Definition of LEAPFROGGING

[+Ma & Pa]

I have seen comments about cachers leapfrogging when doing a series in a group.

 

How exactly is this done ?

 

Is there more than one method and if so, is one method more acceptable than another?

 

PAul

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Leapfrogging is when a team splits up into two groups. One group finds every second cache and signs on behalf of everyone. The other group finds the ones skipped by the first group and signs on behalf of everyone. Please don't do it. Unless you actually find a specific cache yourself, your name should not be on the log.

[+wmpastor]

Leapfrogging to double the cache finds is not legit. The only acceptable form is if your group decides to have some extra exercise and fun like this:

a game in which players take turns in leaping over another player bent over from the waist

Edited November 11, 2014 by wmpastor

[+Traditional Bill]

Leapfrogging to double the cache finds is not legit. The only acceptable form is if your group decides to have some extra exercise and fun like this:

a game in which players take turns in leaping over another player bent over from the waist

 

Now that's my kind of leap frogging.

 

Seriously though, regardless of what leapfrogging method you use, it still means that you log caches that you haven't physically found. If you do that on a trail with 100 caches, that means you'll legitimately find 50 caches and then log 50 false finds.

[+GeoLog81]

Leapfrogging is when a team splits up into two groups. One group finds every second cache and signs on behalf of everyone. The other group finds the ones skipped by the first group and signs on behalf of everyone. Please don't do it. Unless you actually find a specific cache yourself, your name should not be on the log.

 

It's actually no different from the situation when 3 in team cache in a car, one is driving, one is resting and only one is actually touching the logbook.

[Mr.Yuck]

Leapfrogging is when a team splits up into two groups. One group finds every second cache and signs on behalf of everyone. The other group finds the ones skipped by the first group and signs on behalf of everyone. Please don't do it. Unless you actually find a specific cache yourself, your name should not be on the log.

 

I think I can say with a great deal of confidence, they're not going to do it. I'll bet they're just wondering if something they've observed falls under the definition. The one of which I'm quoting here, I agree with.

[+Roman!]

Leapfrogging is when a team splits up into two groups. One group finds every second cache and signs on behalf of everyone. The other group finds the ones skipped by the first group and signs on behalf of everyone. Please don't do it. Unless you actually find a specific cache yourself, your name should not be on the log.

 

It's actually no different from the situation when 3 in team cache in a car, one is driving, one is resting and only one is actually touching the logbook.

 

It's actually a lot different, there are very few people on this planet that have touched the log book of every cache they logged as found.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Roman!

[+GeoLog81]

It's actually a lot different, there are very few people on this planet that have touched the log book of every cache they logged as found.

 

If you don't go philosophical about events and EarthCaches (evt. WebCams), you're effectively suggesting there are very few people who have not cheated?

[cezanne]

It's actually a lot different, there are very few people on this planet that have touched the log book of every cache they logged as found.

 

If you don't go philosophical about events and EarthCaches (evt. WebCams), you're effectively suggesting there are very few people who have not cheated?

 

I rather think that he has e.g. caching in large group in minds. Suppose e.g. a group of 10 find a nano. Most owners of such caches expect the team to log with one entry and then it certainly

would not make sense that all ten touch the logbook even if they are of course all present at GZ.

When it is raining, it's also often preferable if one cachers signs for the other ones to speed up the process.

I do not regard this as cheating.

 

Cezanne

Edited November 11, 2014 by cezanne

[Mr.Yuck]

It's actually a lot different, there are very few people on this planet that have touched the log book of every cache they logged as found.

 

If you don't go philosophical about events and EarthCaches (evt. WebCams), you're effectively suggesting there are very few people who have not cheated?

 

No, probably group caching. I'll bet I haven't touched a couple hundred log books. You know, sign me in please.

[+uxorious]

It's actually a lot different, there are very few people on this planet that have touched the log book of every cache they logged as found.

 

If you don't go philosophical about events and EarthCaches (evt. WebCams), you're effectively suggesting there are very few people who have not cheated?

 

Then you are admitting that it is cheating?

 

Everyone plays their own way, but if I do not touch either the cache itself, or the log at the cache site, I haven't found it.

[+tozainamboku]

Leapfrogging consists of grabing the waistband of somebody's underwear and pulling it up so that the underwear gets stuck in ... no wait, that's giving a wedgie.

