Log deletion

[+blb9556]

On my cache 2 people recently found it. TheyDID NOTsign the log because the cache was frozen(ok I can understand that)in place. Should I delete their logs? heres the link to the cache. It's the March 5th logs (Visit link)

[+ReadyOrNot]

On my cache 2 people recently found it. TheyDID NOTsign the log because the cache was frozen(ok I can understand that)in place. Should I delete their logs? heres the link to the cache. It's the March 5th logs (Visit link)

 

I'm usually extremely strict when it comes to cache logging requirements.. In this case, as long as they found the container, they should be able to log it as found. I would go back after it thaws out to sign the logbook personally, but the cache being frozen shut is not something they could help.

[+blb9556]

On my cache 2 people recently found it. TheyDID NOTsign the log because the cache was frozen(ok I can understand that)in place. Should I delete their logs? heres the link to the cache. It's the March 5th logs (Visit link)

 

I'm usually extremely strict when it comes to cache logging requirements.. In this case, as long as they found the container, they should be able to log it as found. I would go back after it thaws out to sign the logbook personally, but the cache being frozen shut is not something they could help.

 

The cache is on a base of a lampost skirt and was frozen to the base. You could open the cache but it would attract a lot of attention.

[miles_vagar]

On my cache 2 people recently found it. TheyDID NOTsign the log because the cache was frozen(ok I can understand that)in place. Should I delete their logs? heres the link to the cache. It's the March 5th logs (Visit link)

 

I'm usually extremely strict when it comes to cache logging requirements.. In this case, as long as they found the container, they should be able to log it as found. I would go back after it thaws out to sign the logbook personally, but the cache being frozen shut is not something they could help.

 

The cache is on a base of a lampost skirt and was frozen to the base. You could open the cache but it would attract a lot of attention.

 

Yeah, I'd let 'em keep it. Better to encourage stealthy practices than ones that will arouse the suspicion of muggles, and they did find it.

Edited March 7, 2008 by miles_vagar

[+BlueDeuce]

On my cache 2 people recently found it. TheyDID NOTsign the log because the cache was frozen(ok I can understand that)in place. Should I delete their logs? heres the link to the cache. It's the March 5th logs (Visit link)

 

Happened on one of mine just the other day. I had no real reason to believe the cacher wasn't there and he might have busted it trying to open it (It's (ahem) not metal) so I figured, ah what the heck, I'll let it stand.

[Mr.Yuck]

On my cache 2 people recently found it. TheyDID NOTsign the log because the cache was frozen(ok I can understand that)in place. Should I delete their logs? heres the link to the cache. It's the March 5th logs (Visit link)

 

I'm usually extremely strict when it comes to cache logging requirements.. In this case, as long as they found the container, they should be able to log it as found. I would go back after it thaws out to sign the logbook personally, but the cache being frozen shut is not something they could help.

 

The cache is on a base of a lampost skirt and was frozen to the base. You could open the cache but it would attract a lot of attention.

 

I was going to say yes, after your first post. But then when you came back in post 3 and say it's an parking lot LPC, I say no.

 

Just kidding, I say yes, let 'em have their smiley.

[+webscouter.]

The purpose of the cache is just to bring people to the find large parking lot. If part of the cache was to try to retrieve it or to open it then I would not allow a find without signing the log.

 

I say leave the log.

[+BCandMsKitty]

Let the logs stand if they can satisfy you that they actually found it. After all, isn't that the real reason for the signature? I recently found a cache frozen into a hole between the roots of two trees. If I had chipped it out, it would have destroyed the cache, which was in a plastic coffee can type of container. In an email to the owner, I described the cache, and where and how it was hidden so that he knew that I had indeed been there. He allowed the find (as I expected) and even thanked me for not damaging the cache.

[+briansnat]

If retrieving the cache and signing the log is not part of the challenge you had in mind when you placed it, I'd let them slide.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Owner's option. Many feel that finding the cache is good enough. Other's require signing the log to get a smiley. I have deleted similar logs, for people who did not feel like opening the cache to sign the log. That's my prerogative as cache owner. Of course, I also had someone who broke an intermediate container that was frozen in place. But, he signed the log, so he earned the smiley.

It's up to you how you want to enforce your requirements, after you determine what your requirements are. Myself, I would delete them. And there are geocachers who do not like me any more.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I would leave the logs, but if it was my cache I would change the container. Mint tins are not the best choice for a cache container, they need to be changed from time to time when they get rusty and they are not water proof.

[crawil]

I got this log recently:

 

I am logging as a find even though I refused to climb up to retrieve it to sign log. I want to live to cache another day.Thanks for the fun find!

