When, If Ever, Is It Okay To Sign Anything But The Logbook?

[+BiT]

Let's try to keep this as close to the topic as possible, use the other threads if needed to comment on the other hot issues.

 

Is/are there any circumstances that would allow this to happen?

 

Can a container be the logbook?

 

I've heard of these type of micros but have never found one myself. It is basically a sheet magnet with white paint on one side. The white painted side serves as the logbook.

 

What if the is a malfunction with the container and then a email is sent to the cache owner(s)?

 

What if a container is cross-threaded, rusted, pinched, or damaged and cannot be opened by hand.

[+Team Teuton]

When the log is so wet you have to add your own scrap of signed paper.

 

When you're FTF and the hider did not include a logbook.

Edited June 2, 2006 by Team Teuton

[+Celticwulf]

I've found one cache where inside the cache, the owner requested you to sign both the log inside as well as the container. The container was very creative, and having all the cachers sign it makes it that much more interesting as time goes on.

 

However, other than at the request/direction of the cache owner, I would never sign anything but the logbook <edit> or an extra piece of paper left in cache if log is too wet </edit>. Just my personal play style

 

Celticwulf

Edited June 2, 2006 by Celticwulf

[+carleenp]

There are some caches out there where it is expected to sign the "container." I have done one of those.

 

In all the other cases, I don't think it is OK to write on the container without the owner's permission. Although adding extra paper and such when the log is full as someone mentioned seems fine to me.

 

I once couldn't get a container open (it was frozen shut). I just logged a DNF and came back another (warmer) time.

Edited June 2, 2006 by carleenp

[nickie218]

This is just my opinion. If there are extraordinary circumstances, such as a record breaking run, then the quickest method possible of "logging a cache" would need to be executed. I have no problem with someone sigining the cache container itself, it lets me know that they were at my cache site, since once again the whole purpose is to find the container not the log book inside the container. Others will surely disagree but I honestly see no problem with it .

 

My 2 cents.

[+Totem Clan]

How 'bout a cache where the container is a log, ie a hunk wood. Then signing the container and signing the log would be the same thing. Haha ha ha.... ha .............. ha

 

Ok, that was just stupid.... I'm going to go stand in the corner now.

[+Miragee]

Once, when I almost couldn't get a container out of its hiding place, I could have, perhaps, signed the outside of the container . . . but it never crossed my mind.

 

Even though I was FTF, I was prepared to log a DNF . . .

[+ar_kayaker]

The ONLY time it is acceptable to sign the container is if the cache owner requests that as the normal method of signing. Any other time it is vandalism.

 

If a logbook is not present, add a business card, add a scrap of paper, or some other token.

 

If the cache container is sealed shut I'd count that as a find (unless the cache is sealed on purpose as a puzzle), then simply note it in the online log and send a "needs maintenance" message to the owner.

 

A "record run" does not constitute "extenuating circumstances".

[+ventura_kids]

It is Never O.K. to sign the container.

 

There are some magnet sheet hides around here too... but they always have an obvious spot to sign your handle...(It's the part with all the lines on it).

 

If you are attempting a world record, and you realize you cannot possibly break the old record without cheating, then you should realize "that's why it is a record"! ... oops off topic... sorry. (but now I feel much better)

[+DocDiTTo]

I've found caches where there really was no container - just a magnetic log sheet. It can't contain anything except signatures. In that case, it was certainly the intent of the hider for you to sign it, so it's fine.

 

In any other case (including record runs) it is not fine, unless you've recieved prior permission from the cache owner. I believe this has been beaten to death in another thread, so there's no point in going on about it here. If people haven't gotten this very clear message by now, they simply won't get it.

[+Totem Clan]

The ONLY time it is acceptable to sign the container is if the cache owner requests that as the normal method of signing. Any other time it is vandalism.

 

If a logbook is not present, add a business card, add a scrap of paper, or some other token.

 

If the cache container is sealed shut I'd count that as a find (unless the cache is sealed on purpose as a puzzle), then simply note it in the online log and send a "needs maintenance" message to the owner.

