Jump to content

Log a find on a cache I've adopted?


gasbottle

Recommended Posts

I recently took over responsibility for a number of caches on a local Geotrail. I'd been working the trail before I did this and had found many, but not all. The previous owner had let maintenance slip and of the caches I adopted those some were missing which is why I hadn't been able to log a find on them. I've been around the trail and replaced the missing caches, placed new logs, etc. So that all of them are now in good order.

 

I'd like to complete finding the trail, so is it reasonable for me to log a find on a cache I have adopted when I have had to place a new cache as my first act as owner?

Link to comment

I've placed a number of my own caches, and for those I'd agree with you. In the case of these four I'd have found them if the cache had been in place at the time. I've subsequently adopted them, so I've been through all the same effort to find them as if I hadn't, except that now they're 'my' caches.

 

I guess what you're saying is that it's up to me. That's fine, but I wondered if there's any accepted precedent for this

Link to comment

I guess what you're saying is that it's up to me. That's fine, but I wondered if there's any accepted precedent for this

I'm sure it happens, but I've never seen anyone do it. I understand your desire to complete the series, but might I suggest instead looking on the unfound caches on the map as source of pride, a reminder to yourself of your contribution towards keeping the series in good shape?

Link to comment

I recently took over responsibility for a number of caches on a local Geotrail. I'd been working the trail before I did this and had found many, but not all. The previous owner had let maintenance slip and of the caches I adopted those some were missing which is why I hadn't been able to log a find on them. I've been around the trail and replaced the missing caches, placed new logs, etc. So that all of them are now in good order.

 

I'd like to complete finding the trail, so is it reasonable for me to log a find on a cache I have adopted when I have had to place a new cache as my first act as owner?

 

if you're taking on the responsibility, sure, get your smiley on in the process.

 

it's your cache after all, not ground speaks, or Geocachings, or anyone else here. do what cha like. :-)

Link to comment

Worth noting that cache adopters have typically already found the caches they adopt. Absolutely nothing wrong with logging the finds if that is what you want to do. There are no rules or guidelines prohibiting it. You're the owner so you're not being a nuisance to anyone, and it isn't taking away from anyone else's cache experience. The individuals who are bothered by the idea of it are far more in the wrong than anyone who chooses to do this. Don't worry about other people's arbitrary, imaginary rules.

Link to comment

In the case of these four I'd have found them if the cache had been in place at the time.

But they weren't in place, so you didn't find them before. Now the only reason you can sign a log is because you replaced the cache.

 

You did the right thing by adopting the caches, rather than just throwing down a cache and logging a find. Except now it seems like you're looking to justify a throwdown "find" via adoption.

 

I wouldn't log finds on these four, but it's really up to you as the (now) cache owner.

Link to comment

Log it them as found and don't listen to anyone on here telling you otherwise. They aren't your caches you didn't hide them so you can log them. I have adopted loads over the years and have no qualms about logging them. In fact I have offered to adopt series before I had found them because the CO was planning to archive them and I hadn't had chance to find them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
I assumed most people would only adopt caches they'd already found. Seems weird to me to do it the other way around...

I took on twenty caches from a series of sixty-one that was split between a number of cachers who had themselves adopted them from the original owner. I'd have preferred to take on only those that I'd found but logistically that was awkward to do, and the four in question were part of a block that was owned by a single cacher that I took on en masse.

 

Except now it seems like you're looking to justify a throwdown "find" via adoption.

I can see why you'd say that but that's not the way I see it. It's unfortunate that the previous owner had done no maintenance at all in the period that they were responsible for them. I had visited all four sites and logged NMs on them before the issue of adoption came up. In fact, those NMs were part of the catalyst that led to me adopting the caches.

 


 

What I was trying to establish is whether there's an accepted course of action for these circumstances. It seems that there isn't and many comments are pretty relaxed about me logging finds, whilst a minority are less sanguine. It's not overly important since I'm not looking for the finds to meet a challenge, or build numbers. It just represents a little unfinished business completing the trail.

