Jump to content

Alternative Logging Method


outdoorsaddix

Recommended Posts

im sort of wondering what the caching community thinks about this, lets say that you have just spent half an hour looking for a micro, you find it open it up take out the log, reach in your pants to get your pen to sign it and either your forgot the pen/lost the pen/didn't take your caching bag by accedent etc etc. Is it ok to log the find by taking a photo of the log with your camera phone and upload it with your log to prove that you found it and got into the log. I have seen others do this when they forget the pen, and I admit to doing t once too, but is it ok if you forgot the pen to log in the manner?

Link to comment

Purists will reply that, "If you didn't sign the log, you didn't do the cache." . . . There's always gotta be somebody at one end of the extreme or the other, doesn't there? God love 'em . . . :laughing:

 

I've done the same thing after walking about 1/4 mile to a cache at a rather large rest area, only to find the micro and not have a pen in hand. Family is sitting in the car waiting on me so we can finish our trip. Pull out phone and take a picture of the open log. I guess worse comes to worse, the owner could delete your log.

 

You do what you gotta do. It's not like you were armchair caching or something! On to the next cache!

 

Cache On!

 

JohnTee

Link to comment
im sort of wondering what the caching community thinks about this, lets say that you have just spent half an hour looking for a micro, you find it open it up take out the log, reach in your pants to get your pen to sign it and either your forgot the pen/lost the pen/didn't take your caching bag by accedent etc etc. Is it ok to log the find by taking a photo of the log with your camera phone and upload it with your log to prove that you found it and got into the log. I have seen others do this when they forget the pen, and I admit to doing t once too, but is it ok if you forgot the pen to log in the manner?
Email the cache owner and ask him/her. It's his/her decision, but I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Link to comment

im sort of wondering what the caching community thinks about this, lets say that you have just spent half an hour looking for a micro, you find it open it up take out the log, reach in your pants to get your pen to sign it and either your forgot the pen/lost the pen/didn't take your caching bag by accedent etc etc. Is it ok to log the find by taking a photo of the log with your camera phone and upload it with your log to prove that you found it and got into the log. I have seen others do this when they forget the pen, and I admit to doing t once too, but is it ok if you forgot the pen to log in the manner?

 

A Find is not a regulated thing. You can claim a find on any cache and it is entirely up to the cache owner to make the call. Most cache owners don't care at all and if you forgot a pen then it is no big deal. If you are unfortunate enough to be logging a cache that is owned by someone who thinks that cache finds are very important and weighty affairs they might not be convinced by your picture.

Fortunately those people quit caching fairly quickly because a lot of people who forget pens claim they have found the cache. If that bugs a cache owner then they won't last as a geocacher, a Find count is a meaningless number. It isn't a rating or a score, it means nothing. Geocaching is fun and if a cache owner requires "proof" of your visit then they should likely be a prosecutor, not a geocacher.

 

If you put another geocachers TB tracking code in your log I will send you an email and then delete your log very quickly. I am not concerned with your Find count but I think it is important to protect the gamepieces. On the other hand if you log a second visit with the Found It log I could care less, it doesn't hurt anyone, and technically you did find it when you went back for the second visit.

 

I will let other cache owners weigh in because every cache owner is different. The key thing to recognize is that no single answer is correct and every answer is correct, it is up to each cache owner to decide. Cache owners can delete your Found It log for any reason at all and you have no recourse, they are in complete control of the caches they own.

 

If you forgot your pen you can still find any of the caches I have placed and have fun.

Link to comment

I think it is all in how you want to play the game. Of corse the owner could delete your log but the real question is how do YOU feel about the find.

I've walked a half mile back to the car to get a pen blaming myself all the way to the car and back to the cache. I could've done something else to prove I'd been there but I don't play that way anymore and deleted a few previous logs of caches where I almost signed the log book.

It is between you and the owner on what is allowed. :laughing:

Edited by SGT red jeep
Link to comment

Purists will reply that, "If you didn't sign the log, you didn't do the cache." . . . There's always gotta be somebody at one end of the extreme or the other, doesn't there? God love 'em . . . :laughing:

 

I always love'em that try to interpret the purist position. :laughing:

 

Photos are a great. (Although I would suggest contacting the owner directly rather than posting it online) Mud, a burnt stick, blood, a paper punch hole are also good alternatives. Whatever it takes to leave your mark. Just describe it in the log and that should be just as good as leaving a graphite smudge.

 

(Considering my handwriting skills, it's usually a smudge :laughing: )

Link to comment
I will let other cache owners weigh in because every cache owner is different. The key thing to recognize is that no single answer is correct and every answer is correct, it is up to each cache owner to decide. Cache owners can delete your Found It log for any reason at all and you have no recourse, they are in complete control of the caches they own.

 

If you forgot your pen you can still find any of the caches I have placed and have fun.

