must log be signed

[+KBI]

Aren't we get a little carried away here? I think that Spot200 is a resposible human being. He forgot a pen and went to a cache that didn't even say "bring a pen."

I didn't say Spot200 was irresponsible. I merely suggested that his conscious decision NOT to take responsibility for caching without a pen, and thereby risking the owner deleting his online smiley was, by definition, irresponsible. If Spot200 wanted to sign the logbook he could have returned with a pen to sign the logbook at a later time. I've made several such return trips myself -- I practice what I preach.

 

He admits to making the conscious decision ...

And another time there was no pen to sign the log and I was a half mile from the car. I wasn't going to drag my child back to the car and then back to the cache just to sign the log.

 

... then attempts to justify it:

I notified the cache owner that there was no pen. Not my fault.

 

"Not my fault." Well, it wasn't his fault the pen was missing, but it was his decision to log the find without signing the log.

 

Look at it this way: One could use the same logic to justify logging an online smiley for a missing cache -- just replace the word "pen" with the word "cache:"

 

"I notified the cache owner that there was no cache. Not my fault."

 

Cache owners that care about signed logs can also apply common sense. If there is a problem with signing the log, big deal. It is not a crime against humanity to have someone find a cache and, due to an unexpected problem, not sign the log.

I would tend to agree with you there. Personally, I probably would not have deleted his find were I the owner. As long as he can convince me he actually found the container, no problem.

 

Not all cache owners are so liberal about smileys, however, which is why most of us make sure not to log online finds unless we've signed the physical logbook -- or at least gotten permission from the owner, in advance, to do otherwise. You never know when you might inadvertantly run afoul of something like this friendly note from the profile of one of our frequent forum posters:

Unless specifically mentioned on the cache signing the logbook in the cache is

required

. Failure to sign the logbook while logging a find online will get an email from us requesting an explaination and most likely the log will be deleted.

 

We do not allow signing the logbook as a team and logging online individually. We don't mind the extra names taking up space in the logbook. We require a one-to-one signature to online log based on handle with few exceptions. [

It used to say something like

"or be prepared to explain why you name is not in the logbook,"

but he apparently decided recently to soften up the wording a bit

.]

Again, my policy as a cache owner isn't quite so strict as all that, but I do take care to always carry a writing stick of some sort when I'm caching -- that way the problem never comes up.

 

 

The last statements are a little confusing to me. You see, I trust Spot200. We've never met, but I don't have any reason not to trust. So why would I worry about whether my cache was so horribly defiled. It is a small "infraction" on a "rule" whose meaning has been argued at length in this and other threads.

I've never met Spot200, but I trust him as well. Sorry you were confused, but if you read it again you'll see that I carefully clarified that I was not calling him a liar; I was merely questioning his logic.

Edited August 13, 2006 by KBI

[+BlueDeuce]

I've spoken to Spot200 offline about other caching projects and I trust her just fine. I have no doubt that she found the caches she's claimed to have found. Any honesty issue is between her and the cache owner.

 

I don't assume every newbie cacher understands the options available in a case where a pen isn't available. This site teaches to first find the cache and then sign the logbook. What to do when you can't sign a logbook is probably somewhere in the fine print.

 

Hey Spot200, if you can't sign the logbook, try to find a way to 'make your mark' and post that in your online log. That way your find can be verified and you won't have to worry about your log being questioned or deleted. (But you have already figured that out by now )

[+KBI]

I've spoken to Spot200 offline about other caching projects and I trust her just fine. I have no doubt that she found the caches she's claimed to have found. Any honesty issue is between her and the cache owner.

Not relevant. No one has questioned Spot200's integrity. Spot200's integrity is NOT the issue here. The issue is whether cache owners in general would (or should) be willing to accept online find logs from cache seekers in general when said cache seekers are unable (or unwilling) to sign the physical logbook.

 

(Hear that boda? Spot200 is a she.

 

Oops.

 

Sorry, Spot200!! )

 

I don't assume every newbie cacher understands the options available in a case where a pen isn't available. This site teaches to first find the cache and then sign the logbook.

Hence the need for a bit of discretion and leniency on the part of each cache owner, especially when newbies are involved. Unfortunately, not all cache owners see it that way.

 

What to do when you can't sign a logbook is probably somewhere in the fine print.

I've never seen it addressed officially. Is it posted somewhere?

 

As others have pointed out, it would appear to be up to the discretion of the cache owner -- as it should be.

 

Hey Spot200, if you can't sign the logbook, try to find a way to 'make your mark' and post that in your online log. That way your find can be verified and you won't have to worry about your log being questioned or deleted. (But you have already figured that out by now )

Right. If one can think ahead enough to pack a stamp or a sheet of stickers, then one should certainly be able to think ahead enough to pack a pen.

[+BlueDeuce]

I guess I don't disagree with tozainamboku as much as I thought I did.

 

Maybe just the choice of labels.

[+boda]

KBI

 

I think we are probably closer in our ideas than our original posts may have seemed. I think it is a matter of degree, and I don't have a problem with that.

 

BTW, I tried to make my post gender generic, even to the point of awkwardness; but I see I forgot one. I was in a hurry so I didn't have a chance to check profiles. I'm not particularly PC, but I, too, am sorry Spot200.

 

I just noticed the Blue Duece post added while I was typing this one in. Looks like a love-fest going on. I was thinking of starting a thread on "Would you cache with that &%$#?" My guess is that most adamant posters would have a ball caching with the folks they often disagree with.

