Does This Seem Wrong To You?

[+WeightMan]

I can only speak for myself and the way I play the game. Don't take anything I said as being gospel for anyone else. I have not had the so soggy I couldn't sigh the log thing happen to me so I can't speak to that. I do carry a notebook so I can add a cache page or two if needed.

 

Again, that is how I play. Your mileage may vary.

[+GeoRoo]

I can only speak for myself and the way I play the game. Don't take anything I said as being gospel for anyone else. I have not had the so soggy I couldn't sigh the log thing happen to me so I can't speak to that. I do carry a notebook so I can add a cache page or two if needed.

 

Again, that is how I play. Your mileage may vary.

 

I can't take your word as gospel?....I'm so dissapointed!..... You must not cache much in the woods then. How could you not avoid the wet soggy logs? The gooey wet garbage bag wrapped cache has to be a classic!......Maybe it's just the hicksville I live near that breeds the wet gooey caches.

 

I replaced one of my caches the other day that was a Lok-N-Lok box that was suppose to be 100% waterproof, All the rain we've had the past 3-4 months if a cache is dry then it's doing well!.......

[+WeightMan]

I think I have been lucky on the soggy log pages. I have had some damp even some wet, but I was able to at least put down a WM. The worst part of those garbage bag wrapped caches is the wet insides of the black bag. Those are generally wetter than the outside. I did find one with 2-3 inches of water inside, but the log book baggie kept that dry.

[+Criminal]

Criminal does enough hike to caches that I bet he's run across that plenty of times. Do you log a cache find?........If he does then that's cheating in my book. If the log can't be deciphered then those caches should be deleted. Yes, everyone of them!.....

 

There's been only one cache that the log was too soggy to sign, a rather lame one in town that was a rolled up paper inside a cut down ball point pen barrel. It was tearing as i tried to pull it out, so I put a small 'C' on the bit I was able to expose and stuffed it back. All of the hike required caches have been slightly damp at worse, but most were dry.

[Team Misguided]

OT a bit........................ I saw in the news that Radio Shack will be closing hundereds of stores across the country. Hopefully that will mean fewer caches wrapped in those bags in the future. There is nothing better than a plastic bag for making a cache soggy and disgusting.

 

On Topic. Geocaching is sort of like 'Who's Line is it anyway?', the points don't count. If someone logs a find on the remains of a cache that's between them and the cache owner. If that's not how you play the game that's okay too.

 

I think this is a great subject to be discussing, as long as it stays friendly.

[+TotemLake]

I think I have been lucky on the soggy log pages. I have had some damp even some wet, but I was able to at least put down a WM. The worst part of those garbage bag wrapped caches is the wet insides of the black bag. Those are generally wetter than the outside. I did find one with 2-3 inches of water inside, but the log book baggie kept that dry.

 

I concur with this. Most of the caches I have found with soggy logs were urban caches. All of the big hike caches had very dry contents. It seems those that make a BIG effort to hide a cache are also the ones that have made a BIG effort to ensure the contents will stay dry. On the flip side of that statement, those folks that make a BIG effort to hike to that said cache will also make a BIG effort to ensure the integrity of that cache and log.

 

Urban caches will have a wider range of hunters with a wider range of attitudes. Not all will have the mindset to think of those cachers whom will be following behind them as evidenced by how the cache is also rehidden by those same cachers.

 

=-=-grammatical edits-=-=

Edited February 22, 2006 by TotemLake

[+Stump]

I generally don't give a fig what rules people want to put on geocaching. In fact, I get pretty sick of people deciding there's a right way and a wrong way to log caches or cache in general.

 

HOWEVER, one point in logging velcro and strings as finds. I found a cache a while ago where the last few people didn't find the cache but logged it as a find anyway. A tree had fallen over and buried the cache and I guess since they had gotten to the spot and it was gone they figured it was a find. Well, the owner didn't really read the logs so he had no idea the cache was missing until I logged my DNF.

 

So logging DNFs as Finds can affect others.

