Geo-ethics

[+sept1c_tank]

Normally I just don't care.

[+OConnellz]

I place a cache for the experience I want to provide someone. If they don't go through the experience enough to sign the log book (or get the code on tc), they don't get it as a find. I heard of one instance (not one of my caches) where one co-cacher delivered the log book back to their partner to sign.

I have seen offset caches that a group finds, where it may be obvious that not everyone did the work required to get the experience intended by the cache placer, but they all knew about it, and did what it took to sign the log book. Did they short themselves, or the cache placer on their experience? Either way, it doesn't really affect me here. On other sites, where the number of finders in a given time relates to a cache's point value, I might feel differently. On my caches on this site, if they sign the book, they get the smiley. Otherwise, no.

[+Hoppingcrow]

Two examples from personal experience:

 

1) When searching for a micro, I found a shattered pill bottle and vestiges of a log on the ground beneath what I was certain was the cache placement. There was a cavity in which such a container could have been hidden, and when I read the hint, it certainly applied. I filed a "found it," and contacted the owner separately to let them know the circumstances, saying that I would delete my "found it" if I was wrong in my evaluation. However, I was not wrong. The owner replaced the container, and I subsequently made another trip to the area to sign the log.

 

2) I attempted to find a certain micro while bicycling, only to discover that it was in a neighborhood where I did not feel safe leaving my bike. I knew exactly where the cache was, but as soon as I walked away from my bike, one of the locals headed toward it with what seemed to be bad intentions. THREE TIMES, I tried to walk away from my bike, only to have someone approach it. Did I log a find? Not hardly!!! I had never laid my hands on the cache container, even though I knew where it was.

 

It still boils down to who is really being cheated by false logs, though. I know I'd have trouble with my conscience if I hadn't actually held the container in my hands. As for going into a spidery cave? Thanks, I'll put that one on the same list as scuba caches: Things I Do Not Aspire To. I may be called a chicken, but I won't have told a lie.

[+1stimestar]

they didn't want to make the climb with their dog and in the other case they didn't want to go after the cache due to the big hairy spiders surrounding the cache).

If I didn't want to take my young children through a spider tunnel or up a hill, I still could log a find??? If that was the case I would have a heck of a lot more then 20 finds in a year's time!

[+BlueDeuce]

they didn't want to make the climb with their dog and in the other case they didn't want to go after the cache due to the big hairy spiders surrounding the cache).

If I didn't want to take my young children through a spider tunnel or up a hill, I still could log a find??? If that was the case I would have a heck of a lot more then 20 finds in a year's time!

There you go!

 

"Took my 102 year old Grandmother out geocaching today.................................................."

[+Kai Team]

First, I think NFA did the right thing and I'm glad the "finders" also did the right thing by changing their find to a note.

 

My recent experience: Two new cachers in our area have each logged about 50 finds. In one case they logged a find on a cache that was confirmed missing more than a month before they logged it (it had been removed by park authorities). When questioned about it in an email, they said they'd found it earlier (they didn't remember when) and had forgotten to log it online. I retrieved the cache from the park authorities for the owner, and they had never signed the paper log. In fact, the cache had gone missing before they had even opened an account at gc.com!

 

They then logged three of my caches in one day. They were due for a maintenance check anyway, so I went and checked the logs. They had not signed the paper logs.

 

I decided not to contact them or delete the online logs because I suspect these guys have left inappropriate items (a firecracker, condoms) in some of my other caches that they did log. My maintenance run confirmed the caches were in good shape, so the logs weren't misleading anyone. And I didn't want the hassle (whining and excuses), nor did I want them revisiting my caches to claim the coveted smiley (I shudder to think about what they would have left in, or done to, the cache).

 

I've never logged a find where I haven't signed the log book, and never will. I also agree that logging false finds is a disservice to the geocaching community (e.g. in the case above, the owner never knew the cache was missing because these guys logged it as found).

 

And that's where the owner maintaining the logs breaks down - sometimes it just isn't worth it. I'd be interested in other people's thoughts...

