Sign The Logbook!

[+MtnGoat50]

 

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."

I enjoyed reading the link, but that kind of thing makes me sad. The finders were punished for being honest in their logs. If they had just logged "TNLNSL, TFTH" or maybe talked about the weather instead of how they got there, their logs wouldn't have been deleted. After all their names were in the logbook!

 

I want people to be honest when they log my caches and I won't punish them for it. I enjoy reading about their experience and I'm disappointed when someone does a "cookie cutter log" or just says "Found it. TFTH". If I had a difficult cache and someone found a loophole, I might scold them in a note, if I thought what they did was unreasonable, or try and close the loophole for the next finder but I'd let their log stand.

 

It looks like this hider does the kind of caches I really enjoy. Now that I have family down that way, I may get to try some of them. But, after seeing this, all I'd log online is "TNLNSL, TFTC" and that's really too bad.

[+hydnsek]

 

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."

I enjoyed reading the link, but that kind of thing makes me sad. The finders were punished for being honest in their logs. If they had just logged "TNLNSL, TFTH" or maybe talked about the weather instead of how they got there, their logs wouldn't have been deleted. After all their names were in the logbook!

 

I want people to be honest when they log my caches and I won't punish them for it. I enjoy reading about their experience and I'm disappointed when someone does a "cookie cutter log" or just says "Found it. TFTH". If I had a difficult cache and someone found a loophole, I might scold them in a note, if I thought what they did was unreasonable, or try and close the loophole for the next finder but I'd let their log stand.

 

It looks like this hider does the kind of caches I really enjoy. Now that I have family down that way, I may get to try some of them. But, after seeing this, all I'd log online is "TNLNSL, TFTC" and that's really too bad.

Agree with everything you said. If you signed the log, you found the cache, and it's kinda fun if you can find a more 'clever' way to get to it. I've found shortcuts a few times, always noted I had found another way in my logs, and was never punished for it.

Edited June 13, 2007 by hydnsek

[+WRASTRO]

I solved a couple of tough puzzle caches recently that, when verifying my solutions with the owners, they said "I never thought of solving it that way!" They asked for my full solution and method and thanked me for sharing. I didn't do the caches the way they were designed, yet had the full cooperation of the cache owners for the way I solved the puzzle and, therefor, found the cache.

 

It seems that if the cache MUST be approached in a precise manner then it MUST be stated clearly in the cache page. I have found several multis where I couldn't find one or more waypoints but I was able to find the final. I certainly have never been chastised for being clever in making these finds. In fact I have been congratulated more than once for being inventive and creative, as have others for making similar finds. If the purpose of the cache is to find the container and sign the log then anyone who can sign the log should be able to claim the cache. If the purpose of the cache is something else then it should be clearly stated in the cache page.

 

Of course if the cache page discloses that certain access is via private property and should not be approached that way then cachers hunting the cache must decide if they will locate the cache via the published route or via "alternative" methods. If someone chooses to hunt one of my caches via alternate routes and finds the cache it is not up to me to judge them. If I were to read of some outragious exploit while hunting one of my caches I would likely modify the cache page to warn against same, but would not delete existing posts.

[+Kiersolvd]

Be very carefull before judging this circumstance. Reading through all the comments by both parties, it seems a bad situation got worse. It all seemed to be discused in a more local forum. Please let it drop in this forum before it gets just as bad. Remember there are allways two sides to a story and this forum has only presented one of them. My two cents worth....

[luckykoi]

 

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."

I enjoyed reading the link, but that kind of thing makes me sad. The finders were punished for being honest in their logs. If they had just logged "TNLNSL, TFTH" or maybe talked about the weather instead of how they got there, their logs wouldn't have been deleted. After all their names were in the logbook!

 

I want people to be honest when they log my caches and I won't punish them for it. I enjoy reading about their experience and I'm disappointed when someone does a "cookie cutter log" or just says "Found it. TFTH". If I had a difficult cache and someone found a loophole, I might scold them in a note, if I thought what they did was unreasonable, or try and close the loophole for the next finder but I'd let their log stand.

