A matter of honor?

[+Kit Fox]

I've read several posts from people on other threads who say would sign the log regardless of the presence of muggles and the safety of the cache, which I strongly disagree with.

So, I suppose it's either one extreme or the other, as if those were your only choices. It's not a choice of the lesser of two evils. It's amazing plenty will take that third option and forgo the smilie for the sake propriety.

Huh?

 

Are you saying that if someone doesn't believe that they can log the cache without giving it away, that they should go ahead and log it anyway?

Yes, please, if someone goes to my cache, sees that it's likely to be under that pile o' sticks but can't retrieve it without the nearby group of picnickers over yonder seeing him retrieve the cache, then by all means log the thing and move on without giving it away!

Clearly, I worded my question poorly. Here's a better translation of my thoughts:

 

Are you saying that if someone doesn't believe that they can log the cache without giving it away, that they should go ahead and sign the log anyway, thereby exposing the cache?

[sarcasm]

 

Sure!

 

Considering that a good number of these "high visibility / high muggle" caches are nothing more than a 35mm canister hidden underneath a lamppost, why not "ignore the muggles?

[/sarcasm]

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Sure!

 

Considering that a good number of these "high visibility / high muggle" caches are nothing more than a 35mm canister hidden underneath a lamppost, why not "ignore the muggles?

[/sarcasm]

I happen to agree with you 100%. The few times that I do hunt lame urban micros, I almost never bother with stealth, because, frankly, the hide is not worth it and the owner likely does not care anyway (else they would not have emplaced it as they did), and rather, I simply go about my business, retrieve the cache (that is, when I can find it; I am really bad at finding LUMs rated 1.5/1.5 and lower!!!) and sign the log; I seem to recall that Briansnat wrote much the same thing about hunting LUMs about 10 months ago.

[+Renegade Knight]

...[sarcasm]

 

Sure!

 

Considering that a good number of these "high visibility / high muggle" caches are nothing more than a 35mm canister hidden underneath a lamppost, why not "ignore the muggles?

[/sarcasm]

 

Sometimes I've done that. The way I see it, if they hid the stupid thing in the middle of the muggle mothership then I'm not really under an obligation to be stealthy since that would draw more attention than just finding the cache.

 

Any more thought I just bypass them.

[+TrailGators]

We had an interesting log online for one of our cache hides. It basically said, "We found the cache but couldn't retrieve due to muggles so we didn't sign the log." With that they claimed a find for our cache without actually logging it in the container. What would you do?

I just had the same thing happen to me. I emailed the guy and told him to please change his log to a note or DNF (I don't care which). The guy was nice about it and went back and signed it.

[+jtbrady01]

I'll toss out another option here that happened to me on one of my lunch outings. I happened to have left my pen on someone's desk and didn't realize it until I got out to the cache site. The cache was one that was completely unique. I took a photo of it with my GPS unit and emailed the cache owner and asked if I could claim it as a cache and told him of the situation. He approved it. I think we do need to look at all the situations. If the individual can prove finding the cache can't he or she claim it?

[+sbell111]

I've read several posts from people on other threads who say would sign the log regardless of the presence of muggles and the safety of the cache, which I strongly disagree with.

So, I suppose it's either one extreme or the other, as if those were your only choices. It's not a choice of the lesser of two evils. It's amazing plenty will take that third option and forgo the smilie for the sake of propriety.

Huh?

 

Are you saying that if someone doesn't believe that they can log the cache without giving it away, that they should go ahead and log it sign the log anyway, thereby exposing the cache?

 

<edited to clear up confusion>

...but not your own, obviously.

 

Added something for clarity.

Typical. Post a snarky bit instead of answering the question.

[+sbell111]

Sure!

 

Considering that a good number of these "high visibility / high muggle" caches are nothing more than a 35mm canister hidden underneath a lamppost, why not "ignore the muggles?

[/sarcasm]

I happen to agree with you 100%. The few times that I do hunt lame urban micros, I almost never bother with stealth, because, frankly, the hide is not worth it and the owner likely does not care anyway (else they would not have emplaced it as they did), and rather, I simply go about my business, retrieve the cache (that is, when I can find it; I am really bad at finding LUMs rated 1.5/1.5 and lower!!!) and sign the log; I seem to recall that Briansnat wrote much the same thing about hunting LUMs about 10 months ago.

At the time, I'm sure that I likely pointed out how rude that was. If the cache displeases you so much, walk away. Don't ruin it for those cachers that would enjoy it.

Edited July 25, 2007 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

I've read several posts from people on other threads who say would sign the log regardless of the presence of muggles and the safety of the cache, which I strongly disagree with.

So, I suppose it's either one extreme or the other, as if those were your only choices. It's not a choice of the lesser of two evils. It's amazing plenty will take that third option and forgo the smilie for the sake of propriety.

Huh?

 

Are you saying that if someone doesn't believe that they can log the cache without giving it away, that they should go ahead and log it sign the log anyway, thereby exposing the cache?

 

<edited to clear up confusion>

...but not your own, obviously.

 

Added something for clarity.

Typical. Post a snarky bit instead of answering the question.

Yeah, well, why not? You obviously didn't bother to read just three sentences.

