Team / Co-operative caching

[+Les Pandas]

I have come across several "twin" or even multiple caches where location of the waypoints and caches are very far apart, often in different countries.

To find the caches involves co-operation between geocachers in the different locations, then all involved can log the final cache or caches. I was intending to try to set something up between twinned towns in France and UK where I have contacts, but was told by a geocacher that "after much discussion, rules had changed " and individuals should only log caches that they had visited themselves.

 

Can anyone confirm this?

[+cerberus1]

I still see these things posted in the All Nations forums time-to-time.

I'd think if there was a "rule" on this (to me, odd) behavior, a Reviewer or Lackey woulda posted by now.

 

I personally wouldn't log a cache if I didn't visit it myself.

Others it seems, are perfectly fine with it .

[+Isonzo Karst]

"....rules had changed " and individuals should only log caches that they had visited themselves.

Can anyone confirm this?"

 

It's in the Help Center article, Teamwork caches

[+kunarion]

I have come across several "twin" or even multiple caches where location of the waypoints and caches are very far apart, often in different countries.

To find the caches involves co-operation between geocachers in the different locations, then all involved can log the final cache or caches. I was intending to try to set something up between twinned towns in France and UK where I have contacts, but was told by a geocacher that "after much discussion, rules had changed " and individuals should only log caches that they had visited themselves.

 

Can anyone confirm this?

There are paired caches where necessary info is in the opposite distant location. One teammate cooperates so the other may find and log their local cache (as with Isonzo Karst's helpful link). I hadn't heard of caches that you find & sign without even finding nor signing. OK, sure I have . But not necessarily in this context.

Edited March 12, 2017 by kunarion

[+cerberus1]

"....rules had changed " and individuals should only log caches that they had visited themselves.

Can anyone confirm this?"

 

It's in the Help Center article, Teamwork caches

Thanks for that. Learned something new today.

I musta missed that in a newsletter, release notes, or announcements.

Never considered the Help Center a weekly read.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I have come across several "twin" or even multiple caches where location of the waypoints and caches are very far apart, often in different countries.

To find the caches involves co-operation between geocachers in the different locations, then all involved can log the final cache or caches. I was intending to try to set something up between twinned towns in France and UK where I have contacts, but was told by a geocacher that "after much discussion, rules had changed " and individuals should only log caches that they had visited themselves.

 

Can anyone confirm this?

There are paired caches where necessary info is in the opposite distant location. One teammate cooperates so the other may find and log their local cache (as with Isonzo Karst's helpful link). I hadn't heard of caches that you find & sign without even finding nor signing. OK, sure I have . But not necessarily in this context.

 

Well, I did do a Locationless cache (over a decade ago), where I had to find another geocacher to to find a location based on my Geocaching handle. I cannot check on it since checking on my Locationless cache finds no longer works beyond forty found caches. The other cacher provided a photo of his GPSr showing the coords. We both were permitted to log the find. But that was over a decade ago, just before Locationless caches were archived.

I did a cooperation/team work cache that required us to work together. I suppplied him with the final coords to his cache and he provided me with the final coords to my cache. We each logged our local cache. Find cache, sign log, log on-line. No. You are not permitted to log finds on caches that you have not found and sighed the log. (Well, not these days.) I'm glad that Groundspeak has clarified this situation.

[+Team Microdot]

"....rules had changed " and individuals should only log caches that they had visited themselves.

Can anyone confirm this?"

 

It's in the Help Center article, Teamwork caches

Thanks for that. Learned something new today.

I musta missed that in a newsletter, release notes, or announcements.

Never considered the Help Center a weekly read.

 

Although if TPTB are going to continue to issue the new format newsletter as nothing more than a bunch of website links, maybe they'd be so kind as to make one of those links to things - like this - that have changed in the guidelines?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

"....rules had changed " and individuals should only log caches that they had visited themselves.

Can anyone confirm this?"

 

It's in the Help Center article, Teamwork caches

Thanks for that. Learned something new today.

I musta missed that in a newsletter, release notes, or announcements.

Never considered the Help Center a weekly read.

 

Over in the All Nations forum I've seen several examples of these, but called "Exchange caches". The forum is frequently used to find another someone to exchange the required information with. I always assumed that the worked as described in the help center article

 

I have suggested several times that GS should set up a "Release Notes" forum section for changes made in the guidelines, help center, knowledge books, etc. I have seen quite a few projects which put all their documentation in source control so that every time a change is made, a log is required to describe the change. A Change Log can automatically be generated which could be posted in a forum section, the newsletter, or anywhere else where it could be easily found. Even reading the Help center once a week isn't going to flag any changes that have been made.

 

 

[+Isonzo Karst]

To Team Microdot, my post quoted the OP, I personally do NOT think the "rules have changed", and don't see that anything has, "changed in the guidelines?"

To the extent that the guidelines have dealt with logging a find, they've said, "Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed".

 

At one time, you'd see an "updated: month day year" line on Help Center articles. But the current major reworking, that doesn't seem to be happening.

