Signed log..

7.2k · June 29, 2007

...and we've generally extricated ourselves from the group as soon as was polite and went our own way.
Not a fan of caching in groups, or you'd prefer not to be shown the cache, and that the finder kept quiet for a while and let you find it yourself?

Umm... Yes.

I like caching with Sissy. A very small group of about 3 or 4 is about the max I've ever enjoyed.

Additionally, I'm almost always disappointed if a finder simply pops up with the cache without giving the rest of us the opportunity to continue hunting for it or give up.

June 29, 2007

...and we've generally extricated ourselves from the group as soon as was polite and went our own way.

Not a fan of caching in groups, or you'd prefer not to be shown the cache, and that the finder kept quiet for a while and let you find it yourself?

I do have trouble understanding that attitude of some. I go caching with my kids or some friends. In the latter situation there is a element of friendly low-level competetion over who will find it first. (in the former their is a definitely some competetion between the kids). But to maintain the purity of the game, if you find it first you need to walk away so the others can find it one their own, and somehow manage to sign the log and do a trade without anyone knowing it.

My questions is that, lets say you are a group of 4 fiends and all have found the cache, but none will announce it because they don't want to give it away to the others. Sounds like you will have 4 people rummaging through the woods forever pretending to look for a cache they all have found already????

This does not make a whole lot of sense to me; I'm of the yell out "found it" camp (which is far simpler).

I would still submit if you are a purist, to sign a logbook and post a "find" that you did not in fact find (i.e, discover') by yourself would be cheating. Perhaps a note should be posted in which you claim it as a "Shown". Should a log owner therefore erase logbook entries?

Or perhaps we could all just mellow out and accept that we all have our own rules, of which number one should be to enjoy the sport.

20.7k · June 29, 2007

Some kids don't play well with others.

BTW, I am also in the 'there it is' camp.

7.2k · June 29, 2007

...and we've generally extricated ourselves from the group as soon as was polite and went our own way.
Not a fan of caching in groups, or you'd prefer not to be shown the cache, and that the finder kept quiet for a while and let you find it yourself?

I do have trouble understanding that attitude of some. I go caching with my kids or some friends. In the latter situation there is a element of friendly low-level competetion over who will find it first. (in the former their is a definitely some competetion between the kids). But to maintain the purity of the game, if you find it first you need to walk away so the others can find it one their own, and somehow manage to sign the log and do a trade without anyone knowing it.

My questions is that, lets say you are a group of 4 fiends and all have found the cache, but none will announce it because they don't want to give it away to the others. Sounds like you will have 4 people rummaging through the woods forever pretending to look for a cache they all have found already????

This does not make a whole lot of sense to me; I'm of the yell out "found it" camp (which is far simpler).

I would still submit if you are a purist, to sign a logbook and post a "find" that you did not in fact find (i.e, discover') by yourself would be cheating. Perhaps a note should be posted in which you claim it as a "Shown". Should a log owner therefore erase logbook entries?

Or perhaps we could all just mellow out and accept that we all have our own rules, of which number one should be to enjoy the sport.

Now I'm getting the impression that you only post in an attempt to get someone's goat. You can't possibly believe what you just posted. I'll just roll my eyes at this latest sorry attempt and move on.

Thanks.

20.7k · June 29, 2007

...and we've generally extricated ourselves from the group as soon as was polite and went our own way.
Not a fan of caching in groups, or you'd prefer not to be shown the cache, and that the finder kept quiet for a while and let you find it yourself?

I do have trouble understanding that attitude of some. I go caching with my kids or some friends. In the latter situation there is a element of friendly low-level competetion over who will find it first. (in the former their is a definitely some competetion between the kids). But to maintain the purity of the game, if you find it first you need to walk away so the others can find it one their own, and somehow manage to sign the log and do a trade without anyone knowing it.

My questions is that, lets say you are a group of 4 fiends and all have found the cache, but none will announce it because they don't want to give it away to the others. Sounds like you will have 4 people rummaging through the woods forever pretending to look for a cache they all have found already????

This does not make a whole lot of sense to me; I'm of the yell out "found it" camp (which is far simpler).

I would still submit if you are a purist, to sign a logbook and post a "find" that you did not in fact find (i.e, discover') by yourself would be cheating. Perhaps a note should be posted in which you claim it as a "Shown". Should a log owner therefore erase logbook entries?

Or perhaps we could all just mellow out and accept that we all have our own rules, of which number one should be to enjoy the sport.

Now I'm getting the impression that you only post in an attempt to get someone's goat. You can't possibly believe what you just posted. I'll just roll my eyes at this latest sorry attempt and move on.

Thanks.

Relax, CR. Everyone doesn't have to agree with you.

3.9k · June 29, 2007

My questions is that, lets say you are a group of 4 fiends...

Please be nicer when talking about your buddies.

... and all have found the cache, but none will announce it because they don't want to give it away to the others. Sounds like you will have 4 people rummaging through the woods forever pretending to look for a cache they all have found already????

I'd guess that the first person to find it will walk away, and then watch the other three. It's pretty obvious when someone has spotted it already if they're standing about 20 feet away and no longer looking for it. Even if they pretend to find, I'm usually going to ask, "Has anyone found it yet?" and see who admits it.

7.2k · June 29, 2007

Relax, CR. Everyone doesn't have to agree with you.

