What makes a Log book

[+Turtle3863]

Well after having a cache rejected then sending it to appeal and then turned down, I now find myself with the only thing I have left, MY OPINION. The cache in question was rejected because you had to log it on a wall. I had permission to use the wall which is already being used for people to write what they wish on it. I could have just as easily put a 35mm container in a light pole out front and would have had no problem getting it approved. I thought that a cacher would enjoy signing the wall instead of just finding the micro in the light pole.

 

The real question I would like to put out there is this: What constitutes a log book? I have looked through the guidelines and I do not see a description.

[+BlueDeuce]

Wait a minute, are we talking about a logbook that goes inside a cache container or visiting a location and writing your name on the wall?

[+hukilaulau]

I would guess the problem is not the log, but that there is no physical container. Got to have both!

[+Turtle3863]

I would guess the problem is not the log, but that there is no physical container. Got to have both!

 

At the coordinates there was a plastic card that instructed you to log the cache on the wall.

[+BlueDeuce]

I would guess the problem is not the log, but that there is no physical container. Got to have both!

 

At the coordinates there was a plastic card that instructed you to log the cache on the wall.

 

Tape a little pouch on the card that can hold a slip of paper. Invite people to sign the wall as well.

[+hukilaulau]

I would guess the problem is not the log, but that there is no physical container. Got to have both!

 

At the coordinates there was a plastic card that instructed you to log the cache on the wall.

I think I would say "yes" to this. If the card were inside a container, like a matchbox in a nearby tree, you just might get it approved.

[+gpsfun]

From Hiding Your First Geocache Step 2 :

Next, you'll need a logbook and a pen. A small spiral notebook does the trick.

 

Take the small spiral notebook phrase as an example, not as the only thing that could be used. Generally, the log is something you place with the cache, not a wall or a similar object. And while you may have permission, please note this statement from the guidelines:

Off-limit (Physical) Caches

...

* Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method.

 

edit: added word "notebook"

Edited August 9, 2007 by gpsfun

[+BlueDeuce]

I think I would say "yes" to this. If the card were inside a container, like a matchbox in a nearby tree, you just might get it approved.

 

I've signed caches that were smaller than the end of my pinkie finger. One the size of a library card is a step up in my opinion.

[+Turtle3863]

I would guess the problem is not the log, but that there is no physical container. Got to have both!

 

At the coordinates there was a plastic card that instructed you to log the cache on the wall.

 

Tape a little pouch on the card that can hold a slip of paper. Invite people to sign the wall as well.

 

You know, you might be on to something here. I might give this suggestion a try.

[+Turtle3863]

From Hiding Your First Geocache Step 2 :

Next, you'll need a logbook and a pen. A small spiral notebook does the trick.

 

Take the small spiral notebook phrase as an example, not as the only thing that could be used. Generally, the log is something you place with the cache, not a wall or a similar object. And while you may have permission, please note this statement from the guidelines:

Off-limit (Physical) Caches

...

* Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method.

 

edit: added word "notebook"

 

The guy owns the wall and wishes for people to sign or put a comment on it as a form of art.

[+IDLookout]

From Hiding Your First Geocache Step 2 :

Next, you'll need a logbook and a pen. A small spiral notebook does the trick.

 

Take the small spiral notebook phrase as an example, not as the only thing that could be used. Generally, the log is something you place with the cache, not a wall or a similar object. And while you may have permission, please note this statement from the guidelines:

Off-limit (Physical) Caches

...

* Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method.

 

edit: added word "notebook"

 

The guy owns the wall and wishes for people to sign or put a comment on it as a form of art.

 

I really don't see a problem with this. GC.com has had a policy of "it's your own fault if you are not in compliance with local regulations" since it's inception. Kind of a "no-fault" attitude, that ranges from local Forest Service lands to public rights-of-way.

 

?

[+BlueDeuce]

You know, you might be on to something here. I might give this suggestion a try.

 

Absolutely. Placing a cache can be just as much an effort as finding it. Sometimes even more so.

 

Edit: Correction, usually more so. That's the fun of caching.

Edited August 10, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[+Renegade Knight]

Wait a minute, are we talking about a logbook that goes inside a cache container or visiting a location and writing your name on the wall?

This cache violates no guidelines. The only reason to not approve it is that in spite of it's fitting within the guidelines it's missing something that the approver thinks of as the spirit of caching.

