BarbarianB

To Safe-T-Man: Try reposting your Found It log minus all the useless information promoting whatever it was you were promoting and see what happens.

Well, I suppose if someone doesn't like "control freaks" then they now know whose caches to ignore. Such a horrible thing to require that the physical log be signed before an online Found It to be posted, as set down as a general rule of geocaching.

Oh, believe me KBlast, I monitored that discussion once it was brought to my attention by the owner, who I know quite well, of the cache in question. I DNF'd that cache myself and haven't bothered to go back even though it's just a few miles away. That horse was so beat to death there wasn't anything left to beat.

Really, it's not much to require that one either signs the log, tosses it down to them or even sign for them, which does happen often enough, but at least their name and/or experience or whatever else they wish to say, is on the physical log. KBlast mentionsed Dozer's Domain in Columbus, Ohio. I was there on 2 occasions when the log was signed, but I did not ask for my name to be put on it since I did not do any of the climbing on any stage since most of them were WAY beyond what I was even willing to do. Also, pretty much the same deal with another cache called Peanut's Playground, except I did sign the log, but did not claim a find on it since most of the climbs I witnessed were way beyond my comfort zone and since it was raining that day, I was not going to climb a wet tree. I could have claimed the find if I wanted to and I don't think anybody would have truly cared a whole lot, but it was my personal choice not to. Everybody can govern their own caches however loosely they they want to. I certainly do expect that if one were to seek my caches, that they should have their name on the log before claiming it as found or at least have a valid reason why they couldn't get their name on the log after the cache container has been opened by them or their caching partner.

It's not only proof to the owner that you signed the log, if they even decided to check from time to time, but also to those who find the cache afterwards. It's a small thing to require that the physical log have the finders name on it before they post their online log. If they didn't, then they may as well as not even bothered to drive out to find it at all and just logged it from their lazy chair

D/T is a score if you are trying to fill in your 81 grid. I'd like to one day have mine filled in, but I'm not going out of my way to do it. I would welcome a different rating system that wasn't based on number of finds, which is warped, due people logging multiple attend logs on event caches because they are claiming the temporary unpublished caches or even logging additional Found It logs on caches because they revisited them for one reason or another. But that's their choice if they do that It would be completely up to each individual whether or not they wanted to pay attention to such statistics. I'm not competing with everybody else out there, but it's kind of cool to at least see where one's rankings stand in the overall grand scheme of things.

AMEN BROTHER !!!!!!!!!! THAT'S HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE PLAYED. HONORABLE FINDS AND GOOD CACHER ETIQUETTE !!!!!

It doesn't even have to be just about caches with higher terrains, either. I've seen it recently on a local challenge cache where someone logged a find without completing even one of the requirements. And, if the finder reported the log to be unsignable due to it being wet, at least then you pretty much know he/she did make it to, touch and open the cache container, lol. It all boils down to, you govern your caches the way you want to and I'll govern my caches the way I want to. I certainly don't like doing it, but if I feel I am justified in deleting someone's log, then I will do it in a heartbeat, but also make sure the person understands my reasons for doing so in a very nice and informational manner. As far as a score, it would make things more interesting if there was a better stats rating system like Terracaching has, instead of just a plus 1 to your number of finds. In Terracaching, I might have more finds than Joe Blo, but if he might have a higher ranking because more of his finds might have higher TPS (or D/T) scores than my finds. I'm not pushing for such a system and certainly not wanting to start an argument about such a system, but I would certainly welcome such a stats rating system.

If the cache is a high terrain rated cache, someone should not be able to play I Spy and say they "Found It" because they saw it without signing the physical log per gc.com guidelines stated in the Knowledge Books. It's absolutely unfair to every previous finder who, by whatever means, got their name on the log sheet, that one single person would get that D/T score for doing NOTHING to get their name on the log. In my book, as long as the physical cache is in optimal condition and the log in signable condition, then no VISUAL find should be claimed by anyone. That's not how geocaching started and I will not let it happen on my caches. If I did that, then I should just let everybody log finds from home while sitting their fat butts in their lazy chairs in front of the magic light box with moving pictures. Anyway, I shared my story on the subject Dead horse burger downed, digested and passed.

I couldn't tell you how many have just TRIED more adventurous caches, only to realize that not only could they do it, but that they had fun doing it and wanted to do more. Take for instance, if the cache was placed in a big pine tree. They are usually very easy to climb like a ladder with lots of branches to hold on to all the way up. That is a fun tree climb, not something that will scare the $#!t out of you. You might get a little pine tar on you, but so what, it comes off. My most recent adventurous cache and one of my most fun milestone finds is called Ghost Ship, an actual shipwreck near the Ohio River in northern Kentucky. A terrain of 4.0, but a relatively easy 4.0 depending on which route you wanted to take. I was actually able to walk to it without even getting wet or muddy. Look up the cache and check out the fun pics. My Number 1 Rule: Never discount any cache no matter the D/T until I've had a chance to see for myrself whether or not I want to try it or not.

LOL! $#*tcrik, Ohio is code for Kettering (Dayton), Ohio

I really don't give a rat if they didn't climb the tree, just as long as they get their name on the log sheet. It happens often enough that someone's kid or one lucky guy will do the climbing and sign for the other guy or even an entire group, maybe even bring the log down so they can sign for themselves. Yes, I own quite a few interesting caches, roughly 180+ active ones. I abhor PnG's even though I own an entire series of them, but I have not hidden one in well over a year since I finished the series at 30 traditional caches and 2 puzzles. Almost all my cache pages are themed like my Magic 8 Ball and Press Your Luck puzzles. I have quite a few caches in trees, tunnels and lots of other interesting hiding spots. I guarantee you come caching to my area, you'll have grand ol' time.