 

In reference to the OPs question I think providing a photo (Especially a photo), or simply giving a very good description cache, contents and log book, or singing the log using something other than ink or lead, a cache owner denying the log would be a rare situation. They might take some time to go do a verification but I would seriously doubt the average cache owner would deny the find once they think all requirements are met.

 

 

edit: then/than

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

im sort of wondering what the caching community thinks about this, lets say that you have just spent half an hour looking for a micro, you find it open it up take out the log, reach in your pants to get your pen to sign it and either your forgot the pen/lost the pen/didn't take your caching bag by accedent etc etc. Is it ok to log the find by taking a photo of the log with your camera phone and upload it with your log to prove that you found it and got into the log. I have seen others do this when they forget the pen, and I admit to doing t once too, but is it ok if you forgot the pen to log in the manner?

Hmmm, camera phone. I must admit that hadn't occured to me, though I always have it with me, even when I don't have a pen. But would it stand up as evidence of a FTF? A picture of the blank log book...

 

That would probably tick off the second finder even more than waiting around to borrow his pen.

Link to comment

Start carrying a pen :laughing: I have forced myself to make this something I must have, camera, gps, pen, ok let's go.

 

Pictures I think are ok, but making any sort of mark is best.

 

I have sometimes left cash (twonie) as well as taking a pic and marking somehow, then mentioned it all in my log

 

I have returned to caches just to sign them.

Link to comment

im sort of wondering what the caching community thinks about this, lets say that you have just spent half an hour looking for a micro, you find it open it up take out the log, reach in your pants to get your pen to sign it and either your forgot the pen/lost the pen/didn't take your caching bag by accedent etc etc. Is it ok to log the find by taking a photo of the log with your camera phone and upload it with your log to prove that you found it and got into the log. I have seen others do this when they forget the pen, and I admit to doing t once too, but is it ok if you forgot the pen to log in the manner?

 

I agree that a photo would work at times like these. Not a photo of the cache way up in a tree or across the water, but one that shows where it's obvious that you had retrieved it. I wouldn't have any trouble accepting this kind of log.

 

However, logbooks are placed in caches for a reason and i do think that they should be signed whenever possible. For me, i would try my darndest to get my mark in that logbook and there is usually a way to accomplish this. While it's certainly not as easy, marking with a stick dipped in mud, using green vegetation, coal, charcoal, burnt wood, a sticker, and other methods can be utilized for getting that mark in the logbook. :laughing:

Link to comment
Is it ok to log the find by taking a photo of the log with your camera phone and upload it with your log to prove that you found it and got into the log. I have seen others do this when they forget the pen, and I admit to doing t once too, but is it ok if you forgot the pen to log in the manner?

It's up to the cache owner. I'd say it's generally accepted as a rare occurrence. I'd probably make sure the cache is uniquely identifiable in the photo. This might be a spoiler so I'd email the photo to the owner much like you'd do with a virt.

 

I just wouldn't let it be a common occurrence as there might be issues with you being able to remember the camera but not the pen.

Link to comment

In reference to the OPs question I think providing a photo (Especially a photo), or simply giving a very good description cache, contents and log book, or singing the log using something other than ink or lead, a cache owner denying the log would be a rare situation. They might take some time to go do a verification but I would seriously doubt the average cache owner would deny the find once they think all requirements are met.

 

I think you are wrong, it isn't rare at all. I have had a log deleted by a local cacher for no reason whatsoever. The logbook was signed, the cache was found but the log, for reasons known only to the cache owner, was simply deleted. I don't know why the log was deleted and frankly, I don't care, it doesn't matter.

 

Geocaching is not about proving you found a cache, it is about having fun. If you think you can establish a baseline for a "Find" then you are simply kidding yourself and others.

 

There was a thread recently about a Nova Scotia cacher who had all his logs deleted by a cache owner who didn''t like him. Cybret actually suggested that the cacher contact Groundspeak and complain, they had tried and had gotten the standard response "Too bad, so sad, the cache owner owns the cache and the cache owner decides when their cache has been found and that is the end of the story", the idea that a Find count is of concern to anyone other than the cache owner is not limited to noobs. :laughing:

 

The OP asked what is acceptable to the community, the truth is simple, the community has no standard because a Find is always between the cache owner and the cacher. There is no way to make a cache owner accept a Found log. Owners can delete a log for ANY REASON and they can allow a find FOR ANY REASON.

 

If you think it is a rare owner who will delete logs then perhaps you can explain all the comments from cachers who insist that the logbook has to be signed? These comments are easy to find, do you suppose all those cache owners just relax when they get a log that says "found it , had no pencil", I don't.

 

So I don't buy your view that there is reasonable owner/community standard that works, there isn't. The truth is a lot simpler, a cache owner decides when their cache has been found and that is the end of the story.

 

If they are hunting a cache I won and they have forgotten a pencil, I relax, that is OK.

