Jump to content

Sign The Logbook!


Chumpo
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

It has become an epidemic that we are a bit concerned about.

 

If you can't figure out how to actually place your caching name IN THE LOGBOOK, then you haven't really found the cache.

 

We're not the cache police, or anything, but you really shouldn't be posting a find unless your name is scribbled down somewhere on the log at the cache location.

 

 

Am I wrong?

Link to comment

Hey Chumpos, DarenE and I think that it is a sad thing if you dont sign the log. But, on the other hand we have forgotten the pen many times on different caches and have still logged, most of the time with the owners permission.

 

Yes, owner's permission and/or a missing writing utensil is perfectly acceptable in our beady little eyes. It's the "I saw it, but I'm not going there!" finds that shouldn't count.

Edited by Chumpo
Link to comment

...Am I wrong?

No; but you are not perfectly right. The cache isn't normally the log book. The log book is typically in the cache. You can find the cache and not have a pen. You can find the cache but there flat out is no room in the log book. You may find the cache but since it's been 4 years since the last finder you just can't get the darned thing open.

 

It's a great general rule so long as you are realistic about the big picture.

Link to comment

...Am I wrong?

No; but you are not perfectly right. The cache isn't normally the log book. The log book is typically in the cache. You can find the cache and not have a pen. You can find the cache but there flat out is no room in the log book. You may find the cache but since it's been 4 years since the last finder you just can't get the darned thing open.

 

It's a great general rule so long as you are realistic about the big picture.

 

And I agree about that as well. I have had to find spots to edge my caching name in between other loggers, too.

My point is that some of our local cachers have been posting founds without even trying to get to the logbook.

Link to comment

...Am I wrong?

No; but you are not perfectly right. The cache isn't normally the log book. The log book is typically in the cache. You can find the cache and not have a pen. You can find the cache but there flat out is no room in the log book. You may find the cache but since it's been 4 years since the last finder you just can't get the darned thing open.

 

It's a great general rule so long as you are realistic about the big picture.

And I agree about that as well. I have had to find spots to edge my caching name in between other loggers, too.

My point is that some of our local cachers have been posting founds without even trying to get to the logbook.

If you lift the rock, guess what you're going to find under it?
Link to comment

And another perspective. Sometimes a cache is lost, replaced, lost again, replaced again, lost yet again, and replaced yet again. Then when it's found, there is just one signature on that log sheet. Did I say that this cache was one of the lost ones a couple times back? Sometimes there just happen to be several different logs out there. It was this one today: Yellow... :P

Link to comment

Agreement. And finding an attachment or hollow where the cache used to be isn't a find - no cache, no signature, no find. Maybe it was there, maybe it was gone, maybe somebody moved it, but you didn't find it. Log a DNF, Needs Maintenance, or Note, but it's not a Find....

 

By coincidence, a friend told me today that they and another local respected cacher recently claimed finds on a cache where all they found was a piece of velcro. :rolleyes: Apparently, a previous finder had migrated the cache, but still....they didn't find it. That would be like me logging a Find on one yesterday that is apparently missing. A previous finder was with me, confirmed I had the right spot and there was the hollow where the cache used to be....but for me it's a DNF.

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

Agreement. And finding an attachment or hollow where the cache used to be isn't a find - no cache, no signature, no find. Maybe it was there, maybe it was gone, maybe somebody moved it, but you didn't find it. Log a DNF, Needs Maintenance, or Note, but it's not a Find....

 

Another one that happens somewhat frequently is wet log books. There have been a number of times where to solve the "signed the logbook" I simply put the pen to the paper, and let the ink go to the paper. Any more than that would have torn the paper and rendered it unsalvageable.

 

Did we find the cache? We found the cache, we retrieved the cache, we put pen to paper (and in most cases, unless time crunched, tried to dry the log and cache a bit), and logged a find usually with a maintenance log as well. Did we sign our team name and date? Nope. Did we find it? We believe so.

 

Different people play by different rules. All you can do is set your own rules for yourself and stick to them.