Edited August 14, 2005 by Kai Team

[CoyoteRed]

And that's where the owner maintaining the logs breaks down - sometimes it just isn't worth it. I'd be interested in other people's thoughts...

I don't care who you are; you don't sign the log, don't claim the find.

 

Some regulars know I'll question you no matter how many finds you have credited to your name.

[+Miragee]

There was no way I could have signed this log yesterday.

 

 

Even though I had tweezers with me, I don't know what I would have been pulling out of that container. It just looks like wood pulp.

 

I did take verifying pictures of the cache in place as well.

 

The week before, one of these nano-micros I found had absolutely no room on the log for me to sign, but I put a date and a dot, and took pictures of that cache as well.

 

If owners don't properly maintain their caches and have logs for us to sign, what are we supposed to do?

[+BlueDeuce]

sometimes it just isn't worth it.

Exactly correct.

 

Weigh the results against the consequences.

 

Use the "Is anybody going to be hurt or die if I allow this to happen? rule", When Necessary.

 

No? Then don't worry about it.

[+Silly Look]

I have a tide dependent cache (Bellingham Boat Launch) where I had two cachers post "find" without signing the cache log. I asked them to change the "find" to "note" and one of the cachers flipped out. I enjoy confrontation as much as any other person so I engaged him for a little while in name calling, then I deleted his post. He re-posted, I deleted that one also. I then did a quick review of his post for other logs and e-mailed those owners where it looked like he did not find it yet was claiming a "found." The e-mailing other cache owners was the personal part and petty, but it did feel ssssoooooo good.

 

I then contacted our local Cache guru and asked how I might have handled it better. Guru pointed me to adding a part in the cache description that if the log is not signed, any "founds" would be deleted without notice. That way I can now just delete a log, and e-mail the owner and say they did not meet the requirements for a "found", please try again.

 

Signing the log is part of the game. You don't sign the log you don't get credit, no exceptions.

 

Caveat – I did have two of my caches go missing and I only found out when they were posted “DNF.” When I checked the cache location and verified the caches were gone, I e-mailed the people and asked them to describe the location, it was obvious they would have found the cache if it had been there. When I replaced the caches I signed the logs “In Behalf of so-and-so” and then e-mailed the cachers and asked them to change their “DNF” to a “Found.” When the effort is there, but the reward is missing due to my not maintaining the cache, that should not fall on their shoulders.

[+baloo&bd]

I get these about once a month on one or more of my caches. THis one I recieved in the last day or so;

 

"Looked for quite awhile and although I see someone

found it 4 days ago I could not find anywhere(near fence and tree) and I

think it may be gone.No cache but plenty of stick-ems in my socks and

elsewhere.If it is gone please drop me a line so I can claim it as a find."

 

Now I would normally do like the note above this one, however this cache is set up to be intentiaonally VERY EASY to find for a lot of people in my area with younger kids they take caching. Also, in this case, it wasn't even a request just telling how it was going to be.

 

I sent a polite note back explaining I went out and checked it (saw it from about 20 yards as I approached) and added a side note that if it were missing, please post it as a DNF not a find since they did not find anything.

 

I've gone to many caches, two in paticular that everytime I went to look for it, could not find it and, sure enough, after posting a DNF found out it was truly missing. The one was eventually archived and the other I finally found the oter day.

 

I know not everyone agrees, but to me a find is you found something, a DNF or note means you did not. The later tells me as an owner to get my but in gear or archive it.

[+baloo&bd]

Some regulars know I'll question you no matter how many finds you have credited to your name.

Threre have been in the past, and recently in the midwest, some high number cachers that when the logs are checked, are not in there. In the one case I know of in my area (my caches were involved) anything over 15 mins of looking was logged as a find.

[+tirediron]

I'd have to say, "Did you sign the log?" No signature, no smilie is how I play the game...

[+CCcacher]

A certain well-known cccacher (who I won't name) logs "finds" on caches all the time, which were not actually found. Usually the excuse is even more lame than the two examples above. If this cccacher can do it, why can't everyone else?

