Dinoprophet

In other words, it's "IF you sign the log, you may log online"; it is not "IF AND ONLY IF you sign the log, you may log online". Can we all agree that the answer to "Is there a requirement to sign the log on a traditional cache?" is "There are for some caches and not for others"?

Um, gosh, NO!NO! NO! NOT "wrong". Nobody is misrepresenting anything but you. Signing the log IS an absolute requirement for claiming an online find on a regular cache. It's all nouns and verbs, plain English and one-syllable words. "sign the Log". I don't know why the forum lawyers find this concept so difficult to understand. Putting a conflicting idea in italics doesn't make it so. It's so easy! "Easy Steps to Geocaching 1. Register for a free Basic Membership. 2. Click "Hide & Seek a Cache." 3. Enter your postal code and click "search." 4. Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name. 5. Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device. 6. Use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache. 7. Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location. 8. Share your geocaching stories and photos online." So all those Found logs I posted with a premium membership, and that I didn't upload photos for, and for which I got coordinates using something other than a postal code -- those are all invalid? Sorry, I don't see anything there that says you MUST do step 7 (or any other previous step) before you're allowed to do step 8.

If there were a requirement to physically sign the log first, then it would be mentioned on the Learn How to Log Your Find page and/or the Getting Started with Geocaching page and/or the Finding your First Geocache page. None of these say that you may not log online until you've signed the log.

Jack's SQ - Oakwood Mt. Pleasant Cemetery Cache I also took this headscratcher:

Here, too. I assumed that was a site-wide thing.

And yet, some cache owners consider uncertainty about whether you've solved the puzzle correctly to be part of the game. To them, the way you verify your solution is by finding the cache. Yeah, but then if you can't find it, you don't know whether it's missing, or you just haven't found it yet, or it wasn't there to begin with. Meanwhile, you're trampling multiple sites, possibly for no reason. In a case like that, I'd like to at least see a marker at the false sites saying that they're false sites.

This is the real problem. Yes, it was the reviewers' responsibility, and it wasn't fair to ask them make such a call. There are enough "OMG ROGUE REVIEWER!!!11!" threads as it is when we have very clear guidelines. We'd have dozens of such threads every week if they had to decide if something was "new and exciting" enough.

Let's all pray that these 'land managers' never learn about 'Waymarking' to the extent that they have about virtual caches. You know, Waymarking.com, the site that is the effective replacement for virtual caches....and now possibly ALL caches. Fortunately, Waymarking is a separate site and activity. You put 'land managers' in quotes, but it is not a strawman argument. As I've said many times in these discussions, the Michigan DNR was considering allowing only virtual caches in state parks at the time they were removed from the site.

Cool as it may be, a five-second Google search and a little creative writing gets you an armchair log. That was always another problem with virts, and Google just keeps making it easier. Even if it is infinitely less fun for the finder. But per usual, the OP mentioned it first. You left out the part where Bruce was quoting the OP's Waymarking comment. People need to learn that if you leave your dislike of Waymarking out of the conversation, we waymark defenders will follow suit. Here's a very recent case in point. When no one breaks out the "But Waymarking sucks" complaint, no one feels the need to jump in and refute it. Here's another. It's been factual so far, and I expect that thread is just about done, if the waymark bashers will just restrain themselves.

The "Micro" in the name is the kind of Pelican case, not the kind of geocache. Those dimensions would probably qualify it as a small. It looks like you can find the Pelican 1050 Micro for as low as $12 online. No geocaching logo.

That one got bumped when I linked it above.

Yeah, I'm wondering if this was posted with the expectation that no one would seriously answer "yes".

I have once or twice, after reading this thread about it last year. I enjoyed it. With a much greater sense of what was under my feet, I felt more in tune with my surroundings.