Link to comment

In reference to the OPs question I think providing a photo (Especially a photo), or simply giving a very good description cache, contents and log book, or singing the log using something other than ink or lead, a cache owner denying the log would be a rare situation. They might take some time to go do a verification but I would seriously doubt the average cache owner would deny the find once they think all requirements are met.

 

I think you are wrong, it isn't rare at all. I have had a log deleted by a local cacher for no reason whatsoever. The logbook was signed, the cache was found but the log, for reasons known only to the cache owner, was simply deleted. I don't know why the log was deleted and frankly, I don't care, it doesn't matter.

 

Geocaching is not about proving you found a cache, it is about having fun. If you think you can establish a baseline for a "Find" then you are simply kidding yourself and others.

 

There was a thread recently about a Nova Scotia cacher who had all his logs deleted by a cache owner who didn''t like him. Cybret actually suggested that the cacher contact Groundspeak and complain, they had tried and had gotten the standard response "Too bad, so sad, the cache owner owns the cache and the cache owner decides when their cache has been found and that is the end of the story", the idea that a Find count is of concern to anyone other than the cache owner is not limited to noobs. :laughing:

 

The OP asked what is acceptable to the community, the truth is simple, the community has no standard because a Find is always between the cache owner and the cacher. There is no way to make a cache owner accept a Found log. Owners can delete a log for ANY REASON and they can allow a find FOR ANY REASON.

 

If you think it is a rare owner who will delete logs then perhaps you can explain all the comments from cachers who insist that the logbook has to be signed? These comments are easy to find, do you suppose all those cache owners just relax when they get a log that says "found it , had no pencil", I don't.

 

So I don't buy your view that there is reasonable owner/community standard that works, there isn't. The truth is a lot simpler, a cache owner decides when their cache has been found and that is the end of the story.

st cachers

If they are hunting a cache I won and they have forgotten a pencil, I relax, that is OK.

 

I can understand that such situations may stand out by themselves, but I really don't find that many cache owners will delete finds.

 

And for those owners who do question the log, they tend to accept a decent response to their questions.

Link to comment

Here's what I did on a recent out of state cache. Excerpt from my long log:

 

"Started down the hill again and saw a suspect area and checked it out and "voila" it was the cache. Yea! Went to sign the log and saw that there was no pen or pencil and I did not have one either. Well, it was a very hot day and I had already sweated my head off and was huffing and puffing and there was no way I was going back for a pen.

 

So thinking "What would McGuiver do?" I ripped a wedge shaped piece of paper off the log book out from below the last log on the left where I would sign (if I had a pen) and kept the piece of paper for evidence of my find. I will take a close up photo of the piece of paper and post it as proof as you can see that it matches the missing piece on the log."

 

And the proof in a photo I posted when I got home:

 

9fca4fde-e7e3-424b-8382-f0547338d576.jpg

 

Seeing I had no camera or pen on me at the time this seemed like a fair and logical thing to do. I did not even have a knife on me to cut myself and sign in blood... :laughing:

 

Lesson learned but you do what you gotta do. Nothing wrong in my opinion with improvising. If the cache owner would have had a problem with it it would be *his* problem, not mine...

 

But my log still stands so I guess he was cool with it...

 

It's only a game... :laughing:

Edited by Mofino
Link to comment

im sort of wondering what the caching community thinks about this, lets say that you have just spent half an hour looking for a micro, you find it open it up take out the log, reach in your pants to get your pen to sign it and either your forgot the pen/lost the pen/didn't take your caching bag by accedent etc etc. Is it ok to log the find by taking a photo of the log with your camera phone and upload it with your log to prove that you found it and got into the log. I have seen others do this when they forget the pen, and I admit to doing t once too, but is it ok if you forgot the pen to log in the manner?

 

If it was my cache I'd be fine with that. Others may not be. That said, there is usually something you can do to sign the log. I've been in that position several times and have signed logs with the ash from the end of a cigar, a stick dipped in mud and a stone.

Link to comment
Purists will reply that, "If you didn't sign the log, you didn't do the cache." . . . There's always gotta be somebody at one end of the extreme or the other, doesn't there? God love 'em . . . :laughing:

To me, there is a HUGE difference between:

1) holding the log book in your hand but not having a pen to sign it with so you claim a find using alternate methods to prove you were there, and

2) not being able to get to the out of reach cache, open the tricky to open container, or even find the thing and assuming it's gone, and claiming a find saying you were at the location and that counts.

 

If the cache is an easy one, and the log isn't supposed to be tricky to get to, then you'll probably have a much better chance of the owner not caring that you didn't actually sign it because you forgot a pen.

Link to comment

As repeatedly stated, it's between the hider and the finder.

In my protocol, there is NO EXCUSE for not having a writing implement with you at the time of the find!

You remembered the GPSr didn't you?

Didn't' know it was a micro?

BAH!

Assumed the pen in the cache would be there and work?

B.S.!