 

Poppa J

Link to comment

If the logbook is absolutely unsignable, leave something, however small, so that somebody could verify that you were there. I've known cachers to scratch marks with mud, and yes, blood. Or leave a mini pine cone, something.

 

My geo-friend and I did a really tough cache at the end of a long day through a sea of nettles, and when we got there I was so excited to find it! But, I didn't have a pen/cil. Oh, *&$#%. Fortunately, geo-friend pulled one of my mini-golf pencils out of his back pocket. Geez, I've never liked him so much!

 

I've never deleted a log because I believe somebody wasn't actually there, but I did see one log that didn't match up to the logsheet. Never challenged him, though, because it was a 1/1 cache; he'd done, and signed my nearby cache, and his log indicated that he knew this one. I'll chalk it up to an oversight. And, no, actually I don't usually compare the written logs to the online ones.

Link to comment

I worded my original post all wrong. I didn't intend for those of us who have forgotten our writing stick or found an un-signable log shouldn't post a smiley face. That is entirely up to the finder and/or the hider to decide.

 

What I really should have said is that if a "finder" is posting one of those afore-mentioned smiley faces on a cache that has long been archived and is no longer there, that cacher shouldn't claim it. Also, if one can actually see the cache, but is unable or unwilling to retrieve it, then either write a note, post a DNF, or just leave until one can figure out how to get to it.

 

Missing pen or pencil? I've seen names scratched in the book with anything nearby, thumb prints (or whatever) are fine by my caching ethics. I even saw a post a while back where the finder notched the logbook with his pocket knife and then posted what he did on his found log. I thought that was an imaginative way to say "I was there!".

 

Soaked or otherwise damaged logbook? Those Space Pens are a brilliant invention and write on practically anything including baggies filled with pulp. Even if the log book is missing, just do whatever you can think of. A find with a "Needs Maintenance" post is fine as far as I'm concerned.

 

The "missing cache but the velcro (or fishing line) was there" finds are entirely between the cache owner and the person who discovered the problem. An email to the owner and a reply stating to go ahead and log it (followed up by the owner either fixing things or archiving it) is a valid find.

 

Just a clarification. :sunsure:

Link to comment

Soaked or otherwise damaged logbook? Those Space Pens are a brilliant invention and write on practically anything including baggies filled with pulp. Even if the log book is missing, just do whatever you can think of. A find with a "Needs Maintenance" post is fine as far as I'm concerned.

My space pen will sign most of the logs that an ordinary pen won't, but I've found a few logs so slimy that even having a space pen didn't tempt me to write on them. And there's been a few where the container was frozen/rusted shut. These are legitimate finds in my book, and each time I photographed the cache in my hand as proof that I found it.

The "missing cache but the velcro (or fishing line) was there" finds are entirely between the cache owner and the person who discovered the problem. An email to the owner and a reply stating to go ahead and log it (followed up by the owner either fixing things or archiving it) is a valid find.

I'm afraid I'll have to go ahead and disagree with you there. If the cache isn't there, you didn't find it. Period.

Link to comment

The "missing cache but the velcro (or fishing line) was there" finds are entirely between the cache owner and the person who discovered the problem. An email to the owner and a reply stating to go ahead and log it (followed up by the owner either fixing things or archiving it) is a valid find.

Uh, how's that? The choices in that situation are either DNF or Note, but if you select Found It from the drop down, regardless of any 'permission', you are not telling the truth.

Link to comment

While one Whidby Island earlier this month I found a cache in a bad spot. While trying to retrive it I dropped it between some rocks. We tried fishing it out with various tools but never could get it out. So I logged it as a note. Couldnt't call it a DNF because I found it and had my pinkies on it when it dropped. Now I hope it is there the next trip to the area so I can claim a find.

Link to comment

The "missing cache but the velcro (or fishing line) was there" finds are entirely between the cache owner and the person who discovered the problem. An email to the owner and a reply stating to go ahead and log it (followed up by the owner either fixing things or archiving it) is a valid find.