I really hope there's more sarcasm going on here than I fear there is. Not the most creative ever, I'm quite sure, but the best I've seen personally was a fake birdhouse suspended over the middle of a river via a pulley system that had to be traced through several hundred feet of woods to find the lowering mechanism.

to my cat... in their caching history of course But to whom? Who would look at anyone else's history, compare dates, and think, "Hey, that's not right!"? ooh woow, you giving me a hint, thx ....but the answer is NO, absolutely not i find it extremely annoying will all the smart a**** around.....he asked a question i told him my opinion you can state yours and leave mine alone to be honest i don't care what yours or anyone else's is, for that matter, that thinks that if this is just a game there is no need for integrity Sorry, that part was general smarta**ness, not meant to be directed at you. I do apologize for that appearance. However, I think most people would agree that if the required proof is provided (the required photo or a signature in a log), someone can log it online. I can see requiring that the visit be since the cache page was created, but the finder's registration date should have no bearing whatsoever. What would the time limit be? I assume if someone found a cache and registered the next day, that'd be fine. Why would a year later not be fine? What about someone who found cache with a group account for several years, then post-dated all their finds with a new personal account? In my book, a find is a find, whether or not you're registered at the time. That's my main answer. But regarding this part: My answer assumes your photo meets the cache requirements. If you can't meet ALL the requirements, then you might still ask the owner, but you shouldn't expect to be allowed to log it.

It wouldn't "look right" to whom? What if a non-cacher stumbled upon a physical cache, signed the log, then a year later started actively caching? Could they log it online and post-date it? (Hint: the answer is yes).

I was not around when this was placed in the guidelines but some say it was placed solely in reference to the new ALR guideline. Some even reference quotes from lackeys who have confirmed this to be the case. That may be the case but let's look at this from the average, non forum reading cacher who does not have a degree in English and reads things as they see them. This guideline is titled "Logging of All Physical Caches" and states that "geocaches can be logged online as found once the physical log has been signed" The ALR guideline comes AFTER this statement. If the first statment is in direct reference to ALR's then the title of this guidlines should have been "Logging ALR's". To people who have never dealt with ALR's it seems cut and dry. This is how I see it. But if a cacher logs saying that they couldn't sign because the log was wet, container was there but log missing, container was frozen in place, etc. I would accept these as legitimate finds. But this is just my humble opinion. Except the entire page is for hiders not finders. A newbie looking for the rules on logging wouldn't look at that page.

I agree. The first two responses should have ended the discussion. Someone told the OP to look at Waymarking (response 1), the OP said he might try Waymarking (response 2), and then people started saying Waymarking is nothing like locationless. Had people not tried to prevent the OP from trying Waymarking, the thread would be three posts long and gone. Locationless caches had no visit mechanism at all, so they were even more pointless than Waymarking, by your reasoning. Ah..revisionist forums, sidestepping the main theme of the post. And posted by one of the more prolific evangelists in the thread none the less. Huh? What was revisionist in what I said? Response #1 is Touchstone, response #2 is tgjamin. But regardless of how you count them, there'd be no debate if the OP had been left to find out for himself how unlike locationless caches Waymarking is. You misunderstood me. Once someone posted a spot to a locationless, that was it. There was no mechanism for someone else to log a visit to that spot. Though you claim it's useless, Waymarking at least has that much.

I agree. The first two responses should have ended the discussion. Someone told the OP to look at Waymarking (response 1), the OP said he might try Waymarking (response 2), and then people started saying Waymarking is nothing like locationless. Had people not tried to prevent the OP from trying Waymarking, the thread would be three posts long and gone. Locationless caches had no visit mechanism at all, so they were even more pointless than Waymarking, by your reasoning.

