must log be signed

[+fatdog]

Ok, question-must a log be signed to claim the cache? we recently did a micro-when we found the cache, it was in plain site as it had been spring and it was at the base of a bush that had not yet sprouted its leaves-it was located out side of a public building with muggels everywhere-we did not retireve as it didn't seem like a wise idea-It was in a tin container and looked like a piece of trash-we contacted the owner, thinking possilby someone had uncovered it and not re-hid it properly, and she got back to us that that was the way that she wanted it placed-she has since removed our find from our list as she said we have to sign-Is this exceptable on her part? I know that the rules say that a log should be signed, but under the circumstances we thought we were doing the right thing by not messing with it as we thought it had been moved. so, what's the verdict?

Edited August 10, 2006 by fatdog

[+The Leprechauns]

Half the challenge is figuring out a way to retrieve, log and replace the cache without being seen. If I did that to earn my smiley, so can you! Some find that to be fun, others don't.

 

My find count would be a bit higher if I could claim credit for caches I've seen but could not retrieve. I *saw* the cache 15 feet up, on top of a sign. I *saw* the cache tucked into a rock face.

 

The cache owner is the judge of what's acceptable. I have no problem with the response you received from this owner.

[+denali7]

Ok, question-must a log be signed to claim the cache?

 

Yes.

[+StarBrand]

yes

 

I've been known to use mud, charcoal and even a bit of blood (accidentally) to sign the logbook.

[+KoosKoos]

Yes it is....or...well, when it's not

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

LOL - do a search on 'DRR' and see what happens when you don't sign the logs!

 

I led a World Record Cache Run attempt a while back. We found 312 caches in 24 hours, had every one in hand, but signed the outside with a Sharpie to save time digging through the cache for the log... it was, as adjudged by fellow geocachers worldwide, a very bad move!

 

Sign the log!

 

Ed

[+fatdog]

LOL-I think that those who were nice enough to answer me misunderstood or perhaps I was not clear enough-It is not that we didn't have anything to sign it with or that we didn't want to retireve it, we thought it had been moved and we were concerned! It's obviously our mistake-we honestly never ran upon a cache in plain site like that -we always shy away from micros as we don't care for them, but that was the "only game in this town" and we wanted to chalk up some finds-thanks for all for input

[+ADK 46-R]

Imo i don't think the log needs to be signed, for whatever reasons you have for not signing are fine with me. if a cacher questions my not signing i tell them to ask me questions about the cache that only a finder would know to clear up any confusion.

[+Morgan's Marauders]

LOL-I think that those who were nice enough to answer me misunderstood or perhaps I was not clear enough-It is not that we didn't have anything to sign it with or that we didn't want to retireve it, we thought it had been moved and we were concerned! It's obviously our mistake-we honestly never ran upon a cache in plain site like that -we always shy away from micros as we don't care for them, but that was the "only game in this town" and we wanted to chalk up some finds-thanks for all for input

 

That cache was not the "only game in town" - you found other caches in town that day - complained about others and did not find the log sheet in another (I understand now you were probably looking for a logBOOK - but this was a small cache.) If both you and I had put a little more tact and thought into our responses to each other that day, things could have worked out differently. I'm glad to see that you admit it was your mistake.

 

Imo i don't think the log needs to be signed, for whatever reasons you have for not signing are fine with me. if a cacher questions my not signing i tell them to ask me questions about the cache that only a finder would know to clear up any confusion.

 

The issue was not that the cache was not spotted; the issue was that the cache was not retrieved and signed. And Fatdog was not completely off-base in his/her observations; the cache did turn up missing later that spring (or beginning of summer?) and I archived it. But it is the chance we take when we set out our caches.

 

And Fatdog - Congratulations on Find 100!

Edited August 10, 2006 by Morgan's Marauders

[+sbell111]

The cache log should be signed in order to claim the find, in my opinion.

 

To me, figuring out how to retrieve and replace an urban micro without giving it away is the most fun part. Sometimes, this means that I have to skip the cache and come back to it some other time.

Edited August 10, 2006 by sbell111

[+Blue Power Ranger]

No sign = No find

 

I commend you for doing the right thing though and letting the owner know you didn't sign the log. You could just have easily done the "wrong" thing and not signed and simply logged the find. Nobody would have been the wiser.

 

There are exceptions, for example when the log has turned into a wet mush (a semi-frequent occurence in the Pacific Northwest). In such cases, I suggest adding your own scrap of paper to the log so it can become mush too.