Uh, how's that? The choices in that situation are either DNF or Note, but if you select Found It from the drop down, regardless of any 'permission', you are not telling the truth.

 

There is an option other than the drop down. Contact the cache owner!

 

You guys are missing my point. I'm saying that if the "finder" is unwilling to actually retrieve the cache, then it shouldn't be a find. I don't really want to name any names or anything. It has become an issue around here.

Edited by Chumpo
Link to comment

I think I know what Chumpo is saying... so after hearing something through the geo-grapevine, I checked on an archived cache that I find unbelievable - why would anyone log a find on a geocache that has been archived for two and a half years? And why does GC let people log finds on these long archived caches? OR do they? See this one!

And what is a VLog? Is something new to GC? Hope not...

YA

Link to comment

I think I know what Chumpo is saying... so after hearing something through the geo-grapevine, I checked on an archived cache that I find unbelievable - why would anyone log a find on a geocache that has been archived for two and a half years? And why does GC let people log finds on these long archived caches? OR do they? See this one!

And what is a VLog? Is something new to GC? Hope not...

YA

Wow....that IS unbelievable. ;) So, by this rationale, just showing up at a cache location is good enough for a find.

 

But the cache owner has not deleted the log, so they are letting it stand.

Link to comment

A good reputation is hard to earn and easy to loose. Let them play their own game.

 

Well, I've got to say I'm torn here. One half of me says that nobody should log any of my caches falsely.

 

The other half of me says to let them play their own game, they are only cheating themselves.

 

I don't know.

Link to comment

I think I know what Chumpo is saying... so after hearing something through the geo-grapevine, I checked on an archived cache that I find unbelievable - why would anyone log a find on a geocache that has been archived for two and a half years? And why does GC let people log finds on these long archived caches? OR do they? See this one!

And what is a VLog? Is something new to GC? Hope not...

YA

 

I've got a lot of archived caches, and never checked them for recent Found Logs. So, OK, in that situation I could get quite nasty.

Link to comment

I think I know what Chumpo is saying... so after hearing something through the geo-grapevine, I checked on an archived cache that I find unbelievable - why would anyone log a find on a geocache that has been archived for two and a half years? And why does GC let people log finds on these long archived caches? OR do they? See this one!

And what is a VLog? Is something new to GC? Hope not...

YA

Wow....that IS unbelievable. ;) So, by this rationale, just showing up at a cache location is good enough for a find.

 

But the cache owner has not deleted the log, so they are letting it stand.

Since the last visit by the owner was before the log in question, I would cut the owner a bit of slack.

 

I wonder what my find count would be if I counted all those caches I was in the general area of. I wonder how close you have to be to the location to be able to do that vLog thing. Hmmmmm. I bet I could top 10,000 finds with a large enough radius from the cache. ;);):huh:

Link to comment

A good reputation is hard to earn and easy to loose. Let them play their own game.

 

Well, I've got to say I'm torn here. One half of me says that nobody should log any of my caches falsely.

 

The other half of me says to let them play their own game, they are only cheating themselves.

 

I don't know.

 

I'm kind of in this crowd. I know Criminal has very stong feeling on such things as what a find is and even what a cache is, and I respect that and see his point, but I look more for integrety. I know I should be more hard-nose, but I cut people a lot of slack. Honest people, that is. I hate to see someone climb St Helens and not claim the find if they wish.

 

To me signing the log, something I always do, is a personal thing. I rarely see the logs in my caches anyway. Just seeing the cache is not a find. Physically touching it is the dividing line for me.

Link to comment

I think I know what Chumpo is saying... so after hearing something through the geo-grapevine, I checked on an archived cache that I find unbelievable - why would anyone log a find on a geocache that has been archived for two and a half years? And why does GC let people log finds on these long archived caches? OR do they? See this one!

And what is a VLog? Is something new to GC? Hope not...

YA

Wow....that IS unbelievable. ;) So, by this rationale, just showing up at a cache location is good enough for a find.

 

But the cache owner has not deleted the log, so they are letting it stand.