 

Are you deliberately "mis-understanding" in order to be argumentative? Or are you trying to make it sound like something it doesn't say?

[+sbell111]

I've read several posts from people on other threads who say would sign the log regardless of the presence of muggles and the safety of the cache, which I strongly disagree with.

So, I suppose it's either one extreme or the other, as if those were your only choices. It's not a choice of the lesser of two evils. It's amazing plenty will take that third option and forgo the smilie for the sake of propriety.

Huh?

 

Are you saying that if someone doesn't believe that they can log the cache without giving it away, that they should go ahead and log it sign the log anyway, thereby exposing the cache?

 

<edited to clear up confusion>

...but not your own, obviously.

 

Added something for clarity.

Typical. Post a snarky bit instead of answering the question.

Yeah, well, why not? You obviously didn't bother to read just three sentences.

 

Are you deliberately "mis-understanding" in order to be argumentative? Or are you trying to make it sound like something it doesn't say?

I was simply making sure that you were implying what I thought you were. To tell you the truth, I assumed that you would have more respect for your local cachers. I guess not.

 

(I might add that this behavior violates no less than four sections of your creed.)

Edited July 25, 2007 by sbell111

[+StarBrand]

Unless I badly misunderstand CR - clearly (to me) the 3rd choice CR refers to is to walk away without logging it (online or in person).

 

NOT - go ahead and comprimise the cache.

 

 

Sheesh sbell - you just wanting to argue today???

[+sbell111]

Unless I badly misunderstand CR - clearly (to me) the 3rd choice CR refers to is to walk away without logging it (online or in person).

 

NOT - go ahead and comprimise the cache.

 

 

Sheesh sbell - you just wanting to argue today???

No. His post isn't clear, so I asked him for clarification. He still hasn't bothered to make it clear. Instead, he's being argumentative.

 

If he believes that one should walk away and not expose the cache, all he had to do was say so. Of course, then we would be in agreement and CR hates it when that happens.

 

<edited to add that upon reread of this thread, I caught an earlier post by CR that does suggest that his 'third option' was to walk away, meaning that we are in agreement on that issue. I still have no idea why he decided to be as snarky as he was in his last two posts, however.>

Edited July 26, 2007 by sbell111

[+geomann1]

Unless I badly misunderstand CR - clearly (to me) the 3rd choice CR refers to is to walk away without logging it (online or in person).

 

NOT - go ahead and comprimise the cache.

 

 

Sheesh sbell - you just wanting to argue today???

No. His post isn't clear, so I asked him for clarification. He still hasn't bothered to make it clear. Instead, he's being argumentative.

 

If he believes that one should walk away and not expose the cache, all he had to do was say so. Of course, then we would be in agreement and CR hates it when that happens.

 

<edited to add that upon reread of this thread, I caught an earlier post by CR that does suggest that his 'third option' was to walk away, meaning that we are in agreement on that issue. I still have no idea why he decided to be as snarky as he was in his last two posts, however.>

 

This is all confusing me.

 

From this and similar threads my opinions/conclusions have evolved to:

 

1) It is good to sign the logs because it is very important to some people, and to do otherwise is impolite because it simply is not nice to get other people all in a lather over something trivial. Even though I don't understand the attitude (as I feel it is just a game), I am willing to make the minor effort to make them happy.

 

2) If you sign a log, one should express genuine thanks and follow the guideline of talking about it. "3 of 12 today TNLN" is bad manners.

 

3) I seem to care more about some people's caches then the owner does, because no matter how lame, I will not compromise someone else's cache because it is simply not a nice thing to do.

 

4) I really don't care about smiley's. I don't feel bad walking away from a cache that I just don't enjoy looking for.

 

5) I get really uncomfortable about people citing "community standards" in any aspect of life.

 

Again to each his own.

[+Glenn]

To verify that you found the cache you must physically log the cache otherwise there is no proof.

<snip>

... then it may be reasonable to use a 'found it' log online to indicate you found something you believe to be the cache even though you didn't sign the log.

Earlier this week I got curious and used Geocaching.com Google Map to see what caches are now near places that I have lived or vacationed. I suppose you could say that using Google Maps I found a bunch of caches. I better get logging!

[+TrailGators]

...[sarcasm]

 

Sure!

 

Considering that a good number of these "high visibility / high muggle" caches are nothing more than a 35mm canister hidden underneath a lamppost, why not "ignore the muggles?

[/sarcasm]

Sometimes I've done that. The way I see it, if they hid the stupid thing in the middle of the muggle mothership then I'm not really under an obligation to be stealthy since that would draw more attention than just finding the cache.

This is true, but I don't even bother with them anymore.

[+Hose502]

From what I have seen, it comes down to this:

 

Cachers are going to log how they think it should be. To some it will be right, to some it will be wrong. Most cachers do it in good faith, a few may not.

 

Cache owners are going to monitor the logs how they think it should be. To some it will be right, to some it will be wrong. Most cache owners do it in good faith, a few may not.

 

Differences in opinion is what causes conflict and this is usually because the cacher's log overlaps with the cache owner's log. For the cacher: keep you own separate log and then deletes don't have any impact on you. Cache owner always has final say even if you don't agree with it but you have to respect it for better or worse. No matter what: be polite when interacting with fellow cachers, have fun, and don't get upset at a disagreement on something.