On the other hand, the condition of the log MAY be a valid excuse for not signing, a sig item is invaluable in these cases!

I would certainly allow a photo of the log as proof of your visit, however.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is assuming your signature is on the log when you photograph it!

Link to comment

As repeatedly stated, it's between the hider and the finder.

In my protocol, there is NO EXCUSE for not having a writing implement with you at the time of the find!

You remembered the GPSr didn't you?

Didn't' know it was a micro?

BAH!

Assumed the pen in the cache would be there and work?

B.S.!

On the other hand, the condition of the log MAY be a valid excuse for not signing, a sig item is invaluable in these cases!

I would certainly allow a photo of the log as proof of your visit, however.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is assuming your signature is on the log when you photograph it!

B):laughing::laughing::laughing:

Link to comment

Purists will reply that, "If you didn't sign the log, you didn't do the cache." . . . There's always gotta be somebody at one end of the extreme or the other, doesn't there? God love 'em . . . :laughing:

 

I always love'em that try to interpret the purist position. :laughing:

 

Photos are a great. (Although I would suggest contacting the owner directly rather than posting it online) Mud, a burnt stick, blood, a paper punch hole are also good alternatives. Whatever it takes to leave your mark. Just describe it in the log and that should be just as good as leaving a graphite smudge.

 

(Considering my handwriting skills, it's usually a smudge :laughing: )

 

I've got a log that was signed with mud. He took a stick, dipped it in the mud, and wrote his name, good thing it's a short one! I don't know where the pencil disappeared to, but seeing as the cache is out on an island, the cacher wasn't going to paddle his canoe back to the truck just for a pencil... I'm fine with it, as long as he enjoyed the experience, and appreciated the island that I was show-casing with the cache.

Link to comment

In reference to the OPs question I think providing a photo (Especially a photo), or simply giving a very good description cache, contents and log book, or singing the log using something other than ink or lead, a cache owner denying the log would be a rare situation. They might take some time to go do a verification but I would seriously doubt the average cache owner would deny the find once they think all requirements are met.

 

I think you are wrong, it isn't rare at all. I have had a log deleted by a local cacher for no reason whatsoever. The logbook was signed, the cache was found but the log, for reasons known only to the cache owner, was simply deleted. I don't know why the log was deleted and frankly, I don't care, it doesn't matter.

 

Geocaching is not about proving you found a cache, it is about having fun. If you think you can establish a baseline for a "Find" then you are simply kidding yourself and others.

 

There was a thread recently about a Nova Scotia cacher who had all his logs deleted by a cache owner who didn''t like him. Cybret actually suggested that the cacher contact Groundspeak and complain, they had tried and had gotten the standard response "Too bad, so sad, the cache owner owns the cache and the cache owner decides when their cache has been found and that is the end of the story", the idea that a Find count is of concern to anyone other than the cache owner is not limited to noobs. :laughing:

 

The OP asked what is acceptable to the community, the truth is simple, the community has no standard because a Find is always between the cache owner and the cacher. There is no way to make a cache owner accept a Found log. Owners can delete a log for ANY REASON and they can allow a find FOR ANY REASON.

 

If you think it is a rare owner who will delete logs then perhaps you can explain all the comments from cachers who insist that the logbook has to be signed? These comments are easy to find, do you suppose all those cache owners just relax when they get a log that says "found it , had no pencil", I don't.

 

So I don't buy your view that there is reasonable owner/community standard that works, there isn't. The truth is a lot simpler, a cache owner decides when their cache has been found and that is the end of the story.

 

If they are hunting a cache I won and they have forgotten a pencil, I relax, that is OK.

In about 5 1/2 years of caching all over the country and some other countries, and with about 1,150 finds, I think I've only had one log deleted. And that was from a virtual cache owner who deleted a bunch of cache logs spanning back a year, because his logging requirements were vague and we all thought we had done the correct thing. He then archived his cache because of the backlash.

Link to comment

Personally I would allow such a find, as the cacher did actually retrieve the cache container and open it as well. What one local creative cacher has done -- and I have heard of others doing the same since then -- when they arrived at a cache and found that it was missing a pen or pencil and that they were also lacking one, was to use a sharp stick and a green leaf to leave a chlorophyll-ink signature in the logbook. That signature is still in place in the logbook two and a half years later; I should know, because the cache was one of ours, located in the wilderness just a stone's throw from our home.

Link to comment

I'm pretty sure that I know when I've "found" a cache: at least according to my own personal guidelines (it does involve getting both hands on the log book though!). Whatever method you use to record your visit (or not), IMHO it's up to the individual's conscience whether to log a find or not.

 

The cache owner may want to "police" the logs: but consider these examples.