The point is that it's not a true find if you just see the cache and don't sign the log (minus certain issues such as a soaking wet log) One just needs to realize that they can't claim a find on every cache on their radar

Such caches are being published all the time and is not an ALR. Climbing the tree to sign the log is a requirement if the cache is permanently affixed and cannot be retrieved from ground level. Thus, such a type of cache, popular in my area, is rated at a 3.5 terrain or higher for just such a reason. Why? Because it was fun as a kid and it's fun now.

I was looking for some information about log deletions and saw this thread. Today, I deleted somebody's Found It log on one of my caches that is in a tree. Their online Found It blatantly said: "Yeah, I am not signing that, but I am still counting it." There's even a note in big bold red letters on the cache page saying that you should attempt at your own risk and should not claim a find unless you have signed the physical log or your log will be deleted. As far as I am concerned, it has always been understood that in order to claim a Found It on any geocache with a physical container and log, that you should ONLY claim a Found It if you signed the physical log. The only exceptions being Virtuals, Earthcaches and Web-cams. Some people just don't get it that not all geocaches are for everyone and if you are unable to perform the necessary tasks to get to the geocache, whether it involves crossing a creek, taking a boat out to an island, rapelling down a cliff or climbing a tree, then you should just forget about it and move on to the next cache.

I was looking for some information about log deletions and saw this thread. Today, I deleted somebody's Found It log on one of my caches that is in a tree. Their online Found It blatantly said: "Yeah, I am not signing that, but I am still counting it." As far as I am concerned, it has always been understood that in order to claim a Found It on any geocache with a physical container and log, that you should ONLY claim a Found It if you signed the physical log. The only exceptions being Virtuals, Earthcaches and Web-cams. Some people just don't get it that not all geocaches are for everyone and if you are unable to perform the necessary tasks to get to the geocache, whether it involves crossing a creek, taking a boat out to an island, rapelling down a cliff or climbing a tree, then you should just forget about it and move on to the next cache.

I'm not sure how to put this, but it just seems as though you're piggy-backing other folks' work. If I want to go find caches at cover bridges, well, I'd go find those caches. Then there's all of the rules with which one has to comply. Yeah, you're right, there's always that ignore button that I'd be using. Two things would have made me think differently: you having completed the challenge yourself and the challenge cache was at one of the covered bridges instead of where it is. If there was an available covered bridge in my area, don't you think I would make it part of the challenge? I really wanted to, but that just wasn't possible. And I would definitely like to complete my own challenge, but gee whillickers, I sure haven't never heard of a challenge cache like it. The cache is what I have made it and anyone can either enjoy visiting these sites they ordinarily may not have gone to without the challenge or they can ignore it. The cache was made for fun, for those would actually enjoy completing it and not for some one who has nothing better to do than complain about the requirements or where the cache is placed.

There is always that "Ignore Listing" option. One or two clicks is all it would've taken.

The Under Cover Ohio Challenge is a challenge cache and falls under that little added paragraph under Mystery and Puzzle Caches section in the guidlines. If one lives in the Dayton, Ohio vicinity, and only found traditional caches, they would have an endless number of puzzle icons on their radar. At last count there were about 220 mystery/puzzle caches within a 25 mile radius of my home coordinates in the Dayton area, so what's one more to add that list? That's not including the huge cluster in Mason, Ohio near Cincinnati.

I don't see how my cache requiring you to find 25 caches hidden on, at or near Ohio's Historic Covered Bridges can be such a problem. Not only does it highlight the Covered Bridges, but it also brings more attention to their existence and the fact that many are in bad need of restoration, even the ones that aren't hightlighted by a geocache, all of which I've tracked down and located using other websites. Many are enjoying the challenge and even going beyond the requirements to find and see many of the other covered bridges. Also, there are more and more cachers who really like the higher terrain caches, so I created a challenge for that. I don't get it, this is only a game and ALR's only bring an additional bit of fun and challenge to the game. If you aren't willing or physically able to get to a cache, solve the puzzle or complete certain requirements and sign the log, then why worry about it?

As far as the much newer puzzle cache where you have to post your Found-It log in the past, I am absolutely not interested in finding that one at all. That means I would have to go back and edit every single one of my milestones and that's not worth one Smiley.

Are you cutting it along the diameter and threading it? Sounds like a lot of work, but offbeat caches do make the hobby and the Found-It logs more entertaining. Judging from some of the logs for mine, it does seem rather deceptive. I had one cacher actually email me for a hint, which made it even more hilarious when I got his "DOH!" reply.

I don't have a photo, so I will describe my cool container to you. I found it by chance while looking for another cache, which was a fake plant attached to a weighted end sitting on top of a pill bottle in the ground. What I found was an old red fire extinguisher. I took it home, unscrewed the top and cleaned it out. Then, I cut the the aluminum tube in half, which is attached to the top and runs all the way to the bottom. Next, I drilled a hole through the side of the end of the tube and attached a red bison tube to it and put the whole thing back together. Needless to say, the fire extinguisher just looks like a giant RED BISON TUBE. The cache page reads "you are looking for a RED BISON TUBE. If you have not found the RED BISON TUBE with the log sheet, you have not found the cache." Here's a link to my cache page if you'd like to check it out: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...09-2beeea2848d8

If you go by "date placed" on the cache, you'd find this rule breaker. It was published on Nov. 3, 2008 but the cache page says it was hidden on May 3, 2000 That's the EXACT same day that Dave Ulmer hid the very first original cache. Found-It logs HAVE to be dated in the past, which messes with your milestones. The GC # is what made me discover this one. GC1HTTN - Daylight Saving Time Machine http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...6c-ae731d61f423

testing