[+briansnat]

Sure!

 

Considering that a good number of these "high visibility / high muggle" caches are nothing more than a 35mm canister hidden underneath a lamppost, why not "ignore the muggles?

[/sarcasm]

I happen to agree with you 100%. The few times that I do hunt lame urban micros, I almost never bother with stealth, because, frankly, the hide is not worth it and the owner likely does not care anyway (else they would not have emplaced it as they did), and rather, I simply go about my business, retrieve the cache (that is, when I can find it; I am really bad at finding LUMs rated 1.5/1.5 and lower!!!) and sign the log; I seem to recall that Briansnat wrote much the same thing about hunting LUMs about 10 months ago.

 

Yep. If the owner doesn't care about searchers being exposed to observation, I don't either.

 

I just walk up, grab the cache, sign and leave. I bet in the long run my method is better for the survivability of the cache as I probably attract a lot less attention than someone milling about the area furtively glancing over his shoulder to see who is watching

[+Sileny Jizda]

Ive read over everyone's comments and took careful consideration as to what to do about the situation. Had the roles been reversed and standard opinions as to what is and is not a find I wouldn't be upset myself if I learned something from it. As such, I took the advice of using the email approach and removing the log itself. I also offered any help and potential teaming up in the future to share our experience and knowledge with them since they are new. Unfortunately, we followed up on another log that said the cache was chipped only to find it was actually a big chunk that we need to repair.

 

LPC's aside this one, while near a parking lot (garden area), and at the public library is different than most LPC's we've found. The container is much larger than a film canister and rivals that of most similar sized lock n locks. It's a gator aid powder canister that looks like a small orange cooler. The hide itself is actually something that blends into the environment that it is placed and is well received by the library staff and regular patrons. We placed it with the intention for it to be easy but tricky with great care to be taken not to be seen in finding it. For that reason I appreciate them not actually giving up the cache to sign the log book. However, I do feel that overcoming the environmental obstacle's, whether it be the muggles or terrain on a 5/5 is part of the experience as well as signing the log. We put a great deal of time in the hide, the location, and the idea of the cache. To just dismiss it as a LPC or just hover over the hide and say we found it makes it no different than the ones that drop pill bottles with a paper in it or say they found a cache that wasn't there.

 

We could toss film canisters everywhere considering our county doesn't have many cache hides. However, we decided to hide no more than we can handle. To hide them in interesting places we like. And to try and make the name, container, and location as amusing as possible once all of them are added up. The Librarian was actually conceived out of the frustration we had in getting the cache Yes Sir General Putt Sir in Sugarcreek, OH. While we figured it out after the third try it eluded us due to the nature of the location and the hide with muggle traffic. We eventually overcame the obstacles and got the cache and signed the log after a rainy wait. Librarian was ment to offer the same difficulty while having a few opportune times in which to do the cache muggleless.

 

We do thank everyone for their suggestions. Particularly the email CR. We think that was the best route to take in resolving the matter. Again, thanks everyone for the help.

 

[CoyoteRed]

No. His post isn't clear, so I asked him for clarification.

Funny that everyone else understood it. You deliberately "mis-understood" it simply to argue.

 

I still have no idea why he decided to be as snarky as he was in his last two posts, however.>

I was simply responding in kind. You really wanted a serious answer to a silly question?

[+simpjkee]

DELETE

[+Rockin Roddy]

I'd have probably ASKED them to either delete or change the log themselves so as to be friendly and all, but I hope you were able to help a newb to learn about caching!

 

Those "Log deleted" messages are soooo unfriendly, especially to a newb!

[+tozainamboku]

To verify that you found the cache you must physically log the cache otherwise there is no proof.

<snip>

... then it may be reasonable to use a 'found it' log online to indicate you found something you believe to be the cache even though you didn't sign the log.

Earlier this week I got curious and used Geocaching.com Google Map to see what caches are now near places that I have lived or vacationed. I suppose you could say that using Google Maps I found a bunch of caches. I better get logging!

I don't see where I say that you should log finds for caches you "found" on Google Maps. I simply indicate that I believe it is reasonable for a cacher who found the cache and couldn't sign the log for some reason to still log a 'found it' online. The puritans who are insisting that finds be verifiable are playing a game where the online find count has a particular meaning. Other people are playing a game where an online found it log simply indicates their experience. They are reporting that they found the cache, whatever that means to them. Since the policing of the online logs is left to the cache owners and some owners are known for allowing 'found it' logs for almost any reason, the puritan point of view that you need to have a verifiable find to log 'found it' simply isn't reality. Many people will not log a cache unless they have signed the log. Others will log a find if the simply forgot a pencil and there wasn't one in the cache. Some will log a find becasue the saw the container and decided not to retrive it because muggle were around. And, yes, you might even have people log a cache because they found it on Google Maps. It is each cache owner's decision to decide whether to delete any of these logs.

[+Glenn]

To verify that you found the cache you must physically log the cache otherwise there is no proof.

<snip>

... then it may be reasonable to use a 'found it' log online to indicate you found something you believe to be the cache even though you didn't sign the log.