 

/sarcasm

Who are these "cccachers" I see referred to in the forums? The quotes certainly don't appear to apply to me.

[+Kit Fox]

A certain well-known cccacher (who I won't name) logs "finds" on caches all the time, which were not actually found. Usually the excuse is even more lame than the two examples above. If this cccacher can do it, why can't everyone else?

 

/sarcasm

Who are these "cccachers" I see referred to in the forums? The quotes certainly don't appear to apply to me.

CCCooperAgency

[AZcachemeister]

In my opinion, you did the right thing by e-mailing them with the suggestion. The ball is in their court now.

 

If I were the cacher in question, I would have taken a photo of the area to justify my case - it demonstrates genuine effort and good faith.

 

If the situation becomes hostile, then it might be a good idea to just let it go, but of course, you can note their names for future reference. (You can always delete the log later, after you make a maintenance visit - they would have forgotten about it by then)

They might have forgoten, but they will get an EMail that the log was deleted!

Signing the book is the basis for the game.

Be polite, but firm...NO SIGN, NO FIND.

[ScottFla]

Ooops, so I now need to go back and sign the log I forgot to sign because my nine year old was excited as only a nine year old can be because we found our first travel bug?

 

And the two micros we found that had soaked logs?

 

This does lead me to see the need to carry in generic supplies that might be needed.

[+baloo&bd]

deleted.

Edited September 1, 2005 by baloo&bd

[+tozainamboku]

The Found It = Didn't Find It thread in The Hunt/Unusual seems to have been hijacked to a be a discussion of what constitutes a find instead of examples of logs where the log itself indicates that cache was not found but logged it as found anyhow. So I'm resurecting this old thread in the hope that the discussion of what constitute a find goes here and the other thread is reserved for the sometime humorous and often interesting excuses that people have for claiming a find when they didn't find a cache.

 

Of course many examples in the Found It = Didn't Find It thread are where someone found the cache but did not sign the log and that may be why that thread got hijacked to the debate as to whether its a find if you don't sign the log.

 

It seems to me this rule came into being because of the following cache types:

 

Cache is in a difficult to retrieve location. Part of the challenge is to figure out how to retrieve the cache. This might include caches in high muggle areas where the challenge is to retrieve the cache without attracting too much attention of the muggles.

 

Cache requires special skill/knowledge to open. For example a cache with a lock where you need to find the combination by working a puzzle or finding other stages in a multi cache.

 

I understand that some people feel that the cache log is the only verification that a person really found a cache and that they may periodically check the log and delete online logs that don't match up. Its up to the cache owner to decide which online logs are legitimate. But I wouldn't punish some one because the log was too wet, or the log was too full, or the cache had no pencil (especially if the cache page didn't say bring your own pen).

[+olbluesguy]

We did try and 'etch' but that seemed to imprint all the pages behind it as well, then we looked for some kind of rock or stick that would leave a mark... nothing.... not an issue tho, like I said we leave notes... I think listing the trade could prove one was there as much as leaving a mark in mud or other alternative method..

This is how I would handle this

 

"Had no pen, pencil or anything handy to sign log.

Punched a small hole in the last page of the logbook'

[+briansnat]

  We did try and 'etch' but that seemed to imprint all the pages behind it as well, then we looked for some kind of rock or stick that would leave a mark... nothing.... not an issue tho, like I said we leave notes... I think listing the trade could prove one was there as much as leaving a mark in mud or other alternative method..

This is how I would handle this

 

"Had no pen, pencil or anything handy to sign log.

Punched a small hole in the last page of the logbook'

I've used a lit end of a cigar, a stick dipped in mud and a soft stone to write my name in the absense of a pencil.

[+beejay&esskay]

Caveat – I did have two of my caches go missing and I only found out when they were posted “DNF.” When I checked the cache location and verified the caches were gone, I e-mailed the people and asked them to describe the location, it was obvious they would have found the cache if it had been there. When I replaced the caches I signed the logs “In Behalf of so-and-so” and then e-mailed the cachers and asked them to change their “DNF” to a “Found.” When the effort is there, but the reward is missing due to my not maintaining the cache, that should not fall on their shoulders.