 

It was at the top of a hill that was muddy due to recent rains. There is a parking lot at the top for easy access. I asked the cacher if they could describe the location or container - no reply. I ended up deleting the log.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I got this log recently:

 

I am logging as a find even though I refused to climb up to retrieve it to sign log. I want to live to cache another day.Thanks for the fun find!

 

It was at the top of a hill that was muddy due to recent rains. There is a parking lot at the top for easy access. I asked the cacher if they could describe the location or container - no reply. I ended up deleting the log.

I would delete that one also, being lazy does not cut it

[+TrailGators]

I would leave the logs, but if it was my cache I would change the container. Mint tins are not the best choice for a cache container, they need to be changed from time to time when they get rusty and they are not water proof.

I agree, I've come across some impossible to open Altoids tins because of rust.

[+BlueDeuce]

I got this log recently:

 

I am logging as a find even though I refused to climb up to retrieve it to sign log. I want to live to cache another day.Thanks for the fun find!

 

It was at the top of a hill that was muddy due to recent rains. There is a parking lot at the top for easy access. I asked the cacher if they could describe the location or container - no reply. I ended up deleting the log.

I would delete that one also, being lazy does not cut it

 

Yep.

[Fluxuated]

To the original poster, I'd say let them keep the log.

 

TO the guy too lazy to climb up and sign the log, I'd delete that one. In that case his excuse was not valid. IMO.

[+CYBret]

It's your call, but if I were the finder, I'd have a LOT of fun writing that DNF!

[+no_peeking]

So how about this one.

 

I was heading out on a camping trip with my family. The night before we left, I'd downloaded my route points the night before I left, so I had current data.

 

The cache in question was 3 hours from home, at a pull-off (not a major highway, just a road). We stopped and My gps was pointing to a couple trees in a grassy pull-off area. All previous logs indicated an easy find, such as in the whole in one of the trees.

 

I could not find it, figured "oh well" and continued on my way.

 

When I returned home a few days later, the log owner had temporarily disabled the cache the day I attempted my find because it had been muggled (sometime before).

 

My thinking: this is a cache that's far enough away from my home that I'm not likely to attempt it again, and I was there and likely would have found it had it not been muggled.

 

So I logged the find and the cache owner deleted the log. Oh well. I didn't argue it because I understand (although don't necessarily agree with) the reasoning.

 

If you were the cache owner, what would you have done? (I would have left the log.)

[+redtech]

So how about this one.

 

I was heading out on a camping trip with my family. The night before we left, I'd downloaded my route points the night before I left, so I had current data.

 

The cache in question was 3 hours from home, at a pull-off (not a major highway, just a road). We stopped and My gps was pointing to a couple trees in a grassy pull-off area. All previous logs indicated an easy find, such as in the whole in one of the trees.

 

I could not find it, figured "oh well" and continued on my way.

 

When I returned home a few days later, the log owner had temporarily disabled the cache the day I attempted my find because it had been muggled (sometime before).

 

My thinking: this is a cache that's far enough away from my home that I'm not likely to attempt it again, and I was there and likely would have found it had it not been muggled.

 

So I logged the find and the cache owner deleted the log. Oh well. I didn't argue it because I understand (although don't necessarily agree with) the reasoning.

 

If you were the cache owner, what would you have done? (I would have left the log.)

 

I probably would have deleted it too.

[+Flo.]

Let the log slide. Be thankful they did not try to ruin the cache by opening it. Just email them saying they can keep the smily, but next time in that area try to sign the log book. I have ran into a few where we couldn't sign, or climb to sign, we DNFed them. Went back a few days later and were able to get them. On another note, those long drive DNF's hurt the worst. I have 2 about 100 miles from home that still eat at me from last fall.

[+BlueDeuce]

So how about this one.

 

I was heading out on a camping trip with my family. The night before we left, I'd downloaded my route points the night before I left, so I had current data.

 

The cache in question was 3 hours from home, at a pull-off (not a major highway, just a road). We stopped and My gps was pointing to a couple trees in a grassy pull-off area. All previous logs indicated an easy find, such as in the whole in one of the trees.

 

I could not find it, figured "oh well" and continued on my way.

 

When I returned home a few days later, the log owner had temporarily disabled the cache the day I attempted my find because it had been muggled (sometime before).

 

My thinking: this is a cache that's far enough away from my home that I'm not likely to attempt it again, and I was there and likely would have found it had it not been muggled.

 

So I logged the find and the cache owner deleted the log. Oh well. I didn't argue it because I understand (although don't necessarily agree with) the reasoning.

