Controversial Topic

[+A.T.Hiker]

My requst for an opinion is really two-fold:

 

1) If a user seeks a cache and posts a DNF, should they be allowed change their post to a find if it has been verified by the cache owner that the cache is AWOL?(provided no one else found the cache AFTER their visit). I've sought two caches in the last four months where I posted a DNF and the caches are in fact missing. I'm perfectly happy to post and leave DNFs for caches I legimately didn't find and even welcome the opportunity to revisit again in the future and pick up where I've left off.

 

2) If a user seeks a cache and something unexpected happens (cache is destroyed, there is a bear chewing on the cache, your approached by law enforcement) - should they be allowed to post a find for their efforts, even though the log book may not have been signed? I know the bear example is ludicrous, but you catch my drift. I recently sought a rest-area cache where I laid eyes on the cache, but chose not to retrieve, because of some very shady characters that suddenly made an appearance in the general vicinity of the cache (and my car) since I only parked 100 feet away. I have no desire to return to the area to actually sign for two reasons: I live 35 miles away and would not want to return to such an area again, even though it's probably safe 99% of the time.

 

Thanks, look forward to reading, and I respect everyone's opinion on this, and am happy to abide by geocaching.com guidelines.

 

Team R2

Edited June 30, 2005 by Team R2

[+Team Tired Boy]

Some might disagree, but for me the acid test is whether or not I signed the log book.

[+Squealy]

The unwritten rule - at least for me and some others I have cached with is, if you find remnants of the cache, you can count it as a find. If the cache had not been destroyed, it is assumed that you would have found it. I have no problem if people find the remains of one of mine and log it as a find - and I have done so myself.

 

I personally don't see a problem with someone logging a cache that is encased in ice (for ex) - had it not been, they would have gotten it. I wouldn't accept a find from someone who sees a cache in a tree and says, "Well, I found it - but didn't want to go up and get it" That's pretty lame.

 

I think others will chime in with different opinions - but I guess it is different for everyone based on what they want to or are getting out of the game.

[+Natureboy44]

For your first scenario, I would not change it to a find since you can never know if you would have found the cache even if it was there. I personally would leave the DNF but there may be some argument to deleting the log altogether.

 

For the second scenario, if someone contact me about one of my caches what did not require any type of special retreival, and they described the location and circumstance that lead them to their decision not to retreive the cache, I'd let them log the find. That said, I have a couple of caches that can be seen, but their retrieval is half the challenge. For these seeing the caches would warrant a log in my book. I'd suggest e-mailing the owner with the circumstance and see what they say.

 

My last two cents is there too much sensitivity about posting DNFs. They help owners ID potential problems with their caches, and there also can provide alot of entertainment to boot. See the recent example from this cache.

 

Bootlegger's Lair

[+Renegade Knight]

1) In the past I've allowed a person to log a find when they found the exact spot the cache was supposed to be at. However more recently I've stopped doing that just to be consistant with what I do these days. Which is if I don't find it, I don't log a find.

 

2) All the work it takes you to get to the cache is up to you, and random chance. It's the find that counts. Someone who spends 13 hours on 14 trips looking for a before finding cache, and someone who found it within 30 seconds both found the cache. The find itself is the key part to log a find. Not the adventure before hand.

 

3) Physically not being able to open the cache after the find is a gray area of sorts. I've found one in the worst downpour I've ever seen in Idaho. If I opened it there was no way I could keep that cache dry. Maybe I'd know the tricks if I lived on the Wet Coast. Anyway I chose not to open it to sign the log and put it back and re-hid it. I also logged it as a find. Frozen shut, Bulldozed Shut would have you wiht the cache in hand but not opened. On the other hand I did a rock climbing cache. You can walk right up to the cliff, look down and there it is. We had someone scale the cliff but getting to that ledge was beyond our skill. (I'm not a rock climber) so it was a DNF even though we could spit on it. There are hairs to split here that the community has not sorted out. Can touching the cache count if you can't or shouldn't open it? Or can spotting it work if danger lurks? Or is it always, always, always, No log, no find, no exceptions?

Edited June 30, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[+Salvelinus]

Some might disagree, but for me the acid test is whether or not I signed the log book.

I hope many don't disagree with that or things have really gone downhill.

 

If you don't sign the book, you haven't found anything to claim a find on. There are almost no exceptions to this. However, the encased in ice scenario may be one. But, you could always return when it thaws out and sign then.

 

Salvelinus

[+Team GPSaxophone]

If "extra effort" or whatever earnes you a smilie, then how many smilies should you get for finishing a 5/5 cache?

 

Proud member of the "one cache = one find" club, and if I don't sign the logbook it isn't a find.