 

1. Five minutes after you've signed the log, the cache is muggled without your knowledge. The cache owner turns up on his annual logbook-checking round a few hours later and sees that it's disappeared. Now what happens with his strict rule that all on-line logs have to match the cache log book? Does he demand another proof of visit from all those that logged the cache in the year since his last check? I think he would get short shrift, and yet on the face of it they are all in the same position as the OP - no log book signature available but cache claimed.

 

2. Or what about the situation where you have the log book and pen but, distracted by some talk about swaps you replace them in the cache without signing and rush off to the next cache assuming that the find was complete? You may not even remember failing to sign the log. But you know you definitely found the cache, so what would be the point of reducing the "found it" to a "DNF"?.

 

3. Or...you sign the log using a stick and mud but two years later someone writes over the top of the smudgy mark so that it's no longer visible, and the cache owner doesn't visit until after this?

 

The point is that it's a game where we generally have to trust people to log a find only if they actually find the cache (according to their own idea of a find). There is no way the cache owner can have total proof for all finds, so it shouldn't be up to him/her to try and enforce anything.

 

The furthest they can go is to make a judgement when the cache seeker admits that there was something that they are uncomfortable with about the find, or if they just admit that they didn't really find it.

Link to comment
Purists will reply that, "If you didn't sign the log, you didn't do the cache." . . . There's always gotta be somebody at one end of the extreme or the other, doesn't there? God love 'em . . . :laughing:
I always love'em that try to interpret the purist position. :laughing:

 

Photos are a great. (Although I would suggest contacting the owner directly rather than posting it online) Mud, a burnt stick, blood, a paper punch hole are also good alternatives. Whatever it takes to leave your mark. Just describe it in the log and that should be just as good as leaving a graphite smudge.

 

(Considering my handwriting skills, it's usually a smudge :laughing: )

I guess you only thought you were a 'purist'. AZcachemeister is apparently standing to your right.
...

In my protocol, there is NO EXCUSE for not having a writing implement with you at the time of the find!

You remembered the GPSr didn't you?

Didn't' know it was a micro?

BAH!

Assumed the pen in the cache would be there and work?

B.S.!

On the other hand, the condition of the log MAY be a valid excuse for not signing, a sig item is invaluable in these cases!

I would certainly allow a photo of the log as proof of your visit, however.

 

That is assuming your signature is on the log when you photograph it!

Personally, I'm open to alternative logging methods as long as they are reasonable (such as a pic or the examples given by BD).
Link to comment

Purists will reply that, "If you didn't sign the log, you didn't do the cache." . . . There's always gotta be somebody at one end of the extreme or the other, doesn't there? God love 'em . . . :laughing:

 

I always love'em that try to interpret the purist position. B)

 

Photos are a great. (Although I would suggest contacting the owner directly rather than posting it online) Mud, a burnt stick, blood, a paper punch hole are also good alternatives. Whatever it takes to leave your mark. Just describe it in the log and that should be just as good as leaving a graphite smudge.

 

(Considering my handwriting skills, it's usually a smudge :laughing: )

 

I have had this happen to one of my caches. Somehow the cache got a little wet, the log was damp and the pen was missing. (Guess someone thought it was a trade item. :laughing: ) The cacher mentioned in his log that he grabbed a stick, marked an "X" with some mud. Sure enough, when I went to do maintenence on the cache...there was the "X". I have no problem with this.

 

Even if someone wasn't crafty enough to find *something* to mark the log...I would occasionally even accept an *exact* description of where it is located, how it was hidden..etc. to verify that they found it. Not in all cases though. It would have to be exact enough in which I was assured that they didn't get the info off of another previous hider. That's just me though. I'm not a purist. I'm a game player. :ph34r:

Link to comment

I'm not a purist. I'm a game player. :laughing:

I think I understand what you mean :laughing: . That's how I look at it too. Often the game players are seen as "taking it too seriously" when debating the finer points of a "find": in fact the opposite is the case.

 

But in your "X" example, what would you have done if the "X" wasn't there?

 

For instance;

- the log book was unreadable or missing.

- the log book appeared complete but no "X" was visible.

 

In the first case you (most likely) will just give everyone who'd logged the cache the benefit of the doubt. There's no realistic option, but this undermines the whole "find validation" system.

 

In the second, you might persist in policing the cache by asking for a photo or more specific details of the hide. Some people will be at a disadvantage, depending on how many caches they've been to since, whether they took any photos, and how long ago the incident took place. I think I'd be inclined to ignore any such request from a cache owner (I know I found it, I made every reasonable effort to log the cache at the time, the task is complete and no further correspondence about MY cache log (which is legitimate and belongs to me) will be entered in to!).

Link to comment

I'm not a purist. I'm a game player. :laughing:

I think I understand what you mean :laughing: . That's how I look at it too. Often the game players are seen as "taking it too seriously" when debating the finer points of a "find": in fact the opposite is the case.

 

But in your "X" example, what would you have done if the "X" wasn't there?

 

For instance;

- the log book was unreadable or missing.

- the log book appeared complete but no "X" was visible.