[+Renegade Knight]

Well after having a cache rejected then sending it to appeal and then turned down, I now find myself with the only thing I have left, MY OPINION. The cache in question was rejected because you had to log it on a wall. I had permission to use the wall which is already being used for people to write what they wish on it. I could have just as easily put a 35mm container in a light pole out front and would have had no problem getting it approved. I thought that a cacher would enjoy signing the wall instead of just finding the micro in the light pole.

 

The real question I would like to put out there is this: What constitutes a log book? I have looked through the guidelines and I do not see a description.

The wall counts as a log book just fine. You can sign it, the find can be verified. There is no guidelines reason to not approve the cache. There is no rule that says the log book has to be paper, or has to be separate from the cache.

 

In your shoes I'd probably hide a container of pens and call that the "cache" and the wall the log. There is no rule that says the log needs to be in the cache either.

[+Western Mass Clan]

Isn't this basically what the OP was talking about? It appears there is an existing multicache that involves either writing or spray painting your name on a wall as the 'logbook'. I know, I know ... "Just because it's been approved in the past doesn't mean it will be approved now." 'I've already had that conversation with my local reviewer.

 

Regardless, I thought it would be nice to point out that there is an active cache in North Carolina (many people who attended this year's Geowoodstock logged it) that appears to be exactly like what the OP was describing.

 

Here is the link:

 

(GCH8MY) Paint the Town

 

Personally, as long as the OP has permission for people to sign the wall as the "logbook", I don't see the harm in his idea. Actually, I think it sounds like a fun idea and a nice break from routine. I would say this cache should be approved.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Matt

Edited August 10, 2007 by Western_Mass_Clan

[+BlueDeuce]

Wait a minute, are we talking about a logbook that goes inside a cache container or visiting a location and writing your name on the wall?

This cache violates no guidelines. The only reason to not approve it is that in spite of it's fitting within the guidelines it's missing something that the approver thinks of as the spirit of caching.

 

Finding a card that states to sign drywall? I'm pretty sure that's not a cache.

 

 

 

edit: 's

Edited August 10, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[+IDLookout]

Isn't this basically what the OP was talking about? It appears there is an existing multicache that involves either writing or spray painting your name on a wall as the 'logbook'. I know, I know ... "Just because it's been approved in the past doesn't mean it will be approved now." 'I've already had that conversation with my local reviewer.

 

Regardless, I thought it would be nice to point out that there is an active cache in North Carolina (many people who attended this year's Geowoodstock logged it) that appears to be exactly like what the OP was describing.

 

Here is the link:

 

(GCH8MY) Paint the Town

 

Personally, as long as the OP has permission for people to sign the wall as the "logbook", I don't see the harm in his idea. Actually, I think it sounds like a fun idea and a nice break from routine. I would say this cache should be approved.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Matt

 

Exactly.

 

That's where I roll my eyes sometimes. There are "rules" to placing caches, but GC.com has no fault if a cache is illegal.

 

[+Corp Of Discovery]

If the owner of the property gave permission I think the cache should be approved. It's been stated before that a buried cache could be approved if it was on private property and had the owners permission- why should this be different? I know of quite a few caches where there are/were no traditional 'container' and/or 'log'.

[Keystone]

Well after having a cache rejected then sending it to appeal and then turned down, I now find myself with the only thing I have left, MY OPINION. The cache in question was rejected because you had to log it on a wall. I had permission to use the wall which is already being used for people to write what they wish on it. I could have just as easily put a 35mm container in a light pole out front and would have had no problem getting it approved. I thought that a cacher would enjoy signing the wall instead of just finding the micro in the light pole.

 

The real question I would like to put out there is this: What constitutes a log book? I have looked through the guidelines and I do not see a description.

The wall counts as a log book just fine. You can sign it, the find can be verified. There is no guidelines reason to not approve the cache. There is no rule that says the log book has to be paper, or has to be separate from the cache.

 

In your shoes I'd probably hide a container of pens and call that the "cache" and the wall the log. There is no rule that says the log needs to be in the cache either.

A cache needs to have a container and a log inside the container.

 

Signing a metal surface? Not a cache.

 

Signing a piece of Rite in the Rain paper that's in a pouch on the back of a magnet matching the metal surface? The bare minimum of a cache.

[+BlueDeuce]

If the owner of the property gave permission I think the cache should be approved. It's been stated before that a buried cache could be approved if it was on private property and had the owners permission- why should this be different? I know of quite a few caches where there are/were no traditional 'container' and/or 'log'.