[+macatac1961]

I'm with the group that believes you need to sign the log to claim a find, but like Squealy said, it's different for everyone. This is all in fun and really shouldn't be taken that seriously. Each cacher plays their own game and each hider is at their own level of what they need to see to grant a find on their cache. If someone deletes a log because they don't believe a person actually found their cache, they need to back up a bit and have a better look at why they do this. It's just a game, meant to be fun.

[+webscouter.]

Also a member of the one cache=one find club.

 

If I don't sign the logbook it isn't a find except. If I retrieve a cache that has been damaged beyond repair and I am picking up geo litter I will post a find.

 

See my log here for an example

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...41-082f60d9685f

 

Edit, I just remembered that I logged a cache that was full of ice and the log book was encased in ice. The cache was near New York and I won't be back that way for a very long time. I did take a picture of the log book and asked the owner for permission to log it before the log was made.

Edited June 30, 2005 by webscouter.

[+rufnredy]

Just wanted to say that for me, signing that log is the proof that I succeeded and provides me the satisfaction of a job well done ...

 

I agree there may be exceptions as stated, but I email the owner with the particulars and ask first before I log a find if there is no log present.

 

I have also been known to leave "temporary" cache logs where a cache has obviously been muggled/destroyed so anyone coming along between my find of the lost cache and the replacement has a log to sign and I note this to the owner.

 

Guess that sums up my thoughts which seem to echo most of the sentiment here.

 

cache on ......

[avroair]

Scenario 1: I let people log it, if they ask. But I would log it as a DNF, I didn't find it.

 

Scenario 2: If I find what is left of a cache (providing I can verify it IS actually the cache). I log it. Like if I find the container empty with a hold in it. Or I find it and forgot my pen and there isn't one in the cache. And there are no sticks handy.

[+briansnat]

If a user seeks a cache and posts a DNF, should they be allowed change their post to a find if it has been verified by the cache owner that the cache is AWOL?

 

Why would they even want to? They didn't find it. The point of this sport is to find caches, not where they were or might have been.

 

If a user seeks a cache and something unexpected happens (cache is destroyed, there is a bear chewing on the cache, your approached by law enforcement) - should they be allowed to post a find for their efforts, even though the log book may not have been signed?

 

This is more of a grey area, but I still think no. Often difficult conditions are a part of the hide and retreiving it and signing the log are part of the challenge.

[+robert]

If I didn't sign a log, I don't feel comfortable logging a find.

 

But it's up to an individual cache owner to grant the find to someone if they choose. I wouldn't ask (personally) but others are free to do so. If someone asked me about it, I'd let them log it if they wanted to because it's not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.

 

[+Team Rampant Lion]

(cache is destroyed, there is a bear chewing on the cache, your approached by law enforcement) - I know the bear example is ludicrous, but you catch my drift.

Bear example is not so ludicrous out my way (NW Sussex County, NJ).

 

I have been informed of a total of seven of my caches chewed on or destroyed by bears. Squealy, macatac1961, Misty's Shadow, trowel 32 had all found "remains" of my caches (and helped CITO - thanks!). Even though there was no log left to sign, I consider these legitimate finds.

 

Now if the bear is still there in progress chewing on a cache, I want a picture!

 

Of course I know of at least one case where the cache was found despite the bear. Way to go Trail Hound!

 

[+lakelady]

If I don't sign the log I don't post the find. One exception was a cache that I did not have the physical strength to open (even with a wrench from the car) but I put a small log book into the zip lock that held the cache and signed that.

 

sp edit

Edited July 1, 2005 by lakelady

[Orly]

Scene, in a Diner in NYC, 4 seat booth: Geocaching comes to TV, on Seinfeld the show about nothing.

 

Jerry: George, do you think it allowable to log a find,if you haven't actually found the cache.

George: Well, how close did you actually come Jerry, did you see it, were you across the river from it, was it iced in, was it being guarded by a wolf or a bear or a snake. Was it buried. If it was buried I'd say log it.

Kramer: OH,no George, no exceptions, if you don't sign the log , you don't sign the log and that means it goes down as a DNF. Even though most people who DNF, never ever post a DNF, they just treat it like they were never there to begin with.

Elaine: Kramer,Mr. Peterman says in the catalog, once when he was wearing his safari vest, complete with compass hook and gps lanyard that he DNF a cache in the Serengeti because it was guarded by hyenas, but he saw it and logged it anyway. So I think it is ok. Don't worry about the hyenas.

 

Contoversial Topic???? Get real folks.

[+Team DEMP]

Find the cache, it's a find. Otherwise, it's not.

 

Signing a log isn't always possible. Example is a virtual cache (obviously) or in some cases I've found the cache container but there's no log.