If smilies are rewards, you are rewarding effort, not accomplishment.

 

DNFs are not penalties...they are badges of honor for an earnest attempt. If the cache is later determined to be missing, it doesn't change the fact that the cache was not found.

 

I hope those cachers who didn't find a cache that wasn't there would keep their logs as is and not claim a find for something unfound.

[+SixDogTeam]

Caveat – I did have two of my caches go missing and I only found out when they were posted “DNF.”  When I checked the cache location and verified the caches were gone, I e-mailed the people and asked them to describe the location, it was obvious they would have found the cache if it had been there.  When I replaced the caches I signed the logs “In Behalf of so-and-so” and then e-mailed the cachers and asked them to change their “DNF” to a “Found.”  When the effort is there, but the reward is missing due to my not maintaining the cache, that should not fall on their shoulders.

If smilies are rewards, you are rewarding effort, not accomplishment.

 

DNFs are not penalties...they are badges of honor for an earnest attempt. If the cache is later determined to be missing, it doesn't change the fact that the cache was not found.

 

I hope those cachers who didn't find a cache that wasn't there would keep their logs as is and not claim a find for something unfound.

It never ceases to amaze us when people want to define "Found it" as something other than "Found it" !

[+briansnat]

If smilies are rewards, you are rewarding effort, not accomplishment.

 

Since when were they rewards at all? I thought they were log types.

[+Markwell]

You could always find a sharp rock and stab your finger. Then write the log in blood.

 

 

 

 

Just kidding - ew.

[+Tickbait]

Here's a thought... so what if they are "cheating"? Who are they cheating? THEMSELVES. Personally, I have logged every one of my meager 267 finds. If someone wants to claim a find when they didn't actually find it...well, to me that's like cheating in Solitaire. What's the point?

 

Well said!

[ATMouse]

One time when we were caching, we discovered we'd left all our pens in the car ('way too far away.) Thank goodness it was summer time and berries were ripe; a stick and a few squished berries made enough of a mark that I was sure it was "signed".

[+TeamGuisinger]

What about this one, logged August 28? what a fun time we had doing this one..first time in the area..1st two were real challenges, wife found the first and I found the second..I called this a find even tho we have to come back for the last location, wife said no way was she walking that hill today(smile)i can't wait to get some more pictures...TFTC TEAM

 

I would feel bad about taking it from them since their obviously new to the sport and have under 20 finds, but no effort was made on the final stage, and it's been a couple months with no return visit to finish. They did log a DNF on another of mine the same day, but......

What should I do?

[+briansnat]

Here's a thought... so what if they are "cheating"? Who are they cheating? THEMSELVES. Personally, I have logged every one of my meager 267 finds. If someone wants to claim a find when they didn't actually find it...well, to me that's like cheating in Solitaire. What's the point?

 

Well said!

Its a little more complicated than that. Cheating at solitare affects nobody. Faking finds can affect others. 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 recall one geocacher who was enticed into a fruitless, 100 mile RT drive by someone who lied about finding a cache. 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, xxxxx 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.

[+Sputnik 57]

OK, you asked not to site the "rules" but

What are the rules in Geocaching?

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

Lots of people pass on 1 and 2, and I can live with that, but without 3, it just ain't a smiley.

 

" Thought about going to the cache, but was just too tired, so I didn't go. Am logging it as a find anyway." Come on!

Edited November 22, 2005 by Sputnik 57

[+GRANPA ALEX]

Aw shucks . . . another opinion that will sound a lot like others, with simplicity.

 

One must sign the log (or a log) at the cache site to claim the find, it is just so simple.

 

If you find a wet one, have some dry ones in your pocket (& a baggie) so that you can sign it and make it possible for those who follow you to sign easier & to help the cache owner.

 

I have had to move black widow (et al) spiders, copperhead and rattler snakes. I have had to crawl up hills of loose rocks, crossed icy streams barefooted, crawled on knees under briars & through sewer pipes . . . what ever it takes - you sign the log to claim the cache.

