Jump to content

Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?


Recommended Posts

It's not just a cache owner issue...the cache owner just plays a large role in the issue.

The only person who can allow bogus logs is the cache owner.

 

The issue of standards slipping isn't just their issue though...it's also an issue of people deciding to take actions to put an owner in that position.

 

The issue of bogus logs, specifically, can be addressed both by the cacher and the cache owner.

Sure, both the cache logger and the cache owner can affect this.

 

How many truly bogus loggers do you think this thread will sway?

 

IF you could persuade all cache owners to monitor their log books and take the action you want, this thread would be useful. If you are just trying to create an angry mob, then I don't see how that is helpful.

S-008.jpg

Link to comment
What if they didn't work on the puzzle together?

If they did not work the puzzle together, it would hard to prove.

Even if I was discovered that only one of worked on it I could delete

the log for the person and tell them to do the puzzle, but they already

know the final coordinates, so what good would it do.

Link to comment

It's not just a cache owner issue...the cache owner just plays a large role in the issue.

The only person who can allow bogus logs is the cache owner.

 

The issue of standards slipping isn't just their issue though...it's also an issue of people deciding to take actions to put an owner in that position.

 

The issue of bogus logs, specifically, can be addressed both by the cacher and the cache owner.

Sure, both the cache logger and the cache owner can affect this.

 

Both DO affect this.

 

How many truly bogus loggers do you think this thread will sway?

 

Straw Man.

 

However, I've seen numerous responses by cachers on this board that have changed their actions based on consideration of discussions on this board.

 

IF you could persuade all cache owners to monitor their log books and take the action you want, this thread would be useful. If you are just trying to create an angry mob, then I don't see how that is helpful.

 

Irrelevant to the point.

 

Integrity of the game is a "geocacher" issue. It's not one-sided to the owner or finder.

 

Yes, cache owners can largely dissuade this, but unless finders have integrity as well it can never be fully resolved. Specifically in a case where maybe a cacher is false logging for a cacher not truly present. There is almost no way for a cache owner to resolve this issue...it takes the finder desiring a level of integrity.

 

It'll never be perfect, that's not the point, the point is encouraging it, discussing it and educating people about it...many times it's just a matter of innocent ignorance. In other cases, it require be call up The NVG to crack out the can of "whoop cache".

Link to comment
What if they didn't work on the puzzle together?

If they did not work the puzzle together, it would hard to prove.

Even if I was discovered that only one of worked on it I could delete

the log for the person and tell them to do the puzzle, but they already

know the final coordinates, so what good would it do.

Exactly.

 

A cache owner can identify potential bogus logs by comparing the log book to the online logs. Beyond that, I think that he/she might be holding on a bit to tight.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I can't believe that people would drive around and actually check the physical logs in their caches just to make sure that those that posted online had actually signed the log.

Isn't that part of a cache owner's responsibility of maintaining a cache?

 

No.

You are so wrong - from the guidelines

 

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically,

 

The question was specifically if driving around to check the physical logs to make sure there were no bogus online logs was a part of a cache owner's responsibility. The guideline you bolded does not even hint at that. I stand by my answer. This is not about cache maintenance, which is something that I do very well.

 

From the GC.com listing requirements:

Cache Maintenance

 

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

 

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

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing.

 

Yes, the cache owner is responsible for bogus logs.

 

DCC

Link to comment

Geocaching can only be degraded by others false logs if one approaches the sport as a competetive activity in which posted score is important. In other words if you care about others scores than the validity of others logs is important. However, I suspect most geocachers do it for the fun of the find and at most view ones score (or private cache find list) as personnel milestones.

 

As a cache owner, I have no interest in policing logbooks for false finds. If a false smiley is so important to someone, they have my pity, but it does not rise to the level of significance that I would bother to confront them, nor do I want to deal with the sport on that level.

Link to comment

<snip> What will the failure for geocaching be? Hard to tell.