[k_statealan]

I have used mud or chlorophyll on multiple occasions. Only once have I claimed a find and not actually signed the log. In that case there was a large active wasp nest within inches of the cache and no log book is worth that to me.

[+Morgan's Marauders]

No sign = No find

 

.................

 

I commend you for doing the right thing though and letting the owner know you didn't sign the log. You could just have easily done the "wrong" thing and not signed and simply logged the find. Nobody would have been the wiser.

 

.................

 

 

The original log was a "Found It." Fatdog later posted a note after I deleted the "find."

 

Here is a link:

 

Wheelin' In For A Book

 

Perhaps I'm being a little too defensive about this one. But I enjoy geocaching very much and enjoy interacting with cachers. And, should the chance arrive, I would welcome an opportunity to cache with Fatdog.

 

Momma Marauder

[+Blue Power Ranger]

The original log was a "Found It." Fatdog later posted a note after I deleted the "find."

 

In Fatdog's original "found it" log did they state that they had not signed the log (that is what I was commending) or did you "audit" the logbook?

[+ar_kayaker]

The only two times it's acceptable to call it a find without signing the log is if:

 

1. The log is unsignable (logbook missing, soaked)

2. There is something on the cache page that states you have to do "xyz" to log the find.

 

AR_kayaker

[+conradv]

Seems like every week there's a new thread like this one.

 

I really believe that the intent of a cache is to hold it in your hands, open it up, check out the cool stuff, read the logs if there's time, and Sign The Logbook.

 

The only reason I can see for people not signing and still posting a "Found It" is for the little Smileys. And (IMHO) that's not the reason for GC.

 

(except when the log is gone/destroyed and a valid attempt has been made)

Edited August 10, 2006 by conradv

[+fatdog]

LOL I am so misunderstood today!! perhaps I should go back to bed, and get up again LOL-

When I said "the only game in town" I was referring to micro's as opposed to regular caches-I'm sorry to hear that the cache disappeared-thanks for the congrats on find "100"-it was extra specail as it had been one that eluded us for some time-

Cache on!!

[+Morgan's Marauders]

The original log was a "Found It." Fatdog later posted a note after I deleted the "find."

 

In Fatdog's original "found it" log did they state that they had not signed the log (that is what I was commending) or did you "audit" the logbook?

 

You're exactly right, Blue Power Ranger - they did state they hadn't sign the log. I agree that is commendable. But, to me the circumstances were clear and they simply chose not to take the chance to retrieve the cache. I asked them to change the log themselves, but they refused. And so I deleted the log.

 

In the original log, they had mentioned there was no camo on the container, so I checked the cache the next day. The container still had camo material on it and was most likely only visible to people who knew they were looking for something (geocachers or curious muggles.)

 

As referenced earlier, there were other circumstances with several of my other caches that raised red flags. The interactions between Fatdog and me were not the best they could have been. This was a problem on both our parts.

[+Morgan's Marauders]

LOL I am so misunderstood today!! perhaps I should go back to bed, and get up again LOL-

When I said "the only game in town" I was referring to micro's as opposed to regular caches-I'm sorry to hear that the cache disappeared-thanks for the congrats on find "100"-it was extra specail as it had been one that eluded us for some time-

Cache on!!

 

See - I was already defensive and misunderstood you!! Sorry about that!!

 

Keep on caching!

 

Momma Marauder

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Keep in mind that this 'you must sign the log' is a GEOCACHER desire, a question of common practice, not a Groundspeak guideline or requirement.

 

A careful read of Groundspeak's Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines found at www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx reveals NO logging requirement indicating a log must be signed for a find to count.

 

The closest they come is:

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.

 

Seeing a cache and not being able to reach it, having your picture made at the site (webcams) but not signing anything, any reason you find the cache but do not sign the log does not make the find "bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements" under the guidelins as written - nowhere do the guidelines even mention signing the log to validate a find, much less require it.

 

As I mentioned earlier, a lot of cachers (including myself, having been chastised severely on the topic) will tell you that you must sign the log to claim a find, but it's more of a community standard than a rule.

 

Ed

Edited August 10, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+sbell111]

Keep in mind that this 'you must sign the log' is a GEOCACHER desire, a question of common practice, not a Groundspeak guideline or requirement.

 

A careful read of Groundspeak's Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines found at www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx reveals NO logging requirement indicating a log must be signed for a find to count.

 

The closest they come is:

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.