Earlier this week I got curious and used Geocaching.com Google Map to see what caches are now near places that I have lived or vacationed. I suppose you could say that using Google Maps I found a bunch of caches. I better get logging!

I don't see where I say that you should log finds for caches you "found" on Google Maps. I simply indicate that I believe it is reasonable for a cacher who found the cache and couldn't sign the log for some reason to still log a 'found it' online. The puritans who are insisting that finds be verifiable are playing a game where the online find count has a particular meaning. Other people are playing a game where an online found it log simply indicates their experience. They are reporting that they found the cache, whatever that means to them. Since the policing of the online logs is left to the cache owners and some owners are known for allowing 'found it' logs for almost any reason, the puritan point of view that you need to have a verifiable find to log 'found it' simply isn't reality. Many people will not log a cache unless they have signed the log. Others will log a find if the simply forgot a pencil and there wasn't one in the cache. Some will log a find becasue the saw the container and decided not to retrive it because muggle were around. And, yes, you might even have people log a cache because they found it on Google Maps. It is each cache owner's decision to decide whether to delete any of these logs.

 

I was simply adding the other extreme to the conversation. There are the didn't sign the log don't make an online log cachers, the armchair cachers, and every kind of cacher in between. I know someone who hasn't made a log online for over two years. I can understand why. The numbers don't matter to him and he isn't allowing those who angst over numbers anything to angst over. Well, almost nothing to angst over.

[+sbell111]

To verify that you found the cache you must physically log the cache otherwise there is no proof.

<snip>

... then it may be reasonable to use a 'found it' log online to indicate you found something you believe to be the cache even though you didn't sign the log.

Earlier this week I got curious and used Geocaching.com Google Map to see what caches are now near places that I have lived or vacationed. I suppose you could say that using Google Maps I found a bunch of caches. I better get logging!

I don't see where I say that you should log finds for caches you "found" on Google Maps. I simply indicate that I believe it is reasonable for a cacher who found the cache and couldn't sign the log for some reason to still log a 'found it' online. The puritans who are insisting that finds be verifiable are playing a game where the online find count has a particular meaning. Other people are playing a game where an online found it log simply indicates their experience. They are reporting that they found the cache, whatever that means to them. Since the policing of the online logs is left to the cache owners and some owners are known for allowing 'found it' logs for almost any reason, the puritan point of view that you need to have a verifiable find to log 'found it' simply isn't reality. Many people will not log a cache unless they have signed the log. Others will log a find if the simply forgot a pencil and there wasn't one in the cache. Some will log a find becasue the saw the container and decided not to retrive it because muggle were around. And, yes, you might even have people log a cache because they found it on Google Maps. It is each cache owner's decision to decide whether to delete any of these logs.

 

I was simply adding the other extreme to the conversation. There are the didn't sign the log don't make an online log cachers, the armchair cachers, and every kind of cacher in between. I know someone who hasn't made a log online for over two years. I can understand why. The numbers don't matter to him and he isn't allowing those who angst over numbers anything to angst over. Well, almost nothing to angst over.

Either way, whether a found log stands is determined by the cache owner.

[+geomann1]

 

I was simply adding the other extreme to the conversation. There are the didn't sign the log don't make an online log cachers, the armchair cachers, and every kind of cacher in between. I know someone who hasn't made a log online for over two years. I can understand why. The numbers don't matter to him and he isn't allowing those who angst over numbers anything to angst over. Well, almost nothing to angst over.

 

That is pretty much my strategy now, I keep my own "log" in a notebook, and log online only to thank owners for caches that I enjoyed.

[+sbell111]

I was simply adding the other extreme to the conversation. There are the didn't sign the log don't make an online log cachers, the armchair cachers, and every kind of cacher in between. I know someone who hasn't made a log online for over two years. I can understand why. The numbers don't matter to him and he isn't allowing those who angst over numbers anything to angst over. Well, almost nothing to angst over.

That is pretty much my strategy now, I keep my own "log" in a notebook, and log online only to thank owners for caches that I enjoyed.

That's what I do, except instead of using a notebook, I record all the caches on my PDA in Cache Log Book. (I also tend to like all caches, so I log them all online.)

[+bflentje]

It's really up to you as the owner. You set the tone for the way the cache is to be logged.

 

Personally I like my DNF stories like that....I would have written you a doozy.

 

Cybret is right. It's a game. Everyone plays it their own way. It's your cache, do whatever you want. Personally I wouldn't have claimed a find. Some of my best logs were DNF's. For us it's all about playing while for others they don't get the enjoyment without the smilie. It doesn't matter either way.

 

Although I did battle a snake which was coiled up next to a cache one time. But another time one drove me away

 

Reptiles= 1 OEnavigator= 1

 

The summer is not over yet!

 

At the end of the day, I don't care what people do either. But the notion that it is a game that anyone can do what they want is laughable. Monopoly is a game too. But last I checked, there was an instruction and rules manual. Probably a sad correlation.. but I tried.

[+Always & Forever 5]

At the end of the day, I don't care what people do either. But the notion that it is a game that anyone can do what they want is laughable. Monopoly is a game too. But last I checked, there was an instruction and rules manual. Probably a sad correlation.. but I tried.