I know that, but at least make a lick of sense. I'm getting the impression someone is just being facetious and I hope this is the case otherwise the alternatives are just sad.

June 29, 2007

My questions is that, lets say you are a group of 4 fiends...
Please be nicer when talking about your buddies.

... and all have found the cache, but none will announce it because they don't want to give it away to the others. Sounds like you will have 4 people rummaging through the woods forever pretending to look for a cache they all have found already????
I'd guess that the first person to find it will walk away, and then watch the other three. It's pretty obvious when someone has spotted it already if they're standing about 20 feet away and no longer looking for it. Even if they pretend to find, I'm usually going to ask, "Has anyone found it yet?" and see who admits it.

Sometimes they are fiends. LOL

I can usually hold back yelling "found it". My face has turned red on a couple of occassion, when I was doing stealth caches with kids, one of them was a crowded Cracker Barrel porch, and my 7 YO finds the cache and screams out as loud as he could "found it". And yes CR I signed the log, both times.

CR - I know I am opinionated (about many things) and can be stubborn, I just get annoyed with other people who are the same way and just won't admit it. Best wishes

June 29, 2007

I sign the logbook if I log the find online.

If I dont sign, I either didn't look, in which case I don't log, or log a note only.

If I looked but didn't find, I log a DNF.

Pretty much the way I think most people play the game.

However, from reading some of these posts, as a noob, it's starting to make me wonder if I am going to be watched by the big brother geocache police.

I play for fun. Feeling like I must PROVE my honesty is not fun. Once the fun leaves this game, so will I.

And I really don't want that to happen, I'm having WAY too much fun!

Do I think it's acceptable for anyone to log a cache they didn't find? Of course not.

I am known to be a very honest person (actually documented once on local TV!). I know that there are others that are not.

But I believe that just as in the spirit of the law, a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.

I'd much rather see a few individuals falsely log some caches than have an honest person's integrity called into question over geocaching. Just as I would rather see a few guilty criminals go free than have an honest person unfairly punished.

I say let's keep it light and fun and believe that most people will be honest. If you're not, you're only fooling yourself anyway.

Edited for typo.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Stargazer22

June 29, 2007

To me signing the log is like taking along water when you go hiking.. you just do it. BUT - I have found caches where the log was mush and I wasn't able to sign. Or if I had hiked for a mile or so and lost my pen en route, I wouldn't go all the way back to the vehicle for a pen if there was none in the cache. However, I would never log a cache on GC if I had not physically been at the cache site and found it.

Online, I usually log my finds with a note that I signed the log, such as XNSL, but it's just a habit and I don't think it is something I have to do.

I don't bird-dog the cache logs of my hides for signatures. If a person does an armchair find, so be it. It's his conscience. Eventually karma will happen!!!

June 30, 2007

However, from reading some of these posts, as a noob, it's starting to make me wonder if I am going to be watched by the big brother geocache police.

I play for fun. Feeling like I must PROVE my honesty is not fun. Once the fun leaves this game, so will I.

And I really don't want that to happen, I'm having WAY too much fun!

This an another similar thread have actually caused me to change my attitutudes towards this issue. In the past, frankly I never thought much about logging caching as I did not consider it a big deal. Some posters have noted that the so-called rule was to "talk about it" in the logbook, which in my opinion also means thanking the owner for his/her efforts (rather than just logging TNLN TFTC as many sadly do). Since I started doing that (more thoughtful logs) recently, I've gotten an e-mail back from an owner thanking me for complimenting his cache.

We all have the choice whether we will make the game more or less enjoyable for ourselves and others.

Fortunately there are so many caches out their and friendly cache owners, that the few spoil-sports can easily be avoided/ignored.

Hiding a cache is actually a generous act in support of the game, and I would bet the ranch that the vast majority of cache owners feel as I do in that all they really care about is that people have some fun and are a safe looking for and finding their caches. No one has to PROVE anything to me (but please return the caches as you found them). If you enjoy my caches, let me know in the logs, and I will place more.

7.2k · June 30, 2007

Fortunately there are so many caches out their and friendly cache owners, that the few spoil-sports can easily be avoided/ignored.

Now you're making it sound like there's some sort of totalitarian faction trying to make you do some arduous task before you can claim the find. It's just signing the log. Simple. Straightforward. Oh, wait, there are exceptions, but it's only if the log is not signable. Even then you can provide proof of your visit. Throw a piece of paper in there. Replace the log. Take a picture. Something. Again, fairly straight forward.

But you take exception to having to sign the log. Oh, yeah, you sign the log when you can, but let's revisit one of the reasons you claim that it acceptable to claim find. According to you, it's okay to log a find even though you didn't even retrieve the cache, much less sign the logbook, because of...

...wait for it...

MUGGLES!

June 30, 2007

Fortunately there are so many caches out their and friendly cache owners, that the few spoil-sports can easily be avoided/ignored.

Now you're making it sound like there's some sort of totalitarian faction trying to make you do some arduous task before you can claim the find. It's just signing the log. Simple. Straightforward. Oh, wait, there are exceptions, but it's only if the log is not signable. Even then you can provide proof of your visit. Throw a piece of paper in there. Replace the log. Take a picture. Something. Again, fairly straight forward.