 

Seeing a cache and not being able to reach it, having your picture made at the site (webcams) but not signing anything, any reason you find the cache but do not sign the log does not make the find "bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements" under the guidelins as written - nowhere do the guidelines even mention signing the log to validate a find, much less require it.

 

As I mentioned earlier, a lot of cachers (including myself, having been chastised severely on the topic) will tell you that you must sign the log to claim a find, so it's more of a community standard than a rule.

Some would disagree with you:

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

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Keep in mind that this 'you must sign the log' is a GEOCACHER desire, a question of common practice, not a Groundspeak guideline or requirement.

 

A careful read of Groundspeak's Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines found at www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx reveals NO logging requirement indicating a log must be signed for a find to count.

 

The closest they come is:

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.

 

Seeing a cache and not being able to reach it, having your picture made at the site (webcams) but not signing anything, any reason you find the cache but do not sign the log does not make the find "bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements" under the guidelins as written - nowhere do the guidelines even mention signing the log to validate a find, much less require it.

 

As I mentioned earlier, a lot of cachers (including myself, having been chastised severely on the topic) will tell you that you must sign the log to claim a find, so it's more of a community standard than a rule.

Some would disagree with you:

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

 

Some will ALWAYS disagree with me but that quote is not from the Guidelines, the one official source of geocaching listing rules. There is no requirement to take something or leave something either!

[+Morgan's Marauders]

Now, now - kiddos, play nice! Fatdog and I made up! You can too!

 

Just kidding - I know this is an area of great angst. Perhaps Fatdog will close this topic now that we've all had a chance to discuss it.

[+sbell111]

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

Some will ALWAYS disagree with me but that quote is not from the Guidelines, the one official source of geocaching listing rules. There is no requirement to take something or leave something either!

On the other hand, it is presented on GC.com as a 'rule'. It could certainly be argued that the rule should be followed.

 

Related to the trading requirement, please take a close look at the acronym TNLN.

 

What did you take? 'Nothing'. What did you leave? 'Nothing'.

 

Works for me!

Edited August 10, 2006 by sbell111

[heckle]

If you did not sign the logbook, then no find. I have found caches that have had wet logbooks and I signed an ATM recepit I had in my wallet and placed it in the cache. You say that you did not grab it because too many people were around? That is part of it all. STEALTH!! Perhaps what you "seen" as the cache was simply a decoy or actual trash!?!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

If you did not sign the logbook, then no find.

 

When TPTB sign off on that and has it written into the Guidelines then it will be a requirement - as it is it is just a practice you wish to promote.

 

I have agreed to comply with it, so I am not arguing - but presenting it as a rule, guideline or requirement is wrong - it is not.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

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

Some will ALWAYS disagree with me but that quote is not from the Guidelines, the one official source of geocaching listing rules. There is no requirement to take something or leave something either!

On the other hand, it is presented on GC.com as a 'rule'. It could certainly be argued that the rule should be followed.

 

Related to the trading requirement, please take a close look at the acronym TNLN.

 

What did you take? 'Nothing'. What did you leave? 'Nothing'.

 

Works for me!

 

By your very own argument Take something, leave something is a "rule", therefore every TNLN log should be deleted!

[+sbell111]

By your very own argument Take something, leave something is a "rule", therefore every TNLN log should be deleted!

I get that I'm channeling Bud Abbott, but I think TNLN abides by the rule.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

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[/qoute]

 

So, according to your quote, "rule" #1 and rule #2 are not rules, but rule #3 is? That's a pretty convenient interpretation!

[+tozainamboku]

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

 

So, according to your quote, "rule" #1 and rule #2 are not rules, but rule #3 is? That's a pretty convenient interpretation!

 

TNLNWN

Edited August 10, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+sbell111]

So, according to your quote, "rule" #1 and rule #2 are not rules, but rule #3 is? That's a pretty convenient interpretation!

That isn't what I posted. I believe that 'nothing' is an exceptable trade item, as long as I don't trade down.

[+Pioneer 'n' Tiff]

Recently I found a cache during a night hunt. Had the cache in hand but the problem was, a sudden drop in temperature had the lid clmped on. Unable to "open" the cache and write in the log I still claimed it as a find, then emailed the owner and explained the situation and left the decision up to them.

 

The owner was fine with that. Actually he went a did a little maintainence so the lid could be pryed open.