 

OP, sorry for the off-topic post.

[+hikergps]

I was thinking of starting a thread on "Would you cache with that &%$#?" My guess is that most adamant posters would have a ball caching with the folks they often disagree with.

 

OP, sorry for the off-topic post.

 

I too am sorry for this off topic post, but I would love to cache with others that I have debated with. Most debating is healthy discussion that usually benefits both sides of a debate by offerring different points of view on a subject. I would only hope that all of you would be this passionate about your points of view in person.

 

Hey spot200-welcome to Geocaching and the forums. Something that you will notice right away is that we all have opinions. Don't let mine get in the way of what you do. You just got in the middle of one of the more heated, healthy debates amongnst us. hiker

[+KBI]

KBI

 

I think we are probably closer in our ideas than our original posts may have seemed. I think it is a matter of degree, and I don't have a problem with that.

Me neither. Always cool to get things clarified.

 

I don't have a problem with occasional poor judgment, or even intentional bad decisions. We're all human, and I'm guilty of those things more often than I care to admit. What I DO have a problem with is when folks knowingly make a poor decision, then turn around and try to blame someone else when problems result. It was spot200's "No pen -- not my fault -- but I should still get the smiley anyway" logic that bothered me. She makes an exellent point in her defense about being a newbie and not being sure about some of the unwritten rules, yet she still insisted that she be allowed to log the find online regardless of what the owner might have to say about it. If I were her I'd have simply left it at "well now I know" and gone back to the cache with a pen. Of course if I were the owner, as I have said, I'd have let her log the smiley either way.

 

 

I just noticed the Blue Duece post added while I was typing this one in. Looks like a love-fest going on. I was thinking of starting a thread on "Would you cache with that &%$#?" My guess is that most adamant posters would have a ball caching with the folks they often disagree with.

Works for me! You buy lunch, I buy the ga$, Spot200 buys the first round afterward?

[+BlueDeuce]

Being called that &%$#? isn't anywhere near the worst things I've been called.

 

Won't be the first or the last time.

Edited August 14, 2006 by BlueDeuce

[+Morgan's Marauders]

Quiggle tells me I can unsubscribe from this thread by posting - sure hoping he/she is right!

[+ragtop2]

Twice this summer I have located caches that were guarded by rattlesnakes (didn't know we had so many vipers interested in geocaching!) There was no doubt that the containers I found were the caches that I was searching for. Unfortunately the snakes asserted their FTF positions and did not want to yield. I did not log a find nor a DNF but posted a note and will return when I have the nerve and sign the log. I will log a find when the log is signed. I would like to hear the opinions of some of the previous responders as to whether or not they consider these finds.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Do we need an Act of Congress here? Sometimes it's easy to forget that Groundspeak isn't the sole provider of geocache hides and that the game extends well beyond it's own authority. The website, itself, has vested its authority in the owners of each cache, which means that the rules, in fact, are necessarily up to each owner. There's no rule that says you can't keep your own personal list of finds on your own computer and say, "Yay, I've found this many caches." We all start at different times, and we all have varying amounts of time and money to burn, so there's really no comparing find counts anyway.

 

GCT75F is an example of a cache that you can find, but grabbing is a whole other matter. I "found" it myself, but extracting it is the only challenge that makes this cache what it's worth. I can honestly say that I will never grab this one. Hence, I will never log it as "found." I could fill a list of caches like this.

 

If you get a kick out of simply doing a drive-by and calling it good without signing the log, then yay for you; keep track of your finds on a map at home or something. Don't gripe when the cache owner disagrees and deletes your log. There are so many caches out there I'm sure you'll have no problem finding plenty that will accept your terms.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Twice this summer I have located caches that were guarded by rattlesnakes (didn't know we had so many vipers interested in geocaching!) There was no doubt that the containers I found were the caches that I was searching for. Unfortunately the snakes asserted their FTF positions and did not want to yield. I did not log a find nor a DNF but posted a note and will return when I have the nerve and sign the log. I will log a find when the log is signed. I would like to hear the opinions of some of the previous responders as to whether or not they consider these finds.

 

OK, I'll bite.

 

You found it. Whether or not the cache owner lets you log it since you didn't sign it is another question altogether.

 

If its local to you and worth returning to, go back with a big stick, divest any snakes of the cache and sign it.

 

If it's far from home and you can't / don't want to return, log it as found with your explanation of why you didn't sign it.

 

Me, I doubt I would return either way, so I'd take the second route regardless. If he deleted my log so be it, I'd move on, there's lots more where that one came from.

 

If it was my cache, I figure you went where I wanted you to go, you found what I hid for you to find, end of story. You are a geocacher, I don't need to see your signature to take your word.

 

Ed

Edited August 14, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+thedeadpirate]

Twice this summer I have located caches that were guarded by rattlesnakes (didn't know we had so many vipers interested in geocaching!) There was no doubt that the containers I found were the caches that I was searching for. Unfortunately the snakes asserted their FTF positions and did not want to yield. I did not log a find nor a DNF but posted a note and will return when I have the nerve and sign the log. I will log a find when the log is signed. I would like to hear the opinions of some of the previous responders as to whether or not they consider these finds.

 

Oh, I would have logged that as a find. In fact, I did that on one. There was a snake guarding the cache. I removed him and later on adopted the cache because I got such a kick out of it.

