing more.

Back in April I visited Lord Howe Island where I found a number of caches, including an Earth Cache. There's no mobile phone or data service on the island and landline internet access is very restricted and patchy, so I had to wait until I'd returned home before I could log the finds and send the email to the EC owner. Without giving it any thought, I set the date on all my finds, including the EC, to the day I'd actually been at the location, and that still makes more sense to me as the content of the log is all about my experience on that day, not a week later when I was sitting in front of the computer.

[cezanne]

The issue is just that there is no rule and not even a guidance from GS what the right date for an EC log is (just the same situation as for challenge caches). There are only personal preferences - nothing more.

Back in April I visited Lord Howe Island where I found a number of caches, including an Earth Cache. There's no mobile phone or data service on the island and landline internet access is very restricted and patchy, so I had to wait until I'd returned home before I could log the finds and send the email to the EC owner. Without giving it any thought, I set the date on all my finds, including the EC, to the day I'd actually been at the location, and that still makes more sense to me as the content of the log is all about my experience on that day, not a week later when I was sitting in front of the computer.

 

In that case you apparently managed to come up with the answers and did the main work for the EC while being on the island (and so also the learning process happened there) and just could not send off the answers. That's a very different situation to the situation when you do the essential work for an EC or a virtual weeks or months later and only take some photos and probably take home some material (like rock samples) which you then analyse at home with the help of the internet and or books. You are still free to choose to use the date of your visit of the location but I would not say that this is the only choice that makes sense.

 

In the cases I have in mind a major part of the experience does not happen at the cache coordinates and at a different date and then it's not clear at all which date to choose. In both cases one would have to mention in the log that some part of the experience happened at another day when one wants to be precise anyway. It does not matter in my opinion which way one goes.

Edited August 18, 2016 by cezanne

[+redsox_mark]

 

We can discuss what date is the right date in a thread on that topic. Here with the topic being "geocaching etiquette", regardless of what you think is the right date, a log with a wrong date is a mistake, but it's not a matter of etiquette.

 

This.

 

It is good "etiquette" to log truthfully, including the correct date. Bad etiquette to purposely log incorrect information.

 

Beyond that, we get into debates about what is "correct"?

- Is it correct to log a challenge cache with the date the challenge is completed and not the date you physically visited (if different)?

- Is it correct to log an Earth cache with the date the answers were worked out and sent and not the date you physically visited (if different)?

- Is it correct to log a find if you find the cache but the logbook is missing?

- etc

 

Loads of threads about what is "correct", each example can be debated separately.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The scenario you posted above is NOT even close to what we are discussing!

 

I thought the scenario I posted was exactly what we are discussing. It's an example of someone intentionally gaming the system to gain some perceived benefit (a souvenir in their profile). Someone that would do that would show a lack of integrity, which is what I thought we were discussing.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Everyone's talking about dates. What's that got to do with "proper geocaching etiquette"?

 

It's always a good idea to exhibit proper etiquette on a date.

 

If I do, will I get bonus points?

 

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It's a mistake to claim an EarthCache on the wrong date

The issue is just that there is no rule and not even a guidance from GS what the right date for an EC log is (just the same situation as for challenge caches). There are only personal preferences - nothing more.

We can discuss what date is the right date in a thread on that topic. Here with the topic being "geocaching etiquette", regardless of what you think is the right date, a log with a wrong date is a mistake, but it's not a matter of etiquette.

 

Exactly. We are not talking about mistakes, or what date *should* be used in a log. We're talking about instances where someone intentionally posts information in logs they *know* not to be true.

 

 

[cezanne]

 

Exactly. We are not talking about mistakes, or what date *should* be used in a log. We're talking about instances where someone intentionally posts information in logs they *know* not to be true.

 

This has not been the intent of the OP at all.

he described a situation where someone uses the date of having sent the answers for an Ec and not the date of the visit to the location. That definitely is not about posting information that is certainly not true.

 

It just boils down to the date discussion topic.

Edited August 18, 2016 by cezanne

[+redsox_mark]

Looking back, cezanne is correct.

 

The post in the other thread which moved it here said to start the discussion with post #199, which was:

 

Let me put this question to everybody!