 

It's already started to fail and may be on its last legs as far as quality caches are concerned. Central Texas is now the land of urban spew. Today's two most recent caches are parking lot p&g's. Seems you're more likely to find a magnetic keyholder slapped next to a grease pit behind a Sonic Drive-In than find a cache that will take you on a hike through a wildlife management area!!!!! Based on my observations at the last cache event, it looks like most Central texas cachers could use more "hikers." :D:D:D

 

BTW, still waiting for that invite so we can tackle some of those Franklin Mountain caches!!!!! :D:unsure::unsure:

Edited by eagletrek
Link to comment

 

<snip>

 

I'd love a category system of some type to keep these kinds of caches in groups so urban people and wilderness people can all have caches they enjoy without sifting through other kinds they don't. I've already got micros filtered out of my pocket queries, I'd love to have the ability to only find caches in the woods.

 

Excellent idea!!!!! I could go for something like this even though it would run up my gas bill since I'd have to drive many miles to avoid the urban spew.

Edited by eagletrek
Link to comment

I can't believe that people would drive around and actually check the physical logs in their caches just to make sure that those that posted online had actually signed the log.

Isn't that part of a cache owner's responsibility of maintaining a cache?

 

No.

You are so wrong - from the guidelines

 

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically,

 

The question was specifically if driving around to check the physical logs to make sure there were no bogus online logs was a part of a cache owner's responsibility. The guideline you bolded does not even hint at that. I stand by my answer. This is not about cache maintenance, which is something that I do very well.

 

From the GC.com listing requirements:

Cache Maintenance

 

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

 

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

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing.

 

Yes, the cache owner is responsible for bogus logs.

 

DCC

The owner should delete logs that appear bogus. The lengths to which we must go to determine whether a log appears bogus are not specified. Therefore, that is up to the owner.

Link to comment
Do you also reserve the right to track down the bank robbers? Do you then stake out all the banks in your town so you can foil any other robberies?
Maybe not, but I certainly wouldn't be telling people "to let that poor bank robber earn a living in the manner they've chosen".
Again, I haven't suggested that cache owners don't have the right or even the obligation to take action against truly bogus logs on their caches.

Nice try, but essentially all you've said is that someone directly responsible for protecting the bank has the right or even obligation to take action against bank robbers? Yeah, I think that's pretty obvious.

My post was about caching, not banks. Please don'ttwist my positions. If you question how I stand on an issue, just ask me.

Actually your questions were about banks and bank robbers, but I understood the analogy to caching. I simply maintained the analogy.

Link to comment

The thread is about logging issues. It is not a general dumping ground for complaints about everything that's wrong with geocaching. Please stay on topic and only discuss the logging issues. It makes it a lot easier to follow the discussion. Thanks.

 

Whew!! I was wondering when an off-topic message would be posted. We're about 500 feet from ground zero here.

Link to comment

In my short time geocaching I have observed quite a few behaviors that degrade the integrity of the game:

 

false logs

false discoveries of trackable items

false DNFs

arm chair caching

team caching (where one person makes the find, but the entire team takes credit) :D

etc.

 

What are you gonna do? :smile:

 

These behaviors don't degrade the game, they just indicate the degradation of character of the players who do that sort of stuff. How insecure do you have to be? In the end, the only person you have fooled is the man in the mirror!

 

The team thing personally doesn't bother me too much -- a husband and wife, or a small group of friends or co-workers shouldn't have to be joined at the hip for every find.

Link to comment

The thread is about logging issues. It is not a general dumping ground for complaints about everything that's wrong with geocaching. Please stay on topic and only discuss the logging issues. It makes it a lot easier to follow the discussion. Thanks.

 

Whew!! I was wondering when an off-topic message would be posted. We're about 500 feet from ground zero here.

Lookout Knowschad The cache cop is on the way, it may be a case of a counterfit avatar

cecbed57-2ec8-4de7-bf07-273d91df708f.jpg

Edited by JohnnyVegas
Link to comment

Geocaching can only be degraded by others false logs if one approaches the sport as a competetive activity in which posted score is important. In other words if you care about others scores than the validity of others logs is important. However, I suspect most geocachers do it for the fun of the find and at most view ones score (or private cache find list) as personnel milestones.

 

As a cache owner, I have no interest in policing logbooks for false finds. If a false smiley is so important to someone, they have my pity, but it does not rise to the level of significance that I would bother to confront them, nor do I want to deal with the sport on that level.

 

In my perception, it has been competitive number hunting that has led to false logs (among various other weird practices) in pursuit of stats/milestones, that also often result in congratulations, recognition, events hosted by peers.