 

Maybe if someone can come up with a cache where not finding the cache is somehow finding the cache (the goal of this hobby), post it here and we can discuss it.

[avroair]

Scene, in a Diner in NYC, 4 seat booth: Geocaching comes to TV, on Seinfeld the show about nothing.

 

Jerry: George, do you think it allowable to log a find,if you haven't actually found the cache.

George: Well, how close did you actually come Jerry, did you see it, were you across the river from it, was it iced in, was it being guarded by a wolf or a bear or a snake. Was it buried. If it was buried I'd say log it.

Kramer: OH,no George, no exceptions, if you don't sign the log , you don't sign the log and that means it goes down as a DNF. Even though most people who DNF, never ever post a DNF, they just treat it like they were never there to begin with.

Elaine: Kramer,Mr. Peterman says in the catalog, once when he was wearing his safari vest, complete with compass hook and gps lanyard that he DNF a cache in the Serengeti because it was guarded by hyenas, but he saw it and logged it anyway. So I think it is ok. Don't worry about the hyenas.

 

Contoversial Topic???? Get real folks.

I thought Seinfield was off the air years ago... maybe i was mistaken. Love it when people use bad icons from the past to make a point.

 

Maybe the word controversial is a little too dramatic, but it is a geocaching issue nonetheless.

[+briansnat]

Find the cache, it's a find. Otherwise, it's not.

 

Signing a log isn't always possible. Example is a virtual cache (obviously) or in some cases I've found the cache container but there's no log.

 

Maybe if someone can come up with a cache where not finding the cache is somehow finding the cache (the goal of this hobby), post it here and we can discuss it.

That's the way I look at it. The only exception would be a cache that is made deliberately difficult to retreive and you can see it, or even touch it, but can't get to it.

 

Other than that, if I find it and its frozen solid in its hiding spot, the log is soaked or missing I'd probably log a find.

[+Harry Dolphin]

And, so, Team R2, now that you have sought advice from the forum, and received a rather overwhelming response, what do you plan to do about it?

Yours was the only complaint about 'unsavory' characters (outside of some DOT workers goofing off.) I've seen cruising at caches sites. I've stepped over homeless people near cache sites. I've read logs such as this: Log, and chosen a more propitious time to search for that cache. (Found it with no problem on a Sunday afternoon!)

Owners have suggested that I could log a cache that I had not signed. I have decided not to, in most cases. I'll try again. I did accept one (which I'm pretty sure is not there - only a chainsaw would prove me right or wrong.) I found a muggled cache. Only the clearly marked container remained. No log, so I created my own, and reported the situation to the owner.

I can understand "I didn't feel safe there." When and if that happens, I return at another time (if I so choose), to try again. If I'm on vacation when it happens, I'd log a DNF.

If the owner of the muggled cache said that I should not log a 'find', I would have changed my log to a DNF. Within reason, the owner is the final arbitor.

I have asked two people to change their logs. The other cacher did. (A few others, I had considered asking to change their logs to avoid giving away too much information. At least one owner asked that I do the same. I was glad to demur.)

What have you decided?

[+Old Bet]

If I don't sign the log I don't post the find. One exception was a cache that I did not have the physical strength to open (even with a wrench from the car) but I put a small log book into the zip lock that held the cache and signed that.

 

sp edit

Generally, we would agree with the "sign the log" rule. And yet, there are exceptions.

 

After travelling across the continent (and an international boundary) we located a micro in Vancouver, B.C. Alas, we did not have a pen or pencil to sign the logbook. Since this was not a cache we could easily return to, we took a close-up photo of the micro (too close to be a spoiler, but close enough to show that this was indeed the the cache, and logged it as find, image attached.

 

Seems fair to us.

[TinyMoon & The Pumpkin King]

How about logging a "Find" on caches that have been deactivated/disabled? A very prominent cacher in our locale "retired" awhile back and disabled most of his caches, yet they are still physically sitting out there to be found. We have gone out and recovered several of them and logged them as "Finds", as has at least one other caching couple in our area. Any opinions...?

[+Team DEMP]

How about logging a "Find" on caches that have been deactivated/disabled?

I would say that it is fine to log it as a find - you found it.

 

To me, the status of the cache is an indication to others whether to attempt to find it or not. If it is there and you find it, well, you found it, so log it as a find.

[+bigdog999]

Everyone plays this game differently. What it comes down to in the end is how you feel about what you posted. I've found a muggled cache before and didn't log it as a find, because I felt it wasn't where it was supposed to be. Another cache was a DNF even though I knew whereabouts it was, but due to clausaphobia I wasn't going to find it. Currebtly there are no counts kept of DNFs so what harm does it do. Plainly enough I play for my own enjoyment and not the count.