 

I don't know, why come to the unofficial's and expect an official response?

 

Support? fine. My opinion, place a cache but don't surprised that it's denied for not having a logbook.

 

That's all I got.

[+Renegade Knight]

Well after having a cache rejected then sending it to appeal and then turned down, I now find myself with the only thing I have left, MY OPINION. The cache in question was rejected because you had to log it on a wall. I had permission to use the wall which is already being used for people to write what they wish on it. I could have just as easily put a 35mm container in a light pole out front and would have had no problem getting it approved. I thought that a cacher would enjoy signing the wall instead of just finding the micro in the light pole.

 

The real question I would like to put out there is this: What constitutes a log book? I have looked through the guidelines and I do not see a description.

The wall counts as a log book just fine. You can sign it, the find can be verified. There is no guidelines reason to not approve the cache. There is no rule that says the log book has to be paper, or has to be separate from the cache.

 

In your shoes I'd probably hide a container of pens and call that the "cache" and the wall the log. There is no rule that says the log needs to be in the cache either.

A cache needs to have a container and a log inside the container.

 

Signing a metal surface? Not a cache.

 

Signing a piece of Rite in the Rain paper that's in a pouch on the back of a magnet matching the metal surface? The bare minimum of a cache.

I've seen too many viable caches that don't fit what you just said, and I flat out don't recall that nuance of the guidelines. Nor have I seen enough exceptions to the "rule" to where there needed to be clarifications. Of course viable cache and listable are not always in agreement.

 

On my list of caches is a petroglyph cache where the cache is creating your own petroglpyh. Rock walls are not so common though. I'd hate to see yet another variation on caching go out the window.

[+Renegade Knight]

....

I don't know, why come to the unofficial's and expect an official response?

 

Support? fine. My opinion, place a cache but don't surprised that it's denied for not having a logbook.

 

That's all I got.

 

It's got a log book. Apparently if they built a barn around the wall it would be a cache.

[+BlueDeuce]

....

I don't know, why come to the unofficial's and expect an official response?

 

Support? fine. My opinion, place a cache but don't surprised that it's denied for not having a logbook.

 

That's all I got.

 

It's got a log book. Apparently if they built a barn around the wall it would be a cache.

 

Then so would a creek.

[+sbell111]

....

I don't know, why come to the unofficial's and expect an official response?

 

Support? fine. My opinion, place a cache but don't surprised that it's denied for not having a logbook.

 

That's all I got.

 

It's got a log book. Apparently if they built a barn around the wall it would be a cache.

 

Then so would a creek.

How do you sign a creek?

[+Ambrosia]

From the guidelines: "consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook."

 

A wall is not a container.

[Keystone]

Thanks for stating that so succinctly, Ambrosia, and by reference to the listing guidelines.

 

A container holds or encloses -- it *contains* -- a log. The log is a separate thing that you sign, from a scroll to a notebook. Both items are required.

[+Ambrosia]

[+sbell111]

Thanks for stating that so succinctly, Ambrosia, and by reference to the listing guidelines.

 

A container holds or encloses -- it *contains* -- a log. The log is a separate thing that you sign, from a scroll to a notebook. Both items are required.

Is that new with the latest guideline upgrade?

 

The only reason that I ask is that we all have found a 'magnetic sheet' cache and I was wondering where in the history of geocaching that those fit in.

[Keystone]

If it is just a magnetic sheet all by itself, that is not a cache. If the magnetic sheet encloses a log, then it's a cache. I hope this helps.

[+Jhwk]

no 'container' = no cache = virtual = waymark = not a geocache.

 

like the idea though.

[+wvcoalcat]

Thanks for stating that so succinctly, Ambrosia, and by reference to the listing guidelines.

 

A container holds or encloses -- it *contains* -- a log. The log is a separate thing that you sign, from a scroll to a notebook. Both items are required.

Is that new with the latest guideline upgrade?

 

The only reason that I ask is that we all have found a 'magnetic sheet' cache and I was wondering where in the history of geocaching that those fit in.

 

I always thought the magentic sheet caches fell under this from the GC/faq

 

"A cache can come in many forms but the first item should always be the logbook. In its simplest form a cache can be just a logbook and nothing else. The logbook contains information from the founder of the cache and notes from the cache's visitors. The logbook can contain much valuable, rewarding, and entertaining information. A logbook might contain information about nearby attractions, coordinates to other unpublished caches, and even jokes written by visitors. If you get some information from a logbook you should give some back. At the very least you can leave the date and time you visited the cache. "

 

Emphasis mine and if I'm wrong it won't be the first time.