I'm not interested in racking up big numbers myself (I've been here a long time and haven't logged a ton of caches!). I do look on in wonderment(and sometimes disbelief) at some of the inflation techniques that I've observed. Just don't really understand why it is done other than for numbers' sake. And if it is just a game, just for fun, why does it come to that?

Link to comment

Geocaching can only be degraded by others false logs if one approaches the sport as a competetive activity in which posted score is important. In other words if you care about others scores than the validity of others logs is important. However, I suspect most geocachers do it for the fun of the find and at most view ones score (or private cache find list) as personnel milestones.

 

As a cache owner, I have no interest in policing logbooks for false finds. If a false smiley is so important to someone, they have my pity, but it does not rise to the level of significance that I would bother to confront them, nor do I want to deal with the sport on that level.

 

In my perception, it has been competitive number hunting that has led to false logs (among various other weird practices) in pursuit of stats/milestones, that also often result in congratulations, recognition, events hosted by peers.

I'm not interested in racking up big numbers myself (I've been here a long time and haven't logged a ton of caches!). I do look on in wonderment(and sometimes disbelief) at some of the inflation techniques that I've observed. Just don't really understand why it is done other than for numbers' sake. And if it is just a game, just for fun, why does it come to that?

 

I think it is a combination of two things (1) some people are naturally competetive and seek the ego rush of beating others even if they have to cheat and (2) people can become very obsessive over hobbies and loose track of the basic value of what they are doing, whether it be stamp collecting, gardening, or train-spotting. Although many deny it, the competetiveness is strongly manifest also in people's concern over the integrity of "smilies". After all, if one steps back and looks at the situation objectively, it is really quite silly for anyone to really care whether or not someone really found the film canister under the lamp post skirt.

 

This and other threads remind me of a comment a professor made to me years ago when I asked him why some paleontologists were getting so work up over a minor issue at a conference, his reply was "because it really matters so little."

 

It is clear that people puruse geocaching for different reasons. I like the fun of the hunt and going to places that I might not otherwise visit. To others it is a full contact sport and they seek to become the king of the smilies. The great thing about geocaching is that it can accomodate both.

Link to comment

That's why the hand-carved stamps evolved in letterboxing in 1907. After 50 years of letterboxing, people decided to create a new system to ensure people really HAD found a box. There is absolutely no way to fake it. The only way to get the stamp in your logbook is to find the box. When the goal is to accumulate stamps in your logbook, the incentive to cheat is gone.

 

I wish caches had hand-carved stamps - and I don't mean hybrid letterboxes per se, but just regular caches that happen to have a cache stamp unique to that cache. It's a very good system.

Link to comment

That's why the hand-carved stamps evolved in letterboxing in 1907. After 50 years of letterboxing, people decided to create a new system to ensure people really HAD found a box. There is absolutely no way to fake it. The only way to get the stamp in your logbook is to find the box. When the goal is to accumulate stamps in your logbook, the incentive to cheat is gone.

 

I wish caches had hand-carved stamps - and I don't mean hybrid letterboxes per se, but just regular caches that happen to have a cache stamp unique to that cache. It's a very good system.

But if there were stamps couldn't I still log a find and claim I'd found it since I'd have the lack of proof in my stamp book? Even the owner couldn't check it then, only I'd know.

 

The way it is now at least the owner can check if he wants to.

Link to comment

Everyone seems in agreement on the issue that bogus logs should be deleted, but the gray area is still the application of this process. If the average respectible cache owner has a dozen hides, how does he police this? For example purposes, let's say this hypothetical owner has a dozen hides and gets several finds on each hide a week, scattered throughout the week. Now this owner has around 50 log entries to deal with.

 

So now how does he validate the logs? Is it a cache owner's responsibility to visit each of his hides once a week (or some other regular basis) and check the entries? People seem to like caches in the woods much more then urbans so checking a single cache might be a several hour ordeal. I personally only visit one of my own caches when there appears to be a physical issue with it or a full log. Not sure about the rest of you but even that is pretty time consuming. When would this cache owner have time to cache?????

 

If something jumps out and appears bogus then I can see checking, but if a faker were to want to do this they could easily visit a couple caches in an area, then sit at the 'puter, do a PQ and log a bunch around them. If they logged entries similar to other entires then how would you ever see a flag raised to make you want to go check???? Even the discussion about letterboxing with the stamps... when would these ever be checked????