 

[+briansnat]

You will soon learn that to some people the point of geocaching isn't to have fun. The point of geocaching is to find caches and get to log smiley logs online. Many of these people are what I call 'puritans'. I call them 'puritans' because, like the Puritans, they get very upset if people break or bend their rules in order to have fun.

Wow.

 

This is the most incredible example of calling black white and vice versa I have ever seen. I am afraid you have it completely backwards.

 

The situation is exactly the opposite of what you describe. It's those who want geocaching to be about having fun that tend to only claim smileys when they actually found the cache. Because, believe it or not, you can have plenty of fun without getting any smileys!

 

On the other hand, those who insist on getting smileys whether they found the cache or not are more likely to be obsessed with their find counts. It seems that they define "fun" as "being awarded finds."

 

I couldn't have said it better than FizzyM. One correction to Tozainamboku's post though. For us traditionalists, the point of geocaching is to find caches and have fun. The "found it" (or "didn't find it") logs are simply there to record the results of our search. It is the radicals who have made geocaching a quest to get smiley logs online and who have changed the definition of a "found it" to mean things other than actually finding a geocache.

[CoyoteRed]

Twice this summer I have located caches that were guarded by rattlesnakes (didn't know we had so many vipers interested in geocaching!) There was no doubt that the containers I found were the caches that I was searching for. Unfortunately the snakes asserted their FTF positions and did not want to yield. I did not log a find nor a DNF but posted a note and will return when I have the nerve and sign the log. I will log a find when the log is signed. I would like to hear the opinions of some of the previous responders as to whether or not they consider these finds.

 

You used good judgment.

 

If you had followed different advise and logged it anyway, what do you suppose the next person who came along would have thought about you and your log when they were able to move the snakes and sign the log?

 

Keep on doing it the way you're doing it and you'll never be the subject of this thread.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Man!

 

Puritans. Radicals. SmileyQuesters. TheEndOfTheGameAsWeKnowIt. SignTheLogOrBeDamned. DoItMyWayOrYouAreScum!

 

Name calling. Insinuation.

 

Character evaluation, even assasination.

 

All over whether the occassional exception can be made.

 

All I can say is this thread really reminds me how much I love my wife and kids!

 

If they enforced the rules like this my home would be a pretty miserable place to live!

[+briansnat]

If they enforced the rules like this my home would be a pretty miserable place to live!

 

I don't know about you, but there are many rules in my home. Among them, take out the garbage when its full, don't pee on the toilet seat, put it back when you're done with it (whatever it is), be honest with each other, call if you're running late and don't ever, ever, ever put milk in a beer glass

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

If they enforced the rules like this my home would be a pretty miserable place to live!

 

I don't know about you, but there are many rules in my home. Among them, take out the garbage when its full, don't pee on the toilet seat, put it back when you're done with it (whatever it is), be honest with each other, call if you're running late and don't ever, ever, ever put milk in a beer glass

 

Yup, we got 'em too... it's the vigor and tone and discretion used in enforcement I was referring to.

 

After 34 years of marriage and kids 32, 28, 25 17 and 15 you learn which rules really need to be enforced and which can slide.

 

I suppose I have stayed in this thread to promote judgement, discretion, diversity and flexibility.

 

Don't drive drunk - black and white - no exception.

Don't go to the movies until your chores are done - not so much.

Don't use your work computer for personal purposes - Are you at work right now? Being paid to work while you read this? Would your being fired for it hurt your family? Nuff said.

 

Gray IS sometimes good! - Just try interpreting our Guidelines or even your state laws - getting a group to agree on them is like nailing jelly to a tree, and they're written that way for a reason!

 

If laws were black and white there would be a whole lot of unemployed lawyers! If every law were enforced every time... whew, man... that'd be rough. That's why your District Attorney and Judges have so much discretion and flexibility... like your boss, who knows what sites you visit, and may or may not tolerate a certain amount of rule-breaking. Better hope he's flexible.

 

Ed

Edited August 14, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+rjb43nh]

briansnat-"Among them,............., don't pee on the toilet seat,......

What? You mean just "marking" the outside of the container isn't enough???

You mean you have to consider those who may visit after you!

Also, the job isn't finished until the paperwork is done!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

briansnat-"Among them,............., don't pee on the toilet seat,......

What? You mean just "marking" the outside of the container isn't enough???

You mean you have to consider those who may visit after you!

Also, the job isn't finished until the paperwork is done!

 

Pathetic attempt at a troll, son.

 

When my team discussed it I thought it would be okay. *

 

The forum community backlash showed me it wasn't.

 

I took collective responsibility for a bad decision, apologized publicly, offered to replace any cache we signed, and changed my stance to 'the log should be signed unless there are reasonable extenuating circumstances'.

 

I haven't gone to look, but I and most of my team, I think all of us, decided not to log the 312 caches we signed, nor do we claim to have set the new record.

 

Get over it.

 

Ed

 

* For those just joining us, he references our Dallas Record Run, a 24-hour world-record cache run attempt, wheren I allowed as having the cache in hand and writing DRR on it with a Sharpie was an acceptable way to save time by not opening it and digging out the log. It was a mistake, but some still believe I should be crucified for my sin. Others just use it for cheap shots at an admitted sinner.

Edited August 14, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+rjb43nh]

TheAlabamaRambler-"Name calling. Insinuation. ...Character evaluation, even assasination."

TheAlabamaRambler-"Pathetic attempt at a troll, son."

