What makes a Log book

[+KBI]

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.

I agree completely, but it's a slippery slope, and one has to draw the line somewhere. Where do you draw the line? Write your name on the wall ... write your name on the baseball ... write your name on the muggle standing nearest you ... write your name on my friend's web page ... write your name in the air using Morse code and the air horn provided ...

 

The Frog is the one who gets to draw the line -- for listing a cache on this site, anyway.

 

It's the Golden Rule: Them that has the Gold makes the Rules. I'm very happy with the Frog, so I stay around ... even if I disagree with a minor call here and there.

 

I would be okay with the wall cache if it were my call, but it's not my website, and at some point someone has to define the limits, so I try to be patient and just have fun.

[+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.

I agree completely, but it's a slippery slope, and one has to draw the line somewhere. Where do you draw the line? Write your name on the wall ... write your name on the baseball ... write your name on the muggle standing nearest you ... write your name on my friend's web page ... write your name in the air using Morse code and the air horn provided ...

 

The Frog is the one who gets to draw the line -- for listing a cache on this site, anyway.

 

It's the Golden Rule: Them that has the Gold makes the Rules. I'm very happy with the Frog, so I stay around ... even if I disagree with a minor call here and there.

 

I would be okay with the wall cache if it were my call, but it's not my website, and at some point someone has to define the limits, so I try to be patient and just have fun.

<Writes name on the chess piece>

 

 

Just kidding.

Edited August 10, 2007 by sbell111

[+Ambrosia]

...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.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't know how much "reaching" you'll be doing if groudspeak is telling Reviewers to do one thing and you're telling them another...

[+zoltig]

How about logging the cache by carving your name into a tree?

You have to have a line somewhere.

 

OR:

 

Write your name in yellow in a snow bank to log cache.

I have terrible handwriting.

 

Is writing your name on a wall considered tagging in some cities whether or not there is permission granted?

[+sbell111]

Is writing your name on a wall considered tagging in some cities whether or not there is permission granted?

No.

[+TrailGators]

Write your name in yellow in a snow bank to log cache. I have terrible handwriting.

I do too. Can we log those?

 

 

But seriously, I don't think anyone was pushing the fence that far...At least I wasn't. The actual existing cache that CG brought up was very cool. Would it be better if someone jammed a tiny piece of paper into a nano cache and shoved it under one of the bottom bricks in the wall? I myself thought the geo-signatures on that wall were very cool! It would be fun to stand there and view that wall. If it was a waymark, it might actually be one of those rare waymarks that's visited (and logged) by as many people as the typical cache.

Edited August 10, 2007 by TrailGators

[+zoltig]

Write your name in yellow in a snow bank to log cache. I have terrible handwriting.

I do too. Can we log those?

 

Yeah I guess I should have found the "tongue planted deep into cheek" emoticon for that, eh?

[+TrailGators]

Write your name in yellow in a snow bank to log cache. I have terrible handwriting.

I do too. Can we log those?

 

Yeah I guess I should have found the "tongue planted deep into cheek" emoticon for that, eh?

It was obvious you were joking. I was too. I figured we were about to delve into a bunch of poor examples (carving trees, graffiti, etc.). That happens a lot in these threads. I just liked CGs cache. It is probably the exception to the rule and that's why there are guidelines. Edited August 10, 2007 by TrailGators

[+webscouter.]

I have a cache hidden at Walt Disney's boyhood home. The barn that Walt used to play in has signatures all over the wall. The curator encourages the signatures by placing a box of sharpies inside the barn. I placed a cache right outside the barn and also encourage that they go in the barn and sign.

 

Got a container with a log book and also a wall to sign.

[+TrailGators]

I have a cache hidden at Walt Disney's boyhood home. The barn that Walt used to play in has signatures all over the wall. The curator encourages the signatures by placing a box of sharpies inside the barn. I placed a cache right outside the barn and also encourage that they go in the barn and sign.

 

Got a container with a log book and also a wall to sign.

Sounds like fun. That's another good example of one that didn't "have" to have the classic style of logbook.

[+Renegade Knight]

..., but I don't know how much "reaching" you'll be doing if groudspeak is telling Reviewers to do one thing and you're telling them another...

 

When I did my second locationless cache I "bent all the rules" by coming up with a creative new way to go about a locationless. It failed the classic locationless elements and yet captured the spirit and intent. My reviewer at the time said that even though it didn't fit the rules, it captured all the elements that make caching fun and approved it.

 

I may not get any other approvers to think that way and actually approve caches that are fun and capture what we enjoy. But maybe I can get some to at least think about it before they just hit the no button on a perfectly good cache that just happens to miss a guideline while hitting all the right notes of a good cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

How about logging the cache by carving your name into a tree?

You have to have a line somewhere.

 

OR:

 

Write your name in yellow in a snow bank to log cache.

I have terrible handwriting....

 

Maybe there needs to be a line, but the cache in the OP isn't it.

 

Even with the line in place.

Natural Yellow in a snowbank has more appeal than on the log book don't you think?

[+Turtle3863]

 

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.

 

My point exactly.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Turtle3863

[+Ambrosia]

..., but I don't know how much "reaching" you'll be doing if groudspeak is telling Reviewers to do one thing and you're telling them another...