 

I agree with the previous statements that if people look at this as some competitive or compulsive thing, then that's why they would do this, but I think your average cacher looks at the adventure of geocaching as the fun. I like the analogy of weekend golfing, if some hack in the other cart in your foursome wants to chop a few strokes off of each hole, who the heck does it hurt? Boosts his ego, makes him feel good, even if he looks foolish to the other 3 in the group. Unless we have something at stake on the score like who's buying after the game, then "oh well". Doesn't make golf less fun because he faked his score unless your goal in playing was to show everyone you're a better golfer then him.

Link to comment

That's why the hand-carved stamps evolved in letterboxing in 1907. After 50 years of letterboxing, people decided to create a new system to ensure people really HAD found a box. There is absolutely no way to fake it. The only way to get the stamp in your logbook is to find the box. When the goal is to accumulate stamps in your logbook, the incentive to cheat is gone.

 

I wish caches had hand-carved stamps - and I don't mean hybrid letterboxes per se, but just regular caches that happen to have a cache stamp unique to that cache. It's a very good system.

But if there were stamps couldn't I still log a find and claim I'd found it since I'd have the lack of proof in my stamp book? Even the owner couldn't check it then, only I'd know.

 

The way it is now at least the owner can check if he wants to.

 

Each boxer has a unique signature stamp that gets stamped into the letterbox logbook, like signing your name in a cache log. You're stamping the box stamp into your personal log, and stamping your stamp into the box log.

So yes, the owner can check.

Link to comment

That's why the hand-carved stamps evolved in letterboxing in 1907. After 50 years of letterboxing, people decided to create a new system to ensure people really HAD found a box. There is absolutely no way to fake it. The only way to get the stamp in your logbook is to find the box. When the goal is to accumulate stamps in your logbook, the incentive to cheat is gone.

 

I wish caches had hand-carved stamps - and I don't mean hybrid letterboxes per se, but just regular caches that happen to have a cache stamp unique to that cache. It's a very good system.

But if there were stamps couldn't I still log a find and claim I'd found it since I'd have the lack of proof in my stamp book? Even the owner couldn't check it then, only I'd know.

 

The way it is now at least the owner can check if he wants to.

 

Each boxer has a unique signature stamp that gets stamped into the letterbox logbook, like signing your name in a cache log. You're stamping the box stamp into your personal log, and stamping your stamp into the box log.

So yes, the owner can check.

Do we really want to turn geocaching into letterboxing?

 

Why isn't someone's name in the logbook sufficient evidence that he found the cache?

Link to comment

That's why the hand-carved stamps evolved in letterboxing in 1907. After 50 years of letterboxing, people decided to create a new system to ensure people really HAD found a box. There is absolutely no way to fake it. The only way to get the stamp in your logbook is to find the box. When the goal is to accumulate stamps in your logbook, the incentive to cheat is gone.

 

I wish caches had hand-carved stamps - and I don't mean hybrid letterboxes per se, but just regular caches that happen to have a cache stamp unique to that cache. It's a very good system.

But if there were stamps couldn't I still log a find and claim I'd found it since I'd have the lack of proof in my stamp book? Even the owner couldn't check it then, only I'd know.

 

The way it is now at least the owner can check if he wants to.

 

Each boxer has a unique signature stamp that gets stamped into the letterbox logbook, like signing your name in a cache log. You're stamping the box stamp into your personal log, and stamping your stamp into the box log.

So yes, the owner can check.

That will not work when you have a group of cachers making a high numbers run. They will split up and use factory made stamps so that each team has a duplicate set of stamps, this way each cacher has his own stamp within each group. The cache owner would have no way to know that the log is fake.

IMO, all these high numbers 24 record attempts are bogus.

 

There are groups that split up and sign each others names in the cache log book.

Edited by JohnnyVegas
Link to comment

<<<snip>>>

That will not work when you have a group of cachers making a high numbers run. They will split up and use factory made stamps so that each team has a duplicate set of stamps, this way each cacher has his own stamp within each group. The cache owner would have no way to know that the log is fake.

IMO, all these high numbers 24 record attempts are bogus.

Not all groups are bogus...