 

The only exception I have had is when I am standing beside a buddy that I cache with as he signs fro both of us . . . I found it, I saw it, I touched it.

[+NomadVW]

OK, you asked not to site the "rules" but

What are the rules in Geocaching?

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

Lots of people pass on 1 and 2, and I can live with that, but without 3, it just ain't a smiley.

It's a good thing we have people that know which rules we can pick and choose from. For me, I have occasionally passed on all three - with my hands on the cache container, opened and all. We have often heard "so and so just isn't into trading." How often do you hear "my log was deleted cause I didn't trade!"

 

I once passed on a cache that a black widow had been nice enough to put a web right above and nest in. The altoids tin underneath the web was the cache, and whether or not I signed the "log" that was in the tin below it really doesn't matter. I logged the find, posted the information that a black widow was nested above it.

 

If the owner wanted to go back later and delete the log because my "stamp" wasn't in the logbook, so be it. But just like the above post, I'd ask how many times he TNLN - and then consider whether all of those "invalid" finds should be discounted.

 

C'mon people. I mean, really. If you have nothing better to do than go out to your caches and check all of your cache's finds against the online logs, I'd say you need something better to occupy your time.

 

Other folks have said "well, who cares if its a DNF - it's not about the numbers." Then who cares if it's a find you disagree with? It's not about the numbers, right? Heck, I'd bet a lot of cachers who don't read forums have no idea that there's such a disagreement over this.

[CoyoteRed]

C'mon people. I mean, really. If you have nothing better to do than go out to your caches and check all of your cache's finds against the online logs, I'd say you need something better to occupy your time.

Actually, it's your responsibility to periodically reconcile the cache logs with the online logs. It's part of cache maintanence. Additionally, you'd be surprised about how many will sign the log and not log online.

 

Okay, so you didn't want to move the spider. How you know that wasn't part of the challenge? I used to have a cache, hybrid actually, that was hard to find because folks were leary of putting their hands in holes where creepy things may lay in wait to grab them. It's not as if feeling around with your hand was the only alternative, a flashlight and a mirror was actually easier.

 

We have one where it's actually easy to find, but slightly difficult to retreive. Just because you saw it doesn't mean you get to log it.

 

We have one where the first stage causes many to shake their head and just walk away. If that was a cache do you think we would allow a find?

 

I have an idea for a cache where finding it is as easy as any drive-by. Retrieving it on the other hand, you'd need a large boat and a 20' ladder, or a smaller boat and the ability to climb a shear concrete wall. (No wonder I've not even placed it yet?)

 

So, no, just because you "saw it" doesn't mean you "found it."

[+W4G_SOTAGoat]

C'mon people. Okay, so you didn't want to move the spider. How you know that wasn't part of the challenge? I used to have a cache, hybrid actually, that was hard to find because folks were leary of putting their hands in holes where creepy things may lay in wait to grab them. It's not as if feeling around with your hand was the only alternative, a flashlight and a mirror was actually easier.

I'm sorry, I have to disagree. How could the person have placed the cache with the spider there and the web intact? Also, did the person just ask the spider to stay and watch the cache? Saying it's part of the challenge is stretching a bit far. Also, some people are deathly allergic to spiders and can go into anaphylactic shock within minutes of a spider bite and die if medical treatment is not rendered. If someone did intentionally place a cache like that, it is reckless on their part.

 

As for placing your cache in places that people might blindly stick their hands in, that could also be interpreted as somewhat reckless. You have to take into account the "lowest denominator" and plan accordingly. If someone stuck their hand in and was bitten by a snake, it's possible you could be sued for reckless endangerment if the injured cacher wanted to press things.

[+briansnat]

C'mon people.  Okay, so you didn't want to move the spider.  How you know that wasn't part of the challenge?  I used to have a cache, hybrid actually, that was hard to find because folks were leary of putting their hands in holes where creepy things may lay in wait to grab them.  It's not as if feeling around with your hand was the only alternative, a flashlight and a mirror was actually easier.

