woodsters

It's been discussed before and mentioned again lately, but for those that own caches, are you performing "quality control checks of your logs"? If you are comparing your logbooks to the online cache logs, then you aren't violating the guidelines. The guidelines state: So be sure you are checking your logbooks with those postings on the cache pages.

I know how you feel. I hate people who suspect me of cheating when I've done nothing and make me pass a test just so I can tell them what I good time I had. I suspect I'll be posting notes in the future and just tracking my finds in watcher. Or just don't log it online at all....

I'm not sure if I understood your statement correctly or not. The way I read it though was that you are saying that adding this extra mechanism is a way for owners not to go and do cache maintenance. If so, I disagree. Cache maintenance is a total seperate subject and shouldn't be involved in this, other than what BrianSnat stated. If a person is logging fake finds on your caches, then there could be a problem and you not know about it. I believe that an owner should check on their cache every so often whether if the logs denote it's need or not. For several reasons. 1) to make sure the container is in good order, 2) to make sure the log and finders sheet or readable, dry and in good order, 3) to make sure that there are adequate trade items and that they have not been depleted to trash, 4) to make sure the environment is not being impacted negatively (according to GC guidelines) and other similar reasons. These have to do with maintenance which should be doing periodically. Now, how do you determine of when or how often to go and check it? I think part of it would depend on the traffic in which you receive. How do you tell how much traffic, you are receiving? Normally by online logs. So if you are getting a lot of finds, then you need to check your cache more often than you would for one that gets a find every now and then. If you have a cache that don't get a lot of finds and there is time in between, people could have logged fake finds. But the cache could be missing. Some people (honest) may have looked for the cache, but didn't log a DNF. They may simply think I'll come back later and try to find it. A good bit of time can go by with the cache missing. Only to be noticed when the owner actually goes and checks. Is it a competition? It depends on the person. Some like to compete with others. Some like to compete with themselves. Some want to find as many as they can and show off. So what, everyone has their own way of playing. As a cache owner, I don't want people to log fake finds. Why? Because it's a slap in the face to me and a slap in the face to the cachers who did find it. If you didn't get off your lazy a** and go out to it and sign the log, then don't bother logging it online. I for one will check periodically on my caches. As a cacher, it is a slap in the face to me. I made the effort to go out and find it and log it. I took the time to go out and do it, I would hope the owner would be kind enough to do the same and not emote a "I don't care attitude". If they don't care, then post it on the cache page and I will skip the cache. People are going to cheat, no matter what. They are going to try and they will succeed. Do we make it easy for them and look the other way? Who is it hurting? It may be hurting some of the finders or potential finders as BrianSnat mentioned. I don't see how retrieving a number for a cache could be all that more difficult for you to do. People usually (not all the times) take a copy of the cache sheet with them or a pda/ppc. Write the number down while there at the cache. Take a log book with you just for this. I normally go after more than one cache when I go. I have a little book that I write some quick notes down on so that I won't have things mixed up when I get home and log them. It's not hard to do. The lid coded thing makes it so much easier to put a slow down on the cheaters and liers. Here's an option, how about making it an option for the cache owners? I would for one would opt to have it on my caches. On the cache page will be a message that says this cache has a lid code. Then when they go to log a find, it will say it requires a lid code. For those that lose the lid code, well they could email the cache owner and let them know. Then the cache owner can decide if they are truthfull or not and give it to them to log the find.

Some have mentioned that a piece of paper can be insrerted into those smaller containers. Like I said it's not fool proof, but it does make it more difficult to log a find. Kind of like the vacation cache thing. It's just more of a hassle than anything. There are ways around it. Perhaps they should say that a cache has to have a log book in it or it's a virtual. So if you have a container that is too small for a log, but where you can place a codeword in it, then it's a virtual. Same idea, you are giving them info you have to find or locate to claim the find...

I don't think that's what he is talking about sax...he's referring to assigning a number like a TB to the caches. When you find the cache, you write down the number assigned to that should only be written on the cache (preferrably inside) and take it with you. When you go online to log the find, you have to enter the assigned number, just like a TB. Then you can log your find. It's not the ultimate security or anything, but it will cut down on people logging bogus finds. Good idea for virtuals too. Because on those, the owner would need to send the number to the finder, thus putting the owner of virts in more of a position of being involved. There's no such thing as an ultra-micro...I've never seen one listed as such and if so, then they are not a true cache right? Using a codeword to claim a find is the same thing as a virtual.

yep it's been discussed before. I started a topic on it once several months ago I believe. You can search for "lid codes" and there should be some things under it. Just like the other thread posted above, people start posting what if's. I personally think it's good. Your not taking away any other aspect. You are adding one form of security. Of course it can be manipulated, but no more than things already are. At least I see the moajority of it for the better, than the worse.

Cheating? Something new? You haven't been reading much around here have you...lol

Thney referenced a book on geocaching. So it would more than likely be a book that would be checked out... And then having something in a book itself, unless it's just a clue, you run a risk of muggles....

People should be banned for even thinking of submitting those...lol

your right sturgeon....you're gonna get slammed for that..lol

shouldn't he/she be stashing caches? According to their site, they haven't done one yet....

nice a**....I mean avatar!

I also do a similar thing you do with streets and maps except that I use pocket maps on the pocket pc...all I do, is do an import though and change the name similar to hte map name and it will display them on the pocket streets map...

I only use gpxview and nothing else...my pq's come in size of 2megs (unzipped) as I ask for the closest 400 wihtin 100 miles. There's over 1500 within a 100 miles of me.... not sure what the problem isthat you are having...you are doing more with the pq's than I do...I get them, unzip them and load them to my pocket pc (iPAQ). Then I run them in gpxview and that's it...

why this site and not navicache?

this thread will be deleted and your ip address blocked...lol

perhaps when you loaded the file to the pocketpc that it failed? Do you have the available space for it? There could be other reasons I guess...

One thing I see about having something that is needed to open a cache as part of a multi cache is that people aren't going to return the needed part(key) to the correct leg of the multi....

remove the dime and put a folded up piece of paper there....like I said, if it's something that can't hold a log and there is something that you have to verify with the owner to claim the find, then it should be a virtual...no difference in that, than telling someone what year so and so happened or that someone died...

I will further say that if it's a container and considered a traditional, then it should have a log book...If it's something without a log book, then it would be a virtual, just like the dime example SAXMAN stated. That really should be a virtual as there is no logbook to sign and you are using something on site to verify you actually being there. Edit: For calling saxman samnan...

Did both sign the logbook? All it says is that one did the math and the other found it. They could of been together when it was found. Sometimes myu son goes with me caching. Sometimes he finds the cache, but I do the problems and sign the logs. Normally I just post the finds under my account, the one I'm writing under now. But we did make an account for him. Would it be wrong for him to log a find as well on the ones he was there with me on finding? I don't think it would be. Now if these two people were totally seperate people and one had done the math and gave teh answer to the other and didn't go after the cache and sign the log too, then that wouldn't look good in my eyes...

another thing to consider is to be sure of if using the dewey system, is that the card catalog system can not be used online to achieve answers...I did a cache where it wanted you to go to a library and type in a code to find the place to go to and then retrieve the info. I was able to use the card catalog system online for that library, although it's a very small town and skip one of the steps. Or at least I didn't have to go to the library...

And even then, the cache owners are not even verifying them....

What if the book gets checked out?

Rust. You said it wrong...you capitalized the "r".... you're the weakest link......GOODBYE!