[+MersonMonkeys]

It's actually a lot different, there are very few people on this planet that have touched the log book of every cache they logged as found.

 

If you don't go philosophical about events and EarthCaches (evt. WebCams), you're effectively suggesting there are very few people who have not cheated?

 

Then you are admitting that it is cheating?

 

Everyone plays their own way, but if I do not touch either the cache itself, or the log at the cache site, I haven't found it.

 

I completely agree. I have touched and taken a picture of every single one of my 7 finds, haha!

[+niraD]

Everyone plays their own way, but if I do not touch either the cache itself, or the log at the cache site, I haven't found it.

If I'm caching by myself, then sure.

 

But when I'm caching in a group, I sometimes sign my friends' names, and they sometimes sign mine. Sometimes, even when I'm the first person to spot the cache, I still never actually touch it or the log. The last person to spot it often retrieves it and replaces it. I may be logging a field note and bringing up the next cache while others are signing the log for everyone in the group. Or I may be steadying their kayak while they stand up to retrieve and replace the cache. Or I may be trading for a personal sig item that we found in the cache. But I was there, and I was part of the group that found the cache.

 

I'm not going to hold people doing a numbers run to a higher standard than I follow myself for normal group geocaching trips.

 

But I do always make sure the cache is replaced in its original location, to the best of my ability.

[jholly]

a game in which players take turns in leaping over another player bent over from the waist

 

Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.

[+MtnMutt-ProDuckShins]

Sort of like our Cache Machine fun we have!

[+humboldt flier]

IMHO ... not cool.

 

Hey I am old and earned the right to be a curmudgeon.

 

I just elect not to play the leapfrog game

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Leapfrogging is when a team splits up into two groups. One group finds every second cache and signs on behalf of everyone. The other group finds the ones skipped by the first group and signs on behalf of everyone. Please don't do it. Unless you actually find a specific cache yourself, your name should not be on the log.

 

It's actually no different from the situation when 3 in team cache in a car, one is driving, one is resting and only one is actually touching the logbook.

 

It's actually a lot different, there are very few people on this planet that have touched the log book of every cache they logged as found.

 

Agreed.

 

In one scenario, a group of 3 cachers is actively searching for every cache, one of them is first to locate and retrieve the container, and all three are standing around while one signs the log for all three, often writing the handles of each of the cachers. The other two could easily reach out and touch the cache.

 

In the other scenario, the driver and geocacher that is resting, don't even search for the cache. One of them is driving and the other is just riding in a car. To me, that's not geocaching. It's driving and sitting in a car.

 

In the leap frog scenario, people log a "find" even though they haven't even stopped to search in the area where a cache is located. Driving past the location where a cache is located is not finding a geocache.

 

Anyone that claims that the scenario of a small group of cachers actively searching and finding a cache with only one of them actually writing the names down on the log sheet, and driving by the location of a cache is the same is just trying to justify to themselves that they're entitled to a find.

[+redsox_mark]

 

In the other scenario, the driver and geocacher that is resting, don't even search for the cache. One of them is driving and the other is just riding in a car. To me, that's not geocaching. It's driving and sitting in a car.

 

 

On a "mega driving power trail", I don't think it is that different. The nature of the caches is such that the driver knows exactly where to stop, and he/she will stop with passenger door by the cache. By the time the car is stopped the passenger will have spotted the cache. Before the driver could get out the door the passenger will have the cache in their hand. The driver could open their door and start to get out - then stop when their friend says "I found it" 1000 times, but that seems silly to me. (I'm not talking about the Leapfrogging case here).

 

Non-power trail example: I've been out with friends, and we have stopped for some "park and grab" type caches. I'm stuck in the middle seat. I get out each time, but there is a cache where my friend finds it before I can get out of the car. I see him with the cache in hand. I don't bother to get out of the car at that point.

 

Third example, 3 of us are walking, but one friend is 20 yards ahead of the other two. He finds the cache immediately, the other 2 don't even start to look as he's found it. Are they just "walking" and not geocaching?

 

The differences here seem too subtle too me to draw lines about what is a find or not.

 

Leapfrogging is different as you are not even attempting some of the caches you are claiming.

Edited November 12, 2014 by redsox_mark

[+NYPaddleCacher]

In the other scenario, the driver and geocacher that is resting, don't even search for the cache. One of them is driving and the other is just riding in a car. To me, that's not geocaching. It's driving and sitting in a car.