 

A "record run" does not constitute "extenuating circumstances".

 

Very well put. Now lets see how long it takes for this to turn into another 'numbers vs ethics' debate.

[+Celticwulf]

This is just my opinion. If there are extraordinary circumstances, such as a record breaking run, then the quickest method possible of "logging a cache" would need to be executed. I have no problem with someone sigining the cache container itself, it lets me know that they were at my cache site, since once again the whole purpose is to find the container not the log book inside the container. Others will surely disagree but I honestly see no problem with it .

 

My 2 cents.

 

Without opening it and signing the log, how do you know you found the right container?

 

Or don't you have people who hide decoy caches nearby just to make the hunt more interesting?

 

Celticwulf

[+briansnat]

I once found the cache and the logbook was missing. I had no paper with me so I signed the inside of the lid. I don't see a problem with that. I'd never sign the outside though.

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Let's try to keep this as close to the topic as possible, use the other threads if needed to comment on the other hot issues.

 

Is/are there any circumstances that would allow this to happen?

 

Yes

 

Can a container be the logbook?

 

Yes

 

I've heard of these type of micros but have never found one myself. It is basically a sheet magnet with white paint on one side. The white painted side serves as the logbook.

 

Good example, there are other similar methods out there too.

 

What if the is a malfunction with the container and then a email is sent to the cache owner(s)?

 

Without permission from the owner, this is not a find.

 

What if a container is cross-threaded, rusted, pinched, or damaged and cannot be opened by hand.

 

Once again, without permission from the owner, this is not a find. However, if there is indeed a problem with the cache, I'd say a "Needs Mainenance" log is more in order anyways. Once again, in my opinion, the owner should allow you to claim a find, but without the owners say so, how can you even guarantee that you even really found the cache? That could have been a decoy, the remnants of a archived cache, or even just plain garbage.

[+StarBrand]

If the logsheet is full or wet - I'll just drop one of my sig pencils in the box if there is room - or I leave a temp logsheet with my sig (I carry them in my wallet). Got to at least open the cache or you can't be sure it is really what you think it is. I would personally never sign a container for any reason.

[nickie218]

 

 

Without opening it and signing the log, how do you know you found the right container?

 

Or don't you have people who hide decoy caches nearby just to make the hunt more interesting?

 

Celticwulf

 

Ummmm...no thank Goodness!

Edited June 2, 2006 by nickie218

[+VegasCacheHounds]

 

 

Without opening it and signing the log, how do you know you found the right container?

 

Or don't you have people who hide decoy caches nearby just to make the hunt more interesting?

 

Celticwulf

 

Ummmm...no thank Godness!

 

Why? Is there something wrong with making a cache hunt a bit more intersting or entertaining? I know of a cache around these parts that would be quite lame in most peoples opinion if it wasn't for the clever decoys associated with it.

 

EDIT: Oh, and don't you just hate when someone quotes you before you have the chance to fix a typo?

Edited June 2, 2006 by VegasCacheHounds

[+Celticwulf]

 

 

Without opening it and signing the log, how do you know you found the right container?

 

Or don't you have people who hide decoy caches nearby just to make the hunt more interesting?

 

Celticwulf

 

Ummmm...no thank Goodness!

 

I'm sorry about that then...we've got a few around here that are very fun and creative, and it makes the cache that much more fun to bring others too. It's hillarious watching others trying to find the cache and then realizing what they just picked out wasn't the real cache. Search for "shelter ii" and "shelter iii" in the midwest forums to see what fun people have with evil hides that include decoys.

 

But, now that I've pointed out that there ARE cachers that put out decoys to make things more interesting, does that change your opinion at all about signing the container rather than the log?

 

Celticwulf

[+niraD]

Or don't you have people who hide decoy caches nearby just to make the hunt more interesting?