 

Edited to add that this wouldn't be considered a traditional cache though.

Edited August 10, 2007 by wvcoalcat

[+sbell111]

Thanks for stating that so succinctly, Ambrosia, and by reference to the listing guidelines.

 

A container holds or encloses -- it *contains* -- a log. The log is a separate thing that you sign, from a scroll to a notebook. Both items are required.

Is that new with the latest guideline upgrade?

 

The only reason that I ask is that we all have found a 'magnetic sheet' cache and I was wondering where in the history of geocaching that those fit in.

If it is just a magnetic sheet all by itself, that is not a cache. If the magnetic sheet encloses a log, then it's a cache. I hope this helps.

I get what you are saying, but you didn't really answer my question.

 

I was wondering if this was new to the latest guideline revision.

 

(BTW, How could a magnetic sheet enclose a log?)

Edited August 10, 2007 by sbell111

[+Miragee]

Hmmmm . . . I've found Magnetic sheets with just Rite in the Rain paper glued to the back . . . and one of those might have just had you sign the back of the magnetic sheet . . .

[+TrailGators]

Hmmmm . . . I've found Magnetic sheets with just Rite in the Rain paper glued to the back . . . and one of those might have just had you sign the back of the magnetic sheet . . .

What's wrong with those? They are often very clever because they look like a real sticker.

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

I'm sure this won't help anyone's case... and keep in mind, the cache itself is almost 4 years old (rulz were dif'rent back in the day)...

 

But it has the best log book ever... if the cops drive by while you're 'tagging' they don't even give you a second glance:

 

Paint the Town.

 

 

michelle

[+TrailGators]

I'm sure this won't help anyone's case... and keep in mind, the cache itself is almost 4 years old (rulz were dif'rent back in the day)...

 

But it has the best log book ever... if the cops drive by while you're 'tagging' they don't even give you a second glance:

 

Paint the Town.

 

michelle

I don't see a problem with that one either. It is a clever variant. It takes you to a cool spot and you sign a log to prove you were at that spot.

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

I'm sure this won't help anyone's case... and keep in mind, the cache itself is almost 4 years old (rulz were dif'rent back in the day)...

 

But it has the best log book ever... if the cops drive by while you're 'tagging' they don't even give you a second glance:

 

Paint the Town.

 

michelle

I don't see a problem with that one either. It is a clever variant. It takes you to a cool spot and you sign a log to prove you were at that spot.

 

For sure. The spots all along the multi are great, too.

 

I was surprised to see how long _my_ log lasted on the wall through other people's photos. About five months. Aye. There is a lot of leeway in where you 'sign' too - two bridge railings and a whole tunnel entrance down below.

 

 

michelle

[+Renegade Knight]

From the guidelines: "consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook."

 

A wall is not a container.

 

The wall is the log book. However the container only needs to house the log. Given the number of log only caches in the world, I'd say container is a loose term. I've seen magnetic sheets with the log on the back. No container but clearly a cache that does fit the spirit and intent of this activity.

 

However thanks for the quoted guideline. That would tend to mean that every cache I've seen that was essentially log book only was not approvable but approved anyway.

 

For the Reviewers. Spirit and Intent should rule the day. That's why the guidelines are not hard rules. A unique and fun cache should not be denied just because it's a square peg. Live on the edge and approve things that would be enjoyable to find especially if they meet the spirit and intent of what a cache is.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+BlueDeuce]

That would tend to mean that every cache I've seen that was essentially log book only was not approvable but approved anyway.

 

I suspect that most of those weren't explained to the reviewer what the container or lack of really was.

Do reviewers ask when it isn't clear?

 

I'm betting such requests fall into the virtual placement line of reasoning. (If there is any possible way to hide a container there is no need for a virtual). If there is any possible way to place a cache container with a logbook then that's what you need to do.

[+MtnGoat50]

Thanks for stating that so succinctly, Ambrosia, and by reference to the listing guidelines.

 

A container holds or encloses -- it *contains* -- a log. The log is a separate thing that you sign, from a scroll to a notebook. Both items are required.

Hmmmm.... I once found a cache that, in the description, suggested that you bring a Sharpie. The hint was "sign the log". When I got there I found a log with lots of names on it. Everyone seemed to like this cache but it appears it wouldn't be approved now because the "log" was not "contained" in anything.