 

 

On a "mega driving power trail", I don't think it is that different. The nature of the caches is such that the driver knows exactly where to stop, and he/she will stop with passenger door by the cache. By the time the car is stopped the passenger will have spotted the cache. Before the driver could get out the door the passenger will have the cache in their hand. The driver could open their door and start to get out - then stop when their friend says "I found it" 1000 times, but that seems silly to me. (I'm not talking about the Leapfrogging case here).

 

Non-power trail example: I've been out with friends, and we have stopped for some "park and grab" type caches. I'm stuck in the middle seat. I get out each time, but there is a cache where my friend finds it before I can get out of the car. I see him with the cache in hand. I don't bother to get out of the car at that point.

 

Third example, 3 of us are walking, but one friend is 20 yards ahead of the other two. He finds the cache immediately, the other 2 don't even start to look as he's found it. Are they just "walking" and not geocaching?

 

The differences here seem to subtle too me to draw lines about what is a find or not.

 

Leapfrogging is different as you are not even attempting some of the caches you are claiming.

 

I disagree with the notion that there should be one set of "rules" for a mega driving power trail and another when finding caches that are not part of a PT. On a driving power trail are the people that stay in the car going to keep track of caches that actually required more than 5 seconds of searching? No, they're not. They're going to claim a find on every cache on the trail.

 

The difference to me is not that subtle. In the leapfrogging or only one person gets out of the car to "sign" the log sheet, there is an explicit intent to "game the system" by using a strategy that gives everyone on the "team" the most finds as possible. In the scenario where a small group of cachers goes out together and one happens to be 20' ahead on the trail it's just a coincidence that one will locate the container before the others. Just because caches on a PT are "easy" should mean that driving a vehicle equates to a find.

 

[+Roman!]

In the other scenario, the driver and geocacher that is resting, don't even search for the cache. One of them is driving and the other is just riding in a car. To me, that's not geocaching. It's driving and sitting in a car.

 

 

On a "mega driving power trail", I don't think it is that different. The nature of the caches is such that the driver knows exactly where to stop, and he/she will stop with passenger door by the cache. By the time the car is stopped the passenger will have spotted the cache. Before the driver could get out the door the passenger will have the cache in their hand. The driver could open their door and start to get out - then stop when their friend says "I found it" 1000 times, but that seems silly to me. (I'm not talking about the Leapfrogging case here).

 

Non-power trail example: I've been out with friends, and we have stopped for some "park and grab" type caches. I'm stuck in the middle seat. I get out each time, but there is a cache where my friend finds it before I can get out of the car. I see him with the cache in hand. I don't bother to get out of the car at that point.

 

Third example, 3 of us are walking, but one friend is 20 yards ahead of the other two. He finds the cache immediately, the other 2 don't even start to look as he's found it. Are they just "walking" and not geocaching?

 

The differences here seem to subtle too me to draw lines about what is a find or not.

 

Leapfrogging is different as you are not even attempting some of the caches you are claiming.

 

I disagree with the notion that there should be one set of "rules" for a mega driving power trail and another when finding caches that are not part of a PT. On a driving power trail are the people that stay in the car going to keep track of caches that actually required more than 5 seconds of searching? No, they're not. They're going to claim a find on every cache on the trail.

 

The difference to me is not that subtle. In the leapfrogging or only one person gets out of the car to "sign" the log sheet, there is an explicit intent to "game the system" by using a strategy that gives everyone on the "team" the most finds as possible. In the scenario where a small group of cachers goes out together and one happens to be 20' ahead on the trail it's just a coincidence that one will locate the container before the others. Just because caches on a PT are "easy" should mean that driving a vehicle equates to a find.

 

Of all the PT caches I have done I have searched for and seen every single container and been within 20 meters of it. I've always been in a group of three and when I drive I'm actually the first person searching and sometimes finding the cache from the car, when its my rest turn I still search from the car just in case I spot it first and if the person doesn't find it in 20-30 seconds I get out and help.

 

I recently did 200 of the ET highway caches when I was on my way to Vegas with my daughter and since she doesn't cache I found them all and a good 50 of them I actually grabbed without getting out of the car and seen other caches that can be grabbed from a car so I don't know what getting out or not getting out of a car has anything to do with it.

 

The difference from leapfrogging is that doing a PT as a group each member was part of finding every cache, when leapfrogging they are not.