But you take exception to having to sign the log. Oh, yeah, you sign the log when you can, but let's revisit one of the reasons you claim that it acceptable to claim find. According to you, it's okay to log a find even though you didn't even retrieve the cache, much less sign the logbook, because of...

...wait for it...

MUGGLES!

I don't take execpt to signing the log, as 99% of the time I do, and will certainly continue to do in the future (because I believe it to be a courtesy to the owner), and if I know a cache owner is sensitive to the issue I would oblige by jamming another wad of paper in.

What gets under my skin (and others) are statements that I "have" to do something, I have to "prove" something, and that I will be punished (log deleted) if I don't do something. As I noted in a previous post, I can be stubborn and this rubs me the wrong way, as a matter of principle.

I am not in away suggesting that you have ever done this and in any of my post I certainly never intended anything to be a personal attack on you (I can be cantankerous in general), but for anyone to say that I will delete your log if your don't play be my interpretation of the rules, appears to me to be very childish - if you don't play the way I want, I will take my ball and go home.

14.3k · June 30, 2007

Sometimes I'll sign a fresh piece of paper in the log if the log is trashed.

3.2k · June 30, 2007

...and we've generally extricated ourselves from the group as soon as was polite and went our own way.
Not a fan of caching in groups, or you'd prefer not to be shown the cache, and that the finder kept quiet for a while and let you find it yourself?

I do have trouble understanding that attitude of some. I go caching with my kids or some friends. In the latter situation there is a element of friendly low-level competetion over who will find it first. (in the former their is a definitely some competetion between the kids). But to maintain the purity of the game, if you find it first you need to walk away so the others can find it one their own, and somehow manage to sign the log and do a trade without anyone knowing it.

My questions is that, lets say you are a group of 4 fiends and all have found the cache, but none will announce it because they don't want to give it away to the others. Sounds like you will have 4 people rummaging through the woods forever pretending to look for a cache they all have found already????

This does not make a whole lot of sense to me; I'm of the yell out "found it" camp (which is far simpler).

I would still submit if you are a purist, to sign a logbook and post a "find" that you did not in fact find (i.e, discover') by yourself would be cheating. Perhaps a note should be posted in which you claim it as a "Shown". Should a log owner therefore erase logbook entries?

Or perhaps we could all just mellow out and accept that we all have our own rules, of which number one should be to enjoy the sport.

Now I'm getting the impression that you only post in an attempt to get someone's goat. You can't possibly believe what you just posted. I'll just roll my eyes at this latest sorry attempt and move on.

Still at it, I see.

Anyone who disagrees with CoyoteRed is wrong, and is therefore disingenuous, and is therefore being dishonest with themselves. Who could ever honestly accept anything as truth that is not in line with Proper CoyoteRed Dogma?

That’s a handy tactic. As soon as someone disagrees with you, insinuate that they are a liar and a troll for daring to suggest that they actually believe in their own contrary opinion.

That was a perfectly valid opinion, CR. I think you owe geomann1 an apology.

(Don't hold your breath waiting for that apology, geomann1 -- I'm still waiting for mine.)

June 30, 2007

There are many thoughtful and reasonable posts on this subject, but there is still a question that I haven't seen asked or answered. If a cache hider doesn't care and never checks the log after placing it in a cache, why bother to place one in the cache in the first place? If I go to the trouble to dig the log out with a pair of tweezers, find a dry place to write, and provide my own pen to sign with, the hider should at least give a rat's patoot that I responded to his placing of the log there.

7.2k · June 30, 2007

Still at it, I see.

Not that I think your brother needs defending or can't take care of himself, but if you would read the complete quote in your post geomann1 insinuates your brother would rummage "through the woods forever pretending to look for a cache they all have found already." That is what I was taking exception to. You probably would too if you read it.

Additionally, I stand by my statement that geomann1 couldn't have possibly really believed that's what Mushtang meant. So, tell me again what I need to apologize for?

Good to know you are still trying to get my goat by skipping the outlandish comments by geomann1 to personally attack me.

3.2k · June 30, 2007

Still at it, I see.

Not that I think your brother needs defending or can't take care of himself, but if you would read the complete quote in your post geomann1 insinuates your brother would rummage "through the woods forever pretending to look for a cache they all have found already." That is what I was taking exception to. You probably would too if you read it.

Additionally, I stand by my statement that geomann1 couldn't have possibly really believed that's what Mushtang meant. So, tell me again what I need to apologize for?

That’s not what you said.

Here is what you said:

Now I'm getting the impression that you only post in an attempt to get someone's goat. You can't possibly believe what you just posted. I'll just roll my eyes at this latest sorry attempt and move on.

So which of them were you referring to when you said "you?" Which one were you trying to paint as a troll – Mushtang, or geomann1? Either way, I believe you owe at least one of them an apology.

(And I’m still waiting for mine, from the recent occasion when you made the very same accusation against me.)

To this day I've never clicked the Report button on anyone, and I haven't done it here (I prefer to discuss things directly instead of tattling anonymously), but to question someone's integrity -- and their very honor -- by challenging whether they believe their own words is, in my opinion, the very worst kind of personal attack. If I were a moderator I wouldn't tolerate it.

The fact that you quickly abandon academic debate in favor of this type of thinly veiled name-calling leads me to question either

Your ability to detect actual trolls (geomann1 is not a troll, and neither am I),
-or-
Your ability to follow the most basic advice when dealing with trolls, which is to ignore them.