It never ceases to amaze me how some people can accuse everyone else of an imagined character flaw but instantly turn around and blatantly display that "despicable" behavior themselves! Maybe if you weren't stirring the pot so vigorously you wouldn't get splashed. Give it a rest, "son".

[janx]

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"

 

While I might argue that signing a paper log is/isn't required (there's the electronic log to suffice), I would aruge that there is an unwritten rule in there. The finder must verify the find, before claiming credit. In traditional caches, that would be done by opening the container, finding the log (and thus confirming it is a cache). As far as the log having an actual paper log, or an ID# to confirm on gc.com, it's just about the same thing (though one may be less soggy).

 

In fact, I would suggest, a rule ammendment.

 

To record a find, one must sign the logbook, or perform some other validation activity with the cache, as specified by the cache description. Whether gc.com supports other validation activities is a different subject of discussion.

[+budd-rdc]

Twice this summer I have located caches that were guarded by rattlesnakes (didn't know we had so many vipers interested in geocaching!) There was no doubt that the containers I found were the caches that I was searching for. Unfortunately the snakes asserted their FTF positions and did not want to yield. I did not log a find nor a DNF but posted a note and will return when I have the nerve and sign the log. I will log a find when the log is signed. I would like to hear the opinions of some of the previous responders as to whether or not they consider these finds.

 

As a finder, I would not have logged a find, just posted a note. As an owner, if someone posted or e-mailed the description of the location and container, I would have given them permission to post a find since I don't underestimate people's phobia for snakes.

 

Bonus points for people who post a note or DNF first then ask for permission (echoing KBI's comments above). Posting a photo is bonus, too, but would you take the time to do that if you are afraid of snakes?

 

Some people would drop their personal signature item nearby as a proof of their visit, and that's OK, too, as long as the snake doesn't eat it.

 

I ran into a similar situation a few months ago, but there were TWO rattlesnakes guarding the cache. Fortunately, they actually let me grab the container which was less than a foot away from where they were.

[janx]

I couldn't have said it better than FizzyM. One correction to Tozainamboku's post though. For us traditionalists, the point of geocaching is to find caches and have fun. The "found it" (or "didn't find it") logs are simply there to record the results of our search. It is the radicals who have made geocaching a quest to get smiley logs online and who have changed the definition of a "found it" to mean things other than actually finding a geocache.

 

Let's be careful on casting aspersions there. I don't want to judge any method of playing the game (and there's many different games to be played with gc.com). Calling somebody a radical for trying to get smileys is a put-down against folks who want to play that particular game. Considering gc.com keeps score, it doesn't sound all that radical or non-traditional at all.

 

By all means, there are some folks who's definition of "finding a cache" has different criteria.

 

And for some folks, getting a higher find count is their idea of fun. There are folks who play the find count game, and have different criteria for counting a find.

 

For those competitive folks, that's probably the biggest source of argument, is when they're not using the same criteria, and the party with the strictest definition feels that the other side is cheating (because they feel the other party's methods are letting them get ahead).

 

Technically, finding something is equal to seeing it, and being able to pick it up or smash it with a hammer. So technically, seeing the cache, and not opening it, does consitute finding it. I find pennies all the time, but I don't always pick them up. The key then is if you want to PROVE you found it, some other means must be employed.

 

So, by my definition of finding something, that's pretty open. But for a find to have any meaning to any other person, you've got to have validation. That's a whole 'nother thing. For most folks, validation is most easily recognized by signing the paper log book contained inside the cache container.

[+sbell111]

As a finder, I would not have logged a find, just posted a note. As an owner, if someone posted or e-mailed the description of the location and container, I would have given them permission to post a find since I don't underestimate people's phobia for snakes. ...

<Insert hiking stick markwell here>

[+AuntieWeasel]

Let's be careful on casting aspersions there. I don't want to judge any method of playing the game (and there's many different games to be played with gc.com). Calling somebody a radical for trying to get smileys is a put-down against folks who want to play that particular game. Considering gc.com keeps score, it doesn't sound all that radical or non-traditional at all.

 

By all means, there are some folks who's definition of "finding a cache" has different criteria.

 

And for some folks, getting a higher find count is their idea of fun. There are folks who play the find count game, and have different criteria for counting a find.

Well, yes. I won't speak for anyone else, but it was certainly my intent to cast aspersion on this method of playing.

[+Morgan's Marauders]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, if only I had let Fatdog have the smiley.................................

[Earleheart°]

You will soon learn that to some people the point of geocaching isn't to have fun. The point of geocaching is to find caches and get to log smiley logs online. Many of these people are what I call 'puritans'. I call them 'puritans' because, like the Puritans, they get very upset if people break or bend their rules in order to have fun.

Wow.

 

This is the most incredible example of calling black white and vice versa I have ever seen. I am afraid you have it completely backwards.

 

The situation is exactly the opposite of what you describe. It's those who want geocaching to be about having fun that tend to only claim smileys when they actually found the cache. Because, believe it or not, you can have plenty of fun without getting any smileys!

 

On the other hand, those who insist on getting smileys whether they found the cache or not are more likely to be obsessed with their find counts. It seems that they define "fun" as "being awarded finds."

 

I couldn't have said it better than FizzyM. One correction to Tozainamboku's post though. For us traditionalists, the point of geocaching is to find caches and have fun. The "found it" (or "didn't find it") logs are simply there to record the results of our search. It is the radicals who have made geocaching a quest to get smiley logs online and who have changed the definition of a "found it" to mean things other than actually finding a geocache.

