Should Every Visit Be Logged In The Log Book?

[+Thot]

I'm not sure how to handle this. Another Topic has a thread that has wandered off topic, but I would like more people's input/comments on the off topic issue which I've stated in the title of this Topic. You can see my comment in the other Topic HERE. Either add to the existing thread or, after reading the exchanges on this subject, pick up and comment here.

 

Logbook logs have let me figure out what happened to a couple of travel bugs that seemed to have gone missing. In one case an experienced cacher had forgotten he took the bug but the written log showed it, in another a newbie had taken it and didn't know what to do with it. I was able to see from the logbook who took it and email him to get things straightened out. It seems to me requiring written logs for every visit provide accounting/traceability/history. But, is this required?

Edited August 25, 2005 by Thot

[+StarBrand]

Should - yes. Required - no.

 

Courteous - yes.

 

I don't know of any Requirement - but it would be difficult or impossible to enforce.

[+Thot]

I don't know of any Requirement - but it would be difficult or impossible to enforce.

More difficult than the requirement that you must log your first visit?

[+wolfmaster]

I don't know about logging every visit. Does that mean I have to log the five DNF's for one cache? I've had some pretty tough ones and I sure wouldn't want people to know it took five or six times to find it [] I'll log one DNF and that should cover them all until I find it.

[+BlueDeuce]

I think the OP is referring to someone revisiting a cache they already found to retrieve a bug and whether or not they should write in the paper logbook that they took the bug.

[+Thot]

I think the OP is referring to someone revisiting a cache they already found to retrieve a bug and whether or not they should write in the paper logbook

Correct. Thus the use of the word logbook.

 

that they took the bug.

At least that they were there.

Edited August 26, 2005 by Thot

[+budd-rdc]

I'm generally against adding more rules, but adding this to the Geocaching Guidelines is a good idea.

 

I've tracked a few TBs that were missing by reading through the log book also. Some of them were never found, but that's a separate issue.

 

As with any guideline, this may be unenforceable but never hurts to bring this issue to awareness.

[+badlands]

Should - yes. Required - no.

 

Courteous - yes.

 

I don't know of any Requirement - but it would be difficult or impossible to enforce.

What StarBrand said.

 

Why wouldn't you? If I'm taking the time to find the cache (even a second time) I'm going to take the time to log it.

 

Too many DNF's on a cache are annoying but a few that are spaced well enough apart can certainly give the people that have found it a chuckle...at least on the harder caches.

[+Stunod]

I don't know of any Requirement - but it would be difficult or impossible to enforce.

More difficult than the requirement that you must log your first visit?

Much more difficult.

 

If you don't sign the logbook (but do log online) for your first visit, the cache owner CAN delete your online log.

 

But if you don't sign the book when you return to pick up a travel bug...what can the cache owner do?? Can't delete a find...can't delete a TB log...

 

How exactly would you enforce this??

 

BTW...I agree that re-signing the log is the right thing to do when revisiting a cache.

[+Thot]

I don't know of any Requirement - but it would be difficult or impossible to enforce.

More difficult than the requirement that you must log your first visit?

Much more difficult.

 

If you don't sign the logbook (but do log online) for your first visit, the cache owner CAN delete your online log.

I doubt many people take the time to verify the logbook against online logs now. A lot of people may jump in to say "I do!," while the silent majority will avoid scolding and remain mute.

 

When I placed my first cache or two I would check the logbook against the online logs, but it was a nuisance and I never found cheats so I quit. [i did find people who signed the logbook and never did the weblog.]

Edited August 26, 2005 by Thot

[+CapnJackSparrow]

I did find people who signed the logbook and never did the weblog.

I am guilty of signing the log book and forgetting what I wrote and then writing something completely different in the web log. If both logs are relevent but completely different, does anyone find this to be a problem?

 

This may seem to some to be off-topic but I thought this would be a good place to ask this question.

[+BlueDeuce]

BTW...I agree that re-signing the log is the right thing to do when revisiting a cache.

 

Why is this the right or the courteous thing to do? The only premise I've seen presented so far is that it allows you to track removed bugs.

 

Hey great! I hope those people who can't manage a bug sign the log book. (in detail).

 

I shall continue to do the wrong and discourteous thing and sign the log book when found and log bugs and trades on line.

 

edit: removed angst

Edited August 26, 2005 by BlueDeuce

[+GeoJunkie]

Should - yes. Required - no.

 

Courteous - yes.

 

I don't know of any Requirement - but it would be difficult or impossible to enforce.

What StarBrand said.

 

Why wouldn't you? If I'm taking the time to find the cache (even a second time) I'm going to take the time to log it.

 

Too many DNF's on a cache are annoying but a few that are spaced well enough apart can certainly give the people that have found it a chuckle...at least on the harder caches.

I always make sure I log every DNF into the logbook.

[+Thot]

I am guilty of signing the log book and forgetting what I wrote and then writing something completely different in the web log. If both logs are relevant but completely different, does anyone find this to be a problem?

I don't. As long as both logs are accurate. On problem for me is, many (most) people don't state what they took in their weblog. I have a couple of caches where I try to keep a certain trade item in them. When people don't log what they took I don't know when I need to replenish these caches.

 

Now we're two digressions away from the Topic.

[+Thot]

BTW...I agree that re-signing the log is the right thing to do when revisiting a cache.

 

Why is this the right or the courteous thing to do?

I think of it that the logbook is to log (provide a history of) all activity at the cache.

[+BlueDeuce]

BTW...I agree that re-signing the log is the right thing to do when revisiting a cache.

 

Why is this the right or the courteous thing to do?

I think of it that the logbook is to log (provide a history of) all activity at the cache.

I can accept that reason better than ethical ones.

[+budd-rdc]

I don't know of any Requirement - but it would be difficult or impossible to enforce.

More difficult than the requirement that you must log your first visit?

Much more difficult.

 

If you don't sign the logbook (but do log online) for your first visit, the cache owner CAN delete your online log.

I doubt many people take the time to verify the logbook against online logs now. A lot of people may jump in to say "I do!," while the silent majority will avoid scolding and remain mute.

 

When I placed my first cache or two I would check the logbook against the online logs, but it was a nuisance and I never found cheats so I quit. [i did find people who signed the logbook and never did the weblog.]

I'm not a mega-hider, and most of my caches are placed in areas with not too much traffic, so it's easy for me to check the log book/sheet against the online logs.

 

I have found quite a few visitors who have not bothered to log their visits online.

 

"Owners should verify online logs against cache logs" could be yet another guideline, but again, not enforceable - these things are bordering on common sense territory so talking about it is kinda moot.

[+Ollivander]

Do I sign the logbook every time I visit a cache? Yep. Ok once, the logbook was soaking wet and I couldn't sign it - but I did leave a sig card.

 

Do I make the physical log entry match up with the online log entry? Rarely. if I have visited many caches in a single trip, I might not remember which swag I took and left. I have also put in the physical log stuff that would be a spoiler if posted online (I looked under the first rock instead of the second one and was surprised to see a ...) and of course, I have had interesting experiences while returning from a cache, which I might share in my online log.

 

I have also made physical log entries extremely brief, such as when the logbook was full, was a tiny logbook in a micro-cache, or when I was getting devoured by insects and needed to get out of there fast!

[+tirediron]

I always log if I can (log book is present/usable) and yes I think people should. No point in making it a requirement, it's not enforceable.