 

Yes, it is a sad correlation. Monopoly is a game with clearly defined rules (not guidelines), and a determined winner at the conclusion. Two main elements that don't exist in Geocaching. That's the difference.

 

Just a few minutes ago I got a notification email that someone logged a find on one of my caches that they stated, "The logsheet was full and my pen was out of ink, so I didn't sign". Am I going to delete their find? Ummm, no. I don't really care if they actually found it or not. Their claim to a smiley didn't affect me one way or the other. And, just because they didn't sign the logsheet doesn't mean they didn't find it.

 

If we were playing Monopoly, and they didn't pass Go, I wouldn't pay them their $200. But this isn't Monopoly, is it?

[+edscott]

I had a novice cacher log a find on a cache of mine because he thought he saw it but couldn't get to it. (it's on an island and the water was high and cold) I asked him to make it a note and come back. He made the change, but never came back, even though it is a local cache for him.

[+J-Way]

Direct quote from the Groundspeak "Guidelines":

 

Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

Emphasis in the last paragraph added by me. This should be a case of 'nuf said, but it's probably not. Ultimately, it's up to the cache owner to establish what is required to claim a find. Some owners just don't care, which is a direct violation of the guidelines. Some allow a find just for spotting the container. Some require a physically signed log or other indisputable evidence (such as a privately emailed picture or verbal description) that you successfully retrieved the cache and found the log. Some require that, in addition to signing the log, the finder post a picture to the online log, or send an email containing the answer to specific questions.

 

Each geocacher plays the game differently. So, if you want to make it a requirement that someone physically sign the log before claiming a find on your cache, then you should add a clear statement to the description. Something like,

"You must physically sign the log before claiming a find. Online logs without a corresponding physical signature, mark, or other proof of find will be deleted and reported."

Edited July 26, 2007 by J-Way

[+FireRef]

In general, it seems people in our area play by the same consistent set of rules - which includes things like signing the log for finds.

 

I have had several offers from owners, when I reported what I found at the site (cache destroyed, unable to sign log for whatever reason, etc), that I could claim the find, and I have always taken it, if I felt that I had found the cache. There was one that I went to 4-5 times, and finally, with several hints, came up with the micro container. It was a very well done hide, but even with very good tweesers, it was impossible to get the log out of the container without destroying it completely. I posted a found it log, indicating what I had found. If the owner felt it necessary to delete the log, I have no problem with this, since I "technically" didn't find the log, but I had the cache in hand, and had a photo of it in my hand just in case he didn't believe me.

 

As for forgetting pens and things, I have found that a stick and a leaf makes a decent writeable/readable instrument for short things, like my name and date.

 

I have to say, after discussing several common forum topics with some of the local cachers, it appears, at least in my area, we have a very good group that plays by the commonly accepted rules. What those rules are could be very open to debate on here, but what the majority of people say they should do is what the people around here seem to do. We do have certain cachers with reputations - very good hides, very tricky hides, coordines which tend to be off, etc. But we have a lot of different caches in the area (urban micros, LPC's, Urban very good hides, ammo cans in the woods, good puzzles, etc) - a very nice selection with something for everyone, and everyone who plays in this area, which is a decent number, seems to be be on the same page, or pretty close.

Edited July 27, 2007 by FireRef

[+FireRef]

At the end of the day, I don't care what people do either. But the notion that it is a game that anyone can do what they want is laughable. Monopoly is a game too. But last I checked, there was an instruction and rules manual. Probably a sad correlation.. but I tried.

 

Yes, it is a sad correlation. Monopoly is a game with clearly defined rules (not guidelines), and a determined winner at the conclusion. Two main elements that don't exist in Geocaching. That's the difference.

 

Just a few minutes ago I got a notification email that someone logged a find on one of my caches that they stated, "The logsheet was full and my pen was out of ink, so I didn't sign". Am I going to delete their find? Ummm, no. I don't really care if they actually found it or not. Their claim to a smiley didn't affect me one way or the other. And, just because they didn't sign the logsheet doesn't mean they didn't find it.

 

If we were playing Monopoly, and they didn't pass Go, I wouldn't pay them their $200. But this isn't Monopoly, is it?

 

And even in Monopoly, different groups go by different rules - around here, most people put $500 in the center for free parking and collect all fines into that pot. That's not in the rules...

[+GPSTrucker]

I'm a newbie so my take on this probably doesn't mean much to most of you, but the first thing I did when I decided to start geocaching was to familiarize myself with the rules. It was my understanding that if one isn't able to physically sign the log or to provide the requested verification for a virtual, that it does not count as a find.

 

One of the first caches I hunted was in a very high muggle area and being brand new I did not want to compromise the cache just for the sake of being able to log a find. I was 99% sure of it's location but at the time it would have been impossible to retrieve without attracting attention. I walked away and logged it DNF, knowing that was the right way to play the game.

 

As far as I understand it, if you can't sign it you can't log it as a find.

[+SSMatik]

I'm a newbie so my take on this probably doesn't mean much to most of you, but the first thing I did when I decided to start geocaching was to familiarize myself with the rules. It was my understanding that if one isn't able to physically sign the log or to provide the requested verification for a virtual, that it does not count as a find.