Since the last visit by the owner was before the log in question, I would cut the owner a bit of slack.

 

I wonder what my find count would be if I counted all those caches I was in the general area of. I wonder how close you have to be to the location to be able to do that vLog thing. Hmmmmm. I bet I could top 10,000 finds with a large enough radius from the cache. ;);):huh:

 

The owner's profile doesn't show any caching activity since '04. So it's likely that nobody is watching the old archived cache. I think TPTB should prevent new logs on caches that have been archived for more than a couple of months.

Link to comment

Yup, old archived caches should not be logged.

 

Steering the issue away from the post a bit, I would like to say that I think Virtuals should be brought back to Geocaching. I recently made a trip to DC. Most all caches there are virtual for obvious reasons. Locationless caches are not geocaching but Virtuals are. You use your GPS to get you to a point. You prove your visit with photo or informed answer to the owner. They are educational! They keep the owner involved!

 

Waymarking? You own neither your cache or your find there. Fine for locationless, there is no longer any ownership of your activities. It is a commitee run collection of postcards.

 

Virtuals point out here that logbooks are not caches. Boxes are not caches. The DC virtuals point out that caches can be quality and of value as a cache without either. So what is a cache? Using it GPS technology to find a coordinate and meeting the cache requirements. For a box, that is signing the log or at least touching it.

Edited by EraSeek
Link to comment

. Yes, you should have your name scribbled down if you log your entry.

 

Scribbled, stickered, stamped, etched, carved, initialed, marked, or geo-business carded unless otherwise directed by the cache page/cache owner on very unique caches. Heck there's one in Spokane where there is no paper involved whatsoever, but people still have to think outside of the box to sign, carve, or figure out some other way to get their name on the cache.

 

This V-Log stuff that this certain person is doing is total crap. They better not try it with any of our caches. I think it is also bad etiquette to log your own caches to up your numbers (this does not count adopting someone else's cache that you had previously found), and logging the same cache over and over again to up your numbers just because you pass it everyday to work. You found it once...let it go (unless of course there are special unique circumstances directed by the cache page/cache owner/geo-admin but off-hand I don't see what that could be).

Link to comment

The "missing cache but the velcro (or fishing line) was there" finds are entirely between the cache owner and the person who discovered the problem. An email to the owner and a reply stating to go ahead and log it (followed up by the owner either fixing things or archiving it) is a valid find.

Uh, how's that? The choices in that situation are either DNF or Note, but if you select Found It from the drop down, regardless of any 'permission', you are not telling the truth.

 

There is an option other than the drop down. Contact the cache owner!

 

You guys are missing my point. I'm saying that if the "finder" is unwilling to actually retrieve the cache, then it shouldn't be a find. I don't really want to name any names or anything. It has become an issue around here.

My point about the drop down is that there is no option to select ‘Awarded Find by Cache Owner’, thus, if you select Found It on something that isn’t even there, you cannot do so truthfully. Petition Seattle for the change if it’s important to you, maybe we can have a separate total for Awarded Finds.

 

The ‘play it your own way’ mantra is a little silly. If a cacher decided that ‘his way’ or ‘her way’ of playing the game included urinating on the log book, I think we’d all appreciate him or her playing it more ‘our way’ instead. ;)

 

It’s more like a ‘strong opinion’ than a strong feeling. Having a strong opinion doesn’t mean I care in the least if someone else has a slightly different opinion, in fact I call several people friends who have much a much looser definition than I do.

Edited by Criminal
Link to comment

Steering the issue away from the post a bit, I would like to say that I think Virtuals should be brought back to Geocaching. I recently made a trip to DC. Most all caches there are virtual for obvious reasons. Locationless caches are not geocaching but Virtuals are. You use your GPS to get you to a point. You prove your visit with photo or informed answer to the owner. They are educational! They keep the owner involved!

 

Waymarking? You own neither your cache or your find there. Fine for locationless, there is no longer any ownership of your activities. It is a commitee run collection of postcards.