 

But what you're saying is you go for a P&G and as your parking your friend spots the cache hops out, grabs it and signs it but if you, the driver does not get out of the car then you cheated?

 

I hope you climbed every tree of every tree cache you logged

Edited November 12, 2014 by Roman!

[+GeoLog81]

 

But what you're saying is you go for a P&G and as your parking your friend spots the cache hops out, grabs it and signs it but if you, the driver does not get out of the car then you cheated?

 

I hope you climbed every tree of every tree cache you logged

 

You need to sign the logbook in order to log it online. It's a simple rule, why people find it so hard to understand?

 

If you haven't signed the logbook, and you claim the find online, you're cheating. It doesn't matter if you have seen the cache or someone signing it. Unless you've signed the logbook yourself, claiming you have found is the same as fromleaping or armchair logging.

[+Roman!]

 

But what you're saying is you go for a P&G and as your parking your friend spots the cache hops out, grabs it and signs it but if you, the driver does not get out of the car then you cheated?

 

I hope you climbed every tree of every tree cache you logged

 

You need to sign the logbook in order to log it online. It's a simple rule, why people find it so hard to understand?

 

If you haven't signed the logbook, and you claim the find online, you're cheating. It doesn't matter if you have seen the cache or someone signing it. Unless you've signed the logbook yourself, claiming you have found is the same as fromleaping or armchair logging.

 

So I can have someone mail me a cache from Europe, I sign it and mail it back and they put it back and I can log a find without cheating but if I'm standing beside the cache and my friend signs for me I cheated?

 

Makes no sense to me, the way I pkay it's the other way around.

[+GeoLog81]

So I can have someone mail me a cache from Europe, I sign it and mail it back and they put it back and I can log a find without cheating but if I'm standing beside the cache and my friend signs for me I cheated?

 

Makes no sense to me, the way I pkay it's the other way around.

 

Yes, if you were too lazy to sign the logbook, or couldn't reach the cache because it was too hight etc but log online, than yes, you're cheating.

 

If someone sends you the cache, it's breaking of the guidelines, because the cache should be on the coordinates.

 

Unless it's mobile cache (locationless)...

[+Roman!]

So I can have someone mail me a cache from Europe, I sign it and mail it back and they put it back and I can log a find without cheating but if I'm standing beside the cache and my friend signs for me I cheated?

 

Makes no sense to me, the way I pkay it's the other way around.

 

Yes, if you were too lazy to sign the logbook, or couldn't reach the cache because it was too hight etc but log online, than yes, you're cheating.

 

If someone sends you the cache, it's breaking of the guidelines, because the cache should be on the coordinates.

 

Unless it's mobile cache (locationless)...

 

I assume you're going to say you signed the log of every cache you logged so let's go one step further, I hope of your almost 3,000 finds that you found every single one and none were found by someone else you may have been caching with otherwise you'd be logging caches of never found and cheating.

 

Also your 76 earthcaches, 10 webcams and 4 virtuals, better delete those, you didn't sign the log.

[+GeoLog81]

Also your 76 earthcaches, 10 webcams and 4 virtuals, better delete those, you didn't sign the log.

 

I hope you see the difference between virtuals and other types. Virtuals, earchcaches and webcams have separate, distinct logging conditions you must fulfill.

 

Only because there are virtuals that don't have logbook, it doesn't give you right to log everything you were nearby because you've made up your own rule you don't need to sing a logbook.

 

The guidelines are clear, any online log without physical log is a bogus log and should be deleted by the owner. The exceptions are those virtual types and events, where signing of the logbook is optional.

[+Roman!]

Also your 76 earthcaches, 10 webcams and 4 virtuals, better delete those, you didn't sign the log.

 

I hope you see the difference between virtuals and other types. Virtuals, earchcaches and webcams have separate, distinct logging conditions you must fulfill.

 

Only because there are virtuals that don't have logbook, it doesn't give you right to log everything you were nearby because you've made up your own rule you don't need to sing a logbook.

 

The guidelines are clear, any online log without physical log is a bogus log and should be deleted by the owner. The exceptions are those virtual types and events, where signing of the logbook is optional.

 

Again, hope you found every cache and none were found by your caching partner(s) otherwise you too are a cheater.

 

Actually I can legally appoint someone to sign on my behalf and it counts as a signature.

 

If you ask 100 people what the rules are you'll get 101 different answers but the community as a whole tends to dictate what is acceptable and having a friend sign for you definitely is.