 

I'll leave things as they are. I expect I'll adopt the caches on at some point in the future at which point maybe I'll revisit them and log my finds then. I hope I'll be in a position to pass on caches that don't need the level of maintenance I've had to provide.

 

Thanks to everyone for their comments.

Link to comment

Except now it seems like you're looking to justify a throwdown "find" via adoption.

I can see why you'd say that but that's not the way I see it.

What's important isn't how he sees it or how you see it, but how it can be seen. Regardless of your true motives, one could imagine you adopting the caches just so you can claim the find, so hzoi's suggesting you avoid allowing people to get that mistaken impression.

 

What I was trying to establish is whether there's an accepted course of action for these circumstances. It seems that there isn't and many comments are pretty relaxed about me logging finds, whilst a minority are less sanguine.

Perhaps it varies from place to place, but to repeat: I've never seen it done, so, no, in my area the accepted course of action is to leave them unfound just as you would if you were the original CO.

 

It's not overly important since I'm not looking for the finds to meet a challenge, or build numbers. It just represents a little unfinished business completing the trail.

I suggest just stopping at "not overly important" instead of talking yourself into thinking it's important.

 

I'll leave things as they are. I expect I'll adopt the caches on at some point in the future at which point maybe I'll revisit them and log my finds then.

That would be cool. In fact, anticipating that future excursion is a good reason not to log finds on them now.

 

It's only natural that you would want to finish the trail.

Why?

Why not?

Because he didn't find them.

Link to comment

For the same reason some people like to be completists about anything. Why be hard on people about such a non-issue?

 

Is asking why being "hard on people"?

There is no valid reason for the OP to go find the missing ones as he is now the CO, CO's don't have to find caches they placed themselves and logging a found on them is .. well... you know what (don't want to be hard :ph34r: )

Link to comment

For the same reason some people like to be completists about anything. Why be hard on people about such a non-issue?

 

Is asking why being "hard on people"?

There is no valid reason for the OP to go find the missing ones as he is now the CO, CO's don't have to find caches they placed themselves and logging a found on them is .. well... you know what (don't want to be hard :ph34r: )

 

There's no valid reason not to, either. It's a personal choice.

Link to comment

There's no valid reason not to, either.

Yes, there is a valid reason not to: he didn't find them. That makes claiming he found them inaccurate.

 

It's a personal choice.

Of course it's a personal choice, but only because, as the CO, he can except finds that are invalid, even his own.

 

Asking "Why?" requests the OP consider whether he really has a good reason to log the find. The reasons given -- to complete the series -- don't seem important some of us, and I, for one, suspect that a desire, however unconscious, for the +1 is the real motive. When the OP answers "Why not?", that might bring him to the realization that he really has no good reason. Or it might lead him to accept that it's important to him for some emotional reasons, which would also be fine. The answer "Why not?" would just tell me he really hasn't thought about why he wants to claim a find on a cache he hasn't found.

Link to comment

Except now it seems like you're looking to justify a throwdown "find" via adoption.

I can see why you'd say that but that's not the way I see it.

Well, you clearly didn't feel completely comfortable just logging finds, otherwise you would not have asked the question. Just giving you my perspective on how it looks to me.

 

What you propose isn't against the guidelines, and you've seen there is no consensus on this. The ball's in your court to do with as you wish.

Link to comment

There's no valid reason not to, either.

Yes, there is a valid reason not to: he didn't find them. That makes claiming he found them inaccurate.

 

It's a personal choice.

Of course it's a personal choice, but only because, as the CO, he can except finds that are invalid, even his own.

 

Asking "Why?" requests the OP consider whether he really has a good reason to log the find. The reasons given -- to complete the series -- don't seem important some of us, and I, for one, suspect that a desire, however unconscious, for the +1 is the real motive. When the OP answers "Why not?", that might bring him to the realization that he really has no good reason. Or it might lead him to accept that it's important to him for some emotional reasons, which would also be fine. The answer "Why not?" would just tell me he really hasn't thought about why he wants to claim a find on a cache he hasn't found.