[+hikergps]

OT a bit........................ I saw in the news that Radio Shack will be closing hundereds of stores across the country. Hopefully that will mean fewer caches wrapped in those bags in the future. There is nothing better than a plastic bag for making a cache soggy and disgusting.

 

I don't see the connection between Radio Shack and garbage bags, but I haven't been around all that long either.

 

I have 2 caches hidden, both very easy. One was a film canister, now a gasketed match carrier. The other is an ammo can. Nothing pisses me off more that checking my caches to find that somebody was in such a hurry to log and run that they can't screw the lid on tight on the micro or they close a stick or small rock in the seal of the ammo can. A close second is having to dump various amounts of dirt out of the ammo can every 5 cachers, I'm guessing because the easiest way to look at the contents is to dump them out on the ground, then scoop everything up and dump it back in. One thing about Geocachers, no one is shy about telling you that your cache is needing attention. Doesn't piss me off enough to yank the caches though, just enough to complain about it.

 

I don't have many finds yet, but for me if I don't see the container and write in the log, it's a DNF.

[Team Misguided]

OT a bit........................ I saw in the news that Radio Shack will be closing hundereds of stores across the country. Hopefully that will mean fewer caches wrapped in those bags in the future. There is nothing better than a plastic bag for making a cache soggy and disgusting.

 

I don't see the connection between Radio Shack and garbage bags, but I haven't been around all that long either.

 

 

At one time the cammo of choice for a certain local area was the black plastic radio shack bags. Every other cache in the area seemed to be hidden in one. It was a lame attempt at a little humor, apparently it failed.

[+hikergps]

OT a bit........................ I saw in the news that Radio Shack will be closing hundereds of stores across the country. Hopefully that will mean fewer caches wrapped in those bags in the future. There is nothing better than a plastic bag for making a cache soggy and disgusting.

 

I don't see the connection between Radio Shack and garbage bags, but I haven't been around all that long either.

 

 

At one time the cammo of choice for a certain local area was the black plastic radio shack bags. Every other cache in the area seemed to be hidden in one. It was a lame attempt at a little humor, apparently it failed.

 

OK, I get it now, just have never come across one.

[+WeightMan]

OT a bit........................ I saw in the news that Radio Shack will be closing hundereds of stores across the country. Hopefully that will mean fewer caches wrapped in those bags in the future. There is nothing better than a plastic bag for making a cache soggy and disgusting.

 

I don't see the connection between Radio Shack and garbage bags, but I haven't been around all that long either.

 

 

At one time the cammo of choice for a certain local area was the black plastic radio shack bags. Every other cache in the area seemed to be hidden in one. It was a lame attempt at a little humor, apparently it failed.

 

It wasn't that lame. I got a chuckle out of it. I usually find the large black trash bags, but I have found way too many of the Radio Shack bags.

 

Edit Speeling

Edited February 23, 2006 by WeightMan

[+Mearth]

Merriam-Webster: 1 a : to come upon often accidentally : ENCOUNTER b : to meet with (a particular reception)

2 a : to come upon by searching or effort

 

I tend to fall into Criminal's camp on this matter. If I find the cache, I log a find. Sometimes the cache is in horrible condition (in several pieces scattered around). Once, the log book was impossible to remove from the cache (having been crammed in there initially, and re-crammed many times since). These are caches I have found. I sign my party in (usually me, me and my kid, me and my pal and my kid) on the log, or leave a functional piece of paper as a temporary log if the original is full or soaked.

 

If I hike for a couple miles and stand right on top of the cache many times in the course of 2 hours of hunting in the snow and still don't find the beggar, I DID NOT FIND IT. If I hunt and hunt and find a couple mangled McToys and a golf ball, I can assume there was once a cache nearby that is no longer around, which is why I DID NOT FIND it.

 

It's a common verb with a very simple definition. I don't understand the claim of confusion.