 

If you were the cache owner, what would you have done? (I would have left the log.)

 

I probably would have deleted it too.

 

No cache, no sign, no find. Delete. (Actually I would first contact you and request that you change it to a DNF. Seems silly to say you found it when it wasn't really there. If you didn't change it I would delete the Found it)

Edited March 7, 2008 by BlueDeuce

[+Geovius]

No log signed no find simple as that.

Happend to me also few weeks ago and altough I saw the container, I wasn't able to sign it because it was frozen to the ground.

[Mr.Yuck]

So how about this one.

 

I was heading out on a camping trip with my family. The night before we left, I'd downloaded my route points the night before I left, so I had current data.

 

The cache in question was 3 hours from home, at a pull-off (not a major highway, just a road). We stopped and My gps was pointing to a couple trees in a grassy pull-off area. All previous logs indicated an easy find, such as in the whole in one of the trees.

 

I could not find it, figured "oh well" and continued on my way.

 

When I returned home a few days later, the log owner had temporarily disabled the cache the day I attempted my find because it had been muggled (sometime before).

 

My thinking: this is a cache that's far enough away from my home that I'm not likely to attempt it again, and I was there and likely would have found it had it not been muggled.

 

So I logged the find and the cache owner deleted the log. Oh well. I didn't argue it because I understand (although don't necessarily agree with) the reasoning.

 

If you were the cache owner, what would you have done? (I would have left the log.)

 

I probably would have deleted it too.

 

No cache, no sign, no find. Delete. (Actually I would first contact you and request that you change it to a DNF. Seems silly to say you found it when it wasn't really there. If you didn't change it I would delete the Found it)

 

I agree 100% with what the evil blue duck said for this particliar case. If he's still an evil blue duck next time I look.

[Mr.Yuck]

No log signed no find simple as that.

Happend to me also few weeks ago and altough I saw the container, I wasn't able to sign it because it was frozen to the ground.

 

Personally I probably wouldn't log a frozen cache. But what do you think about this? This is a cache local to me that I found about a month ago (not the least bit frozen at the time), and I noticed a large group found it last weekend, submiting this photo as proof of the find. If I were the cache owner, I'd let the logs stand.

 

[+JohnnyVegas]

So how about this one.

 

I was heading out on a camping trip with my family. The night before we left, I'd downloaded my route points the night before I left, so I had current data.

 

The cache in question was 3 hours from home, at a pull-off (not a major highway, just a road). We stopped and My gps was pointing to a couple trees in a grassy pull-off area. All previous logs indicated an easy find, such as in the whole in one of the trees.

 

I could not find it, figured "oh well" and continued on my way.

 

When I returned home a few days later, the log owner had temporarily disabled the cache the day I attempted my find because it had been muggled (sometime before).

 

My thinking: this is a cache that's far enough away from my home that I'm not likely to attempt it again, and I was there and likely would have found it had it not been muggled.

 

So I logged the find and the cache owner deleted the log. Oh well. I didn't argue it because I understand (although don't necessarily agree with) the reasoning.

 

If you were the cache owner, what would you have done? (I would have left the log.)

That is not a find-I would delete the log. If the cache was not there is was not there, so there cannot be a find. one way for a cacher to reduce the number of DNFs of caches like these is to filter out caches in which the must current logs are DNFs before loading them into the GPS, I do this with GSAK

Edited March 7, 2008 by JohnnyVegas

[+tozainamboku]

So how about this one.

 

I was heading out on a camping trip with my family. The night before we left, I'd downloaded my route points the night before I left, so I had current data.

 

The cache in question was 3 hours from home, at a pull-off (not a major highway, just a road). We stopped and My gps was pointing to a couple trees in a grassy pull-off area. All previous logs indicated an easy find, such as in the whole in one of the trees.

 

I could not find it, figured "oh well" and continued on my way.

 

When I returned home a few days later, the log owner had temporarily disabled the cache the day I attempted my find because it had been muggled (sometime before).

 

My thinking: this is a cache that's far enough away from my home that I'm not likely to attempt it again, and I was there and likely would have found it had it not been muggled.

 

So I logged the find and the cache owner deleted the log. Oh well. I didn't argue it because I understand (although don't necessarily agree with) the reasoning.

 

If you were the cache owner, what would you have done? (I would have left the log.)

Could you explain why you posted a found it when you didn't find the cache? Do you feel that because the cache had been muggled between the time you downloaded the coordinates and when you looked, you should get a free pass? Are you really that confident that had the cache been there you would have found it? What if the cache hadn't be disabled? Would you have posted a DNF? What if the owner went and confirmed it was missing after seeing your DNF, would you have changed your log to found it? Are you using found it to mark caches your not likely to attempt again? What would you do if you happen to travel that way again and decide to look again after all? Would you change your original log to a DNF if you now found the cache?