 

In the first case you (most likely) will just give everyone who'd logged the cache the benefit of the doubt. There's no realistic option, but this undermines the whole "find validation" system.

 

In the second, you might persist in policing the cache by asking for a photo or more specific details of the hide. Some people will be at a disadvantage, depending on how many caches they've been to since, whether they took any photos, and how long ago the incident took place. I think I'd be inclined to ignore any such request from a cache owner (I know I found it, I made every reasonable effort to log the cache at the time, the task is complete and no further correspondence about MY cache log (which is legitimate and belongs to me) will be entered in to!).

If the log book were missing (or destroyed), I'd take their word for it. If the log book was present and in good condition and the mark was not present, I'd send an email explaining that I could not find their mark and I would very likely delete the find log.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

If the log book was present and in good condition and the mark was not present, I'd send an email explaining that I could not find their mark and I would very likely delete the find log.

If it were me on the receiving end, I'd delete the "find" log (if it remained) and add a note to the cache saying that I'd found the cache and clearly recall making an effort to sign the log: then leave it at that. I'd be slightly irritated that my "caches found" list would no longer be accurate, but that's not such a big deal as it's not likely to happen too often: so I could just pretend that I hadn't found it and I'd soon forget all about the incident.

 

I'd be more annoyed that the cache owner accused me of lying, and would doubtless make use of the "ignore" feature from then on! :laughing:

Link to comment

Two options I've used in the past - hey, sometimes you just forget...

 

1) I used a twig and a dandelion leaf to sign the log. Worked ok, but looked kind of sloppy.

2) Burned the end of a stick, then used the charcoal to sign the log. Worked better than 1), but then I am a shunned smoker, and NEVER forget my lighter. :laughing:

Link to comment
If the log book was present and in good condition and the mark was not present, I'd send an email explaining that I could not find their mark and I would very likely delete the find log.
If it were me on the receiving end, I'd delete the "find" log (if it remained) and add a note to the cache saying that I'd found the cache and clearly recall making an effort to sign the log: then leave it at that. I'd be slightly irritated that my "caches found" list would no longer be accurate, but that's not such a big deal as it's not likely to happen too often: so I could just pretend that I hadn't found it and I'd soon forget all about the incident.

 

I'd be more annoyed that the cache owner accused me of lying, and would doubtless make use of the "ignore" feature from then on! :laughing:

Per the guidelines, a cache owner is responsible for ensuring that the online logs are not bogus. Most people simply trust the truthfulness of the loggers and only check the physical logs if their spidey sense tingles.

 

If the cache owner decides to verify whether a cacher signed the physical log and finds sig to be missing, the guidelines actually require the cache owner to delete the find log. It makes no difference if the cache owner was looking for an actual signature or a bloody fingerprint.

Link to comment

the guidelines actually require the cache owner to delete the find log.

 

The guidelines are pretty clear, the cache owner assumes ALL responsibility for the cache listing.

The actual wording is "delete any logs that appear to be"

Since the cache owner is the one that determines what a log "appears to be" it is clearly within their purview to make the call on every log. There is a risk that cache owners who do not respond to armchair logging or other bogus logs already defined by this listing might get their listing locked but it would have to be a clear infraction already outlined by this listing servce. Jeremy can correct me if I am wrong but I don't think geocaching.com is going to be policing cache logs looking for people who forgot pencils anytime soon.

 

If you see a log on one of my caches that appears to be bogus to you don't bother making any comments, I will delete your comments, I assume ALL responsibility for the logs on my caches.

 

There is no standard and the examples given by HH are entirely realistic. I have had several log books taken from my caches and there is no way to check if they were signed by those claiming Finds. I have found a cache that then disappeared before I returned from vacation and logged it. I logged it after the owner had said it was gone and had disabled the listing and it was my first and only find in that province! The owner found the cache months later and sent me an email because he was very surprised to see my name on the log book. The owner of the cache thought I was grabbing a free find yet let my log stand and three months later he learned that I had been at his cache, in the intervening time he thought bad thoughts about me for sure. :P

 

The OP asked if there was a community standard for alternate logging methods, there isn't because the standard is very clear and well delineated, the owner of the cache assumes ALL responsibility for the cache listing.

 

It is your Find count, it is your log and your record but it is my cache. The only logs I delete are the ones that say the cache has been found when it hasn't (found stage but not the final), the ones that contain another players TB tracking number or logs which contain spoilers. I don't worry about it at all, I send an email and then delete the log, if someone gets their knickers in knot that is their problem, not mine.

 

I don't worry about find counts, if you forget a pencil I am not concerned, go ahead and log it as Found.