[Mr.Yuck]

Leapfrogging consists of grabing the waistband of somebody's underwear and pulling it up so that the underwear gets stuck in ... no wait, that's giving a wedgie.

 

In other words, twisting their knickers, eh?

 

Leapfrogging is when a team splits up into two groups. One group finds every second cache and signs on behalf of everyone. The other group finds the ones skipped by the first group and signs on behalf of everyone. Please don't do it. Unless you actually find a specific cache yourself, your name should not be on the log.

 

It's actually no different from the situation when 3 in team cache in a car, one is driving, one is resting and only one is actually touching the logbook.

 

It's actually a lot different, there are very few people on this planet that have touched the log book of every cache they logged as found.

 

Agreed.

 

In one scenario, a group of 3 cachers is actively searching for every cache, one of them is first to locate and retrieve the container, and all three are standing around while one signs the log for all three, often writing the handles of each of the cachers. The other two could easily reach out and touch the cache.

 

 

Indeed I am pretty certain NYPC grabbed a cache container and signed me in, while I stood inches away. I do not believe I touched it. I could have though. I also could have batted it out of his hand, that would have been pretty funny, right?

 

OK, back to the Roman and Geolog81 show.

[+Roman!]

Leapfrogging consists of grabing the waistband of somebody's underwear and pulling it up so that the underwear gets stuck in ... no wait, that's giving a wedgie.

 

In other words, twisting their knickers, eh?

 

Leapfrogging is when a team splits up into two groups. One group finds every second cache and signs on behalf of everyone. The other group finds the ones skipped by the first group and signs on behalf of everyone. Please don't do it. Unless you actually find a specific cache yourself, your name should not be on the log.

 

It's actually no different from the situation when 3 in team cache in a car, one is driving, one is resting and only one is actually touching the logbook.

 

It's actually a lot different, there are very few people on this planet that have touched the log book of every cache they logged as found.

 

Agreed.

 

In one scenario, a group of 3 cachers is actively searching for every cache, one of them is first to locate and retrieve the container, and all three are standing around while one signs the log for all three, often writing the handles of each of the cachers. The other two could easily reach out and touch the cache.

 

 

Indeed I am pretty certain NYPC grabbed a cache container and signed me in, while I stood inches away. I do not believe I touched it. I could have though. I also could have batted it out of his hand, that would have been pretty funny, right?

 

OK, back to the Roman and Geolog81 show.

 

Doesn't matter, you were too lazy, didn't do it and thus you are a cheater, besides who actually found the cache?

[+Roman!]

I just pulled up one of GeoLog81's find logs on a micro (not really, just guessing what it would look like)

 

 

geoLog81's Friend #1

Found it Found it 11/11/2014

 

Found it while out with friends but signed the log myself.

 

geoLog81's Friend #2

Found it Found it 11/11/2014

 

Found it while out with friends but signed the log myself.

 

geoLog81's Friend #3

Found it Found it 11/11/2014

 

Found it while out with friends but signed the log myself.

 

geoLog81's Friend #4

Found it Found it 11/11/2014

 

Found it while out with friends but signed the log myself.

 

geoLog81's Friend #5

Found it Found it 11/11/2014

 

Found it while out with friends but signed the log myself.

 

geoLog81's Friend #6

Found it Found it 11/11/2014

 

Found it while out with friends but signed the log myself.

 

geoLog81's Friend #7

Found it Found it 11/11/2014

 

Found it while out with friends but signed the log myself.

 

geoLog81

Found it Found it 11/11/2014

 

Found it while out with friends but signed the log myself, note: each of us found the cache ourselves.

 

geoLog81

Needs maintenance 11/11/2014

 

Log book full.

[Mr.Yuck]

I just pulled up one of GeoLog81's find logs on a micro (not really, just guessing what it would look like)

 

 

Good thing you put that disclaimer in there, I almost thought those were real logs.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

Non-power trail example: I've been out with friends, and we have stopped for some "park and grab" type caches. I'm stuck in the middle seat. I get out each time, but there is a cache where my friend finds it before I can get out of the car. I see him with the cache in hand. I don't bother to get out of the car at that point.

 

Third example, 3 of us are walking, but one friend is 20 yards ahead of the other two. He finds the cache immediately, the other 2 don't even start to look as he's found it. Are they just "walking" and not geocaching?

 

The differences here seem too subtle too me to draw lines about what is a find or not.

