Dinoprophet

You're welcome to do that. You "found" the cache by any definition you'll find outside this site. However, without a signature in the log, whether your online log stays is entirely at the cache owner's discretion, and many -- probably most -- will delete it.

Okay, really, this is driving me nuts now. I don't remember enough about it to search for it, but I clearly remember it being discussed. The people in the story were caching and found some ancient sun god or something. Edit: AHH! Found it. It was part of the 2002-03 incarnation of The Twilight Zone. I didn't think it was so long ago, no wonder I couldn't find it.

Are You Scared 2 I swear I remember an episode of an anthology series a few years ago where some cachers unearthed a world-destroying something. Anyone else remember that? I'm kind of baffled that geocaching shows and movies are almost all about horror and murder.

The VeggieTales creators are/were geocachers, and one of the DVDs had a hidden extra showing them caching.

I don't think we'll ever see Benchmarks eliminated from the Website. I've been wrong before though. Not that anyone cares, but I acutally found about 8-10 locationless, decided they weren't really geocaching, and I shouldn't be getting a "find" for them, and self-deleted. But for some bizarre reason, I decided I was going to keep the first one I ever found (Radio KAOS), thereby making myself an icon ho'. Wouldn't you know, that has come in awful handy for Challenge caches!! I had no clue if there were any challenge caches in 2006 (other than the obvious Delorme and County challenges) I had the same thought process and changed my locationless finds to notes. I linked them in my profile.

Waymarking was the solution to locationless. How could you not bring it up when talking about "solutions?" Exactly. The problem has been solved. Unless you count people wanting an icon in their profile as a problem. And if you do, this solution doesn't solve that, because people want it in their Hide column as well. You also have to then consider people who want Project APE icons, etc. The OP is right, Waymarking is a different site. And there are many very good reasons for that.

Um. No. Locationless caches are gone. Whybothermarking is a different site. True enough, the concept no longer exists as a type of geocache. Waymarking.com provides a better site and infrastructure for the same activity than this site can possibly provide. It's a different game, with different online requirements, so it was moved to a different site. See my signature line for my bookmark list that shows what Waymarking categories match the old locationless. I don't know how many locationless there were, but I have 215 on my list so far, with a couple dozen ready to add, and over 75% of them have matching categories. Many will never have Waymarking categories (e.g. spot any animal, place a cache at in a certain cartographic area), but most others are potential ideas for future categories.

This makes this old journalist happy. The grammar was never in question. It's the definition of "once" that there's some disagreement on, specifically whether it indicates that the conditional clause is the only condition under which the main clause can be met. I say it doesn't, by any definition I've seen, including those in the essay above.

What rule? Not that there is a regulation, buthttp://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx --Logging of All Physical Caches Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed. That guideline doesn't mean what you think it means. While it does mean that cache owners must allow a 'find' log if someone has signed the logbook, it does not give guidance regarding unsigned logbooks. Apparently, it doesn't mean that owners must allow a find log. I recently had someone delete my logs without reason and after emailing him about it without response, I emailed Groundspeak and complained. They emailed him and their response to me was that he wouldn't budge and that I would just have to not log that cache. It would seem to me that you can delete any log you want to on any of your caches for any reason. What was the situation with the logbook?

...and the Anti-puritans* are equally guilty. *New term to be used in future cases like this: Laissez-faireists (You read it here first.) I for one accept this new label!

well, there was a container there, so it was a real cache. but the CO says that he doesn't care if you've never found the cache, but instead that you can log a found if you just post some pictures. that's why it was archived. you previously said that a CO was free to do that. well, apparently not. The archiving reviewer said it's a virtual. I also said that specific case probably wouldn't be allowed. The cache owner was allowing logs for people who never were near the cache. Which is the subject of your survey. So good news, you don't have to do that anymore!

and what if i happen to email one that isn't part of "almost anyone"? You'll want a sample of many cachers. Be sure to include some Groundspeak employees. Once you think you have a reasonable sample size, tally your results. Before any of this, make sure your survey doesn't violate the site's terms of use. And no, I didn't do this myself. That's why I said "I'm pretty sure". Please let me know what you find out and I'll adjust my belief accordingly. yep. so obviously it's not totally up to the CO to allow logs on any condition that he deems appropriate. I thought it obvious that they can't violate other rules of the site, such as no virtuals. They also can't violate local, state, and federal ordinances, or the laws of physics.

so when the logbook hasn't been signed, then the log can be denied, right? Yes, it can. But it doesn't have to be. That's the crux of this whole argument. You say Groundspeak says "Cache owners must not allow Found logs if the book isn't signed". I say Groundspeak says "Cache owners must not disallow Found logs if the book is signed". Actually, I believe that cache owners may disallow finds where the log book has been signed, but only is some rare cases. If a finder insists on logs that are off-topic, contain spoilers, or use foul language the cache owner can delete those logs. If the finder won't post a log that is satisfactory the owner can keep deleting logs despite the log book being signed. True, any log can be denied for content.