 

Virtuals point out here that logbooks are not caches. Boxes are not caches. The DC virtuals point out that caches can be quality and of value as a cache without either. So what is a cache? Using it GPS technology to find a coordinate and meeting the cache requirements. For a box, that is signing the log or at least touching it.

I agree wholeheartedly, esp. for those in places like D.C. and national parks. But Jeremy has stated that virtuals will never return. If you do a search in the general forum, you'll find numerous threads advocating the return of virtuals, with similar excellent points, but with clear followup from GS folks, volunteers, and others on why this won't happen. Alas.

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment
Yup, old archived caches should not be logged.

 

Steering the issue away from the post a bit, I would like to say that I think Virtuals should be brought back to Geocaching. I recently made a trip to DC. Most all caches there are virtual for obvious reasons. Locationless caches are not geocaching but Virtuals are. You use your GPS to get you to a point. You prove your visit with photo or informed answer to the owner. They are educational! They keep the owner involved!

 

There are always exceptions. THIS old archived cache right here in the home of geocaching continues to be logged by the most respected geocachers around. In fact, I will log it myself in the very near future!

 

And THIS virtual does not require you to turn on a GPSr or leave your chair. You get credit for a virtual find in Germany and over 3900 people have logged it as a find including a few local respected cachers.

 

I agree with EraSeek however that most virts that require proof of visitation at posted coords to some interesting spot are worthwhile and are definitely geocaching.

Link to comment

I think TPTB should prevent new logs on caches that have been archived for more than a couple of months.

I'll disagree with a blanket ban on logging old caches - archived or not. What about team splits? Or name changes? Or, like my wife, didn't have a email address she could use (work acct's don't like that) for the first few years - she's working at back logging all the finds (she has 300+ logged, over 1000 found).

 

I do agree the new finds on archived caches are a sad way to play the game.

Link to comment

Ok, so, can I delete the log of everyone who has exhibited bad cache behavior? You took the most expensive item in my son's cache and left a mini-eraser? You left my cache out in plain view, didn't put the lid back on it, whatever...

 

I think in the end, the only geocache behavior we can really control is our own.

Link to comment

Ok, so, can I delete the log of everyone who has exhibited bad cache behavior? You took the most expensive item in my son's cache and left a mini-eraser? You left my cache out in plain view, didn't put the lid back on it, whatever...

 

I think in the end, the only geocache behavior we can really control is our own.

 

I don't think that this is where this thread was intended originally on going. I think the complaint is that a cacher should not go to an archived cache knowing that the cache isn't there, in this case it was removed 2-3 years prior, and then log it as a claim just because they were there years after the fact.

 

It's not a fact about someone taking good stuff and leaving junk, that's a problem that all owners have to deal with. That may be bad caching ettiquette, but it isn't a total disregard for the rules. Logging an archived cache that isn't even there, nor has it been since before the cacher in question has moved here, is a flat out disgrace.

 

Actually, I think the person who has done this v-log is probably enjoying the fact that they are getting so much talk on this forum.

Link to comment

No, it's not where it was intended to go. I was only pointing out that there is a lot of bad cache behavior, and I don't know if you can effectively change other people. I think you can try to do the right thing yourself. If I find your cache, my name will be in the logbook.

Link to comment

The owner's profile doesn't show any caching activity since '04. So it's likely that nobody is watching the old archived cache. I think TPTB should prevent new logs on caches that have been archived for more than a couple of months.

 

The problem with that is that there are many legitimate reasons for an account to log an archived cache. I know people that are months, or years behind in their cache logging. So if there was a system in place to automatically lock a listing after a certain number of months those people would no be able to log their very valid finds.

Link to comment

The owner's profile doesn't show any caching activity since '04. So it's likely that nobody is watching the old archived cache. I think TPTB should prevent new logs on caches that have been archived for more than a couple of months.

The problem with that is that there are many legitimate reasons for an account to log an archived cache. I know people that are months, or years behind in their cache logging. So if there was a system in place to automatically lock a listing after a certain number of months those people would no be able to log their very valid finds.