[+DocDiTTo]

Recently I found a cache during a night hunt. Had the cache in hand but the problem was, a sudden drop in temperature had the lid clmped on. Unable to "open" the cache and write in the log I still claimed it as a find, then emailed the owner and explained the situation and left the decision up to them.

 

The owner was fine with that. Actually he went a did a little maintainence so the lid could be pryed open.

 

Similar situation, there was a cache hidden on fishing line inside a metal signpost. Try as I might, I couldn't get the darn thing out of the post because the string had slipped from the way it was originally tied, and I couldn't put my fingers (or any of my tools) on it. I could see it. It was there. But no sign, no find. Ended up writing a note about the problem online, and then pretty much forgot about the cache for a couple weeks until I was in the area again. In the meantime someone managed to extract and re-tie the line so it was accessible. Signed it then logged as found online.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Recently I found a cache during a night hunt. Had the cache in hand but the problem was, a sudden drop in temperature had the lid clmped on. Unable to "open" the cache and write in the log I still claimed it as a find, then emailed the owner and explained the situation and left the decision up to them.

 

The owner was fine with that. Actually he went a did a little maintainence so the lid could be pryed open.

 

Similar situation, there was a cache hidden on fishing line inside a metal signpost. Try as I might, I couldn't get the darn thing out of the post because the string had slipped from the way it was originally tied, and I couldn't put my fingers (or any of my tools) on it. I could see it. It was there. But no sign, no find. Ended up writing a note about the problem online, and then pretty much forgot about the cache for a couple weeks until I was in the area again. In the meantime someone managed to extract and re-tie the line so it was accessible. Signed it then logged as found online.

 

That's what makes this game so good - we can all play it our way! In both of these quoted situations, had it been my cache, I would have encouraged you to log your find - you did in fact find it, wether you signed the log or not. That satisfies my desires as an owner - you went somewhere I thought you'd enjoy going to and found something I hid for you to find.

[+Criminal]

Several cachers tried to log a find on one of my caches because they saw the cache, didn't fly. Sign the log.

 

The elments of a find:

Go to the posted coordinates

Find the cache

Sign the logbook

Live to tell

 

Anything else will be deleted.

 

[+The Leprechauns]

The elments of a find:

Go to the posted coordinates

Find the cache

Sign the logbook

Live to tell

 

Anything else will be deleted.

Thanks so much for clarifying your position. I always wondered where you stood on this issue.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Ok, question-must a log be signed to claim the cache? we recently did a micro-when we found the cache, it was in plain site as it had been spring and it was at the base of a bush that had not yet sprouted its leaves-it was located out side of a public building with muggels everywhere-we did not retireve as it didn't seem like a wise idea-It was in a tin container and looked like a piece of trash-we contacted the owner, thinking possilby someone had uncovered it and not re-hid it properly, and she got back to us that that was the way that she wanted it placed-she has since removed our find from our list as she said we have to sign-Is this exceptable on her part? I know that the rules say that a log should be signed, but under the circumstances we thought we were doing the right thing by not messing with it as we thought it had been moved. so, what's the verdict?

Yes the log must be signed. I have deleted finds on cache I own were the log was not signed in the past, and I will do it in the future.

[+budd-rdc]

Recently I found a cache during a night hunt. Had the cache in hand but the problem was, a sudden drop in temperature had the lid clmped on. Unable to "open" the cache and write in the log I still claimed it as a find, then emailed the owner and explained the situation and left the decision up to them.

 

The owner was fine with that. Actually he went a did a little maintainence so the lid could be pryed open.

 

I post DNF or a Note if I'm unable to complete the task (answer for a virtual, sign the log, etc.) By shifting the burden to myself, instead of shifting it to the owner (by posting a find), it demonstrates good faith and the owner will likely give me permission to log a find, even if I don't plan on following up on the offer.

[+Criminal]

Recently I found a cache during a night hunt. Had the cache in hand but the problem was, a sudden drop in temperature had the lid clmped on. Unable to "open" the cache and write in the log I still claimed it as a find, then emailed the owner and explained the situation and left the decision up to them.

 

The owner was fine with that. Actually he went a did a little maintainence so the lid could be pryed open.

 

the owner will likely give me permission to log a find, even if I don't plan on following up on the offer.