 

Leapfrogging is different as you are not even attempting some of the caches you are claiming.

 

Oh goodness, I don't know if I agree with the non power trail example. Are you talking the "park-n-grab" is literally 10 feet from the car. I suppose I could go either way on that one.

 

I'll tell you what I have seen, and this just popped into my head. Cemetery cache maybe 10 miles from a Mega Event. Lots of people out caching in the countryside during the event. I pull up behind an SUV with a big travel bug sticker on the back window. The cache is about 400 feet or so from our vehicles, in the woods just outside the cemetery. You can't even see the cache location from where we're parked. When I arrive at GZ there's one guy searching (hadn't found it yet). He tells me how his wife and another cacher are in that vehicle, and to make sure I log the TB. We find it together, and each sign individually. But the two people in the car logged the find. This I totally disagree with. I can tell you the cache police did not show up and take them away though.

[+Roman!]

 

Non-power trail example: I've been out with friends, and we have stopped for some "park and grab" type caches. I'm stuck in the middle seat. I get out each time, but there is a cache where my friend finds it before I can get out of the car. I see him with the cache in hand. I don't bother to get out of the car at that point.

 

Third example, 3 of us are walking, but one friend is 20 yards ahead of the other two. He finds the cache immediately, the other 2 don't even start to look as he's found it. Are they just "walking" and not geocaching?

 

The differences here seem too subtle too me to draw lines about what is a find or not.

 

Leapfrogging is different as you are not even attempting some of the caches you are claiming.

 

Oh goodness, I don't know if I agree with the non power trail example. Are you talking the "park-n-grab" is literally 10 feet from the car. I suppose I could go either way on that one.

 

I'll tell you what I have seen, and this just popped into my head. Cemetery cache maybe 10 miles from a Mega Event. Lots of people out caching in the countryside during the event. I pull up behind an SUV with a big travel bug sticker on the back window. The cache is about 400 feet or so from our vehicles, in the woods just outside the cemetery. You can't even see the cache location from where we're parked. When I arrive at GZ there's one guy searching (hadn't found it yet). He tells me how his wife and another cacher are in that vehicle, and to make sure I log the TB. We find it together, and each sign individually. But the two people in the car logged the find. This I totally disagree with. I can tell you the cache police did not show up and take them away though.

 

I agree with you that I too disagree with this.

 

The cachers in the car had nothing to do with the find just like leapfroggers have nothing to do with 1/2 the finds on a PT, however on every cache I ever found on a PT I was involved in the find as have those that do PTs as a team, there's the difference.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

You need to sign the logbook in order to log it online.

 

The guidelines are clear, any online log without physical log is a bogus log and should be deleted by the owner. The exceptions are those virtual types and events, where signing of the logbook is optional.

 

The above are not correct. Guidelines state:

 

"1.Logging of All Physical Geocaches

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

 

This basically means that a cache owner cannot delete your log if you signed the phyical logbook/logsheet.

 

COs can allow online finds in cases such as a soggy/moldy logbook you were not able to sign, etc. It is up to the CO to allow those online finds, but they can make exceptions as they see fit.

[+redsox_mark]

Oh goodness, I don't know if I agree with the non power trail example. Are you talking the "park-n-grab" is literally 10 feet from the car. I suppose I could go either way on that one.

 

 

Yes. A recent trip out with 4 friends (5 of us in total). We spent a day finding 10 different cache types, and some others on the way. Most involved a walk, many an extended walk. But there were a couple of park and grabs, where the front seat passenger jumped out and before I could get out of the car (from the back middle seat) my friend was holding the cache. I don't feel that I had to get out of the car, touch the log, or personally sign the log to call it a find. (OK, it was also pouring with rain). If others think I'm a cheater for that, I don't really care.

 

I don't see this any different from a power trail where the driver doesn't get out of the car if the cache is found right away. If I'm that driver I'd get out if I can help.. but if my friend already sees it I would not feel I have to exit the car or fondle the log to claim a find.

 

If others feel they have to sign the log themselves, or touch the log.. or see the log from outside the car.. that's fine. Whatever makes you happy.

 

I'm not advocating different rules for power trails.

 

Back to leapfrogging, I do see that as different, and I don't do that. (But I don't really care if others do).

[Mr.Yuck]

Oh goodness, I don't know if I agree with the non power trail example. Are you talking the "park-n-grab" is literally 10 feet from the car. I suppose I could go either way on that one.

