+kewfriend Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 In the last few days I've been 'following' a pair around some caches in London. This pair from the US have 6000 logged caches between them. Their logs are identical ( nearly ) for every cache and they can certainly motor round London - well I suppose we all do that. I tend to think they got to the cache locations ... but ..... well ... I have my doubts about what happened at the cache locations . Still I'm sure the enjoyed the walks. Does it matter? It narked me ... but then they weren't my caches - so I should just shut up I suppose. Quote Link to comment
+Captain Gore-tex Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Simple, no sign the log (if available, dry, not full etc) no log the cache. I am up there tomorrow, PM some of the details and I will have a peek at some, if I can find them, I have a knack of not finding the darn things up there at times (don't I currykev?) Quote Link to comment
+The Blorenges Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Simple, no sign the log (if available, dry, not full etc) no log the cache. ... MrsB I'm so glad you said that! Quote Link to comment
+Pengy&Tigger Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 It's not clear from the OP, but were the physical cache logs signed or not? Or you are suspicious only on the grounds that their online logs are the same? T Quote Link to comment
+Master Mariner Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 If it is the couple I am thinking of (scoutboy and mousewiz) they did three of my virtual caches in London. They must have visited the locations as they sent emails with the required data. Their on-line logs, individually, were identical but dirrerent to each others. If that makes sense! As these caches were virtuals there was no physical logs to sign so I cannot check them. When you look at many of the London caches, were someone has done twenty or so in a day, the logs tend to be very similar! A micro is a micro so there is not really a lot to say and cut & paste is so easy... What I am not clear about is what the OP saying: (1) the physical log books were not signed (2) the physical log books were signed and the content of the logs were identical (3) the physical logs were signed twice with the same content and handwriting (4) as for (3) but each cacher was doing "their own thing" in different parts of town. From the content of the emails sent to claim the virts, I do not think it was (4). Let's see what CGT comes up with tomorrow - if he finds any. Quote Link to comment
+Sensei TSKC Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 6812 actually. They did one of my caches too so I will check out the log. Their online logs were short but fairly different. Quote Link to comment
+kewfriend Posted January 26, 2007 Author Share Posted January 26, 2007 Maybe I'm being unfair ... and incompetent. In at least one case I myself didnt find the cache: as a micro its gone awol before and I think has done so again. If I am being unfair then I wholeheartedly apologise for causing unfound worries ... and if I am not wrong ... does it matter - we all play the game in our own way. Quote Link to comment
+FollowMeChaps Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Should we be bothered? I thought that this was a game and that we all find our own way of playing it. If anyone is logging visits they have not done then they are only cheating themselves. I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the apparent doubt there seems to be rather than dash ut to check the logs - oh well that's just my opinion and keeping to my own argument I'll play it my way. FollowMeChaps PS: Will anyone apologise if, as I suspect, it turns out that they have visited the caches after all - what kind of impression are they going to get of UK cahers as a result of this thread? Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I tend to think they got to the cache locations ... but ..... well ... I have my doubts about what happened at the cache locations . Still I'm sure the enjoyed the walks. Does it matter? It narked me ... but then they weren't my caches - so I should just shut up I suppose. What narked you? The logs don't look at all suspicious. I guess you're not telling us something - but if so, why ask for opinions on it? Quote Link to comment
+Sensei TSKC Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Should we be bothered? I thought that this was a game and that we all find our own way of playing it. If anyone is logging visits they have not done then they are only cheating themselves....FollowMeChaps I'm going to disagree with you here, I am not talking specifically about any caher(s) in particular. Where cachers log a find and have not actually signed the logbook, it is not only a case of cheating themselves but also the setter. Imagine the following ficticious scenario: Cacher places cache. In the next 4 days, it is 'found' 5 times. I don't know about you other cachers but I get a good feeling when I receive a notification when my caches are found. Think of the disappointment when you discover no-one has actually found it! Quote Link to comment
+Belplasca Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Some of the caches that they visited are mine. They logged finds on the first three of the four Green Park caches. If they were claiming finds without signing logs, why didn't they claim GP 4? Especially as it's right by the tube station... (if they came or went that way, of course) But there is a way that posting finds when the cache hasn't actually been found can affect others. And it's particularly relevant to this type of cache. They are VERY vulnerable to going missing. If I see a find, I know it's safely there. Or do I? Bob Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.