 

The find count will never be an objective, accurate measure, no matter how much some people like to fuss about it. Bringing this "accuracy" complaint into it is a veiled attempt to impose personal preferences on others.

 

There are only two relevant considerations:

 

Is it permitted? Yes, it is.

 

Do you want to? A question only the individual can answer for themselves.

Link to comment

Is it permitted? Yes, it is.

 

Do you want to? A question only the individual can answer for themselves.

He asked what the rest of us thought about it.

 

The original post asked if it was reasonable. Since it isn't against the rules and has no impact on anybody else there is no reason to suggest it isn't reasonable. It is a personal choice.

Link to comment
I suggest just stopping at "not overly important" instead of talking yourself into thinking it's important.

None of this is 'important', but taking that to its logical extreme we might as well none of us bother at all.

 

There are sixty-one caches in the series. I set out to find all sixty-one. That was my original objective, so that is my motivation for 'finding' the last four. It will, however, wait for a more appropriate time.

Link to comment

The original post asked if it was reasonable. Since it isn't against the rules and has no impact on anybody else there is no reason to suggest it isn't reasonable. It is a personal choice.

There are plenty of actions that don't violate geocaching rules but are still frowned upon: leaving a cache exposed instead of re-hiding it, taking swag without leaving something at least as valuable, finding a cache when a bunch of muggles are staring at you, hiding a cache that looks like a pipe bomb, etc. Certain norms have developed to supplement the rules.

 

From the Help Center:

 

Can I log a find on my own geocache? ...

 

It is considered "bad form" to log a find on your own geocache, no matter when you do it....

 

[Y]ou're not "finding" a geocache because you already know where it is. Save the smiley face for use when you've truly discovered a hidden geocache.

Link to comment
I suggest just stopping at "not overly important" instead of talking yourself into thinking it's important.

None of this is 'important', but taking that to its logical extreme we might as well none of us bother at all.

 

There are sixty-one caches in the series. I set out to find all sixty-one. That was my original objective, so that is my motivation for 'finding' the last four. It will, however, wait for a more appropriate time.

 

Whenever these unusual circumstances pop up, there's an inevitable chorus of negativity in the forum by geocachers who attach higher degrees of meaning and competition to things than others. The people who would scrutinize and criticize your finds to this extreme are the ones whose opinions matter the least.

Link to comment

Is it permitted? Yes, it is.

 

Do you want to? A question only the individual can answer for themselves.

He asked what the rest of us thought about it.

The original post asked if it was reasonable. Since it isn't against the rules and has no impact on anybody else there is no reason to suggest it isn't reasonable. It is a personal choice.

Nope, sorry. Just because he can do it doesn't mean I have to think it's reasonable. Nor does it mean I'm not allowed to say he shouldn't do it.

 

Whenever these unusual circumstances pop up, there's an inevitable chorus of negativity in the forum by geocachers who attach higher degrees of meaning and competition to things than others. The people who would scrutinize and criticize your finds to this extreme are the ones whose opinions matter the least.

Honestly. It's not negativity or criticism when the OP asks, and I say "no" and explain why.

Link to comment

Is it permitted? Yes, it is.

 

Do you want to? A question only the individual can answer for themselves.

He asked what the rest of us thought about it.

The original post asked if it was reasonable. Since it isn't against the rules and has no impact on anybody else there is no reason to suggest it isn't reasonable. It is a personal choice.

Nope, sorry. Just because he can do it doesn't mean I have to think it's reasonable. Nor does it mean I'm not allowed to say he shouldn't do it.

 

Whenever these unusual circumstances pop up, there's an inevitable chorus of negativity in the forum by geocachers who attach higher degrees of meaning and competition to things than others. The people who would scrutinize and criticize your finds to this extreme are the ones whose opinions matter the least.

Honestly. It's not negativity or criticism when the OP asks, and I say "no" and explain why.