 

 

This is very silly to argue about because found it means found it and signing the log means you singed it and found it. I don’t see why it makes any difference any way. I will sign all my chahes but if I don’t have a pencil I will not but I still have found it.

[Earleheart°]

briansnat-"Among them,............., don't pee on the toilet seat,......

What? You mean just "marking" the outside of the container isn't enough???

You mean you have to consider those who may visit after you!

Also, the job isn't finished until the paperwork is done!

 

Pathetic attempt at a troll, son.

 

When my team discussed it I thought it would be okay. *

 

The forum community backlash showed me it wasn't.

 

I took collective responsibility for a bad decision, apologized publicly, offered to replace any cache we signed, and changed my stance to 'the log should be signed unless there are reasonable extenuating circumstances'.

 

I haven't gone to look, but I and most of my team, I think all of us, decided not to log the 312 caches we signed, nor do we claim to have set the new record.

 

Get over it.

 

Ed

 

* For those just joining us, he references our Dallas Record Run, a 24-hour world-record cache run attempt, wheren I allowed as having the cache in hand and writing DRR on it with a Sharpie was an acceptable way to save time by not opening it and digging out the log. It was a mistake, but some still believe I should be crucified for my sin. Others just use it for cheap shots at an admitted sinner.

This is what I mean you don’t have to sign the log to find it but you have to sign the logbook to sign it. Lol

[+geowoodstock]

In the end isn't it up to a higher being as to whether we were honest with ourselves and with other geocachers (cache owners)?

 

It would be real easy to get online and log cache finds without even leaving the comforts of my recliner, but my conscience would get the better of me! Besides that, I don't find caches for the smiley's (even though I take pride each time my numbers go up). I find caches because I enjoy the hunt, I enjoy making my mind think differently and I enjoy being outdoors and not in my recliner.

 

I figure if someone wants to sign the log for one of my caches without visiting it, they are the ones who have to live with themselves and with their outcome on life. There is nothing I can do about it except be rude and stoop their level by deleting their online log.

 

No thanks, let them deal with their conscience! I have enough to worry about without worrying about someone elses problems!

[+hikergps]

 

I figure if someone wants to sign the log for one of my caches without visiting it, they are the ones who have to live with themselves and with their outcome on life. There is nothing I can do about it except be rude and stoop their level by deleting their online log.

 

No thanks, let them deal with their conscience! I have enough to worry about without worrying about someone elses problems!

 

Maybe I don't get it but how is knowingly allowing someone to cheat ok? I would definately not consider myself to be "stooping" by correcting an inaccurate record of MY cache.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

 

I figure if someone wants to sign the log for one of my caches without visiting it, they are the ones who have to live with themselves and with their outcome on life. There is nothing I can do about it except be rude and stoop their level by deleting their online log.

 

No thanks, let them deal with their conscience! I have enough to worry about without worrying about someone elses problems!

 

Maybe I don't get it but how is knowingly allowing someone to cheat ok? I would definately not consider myself to be "stooping" by correcting an inaccurate record of MY cache.

 

How is worrying over what other folks might be getting away with gonna improve your life?

 

You can't cure all the iniquities in this world, so why pick something as trivial as this to focus on?

 

Find something important that you CAN change and go for it!

 

Reminds me of the war on drugs - studies show 83% of the drug abuse in the USA is caucasian adults abusing perscription drugs - but all you hear about is minority kids smoking dope.

 

Drunk driving is a huge problem in the US - but it's sold in every road-side store, and you can't have booze delivered, you have to drive to a liquer store when you run out!

 

And we're up in arms about signing a logbook?

Edited August 15, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

[CoyoteRed]

Find something important that you CAN change and go for it!

 

I can't stop folks from driving drunk, but I'm not okay with it.

 

I can't stop folks from abusing drugs, but I'm not okay with it.

 

I can't stop cache owners from accepting bogus logs, but I'm not okay with it.

 

What I can do is voice and defend my opinion, and exercise my responsibility on our own caches.

[+hikergps]

 

I figure if someone wants to sign the log for one of my caches without visiting it, they are the ones who have to live with themselves and with their outcome on life. There is nothing I can do about it except be rude and stoop their level by deleting their online log.

 

No thanks, let them deal with their conscience! I have enough to worry about without worrying about someone elses problems!

 

Maybe I don't get it but how is knowingly allowing someone to cheat ok? I would definately not consider myself to be "stooping" by correcting an inaccurate record of MY cache.

 

How is worrying over what other folks might be getting away with gonna improve your life?

 

I'm not worried about, I'm just going to be making sure the rules are followed on MY cache.

 

You can't cure all the iniquities in this world, so why pick something as trivial as this to focus on?

 

Surely you don't consider this to be the focus of my life.

 

Find something important that you CAN change and go for it!

 

I have. And while I am working on those things people can sign my logbook.

 

Reminds me of the war on drugs - studies show 83% of the drug abuse in the USA is caucasian adults abusing perscription drugs - but all you hear about is minority kids smoking dope.

 

Any references that I can see? That is about bass-ackwards from what I see and the reports that I read at the Sheriff's Office I work at from the DEA, Centers for Justice, Uniform Crime Reporting statistics, etc. etc.

 

Drunk driving is a huge problem in the US - but it's sold in every road-side store, and you can't have booze delivered, you have to drive to a liquer store when you run out!