If you have to ask permission to log, you didn't find it.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Ok, question-must a log be signed to claim the cache? we recently did a micro-when we found the cache, it was in plain site as it had been spring and it was at the base of a bush that had not yet sprouted its leaves-it was located out side of a public building with muggels everywhere-we did not retireve as it didn't seem like a wise idea-It was in a tin container and looked like a piece of trash-we contacted the owner, thinking possilby someone had uncovered it and not re-hid it properly, and she got back to us that that was the way that she wanted it placed-she has since removed our find from our list as she said we have to sign-Is this exceptable on her part? I know that the rules say that a log should be signed, but under the circumstances we thought we were doing the right thing by not messing with it as we thought it had been moved. so, what's the verdict?

Yes the log must be signed. I have deleted finds on cache I own were the log was not signed in the past, and I will do it in the future.

 

That's ccol - it's your choice, but it is not a geocaching requirement, it's yours, and should be presented as such!

 

His question asks "Must a log be signed to claim the cache?"

 

"No, some owner's may require it, but Geocaching.com does not require a signed log to claim the find." is the correct answer.

[+briansnat]

The way I look at it, the point of the sport is to find the cache and the log is to prove that you did. If something like a frozen lid or wet logbook prevented someone from signing one of my logbooks, I wouldn't have a problem if they logged a find. I'll take their word for it.

 

The only exceptions for me would be if retreiving the cache or getting at the logbook are part of the cache experience. If the cache is up a tree or on the side of a cliff, you don't get a find if you spot the cache and never touch it. If there is a puzzle, lock or some other trick involved in order to open the container and access the logbook then you need to do it in order to log the find.

 

Outside that, find the cache (and I mean touch it), log a find. At least them's the rules with my caches.

[CoyoteRed]

...she has since removed our find from our list as she said we have to sign-Is this exceptable on her part?

 

Yes, this is absolutely acceptable on her part.

 

In fact, as has already been mentioned, signing the log is pretty much the standard of being able to claim a find. A few operate outside that norm, but by in large, sign the log or don't claim the find.

 

It's good to follow this ideal as it will never get you into trouble. Think about caches with decoy containers, simple trash, math errors on your part, or a whole host of issues where you might think you found the cache, but didn't.

 

Yes, I've been accused of living in a black & white world. In case like this, a black & white world makes things very easy, because with shades of gray where do you draw the line? Does the cache owner draw the line somewhere in your favor or no? With no shades of gray you can't go wrong. You can claim a find if you sign the log.

 

On the issue of some owners allowing a find without signing the log; you can claim an unearned find and put the owner on the spot of deleting your log, or you can put him on the spot by asking if you can log an unearned find. A few owners will be okay with it, but why would you want to put those others on the spot and make them tell you "no?" That's not a fun part of being an owner.

 

Alternative means of logging when signing the log in impossible. I believe most will agree alternatives are only acceptable when it is impossible to sign the log because of some physical issue with the log itself.

 

Hope this helps.

[+rjb43nh]

TAR, as someone who was a reviewer for Groundspeak, certainly likes to read the "rules" selectively. His arguing that the following passage is not in the guidelines and therefore these points are not rules is distorting the facts.

 

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

You notice he did not include the rather interesting first line when he says those 3 items are not rules. The missing line says clearly: What are the rules in Geocaching?. The quote goes on to answer this by saying:"Therefore, the rules are very simple," so I fail to see how any reasonable person could say these are not rules. This quote is from the FAQs on geocaching.com and it says these are rules so why leave out that one line unless you are trying to deceive? As to items 1. and 2. it goes on to explain: Remember, if you take something, its only fair for you to leave something in return.

 

As to the logbook, it says:"A cache can come in many forms but the first item should always be the logbook. In its simplest form a cache can be just a logbook and nothing else. The logbook contains information from the founder of the cache and notes from the cache's visitors. ............At the very least you can leave the date and time you visited the cache."

 

Why would he insist that it was important for DRR to sign (even inappropriately) every cache they visited if he now feels so strongly that signing isn't a requirement? The answer is you don't have to sign the log if you don't want to claim the find-simple as that.

 

So how can he in good conscience argue that it was ok for his team to sign the outside of containers because it isn't specificly mentioned on Groundspeak while arguing that items clearly listed as rules aren't rules because they don't appear in one particular section of the site? I have to think he really knows the correct answer to this no matter what he posts.

 

When he says: "When TPTB sign off on that and has it written into the Guidelines then it will be a requirement - as it is it is just a practice you wish to promote," That is pure bull. The rules, guidelines, customs, or requirements are the sum total of what is on the site. If you can't understand that, I can see why you are no longer a reviewer.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

So how can he in good conscience argue that it was ok for his team to sign the outside of containers because it isn't specificly mentioned on Groundspeak while arguing that items clearly listed as rules aren't rules because they don't appear in one particular section of the site? I have to think he really knows the correct answer to this no matter what he posts.