Waymarking: The exampled LC required that the finder actually go to the location (and prove that he was there). The exampled waymark does not. Since LC caches were all about logging an item before anyone else did, this requirement was important. A waymarker attempting to have the same fun WMing will be frustrated by those who simply google up the required images. That's a fair point. So far, armchair posts don't seem to have ruined Waymarking for anyone, but it's possible. Someone recently started armchair visits, but it's received the same eyerolling as it does here. I'm finding in making my bookmark list, though, that the GPS picture was not a universal requirement on locationless. Most, yes, but not all. Not long ago, I rejected post to one of my categories by a well-known cacher because it didn't include the required close-up shot. I don't know how that cacher felt about it, but I know of people who are usually engaged in these discussions who would call me a lot of names for being so strict.

But in Waymarking, you ALSO supply the location. That's where I'm not understanding the claims that the activities are different. Waymarking replaces BOTH locationless and (to a lesser degree) virtuals. And you can do one completely independent of the other. I know people who only post waymarks (locationless) and I know people who only visit them (virtual). Waymarking has a bunch of categories. Your goal is to find things in any of those categories and post coordinates, photos, and specific information to the category. That is the locationless aspect. Once someone posts a location to a category, that location is then available for others to visit. This is the virtual aspect. It does differ in that you know what you're going to see. That, and your previous post, are very interesting. I'm fine with people not liking Waymarking. I just don't like seeing people chasing others away from it by saying it's not something it is, or is something it isn't (that's not in reference to you). I hope everyone enjoys their chosen activities this weekend. I'm hoping to do some of both.

You may continue arguing with yourself all you like. (Like talking to a brick wall.) Whybothermarking is boring. Like reading the entire Encyclopedia Britannica to find what 'boring' means. And it's annoying. Locationless Cachers were fun and interesting. Fine! You win! (Like talking to a brick wall!) They're exactly the same! (Except that whybothermarks are Boring!) Now go find all the MacDonalds in the civilized world, and have fun. I'll go geocaching. You go find all the covered bridges in North America. And all the stop signs. If you enjoy it, go for it! I don't, so I shan't! I've got better things to do that I enjoy (I did enjoy Locationless. I have absolutely no interest in WM.) And you enjoy the Wal-Mart parking lots (since were generalizing the extremes). I know what boring means. What I don't get is why an activity is boring on one site and fun on another. This has prompted me to create a Locationless bookmark list, with Waymarking cross-reference. I'll find it useful, hopefully others will too. It will take a while to finish, though.

Ah. Sorry. My fault. I thought you were looking for the answers to questions, not someone to argue with. I have answered your questions. If you don't like the answers, then I'm sorry. I started on Geocaching six years ago this week. I enjoy it very much. If I had started at Waymarking, I would have lasted a week, if that. Why bother? Is the question I ask. You could read a book, or you could read a dictionary. All the same words! But one is interesting; the other is not. For your edification, I have explained why whybothermarking has no interest for me. Why bother? I didn't ask why it isn't interesting to you. I asked what the difference is. Your answer was And that's not true. "find something that fits this category, that no one else has found" is exactly what Waymarking is. It's other things as well, but finding new places is the main activity (as we're reminded every time the virtuals subject comes up). I'm really not trying to argue. I sincerely believe Waymarking is the same activity with an improved site, you said it isn't. I asked why you say that, and you haven't convinced me, because the difference you cited isn't correct. Let me put it another way: how is doing this different from doing this? Locationless: Waymarking:

What changed? I'm honestly curious. If the WM forums are to be believed, waymarkers don't want them to be like LCs. They don't want to be required to actually show that they have visited the locations, for one thing. Does that really significantly change the activity of finding locations that fit categories? You mean other than the fact that you can do the entire activity from your couch? Well, I suppose you could. Except for those categories that some have said are too hard to log. And the ones where the photo requirements are too strictly enforced ("tin dictators", I think I've seen waymarkers called for their logging requirements). I don't log from my couch, thus I haven't seen a change in the activity.

What changed? I'm honestly curious. If the WM forums are to be believed, waymarkers don't want them to be like LCs. They don't want to be required to actually show that they have visited the locations, for one thing. Does that really significantly change the activity of finding locations that fit categories?