Link to comment
im sort of wondering what the caching community thinks about this, lets say that you have just spent half an hour looking for a micro, you find it open it up take out the log, reach in your pants to get your pen to sign it and either your forgot the pen/lost the pen/didn't take your caching bag by accedent etc etc. Is it ok to log the find by taking a photo of the log with your camera phone and upload it with your log to prove that you found it and got into the log. I have seen others do this when they forget the pen, and I admit to doing t once too, but is it ok if you forgot the pen to log in the manner?
Email the cache owner and ask him/her. It's his/her decision, but I wouldn't have a problem with it.

No problem with it here either.

 

I am one of those that believe you should sign the log to claim the find, but the purpose behind that is to be sure that the cache was found, none of that "I was within 20 feet of it so I am claiming the find" garbage. Taking a picture does indeed reflect that the log was in hand, the purpose was therefore satisfied.

 

But again, it is the cache owner's privilege to decide this at their cache.

Link to comment

If I find the cache I log the find online. If I can I sign the cache log. If I can't, I don't worry about it, lose sleep, or otherwise give it a second thought.

 

Since I did what I'm supposed to do (find the cache, try to sign the log) it's up to the owner to take time out of their busy day and worry about the nuances of their cache. If they feel the need to question me then I'll be happy to answer them.

 

Photographic proof seems like a good plan B. I seldom have a camera with me, but I think it's fair enough. So is bleeding on the log for that matter.

Link to comment

In about 5 1/2 years of caching all over the country and some other countries, and with about 1,150 finds, I think I've only had one log deleted. And that was from a virtual cache owner who deleted a bunch of cache logs spanning back a year, because his logging requirements were vague and we all thought we had done the correct thing. He then archived his cache because of the backlash.

 

Clearly our experiences differ.

I have been suspended from posting on this Forum, I would venture to guess that you have not been.

My online personality may cause some of the problems, I am not sure. :P

 

I once had a very well known cacher insinuate that I was a cheater after he misread a Note log I left on a cache. He didn't know me and assumed that I was going to cheat on a cache that had restrictive logging requirements.

He didn't have the courage to actually come right out and say I was cheating but his insinuation was very clear. I blasted away as usual and offended other members of his community, I am sure that resulted in a log deletion or two. :)

That same cacher then had the audacity to link a cache that he owned and complained in public forum that there were people who cheated by logging his cache improperly. :P

Apparently his lack of courage extended to policing his own caches. I could not believe the fact that he pointed to one of his own caches and said that there were logs on that cache that were not acceptable. I felt very sorry for those cachers who had logged his cache and were then held out as examples of what was wrong with the caching community. I felt his actions underlined his faults, not thiers.

I went ahead and deleted all my logs on his caches with a few exceptions.

 

You are just so nice that I can easily believe that you have never had a log deleted. I try to be nice but I am not as successful as I would like to be, since I am opinionated and I tend to get excited I rub people the wrong way.

 

Cache owners have to accept ALL responsibility for their cache listings, this includes defending the logs that others have left on their cache. If a cacher logs one of my caches and I let the log stand then it is a good log and I will defend it against members of the Find Mafia.

Link to comment

Semi thread drift on alternate log signing.

 

At this particular cache I was on the cliff side and lost my balance. Rather than go over the cliff I chose to throw myself forward. Scratches versus broken body parts was the good choice :P

 

July 27, 2005 by geospyder (2012 found)

Signed this one in blood - literally. Was at the cache site and slipped. Threw myself forward and guess what was in my path - bush with sharp thorns. I have a full set of Nevada pinstriping on both legs and my right arm. Didn't know I could bleed so much from the scratches. Took nothing but scratches. Left a 24kt gold leaf on a chain. Thanks for the cache. Passed minstrelboy on my way to Ag Overlook as he was coming to this cache.

 

The cacher I passed on the way out made a interesting log. Even though he had a 4WD truck, I had advised him not to even attempt to drive pass a certain point on the trail.

 

July 27, 2005 by minstrelboy (193 found)

Well, truck still is NOT BROKEN!!! And thanks to geospyder's advice, neither am I. He signed in blood, I signed in sweat, I suppose the next poor slob will be signing in tears...sorry. Anyway, goals accomplished: 1) excercise, check. 2) 5 of 5 caches today, check 3)Destroyed my truck, nope, utter failure. The thing won't go over 50 on the hwy and not more than 20 up a hill, but the durn thing still climbs straight up and straight down. Those guys at the shop aren't going to believe me. Oh well. TFTC! TNLNSL

Link to comment

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

 

I disagree, I thought my post was very clear.

 

The person who determines that a log "appears to be bogus, counterfiet or not within the stated requirements" is the cache owner, don't you agree?

 

I am not trying to be disagreeable, just pointing out that the community standard is simple and clear, the owner decides when their cache has been found. If a log "appears to be bogus" to the owner (maybe he doesn't like the persons caching handle) then it is bogus, if it "appears to be" legit to the owner, then it is legit.

 

I allow that this listing service has identified logs that they will not allow but they don't delete those logs, they lock the listing because the owner is not meeting the obligations they agreed to meet when the cache was listed.