 

I never argued that it was okay after the community convinced me it was not acceptable standard. No need to drag that one through the mud again.

 

Had you read ALL of my posts to this thread you would have found that I answered that the OP should sign the log.

 

As far as my Reviewer experience and why I am no longer among those august ranks, that will not be discussed here, you are welcome to PM me if you really care. Otherwise your cheap shots and ill-informed opinions are of no interest to me.

 

The Cache Listing Guidelines remain the single published standard for listing geocaches on Geocaching.com, and the debated quote is not in them.

 

Good day.

[+Jhwk]

It would be step two in the whole Find Cache, Sign Log, Replace Cache, Thank Owner process.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Nope, there's no 'thank the owner' guideline either!

[+Jhwk]

So how can he in good conscience argue that it was ok for his team to sign the outside of containers because it isn't specificly mentioned on Groundspeak while arguing that items clearly listed as rules aren't rules because they don't appear in one particular section of the site? I have to think he really knows the correct answer to this no matter what he posts.

 

I never argued that it was okay after the community convinced me it was not acceptable standard. No need to drag that one through the mud again.

 

Had you read ALL of my posts to this thread you would have found that I answered that the OP should sign the log.

 

As far as my Reviewer experience and why I am no longer among those august ranks, that will not be discussed here, you are welcome to PM me if you really care. Otherwise your cheap shots and ill-informed opinions are of no interest to me.

 

The Cache Listing Guidelines remain the single published standard for listing geocaches on Geocaching.com, and the debated quote is not in them.

 

Good day.

Wait. Aren't you talking apples and oranges - who cares about the cache LISTING guidelines? What about the cache FINDING guidlelines which are listed here for your convenience, under the heading "Guide to Finding a Geocache", which, using your logic must be the "official" guide, published by Groundspeak and states:

 

"Step 4 – The Find

 

Huzzah! You found the cache! Congratulations! Now what?

 

* Usually you take an item and leave an item, and enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book. It’s an accomplishment enough to locate the cache. "

 

Even your quoted guidelines for hiding state:

 

"Next, you'll need a logbook and a pen. A small spiral notebook does the trick. Make sure to put a pen in the cache as well! The author always forgets to bring one when searching for a cache."

 

So, exactly what is your point?

 

find, sign, replace. trade if you want.

sheesh, another thread about the same old garbage.

 

time to go do some virtual armchair caches in Germany.

[+Jhwk]

Nope, there's no 'thank the owner' guideline either!

my own personal "official" Jhwk policy. If you were nice enough to place a cache, I will be kind enough to thank you.

Edited August 10, 2006 by Jhwk

[+rjb43nh]

TAR-"As far as my Reviewer experience and why I am no longer among those august ranks, that will not be discussed here, you are welcome to PM me if you really care. Otherwise your cheap shots and ill-informed opinions are of no interest to me."

For me to say that as a reviewer you should have superior knowledge of the rules, regulations, guidelines, and customs of Groundspeak that you misrepresent isn't a cheap shot at all, especially where you are continually saying: "Back when I was a Reviewer... " and always dredging up the DRR incident. Many posters have commented on you posting style after "the incident".

 

The "ill-informed opinions" of TPTB as you see them appears to be the reason you are no longer a reviewer, I don't have to PM you or anyone else to have that confirmed. I realize it may be easier for you to just try to insult me rather than answer the points in my post which would require more thought. Also my ill-informed opinions being of no interest to you must be the reason you instantly replied to my post. Have a nice day.

[+tozainamboku]

A while back, I suggested a new set of rules for geocaching as the rules being discussed didn't seem to apply in light of all the log only micros. I also pointed out that the rules don't say anything about logging online. In particular, there is no rule about whether or not you need to have signed the physical log (or even to have found the cache) in order to claim a find online. The guidelines do state, however, that the cache owner assumes all responsibility of their cache listings, and that

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.

Therefore, it seems that it is the cache owner who utimiately decides if you are required to sign the physical log in order to log a 'found it' log online.

 

An interesting aside of my new rules thread is that it is the first instance (that I am aware of) of calling those who insist on a black and white interpretation of the rules "puritans". I used the term "purist" but the now banned member Hugh Jazz suggested that the correct term is "puritans"