 

I don't want to care. I confess that I do. It cheapens the sport, somehow. I am most proud of finds that required mutiple trips, several hours of grunting and peering, pathetic begging for hints from intractable nudists (still haven't found that one, but I will...). I really shouldn't care if others are willing to alter reality to fit their wants. But I do.

 

That being said, I think that .5 C makes a good point...new cachers follow the example of previous finders. I actually left a golf ball in the second cache I found. So, I think it's great to see this issue being discussed in the forums along with trading up and CITO. One stray can turn into the pied piper pretty easily.

[+Shop99er]

At one time the cammo of choice for a certain local area was the black plastic radio shack bags. Every other cache in the area seemed to be hidden in one. It was a lame attempt at a little humor, apparently it failed.

 

OOO--OOO--I think I know where you're talking about. Maybe it was cuz the bags were from "Rat-Shack"???

[+TotemLake]

What I don’t like to see is people logging finds when they clearly admit they did not find the cache.

 

Example one:

 

Example two:

 

Example Three:

 

I just took a quick look through the logs mentioned above, and was rather surprised to see my name as one of those cited for logging a "missing" cache. I was a relatively inexperienced cacher at that time and preferred then, as I do now, to cache by myself. Up to that point, I had had very little opportunity to cache with and observe those with more experience, to see how they would handle situations such as this one, when they came up.

 

I also didn't realize that there were "rules" regarding logging of missing caches, nor was I aware that someone was keeping track of my caching practices. In retrospect, I should not have logged that cache as a find, as I did not set pen to paper. However, this was the first time I had encountered this situation, and I was simply following the example set by the several previous cachers' logs registering a find for locating the attachment velcro for the missing cache. Now that I am a more experienced geocacher and have had a chance to become better aware of proper caching protocol by occasionally caching with others with more experience and by reading these forums, I would not make the same choice today under the same circumstances.

 

I have changed my log entry from a "Found It" to a "Did Not Find". I hope you can sleep better tonight, Criminal....

 

I wouldn't fret too much. I've actually gone back and changed a few finds into notes. I kept one or two of them though only for the icon collection.

 

The truth is, each player needs to do right by themselves. If you go back in your historical logs; Do you feel good about each of the finds or would you have declared it differently in your current status? I said it in a previous thread and I think it stands here too...

 

A person is defined by their character. What that person does defines their character.

[fishiam]

This is a crystal clear example of why I have come to generally avoid the forums. Cachers with a few hundred finds but many thousands of forum posts (on basically every subject) dispensing etiquette guidelines on what it means to really be a geocacher. Constantly citing long ago tough finds and praising the old days while belittling the state of caching today as derivative and inferior. Let people cache as they want to and spend less time making them feel bad because they don't cache like you say you do (or did). For cripes sake, give it a rest! peace, fishiam

Edited February 23, 2006 by fishiam

[+TotemLake]

This is a crystal clear example of why I have come to generally avoid the forums. Cachers with a few hundred finds but many thousands of forum posts (on basically every subject) dispensing etiquette guidelines on what it means to really be a geocacher. Constantly citing long ago tough finds and praising the old days while belittling the state of caching today as derivative and inferior. Let people cache as they want to and spend less time making them feel bad because they don't cache like you say you do (or did). For cripes sake, give it a rest! peace, fishiam

 

I did not belittle. I do use my history as a guideline. If you have a problem with that... too bad. I cache when the opportunity arises.

 

However, let me remind you a little forum guideline lest you forgot...

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

I find your remarks objectionable.

[+Criminal]

This is a crystal clear example of why I have come to generally avoid the forums. Cachers with a few hundred finds but many thousands of forum posts (on basically every subject) dispensing etiquette guidelines on what it means to really be a geocacher. Constantly citing long ago tough finds and praising the old days while belittling the state of caching today as derivative and inferior. Let people cache as they want to and spend less time making them feel bad because they don't cache like you say you do (or did). For cripes sake, give it a rest! peace, fishiam

 

I did not belittle. I do use my history as a guideline. If you have a problem with that... too bad. I cache when the opportunity arises.