Edited July 7, 2005 by bigdog999

[+Patudles]

Sign the log book to make a find. We have one clever cacher in our area that makes difficult caches to obtain. On a couple of his caches finding the cache is no problem. Even having the cache in the hands is no problem. The hard part is to figure out how to open the container to sign the log. If you can't do it, it is a dnf.

 

There is also a cache several miles from where I live. I knew where the cache was hidden but I could not physically open up the access point to the container. It was on my third visit to the cache that I was finally able to access the container to sign the log.

 

Unless you have owners permission to log the find unless you sign the log it is a dnf.

 

I occasionally check some logs and if I find a suspicious person has logged a find and has not signed the log I will delete their find.

[+Patudles]

How about logging a "Find" on caches that have been deactivated/disabled? A very prominent cacher in our locale "retired" awhile back and disabled most of his caches, yet they are still physically sitting out there to be found. We have gone out and recovered several of them and logged them as "Finds", as has at least one other caching couple in our area. Any opinions...?

You found it, you signed the log. It is a find

[+briansnat]

Currebtly there are no counts kept of DNFs so what harm does it do.

 

That would be nice if lying about finds didn't affect others, but it does. Many geocachers will not waste their time looking for a cache with a bunch of DNF's. But if someone comes along and logs a false find, they are in effect telling the geocaching community that the cache is there. This could result in people going after the cache and wasting their time.

 

I know one geocacher who was enticed into a fruitless, 100 mile RT drive by someone who logged a fake find on a cache. I'm sure many others have been lured out by fake finds. Not only that, they may put additional effort into their search because "It has to be here, Geocacher X found it yesterday".

 

Lying about finds could also fool an owner into thinking his cache is there and fine, when it actually needs to be replaced.

[+Harmony Smurf]

If I am with another cacher or group and the other cacher finds the cache, I sometimes touch a part of the cache but it is signed by another member of the group. How does everyone feel about that?

[dboggny]

Its your cache, you make the rules, you run the show.

 

db

[+A.T.Hiker]

oh well, no big deal. I think HD deleted the log anyway - In over 150 finds I still havent realized people get very technical here. Is it a find or not? Who knows, who cares. If HD says no than I guess no. If I have questions about specific caches I'll just contact them before I write anything in a log.

[+Crusso]

Cache in hand, log a find...

Cache just in view, too bad for you.....

 

Just some bad poetry to sum up my thoughts....

[mortonfox]

Cache in hand, log a find...

Not always. Some caches are locked, and finding the key or lock combination is part of the challenge.

[+A.T.Hiker]

I actually had not realized that there are caches of this nature, where part of your challenge is either retrieval or entry into the cache. Interesting. The only time I did one similar is when I logged one that was in a tree, but it was a synch to get down, so I never really gave it a thought of "what if I could not get that down".

[+Harry Dolphin]

An interesting example might be The Giving Tree. I found it fairly easily. I have a picture of it somewhere (of course I can't post it without giving it away). I just couldn't get to it. I'm far too old for that. I might have attempted it, but the park police already had their eyes on me after photographing a few benchmarks. Oh, well.

[+lindsychris]

Our two cents

 

Typically, if we can't sign the log, we don't log it as a find. However, there have been a few exceptions.

 

1. Bees--lots of bees. The cache was hidden under a light pole cover, and apparently so was the bees nest. Other cachers had mentioned the bees, so when we arrived at ground zero, and searched around the rest of the area, we determined where it HAD to be. Chris attempted to move the cover, and a swarm of bees came out. We were out of town, and didnt have any spray. So, we took a picture, emailed it to the owner showing that we were there, and that we knew where it was hidden, but we couldn't safely get it. We logged that as a find.

 

2. As far as a cache missing, we were able to identify the exact location of the cache, after logging our DNF, the owner confirmed that the location we emailed them was correct, and told us to log it as a find.

 

A solution to the ice thing--a local cacher found a cache that was frozen in place, and it was impossible to remove, so he left his signature sticker on the outside of the container.

[YemonYime]

In late June while caching in Illinois, we found the remains of a cache which only included fragments of toys and key chains, but two legible sig items from cachers who had found the cache two weeks prior. I bagged up the remnants and presented them jokingly to the cache owner when we met a few days later. They felt that we had technically found it, so they said to go ahead and log it! We did, but with a very large disclaimer explaining the details so that others wouldn't assume it was still there.

 

To sum it up, it's probably up to the cache owner to decide whether or not you've sufficiently "found" their hide. Logging something that you didn't physically touch would more appropriately go through this process too.

 

Just my fiftieth of a buck.