 

I suppose that means that I am agreeing that the owner is in control of the cache logs, completely and unequivocally. If someone has no pencil and they claim a find on my cache then I accpet that log. You may think it "appears to be" bogus but that doesn't matter, it is my cache. You would be perfectly within your rights deleting logs on your cache because a pencil was forgotten.

 

That is the community standard.

Link to comment

I wouldn't lose sleep over it. You can find my one loney cache and just email me telling me where you found it, or give a description of the place and I would be cool with that. I have not verified that everyone who logged online has signed the logbook, but rather I like looking at some of the cool stuff people come up with to put in there. If you can find it and describe the area or cache to me but had no pen, I'm okay with that. Things happen.

Link to comment
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
I disagree, I thought my post was very clear.

 

The person who determines that a log "appears to be bogus, counterfiet or not within the stated requirements" is the cache owner, don't you agree?

Not only do I agree, but that's what I said in the post that you disagreed with.
Link to comment
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
I disagree, I thought my post was very clear.

 

The person who determines that a log "appears to be bogus, counterfiet or not within the stated requirements" is the cache owner, don't you agree?

Not only do I agree, but that's what I said in the post that you disagreed with.

Yeah, I was trying to figure that out, too. :P

Link to comment

Grass, ash, mud and blood all make fine mataerial for at least a fingerprint on the log. - Photo works for me too.

Obviously I do prefer to sign the log in proper style, and if not then to leave some sort of mark, as above.

 

But to be honest, it's mainly for my own satisfaction as I really don't care whether the cache owner is going to "police" the cache logs or not. It's not to "prove I was there", it's just part of the game, it completes the cache find. As I said above, the whole book of cache logs may go missing before anyone checks them: but that doesn't cast doubt on anyone who logged online, even though none may now be able to "prove" that they visited.

 

My online log is simply a record of what I did. That's why I'm perfectly prepared to log a DNF in those cases where I'm unable to complete the cache find - it's an accurate record and useful if I'm caching in the same area again.

Link to comment

I would really like to know what cache owner has the time and the "memory" to check the log book against the online logs. Especially if that cache is high difficulty, very popular or one of a coupla dozen or so owned. Really. I ain't trying to be a smart aleck, but if you can manage that and still have another life going for you, congratulations.....!!!!!

 

I pretty much trust the locals around here. In addition, I will usually let those who report a DNF change that DNF to a smiley IF the cache went missing like they say it did even tho they didn't sign the log (except my high difficutly ones).

 

If someone wants to armchair log my caches, that's fine with me. At least I'm not the delusional one participating in the exchange! It makes my cache look more popular and he's the one that's delusional.

 

RATTLEBARS

Link to comment
I would really like to know what cache owner has the time and the "memory" to check the log book against the online logs. Especially if that cache is high difficulty, very popular or one of a coupla dozen or so owned. Really. I ain't trying to be a smart aleck, but if you can manage that and still have another life going for you, congratulations.....!!!!!

 

I pretty much trust the locals around here. In addition, I will usually let those who report a DNF change that DNF to a smiley IF the cache went missing like they say it did even tho they didn't sign the log (except my high difficutly ones).

 

If someone wants to armchair log my caches, that's fine with me. At least I'm not the delusional one participating in the exchange! It makes my cache look more popular and he's the one that's delusional.

I suspect that very few cache owners verify every log. However, I believe that most cache owners would consider checking the paper log if a particular online log is hinky.
Link to comment
I pretty much trust the locals around here.

 

Same way I feel! Truly, if someone doubts my many times I have gone out forgetting a pen, I could care less! I KNOW where I've been and what I've found. I have been FTF a few times where I forgot a pen in my hurry to get out of the house (and usually I'm on the motorcycle...no pen there)...once, the STF knew I had been there and actually signed the log for me! It has never been a problem for anyone here!

 

There is really only 1 cache I regret not having signed the log on: The cache (forgot the name as this was when we first started) was surrounded by water...deep water...and it was spring(ish), so that was a bunch of COLD water! I hadn't any way to get the container, but I could see the gallon jug from the edge of the water...about 20'. The jug had a nice cache sticker attached and was hidden somewhat (the water may have removed some of the camo)...it was obvious that it was the cache, but I wasn't about to walk over to get it through the water (possibly knee deep or so).

 

I did log it as a find and wrote the owner who understood the situation. My regret is that I didn't take the time to go back and assure myself of the find (although, from my description, the owner knew I had "found" the cache). Since I can't even remember which it was, I won't lose sleep, but that is my "iffy" find! Any other cache I haven't signed either were ones I had opened to assure it was the cache (no pen or bad arthritis day) or were ones with a wet log.

 

I have since learned that some cachers can be anal as all get out (from some comments seen in previous threads on topics as this), so I have learned there are other ways to put a mark on a page...just to make those "purists" happy!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...