[+sbell111]

I can't imagine why we would allow nanos but not allow much larger log-only caches. Either way, the log is protected and there is no room for tradables.

[+TrailGators]

I can't imagine why we would allow nanos but not allow much larger log-only caches. Either way, the log is protected and there is no room for tradables.

My thoughts exactly!

[+Ambrosia]

From the guidelines: "consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook."

 

A wall is not a container.

 

The wall is the log book. However the container only needs to house the log. Given the number of log only caches in the world, I'd say container is a loose term. I've seen magnetic sheets with the log on the back. No container but clearly a cache that does fit the spirit and intent of this activity.

 

However thanks for the quoted guideline. That would tend to mean that every cache I've seen that was essentially log book only was not approvable but approved anyway.

 

For the Reviewers. Spirit and Intent should rule the day. That's why the guidelines are not hard rules. A unique and fun cache should not be denied just because it's a square peg. Live on the edge and approve things that would be enjoyable to find especially if they meet the spirit and intent of what a cache is.

That's why there's the contact Groundspeak address.

[+TrailGators]

From the guidelines: "consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook."

 

A wall is not a container.

 

The wall is the log book. However the container only needs to house the log. Given the number of log only caches in the world, I'd say container is a loose term. I've seen magnetic sheets with the log on the back. No container but clearly a cache that does fit the spirit and intent of this activity.

 

However thanks for the quoted guideline. That would tend to mean that every cache I've seen that was essentially log book only was not approvable but approved anyway.

 

For the Reviewers. Spirit and Intent should rule the day. That's why the guidelines are not hard rules. A unique and fun cache should not be denied just because it's a square peg. Live on the edge and approve things that would be enjoyable to find especially if they meet the spirit and intent of what a cache is.

That's why there's the contact Groundspeak address.

That's also one of the reasons that there are these threads.

[+Renegade Knight]

...That's why there's the contact Groundspeak address.

 

While I know that Frog Central takes every contact seriouly, I'd lay odds that I reach more lurking reviewers directly via the forums than indirectly via the contact email.

 

Reaching them...isn't the same as changing minds but I'll take it.

[+Renegade Knight]

... If there is any possible way to place a cache container with a logbook then that's what you need to do.

 

That may sound reasonable but it's really putting a box around what a cache is and limits some creative and fun hides. I for one would truly enjoy finding this cache. Adding a "box" would bring nothing of value to this cache. It certainly would not make it a better find. In my 1000+ finds I have never found anything like this. We are not in danger of a world of wall caches. It's a rarity, well deserving of approval.

 

The real argument has come down to.

 

A) It's a fun cache, approve it as is.

This site's vision of a cache means Log Inside the Container and there shall be a log and a container and they shall not be the same thing.

 

It's worth pointing out that the issue of "harm to geocaching" if this cache is published is a non issue.

[Dinoprophet]

Attach a nano to the wall. Then there's a container and a log.

[+Moose Mob]

If the reviewer chose not to grant an exception, then you can take it to appeals@ to see what the folks at HQ think about it.

 

Personaly, I think it's a great waymark.

[+Renegade Knight]

If the reviewer chose not to grant an exception, then you can take it to appeals@ to see what the folks at HQ think about it.

 

Personaly, I think it's a great waymark.

 

It probably would make a good waymark for the "Walls you can sign" catagory.

 

It would also make a great cache.

[+BlueDeuce]

... If there is any possible way to place a cache container with a logbook then that's what you need to do.

 

That may sound reasonable but it's really putting a box around what a cache is and limits some creative and fun hides. I for one would truly enjoy finding this cache. Adding a "box" would bring nothing of value to this cache. It certainly would not make it a better find. In my 1000+ finds I have never found anything like this. We are not in danger of a world of wall caches. It's a rarity, well deserving of approval.

 

The real argument has come down to.

 

A) It's a fun cache, approve it as is.

B ) This site's vision of a cache means Log Inside the Container and there shall be a log and a container and they shall not be the same thing.

 

It's worth pointing out that the issue of "harm to geocaching" if this cache is published is a non issue.

 

If gc.com doesn't accept the wall being the logbook and clearly states that there has to be a container and a log book then yes B is how I am interpreting their position on cache placement requirements.

 

Creative, innovative, thinking outside of the box (pun intended) caches never scared me. Marsupials do.

 

edit: got rid of the cool smiley guy

Edited August 10, 2007 by BlueDeuce