 

I have gone with a group on several occasions...we have always stayed together...we all find the cache together!!!

Link to comment
... IMO, all these high numbers 24 record attempts are bogus.

 

There are groups that split up and sign each others names in the cache log book.

While perhaps this is true, I certainly don't believe that the bulk of these 24 hour record runs use this practice.

 

There was a thread about this very issue not too long ago.

Link to comment

That's why the hand-carved stamps evolved in letterboxing in 1907. After 50 years of letterboxing, people decided to create a new system to ensure people really HAD found a box. There is absolutely no way to fake it. The only way to get the stamp in your logbook is to find the box. When the goal is to accumulate stamps in your logbook, the incentive to cheat is gone.

 

I wish caches had hand-carved stamps - and I don't mean hybrid letterboxes per se, but just regular caches that happen to have a cache stamp unique to that cache. It's a very good system.

But if there were stamps couldn't I still log a find and claim I'd found it since I'd have the lack of proof in my stamp book? Even the owner couldn't check it then, only I'd know.

 

The way it is now at least the owner can check if he wants to.

 

Each boxer has a unique signature stamp that gets stamped into the letterbox logbook, like signing your name in a cache log. You're stamping the box stamp into your personal log, and stamping your stamp into the box log.

So yes, the owner can check.

Do we really want to turn geocaching into letterboxing?

 

Why isn't someone's name in the logbook sufficient evidence that he found the cache?

 

Oh come on, I was answering a question re: checking sigs in letterboxes. Stop twisting things.

Link to comment

I do believe that the bulk of these 24 hour record runs use this practice.

I recall reading about some of the pactices used in the record run at GW in Texas, including singing the outside of the cache container, well I am going to have some caches in place very close to geowoodstock 6, and I will be check each and every log the day after. An I will delete logs that are bogus. This includes one person signing for each person in a group.

Link to comment
That's why the hand-carved stamps evolved in letterboxing in 1907. After 50 years of letterboxing, people decided to create a new system to ensure people really HAD found a box. There is absolutely no way to fake it. The only way to get the stamp in your logbook is to find the box. When the goal is to accumulate stamps in your logbook, the incentive to cheat is gone.

 

I wish caches had hand-carved stamps - and I don't mean hybrid letterboxes per se, but just regular caches that happen to have a cache stamp unique to that cache. It's a very good system.

But if there were stamps couldn't I still log a find and claim I'd found it since I'd have the lack of proof in my stamp book? Even the owner couldn't check it then, only I'd know.

 

The way it is now at least the owner can check if he wants to.

Each boxer has a unique signature stamp that gets stamped into the letterbox logbook, like signing your name in a cache log. You're stamping the box stamp into your personal log, and stamping your stamp into the box log.

So yes, the owner can check.

Do we really want to turn geocaching into letterboxing?

 

Why isn't someone's name in the logbook sufficient evidence that he found the cache?

Oh come on, I was answering a question re: checking sigs in letterboxes. Stop twisting things.
I'm not twisting anything. I was merely responding to your post.

 

TT wished all caches had stamps. You appeared to support this position. My questions were toward that position. Either you or TT (or anyone else that agrees with her position) were welcome to respond.

Link to comment
That's why the hand-carved stamps evolved in letterboxing in 1907. After 50 years of letterboxing, people decided to create a new system to ensure people really HAD found a box. There is absolutely no way to fake it. The only way to get the stamp in your logbook is to find the box. When the goal is to accumulate stamps in your logbook, the incentive to cheat is gone.

 

I wish caches had hand-carved stamps - and I don't mean hybrid letterboxes per se, but just regular caches that happen to have a cache stamp unique to that cache. It's a very good system.

But if there were stamps couldn't I still log a find and claim I'd found it since I'd have the lack of proof in my stamp book? Even the owner couldn't check it then, only I'd know.

 

The way it is now at least the owner can check if he wants to.

Each boxer has a unique signature stamp that gets stamped into the letterbox logbook, like signing your name in a cache log. You're stamping the box stamp into your personal log, and stamping your stamp into the box log.

So yes, the owner can check.

Do we really want to turn geocaching into letterboxing?

 

Why isn't someone's name in the logbook sufficient evidence that he found the cache?