 

However, let me remind you a little forum guideline lest you forgot...

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

I find your remarks objectionable.

 

Was that a shot at you TL, or me? If it was meant for me, don’t put much stock in my find count, after all, it only includes only tangible caches with logbooks. My find count does not include virts, locationless, webcams, or events. If you choose to judge me and the advice I give, please note the ‘joined date’ under my avatar.

Edited February 23, 2006 by Criminal

[+TotemLake]

Either way, I still find it objectionable. I responded because he spewed chunks over my post.

 

These forums were intended for discussing ideas as well as opinions. To shut it down based on a numbers ratio is a full crock. JMHO

[fiendorfoe]

This is a crystal clear example of why I have come to generally avoid the forums. Cachers with a few hundred finds but many thousands of forum posts (on basically every subject) dispensing etiquette guidelines on what it means to really be a geocacher. Constantly citing long ago tough finds and praising the old days while belittling the state of caching today as derivative and inferior. Let people cache as they want to and spend less time making them feel bad because they don't cache like you say you do (or did). For cripes sake, give it a rest! peace, fishiam

 

Thanks fishy, you reminded me why I placed a cache on the other side of the pond! I have my caching style that I thought TUS might like to try.

[+Criminal]

This is a crystal clear example of why I have come to generally avoid the forums. Cachers with a few hundred finds but many thousands of forum posts (on basically every subject) dispensing etiquette guidelines on what it means to really be a geocacher. Constantly citing long ago tough finds and praising the old days while belittling the state of caching today as derivative and inferior. Let people cache as they want to and spend less time making them feel bad because they don't cache like you say you do (or did). For cripes sake, give it a rest! peace, fishiam

 

Getting past the personal attack, I wanted to address a couple of other things here.

 

First off, I do not belittle anyone for the type of cache they do, or belittle the types of caches I won’t do. What sort of authority are you imputing on me? No matter how much I might dislike a certain type of cache, that doesn’t mean people will stop hiding them or Seattle will stop allowing them. I can recognize the value of (almost) all caches, regardless of whether or not I’d take the time to hunt them. A cache’s perceived ‘inferiority’ is only as it applies to me. Caches have different values to different people.

 

Two mentions of one cache do not equate to ‘constantly’.

 

I do not make people feel bad. If someone feels bad about a find it comes from within themselves. People should cache the way they like, but this was about claiming a find when one clearly did not find the cache. Try to justify it all you like, you can’t change the meaning of a word simply to suit your needs.

 

Say a pirate with a treasure map paces out according to the directions printed thereon and begins digging. After a while he realizes he must have made a mistake or the treasure is already gone. Say he discovered a few scraps of wood from the chest and nothing else. Did he find the treasure? According to some in the geocaching community he did.

 

Who is this ‘Cripe’ you speak of?

[+Shop99er]

Folks, howzabout we knock off the thinly-veiled personal attacks here?

 

The point of this thread was supposed to be what do you think of the subject brought up in the OP. NOT what do you think of "Joe Cacher".

 

Please stay on the topic.

[+runhills]

If I can't leave a mark in a logbook that is required by the rules, I don't log a find online. Im my opinion, the online is just a convient way to publish signing the actual. This seems to be the accepted methology used by cachers with lots of finds thus earning my respect.

 

With this in mind, I have logged online finds for caches that have been archived but a physical logbook was still found.

[+Dgwphotos]

Here is another example that I ran across. We need to have some standards of what we consider a find. Otherwise I could sit here and log finds and never even go out the door.

[+The Jester]

I've done caches where the log was a gooey mess. There was no way in $%^ I could have signed a log.

That's why I carry a 'space' pen with me. It will write on anything and everywhere. I've signed soggy logs that a normal pen would have ripped up.