Another situation is that sometimes the cache owner does not retrieve their geolitter and the old archived cache is still there to find. If somebody legitimately finds an archived cache and signs the log, I can't quibble with them logging a find on it.

Link to comment
If you can't figure out how to actually place your caching name IN THE LOGBOOK, then you haven't really found the cache.
Does that mean that if you find a 10 dollar bill on the street, that you haven't really found it until you sign it? :) Signing the log provides proof that you actually found it. :)
Link to comment

I think TPTB should prevent new logs on caches that have been archived for more than a couple of months.

I really disagree with this, for all the reasons mentioned above. I have found several archived caches. They are all ones where I FOUND the container, signed the log, left stuff, took stuff and rehid them like any other cache and in most cases was surprised to find out they were archived when I went to log them online. Some were over a year old. In at least one case the owner thought the cache was missing and had it unarchived after my find. Not allowing logs on archived caches removes a valuable source of feedback.

Link to comment

I think I know what inspired Chumpo's rant in the first place, and it has nothing to do with wet or full logs or a container welded shut by time.

 

There are those caches which require a certain 'extra' effort in order to log them. For example, I have a travel bug hotel which is locked to keep the bugs from disappearing if the container is accidentally found. I have had to request that a couple of finders change their 'Found It' to a 'Note' because they couldn't figure out the combination. Just seeing the cache may not be enough, which I believe is what Chumpo is saying.

Link to comment
They are all ones where I FOUND the container, signed the log, left stuff, took stuff and rehid them ... Some were over a year old.
I can beat that. On Sunday my friends and I found a Joedohn cache that was archived, and last found, in October 2002. The cache was in great shape with swag and a dry logbook in which we all signed our names. If I hadn't been able to log my find, I would have been sad.
Link to comment

The owner's profile doesn't show any caching activity since '04. So it's likely that nobody is watching the old archived cache. I think TPTB should prevent new logs on caches that have been archived for more than a couple of months.

 

The problem with that is that there are many legitimate reasons for an account to log an archived cache. I know people that are months, or years behind in their cache logging. So if there was a system in place to automatically lock a listing after a certain number of months those people would no be able to log their very valid finds.

 

Sounds great to me! The bus doesn't wait for me either.

Link to comment

It seems to me that the real issue is that some cachers decide to inflate their numbers by logging finds for caches that they simply didn't find. In this case you can't "find" a cache that isn't there and hasn't been for quite some time. End of story.

 

It also seems to me that we in the honorable sector of the caching community shouldn't waste our time and emotions lamenting about others who choose to log finds for caches they didn't find. They prove by their actions that they aren't worthy of our attention. Identify them for what they are, contact them and point out the error of their ways, move on.

 

Continue to have fun playing the game.

Link to comment

I think I know what inspired Chumpo's rant in the first place, and it has nothing to do with wet or full logs or a container welded shut by time.

 

There are those caches which require a certain 'extra' effort in order to log them. For example, I have a travel bug hotel which is locked to keep the bugs from disappearing if the container is accidentally found. I have had to request that a couple of finders change their 'Found It' to a 'Note' because they couldn't figure out the combination. Just seeing the cache may not be enough, which I believe is what Chumpo is saying.

 

That is indeed what I was getting at, as well as the logging of long archived caches that NO LONGER EXIST.

I apologize for starting this thread without adequately expressing my thoughts, but all of the posts here have been very insightful as far as personal caching etiquette goes.

I had intended to let everyone know exactly which cache finds had caused me to go off on a rant, but then thought that maybe I shouldn't. There are a few found logs entered by people who most likely had no idea that what they had claimed as a find might be considered a non-find by everyone else. I think that our fantastic caching community here in the greater Spokane area is made up of 99.9 percent great folks. It's that .1 percent that got me worked up enough to start this thread.

I never meant for anyone here to question any of their past finds or attempt to set any "rules" for exactly what a legitimate find is. My main concern was that a new cacher might view a log by a .1 percenter and think that he/she/they could do the same. I can only hope that .1 doesn't grow into a larger number.