 

Forum users are, for the most part, "allowed" to say whatever they wish within certain parameters.

 

It doesn't follow that deliberately misleading and needlessly critical statements with no basis will stand unopposed by other forum users.

Link to comment
I assumed most people would only adopt caches they'd already found. Seems weird to me to do it the other way around...

I took on twenty caches from a series of sixty-one that was split between a number of cachers who had themselves adopted them from the original owner. I'd have preferred to take on only those that I'd found but logistically that was awkward to do, and the four in question were part of a block that was owned by a single cacher that I took on en masse.

 

Except now it seems like you're looking to justify a throwdown "find" via adoption.

I can see why you'd say that but that's not the way I see it. It's unfortunate that the previous owner had done no maintenance at all in the period that they were responsible for them. I had visited all four sites and logged NMs on them before the issue of adoption came up. In fact, those NMs were part of the catalyst that led to me adopting the caches.

 


 

What I was trying to establish is whether there's an accepted course of action for these circumstances. It seems that there isn't and many comments are pretty relaxed about me logging finds, whilst a minority are less sanguine. It's not overly important since I'm not looking for the finds to meet a challenge, or build numbers. It just represents a little unfinished business completing the trail.

 

I'll leave things as they are. I expect I'll adopt the caches on at some point in the future at which point maybe I'll revisit them and log my finds then. I hope I'll be in a position to pass on caches that don't need the level of maintenance I've had to provide.

 

Thanks to everyone for their comments.

I was going to reply that it sounded like you already had misgivings and that in the big scheme of things, it wasn't going to hurt anything if you didn't log the finds. You have a good attitude about this so i will simply say to go with what feels right to you. This is one of those things that doesn't affect anyone and therefore shouldn't matter to anyone else.

Link to comment

"Adopt a cache I already found?" Sure.

 

"Log a find on a cache I already adopted?" I would answer with another question. Why would you adopt a cache you haven't found? I suppose if it's there and you hadn't found it yet, then yes, you are "finding" it and logging a find seems reasonable. If it's not there, you own it and you just put a new container down and log a find, it is exactly the same as logging a find on a cache you created. So if you have no qualms about "finding" something that you didn't actually find, then go for it. We can all think of you what we want, narcissa can think of us what she wants and everyone is happy.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

I have some questions, related to this topic - if you adopt a cache, does it then appear as a star on your map? and if you log a cache you own, does the star become a smilie?

 

Yes and yes.

 

If you want something else to debate, some cachers log their own challenge caches, seeing that as somewhat different.

Edited by fbingha
Link to comment

It doesn't follow that deliberately misleading and needlessly critical statements with no basis will stand unopposed by other forum users.

Are you talking about something in this thread? If so, what?

 

The comment was about the deliberately misleading and needlessly critical remarks in this thread.

Link to comment

The comment was about the deliberately misleading and needlessly critical remarks in this thread.

Are we reading the same thread?

 

I would assume that the forum users commenting here are shown the same content, plus or minus users that have been blocked, but this seems off-topic.

Link to comment

The comment was about the deliberately misleading and needlessly critical remarks in this thread.

Are we reading the same thread?

The OP asked and advice/opinions were given. I have not read any "deliberately misleading" or "needlessly critical remarks" in this thread.

 

As with others, my first thought was that the Gasbottle probably already felt that logging finds on caches he hid didn't feel right. Like so many other threads with opening posts similar to his, replies were given that he probably didn't want to hear. But unlike a lot of those other threads, this OP is taking it all in and not getting angry at the world. In the end, he'll do what he feels is right for his situation.

 

Will add that, at least for me, the short lived "feeling good about completing the series" would be drowned out by the "i logged finds on my own caches feeling". But again, everyone sees this a bit differently. Go with what works for you! B)

Link to comment

If you mark these as found after you adopt them, here's what the situation will be:

 

98% of the people in your area won't even notice that you are both the new owner and have a find on the cache, especially once your find log moves down the cache page a ways.