no you didn't answer, you just gave one example. Yes, I did. The answer was "Any case the cache owner deems acceptable." This was then followed by a couple (not just one) of examples. No, you asked me about some situations, but you didn't say you believed they should be accepted. You say the log doesn't always have to be signed. I realize (as I suspect you do) that it would contradict your argument that the logbook must be signed, but you did say it, so I'm wondering what they are. well, either you're allowed to log a cache as found or you're not. if you've signed the log, you are. and if you didn't, then the CO has the official blessing to delete the log, right? he doesn't have to, but he can. doesn't that mean that from official side (even if the CO doesn't care) the log is considered to be bogus? No. You may have missed one of my many edits earlier. It's the difference between "Do Not Enter" and "Enter At Your Own Risk". You have Groundspeak's protection if you sign. If you don't sign, Groundspeak will not guarantee your Found log. sorry, but i don't have almost anyone's email address so that i could ask them what is allowed and what isn't. Wow. Here's what you do: pick a random cacher, email them, and ask them. I'd have to ask the mod who archived it. Oh, wait, he posted a log:

that's what i've been asking you all along. Yes, I know, and I answered. Now I'm asking you. Are you going to answer it? the found log without matching signature of course. Why would that mean the log shouldn't be there in the first place? whose definition is that again? Bolded.

nobody's saying (well, at least i am not) that all logs without matching signature should be deleted. Now I'll ask you: under what conditions should a Found log be allowed to stand with no signature? I'm afraid I don't follow this question. If the CO is allowed to delete what kind of log? really? so i can create a cache and tell people that i don't really care whether they've signed the log, found the cache or even have been there at all, but they can just log anyway? Sure. Well, probably not "never been there at all". I'm pretty sure that constitutes "bogus" under almost anyone's definition.

so when the logbook hasn't been signed, then the log can be denied, right? Yes, it can. But it doesn't have to be. That's the crux of this whole argument. You say Groundspeak says "Cache owners must not allow Found logs if the book isn't signed". I say Groundspeak says "Cache owners must not disallow Found logs if the book is signed". yeah, so i'm asking you, if that's not the only case, in what other cases can a log also be accepted? Any case the cache owner deems acceptable. A photo of the cache owner holding the cache, for example, or a detailed description of the cache location. It's up to the cache owner. The logbook is the one requirement Groundspeak allows cache owners to enforce. That does not mean they say you must sign it. It's the difference between "Do Not Enter" and "Enter At Your Own Risk". They won't make you sign, but if you don't, they won't guarantee your Found log.

yeah, so you won't believe it before i do, right? No. the minute you show me, I'll believe it. But not to the exclusion of other people showing me. Edit: that's not what I said it means. It means that a Found log cannot be denied when the logbook is signed. It's not meaningless. As has been said many, many times, in this and other threads: it is there to tell cache owners that a Found log must be accepted when the logbook is signed. In case that wasn't clear enough (hard to imagine...), it then goes on to explain that ALRs can be requested but not enforced.

actually, it does. I'll believe that AS SOON AS you find me that definition. (Or I would, if there weren't multiple dictionaries that do NOT define "once" that way).

yes of course, i'm that smart replace that "once" with an "if" and it means something different. demonstrating that was the whole point of the example. pretty much, yes. as soon as i turn onto your street, i can see your house. which means i won't be able to see your house before i've turned onto your street. of course i could be flying a helicopter overhead and see your house from that, but then i won't be turning onto any streets at all. so the statement implies that i'm driving or walking. If you glance down my street as you miss the turn and drive past, you can see it, too. Or if you turn on the street before, you can see it from behind. My point is, "once" means "as soon as", like you originally said, but not "only as soon as". At least not in any of the dictionaries I've checked. I'll believe it ONCE you show me a dictionary that does define it that way (note that the "once" there does not imply that someone else showing me this dictionary, or finding one myself, will not make me believe it).

.

no they're not, the "once" part means exactly that: "only after". That's not the definition you used the first time. You keep sticking an "only" into these sentences. Where have you seen it defined that way? I borrow my wife's key when that happens. You've specifically chosen a situation where doing things out of order is impossible. How about: "You can see my house once you turn onto my street" Is it impossible to see my house under any other conditions?

you got it backwards. it doesn't say "must" because you don't have to log online after signing the physical log. but if you didn't sign the physical log, then you can not log it online as found. see? still says "can". it's simple logical negation. Look, some read that sentence as : "If the physical log has been signed, then geocaches can be logged online as Found." and some read it as: "If and only if the physical log has been signed, then geocaches can be logged online as Found." Both are valid interpretations of that sentence alone. But because that instruction is found in a section telling cache hiders what kinds of logs they are not to delete and nowhere else, including the half-dozen different pages of instructions to new seekers that I linked above, the former makes more sense to me.

I agree so far. Bold mine. That's the part many of us do not agree is implied. The point of that sentence is that a signed log means the Found log MUST be allowed. I know this because of where it is found in the guidelines (ALR ban), and the fact that it isn't found ANYWHERE else in the guidelines.

Well put. And you can skip the Getting Started page, the Finding your First Geocache page, the Learn How To Log A Find page, the Log Deletion Knowledge Book, the Logbook Etiquette Knowledge book, and the Cache Log Icons Knowledge Book. I already checked those. Many say "Sign the logbook", but in no case do they say you can't call it found. By that argument, I could delete a log if someone says they didn't mark their car -- it's right there on the website! It's all fine to declare it accepted practice, but just how is a newbie to know that "found" means something other than than "I saw it" when not one of those pages says so? I don't know any definition of "found" outside of geocaching that connotes writing something.