[+ruck]

Being one of Criminal's examples, guess I'd have to say I log it as I see it at the time. Doesn't mean I'd do it the same now, but doesn't mean I'd do it different either. The only logs I go back and change are the ones I accidently logged wrong to begin with. I feel the caches are there to show me a place or something the hider wanted me to see. If I feel I've fulfilled the intent, then it will probably be a find. I don't sweat the ink mark unless it's an FTF and I don't usually chase those anymore unless they've been there six months or more.

 

If this opinion cheapens the game for you, I apoligize, but I play this game for me. My milestones are personal and I don't remember doing anything special for any except number 100. After that, it was just a number. I have a clear conscience about all but one find, but thats the way I saw it at the time so it stands as is. Had I hiked twenty miles in the snow to FTF a cache and the owner offered me the find, I'd probably have taken it and the log would include pics to prove I was there. The REAL purpose was to get you there, which had been fulfilled.

[+Pasha]

The day this game becomes serious enough to me to complain about how other people play is the day I quit doing it... though I must say that a certain local cache hider tends to drive me bonkers sometimes and I've been known to mutter impolite things under my breath about him.

 

If you choose to judge me and the advice I give, please note the ‘joined date’ under my avatar.

Huh? What does your joined date have to do with anything? I suppose there's some merit in it as you may've seen lots of changes or something, but if I'm going to "judge" you or your advice, that'll be the last thing I judge on. No big deal; I just thought it was weird that you even mentioned it. Perhaps that's just me.

 

On the OP... Because the "rules" of the game say that I can't log a find unless I've signed the log, that's what I do. I won't log a false find, and conversely, I don't go around finding caches but NOT signing them and NOT logging them. I do log all of my DNFs, and I'm willing to bet my definition of a DNF is as stringent as anyone's. That said, however, my personal feeling is that I'm looking for a cache, not a logbook. Whether I sign the log or not is immaterial to my personal gratification. As a result, my definition of "signing the log" is probably a bit more lax than some of you here. If I find a cache and the log is too wet to sign, or I've forgotten a pen, or my dog ate the log, or whatever, I'm not going to waste a single second in contemplation of whether it's OK for me to log it online. I found it. I log it.

 

That's not to say there aren't several local cache owners with dirty thumbprints or torn corners on their cache logs because of my inability to keep track of writing utensils. Seriously. They jump out of my pockets, all on their own. I believe they congregate at a secret tree ring totem in the deeps of Kitsap County, quietly building a giant monkey robot out of their caps and pocket-clips, plotting my demise.

[+Criminal]

Huh? What does your joined date have to do with anything? I suppose there's some merit in it as you may've seen lots of changes or something, but if I'm going to "judge" you or your advice, that'll be the last thing I judge on. No big deal; I just thought it was weird that you even mentioned it. Perhaps that's just me.

 

I mentioned it because fishiam said:

This is a crystal clear example of why I have come to generally avoid the forums. Cachers with a few hundred finds but many thousands of forum posts (on basically every subject) dispensing etiquette guidelines on what it means to really be a geocacher.

 

I find it offensive that the numbers don't matter, but I was going to be judged by mine.

 

No drama, just have to read.

 

[DBerube]

I found blame it on edison and it was smart name for that cache

[+W7WT]

Criminal, Ajetpilot and I all joined in the same week but somehow, Chris joined first but I ended up being the SENIOR member. Dick, W7WT

[+Criminal]

Criminal, Ajetpilot and I all joined in the same week but somehow, Chris joined first but I ended up being the SENIOR member. Dick, W7WT

 

...and you get the title of "Granddaddy of Geocaching".

Edited March 5, 2006 by Criminal

[+W7WT]

Being called the "Granddaddy of Geocaching" is a complement.(I think) Thanks Dick

[+dogbreathcanada]

What I don’t like to see is people logging finds when they clearly admit they did not find the cache.

 

Example one:

 

Example two:

 

Example Three:

 

I just took a quick look through the logs mentioned above, and was rather surprised to see my name as one of those cited for logging a "missing" cache. I was a relatively inexperienced cacher at that time ...