 

When I did my second locationless cache I "bent all the rules" by coming up with a creative new way to go about a locationless. It failed the classic locationless elements and yet captured the spirit and intent. My reviewer at the time said that even though it didn't fit the rules, it captured all the elements that make caching fun and approved it.

 

I may not get any other approvers to think that way and actually approve caches that are fun and capture what we enjoy. But maybe I can get some to at least think about it before they just hit the no button on a perfectly good cache that just happens to miss a guideline while hitting all the right notes of a good cache.

Yet again, in this case I believe that reviewers at that point should send it to Groundspeak.

 

I don't think that the container issue is the same as something like, say, the saturation guideline. The proximity could probably be a bit fluid depending on the situation, but the container is a bigger issue in my opinion. It's one of the reasons that they stopped allowing virts, locs, and webcams. Without a container it's not a geocache. But perhaps I'm just being a bit too an*l.

[+Ambrosia]

How about logging the cache by carving your name into a tree?

You have to have a line somewhere.

 

OR:

 

Write your name in yellow in a snow bank to log cache.

I have terrible handwriting....

 

Maybe there needs to be a line, but the cache in the OP isn't it.

 

Even with the line in place.

Natural Yellow in a snowbank has more appeal than on the log book don't you think?

 

 

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.

 

My point exactly.

I'm sure that most people feel that their cache is unique and fun. That doesn't mean that they are. It can be a drain on reviewers to have to try and decide which are and which are not. Yet another reason why virts are not allowed anymore. Yes - where is the line? The line is at a container with a log. If it doesn't meet that criteria, and if it's really unique enough to warrant an exception and the cache owner believes it strongly enough, then they can appeal to Groundspeak.

 

Makes sense to me.

 

edit cause I broke the quote thingy.

 

Edited August 10, 2007 by Ambrosia

[+TrailGators]

How about if people actually signed a log?

 

[Mushtang]

I agree!

[+Turtle3863]

 

I'm sure that most people feel that their cache is unique and fun. That doesn't mean that they are. It can be a drain on reviewers to have to try and decide which are and which are not. Yet another reason why virts are not allowed anymore. Yes - where is the line? The line is at a container with a log. If it doesn't meet that criteria, and if it's really unique enough to warrant an exception and the cache owner believes it strongly enough, then they can appeal to Groundspeak.

 

 

I already did. Here is my last e-mail from Groundspeak:

 

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches.

This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a

valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been posted

and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it.

However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued

or updated the cache is likely to be “grandfathered†and allowed to stand as

is.

 

without a container and a log this cache can not be published. What has been

published before is never a factor. Signing a wall is not acceptable.

Thank you,

 

Michael

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

 

Ticket Details

===================

Ticket ID: PKH-xxxxxxx

Department: Reviewers

Priority: Low

Status: Closed

[+Turtle3863]

How about if people actually signed a log?

 

 

You mean like this one:

 

 

This is the log book for Geowoodstock 5

[+gpsfun]

Please do not confuse a physical cache and an event.

[+wvcoalcat]

How about if people actually signed a log?

 

 

You mean like this one:

 

 

This is the log book for Geowoodstock 5

 

No, that was the log for GW5, not the log book. They were two different entities.

[+Turtle3863]

Please do not confuse a physical cache and an event.

 

I know that was just an event cache and I did sign both the log book and the log, but it kind of makes you think, why not just use the log.

 

I will leave this subject of what makes a log book up for another day or so then I will be closing the subject before it goes too far a stray. If you think there should be more leeway in what is a log book, write you reviewer and have them plea your cause to Groundspeak.

[+TrailGators]

Please do not confuse a physical cache and an event.

 

I know that was just an event cache and I did sign both the log book and the log, but it kind of makes you think, why not just use the log.

 

I will leave this subject of what makes a log book up for another day or so then I will be closing the subject before it goes too far a stray. If you think there should be more leeway in what is a log book, write you reviewer and have them plea your cause to Groundspeak.

I liked your "example" of an actual signed "log." It would give me a good chuckle if I ever ran across one of those.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

So let's say that I put out an ammo can about the size of an APE cache. I then tell people to log it by signing the outside of it with Sharpies that I provide. That wouldn't pass because the 'log' wasn't inside the 'container'? That seems pretty silly to me.

 

Would it be a cache if I told them to sign the inside of the can?

[+Renegade Knight]

So let's say that I put out an ammo can about the size of an APE cache. I then tell people to log it by signing the outside of it with Sharpies that I provide. That wouldn't pass because the 'log' wasn't inside the 'container'? That seems pretty silly to me.

 

Would it be a cache if I told them to sign the inside of the can?

I reckon you could stick a 30 cal inside a 50 cal and have them sign the outside of the 30 cal that's inside the 50 cal...

[+Renegade Knight]

Anyone made a cache out of a Klein bottle?

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Anyone made a cache out of a Klein bottle?

 

Guess you'd need to use a Möbius strip as a log...

 

Edited August 11, 2007 by Corp Of Discovery

[+TrailGators]

Anyone made a cache out of a Klein bottle?

 

Guess you'd need to use a Möbius strip as a log...

 

Make sure that the Möbius strip is so small that you need a scanning electron microscope in order to see the log and sign it....