Oh come on, I was answering a question re: checking sigs in letterboxes. Stop twisting things.
I'm not twisting anything. I was merely responding to your post.

 

TT wished all caches had stamps. You appeared to support this position. My questions were toward that position. Either you or TT (or anyone else that agrees with her position) were welcome to respond.

 

No, I did not support that position. I was responding to Mushtang's comment regarding the owner not being able to check the logbook. At this point we're so far off topic I suspect that nobody knows what we're talking about anymore.

Link to comment

Each boxer has a unique signature stamp that gets stamped into the letterbox logbook, like signing your name in a cache log. You're stamping the box stamp into your personal log, and stamping your stamp into the box log.

So yes, the owner can check.

Not just that but if a letterboxer thought you were were cheating he could ask to see your log book to confirm you had the stamp from a particular letterbox. If you refused to show your personal log book, I guess your claim would be discounted. But it still doesn't solve all the problems. What happens if the stamp in the letterbox is missing? Maybe a geocacher took it thinking it was swag. :smile: What if a logbook in the letterbox is missing or too wet to stamp? What happens when a letterboxer looses his original hand carved stamp or misplaces his logbook? Traditionally, letterboxers have relied on stamps and log books and most still don't log finds online. Because of this, letterboxers have not confused letterboxing with online logging. Online logs can be used to keep track of which boxes you have found, let letterbox owners know if their box needs maintenance or may be missing, and let other letterboxers read about your experiences. It may be that some letterbox sites give stats based on online logs. This may be the reason that many letterboxers still don't bother logging online as they don't want to compete especially using stats that can easily be faked.

 

We can learn a lot from letterboxers. Don't confuse online logs with geocaching. The rules for geocaching are simple:

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

 

The online logs can be used to keep track of the caches you have found, let the cache owners know if the the cache needs maintenance or may be missing, and let other cachers read about your experiences. But some cachers and cache owners have chosen to use the online logs to log armchair virtuals, log that they almost found a cache, log that they replaced someone's cache, log that they found their own cache, etc. There is no way to create an online site that prevents all bogus logs. The site has given the responsibility for quality control of the online logs to the cache owners. Some puritans insist that guidelines require that owners check physical logs and delete online logs that didn't sign the logs. I want to know what the penalty should be for cache owners who don't do this. Should the cache be archived? Should the cache owner be banned? I find it easier to accept that some people play a variation of the game that allows use of the find log for recording things other than finding a cache and that cache owners can choose whether to allow these logs or not. So long as I can log the caches I have found online to keep track of my finds, I'm happy and don't care what others are doing. The exception would be those who simply lie in their logs about finding a cache in such a way that I would believe the cache is there and was recently found. Then I may, like briansnat's friend, waste my time looking for something I might not have looked for otherwise.

Link to comment
This includes one person signing for each person in a group.

Are you kidding me? When I'm caching with my girlfriend and she signs the log for both of us, you consider this a deletable violation?!? Wow...

:smile:

I can't tell from your emoticon if you are appalled that I would let my girlfriend sign the log for both of us (when we're both there rather than have her pass it to me) or that he would delete someone's find who was there because someone else signed their name for them.

Link to comment
This includes one person signing for each person in a group.

Are you kidding me? When I'm caching with my girlfriend and she signs the log for both of us, you consider this a deletable violation?!? Wow...

That is not the same, when you have a group of 15 cachers making a cache run they each have their own account that they will be claiming a find for, if that case I want to see each person sign the log, not one person signing each persons name for the group.

I may be a bit of a hard nose about loging, but if I own the cache I will decide how the loging is done.

Link to comment
This includes one person signing for each person in a group.

Are you kidding me? When I'm caching with my girlfriend and she signs the log for both of us, you consider this a deletable violation?!? Wow...

Likewise. In our group the person who signs is the person who gets stuck with the task. Not each of us in turn. Sometimes it turns into a game of hot potato. All in good fun, but in the end only one person signs for the group.

Link to comment

Each boxer has a unique signature stamp that gets stamped into the letterbox logbook, like signing your name in a cache log. You're stamping the box stamp into your personal log, and stamping your stamp into the box log. So yes, the owner can check.

As long as the owner and the seeker are at the same place at the same time with their log book. But then again, I could give my log book to someone else, let them make a find and stamp my book for me. And I could take theirs with me... there's a way around everything if you think about it.