 

(I take your point about the non-newsletter. I assumed that the links issue (caches in Washington state, events = all world wide) was an error, but I'm hoping they're paying attention to the feedback on that. If it just souvenir announcements and links, even links that do use my "home coords" as entered on the site, it's useless. Fortunately, the "unsubscribe" button is still available at the bottom... waiting to see how it finally works out).

[+Team Microdot]

To Team Microdot, my post quoted the OP, I personally do NOT think the "rules have changed", and don't see that anything has, "changed in the guidelines?"

To the extent that the guidelines have dealt with logging a find, they've said, "Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed".

 

At one time, you'd see an "updated: month day year" line on Help Center articles. But the current major reworking, that doesn't seem to be happening.

 

(I take your point about the non-newsletter. I assumed that the links issue (caches in Washington state, events = all world wide) was an error, but I'm hoping they're paying attention to the feedback on that. If it just souvenir announcements and links, even links that do use my "home coords" as entered on the site, it's useless. Fortunately, the "unsubscribe" button is still available at the bottom... waiting to see how it finally works out).

 

I am aware of a UK cache which has a partner cache in Australia and logging of both is allowed / encouraged where only one has been physically visited and was in place before publication.

 

It's entirely possible that the reviewer did not notice this detail / didn't feel it necessary to intervene / the practice was more commonplace or acceptable at the time - I don't know.

 

Has the Teamwork Required attribute always existed? Has that Help Centre article always existed in its current form?

[+Les Pandas]

Thanks to all for their comments. There are a couple of sets of caches near my location where it seems quite OK for co-operating partners to log both sets as found. Presumably a reviewer has allowed them or overlooked them ?

 

Another type of cache that I have come across is where there are multiple waypoints, each in different countries, or a task has to be carried out in a different country, and once all the clues are collected, all members can log the final cache.

[+briansnat]

Thanks to all for their comments. There are a couple of sets of caches near my location where it seems quite OK for co-operating partners to log both sets as found. Presumably a reviewer has allowed them or overlooked them ?

 

Another type of cache that I have come across is where there are multiple waypoints, each in different countries, or a task has to be carried out in a different country, and once all the clues are collected, all members can log the final cache.

 

I once owned one of these caches, there were four caches in four different US states. I forget the details but you needed a parther in each state to find those caches to get the coordinates for your local one. Sone people logged all four, while others would only log the cache they actually found. Some people felt logging finds on the ones you didn't visit to be a cheesy practice.

 

Groundspeak for the most part (there are a few exceptions) doesn't police logging practices. They are generally between the cache owner and the "finder".

[+DragonsWest]

Thanks to all for their comments. There are a couple of sets of caches near my location where it seems quite OK for co-operating partners to log both sets as found. Presumably a reviewer has allowed them or overlooked them ?

 

Another type of cache that I have come across is where there are multiple waypoints, each in different countries, or a task has to be carried out in a different country, and once all the clues are collected, all members can log the final cache.

 

I once owned one of these caches, there were four caches in four different US states. I forget the details but you needed a parther in each state to find those caches to get the coordinates for your local one. Sone people logged all four, while others would only log the cache they actually found. Some people felt logging finds on the ones you didn't visit to be a cheesy practice.

 

Groundspeak for the most part (there are a few exceptions) doesn't police logging practices. They are generally between the cache owner and the "finder".

 

Thanks, Brian.

 

I think the GS attitude is "please, geocachers, work it out amongst yourselves." Because if people engage in pissing matches and drag in reviewers and GS staff a rule may be in the offing which won't make anyone happy (except perhaps the relieved GS staff who will point to the rule.)

 

I've participated in one of these big international caches and thought the whole thing was a fun idea and I'm grateful for having had the opportunity - where players are creative the game grows.

[+redsox_mark]

Thanks to all for their comments. There are a couple of sets of caches near my location where it seems quite OK for co-operating partners to log both sets as found. Presumably a reviewer has allowed them or overlooked them ?

 

Another type of cache that I have come across is where there are multiple waypoints, each in different countries, or a task has to be carried out in a different country, and once all the clues are collected, all members can log the final cache.

 

I once owned one of these caches, there were four caches in four different US states. I forget the details but you needed a parther in each state to find those caches to get the coordinates for your local one. Sone people logged all four, while others would only log the cache they actually found. Some people felt logging finds on the ones you didn't visit to be a cheesy practice.

 

Groundspeak for the most part (there are a few exceptions) doesn't police logging practices. They are generally between the cache owner and the "finder".

 

Interesting. I know reviewers don't get involved in policing logs, and Groundspeak only gets involved if there are disputes, or cases of an account doing widespread bogus logging. So there is nothing stopping you logging a find on the cache in the other country that you didn't visit, if the CO is OK with that.

 

What could get more interesting is if the cache description encourages logging of the caches in both/all countries (without visiting them). If the reviewer notices this, would they reject the listing as this goes against what is in the Help Center? Is the Help Center technically part of the guidelines, or just "help and advice"?