 

So if you get arrested for DUI because you drove to the liquor store after running out of booze, it isn't your fault? Sounds like the same mentality as "I forgot my pencil but it isn't my fault there wasn't one in the cache" that seems to pop up from time to time in the forums.

 

And we're up in arms about signing a logbook?

Yep.

 

My responses are bold-type in the text above. I dunno, time for some of us to agree to disagree I guess. My viewpoint on signing the logbook isn't going to change. Hope I haven't offended anyone in the process.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

...

Reminds me of the war on drugs - studies show 83% of the drug abuse in the USA is caucasian adults abusing perscription drugs - but all you hear about is minority kids smoking dope.

Any references that I can see? That is about bass-ackwards from what I see and the reports that I read at the Sheriff's Office I work at from the DEA, Centers for Justice, Uniform Crime Reporting statistics, etc. etc.

 

No, I don't, actually - that came from a Reader's Digest article I read a while back, augmented by the factoid in this month's issue that "More Americans abuse perscription drugs than cocaine, hallucinogens, inhalants and heroin combined" - not exactly an indisputable source, I suppose!

 

My responses are bold-type in the text above. I dunno, time for some of us to agree to disagree I guess. My viewpoint on signing the logbook isn't going to change. Hope I haven't offended anyone in the process.

 

Me either, I am still working on my Momma's admonition that we can disagree without being disagreeable!

 

Ed

[+tozainamboku]

You will soon learn that to some people the point of geocaching isn't to have fun. The point of geocaching is to find caches and get to log smiley logs online. Many of these people are what I call 'puritans'. I call them 'puritans' because, like the Puritans, they get very upset if people break or bend their rules in order to have fun.

Wow.

 

This is the most incredible example of calling black white and vice versa I have ever seen. I am afraid you have it completely backwards.

 

The situation is exactly the opposite of what you describe. It's those who want geocaching to be about having fun that tend to only claim smileys when they actually found the cache. Because, believe it or not, you can have plenty of fun without getting any smileys!

 

On the other hand, those who insist on getting smileys whether they found the cache or not are more likely to be obsessed with their find counts. It seems that they define "fun" as "being awarded finds."

 

I find it amazing that one of us can call it black and the other white and still come to the same conclusion. You may be correct that it is the 'puritans' who want a rigourous definition of a find enforced who truly believe that this makes geocaching fun while those who would claim a find for any reason are the ones who are smiley obsessed. However, if you had quoted the rest of my post you would see that: first, I agreed that the cache owner gets to decide when to allow a find, and second, I tell the person whose log was deleted to accept that and keep their own personal count. Nowhere did I state that any cache owner had to accept a log because a cacher didn't bring a pencil. Common sense says that a person finds the cache when they retrieved the container. Perhaps you could argue that you need to at least open the container and look inside to ensure it is not a decoy or a lettterbox that was hidden nearby. The log book may be a verification method but a cache owner should be allowed to accept other methods of verification - even trusting the person logging the cache. Nowhere did I suggest that you should claim a find because you looked where the cache should be. An ill-thoughtout attempt to change the topic in another thread may have been misinterpreted by some 'puritans' and influenced the reaction I got here. What would a puritan do if I claimed a find on his cache but the cache went missing before he verified the log? Does he delete all the logs since the last time he verified the log book, or only the the log of the last person to claim a find? I suspect that even puritans will trust most cachers.

[+briansnat]

et's be careful on casting aspersions there. I don't want to judge any method of playing the game (and there's many different games to be played with gc.com).

 

Really? I thought we were geocaching. According to this website the point of geocaching is "... to have individuals and organizations set up caches all over the world and share the locations of these caches on the internet. GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches."

 

These others are playing something else, but it isn't geocaching. Finding a cache is often not a even a part of their game.

[adventure_bob]

Hmmm. I'll just dive in here, being a new guy and all. Just trying to figure out the rules, although I'm not likely to get a clear answer, given the variety of responses flying back and forth.

 

I recently came across my first cache (notice I didn't say "made my first find"). Climbed Silver Peak in Killarney just to do it again and discovered a cache at the top, quite by accident. Happened to have a GPSr with me, although it did nothing to assist me in finding the cache, since I wasn't looking for it. Took a picture of Conny holding the cache. Opened it, read what people had written, looked at the contents, had nothing to write with. Yeah, yeah, coulda used blood or something, but this being my introduction to geocahcing, wasn't aware of the etiquite. Neat stuff in there. Took nothing, left nothing, didn't sign the log book, seeing as there really wasn't one, only some loose papers. No writing device, like I said. And I wasn't prepared to have to sign anything. But there's the picture of Conny holding the cache, posted here for all to see. Obviously we found it. We have photographic evidence. I could tell you what was in it, what some of the people wrote. Was it a "find"?

 

Seeking guidance. Happy to say I didn't find it. I'll sign from now on, since I now know it's a sore point. I learn quickly. I know I'll get both answers back ... it was a find, it wasn't a find. Who decides? Oh, and I'll always post a picture too, just to verify I had the thing in my hands.

 

Bob

[+thedeadpirate]

Hmmm. I'll just dive in here, being a new guy and all. Just trying to figure out the rules, although I'm not likely to get a clear answer, given the variety of responses flying back and forth.