 

One of the first caches I hunted was in a very high muggle area and being brand new I did not want to compromise the cache just for the sake of being able to log a find. I was 99% sure of it's location but at the time it would have been impossible to retrieve without attracting attention. I walked away and logged it DNF, knowing that was the right way to play the game.

 

As far as I understand it, if you can't sign it you can't log it as a find.

Newbie here also and I agree completely. I had a similar thing happen last weekend:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...f5-05563376e39a

I actually had my hand on the cache when the guy appeared. I couldn't in good conscious take the find. Even though I knew I would probably never come back to this one. (Over 900 miles from home) I just posted a note and moved on.

[+Kiwi Nomad]

I'm a newbie so my take on this probably doesn't mean much to most of you, but the first thing I did when I decided to start geocaching was to familiarize myself with the rules. It was my understanding that if one isn't able to physically sign the log or to provide the requested verification for a virtual, that it does not count as a find.

 

One of the first caches I hunted was in a very high muggle area and being brand new I did not want to compromise the cache just for the sake of being able to log a find. I was 99% sure of it's location but at the time it would have been impossible to retrieve without attracting attention. I walked away and logged it DNF, knowing that was the right way to play the game.

 

As far as I understand it, if you can't sign it you can't log it as a find.

 

I would guess that most of you would consider me a newbie as well considering I still havent even loged 100 finds yet. I agree with GPSTrucker I took the time to read up as much as I could before I started and was under the understanding that if you can't sign it you can't log it.

Was on holiday and could not find a cache ended up it had been muggled and I had been looking in the right place still did not count as a find.

With anything there are always exceptions like sending a photo of the cache with a snake sitting on it or the pen not working so left my signature item/geocoin/tb. Neither of these are because of muggles . A cache in a muggle rich area is a challenge because of the muggles there fore you have not completed the challenge if you have not at least retrived the cache.

 

Sure eveyone can play the game differently but how will a newbie know what the norm is if no one ever says hey your suppossed to sign the log before you get the smiley.

[+FireRef]

Direct quote from the Groundspeak "Guidelines":

 

Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

Emphasis in the last paragraph added by me. This should be a case of 'nuf said, but it's probably not. Ultimately, it's up to the cache owner to establish what is required to claim a find. Some owners just don't care, which is a direct violation of the guidelines. Some allow a find just for spotting the container. Some require a physically signed log or other indisputable evidence (such as a privately emailed picture or verbal description) that you successfully retrieved the cache and found the log. Some require that, in addition to signing the log, the finder post a picture to the online log, or send an email containing the answer to specific questions.

 

Each geocacher plays the game differently. So, if you want to make it a requirement that someone physically sign the log before claiming a find on your cache, then you should add a clear statement to the description. Something like,

"You must physically sign the log before claiming a find. Online logs without a corresponding physical signature, mark, or other proof of find will be deleted and reported."

 

I believe this particular issue is completely addressed by the basic, simplified rules of the game.

 

1) Leave Something

2) Take something

3) Sign the log

 

You can't get any more simple than that. As I said before, the only excuse I can see for not signing the log is that it is physically impossible - soaked, unable to get it out of the container (which you have retrieved from the hiding place), etc. I can't see why you would have to put a line on the cache page which says "Yes, I really do expect you to follow the rules" when the rules are pretty clearly stated. I agree with the exceptions listed above for unusual situations, as well - the snake, lack of a pen but left a clearly person signature item, etc. And I also agree with the "muggles around, can see the cache, but can't get to it" not counting as a find.

Edited July 27, 2007 by FireRef

[+Team Cotati]

If I was really that bothered by this, I'd ask the logger to edit their log entry and remove this line: "We found the cache but couldn't retrieve due to muggles so we didn't sign the log."

[+Team Cotati]

If I was really that bothered by this, I'd ask the logger to edit their log entry and remove this line: "We found the cache but couldn't retrieve due to muggles so we didn't sign the log."

[+Harry Dolphin]

And, so, to sum up two pages of argument: The Best Policy is to Lie?

Don't log: Found cache, but did not sign it because I felt uncomfortable with the strange people wandering about the woods. Instead log: Found it!

The first log would raise the hackles of many cache owners. The second would not. I will admit having asked the first logger to change the log to "DNF". On very rare occasions have I actually checked a log to see if that particular person signed his/her name. (In two cases, the person had. On the third, the cache was muggled before I could.)

[+geomann1]

And, so, to sum up two pages of argument: The Best Policy is to Lie?

 

The sad thing is that it comes down to that. As only a very small minority of cache owners are obsessive enough to want to or would bother to cross-check the log book versus on-line logged finds, the cacher in questions should have just logged "TFTC" and no one would ever have known or cared. But no, they had to be honest and tell the owner the full story, thinking that he/she would appreciate the fact that they acted to protect his/her cache. But instead we now have "a matter of honor" that must be dealt with it!

 

We must protect the integrity of the sport. What if everyone just went out and logged smilies? Just think what that would lead to. Hmmmmmm. A devaluation of the smiley? Anarchy on the streets? People abandoning the sport because they can't bear the thought of someone else having logged an improper smiley? Perhaps people might just continue on and not worry about what the other guy is doing and just have some fun?

[+Sileny Jizda]

I received a reply from the individual that was indeed most positive. They understood said they didn't know about logging it as a DNF or just posting a note. As such they said they would in the future should the situation arise again. A positive outcome to say the least.

 

I brought it up as a question of honor because I noticed one other incident with the logs and the written log book in the cache that didn't add up before this. I think of it as a question of honor because if one just lets everyone play the game as they see fit with no regards to the standards set forth then what is the point. Really. We've to date have 97 finds. Nothing large to brag about. However, we earned those finds and worked for them. If we were to take the mindset to just play as we see fit then what would stop us or anyone else for that matter from just logging a bunch of caches online without actually going to them.

 

For myself it is a matter of honor, honesty, and integrity. Every cache we log is a find we discovered. Sure we could split up and double our finds in a day but where is the integrity or fun in that? True you could play the way you want. I choose to do it honest. Otherwise, the game is nothing more than a farse.

[+wavector]

the standards

 

What standards are you talking about?

It isn't a matter of "honor", it is a matter of "owner".

The owner sets the standard for their cache, it is the only standard other than those imposed by this listing service.

 

The listing service has concerns but they do not extend to what might constitute a find on your cache, you can decide what standards you will apply to your caches.

A cache should always be logged as the owner intends, that is the only "standard" in geocaching.

 

You are attempting to dress up a pig in a poke, no matter how you phrase it it will remain a pig in a poke and your viewpoint just doesn't work for me. Every cache owner has different aims and every person logging a cache has different aims, geocaching strikes right at that balance. A cache owner might explicitly state that the log has to be signed, another may not even provide a dry logbook. Some seekers might be serious about numbers and some may not. A cache owner is going to see logs from every type of cacher. Personally I choose to focus on the affect of the log, that matters to me.

One of my multi-caches was logged as a find by a cacher that found the first stage but not the final cache. I reasoned that their found log indicated a condition that did not exist as the cache had not been found, the next seeker would have factually incorrect information if that log was allowed to stand. I sent several emails to which I never received a reply and I eventually deleted the Found log.

Another cache I own was logged as Found a second time by a cacher. They came again at a different time with different people and used the Found log to record their visit. Their log is factually correct and I have no objections to people logging a visit this way.

It really has nothing to do with honor, geocaching is a bit of fun, a game, a recreational activity that is meant to be friendly, an activity that connects us to others. In my own view trying to use that connection for some type of "enforcement" is a last resort and is usually occasioned by situations where a third party, with no power to act, is affected. I send emails to any cacher who leaves a TB tracking code in any log, I ask them to change it and provide the public tracking number for the TB. I send emails to cachers asking them to change logs that contain spoilers.

 

The type of log that you described would be perfectly acceptable to me, but that is my opinion. If someone forgets a pencil I have no issues with that. I trust that they can geocache in the fashion they see fit and I am not going to try and enforce a personal standard on their claims. If someone logs one of my caches they can choose whatever log type works for them, I am only concerned about others who might rely on the log for information so I will insist on accurracy but questioning their honesty is never my purpose.

[CoyoteRed]

the standards

What standards are you talking about?

Seems like the standards common to a lot of owners and a good portion of the community. I think the replies in this thread give testimony to this.

 

It looks like the outcome was a positive one. Everyone walks away happy.

[+Sileny Jizda]

Honesty is not the only thing that honor consists of, wavector. I don't have any problem at all if someone forgot a pencil. However, when someone claims a find with no evidence of a find and says such it calls into question all other finds. Say I decide to just go start logging finds on every cache within 50 miles. Granted I'm the only one that knows for that instance but sooner or later others will know and my integrity questioned. All a person has in this life one it is passed is their honor, integrity, and good name. I choose not to stain that and do as the guidelines state and that includes logging my find in the book before I log it online here. If the book is full I leave a sheet. If the book is wet I leave a sheet. If I forget my pen, I don't look. Heck, the wife shoots a pic of every cache we find. Guess what we don't do when I don't have a camera. We don't look. Not in the guidelines here but her's are unbreakable.

 

I have a friend that looks, finds, logs, but doesn't log online. That's their thing. However, the point is the log in the container is signed. In my opinion just walking within 50' to 10' or even 1' of ground zero doesn't constitute a find. If you feel that it does I ask whats the point of keeping track of the numbers anyway? I wonder if they would hold any value if the numbers were only available to the profile owner. Most likely not.

 

The individual I brought up was new to the game and I wondered what the general consensuses was with this type of situation. The result after suggestions here was positive. Most here seem to cache with honor as do I. some may chose to not do so. That's their choice.

Edited July 29, 2007 by Sileny Jizda

[+Team Teague]

I'm just curious, as a newbie, I understand signing the log is important, but do cache owners retrieve the logs and check each signature and delete "found it's" that aren't listed in the log???

 

Just curious.

Stacey

[+Walt Jabsco]

I'm just curious, as a newbie, I understand signing the log is important, but do cache owners retrieve the logs and check each signature and delete "found it's" that aren't listed in the log???

 

Just curious.

Stacey

 

I check my cache frequently. I like walking the trails in the area, and I want to make sure it's in good condition, so I do read the log entries. Because you can't just drive up to mine and it's not in a parking lot, I don't get a lot of finds. So far, everyone that has logged it on here, has also signed the log book.

There's no reason not sign my log book, I supplied several pens, and even put in a disposable camera if they want to take their picture. The types interested enough to find mine, I'm pretty sure would take the few seconds to record it.

If someone didn't sign the log book, I would ask them about it.

Edited July 29, 2007 by Walt Jabsco

[CoyoteRed]

I'm just curious, as a newbie, I understand signing the log is important, but do cache owners retrieve the logs and check each signature and delete "found it's" that aren't listed in the log???

 

Just curious.

Stacey

Some do. Some use the logbook only if there are questions. Others don't bother.

 

Personally, I'm not going to routinely go out and reconcile the logbooks. I've found that in all the vast majority of folks are pretty upstanding folks and will not claim an unearned smilie. If there are questions, though, I'll go out and take a look. If there is a discrepancy, I'll shoot off an email requesting an explanation.

[+wavector]

I don't have any problem at all if someone forgot a pencil. However, when someone claims a find with no evidence of a find and says such it calls into question all other finds.

 

You have lost me already?

 

When a cacher leaves a log that says;

"I enjoyed my visit to this cache, I didn't have a pencil so I couldn't sign in. Thanks for the cache."

I don't make any decisions about their honesty or their honour or their integrity, I actually presume they forgot a pencil and couldn't sign in.

 

In this scenario there is "no evidence" of a visit other than the online log so when you say "I don't have any problem at all if someone forgot a pencil" what are you saying, you would have no problem deleting the log and deciding they are cachers who lack honour, integrity or honesty or would you actually think, I have no problems, thanks for visiting my cache?

[+geomann1]

I don't have any problem at all if someone forgot a pencil. However, when someone claims a find with no evidence of a find and says such it calls into question all other finds.

 

You have lost me already?

 

When a cacher leaves a log that says;

"I enjoyed my visit to this cache, I didn't have a pencil so I couldn't sign in. Thanks for the cache."

I don't make any decisions about their honesty or their honour or their integrity, I actually presume they forgot a pencil and couldn't sign in.

 

In this scenario there is "no evidence" of a visit other than the online log so when you say "I don't have any problem at all if someone forgot a pencil" what are you saying, you would have no problem deleting the log and deciding they are cachers who lack honour, integrity or honesty or would you actually think, I have no problems, thanks for visiting my cache?

 

This really is the sad issue in this thread. This should be a pleasant recreational game, but some people have become so over the top with it, that have introduced the mean-spirited questioning people's honour, integrity, and honesty into it (we must prove ourselves to them), simply because of obsessiveness over something as silly as a total stranger's "smiley count", which is after all what this issue is all about. If there was no public logging of finds this issue would be totally moot.

[CoyoteRed]

This really is the sad issue in this thread. This should be a pleasant recreational game, but some people have become so over the top with it, that have introduced the mean-spirited questioning people's honour, integrity, and honesty into it (we must prove ourselves to them), simply because of obsessiveness over something as silly as a total stranger's "smiley count", which is after all what this issue is all about. If there was no public logging of finds this issue would be totally moot.

What's really sad is some folks simply can't let an issue go even after it's been resolved in a friendly manner by the parties in question. It's also sad that some folks try to escalate the issue to "over the top" and "mean-spirited" when I've not heard much of that going on at all. If logs get deleted in a mean-spirited way, it's not just about questioning logs, but some perceived slight, real or imagined, on the owner's part.

 

I don't know why I'm responding to someone arguing the issue when the line they've drawn for claiming a find doesn't even include retrieving the cache. I guess making someone actually retrieve the cache is "over the top" and "mean-spirited."

[+Rockin Roddy]

I didn't sign a log yesterday. I could have returned and grabbed my pen, but decided not to.

 

When we left the Jeep, Tod says the container is a regular, so I didn't bother to go back for the pen even though we were right beside the Jeep. Walking up the hill, around the bushes and down another hill, then back up the hill again all while searching out this "regular", I again asked Tod what the size was and for any clues. Tod replies that he'd left the info in the Jeep?? "How do you know the size?" I asked, "I read it" Tod replies!

 

Well, after another couple of minutes of walking up and down the hills, I saw something that seemed out of the ordinary and found the MICRO! No pen and no way I was going back up and down that hill another couple times! I CAN describe the container, the contents and the hiding spot VERY well, so I did mention that in my log and will be sending the owner a message with all that info.

 

Sure, you can question my integrity all you wish, but I DID have the container in hand and opened it to be sure I had the right one! Delete my log if you want, it's up to you. It won't ruin my experience one bit and the number of smilies just doesn't matter to me enough to put my body through that so as to appease someone's idea of proving I had found the cache. Seeings most cachers around here are honest and trusting, I doubt it'll be an issue, but again...what does it matter if my log gets deleted? Will it bother anyone if my name isn't on the logbook? And who's business is it other than mine and the cache owners?

 

BTW, you surely SHOULD at least grab the container, open it up and make sure you have the right one...there ARE decoys out there sometimes!!