 

It looks like this hider does the kind of caches I really enjoy. Now that I have family down that way, I may get to try some of them. But, after seeing this, all I'd log online is "TNLNSL, TFTC" and that's really too bad.

Agree with everything you said. If you signed the log, you found the cache, and it's kinda fun if you can find a more 'clever' way to get to it. I've found shortcuts a few times, always noted I had found another way in my logs, and was never punished for it.

 

Apparently they had broken tresspassing laws by using motor vehicles. Is this what happened? If it is then they could put the future of any geocaching in that area at risk if the land-owners made the connection.

[+hydnsek]

 

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."

I enjoyed reading the link, but that kind of thing makes me sad. The finders were punished for being honest in their logs. If they had just logged "TNLNSL, TFTH" or maybe talked about the weather instead of how they got there, their logs wouldn't have been deleted. After all their names were in the logbook!

 

I want people to be honest when they log my caches and I won't punish them for it. I enjoy reading about their experience and I'm disappointed when someone does a "cookie cutter log" or just says "Found it. TFTH". If I had a difficult cache and someone found a loophole, I might scold them in a note, if I thought what they did was unreasonable, or try and close the loophole for the next finder but I'd let their log stand.

 

It looks like this hider does the kind of caches I really enjoy. Now that I have family down that way, I may get to try some of them. But, after seeing this, all I'd log online is "TNLNSL, TFTC" and that's really too bad.

Agree with everything you said. If you signed the log, you found the cache, and it's kinda fun if you can find a more 'clever' way to get to it. I've found shortcuts a few times, always noted I had found another way in my logs, and was never punished for it.

 

Apparently they had broken tresspassing laws by using motor vehicles. Is this what happened? If it is then they could put the future of any geocaching in that area at risk if the land-owners made the connection.

Yes, I read the local forum afterward and that looks like it could have been the case, although there is some dispute over it, and whether they did so knowingly or not. But also sounds like greater clarity on the original cache page on what was permitted regarding access would have helped, too. If it wasn't clear, if no signs were posted on the access route used, if they didn't know they were not supposed to use motorized vehicles, then it seems unfair to delete their finds. But none of us was there, and hindsight is always 20/20.

[+Pablo Mac]

I know that at least some, if not all of the cachers who found the cache that day had asked for and received verbal permission from logging company employees to drive past the gate, and were advised to exit the area before the scheduled time they close the gates each day, which they did.

 

That would seem to be non-trespassing access to me.

[+tomfuller & Quill]

As one of the few who has been to the Rock Hose Cave area TWICE-ALONE, I can tell those who want to visit this cache, "You either walk or ride a Mt. bike." First, there are two gates. The lower one controls access to the stone quarry. It is generally locked from 6PM Friday until 7AM Monday. The sign for this gate is quite clear as to who is allowed motorized vehicle access. The second gate which is not signed, is primarily for protection of the watershed area. If it weren't for the low-lives who vandalize logging equipment and dump anything and everything these gates probably wouldn't be there. CFM sought and received permission from several landowners for access rights for bikers and hikers. This permission can be yanked at any time if people insist on driving on roads they don't have a right to be on with a motor vehicle.

As I stated in the Emerald Valley forum, "I won't drive through a gate that can result in my being prosecuted or getting locked in and having to walk out to find someone to let me out."

I'm quite sure logscaler would not have allowed my log for this cache to pass for the "Counting Counties in Oregon" cache if I had driven to within a mile of the cache and walked from there.

After working for a land management agency for 35+ years, I really understand the reasons for placing gates to restrict access to roads. It had nothing at all to do with the cache owners wishes. I hope that I am still friends with both CFM and DP4C.

 

Tom Fuller

Crescent, OR

[+Pablo Mac]

This incident notwithstanding, I have heard a lot more good about CFM's caches than bad, and I look forward to finding a few of them.