 

One thing about being a caching puritan - you don't need to answer so many questions You log found it if you find a cache and signed the physical log. You log DNF if you looked and didn't find the cache. I don't mind someone claiming a find if they think reallly believe they deserve it. If I was the owner I might post a note indicating that they really didn't find the cache, just in case someone else is looking and takes the log as meaning the cache is there.

 

Logging a DNF should not be viewed a a failure. DNF is simple a record that you didn't find the cache. Most people would probably not be too upset if you decided to post a note or not even post a log because you really don't feel you should DNF a cache that wasn't there. I think this degrades the DNF log. People begin to think a DNF should only be use to mean "I failed to find a cache that was there." At my work, we have some software that is used to record the results of tests of systems for the army. The test conductor records the result of each test as Successful, Failed, or Not Attempted. At a recent event, we had a general who didn't want to see any failures so he had us change the software to record each test as Achieved, Not Achieved, or Not Attempted. The desire to not fail is very strong. Remember there is no failure log in geocaching. The choices are Found It, Didn't Find It, and Write Note.

[+webscouter.]

No log signed no find simple as that.

Happend to me also few weeks ago and altough I saw the container, I wasn't able to sign it because it was frozen to the ground.

 

Personally I probably wouldn't log a frozen cache. But what do you think about this? This is a cache local to me that I found about a month ago (not the least bit frozen at the time), and I noticed a large group found it last weekend, submiting this photo as proof of the find. If I were the cache owner, I'd let the logs stand.

 

I wouldn't log it as a find but if it was my cache I would allow this as a find.

[+BlueDeuce]

I wouldn't log it as a find but if it was my cache I would allow this as a find.

 

I wouldn't log it either and would prefer that people log a needs maintenance rather than a found it.

[Mr.Yuck]

I wouldn't log it as a find but if it was my cache I would allow this as a find.

 

I wouldn't log it either and would prefer that people log a needs maintenance rather than a found it.

 

Thanks for the replies. Not only would I allow it, I'd be appreciative that they didn't destroy the Tupperware trying to free it. Of course the fact that it is Tupperware (as opposed to an ammo box) makes a difference in this case. So no problem whatsoever for me here.

 

Now logging "found where it was supposed to be", or "found a magnet", that's another story.

[+steve p]

no_peeking, I would have deleted your log also. Let's look at this another way. If you had known before you left on your trip that the cache was temporarily disabled, but you still stopped there to look anyway, would you have logged a find? Using your logic that you were far away from home and that you were there shouldn't qualify as a find just because you didn't know in advance that it was disabled.

 

One can't log a find on something that is not there.

[+DanOCan]

On my cache 2 people recently found it. TheyDID NOTsign the log because the cache was frozen(ok I can understand that)in place. Should I delete their logs? heres the link to the cache. It's the March 5th logs (Visit link)

 

Unless I had some reason to suspect the log was bogus I would let it stand. I know I have logged caches under similar circumstances and I've never had an owner delete my log either.

[+DanOCan]

When I returned home a few days later, the log owner had temporarily disabled the cache the day I attempted my find because it had been muggled (sometime before).

 

My thinking: this is a cache that's far enough away from my home that I'm not likely to attempt it again, and I was there and likely would have found it had it not been muggled.

 

So I logged the find and the cache owner deleted the log. Oh well. I didn't argue it because I understand (although don't necessarily agree with) the reasoning.

 

If you were the cache owner, what would you have done? (I would have left the log.)

 

In that case I would have deleted the log as well. No container = No Find =DNF.

[+blb9556]

No log signed no find simple as that.

Happend to me also few weeks ago and altough I saw the container, I wasn't able to sign it because it was frozen to the ground.

 

So should I delete them?

[+CSpenceFLY]

It's up to you.

[BRTango]

Reading this thread made me think about a cache I did this past Friday.

 

I found the cache, but did not sign the log book.

 

The cache was filled with water when I found it, the plastic bag that held the log book had failed and the log book was soaked through and moldy (unfortunately I didn't have anything to replace it with).

 

I logged both a 'Find' and a 'Needs Maintenance'.

 

Should I have logged a 'Find' if I didn't sign the log book?

[+Juicepig]

I would keep them - It is actually the cache placers fault that the cache was not winter friendly. Note that the attributes state that the cache is "Winter Accessible" - when it is not.