There's a puzzle cache around here with a red-herring solution and a decoy container. Finding the decoy container and realizing that the puzzle really wasn't that trivial was part of the fun. But it isn't just decoy containers. Sometimes figuring out how to open the container is the whole point of a puzzle cache. Sometimes owners of camouflaged caches place similarly camouflaged non-cache objects to preserve the symmetry of whatever the cache is hidden on, making the cache itself less obvious. Sometimes photographers throw empty film canisters in the bushes instead of in the trash.

 

If the log is a mess and I can't sign it, and I can't dry it out enough to make it signable, then I leave a new stash note/log sheet and sign that. I've seen a log signed in berry juice because the owner lost his pen and there wasn't one in the container. That's creative. Signing the container (or something you just think is the container) isn't creative.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

This is just my opinion. If there are extraordinary circumstances, such as a record breaking run, then the quickest method possible of "logging a cache" would need to be executed. I have no problem with someone sigining the cache container itself, it lets me know that they were at my cache site, since once again the whole purpose is to find the container not the log book inside the container. Others will surely disagree but I honestly see no problem with it .

 

My 2 cents.

The whole purpose is to sign the logbook, not just find the container. Some containers can be easily seen or even touched, but retrieving them or opening them is the challenging part. Signing the logbook is the proof that you succeeded.

[+Team Cotati]

I find a cache, I log it on the site. If there is a physical log book in good enough condition to sign, I sign it. If some cache owner doesn't like that, he can delete my log entry. This has yet to happen. I won't lose any sleep over it in any event.

Edited June 2, 2006 by Team Cotati

[+Harry Dolphin]

Once again, in my opinion, the owner should allow you to claim a find, but without the owners say so, how can you even guarantee that you even really found the cache? That could have been a decoy, the remnants of a archived cache, or even just plain garbage.

 

Ah. That was the FTF on one of my sister's caches. "I logged the real first to find at 1:45 PM today. There was something that could be mistaken for a cache container nearby and it even had two signatures in it." Two people found a tape container on the ground, in plain view, and left their signatures therein. No. That wasn't the cache. Oh well.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Im only repeating what many have already said...

 

Signing the container is only acceptable when it is clear the log is the container. Ive found one of those magnetic strips, where one side is clearly labeled as the log sheet. There were 3 of us looking for that during a lunar eclipse lol. Apparently I love geocaching more than astronomy.

 

We have encountered one cache where the container was jammed. We struggled with that one, took it back to the truck looking for things ..... to.... open ...... the ...... cache..... up. Whew, Im exhausted just remembering how much we fought over that cache! In the end, we gave up, replaced the cache, posted a note. The owner retrieved the cache, couldnt get it open either and emailed me, telling us to claim a find. At no point did we even consider signing that cache.

 

There is one special thing we signed, with the clear permission of the owner. The Original Stash Plaque, on its send off event here in Phoenix, prior to being placed at the site of the Original Stash. The attendees were asked to sign the back of the plaque.

 

Edited cause I realized I made a stupid mistake hours later

Edited June 3, 2006 by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

[+Team LaLonde]

How 'bout a cache where the container is a log, ie a hunk wood. Then signing the container and signing the log would be the same thing. Haha ha ha.... ha .............. ha

 

Ok, that was just stupid.... I'm going to go stand in the corner now.

 

Like this one??

[+budd-rdc]

I have run into situations where I had to make a decision on the spot on what to do, due to wet, missing, frozen, and damaged log sheets. Usually, I try to sign on the damaged log sheet somehow, and if appropriate, place a temporary log sheet with my signature on it. I've also run across a small number of objects that are considered "log sheets", too. I've yet to run into a container I couldn't open, so I'm knocking on wood there.

 

I visited a very evil fizzymagic cache, and amazingly found it on the first try. The log was so full I couldn't sign it without writing over someone else's name, so I posted a note to alert him of the condition. He showed compassion and allowed me to log a find, but I didn't. I returned later after he replaced the log sheet, and watched my brother agonize over the hide. Signed the log, and posted a find on that visit.

 

But to answer the OP's question, I don't know, since I always plan on signing the log sheet after I find the cache. This isn't something that I plan in advance.