In other words:

Why do you see the need to question whether a person believes in his own opinions just because he disagrees with you? Why not simply debate the merits of the debater's argument? Why must you insult the debater personally by challenging his sincerity?
-or-
If you really think you are arguing with an actual troll, then why continue? What's the point?

7.2k · June 30, 2007

That’s not what you said.

:laughing:

Here we go again.

How about you just stick to the topic and refrain from the "you said" twisting non-sense. It's tired and old.

3.2k · July 1, 2007

That’s not what you said.

Here we go again.

How about you just stick to the topic and refrain from the "you said" twisting non-sense. It's tired and old.

Which of them were you referring to? Is it a difficult question?

8k · July 1, 2007

That’s not what you said.

Here we go again.

How about you just stick to the topic and refrain from the "you said" twisting non-sense. It's tired and old.

Which of them were you referring to? Is it a difficult question?

Them good 'ol boys are at it agin :laughing:

1.1k · July 1, 2007

There are many thoughtful and reasonable posts on this subject, but there is still a question that I haven't seen asked or answered. If a cache hider doesn't care and never checks the log after placing it in a cache, why bother to place one in the cache in the first place? If I go to the trouble to dig the log out with a pair of tweezers, find a dry place to write, and provide my own pen to sign with, the hider should at least give a rat's patoot that I responded to his placing of the log there.

I care if you saw a racoon do a backflip while you were walking to the cache.

I care if my cache is the coolest cache container you've ever seen.

I care if you had a blast finding the cache.

I care if you think the cache page should mention the hoard of angry mimes that you have to pass on the way to GZ.

I definitely don't give a rat's patoot to see that you wrote your name and "TNLNTFTC"

for me, sign it if you have something interesting to share. don't waste my paper if you are going to write "#14 of 34 for today TNLN"

:shrug:

3.2k · July 1, 2007

Them good 'ol boys are at it agin

I get to be the banjo player! I call banjo!

July 1, 2007

It's not about the numers. It is about the fun of caching.

2k · July 1, 2007

if you dont sign the log, you didnt find it. I need proof. If you forgot your pen. oooops, you'll have to come back

Another misconception in this topic and many others is: Signing the log is what constitutes a cache find. Physically finding the container is what constitutes a cache find. Singing the log is merely a method of verifying that someone found a cache.

I think the misconception is yours.

So you're saying I can't claim this cache? The owner is MIA, and I ain't putting my hand in there.

Suppose I didn't have my camera?

(edit to say: I really found it like this!)

I would have let it dry a bit and then signed it or just done my best. Ive found a couple soaked logs, but I eventually signed them all.

July 1, 2007

There are many thoughtful and reasonable posts on this subject, but there is still a question that I haven't seen asked or answered. If a cache hider doesn't care and never checks the log after placing it in a cache, why bother to place one in the cache in the first place? If I go to the trouble to dig the log out with a pair of tweezers, find a dry place to write, and provide my own pen to sign with, the hider should at least give a rat's patoot that I responded to his placing of the log there.

I care if you saw a racoon do a backflip while you were walking to the cache.

I care if my cache is the coolest cache container you've ever seen.

I care if you had a blast finding the cache.

I care if you think the cache page should mention the hoard of angry mimes that you have to pass on the way to GZ.

I definitely don't give a rat's patoot to see that you wrote your name and "TNLNTFTC"

for me, sign it if you have something interesting to share. don't waste my paper if you are going to write "#14 of 34 for today TNLN"

:shrug:

That is my opinion exactly, the rule says "talk about it", which I interpret as creating a record of peoples experience finding the cache, which I as a cache owner I would love to hear about. Somehow in some peoples minds the log has become twisted into a means proving that we are not cheaters. That is why I view making my mark or placing a scrap of paper in the log that can't be signed or is absent, as a pointless exercise. Signing my name is a micro log is not "talking about it" (although in all but 3 types I have signed the micro logs), I view the whole issue as inconsequential. As another poster noted, many logbooks will never get read, which is why I place primacy in relating my experiences and thanking the owner on the on-line log.

3.9k · July 1, 2007

I view making my mark or placing a scrap of paper in the log that can't be signed or is absent, as a pointless exercise. Signing my name is a micro log is not "talking about it"

If signing your name is a pointless exercise, how do you feel about actually opening the cache? I mean, if you Found the cache and it's in your hands, you can still talk about it online.

For that matter, why even pick it up. Once you see it, you can still talk about it. Right? So just look around for it and once you spot the hiding place you're good to go.

Actually, I guess there's no reason to even see the cache. If you're not going to pick it up, or open it, or sign the log, why even bother putting your eyes on it? I think you should be able to find the place you think it's hidden in and then talk about it.

You could probably even talk about it without going so far as to get out of your car. Why take the hike, or lift the lamp post skirt, or look under the bushes, etc. These require you to leave the nice cool air conditioned car. Perhaps you could just drive up to where you'd need to get out of your car if you were going to sign the log, and then turn around and go back home.

Now that I really think about it, with gas prices so high, and signing being so pointless of an exercise, there's really no good reason to drive all the way out there. I say, since we're playing the game just so we can talk about caches, a lot of information is on the cache page itself, and that should give us enough to talk about.

I wish these cache owners would stop being so self righteous and give up the "little man syndrome" about their power, and cut us some slack!