I'm sorry, I have to disagree. How could the person have placed the cache with the spider there and the web intact? Also, did the person just ask the spider to stay and watch the cache? Saying it's part of the challenge is stretching a bit far. Also, some people are deathly allergic to spiders and can go into anaphylactic shock within minutes of a spider bite and die if medical treatment is not rendered. If someone did intentionally place a cache like that, it is reckless on their part.

 

As for placing your cache in places that people might blindly stick their hands in, that could also be interpreted as somewhat reckless. You have to take into account the "lowest denominator" and plan accordingly. If someone stuck their hand in and was bitten by a snake, it's possible you could be sued for reckless endangerment if the injured cacher wanted to press things.

If you don't like where the cache is, don't touch it - and log a note or a DNF.

[+blackjack65]

... some people are deathly allergic to spiders and can go into anaphylactic shock within minutes of a spider bite and die if medical treatment is not rendered...

The same thing is true of Peanut Butter containers.

That is why an allergic person can take a picture of the cache,

or send the cache owner an exact description of the cache,

the way it's hidden and/or something obvious near the cache,

and get the go ahead by the cache owner to get the smiley.

Why would allergic people be restricted to some of the caches?

[CoyoteRed]

Why would allergic people be restricted to some of the caches?

The same reason some aren't smart enough to find some caches or have the skills to access the cache.

 

If it requires swimming, SCUBA, or a host of other abilities then I'm SOL. See me here complaining? Nope.

 

Same goes for those who just can't figure out puzzles.

 

As for snakes, most people will go "ouchie" if bitten, but you don't see calls for not placing caches out in the woods.

 

Besides, knowing the spider was there is actually better than not seeing her. Just gently move her out of the way and claim the cache. She'll be back in the same spot tomorrow.

 

A lot of the excuses I hear just don't fly in my book. If you don't sign the log, then you can't claim a find. Period. End of story.

[+TeamGuisinger]

Come ON! SPIDERS? Are you or are you not standing around 30-40,000 sticks that you could use to move a tiny spider, poisonous or not? I found one in S.C. with a black snake coiled up on top of the container. I flicked it in the head, it took off, I signed the log and left. Pretty difficult. Most caches in the woods involve sticking your hands where you cant see(at least around here) if you're that worried about it, throw some lambskin gloves in you pack. There is no reason for not signing a log except DNF. As for peanut butter jars.......DONT USE FOOD CONTAINERS. A jar of peanut butter costs about 3 bucks, a clean unused container from the dollar store is $.99. You paid 100+ dollars for a GPS, but cant go buy a new container for a cache? Food containers atract animals, I dont care how many times you washed it out, something that can smell 2000 times better than you will find it and chew a hole in it to find food, and people allergic to nuts will think they can get sick from touching it. I have a slight problem with people not logging DNF for my hides. It helps evaluate my work on the hide, instead I get to wait for someone to make a few trips over a couple weeks till they finally find it and log as a smiley. I like knowing someone is out there looking, I wouldn't mind sneaking out and lending a hand if someone has been there more than once. If you can SEE IT, and you can TOUCH IT, then you have to SIGN IT. That's the game, the rules, the way it goes, if you dont like it, go play geopoker.

[+TeamGuisinger]

BTW, poisonous spiders are poisonous. Nonpoisonous spiders aren't poisonous. A venom injection is required to cause an allergic reaction in a human so I guess we're all allergic to poisonous spiders, go figure. Most spiders dont have long enough fangs to penetrate human skin. Why dont you just say, "I'm afraid of spiders, and even though it's been scientifically proven that all humans eat __ spiders in their lifetime while sleeping, I am afraid of getting bit by one."

 

PS- Remember playing with daddy long legs as a kid? Those are one of the most poisonous spiders in North America, but their fangs aren't strong/long enough to bite a human.

 

I'm sorry, I just keep envisioning someone fighting their way to the end of a 5/5, and not finishing because of a spider sitting on a peanut butter jar.