 

 

Yes. A recent trip out with 4 friends (5 of us in total). We spent a day finding 10 different cache types, and some others on the way. Most involved a walk, many an extended walk. But there were a couple of park and grabs, where the front seat passenger jumped out and before I could get out of the car (from the back middle seat) my friend was holding the cache. I don't feel that I had to get out of the car, touch the log, or personally sign the log to call it a find. (OK, it was also pouring with rain). If others think I'm a cheater for that, I don't really care.

 

 

OK, you convinced me, I'm OK with this. It better have been 10 feet from the car or less though. At 11 feet, it's cheating.

[+J Grouchy]

Honestly, one reason I don't have an interest in group-caching is the fact that it would involve claiming a find on a cache that, more than likely, someone else actually found.

 

Everyone has their hangups: how and when they log a DNF, how they treat a damaged cache or wet log, how they do power trails, etc. Mine is not claiming a find on a cache found with a group unless I personally found it. And here's where I'm a total hypocrite: on the very rare occasions when my wife is helping me look and she finds it, I'll log it as found. I know that goes against everything I just said, but I suppose my reasoning is she's basically a muggle, so she doesn't really log finds (even though she has a free membership)...so I'm just adding her number to mine. It's only happened a handful of times.

[+ras_oscar]

I have physically signed the log sheet on each and every cache in my found list. That's how I roll.

Edited November 12, 2014 by ras_oscar

[+tozainamboku]

You need to sign the logbook in order to log it online.

 

The guidelines are clear, any online log without physical log is a bogus log and should be deleted by the owner. The exceptions are those virtual types and events, where signing of the logbook is optional.

 

The above are not correct. Guidelines state:

 

"1.Logging of All Physical Geocaches

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

 

This basically means that a cache owner cannot delete your log if you signed the phyical logbook/logsheet.

 

COs can allow online finds in cases such as a soggy/moldy logbook you were not able to sign, etc. It is up to the CO to allow those online finds, but they can make exceptions as they see fit.

Thank you.

 

I can see how someone new can read this section of the guideline and misinterpret it to mean that you must sign the physical log before you can make an online found log or else it's cheating. If you were around when this section was added to the guideline then you would know that it was added at the time Groundspeak decided to tell cache owners that they could no longer enforce additional logging requiremenets. Prior to that time cache owners were free to say something like "In order to log a find online you must post a picture of yourself wearing twisted knickers". Groundspeak decided that with the exception of certain geocaching related challenges, you could no longer require that cachers complete any activity beyond finding the cache.

 

Now, TPTB have always stated that the physical log book in the cache can be used as proof that someone has found the cache, and that doesn't change. If the online log looks suspicious, a cache owner may check the physical log and delete the online log if the physical log was not signed.

 

What happens when a group of cachers goes out and one person in the group signs the physical log on behalf of all the people in the group? I have seen cases where a cache owner insisted on the log having individual signatures from all who log the find online, and then being told by the reviewer or a Groundspeak lackey that they must accept the online logs of everyone in the group. I've seem some cache owners who don't like this ruling take their ball and go home (i.e. archive their cache).

[Mr.Yuck]

Honestly, one reason I don't have an interest in group-caching is the fact that it would involve claiming a find on a cache that, more than likely, someone else actually found.

 

Everyone has their hangups: how and when they log a DNF, how they treat a damaged cache or wet log, how they do power trails, etc. Mine is not claiming a find on a cache found with a group unless I personally found it. And here's where I'm a total hypocrite: on the very rare occasions when my wife is helping me look and she finds it, I'll log it as found. I know that goes against everything I just said, but I suppose my reasoning is she's basically a muggle, so she doesn't really log finds (even though she has a free membership)...so I'm just adding her number to mine. It's only happened a handful of times.

 

Simple solution, and "we" have been doing it for years. You simply wait until every person in the group finds it.

[cezanne]

Simple solution, and "we" have been doing it for years. You simply wait until every person in the group finds it.

 

Impossible to do in groups where not everyone is a cacher and also not easy if children are involved.

It also can get very inconvenient when it is cold outside that everyone should stand around multiple times during a hike.

 

Except for very special caches I do not have an ambition to find the containers on my own. If someone is with me who finds what needs to

be found faster, I'm happy. For me it's about the hike and the experiences on the way and I prefer caches with an obvious hideout anyway where

finding them is the shortest part of the hunt and straightforward. For me it's important to be present at the cache and to be able to reach it

and the stages needed in case of multi caches, but definitely not to be the person to actually detect the container.