Link to comment
This includes one person signing for each person in a group.

Are you kidding me? When I'm caching with my girlfriend and she signs the log for both of us, you consider this a deletable violation?!? Wow...

Likewise. In our group the person who signs is the person who gets stuck with the task. Not each of us in turn. Sometimes it turns into a game of hot potato. All in good fun, but in the end only one person signs for the group.

Each time I have been out with a large group we have signed the log book for ourselves.

the other problem with these record runs is that if one person stays behind the rest of the gruop can head to the next cache to start the search while the other persons stay behind to sign the log for each personl.

Like I say, record runs are bogus

Link to comment

We can learn a lot from letterboxers. Don't confuse online logs with geocaching. The rules for geocaching are simple:

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

I don't think trading items is a requirement. If it was, we wouldn't have micros and nanos. We rarely trade items as seeking the cache is our enjoyment.

Link to comment

That is not the same, when you have a group of 15 cachers making a cache run they each have their own account that they will be claiming a find for, if that case I want to see each person sign the log, not one person signing each persons name for the group. I may be a bit of a hard nose about loging, but if I own the cache I will decide how the loging is done.

Do you state your personal rules for logging in your log description? 99% of the time I cache with my GF and I sign the log for us, I just do it like holding the door for her. I would assume that a lot of couples work like that. And what the heck do you do if people use their own personal find stickers on your log sheets? Do you delete them because they didn't personally sign the log sheet? And on a nano log you're lucky if you can make out what someone wrote on the little sliver of paper.... :smile:

Link to comment
This includes one person signing for each person in a group.

Are you kidding me? When I'm caching with my girlfriend and she signs the log for both of us, you consider this a deletable violation?!? Wow...

:smile:

I can't tell from your emoticon if you are appalled that I would let my girlfriend sign the log for both of us (when we're both there rather than have her pass it to me) or that he would delete someone's find who was there because someone else signed their name for them.

The second one. I agree with you.

Link to comment

Do we really want to turn geocaching into letterboxing?

Letterboxers say have come up with a system that works as follows.

  1. you find the letterbox
  2. you stamp the log book in the letterbox with your custom personal stamp
  3. you stamp your personal log with the custom stamp in the letterbox

Now say you meet another letterboxer. You can show each other your personal logs. They probably will accept you found as many letterboxes as you have stamps. Perhaps you could make some fake stamps and put these in your log to inflate your numbers, but given the time and effort to make a custom stamp you're not likely to do this more than once or twice :smile: They can also recognize the stamps that they have in common and know that they found some of the same letterboxes.

 

A letterbox owner can look in their letterbox and see the stamps in the log book. They may recognize the stamps of other letterboxers they have seen in other letterboxes. They may see Trailhead Tessie's boot and know she has visited their box. If they don't see her boot, they probably figure Trailhead Tessie didn't find there box. But maybe Trailhead Tessie did find the box and didn't have her stamp with her. If she had a pen, she might have signed the log. If she had some paper she might also be able to make an image of the stamp in the box. But what if she could not do this? Would she go on AtlasQuest.com and log that she found the box? She might, but I bet if she did someone would start a thread in the Atlasquest message board about bogus logs degrading letterboxing.

 

I sort of agree that we don't need to turn geocaching into letterboxing. Cache owners who wish to take the time can use the cache logbook to confirm finds. They will have to make a personal choice as whether to let stand logs where the person has given an excuse for not signing the log. They will have to make judgments on what to do if the log or the cache goes missing. Other cache owners will resort to the honor system and let logs stand that aren't obviously bogus stand. Still other owners may be intentionally allowing some bogus logs. They may be using a definition of a find that includes armchair logging or "since you looked in the right place you can claim a find" or they may simply be ignoring their responsibility to maintain their cache page. This is the system we currently have and as far as I'm concerned it works satisfactorily since I can use it to keep track of my finds.

Link to comment

Great. Now all cache owners need to be an expert on handwriting analysis.

not at all, but it is not all easy to see that one person has signed book. Also, if I find two log books with the same cacher name the sig. better match or I will delete both.

I assume that you are way out in hypothetical territory, since the administration of the plan that you are laying out appears to be pretty unmanageable.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...