Temporary caches

[LDove]

@SammyClaws wrote:

@gotta run wrote:

I’m assuming for temp caches, but one of the big arguments of temp-cache-logging-detractors is that “they don’t have meet published cache guidelines.” Do CITO temp caches have to? If not, again it is an issue of consistency.

To play the devils advocate here, if temps were recognized, how do you regulate them? What would stop someone from sitting at a table and say there are 5 caches right here for you to log. Or better yet, just trade spreadsheets of caches the way people do coin discoveries.

Don’t get me wrong – I think people should be able to log temps since Groundspeak hasn’t taken a stand. (There certainly are enough rules for everything else) But the solution might not be as simple was it appears.

Just my 2 cents, but if someone DID do that – sit at a table and trade a spreadsheet around, whom exactly would it hurt? ❓ I don’t care one way or the other at this point, it is just a hobby with no “winner” at the end. Since your numbers are for you, why does it have to be regulated? If my profile says I got 900 or 900 with 25 attended logs does anybody really care?(well except Criminal). Just subtract my attends from my finds and you will get an aproximate number if you really want to know how many I have found. For now I feel, play it how ya want until Groundspeak steps up to the plate and makes a decision.

I can say from recent experience if you make all hides permanent for an event – you got some work cut out for you AND the reviewers (sorry reviewer people – lately) 😉 So I think big events will probably downscale the hides, it is a lot of work for both the hiders and the reviewers.

[gotta run]

@SammyClaws wrote:

To play the devils advocate here, if temps were recognized, how do you regulate them? What would stop someone from sitting at a table and say there are 5 caches right here for you to log.

My point is that temp caches apparently are “recognized” in CITO events. Someone correct me here if I’m wrong. Do CITO temps have to be published and meet the regular guidelines? If not, there is a huge lack of consistency.

Second, there’s nothing right now stopping someone from setting up a 100-stage, published multi with micro caches 10 feet apart in a park and saying you can claim a find for each “stage,” as is a practice on some multis. And remember, the owner controls the logging requirements (supposedly). Multi-logging of published caches is permitted (albeit “discouraged”).

Yes, it’s an extreme example, but since we’re playing devil’s advocate…

On the Left Side of the Road...

[GrouseTales]

It seems like a simple solution would be to still allow a “found it” log for event caches.

For those who want to log temps as finds, they can leave a “found it” log.

For those who consider events strictly social occasions and don’t want to log temps, they can leave an “attended” log.

Unfortunately, I think the temp caches at events lost acceptance years ago because of some of the loose definitions of a cache. On the other hand, I’ve never had a problem logging temps at WGA events. Each WGA event temp cache usually rivals or exceeds most regular caches I’ve found.

I think it may open a whole new can of worms if Groundspeak created a “temporary cache find”. Would this be a log type, or a cache type? This might work if it were strictly a log title. On the other hand, it would be an absolute nightmare if the volunteer reviewers had to start accepting temporary cache submissions. This would be WAY too much of a burden to place on the Reviewers.

[ecorangers]

So why does a CITO event give you two options (log attended, log found it)?

My first CITO cache find was up in Minneapolis at least 3 years ago. Anyways, I went to where the coords took me and found an ammo box in the woods in a local park. When I logged my find, I noticed I had the option to log “attended” or “found it.”

Of course I logged a “found it” since I had not attended a CITO event there that day. After re-reading the cache page, a CITO event had been held there previously and a permanent cache was placed there as a reminder for all to practice CITO.

Hope this helps…
💡 Anyone else have any recollection on this topic?
Tami

[Barry Butrymowicz]

We wish that TPTB would make a decision on this, by putting another line in the stats that is for temp finds, and it should be retroactive, so all the multiple loggers numbers drop to a real time find count.

Damn Im evil 😈

Figured I would add my .02 here since I long burned all the bridges allready

[TyeDyeSkyGuy]

WOW!

This thread doesn’t look like it’s going to solve anything.

My mistake, I’ll just keep my seat on the fence.