July 1, 2007

I view making my mark or placing a scrap of paper in the log that can't be signed or is absent, as a pointless exercise. Signing my name is a micro log is not "talking about it"

If signing your name is a pointless exercise, how do you feel about actually opening the cache? I mean, if you Found the cache and it's in your hands, you can still talk about it online.

For that matter, why even pick it up. Once you see it, you can still talk about it. Right? So just look around for it and once you spot the hiding place you're good to go.

Actually, I guess there's no reason to even see the cache. If you're not going to pick it up, or open it, or sign the log, why even bother putting your eyes on it? I think you should be able to find the place you think it's hidden in and then talk about it.

You could probably even talk about it without going so far as to get out of your car. Why take the hike, or lift the lamp post skirt, or look under the bushes, etc. These require you to leave the nice cool air conditioned car. Perhaps you could just drive up to where you'd need to get out of your car if you were going to sign the log, and then turn around and go back home.

Now that I really think about it, with gas prices so high, and signing being so pointless of an exercise, there's really no good reason to drive all the way out there. I say, since we're playing the game just so we can talk about caches, a lot of information is on the cache page itself, and that should give us enough to talk about.

I wish these cache owners would stop being so self righteous and give up the "little man syndrome" about their power, and cut us some slack!

My original position was that there are a few RARE instances in which a log cannot or should not be signed and that inasmuch as the cache was still actually found, it is still legitimate to log it as a find, and that is wrong to acuse someone who participates in the game/sport in good will by different personal rules as a being "cheater". That is still my position. Again I sign virtually all logs as a courtesy to the owner. Poking a hole is mushy log to PROVE that I was there is still a pointless excerise to me.

By my personal rules, if I FIND the cache and open it, it is a FIND to me and I will log it as such, irrespective of whether the logbook, sheet, or mush-ball is signed. This talk about claiming logs from the car is silliness. I respect that others play by insisting that they must sign the log. All I can say, is that I don't try to tell anyone else how to do anthing, and I would hope others would adopt the same attitude in geocaching and life in general.

July 1, 2007

We have a thing up here in Maine or should I say had a thing up here in Maine as I just recently moved to SC. If we went caching in a group and it happened alot especially after events and such that when we find the cache the finders says "I'm Sitting" and then proceeds to sit until all the others in the group have been able to find it and say they are "sitting". After all are sitting then all proced to the cache to exchange trinkets and sign the log book. It's kind of fun that way as well. If a particular cacher is having a hard time finding it and they want some help then the old"your getting cold or getting hot" commands will usually put them on the cache. Just making it fun is what counts in my book.

8.9k · July 1, 2007

Yes...many reasons why a log can't be signed! I think this has been discussed a few times, I'll not go into my "handicap" so to speak (mine is more an occasional problem, but it is debilitating for many). Not everyone can do the simple signing of a log, hey some even have troubles OPENING some of those caches (nanos come to mind right off).

Not everything is black and white, there are grey areas! If you find that someone didn't sign the log, how about verifying some info about the hide with the cacher before jumping to conclusions and deleting a find! It won't be a surprise to anyone reading MY online logs as I'll TELL you if I didn't sign the log and why! Question the find? I can describe it for you usually in great detail (sometimes I do forget which is which when on a numbers run, but that's a memory problem stemming from a car/bicycle accident...I lost).

And don't think that I'll be carrying my big bucks camera in the woods just to verify I was holding a cache, so that's not always an option!

July 1, 2007

Yes...many reasons why a log can't be signed! I think this has been discussed a few times, I'll not go into my "handicap" so to speak (mine is more an occasional problem, but it is debilitating for many). Not everyone can do the simple signing of a log, hey some even have troubles OPENING some of those caches (nanos come to mind right off).

Not everything is black and white, there are grey areas! If you find that someone didn't sign the log, how about verifying some info about the hide with the cacher before jumping to conclusions and deleting a find! It won't be a surprise to anyone reading MY online logs as I'll TELL you if I didn't sign the log and why! Question the find? I can describe it for you usually in great detail (sometimes I do forget which is which when on a numbers run, but that's a memory problem stemming from a car/bicycle accident...I lost).

And don't think that I'll be carrying my big bucks camera in the woods just to verify I was holding a cache, so that's not always an option!

That summarizes my position very closely. In two of the instances where I did not sign the log, I had openned the container but felt it was best to walk away because high muggle interest in me and thus the danger that my continued presence would give away the location. Returning later to sign to me would be silly as I would rather start a new adventure. In the other, I found the distinctive container which contained no log and reported the situation to the owner. If that makes me a cheater in some eyes, so be it.

What appears to be the case is that some people define right or wrong in terms of their personal behaviour, so that they are therefore always right (in their eyes) and anyone who disagrees must be wrong. I totally agree that there are gray areas and we should just accept that and go out and have some fun.

7.2k · July 1, 2007

In two of the instances where I did not sign the log, I had openned the container but felt it was best to walk away because high muggle interest in me and thus the danger that my continued presence would give away the location.

I'm having a hard time picturing situations like this.

You were standing at GZ with the cache open and muggles were so closely observing you that you were forced to replace the cache--again, I assume under heavy muggle observation--without signing the log? I take it you replaced the cache under heavy muggle observation--to protect the hide. Uh huh.

