Do you think it is okay to claim a find when....

Some of the other treads have touched on this subject so I thought I'd bring it up in its own thread.

It is okay to claim a find on a cache that you have found before if you find it again after something significant has changed about it, like its location?

Do you think it is ever okay to log a find on one of your own caches or one you helped someone else hide? What if someone else rehid it in a slightly different spot and you had to search and search for it?

In your opinion, when is it okay to log a find?

I don't think I would never log a cache twice, even if it were moved.
I don't think I would ever log my own cache for any reason.

I know a person who found his own cache which turned up missing. It was more than a half mile I think from the original location and under 4 feet of water. That's pretty darn near deserving of being able to log a find in my book, but I probably would still not do it myself.

Geocaching is not really a competition, so it doesn't really matter. If a person feels valid doing either one, then I will live with it. But I don't think it's right under most circumstances, so I don't agree with the practice in general.

I think it depends on how far it got moved. If it stayed in the same general location then no it should not be logged twice.

I would not log a cache that I hide myslef or helped someone hide. Because you did not really find it. Anyone can find a cache they hid themselves. Dah.

I kind of did that on Casco Bay Cache. :o I made up a new one and rehid it because the owner had not archived for 6mo. even with people logging DNFs. I found the clue mentioned and knew I wasnt going to get credit for making up a new cache so I logged it found. I see B. Girl looked for it last week and logged a DNF. I guess I'll have to go check on it again. I wasnt sure if what I was doing was going to be politicaly correct but will have to live with it I guess.
I did notice when going over my cache stats that I logged my 8th cache 'Got You Covered' twice. I didnt know how or what to do with a travel bug. Team Trout came to my rescue and helped me out. :) The extra find has now been fixed.

Well, our 9 year old son, who decided to start his own user id, Spider King, to keep track of his finds wanted to hide a cache of his own. I helped him develop a multi-cache at a site not too far from our home.

So, you know how you have the handy "filter finds" link on your account details page on gc.com that takes you to a list of the nearest caches that you haven't logged a find for. Well now I have his cache showing up near the top of the list on my first page of nearest undone caches, and I know I shouldn't log a find for it and I can't figure out a way to easily have it filtered off.

It's killing me! It's like I've got this item on the top of my "To-Do" list that I know I never can do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Trout

It's killing me! It's like I've got this item on the top of my "To-Do" list that I know I never can do.

---

Ah! I knew Spiderking had some connection, I saw a few logs in the caches we did down that way last weekend. We did that multi in fact!
Anyway, that is a dilema and not much you can do about it. Too bad you couldn't have helped him hide it without actually knowing where. Hopefully MsTeeLee will be hiding one up here soon, I might help her some but I want to be able to find it myself so I'm not gonna be there for that part.
Maybe another member of team trout wasn't present and could look for it and log it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brdad

Too bad you couldn't have helped him hide it without actually knowing where.

---

Well, it turns out that it has kind of evolved into something like that.

It happened like this, one day last week my wife and my son and the rest of our kids swing by just to check on my son's cache and none of them could find it. They searched and searched but nothing. So he posted a note that it was missing and disabled the cache.

In the meantime we're having an ongoing email conversation with the last finder of the cache, who by the way, had just found it the night before they checked on it. Based on his description it sounded like the cache could have been rehidden in a bit of a different, harder to find spot. But, my wife and son were certain they'd done a thorough search and it was missing.

So we made up a new, replacement cache and they went back a few days later to hide it. Before hiding it they gave the place another thorough search with the last finder's description in mind. And low and behold they found it! :D Furthermore, they liked the new location better than the one it had originally been hidden in so they decided to leave it there. But, it is still close enough to the original spot that the coordinates didn't need to be change, as brdad can attest to as he was the first one who found it in the new location.

So, I haven't been back myself to find it in its new location. That is kind of like not actually knowing where it hides, right? :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Trout

So, I haven't been back myself to find it in its new location. That is kind of like not actually knowing where it hides, right? :o

---

Heheheh....you REALLY wanna log this one, don't ya! ;-)

-RanMan22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RanMan22

Heheheh....you REALLY wanna log this one, don't ya! ;-)

-RanMan22

---

Guilty as charged! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Trout

It is okay to claim a find on a cache that you have found before if you find it again after something significant has changed about it, like its location?

---

Even if the location of a previously found cache has been moved, I would only log it as a find for a second time if the cache owner has explicitly stated that logging for a second time is ok.

Which brings up another question. If your cache goes missing, but you want to maintain it in that general area, do you disable it until you can get back out there to replace it, or do you archive it and place a new one? We have tended towards the latter, often appending the roman numeral II, III, etc. to the cache name. In this way, we allow cachers a new find, and it also serves as a historical record of our cache placements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trail Prowlers

If your cache goes missing, but you want to maintain it in that general area, do you disable it until you can get back out there to replace it, or do you archive it and place a new one? We have tended towards the latter, often appending the roman numeral II, III, etc. to the cache name. In this way, we allow cachers a new find, and it also serves as a historical record of our cache placements.

---

Interesing take on things. I'm not sure I completely agree with this. If it is in the same general area, it is basically the same cache with a new container. A completely new listing with a new roman numeral that folks can post a new find for is pretty much the same thing as people coming back and logging a second find for the same the cache. I think is just a matter of splitting hairs about folk's opinions of what is and what isn't within the rules.

I think it is somewhat contradictary to say that if you replace a cache and don't start a new page then folks can't log a new find, but if you do start a new cache page for the rehide they can. It really is the same thing whether a new cache page is started or not.

As for the hitorical record issue, just posting a dated note on the cache page that it was replaced seems like record enough.

I agree with Trout.

If the replacement cache is in the same area. But say 400 to 500 feet away from the original, then I can see it being a new cache. Othewise it's just a rehide of the original. There by disallowing the second posting. This is of course only my opinion. :D

To further elucidate my point about the use of roman numerals, indeed, the replacement cache is never in the same spot as the previous one or ones, as the whole reason a new cache is necessary is because the others have been muggled. I can't say with certainty that the replacement hides are 400-500 feet away, however, there is no question that it is a new find. Those caches that are simply replaced in the same exact spot are the ones that I believe should never be posted as a second find.