Edited by Chumpo
Link to comment

It has become an epidemic that we are a bit concerned about.

 

If you can't figure out how to actually place your caching name IN THE LOGBOOK, then you haven't really found the cache.

 

We're not the cache police, or anything, but you really shouldn't be posting a find unless your name is scribbled down somewhere on the log at the cache location.

 

 

Am I wrong?

The best example was a cache in a edmonds statue. we all saw it but some people didnt do the work to get it. they just said "hey we saw it'.

but the rest of us found a stick or in my case a piece of speaker wire and dug it out .

Link to comment

Well, this has been a challenging topic for me, because I don't know if I want to be the cache police or not. But since this thread started, somebody logged one of my caches and said they hadn't been able to sign it because they didn't have a pencil. Please, don't go looking, I don't want to embarrass anyone in particular. I tend to believe they found it, it was a nice log - on the other hand it is a downtown cache not far from a store.

 

Since this thread has started, I've gotten two logs on another cache that actually do look suspicious, and I'll be checking the paper log.

 

Haven't checked any of my archived caches yet, but that would just be incredible. They are not there.

 

~Best

Link to comment

Well, this has been a challenging topic for me, because I don't know if I want to be the cache

police or not. But since this thread started, somebody logged one of my caches and said they

hadn't been able to sign it because they didn't have a pencil. Please, don't go looking, I don't

want to embarrass anyone in particular. I tend to believe they found it, it was a nice log - on

the other hand it is a downtown cache not far from a store.

 

Since this thread has started, I've gotten two logs on another cache that actually do look

suspicious, and I'll be checking the paper log.

 

Haven't checked any of my archived caches yet, but that would just be incredible. They are not

there.

 

~Best

I don't think you're being the cache police when it's one of your own hides.

 

I think we've all found ourselves at a cache with out a pen, at one time or another. Unless you

have a good reason to doubt this persons word, I'd let it stand.

 

I know the cache that prompted Chumpo's thread. It's very hard to spot and once seen it appears

inaccessible. There is an easy way to retrieve the container but it too, is hard to see.

Some very new cachers logged a find on it, admitting they could see the cache but couldn't

retrieve it. I thought about emailing them but It's not my cache and I don't want to be the cache police. I also don't want to embarrass new people and turn them off to the hobby. If they keep caching, I think they'll figure it out.

 

This this kind of nooB mistake bothers me a lot less than someone with hundreds of finds deliberately logging a Found it on a cache that's not there, just because they think they can get away with it.

Link to comment

Signing the log does not mean much to me. I don't go out and check my logs everytime someone finds it, and who cares anyway if they signed it or not. I suppose you could always delete the "geocachers in question" log entry and eventually find out that they found your cache again when it comes up missing. I don't want my caches all beat up or thrown out into the woods because I was fussing over a signature.

 

Ok, so, can I delete the log of everyone who has exhibited bad cache behavior? You took the most expensive item in my son's cache and left a mini-eraser? You left my cache out in plain view, didn't put the lid back on it, whatever...

 

I think in the end, the only geocache behavior we can really control is our own.

Link to comment
Signing the log does not mean much to me. I don't go out and check my logs everytime someone finds it, and who cares anyway if they signed it or not. I suppose you could always delete the "geocachers in question" log entry and eventually find out that they found your cache again when it comes up missing. I don't want my caches all beat up or thrown out into the woods because I was fussing over a signature.

I don't check every log every time someone finds my caches, either. I take it as my responsibility, however, to keep my eyes and ears open for potentially illegitimate smileys on the caches I own, and take appropriate action to maintain the integrity of my little corner of the game. If everyone held the "I don't care whether the log is signed" attitude, the general integrity & legitimacy of the game would suffer.

 

Of course, there is the other end of the spectrum where a cache owner changes the rules after some legitimate finds, and then deletes those logs because the cache finders discovered an easier approach than the owner wanted. I would be concerned that their caches would get "all beat up or thrown out into the woods."

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...