 

Let's say you're on vacation somewhere and grab some caches including an Earth Cache. You log all the other ones but you decided to wait until International Earth Cache Day to log the Earth Cache to get the souvenir. Do you feel this is "wrong" or maybe a less strong word would be unethical? After all you aren't actually signing the log with a date so what does it matter when you actually log the find!

 

Like Linda Richman on Coffee Talk would say......Discuss!

 

This did expand (as discussion does) to other cases where some manipulation of the system for some gain was discussed; but it was this specific question about Earth Caches and dates that started the discussion.

 

Without a clear link back to the other thread, and with such a general title, it is not surprising that many of us had different ideas about the scope of the thread.

[+fuzziebear3]

As geocaching is ofttimes referred to as the "language of location"; for us the date you visited the cache (any cache) is the "found" date, despite most alternate logging requirements, personal timelines, research time, etc. We also appreciate the conflict created with pre-signing grandfathered challenge caches (prior to qualifying) and are flexible enough to accept that deviation from the above stated position because it makes good sense. In our mind Location>>>ARL, YMMV.

 

It just seems the simple thing to do, regardless of any of the edge cases we can craft to obfuscate the situation while discussing the relative merits of 0.001 % of finds.

 

This is my approach as well. I use the date I visited the site, even if I don't finish logging requirements until later. That is the history at the cache site that the logs reflect.

 

I actually extend this a little bit further. If I am at the cache site searching, or if I revisit a cache site, I feel that I really should log a DNF or a write note for that visit on the correct day as well. I feel this because what if someone saw me while I was there, and then explored and took the cache. I need to note that I was there. Future cachers should know that I was there on that date. The conditions on that date should be recorded.

 

JMO, YMMV.

[+thebruce0]

Earthcache:

Correct log date = Date of visit, OR date of answer submission. Choose what makes sense to you.

Incorrect log date = Neither of the above.

This is described in the guidelines.

Deceptive log date = Intentional posting with the incorrect date. (typically to qualify for a challenge or souvenir)

 

The other term just to be clear: date of logging = the date you submit the form to post a log (not necessarily the posting date stored with the log).

No one seems at all concerned with the date someone decides to log a find, and rightly so.

As long as the posting date on the log is "Correct".

Edited August 18, 2016 by thebruce0

[+narcissa]

Most people's understanding of "etiquette" is so far removed from anything practical that it's not very helpful to frame guidelines or best practices this way. Good geocachers don't write honest logs, properly dated because it's the polite thing to do or because someone prefers it, they write honest logs because it is important to the function of the game.

[+redsox_mark]

Earthcache:

Correct log date = Date of visit, OR date of answer submission. Choose what makes sense to you.

Incorrect log date = Neither of the above.

This is described in the guidelines.

 

 

I believe you, but I can't find it in the guidelines.

[+dprovan]

You seem to have missed how this thread originated.

I didn't miss how it originated, I just had no clue what the OP thought he was splitting off from the previous discussion, so I had no choice but to assume the topic was, in fact, the topic. Even the OP himself gave no clue what he was asking the moderator to move to this thread.

 

By the way, I own a virtual cache that is coupled to a multi stage mystery cache and I often cachers log the virtual with a later date (the date when they actually managed to come up with all answers which can be days or weeks later as after a visit to the locations some require hours to come up with all required answers as not everything can be found at the cache location itself). In such cases I find both date choices ok (the date of the visit of the location and the date when the answers have been sent).

I don't mind you giving whatever leeway you feel appropriate, and I concur that there can be counter examples -- like challenge caches -- where the date the requirements are satisfied or the information is discovered is not the date of the visit to GZ. But the whole point of EarthCaches is to visit GZ to learn something, so I would expect it to be very rare for the learning to be done at a later date. While I can imagine exceptions, and that's fine, I would go so far as to claim that such exceptions would not really be true to the EarthCache concept. Even if additional research is required, it should still be based on what was observed at GZ.

[+dprovan]

Earthcache:

Correct log date = Date of visit, OR date of answer submission. Choose what makes sense to you.