🙄

[furfool]

I just took a peek and saw that I have 153 event finds. And yes, I am proud of that fact. Do you want to know why? It’s because I had to use my gps to find them. Just like all of the other caches I found. At some point in time, most of all caches will be archived and when that happens, it means that they are not permanent but temporary. I will keep on logging “attended” for temp caches, just like many of you will. Kudos to those of you who could care less one way or the other. And to those who are completely set against temp claims, what is the big deal? Does this somehow hurt you or threaten you in some way? I don’t understand why some are so concerned over something so meaningless.

There is my .02 cents worth.

Now, happy caching everybody.

[Ry and Ny]

Frankly after seeing all of this from both sides, I’m really glad it’s a “game” that can be played alone.

[Barry Butrymowicz]

@furfool wrote:

I don’t understand why some are so concerned over something so meaningless.

Then why log them if they are meaningless?

[StarWarsGuy]

The CITOs have attended and found it options. That is all that would really need to be added to an event. FOUND IT 10 times attended once. not attended 11 times.

StarWarsGuy

[PCFrog]

@SammyClaws wrote:

@gotta run wrote:

I’m assuming for temp caches, but one of the big arguments of temp-cache-logging-detractors is that “they don’t have meet published cache guidelines.” Do CITO temp caches have to? If not, again it is an issue of consistency.

To play the devils advocate here, if temps were recognized, how do you regulate them? What would stop someone from sitting at a table and say there are 5 caches right here for you to log. Or better yet, just trade spreadsheets of caches the way people do coin discoveries.

Don’t get me wrong – I think people should be able to log temps since Groundspeak hasn’t taken a stand. (There certainly are enough rules for everything else) But the solution might not be as simple was it appears.

What stops you from doing that to regular caches? Only personal honesty…

[furfool]

@sweetlife wrote:

@furfool wrote:

I don’t understand why some are so concerned over something so meaningless.

Then why log them if they are meaningless?

BECAUSE I FOUND THEM WITH THE USE OF A GPSr.

[Barry Butrymowicz]

@furfool wrote:

@sweetlife wrote:

@furfool wrote:

I don’t understand why some are so concerned over something so meaningless.

Then why log them if they are meaningless?

BECAUSE I FOUND THEM WITH THE USE OF A GPSr.

Now days you can find anything with a GPS, Walmarts, Oil Changes, Pizza Hut, Even a exit on the highway, but do you log them?

Next time you find a temporary cache, check the log book for a GC# if you find one then you can log it, most of the temporaries that we have found didn’t even have a log book only a little .10 rubber stamper, and you stamped your print out as proof of being there, HMMMM…. no log book to sign, no GC#, yes it did have coordinates to find it, but its still NOT A APPROVED GEOCACHE

Barry of sweetlife

[furfool]

@sweetlife wrote:

@furfool wrote:

@sweetlife wrote:

@furfool wrote:

I don’t understand why some are so concerned over something so meaningless.

Then why log them if they are meaningless?

BECAUSE I FOUND THEM WITH THE USE OF A GPSr.

Now days you can find anything with a GPS, Walmarts, Oil Changes, Pizza Hut, Even a exit on the highway, but do you log them?

Next time you find a temporary cache, check the log book for a GC# if you find one then you can log it, most of the temporaries that we have found didn’t even have a log book only a little .10 rubber stamper, and you stamped your print out as proof of being there, HMMMM…. no log book to sign, no GC#, yes it did have coordinates to find it, but its still NOT A APPROVED GEOCACHE

Barry of sweetlife

Yes I would log them if I was given a set of coordinates at an event for them and there was a log to sign. And, not all log books have a GC# in them. I log those too. There are a lot of replacement logs out there with no GC#s in them. I suppose that if you found one like that, you wouldn’t log it. Anyway, I’m for letting people play how they want to. Now, I am done on this subject for the time being! Go ahead and have the last word. You know you want it.

[cheezehead]

Ummmmm none of my caches have GC# in the log book 😕 . I that a rule?

[Author]

Posts