Haven't you ever heard of doing your trading and signing away from GZ for the simple and obvious idea of not giving away the hide? For someone who is supposedly in the know, I'm surprised this happened.

Can you give us some details on exactly how this took place? Again, like I said, I can't think of a situation where you had to do your signing and trading right at GZ in high muggle areas unless the owner designed it into the challenge.

1.1k · July 1, 2007

All I can say, is that I don't try to tell anyone else how to do anthing, and I would hope others would adopt the same attitude in geocaching and life in general.

The world would be a great place if everyone shared this view.

You bring up a good point though. I'd imagine the people who think "everyone must find caches exactly how I do, or they didn't find them" ...are the very same people who have similar views on imposing their views in life, religion, and politics over everyone else.

Probably not so much a geocaching issue as a general personality trait of some people.

3.9k · July 1, 2007

All I can say, is that I don't try to tell anyone else how to do anthing, and I would hope others would adopt the same attitude in geocaching and life in general.

I only asked how you felt about a few situations. If that upset you and made you feel that I was telling you how to cache, then perhaps you need to re-evaluate what you really think your position is on the subject.

Yes, my examples were extreme, but they were intended to be. I didn't think you'd actually agree with claiming a find from your car, but a lot of people think that as the same as you seeing the cache but not opening it. The only way that they know you'd opened it, if there is any doubt, is the logbook inside having your name on it.

Your attitude seems to be that you're doing the owner a favor by signing the log in the cases where it's convienent for you, but in cases where it's difficult (lots of muggles, soggy log) you shouldn't be expected to.

I'm sharing my opinion that this is not the way most cache owners I know would want you to "find" their caches.

8.9k · July 1, 2007

I own several caches...sign the log if you can, don't if you can't. I may have you verify if you state you didn't sign the log (or I don't see your name in the logbook). Since I trust just about everyone around here (cacher wise), I have no reason to doubt anyone has visited one of our hides. If they say they did but didn't, well, their loss!

July 1, 2007

I hardly ever sign a log.

I know--you hit it with your stamp (which, by the way, is pretty cool)

I don't plan on signing logs anymore myself.Muwahaha. Got the stamp waiting at home.

July 1, 2007

All I can say, is that I don't try to tell anyone else how to do anthing, and I would hope others would adopt the same attitude in geocaching and life in general.

I only asked how you felt about a few situations. If that upset you and made you feel that I was telling you how to cache, then perhaps you need to re-evaluate what you really think your position is on the subject.

Yes, my examples were extreme, but they were intended to be. I didn't think you'd actually agree with claiming a find from your car, but a lot of people think that as the same as you seeing the cache but not opening it. The only way that they know you'd opened it, if there is any doubt, is the logbook inside having your name on it.

Your attitude seems to be that you're doing the owner a favor by signing the log in the cases where it's convienent for you, but in cases where it's difficult (lots of muggles, soggy log) you shouldn't be expected to.

I'm sharing my opinion that this is not the way most cache owners I know would want you to "find" their caches.

I sign 99% of the time, which is an act of respect and courtesy to the owner. As a cache owner I appreciate the effort involved in coming up with what I like to think is a good cache, and feel that it is appropriate to thank others for their efforts.

I'm only saying that there are rare times when it is not practical.

Lets look at some of my very few did not logs.

Would you and the cache owners you know really get upset or take exception to someone claiming a find if that person retrieved a nano cache in a crowded location, openned it, but did not have tools to pull out jammed in log in bullet type container (left the darn Swiss Army knife at home), and decided to leave it because his presence was arousing suspicion and could reveal cache? Would you delete the log?

Would you and the cache owners you know really take exeception at someone logging as a find, one of your caches in which the container was found at its coordinates (after a mile or so hike), but was empty, and the finder reported the situation to you? I personally would send them a e-mail back thanking them; I would not delete their log (but that is just me).

These to me are gray area situations in which there are legitimate differences in opinion/approach to the sport by people of good will. Unfortunately there are a few people (and please I am not accusing you) who are so judgemental that any deviation from their personal interpretation of the "rules" is automatically equated with cheating.

8k · July 1, 2007

I care if you saw a racoon do a backflip while you were walking to the cache.

I care if my cache is the coolest cache container you've ever seen.

I care if you had a blast finding the cache.

I care if you think the cache page should mention the hoard of angry mimes that you have to pass on the way to GZ.

I definitely don't give a rat's patoot to see that you wrote your name and "TNLNTFTC"

for me, sign it if you have something interesting to share. don't waste my paper if you are going to write "#14 of 34 for today TNLN"

:shrug:

That is my opinion exactly, the rule says "talk about it", which I interpret as creating a record of peoples experience finding the cache, which I as a cache owner I would love to hear about. Somehow in some peoples minds the log has become twisted into a means proving that we are not cheaters. That is why I view making my mark or placing a scrap of paper in the log that can't be signed or is absent, as a pointless exercise. Signing my name is a micro log is not "talking about it" (although in all but 3 types I have signed the micro logs), I view the whole issue as inconsequential. As another poster noted, many logbooks will never get read, which is why I place primacy in relating my experiences and thanking the owner on the on-line log.

What rules say talk about it. The so-called rules - which are really only Dave Ulmer's instructions of what he intended people do when the found his first cache - ask you to write about in the [physical] logbook. There were no online logs and the so-called rules say nothing about online logging.