Incorrect log date = Neither of the above.

This is described in the guidelines.

I believe you, but I can't find it in the guidelines.

I'd like to see where the guidelines specify this, too. Specifically, some of the points in this thread focus on when you get the answers, which could be later if, for example, you had to take samples and do additional research at home. The logic of that position is a third date which could possibly be a date earlier than the date you got around to writing up the results and sending them to the CO. If the guidelines just arbitrarily limit the choices to only the date of visit and the date of submission, there's no reason to consider when the task was completed since that's not one of the choices.

[+thebruce0]

hm. My bad. I spoke too soon and misread a comment elsewhere. Although I was certainly under the impression that the clause was actually in the guidelines. On searching again now, I find that's not the case. Unless I'm missing it somewhere, I can't find any comment that an Earthcache can be dated at the time you send answers - only that you don't have to wait for a response before logging a Find.

[+CanadianRockies]

hm. My bad. I spoke too soon and misread a comment elsewhere. Although I was certainly under the impression that the clause was actually in the guidelines. On searching again now, I find that's not the case. Unless I'm missing it somewhere, I can't find any comment that an Earthcache can be dated at the time you send answers - only that you don't have to wait for a response before logging a Find.

However, as several of us have noted, the guidelines (III.2.1.) do include this:

 

Unlike physical caches, where "additional logging requirements" are optional, an EarthCache requires geocachers to comply with all instructions in order to log the cache online.

Since you cannot log an online "Found It" until you comply with all the EarthCache's instructions, it seems reasonably acceptable to date your EarthCache "Found It" log as the day you finish complying with all the instructions. I think it's also reasonably acceptable to date your EarthCache "Found It" log as the day you visited the site. It seems a bit of a stretch to me to date your "Found It" as the day you finish gathering the information (if that day differs from the day of your visit or the day you send the information to the cache owner), but I also find that day somewhat reasonably acceptable.

[cezanne]

By the way, I own a virtual cache that is coupled to a multi stage mystery cache and I often cachers log the virtual with a later date (the date when they actually managed to come up with all answers which can be days or weeks later as after a visit to the locations some require hours to come up with all required answers as not everything can be found at the cache location itself). In such cases I find both date choices ok (the date of the visit of the location and the date when the answers have been sent).

I don't mind you giving whatever leeway you feel appropriate, and I concur that there can be counter examples --

 

My own virtual is not a Earthcache and I was completely free how to design it. There indeed one part of the learning is done at the locations, but a considerable part also at home when using what you found at the location.

 

But the whole point of EarthCaches is to visit GZ to learn something, so I would expect it to be very rare for the learning to be done at a later date. While I can imagine exceptions, and that's fine, I would go so far as to claim that such exceptions would not really be true to the EarthCache concept. Even if additional research is required, it should still be based on what was observed at GZ.

 

In my experience, for those ECs which are not trivial (where one just needs to use some information from signs at the location) very often it boils down to taking something along (photos, measurements, rock samples etc), but all the hard work has to be done at home and I remember situations where I spent a lot of time with the questions (e.g. when I was asked to find out which kind of serpentine I found at the site which was very hard for me and where I sent my answers many days later - at the cache location I did not even have time to study the geological part of the cache description and it would not have helped me anyway).

 

I do not know how you are doing ECs - but I typically do not like to spend more time at such a location as I would for a physical cache - I enjoy the location and take along what I need and do the rest at home, sometimes much later or in rare cases not at all because I do not want to send in answers that do not convince myself at least to some minimum degree.

[+dprovan]

In my experience, for those ECs which are not trivial (where one just needs to use some information from signs at the location) very often it boils down to taking something along (photos, measurements, rock samples etc), but all the hard work has to be done at home and I remember situations where I spent a lot of time with the questions (e.g. when I was asked to find out which kind of serpentine I found at the site which was very hard for me and where I sent my answers many days later - at the cache location I did not even have time to study the geological part of the cache description and it would not have helped me anyway).

I consider all that hard work you're doing later as part of logging the find, and that, as with any other cache, might be on another day. The day I visited GZ remains the date I consider interesting for filing the found log, just as I do for a traditional even if I have to do a lot of hard work to write up the log on that traditional.