 

I recently came across my first cache (notice I didn't say "made my first find"). Climbed Silver Peak in Killarney just to do it again and discovered a cache at the top, quite by accident. Happened to have a GPSr with me, although it did nothing to assist me in finding the cache, since I wasn't looking for it. Took a picture of Conny holding the cache. Opened it, read what people had written, looked at the contents, had nothing to write with. Yeah, yeah, coulda used blood or something, but this being my introduction to geocahcing, wasn't aware of the etiquite. Neat stuff in there. Took nothing, left nothing, didn't sign the log book, seeing as there really wasn't one, only some loose papers. No writing device, like I said. And I wasn't prepared to have to sign anything. But there's the picture of Conny holding the cache, posted here for all to see. Obviously we found it. We have photographic evidence. I could tell you what was in it, what some of the people wrote. Was it a "find"?

 

Seeking guidance. Happy to say I didn't find it. I'll sign from now on, since I now know it's a sore point. I learn quickly. I know I'll get both answers back ... it was a find, it wasn't a find. Who decides? Oh, and I'll always post a picture too, just to verify I had the thing in my hands.

 

Bob

 

First of all, newcomers to the addiction are generally afforded a little leeway. However, that leeway is afforded to you by the cache owner. You did find it. And whether or not your smilie stands, noone can deny you your find. You know you had it in hand. However, by not signing the physical log, you do run the risk, very slightly, that the owner would deny your smilie.

 

(personally I don't think you have anything to worry about)

[+budd-rdc]

Hmmm. I'll just dive in here, being a new guy and all. Just trying to figure out the rules, although I'm not likely to get a clear answer, given the variety of responses flying back and forth.

 

I recently came across my first cache (notice I didn't say "made my first find"). Climbed Silver Peak in Killarney just to do it again and discovered a cache at the top, quite by accident. Happened to have a GPSr with me, although it did nothing to assist me in finding the cache, since I wasn't looking for it. Took a picture of Conny holding the cache. Opened it, read what people had written, looked at the contents, had nothing to write with. Yeah, yeah, coulda used blood or something, but this being my introduction to geocahcing, wasn't aware of the etiquite. Neat stuff in there. Took nothing, left nothing, didn't sign the log book, seeing as there really wasn't one, only some loose papers. No writing device, like I said. And I wasn't prepared to have to sign anything. But there's the picture of Conny holding the cache, posted here for all to see. Obviously we found it. We have photographic evidence. I could tell you what was in it, what some of the people wrote. Was it a "find"?

 

Seeking guidance. Happy to say I didn't find it. I'll sign from now on, since I now know it's a sore point. I learn quickly. I know I'll get both answers back ... it was a find, it wasn't a find. Who decides? Oh, and I'll always post a picture too, just to verify I had the thing in my hands.

 

Bob

 

I'm glad you have photo evidence. That makes it much less controversial. You can post the photo with your log (note or find, your choice) for others to see. Be sure to remove any spoilers with a photo editor, if possible.

 

If the owner is active, he or she is likely to contact you if you need to change your log to a find.

 

If the owner is inactive, the photo you posted is subject to peer review by past and future visitors, and your integrity is unharmed if you decide to post a find.

[CoyoteRed]

Hmmm. I'll just dive in here, being a new guy and all. Just trying to figure out the rules, although I'm not likely to get a clear answer, given the variety of responses flying back and forth.

 

I recently came across my first cache (notice I didn't say "made my first find"). Climbed Silver Peak in Killarney just to do it again and discovered a cache at the top, quite by accident. Happened to have a GPSr with me, although it did nothing to assist me in finding the cache, since I wasn't looking for it. Took a picture of Conny holding the cache. Opened it, read what people had written, looked at the contents, had nothing to write with. Yeah, yeah, coulda used blood or something, but this being my introduction to geocahcing, wasn't aware of the etiquite. Neat stuff in there. Took nothing, left nothing, didn't sign the log book, seeing as there really wasn't one, only some loose papers. No writing device, like I said. And I wasn't prepared to have to sign anything. But there's the picture of Conny holding the cache, posted here for all to see. Obviously we found it. We have photographic evidence. I could tell you what was in it, what some of the people wrote. Was it a "find"?

 

Seeking guidance. Happy to say I didn't find it. I'll sign from now on, since I now know it's a sore point. I learn quickly. I know I'll get both answers back ... it was a find, it wasn't a find. Who decides? Oh, and I'll always post a picture too, just to verify I had the thing in my hands.

 

Bob

 

First of all, newcomers to the addiction are generally afforded a little leeway. However, that leeway is afforded to you by the cache owner. You did find it. And whether or not your smilie stands, noone can deny you your find. You know you had it in hand. However, by not signing the physical log, you do run the risk, very slightly, that the owner would deny your smilie.

 

(personally I don't think you have anything to worry about)

 

...and...

 

I'm glad you have photo evidence. That makes it much less controversial. You can post the photo with your log (note or find, your choice) for others to see. Be sure to remove any spoilers with a photo editor, if possible.

 

If the owner is active, he or she is likely to contact you if you need to change your log to a find.

 

If the owner is inactive, the photo you posted is subject to peer review by past and future visitors, and your integrity is unharmed if you decide to post a find.

 

Both of these are very good answers.

 

Once folks understand the why of one the primary functions of the logbook, then you know how to deal with issues that arise just like this one.

 

Just remember, you are now expected to carry a writing instrument with you at all times. It's the law.

[+Mudfrog]

Twice this summer I have located caches that were guarded by rattlesnakes (didn't know we had so many vipers interested in geocaching!) There was no doubt that the containers I found were the caches that I was searching for. Unfortunately the snakes asserted their FTF positions and did not want to yield. I did not log a find nor a DNF but posted a note and will return when I have the nerve and sign the log. I will log a find when the log is signed. I would like to hear the opinions of some of the previous responders as to whether or not they consider these finds.