Wow! You certainly have a very different definition of "inexperienced" than most of us do. At the time you found the "velcro" cache you had 900 finds. I only have 650 finds at this point in my geocaching and I wouldn't consider myself inexperienced. I think at 900 finds you should have known better ... and you likely did. But sometimes that old find count trumps everything else (especially since you were only 4 days away from your 1000 find milestone).

Edited March 5, 2006 by dogbreathcanada

[+Sagefox]

Ooops! Post content deleted.

 

Somehow missed that there was a second page to this topic. It has an entierly different feel to it and not what I was responding to.

Edited March 5, 2006 by Team Sagefox

[MarcusArelius]

My bad, I should have looked before I posted

Edited March 6, 2006 by MarcusArelius

[+Patudles]

I just took a quick look through the logs mentioned above, and was rather surprised to see my name as one of those cited for logging a "missing" cache. I was a relatively inexperienced cacher at that time ...

Wow! You certainly have a very different definition of "inexperienced" than most of us do. At the time you found the "velcro" cache you had 900 finds. I only have 650 finds at this point in my geocaching and I wouldn't consider myself inexperienced. I think at 900 finds you should have known better ... and you likely did. But sometimes that old find count trumps everything else (especially since you were only 4 days away from your 1000 find milestone).

 

Way cool, HC, how do you rate? You have your own personal stalker, who not only watches you like a hawk but he must record your every move. How else would he remember what number you were at for each cache you found. Wow, that moves you way up in the celebraty cachers. Sure glad I got your autograph before you became so important.

Edited March 7, 2006 by Patudles

[+dogbreathcanada]

I just took a quick look through the logs mentioned above, and was rather surprised to see my name as one of those cited for logging a "missing" cache. I was a relatively inexperienced cacher at that time ...

Wow! You certainly have a very different definition of "inexperienced" than most of us do. At the time you found the "velcro" cache you had 900 finds. I only have 650 finds at this point in my geocaching and I wouldn't consider myself inexperienced. I think at 900 finds you should have known better ... and you likely did. But sometimes that old find count trumps everything else (especially since you were only 4 days away from your 1000 find milestone).

How else would he remember what number you were at for each cache you found.

She has a milestone list, with dates recorded. It's quite simple to cross-check the date she "found" the velcro against her milestone list. Anybody can do it. It's quite simple. Maybe that level of reasoning and problem-solving is beyond you, I don't know. But hopefully you've learned something here today.

[Team Misguided]

 

Personal attacks are not constructive to this discussion. Let's get this back on track before this topic gets totally derailed.

[+Wienerdog]

Well to take this back to the original post one of the most fun ‘no find’ finds we had happened a couple of years ago in Bremerton. We were out trecking across a big field and when we arrived at the location... there was no cache to be found anywhere. All we found was a chain around a small tree. No cache… just a piece of chain around a tree. On a lark we put a Wienerdog sticker on the piece of chain and went on to the next cache without giving it much thought. Later on, after we got home, we E-mailed the owner to see if we were in the right spot. We were. It turned out that this cache had been muggled a couple of times and the owner decided to chain the box to the tree and we had found the short part of the chain. It also turned out that other people were at this site after us and put their stickers on the chain citing Wienerdog as having found it so could they log it to. The humor value is now exceeding the cache value at this location! We did talk to the owner and he confirmed that we did find the location and we logged it as a ‘found what was left’ find. Was there a logbook? No. Was there a box? No. Was there a non-cache that took on a life of its own? Yes. Did we get permission to log the cache from the owner? Yes. Are we going to delete that log? No. The pure ‘goofy fun’ value of this no find was far greater than if we had signed a log in a box over 3000 finds ago that we would not have any memory of now! It would certainly be easy to make the case that we did not ‘find’ this one and all our milestone numbers are jogged off but that’s OK. We had a lot of fun with this one and it is one of our ‘campfire’ cache finds. The Wienerdog and several others had a good time with this non-cache and after all isn’t that the whole idea of Geocaching?

Edited March 7, 2006 by Wienerdog