Geocaching.com has been successful in part because it has online logs. Yet there is still no requirement that anybody has to tell about anything in the online log or even make an online log. If you do make an online log you have several choice. You can tell about your experience in

a "found it" log which implies that you found the cache
a "couldn't find it log" which implies that you looked an couldn't find the cache
a "note" - in case your not sure which to use
a "needs maintenance" if you found something that indicates a cache needs to be maintained by the owner. You might also log a "found it" if you found the cache as well
a "needs archive" if the cache is clearly in violation of the guidelines (including the guideline for a cache owner to maintain their cache). This will inform a reviewer who will investigate and determine if the cache should be archived.

It seems to me if you didn't find the cache you could tell about the raccoon doing a backflip in a "couldn't find it" or "note". Just because you had fun or something interesting happened doesn't mean you found the cache.

If a cache owner wants to insist that you signed the log or offer some proof that you found their cache instead of just taking your word for it, they are within their rights under the guidelines that gives cache owners the right to delete bogus logs.

The example has been given of not signing a log on a cache because there are muggles around and picking up the cache to sign the log would compromise the hiding place. Some cache owners may appreciate that you "protected" their cache an allow you to claim a find. However, other cache owners may have hidden the cache in an area with lots of muggles as a challenge to cachers to either use stealth or come back at different hours in order to sign the cache. If you don't sign the cache here, you have not met the requirements of the cache owner. We could debate whether or not the cache owner needs to state this requirement or not. I have seen cache in muggle areas that have clearly stated on the cache page that the log must be signed. But an argument can be made that signing the log or being able to prove that you found the cache (and in the case of a cache that is hard to retrieve because of muggles or any other challenging situation - that you had the cache in hand) is always a requirement whether or not a cache owner chooses to enforce it.

July 1, 2007

What rules say talk about it. The so-called rules - which are really only Dave Ulmer's instructions of what he intended people do when the found his first cache - ask you to write about in the [physical] logbook. There were no online logs and the so-called rules say nothing about online logging.

Geocaching.com has been successful in part because it has online logs. Yet there is still no requirement that anybody has to tell about anything in the online log or even make an online log. If you do make an online log you have several choice. You can tell about your experience in

a "found it" log which implies that you found the cache
a "couldn't find it log" which implies that you looked an couldn't find the cache
a "note" - in case your not sure which to use
a "needs maintenance" if you found something that indicates a cache needs to be maintained by the owner. You might also log a "found it" if you found the cache as well
a "needs archive" if the cache is clearly in violation of the guidelines (including the guideline for a cache owner to maintain their cache). This will inform a reviewer who will investigate and determine if the cache should be archived.

It seems to me if you didn't find the cache you could tell about the raccoon doing a backflip in a "couldn't find it" or "note". Just because you had fun or something interesting happened doesn't mean you found the cache.

If a cache owner wants to insist that you signed the log or offer some proof that you found their cache instead of just taking your word for it, they are within their rights under the guidelines that gives cache owners the right to delete bogus logs.

The example has been given of not signing a log on a cache because there are muggles around and picking up the cache to sign the log would compromise the hiding place. Some cache owners may appreciate that you "protected" their cache an allow you to claim a find. However, other cache owners may have hidden the cache in an area with lots of muggles as a challenge to cachers to either use stealth or come back at different hours in order to sign the cache. If you don't sign the cache here, you have not met the requirements of the cache owner. We could debate whether or not the cache owner needs to state this requirement or not. I have seen cache in muggle areas that have clearly stated on the cache page that the log must be signed. But an argument can be made that signing the log or being able to prove that you found the cache (and in the case of a cache that is hard to retrieve because of muggles or any other challenging situation - that you had the cache in hand) is always a requirement whether or not a cache owner chooses to enforce it.

I don't really have a problem with what you are saying in the sense that anyone should be able to prove they found a cache, which could just be providing a description. I have much more of a problem with an owner questioning people, because that is just bad manners.

I also have no problem with owners specifying conditions or requirements for their caches. There are a couple or so near me, for which the owner requires permission to log a find. That is their right and it is my right to just ignore these as a matter of principle. But I would argue strongly that there is no inherent requirement to sign the log, although I believe that people should as a courtesy to the owner.

I also agree that if signing a log is critical to an owner than it is easy enough to say so in the log. In fact for one of my caches I stated that because I placed a decoy in the area. Mind you, I will take people's word for it, trusting soul that I am.

Best wishes

July 1, 2007

There are a couple or so near me, for which the owner requires permission to log a find.

Wow! That's ... all I can think of to say about that.

3.9k · July 1, 2007

Would you and the cache owners you know really get upset or take exception to someone claiming a find if that person retrieved a nano cache in a crowded location, openned it, but did not have tools to pull out jammed in log in bullet type container (left the darn Swiss Army knife at home), and decided to leave it because his presence was arousing suspicion and could reveal cache? Would you delete the log?

Yes, I would delete it. If I hid a cache in a muggle rich area, where one of the challanges was to get it signed without being spotted, and you didn't want to get spotted but claimed a find anyway, I'd remove your find and invite you to either try again, or to ignore it.

It's the same with any other challenge. If I hid a cache on the side of a cliff so you'd have to climb to get to it, but you didn't want to climb and decided to log a find anyway, what would you expect to happen?