 

LMAO

[+TeamGuisinger]

C'mon people.  Okay, so you didn't want to move the spider.  How you know that wasn't part of the challenge?  I used to have a cache, hybrid actually, that was hard to find because folks were leary of putting their hands in holes where creepy things may lay in wait to grab them.  It's not as if feeling around with your hand was the only alternative, a flashlight and a mirror was actually easier.

I'm sorry, I have to disagree. How could the person have placed the cache with the spider there and the web intact? Also, did the person just ask the spider to stay and watch the cache? Saying it's part of the challenge is stretching a bit far. Also, some people are deathly allergic to spiders and can go into anaphylactic shock within minutes of a spider bite and die if medical treatment is not rendered. If someone did intentionally place a cache like that, it is reckless on their part.

 

As for placing your cache in places that people might blindly stick their hands in, that could also be interpreted as somewhat reckless. You have to take into account the "lowest denominator" and plan accordingly. If someone stuck their hand in and was bitten by a snake, it's possible you could be sued for reckless endangerment if the injured cacher wanted to press things.

 

It's called GEOCACHING, ever heard of it?[/COLOR]

Edited November 23, 2005 by TeamGuisinger

[+Miragee]

Last week I was FTF on a cache . . . but for a minute thought I was going to have to log a DNF -- not a "Found It" -- because even though I could see the container, I couldn't dislodge the rock in front of it.

 

I did finally get the rock out of the way, smashing my finger in the process, so the log not only has my signature, it is marked with my blood.

[+budd-rdc]

It seems we are back to the same old problem:

 

We put too much emphasis on the merit of the find count.

 

I can see where NomadVW is coming from, since it's not necessarily easy reaching destinations in Japan, where he's caching now. However, I have logged a few DNFs while I cached in Japan, even though I could have come up with excuses to log finds since I correctly identified the hide locations and the obstacles for my not being able to sign the log.

 

I've seen some huge spiders in Japan. There's a way to get them to move without actually touching them - detach one of the anchor webs to partially collapse the entire web, and the spider will retreat to one corner.

 

As for peanut butter jars, the owner is supposed to thoroughly wash the container to get rid of potential allergic residues, or not use the container at all. No need to use that excuse to "log a find" to make the situation ludicrous.

[+sept1c_tank]

Actually, it's your responsibility to periodically reconcile the cache logs with the online logs.  It's part of cache maintanence.  Additionally, you'd be surprised about how many will sign the log and not log online...

When I do a maintenance check on my caches, I look first at the integrity of the container and the condition of the logbook. Then I check the contents for undesirables. Then I read the logbook; I have never reconciled the physical log with the online log, although I have noticed that sometimes they don’t match up.

 

Perhaps it is part of your maintenance routine to reconcile the logs and police accordingly, but I don’t think that is (or should be) what cache maintenance is intended to be.

 

I am one who believes that it is not a find if I don’t sign the book, and at the same time, perception is reality, or if you think you found my cache, that’s good enough for me.

 

In other words, I will always sign a log (or make a mark) before I count a smiley, but you can do what ever you want.

 

I would have had a pleasant, close up, one on one conversation with the spider and if I couldn’t convince him to take a walk, I would have methodically spun my own web around him and eaten him in my sleep.

[+GRANPA ALEX]

I simply can not believe that I am saying THIS . . . but I absolutely agree with CR on almost every point he has made, as well as many others who share the idea that there ARE simple rules you must tend to in order to claim a find.

 

There are caches that are dependent upon timing of the tides to reach them on the coast. In NC it is timing based upon droughts to reach islands in several of the lakes . . . you can SEE the hides sometimes, but you must sign the log to claim it. (SO SIMPLE)

 

As for spiders & snakes, most of us carry a geo-stick or cane and there are sticks lying in forest litter around us to use . . . probe the critters & they run, no bites or allergies! (SO SIMPLE)

 

Yes, CR is right (ouch), include a small flash light & mirror in your belly pack/geokit to SEE into questionable areas, pull the cache out with your geostick . . . sign the log! Like the one in Park Circle in Charleston SC, a scary hole, that one!

 

We need a new topic . . . this one is really well done. Maybe we can discuss micros some more ????

Edited November 23, 2005 by GRANPA ALEX

[+sept1c_tank]

Actually, it's your responsibility to periodically reconcile the cache logs with the online logs.  It's part of cache maintanence.  Additionally, you'd be surprised about how many will sign the log and not log online...

...Perhaps it is part of your maintenance routine to reconcile the logs and police accordingly, but I don’t think that is (or should be) what cache maintenance is intended to be...

Now that I have discovered the updated cache guidelines, I see that I am wrong.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

I guess I need to take a test.

[+tozainamboku]

Edit: sept1c_tank posted while I was saying the same thing

Edited November 23, 2005 by tozainamboku

[+sept1c_tank]

The really scary part is tozainamboku said nearly exactly the same thing, "...maybe someone needs to take a test."

[+NomadVW]

That's the game, the rules, the way it goes, if you dont like it, go play geopoker.

Ok, if you want to stick so hard to these rules, then you better trade when you do my caches, or we'll count those invalid finds.

 

As for the guy that goes to a 5/5 cache and doesn't move the spider... DUH!

 

The cache I mentioned was a 1/1 and took all of the effort to walk up to the tree and look at the base of it. I feel no need to destroy this creatures created web so I could meet an arbitrary requirement. You can call me a pansy or whatever you want - but the fact it was a black widow increased my chances of not moving it.

 

As far as caching in Japan goes, it really doesn't play a factor into things except that the cache count is so significantly lower - especially in my neck of the woods where half of the caches inside 30 miles are mine. But if I drive four to six hours to my next cache to find the log wet and unusable - and I don't have a scrap of paper in my pocket cause gosh darnit I forgot the cache police were watching.... I'm logging it as a find.

 

Again, I say - if you're going to stick by the log requirement, you have to stick by the trade requirement, and until I find one of you saying you ALWAYS sign the log and you ALWAYS trade, your opinion that signing the log is a requirement is moot. In any other case, you are picking and choosing your rules, I'll pick and choose mine.

 

My rule - find the cache to log a find. If the cache is in a position that the owner obviously meant for "reaching" the cache to be the challenge (ie, up a rock wall or hanging in a tree or any of the other myriad of locations - I'm going to get my hands on it and open it) After that, it's all gravy. If I see the cache, but cannot reach it because the HIDE is such that it's out of my capabilities, then its a note.

[vagabond]

Here's one I ran into yesterday

Perris Hill

The cache container was laying out in the open, at least I think it was the cache container. I spent about 10 min or so looking for the log and never found it. I logged a note on this one.

And another one from last Sunday.

Passing Wind

Edited November 23, 2005 by vagabond

[+Harry Dolphin]

So, maybe I'm strange (SHADDUP!). What surprises me is the number of geocachers who do not carry pens with them. I always have one. I've found some very wet log books, but none so wet that I couldn't put my "HD" on it with my pen.

Yes, I have requested the change for "Found it" to "Note" for the two people who found the cache, but decided not to sign it because they didn't like the people hanging around. Huh? They spent 15 to 30 minutes looking for the cache, and put it back without signing the log becaue they didn't like the people nearby? They were there when you looked for the cache. (One was changed, the other deleted.)

(And I will not go into the logs for the webcam, such as "No one was at home to take my picture.")

I can think of three caches where there was no log book. These were found strewn about. The 'geocaching' labels were a dead give-away. On two, we signed the back of our cache page, and put it in the cache. The third was so chewed up that we removed it. These I find to be valid finds. Two are archived. The third disabled.

The cache up at tree that I could see, but not get to? That's a DNF. (Got a nice picture of it !) Got within three feet of another, but I don't hang off railraod trestles, thank you ayway. DNF.

As to the three rules:

1) Take something

2) Leave Something

3) Sign Log.

Get real. You'd make a great lawyer! There was no room in the nanocache or the film cannister to leave anything. I'll log them anyway.