As the term "found it" is regarded, that is used inconsistently anyway. For many non-physical caches there is not necessarily something to find and

I found many caches for which I did not log a "found it" log for various reasons.

Edited November 12, 2014 by cezanne

[+L0ne.R]

Simple solution, and "we" have been doing it for years. You simply wait until every person in the group finds it.

 

Impossible to do in groups where not everyone is a cacher and also not easy if children are involved.

It also can get very inconvenient when it is cold outside that everyone should stand around multiple times during a hike.

 

And big groups. In my area about once a month a group of 10+ cachers comes through (once it was a group of 30+). I doubt half of them even see the caches.

[cezanne]

And big groups. In my area about once a month a group of 10+ cachers comes through (once it was a group of 30+). I doubt half of them even see the caches.

 

I have seen all caches I logged as found but I need to admit (and I do not have a problem with that) that often it was someone else who spotted the cache when I was not alone (sometimes planned, sometimes unplanned). I hate caching in large groups, but it happens sometimes that 1-2 cachers go for a walk with 1-2 people who are not cachers and think that geocaching is crazy. They would really run crazy if they had to wait until all cachers found the cache separately. Sometimes it's also one of them who finds the cache.

[+wmpastor]

Leapfrogging is and was a kid's game before the name was applied to a shady caching practice. So here's a video of a kid -- in this case a baby goat -- leapfrogging, kind of.

 

[vagabond]

When Tag-a-long and I did the first 300 of the original ET trail we took turns driving and logging the caches, when I was driving I could usually spot the cache long before we got to it.

Also when we do PTs we sticker the logs, it's a lot faster then signing the log

[+niraD]

But there were a couple of park and grabs, where the front seat passenger jumped out and before I could get out of the car (from the back middle seat) my friend was holding the cache. I don't feel that I had to get out of the car, touch the log, or personally sign the log to call it a find. (OK, it was also pouring with rain). If others think I'm a cheater for that, I don't really care.

 

I don't see this any different from a power trail where the driver doesn't get out of the car if the cache is found right away. If I'm that driver I'd get out if I can help.. but if my friend already sees it I would not feel I have to exit the car or fondle the log to claim a find.

I agree. They both look like three musketeers style geocaching to me. (Of course, I prefer huckle buckle beanstalk style geocaching, so that may color my perceptions.)

 

I've gone geocaching with people who insist on writing their own names on the log, but they're definitely the minority. Most are happy if someone in the group writes everyone's names on the log, or if someone in the group writes only an informal team name (like "GBA Kayakers" or "Karl's Krew") on the log to save space and delay the need for a replacement log.

[+SwineFlew]

Doesnt matter what we think of leapfrogging. As long their name is on the log book, there is nothing the CO can do about it.

 

Thats the truth.

[+wmpastor]

Doesnt matter what we think of leapfrogging. As long their name is on the log book, there is nothing the CO can do about it.

 

Thats the truth.

What's next, asking distant friends to sign your name (along with their own) to every cache they find??

 

"Joe & I logged 75 on a quick run today. Joe was with me in spirit. TNLNSL TFTC TGIF."

[+SwineFlew]

Doesnt matter what we think of leapfrogging. As long their name is on the log book, there is nothing the CO can do about it.

 

Thats the truth.

What's next, asking distant friends to sign your name (along with their own) to every cache they find??

 

"Joe & I logged 75 on a quick run today. Joe was with me in spirit. TNLNSL TFTC TGIF."

Pretty much...

 

Do I agree with it? No I don't... but I am not sure where GS stand on this. Its really a gray area in my opinion. They are "allowing" leapfrogging but where it does stop is my question.

[+humboldt flier]

Doesnt matter what we think of leapfrogging. As long their name is on the log book, there is nothing the CO can do about it.

 

Thats the truth.

What's next, asking distant friends to sign your name (along with their own) to every cache they find??

 

"Joe & I logged 75 on a quick run today. Joe was with me in spirit. TNLNSL TFTC TGIF."

Pretty much...

 

Do I agree with it? No I don't... but I am not sure where GS stand on this. Its really a gray area in my opinion. They are "allowing" leapfrogging but where it does stop is my question.

 

It might stop when they try to leapfrog a unicorn as alluded to in an early post.