Would you and the cache owners you know really take exeception at someone logging as a find, one of your caches in which the container was found at its coordinates (after a mile or so hike), but was empty, and the finder reported the situation to you?

I have a HUGE problem with people logging finds on caches that are no longer there, regardless if it's a long hike or not. Not big enough of a problem to advocate any rules added to avoid it, but I have been known to point it out to people that this is what they've done. If they don't want to change their logs then I don't really care any further, I just think it's lame.

So you've logged a Find on an empty container? What about the guy behind you that went looking for it? If there was a DNF on a LPC I might take a peek anyway, but if I'm going to hike a long ways to get one and there's a DNF I'd have reason to think twice.

I'm just saying, logging a Find when you really didn't find the cache (or in your example finding the remains of the cache container) is just as bad as claiming a Find on a cache that you couldn't be bothered to complete the challenge on.

July 1, 2007

Would you and the cache owners you know really get upset or take exception to someone claiming a find if that person retrieved a nano cache in a crowded location, openned it, but did not have tools to pull out jammed in log in bullet type container (left the darn Swiss Army knife at home), and decided to leave it because his presence was arousing suspicion and could reveal cache? Would you delete the log?

Yes, I would delete it. If I hid a cache in a muggle rich area, where one of the challanges was to get it signed without being spotted, and you didn't want to get spotted but claimed a find anyway, I'd remove your find and invite you to either try again, or to ignore it.

It's the same with any other challenge. If I hid a cache on the side of a cliff so you'd have to climb to get to it, but you didn't want to climb and decided to log a find anyway, what would you expect to happen?

Would you and the cache owners you know really take exeception at someone logging as a find, one of your caches in which the container was found at its coordinates (after a mile or so hike), but was empty, and the finder reported the situation to you?

I have a HUGE problem with people logging finds on caches that are no longer there, regardless if it's a long hike or not. Not big enough of a problem to advocate any rules added to avoid it, but I have been known to point it out to people that this is what they've done. If they don't want to change their logs then I don't really care any further, I just think it's lame.

So you've logged a Find on an empty container? What about the guy behind you that went looking for it? If there was a DNF on a LPC I might take a peek anyway, but if I'm going to hike a long ways to get one and there's a DNF I'd have reason to think twice.

I'm just saying, logging a Find when you really didn't find the cache (or in your example finding the remains of the cache container) is just as bad as claiming a Find on a cache that you couldn't be bothered to complete the challenge on.

The empty cache was logged on line, the exact online log entry was follows:

"Was not sure if we found cache until I got home and looked at the pictures. Son Craig did indeed find cache container, but as it was empty, we were not sure if it was the cache, or something that fell out of the cache that may have been muggled. I was concerned about the latter because there had been only 1 find since posted.

We really enjoyed our trip to the Naples Botanical Gardens and will return in the Fall when it is cooler. There was a dinosaur exhibit which the kids enjoyed. Only problem was that the gardens was closing earlier because of a wedding.

The Naples Botanical Gardens is a great location for a cache and is well worth a visit. Hopefully, someone can do some maintenance (bring a log and new plastic bag)."

So I'm not sure what your HUGE problem would be. In the same circumstances, I would do the same.

Mustang and CR we obviously have different outlooks on caching and life, I tend to be more of a live and let person, you both value rules and order more, and we will never come to an agreement on this issue. To maintain harmony, if I were to find one of your caches, I will sign the logbook if I choose to log it on line, and should you come upon one of my caches, please feel free to do whatever you want, but please replace it as you found it and try to maintain its cover.

7.2k · July 1, 2007

I just hope I don't have to explain to anyone why I won't allow an unearned find to stand and they spout off, "but geomann1 let me log his!"

July 1, 2007

I just hope I don't have to explain to anyone why I won't allow an unearned find to stand and they spout off, "but geomann1 let me log his!"

The first step towards geocaching anarchy

7.2k · July 1, 2007

I just hope I don't have to explain to anyone why I won't allow an unearned find to stand and they spout off, "but geomann1 let me log his!"
The first step towards geocaching anarchy

It must be nice to not have standards in one's life.

July 1, 2007

I just hope I don't have to explain to anyone why I won't allow an unearned find to stand and they spout off, "but geomann1 let me log his!"
The first step towards geocaching anarchy

It must be nice to not have standards in one's life.

I have very high standards for the things that really matter to me.

The key to happiness is being able to differentiate between what is and is not important.

As someone said "don't sweat the small stuff".

July 1, 2007

July 1, 2007

As someone said "don't sweat the small stuff".

This guy

2.5k · July 1, 2007

Some kids don't play well with others.

BTW, I am also in the 'there it is' camp.

Me too, unless it is a particularly tricky hide that I think whoever I'm caching with would enjoy the "A-ha!" If it's another can behind a stump, "There it is!"

14.3k · July 1, 2007

Some kids don't play well with others.

BTW, I am also in the 'there it is' camp.

Me too, unless it is a particularly tricky hide that I think whoever I'm caching with would enjoy the "A-ha!" If it's another can behind a stump, "There it is!"

We do the same thing. If I'm with newbies or my kids, I'll pretend like I haven't spotted it. Some folks I cache with even yell out "Huckle Buckle Beanstock" to let everyone know that they've spotted the cache...

Signed log..

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment