A matter of honor?

[+geomann1]

"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."

 

I was not refering to the cache owner in question or any individual in particular. It is my opinion to that to question anyone's honor or integrity in general over an issue as trivial as claiming a "smiley" over the issue of not signing a log because you did not have a pencil is uncalled for and more than a little silly..

[+Rockin Roddy]

Although I doubt it would have been an issue, I did write the owners of the cache I didn't sign and described everything in detail. The reply was as I suspected..."No problem". I also asked for a clue to a couple other caches and was given a "nudge" (as I did ask not to get a spoiler).

 

Some really do have faith in our fellow cacher friends...but if that comes into question, I can imagine doing some checking to assure someone is playing nicely! Offering or entertaining an alternative verification option is great!

[+Trucker Lee]

Sign log. Get smiley. If you don't sign the log, it's a DNF.

 

The only exception I feel is justified is that the log is in too bad a condition to sign. Then, take a pic of the cache and log, start a new page from your kit, and leave it all behind. Be sure to tell the owner that maintenance is needed.

 

If you don't see and sign the log, how can you be sure it is the cache, and not a letter box, lost lunch kit, forgotten tool kit, or something D B Cooper didn't retreive after landing?

[+Team Cotati]

Sign log. Get smiley. If you don't sign the log, it's a DNF.

 

The only exception I feel is justified is that the log is in too bad a condition to sign. Then, take a pic of the cache and log, start a new page from your kit, and leave it all behind. Be sure to tell the owner that maintenance is needed.

 

If you don't see and sign the log, how can you be sure it is the cache, and not a letter box, lost lunch kit, forgotten tool kit, or something D B Cooper didn't retreive after landing?

 

Speaking for myself and only myself, I find what I reasonably believe is the cache which I am seeking, open it and for any reason cannot sign the log that is or is not present......it gets logged online as a find. Oh I'll leave any relevant info regarding any issue with the cache allright, but it gets logged regardless.

 

That's just how I play the game. I don't try and justify or defend my personal policy to anyone.

 

Further, I won't be spending one micro-second of time visiting a single one of my 11 hides for the purpose of policing the fact that every visitor that logged a find online has also physically logged into the logbook in the field.

 

Those people who have 100+ hides must stay pretty busy, eh? I for one can't quite believe that.

Edited July 29, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+JohnnyVegas]

I would delet the log, the cache was not found, unless they open the container they do not know for sure if it is the cache. On one of my hide I also have four decoys hidden that are very easy to see.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Sign log. Get smiley. If you don't sign the log, it's a DNF.

 

The only exception I feel is justified is that the log is in too bad a condition to sign. Then, take a pic of the cache and log, start a new page from your kit, and leave it all behind. Be sure to tell the owner that maintenance is needed.

 

If you don't see and sign the log, how can you be sure it is the cache, and not a letter box, lost lunch kit, forgotten tool kit, or something D B Cooper didn't retreive after landing?

 

Assuming everyone carries their camera while caching. I certainly don't, too expensive and too heavy!

 

You give a remedy to your only exception, why would that be an exception then? If I forget my pen(cil) (as I do from time to time, it isn't glued to my hand after all), or the darn thing stops working, isn't that a valid reason not to sign the log? Opening the container might not be an option in some cases as well (handicap problems etc). Giving someone the option of DESCRIBING the cache in question solves all the above and yours as well. You say you need to open the container to assure it's not a decoy? Describe it to the owner and they'll surely know! Describe the container inside and out (if you can open but can't sign), give detail only available from someone who found the container (in block beside willow tree, container is an ammo box painted brown w/cache sticker attached. Log was wet and the contents need aired out, the fluffly bunny is getting mildewy)...obviously I found the container (if that description jives of course), so why deny a smiley in that case?

 

edit to add: obviously, if the info turns out to be for the decoy, the log should be a DNF and another search is needed. If you turned it in as a find, a change is simple, if you wrote the owner, they verify one way or another and you log accordingly.

Edited July 29, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[+BlueDeuce]

If I am unable to sign the log, for ANY reason, I'm not going to claim it as a find.

 

That's just how I play it. I really don't care to have to explain my finds to get them.

 

As for the OP's question, I would discuss the matter with the cacher in question but I wouldn't allow the find until they go back and sign the log.

[+Rockin Roddy]

It's one thing to hold yourself to that standard, but that standard might be unreachable for some BD. No alternate verification options at all?

[+EraSeek]

I of course, always must sign the log.

 

As for my caches, I leave it up to the finder whether they adhere strictly to the game or not. I do that for some very good reasons.

 

However, the point I wish to make is that regardless of whether the log is a "found", "note" or "DNF", if there is dishonesty or incivility IT GETS DELETED.

It has only happened twice in 6 years. Once for dishonesty, once for incivility.

[+BlueDeuce]

It's one thing to hold yourself to that standard, but that standard might be unreachable for some BD. No alternate verification options at all?

 

Sorry, I thought referring back to the OP question would make it clear which scenario I was answering.

 

"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 would discuss the matter with the cacher in question but I wouldn't allow the find until they go back and sign the log.

 

I'm not really interested in discussing every other possible scenario to the Nth degree. In fact, consider this my last post on the topic. It's a good place for me to stop and work on other projects.

Edited July 29, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[+wavector]

If I am unable to sign the log, for ANY reason, I'm not going to claim it as a find.

 

That's just how I play it. I really don't care to have to explain my finds to get them.

 

As for the OP's question, I would discuss the matter with the cacher in question but I wouldn't allow the find until they go back and sign the log.

 

You go out caching, find a cache, you sign the logbook and carry on. Another cacher comes along and and finds the cache is gone. He goes home and logs the fact that the cache was gone. The owner checks the cache and disables it because it is gone. You go home and log your find online, your log ends up on the webpage after the cache was disabled. Your find gets deleted. The cache owner posts a note on his cache telling others that you lack honor, integrity and honesty for claiming a find on the cache. He says that you claimed your find only after seeing the cache was disabled.

 

The definition of a find is not "a signed onsite logbook", the definition of a find is "what the cache owner accepts". Viewing the smiley as an item of value is the problem. If the smiley was properly regarded as inconsequential this would never happen.

 

I delete bogus finds on my caches. If I had a cache which was very challenging to retrieve I might stipulate that the logbook needs to be signed. If I put out decoys I might stipulate that the cache logbook needs to be signed, these are challenges that might promote the adventure of the seeker but otherwise I am fine with letting people decide for themselves how they will go about this activity.

 

Suggesting that cache owners should be restrictive or suspicious doesn't work for me at all. I suggest that cache owners send email when others who are powerless to act might be affected by a log, geocaching is supposed to be fun. Most geocachers recognize that a Find count is a meaningless number, it serves no purpose and isn't a measure of honour, honesty or integrity.

 

Before you decide that the scenario is unrealistic you might consider that I create hypothetical scenarios based on real incidents that are very similar.

Edited July 29, 2007 by wavector

[+PeterNoG]

In my early days of caching, I had someone log a find on a cache of mine that had quite a few DNFs scattered among the many finds. Several months later, after changing the log sheet, I was comparing online logs to the log sheet. One signature was missing. I reread their online log and it never said that they actually found it.

 

I wrote to them to ask them about it. They were quite annoyed. One of the first excuses was that in their part of the country it is not necessary to sign the log to claim a find. Several emails later, the excuse changed to "the cache container was frozen fast to the bridge and I could not open it to sign the log". Because it was not the first excuse, I really didn't believe it, but I said, include that in your log and you can claim it as a find. They decide to log it as a nasty DNF.

 

It's not worth the aggravation - I don't bother trying to verify any more.

[+VE6NS]

It has been a while since I've been to the forums, and I remembered rather quickly why I don't frequent it very often. Couldn't resist this one though.

 

Question?? If a log book goes missing from a cache, the logbook gets wet and the pages stick together with no way of separating them without destroying pages, or you were unable to decipher the chicken scratch log entry, would I be safe in assuming that all logs should be deleted as there is no way to confirm if the online logs were legit?

 

Just curious as I have seen caches with the logbooks missing, the logbook soaked or wet in the past and dried shut, and have not been able to read some of the penmanship on the log.

[+Teach2Learn]

I think the e-mail is the best way to clarify the need for a log signature, though I might allow the find for a newbie as encouragement.

 

Like most cachers (that I know), I only count it as a find if I sign the log. However, there was one unique, recent exception where the owner told me to log it as a find, so I did: Crag & Tail in Edinburgh, Scotland.

[+Team Cotati]

It has been a while since I've been to the forums, and I remembered rather quickly why I don't frequent it very often. Couldn't resist this one though.

 

Question?? If a log book goes missing from a cache, the logbook gets wet and the pages stick together with no way of separating them without destroying pages, or you were unable to decipher the chicken scratch log entry, would I be safe in assuming that all logs should be deleted as there is no way to confirm if the online logs were legit?

 

Just curious as I have seen caches with the logbooks missing, the logbook soaked or wet in the past and dried shut, and have not been able to read some of the penmanship on the log.

 

No.

[+VE6NS]

It has been a while since I've been to the forums, and I remembered rather quickly why I don't frequent it very often. Couldn't resist this one though.

 

Question?? If a log book goes missing from a cache, the logbook gets wet and the pages stick together with no way of separating them without destroying pages, or you were unable to decipher the chicken scratch log entry, would I be safe in assuming that all logs should be deleted as there is no way to confirm if the online logs were legit?

 

Just curious as I have seen caches with the logbooks missing, the logbook soaked or wet in the past and dried shut, and have not been able to read some of the penmanship on the log.

 

No.

 

OK, thanks.

 

 

I see the BS still roams freely on the boards and oh so many Self proclaimed "PROFESSIONAL CACHERS" and the ever popular "CACHE COPS" still must spout their knowledge of the rules and regulation of caching. I really wish someone could post a link to these written in stone rules as all I can find on the site is a list of guidelines.

[+Harry Dolphin]

In my early days of caching, I had someone log a find on a cache of mine that had quite a few DNFs scattered among the many finds. Several months later, after changing the log sheet, I was comparing online logs to the log sheet. One signature was missing. I reread their online log and it never said that they actually found it.

 

I wrote to them to ask them about it. They were quite annoyed. One of the first excuses was that in their part of the country it is not necessary to sign the log to claim a find. Several emails later, the excuse changed to "the cache container was frozen fast to the bridge and I could not open it to sign the log". Because it was not the first excuse, I really didn't believe it, but I said, include that in your log and you can claim it as a find. They decide to log it as a nasty DNF.

 

I love the old 'In our part of the country '. Last person who used that line lives seventy miles west. Pennsylvania might be a whole different story, but he's the only Pennsylvanian that I've seen use that line.

I have no problems with signatures in mud or juice from green leaves (People really go geocaching without pens or pencils?!?) I have no problems with business cards, or a portion of a cache sheet, signed, and left in the cache. For 'sign the log', I will accept 'put something with your name on it in the cache'. As many have said: if you don't open it, you do not know that it is actually the cache. I was cogitating opening a four ounce container that was, quite frankly brown inside. No! That's gross, and I'm pretty sure that it was not the container. DNF. For those who thing that you only have to see the container... Yup. I saw the decon box twenty feet up the tree. I could have dragged over a nearby pallet to use as a ladder. That might have worked. I can even show you a picture of the container! But I didn't open it, and mark my presence within, so it's a DNF.

[+Team Cotati]

In my early days of caching, I had someone log a find on a cache of mine that had quite a few DNFs scattered among the many finds. Several months later, after changing the log sheet, I was comparing online logs to the log sheet. One signature was missing. I reread their online log and it never said that they actually found it.

 

I wrote to them to ask them about it. They were quite annoyed. One of the first excuses was that in their part of the country it is not necessary to sign the log to claim a find. Several emails later, the excuse changed to "the cache container was frozen fast to the bridge and I could not open it to sign the log". Because it was not the first excuse, I really didn't believe it, but I said, include that in your log and you can claim it as a find. They decide to log it as a nasty DNF.

 

I love the old 'In our part of the country '. Last person who used that line lives seventy miles west. Pennsylvania might be a whole different story, but he's the only Pennsylvanian that I've seen use that line.

I have no problems with signatures in mud or juice from green leaves (People really go geocaching without pens or pencils?!?) I have no problems with business cards, or a portion of a cache sheet, signed, and left in the cache. For 'sign the log', I will accept 'put something with your name on it in the cache'. As many have said: if you don't open it, you do not know that it is actually the cache. I was cogitating opening a four ounce container that was, quite frankly brown inside. No! That's gross, and I'm pretty sure that it was not the container. DNF. For those who thing that you only have to see the container... Yup. I saw the decon box twenty feet up the tree. I could have dragged over a nearby pallet to use as a ladder. That might have worked. I can even show you a picture of the container! But I didn't open it, and mark my presence within, so it's a DNF.

 

I find it, I open it, I log it online. If there happens to be a usable piece of paper within that resembles an "official" geocaching type log, then I sign it. If there is not, I don't. Regardless, I log it online. The difference there is that I am smart and self-assured enough to keep my mouth shut about it.

 

I for the life of me can't understand what all the fuss is about anyway. What the freak is the big deal?

 

If some cache owner or other comes by someday this century and audits his paper cache log against the online log and wants to delete my find.........please please be my guest. I can assure you that I won't lose one micro-second of sleep over it. Out of every 100 or so caches that I find, there might be one with no usable log, please shoot me. Criminnie.

 

You want to 'sign' one of my cache logs with some green leaf poop smear? No thanks, I trust you. I mean it is not as if the finders who are not signing the missing or unusable log or whatever log, are getting monetary reward........is it? For money, no telling what some people might do. It is a game, get over it already.

Edited July 30, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+GrateBear]

A bit late, but felt the need to add a comment. I recently found a cache, and then found that I had no pen on myself or anywhere in my car. So, I sent an e-mail to the owner, described the cache, and asked for an OK to log it as a find, which he/she agreed to. It's not a big deal, but I enjoy this sport, and don't feel right in just logging a find if I don't sign it.

On the other hand, a nearby cache was "found" today with this note:

"Nice walk to cache, but didn't have a pen." This was a rather difficult find, very small, in the woods, and most of those who have found it have so noted that fact. If this person wanted to claim it, fine, but I think an e-mail to the owner first would have been a better approach.

But, as others have said, it's no big deal.

[+Menehune Man]

I've seen a few iffy finds on a couple of my caches, but no harm to me.

Some have used multiple "finds" to drop coins instead of notes, that adds eroneously to their numbers, but again what the heck. I ain't getting paid to monitor what others do, just trying to share neat places that finders may not have been to otherwise. 'Cache on!

[+Scaber]

While vacationing in I visited a straight forward virtual cache logged it and emailed the answer to the question to the owner. The owner replied that my answer was not correct but gave me the option of keeping the find. I deleted the find because a wrong answer is a wrong answer. In your case, if you didn't sign the log, you didn't find the cache.

[+edscott]

I would agree that if having the log signed is important to you as a cache owner, then there is no harm in a friendly note. I would suspect that the vast majority of cache owners (as opposed to the posters here) have better things to do than worry about the matter. I would also note that the person in question did you a service by protecting your cache (they could have just signed it and given away its location) and was honest about it, so I would cut them some slack and not press the issue.

 

I agree here. A new cacher doing his best to protect the cache is certainly better than one that exposes it to the muggles, signs it and walks away. A friendly note for future reference should be enough.

[+Mudfrog]

The guidelines for this site state that signing the log is a part of geocaching. No this isn't a hard and fast rule but it is an obvious, common sense type thing and it's a pretty straightforward and usually very easy for most cachers to accomplish.

 

To me, excuses for not signing the cache log are usually pretty lame. For instance, the not having a writing utensil excuse. I'm very forgetful and have found a few caches without pen or pencil but believe me, i got the log signed. A stick dipped in mud has saved the day a couple of times, a burnt piece of wood another, and i even used a green leaf and my fingernail one time. Surely a person can find some way to leave their mark. A full logbook is another one of the lamer excuses to my notion, as you can no doubt find a place somewhere on it to at least add your initials and date. A wet, mushy, and totally unsignable log is one thing but even then, a person can probably come up with a sliver of paper to add for a temporary log until the owner can get back out to replace. I just think that people should use their brains and think of ways to help themselves out in these situations instead of making up excuses.

 

Honesty isn't something i would question in the scenario that the OP brought up. I do think that a person needs to retrieve and open the container. If for no other reason, so that they can at least make sure they found the actual cache. If they can't do this for some reason, in this case because of muggles, then they can come back later or just forget about the cache. It is up to OP on how he wants to handle this but i myself would ask the person to change their log to a note and possibly try for the cache again later.

[+apetro]

Thank you for this helpful thread! I am a newbee and recently found and opened a micro cache, looked thru my bag, and realized I forgot my pen in the truck! I was still learning to use the compass part of my gps ( i figured it out, duh) so I walked a long way out of my way in 95 degree heat. Turns out when I got back to the truck I was pretty close but to hot and tired to go back and sign. I did log it as found and mentioned that i did not sign the book. It never occured to me it might not "count". I heard nothing from the owner. I plan to go back and sign. The advice on a soft reminder and the sample note is great. I am learning the proper way to do things from the forums. My advice would be to check if the logger is new and be kind, and if they have more experiance (lot's of finds) a more direct note would be in order (be kind to them to tho ).

[GPS-Hermit]

If you think the person could see the cache container then it IS a find - If you think they just got close with GPS and lied - DNF. I respect protection from muggles but if you get tooo many of these you should move the cache.

[Tally Dragon]

I didn't read all the responses on this thread so I might be bringing up something that's already been discussed. But here goes....How many people compare the log book entries in their caches to the finds logged on the web? My guess is not many. So at least this person is admitting that he didn't sign the log book. He could have just not mentioned that fact and you would have never known. I say let it slide. It's kind of like a person cheating at solitaire; they know if they cheated or not and can't feel as good about it if they did. You get out of this game what you put into it.

 

What about people who cache in groups, taking credit for caches that someone else in the group found? What about people who get a big fat hint on a puzzle cache from someone else who found it earlier? What about people, who breeze into town, find forty caches in a day and copy/paste their log entries. Did they really find all those caches? Who cares? Do they need psychological help? Maybe so.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Tally Dragon