 

of the remaining 2% who do notice, some will assume that you made the find before adopting the caches, particularly if you keep the original CO's credit on the cache page-something like "Cache Owner: Original Guy (adopted by gasbottle)"

 

Of the portion who do notice the order of adoption/find, some won't care or think any less of you for finding after adoption.

 

Of the remaining few cachers who do notice, and do care about it, they may think of you as being

anywhere along the spectrum of being a little needy to being the second coming of Hitler.

 

So the questions to ask are:

"Do I personally want these as finds, versus owned caches?" and "Do I care that some minuscule number of cachers think I am a demon from Hell for finding my adopted cache?"

 

Your own answers to those questions will tell you whether to find these.

Link to comment

If you mark these as found after you adopt them, here's what the situation will be:

 

98% of the people in your area won't even notice that you are both the new owner and have a find on the cache, especially once your find log moves down the cache page a ways.

 

of the remaining 2% who do notice, some will assume that you made the find before adopting the caches, particularly if you keep the original CO's credit on the cache page-something like "Cache Owner: Original Guy (adopted by gasbottle)"

 

Of the portion who do notice the order of adoption/find, some won't care or think any less of you for finding after adoption.

 

Of the remaining few cachers who do notice, and do care about it, they may think of you as being

anywhere along the spectrum of being a little needy to being the second coming of Hitler.

 

So the questions to ask are:

"Do I personally want these as finds, versus owned caches?" and "Do I care that some minuscule number of cachers think I am a demon from Hell for finding my adopted cache?"

 

Your own answers to those questions will tell you whether to find these.

 

Great post. +1

Link to comment

I would assume that the forum users commenting here are shown the same content, plus or minus users that have been blocked, but this seems off-topic.

Yes, but some of us imagine angst and anger where there is none.

 

"Do I care that some minuscule number of cachers think I am a demon from Hell for finding my adopted cache?"

Why would anyone care about what any number of cachers think unless they feel like there's something wrong with what they're doing? Even in general I don't understand that, but, in this specific case, I have absolutely no clue why anyone would care about the opinion of someone that's worried about someone else posting a find on their own cache.

Link to comment

I have absolutely no clue why anyone would care about the opinion of someone that's worried about someone else posting a find on their own cache.

 

Well, I kinda snicker when I see people (usually noobs) posting finds on their own caches, but if I see that it was an adopted cache, I stop snickering.

 

Btw, I do have a Find on one of my own caches--so go ahead and snicker. But I did have to find it--the guys that cut down the tree it was in hid it in another tree.

Link to comment

"Do I care that some minuscule number of cachers think I am a demon from Hell for finding my adopted cache?"

The important question here isn't what others (few or many) might think of you but rather what you will think of yourself. As John Wooden so aptly put it, “The true test of a man's character is what he does when no one is watching.”

 

If the +1 is so important to you that you'll do just about anything to log another find, then go ahead and log whatever caches you can conceivably rationalize to yourself. If looking in the mirror is important to you, then consider how your actions will cause you to think about yourself.

Link to comment

I would assume that the forum users commenting here are shown the same content, plus or minus users that have been blocked, but this seems off-topic.

Yes, but some of us imagine angst and anger where there is none.

 

"Do I care that some minuscule number of cachers think I am a demon from Hell for finding my adopted cache?"

Why would anyone care about what any number of cachers think unless they feel like there's something wrong with what they're doing? Even in general I don't understand that, but, in this specific case, I have absolutely no clue why anyone would care about the opinion of someone that's worried about someone else posting a find on their own cache.

 

Even though the criticism of logging a find on an adopted cache is completely baseless, the tone of the criticism is harsh and there is a strong, but false, insinuation that it's not permitted. It isn't surprising that this harsh and misleading characterization of a totally harmless and understandable action causes some cachers to feel unsure.

 

That's why it is so important that these deliberate falsehoods do not go unchallenged.

 

Geocachers should not be made to feel they are breaking rules when all they are actually doing is running afoul of an irrelevant personal preference.

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...