 

As a finder, I would not have logged a find, just posted a note. As an owner, if someone posted or e-mailed the description of the location and container, I would have given them permission to post a find since I don't underestimate people's phobia for snakes.

 

Bonus points for people who post a note or DNF first then ask for permission (echoing KBI's comments above). Posting a photo is bonus, too, but would you take the time to do that if you are afraid of snakes?

 

Some people would drop their personal signature item nearby as a proof of their visit, and that's OK, too, as long as the snake doesn't eat it.

 

I ran into a similar situation a few months ago, but there were TWO rattlesnakes guarding the cache. Fortunately, they actually let me grab the container which was less than a foot away from where they were.

 

I have to go along with you on everything you said. As a finder, i know that signing the log is something i need to do in order to claim the find. Seeing the container, touching it, and/or even holding it in my hands is not good enough if the cache owner put a logbook inside for me sign.

 

However, i'm not as strict about letting someone else log their find on one of our caches. If they prove to me in some other way that they found it, then i might let it slide and allow them the find. Like i say, i dont agree with this and i can't remember it ever happening but it is something i would do to keep angst away.

 

The snakes scenario is one of those where this might happen. Snakes don't bother me at all but i do know that there are people out there that are skeeered to death of them. Heres a picture of a copperhead that was guarding a cache just north of here. I had to straddle him to retrieve the cache and sign the log but he never moved from his spot!

 

[+AuntieWeasel]

Heres a picture of a copperhead that was guarding a cache just north of here. I had to straddle him to retrieve the cache and sign the log but he never moved from his spot!

 

You straddled a coiled copperhead to retrieve a cache? I don't know whether to smack you or worship you as a god.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Heres a picture of a copperhead that was guarding a cache just north of here. I had to straddle him to retrieve the cache and sign the log but he never moved from his spot!

 

You straddled a coiled copperhead to retrieve a cache? I don't know whether to smack you or worship you as a god.

 

I pray no one ever risks health or safety to log one of mine!

 

Tell me a snake was close to the cache so you didn't risk opening and signing it and it's a smilie for you, brothers and sisters!

 

Leave the extremism to the snake handlers!

 

Ed

[+Morgan's Marauders]

Hmmm. I'll just dive in here, being a new guy and all. Just trying to figure out the rules, although I'm not likely to get a clear answer, given the variety of responses flying back and forth.

 

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

 

I recently came across my first cache (notice I didn't say "made my first find"). Climbed Silver Peak in Killarney just to do it again and discovered a cache at the top, quite by accident. .........

 

Obviously we found it. We have photographic evidence. I could tell you what was in it, what some of the people wrote. Was it a "find"?

 

Seeking guidance. Happy to say I didn't find it. I'll sign from now on, since I now know it's a sore point. I learn quickly. I know I'll get both answers back ... it was a find, it wasn't a find. Who decides? Oh, and I'll always post a picture too, just to verify I had the thing in my hands.

 

Bob

 

If it were my cache, it would certainly be a find, Bob. The original post (OP) of this thread was focused on a completely different issue.

[+ibycus]

Hmmm. I'll just dive in here, being a new guy and all. Just trying to figure out the rules, although I'm not likely to get a clear answer, given the variety of responses flying back and forth.

 

I recently came across my first cache (notice I didn't say "made my first find"). Climbed Silver Peak in Killarney just to do it again and discovered a cache at the top, quite by accident. Happened to have a GPSr with me, although it did nothing to assist me in finding the cache, since I wasn't looking for it. Took a picture of Conny holding the cache. Opened it, read what people had written, looked at the contents, had nothing to write with. Yeah, yeah, coulda used blood or something, but this being my introduction to geocahcing, wasn't aware of the etiquite. Neat stuff in there. Took nothing, left nothing, didn't sign the log book, seeing as there really wasn't one, only some loose papers. No writing device, like I said. And I wasn't prepared to have to sign anything. But there's the picture of Conny holding the cache, posted here for all to see. Obviously we found it. We have photographic evidence. I could tell you what was in it, what some of the people wrote. Was it a "find"?

 

Seeking guidance. Happy to say I didn't find it. I'll sign from now on, since I now know it's a sore point. I learn quickly. I know I'll get both answers back ... it was a find, it wasn't a find. Who decides? Oh, and I'll always post a picture too, just to verify I had the thing in my hands.

 

Bob

 

If it were my cache it would be a find in my book, but signing the log is nice (mostly IMO for the people looking for the cache, so they can read up on who's been there)

[+thedeadpirate]

I had to straddle him to retrieve the cache and sign the log but he never moved from his spot!

 

 

One of the benefits to wearing a prosthesis is that you only have a 50/50 chance of getting bit by a snake in the woods, unless of course you are prone to picking them up.

[+Mudfrog]

Heres a picture of a copperhead that was guarding a cache just north of here. I had to straddle him to retrieve the cache and sign the log but he never moved from his spot!

 

You straddled a coiled copperhead to retrieve a cache? I don't know whether to smack you or worship you as a god.

 

Well, i almost stepped on him at first but thankfully i looked down just as my foot was going down and so threw my step out a little bit farther. Thats also when i spotted the cache so i went ahead and grabbed it while in that position.

 

Believe me, normally i would have just picked up a stick and coaxed him out of the way.