 

But I don't mind you picking another date, and I don't consider it illogical. I'm just not persuaded in my own dating. But let's agree that someone who habitually dates the EC on the day they visited GZ is being goofy and deceiving themselves if they, for one EC, use some other date just because it gives them a souvenir.

[cezanne]

I consider all that hard work you're doing later as part of logging the find,

 

I don't. Logging the find is a separate task in my opinion which is done after I have done what is needed to obtain reasonable answers I dare to send away.

 

But I don't mind you picking another date,

 

Actually I use the date of my visit but I do not think that it is any more logical than using the date when one obtained the answers (and sent them away). If a longer period is between the two events, then in any case some words of explanation in the online log might make sense and then it is pretty much irrelevant whether you date your log with July 1 and write on January 1 I visited the EC location, but it took me until today to come up with answers or whether you date your log with January 1 and write I visited the EC location today, but managed to come up with answers only 6 months later why I log this EC now and back date my log.

 

But let's agree that someone who habitually dates the EC on the day they visited GZ is being goofy and deceiving themselves if they, for one EC, use some other date just because it gives them a souvenir.

 

Yes, of course but in many areas there are not many ECs anyway so that many cachers will do ECs only for special occasions anyway. So you will not be able to observe any difference.

[Pup Patrol]

Etiquette means a code of behavior so proper etiquette encompasses honesty and integrity IMO!

 

"Throwdowns" do not represent honesty and integrity.

 

DNF logs, "needs maintenance", those are logs that represent what the truth would be if one was being honest and posting with integrity.

 

 

B.

[+Manville Possum]

Etiquette means a code of behavior so proper etiquette encompasses honesty and integrity IMO!

 

Yes, there is a code of ethics in geocaching and placing throwdowns with new coordinates like you did with this cache in question is not acceptable.

 

Just because the local reviewer is not doing their job does not mean that you should step in and place a throwdown. That is a very bad example from an experienced geocacher. You should know and do better.

[+Reno8]

What cache are you talking about? I just asked a question about how people log an earth cache. That it. I just wanted to get people's opinions

[+cerberus1]

What cache are you talking about? I just asked a question about how people log an earth cache. That it. I just wanted to get people's opinions

I believe they're talking of a cache in this thread.

[+Reno8]

Wow! First I ask a question about logging an earth cache but I asked it on the wrong thread. I apologize for going off topic and tried to start a new thread. I used the word etiquette and that was the wrong word to use. Again I am sorry. Now I'm on vacation with my family and replace a missing cache that's in a really cool spot that my kids loved. All I wanted to do was bring other people here and hoped they enjoyed the spot as much as me and my kids did. That's it! Now you guys basically crucify me for trying to do what I thought was a good thing. It was not my intention to be malicious to the reviewer or the co. I have the utmost respect for any of the reviewers as they are all volunteers. I deleted my log from the cache in question and you will never see another post from me again on this forum again. I'm truly sorry for any and all the controversy I may have caused. I wish you all the best. God bless

[+Manville Possum]

Wow! First I ask a question about logging an earth cache but I asked it on the wrong thread. I apologize for going off topic and tried to start a new thread. I used the word etiquette and that was the wrong word to use. Again I am sorry. Now I'm on vacation with my family and replace a missing cache that's in a really cool spot that my kids loved. All I wanted to do was bring other people here and hoped they enjoyed the spot as much as me and my kids did. That's it! Now you guys basically crucify me for trying to do what I thought was a good thing. It was not my intention to be malicious to the reviewer or the co. I have the utmost respect for any of the reviewers as they are all volunteers. I deleted my log from the cache in question and you will never see another post from me again on this forum again. I'm truly sorry for any and all the controversy I may have caused. I wish you all the best. God bless

 

The way this thread started out I thought it was part of another thread about GC3Z41W.

 

Sorry, but going out and replacing a geocache and claiming a find on a cache that you and everyone else assumes is missing is not proper geocaching etiquette. No matter how much your kids like the cache site while visiting on vacation.

 

I missed the thread about your earthcache question.