 

your asking for a lot of resentment from your local cachers if you delete peoples logs based on the mistake of the hider.

[+Andy&BeckyRiley]

I thought the geocaching convention when you could not/could not be bothered to open a container was to write "DRR" on the outside of the cache in black marker?

 

Andy

[Mr.Yuck]

I thought the geocaching convention when you could not/could not be bothered to open a container was to write "DRR" on the outside of the cache in black marker?

 

Andy

 

Allrighty, now that was a good one.

 

I believe BRTango, in the scenario they described, should have logged a find.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Reading this thread made me think about a cache I did this past Friday.

 

I found the cache, but did not sign the log book.

 

The cache was filled with water when I found it, the plastic bag that held the log book had failed and the log book was soaked through and moldy (unfortunately I didn't have anything to replace it with).

 

I logged both a 'Find' and a 'Needs Maintenance'.

 

Should I have logged a 'Find' if I didn't sign the log book?

 

Even I would allow a 'find' on that one. Cache in hand, cache open, log in hand, pen ready... Log too wet to sign. In fact, I accepted such a log last weekend. My fault that the log was too wet to sign(?) Of course, it would be nice if previous finders would reseal the ziplock, and rehide the cache where I hid it! "Thanks for the update", and I replaced the log the same day.

[Mr.Yuck]

No log signed no find simple as that.

Happend to me also few weeks ago and altough I saw the container, I wasn't able to sign it because it was frozen to the ground.

 

So should I delete them?

 

The one from the original post? I'd say the majority of respondents regarding that particular situation say no.

[+BlueDeuce]

No log signed no find simple as that.

Happend to me also few weeks ago and altough I saw the container, I wasn't able to sign it because it was frozen to the ground.

 

So should I delete them?

 

The one from the original post? I'd say the majority of respondents regarding that particular situation say no.

 

Correct, although many say they wouldn't have logged it as a find themselves. Seems like a fair way of dealing with things.

[+WRASTRO]

Hmmm, the cache page shows that is available in winter, so it seems to me that if the cache owner isn't making sure it is available then some lenience should be in order here. I see the cache page is now clear that no signature equals no find. Personally, If I had been the searcher I would have contacted the owner and let them make the decision about find or DNF. In fact I did this on one I found where the micro had rusted shut. I didn't have any tools with me and I couldn't open the container. The owner needed pliars to open it and told me to log a find as I had sent a description of the location and the container.

[+JABs]

There has been a couple of posts where people have taken photos of the cache and emailed them to the owner as proof.

 

That has been showen as a way to log that missing cache as Been there and to show the owner they were in the correct place. It also helps us who own the caches on weather it is really missing or if the location was missed.

[+Happy Humphrey]

In cases like the OP example, the finders should ideally have sent in a photo of the frozen cache.

 

But I would not have deleted the logs even without this evidence.

• What more could they have done (without being irresponsible)? As far as we can tell, they had possession of the cache. There's no challenge in opening the container, so they've found it.
   
  
• What if the cache disappears before the cache owner next checks the log book - does he delete all the logs since his last check on the basis that there's no proof of finds? Perhaps others found the cache frozen but just didn't bother mentioning it.
  

[Clan Riffster]

I could not find it, figured "oh well" and continued on my way.

it had been muggled.

I likely would have found it had it not been muggled.

So I logged the find and the cache owner deleted the log.

If you were the cache owner, what would you have done?

I'll address both sides of this issue, with my opinion, which is just that. Opinion.

From the seeker's perspective, I have pretty stringent, (dare I say Puritanical?) rules concerning what constitutes a find, for me. If I don't locate the cache, sign the log and replace the cache, I don't log a find. However, I won't attempt to apply my rules to other cachers. Different folks have different ideas regarding what is, and what is not, a find, and I'm not willing to gainsay their beliefs. If I ever see a log on one of my caches that is bogus, (I.e; posted with the intent to defraud), then that log would go away, quickly. But when I see logs that don't fit my particular value system, they stay, without a peep from me.

 

Oddly enough, logging a find on a confirmed missing cache seems to be a somewhat common practice, as I have had many cache owners E-mail me, offering to let me change my DNF to a find because they verified the cache was missing. While I appreciate the offer, and thank them for their consideration, I must politely decline. The majority of folks around here know about my quirky sense of ethics by now, and for the most part, they've stopped offering.

 

So, in answer to your question:

If it was my cache, your log would stay.

If it was your cache, I would've logged a DNF.

[+infiniteMPG]

I agree with a find is a find and as long as you found the cache, then it's a "find". Same scenario would hold true if you found a nano and the log was full. Can't sign it so would it be a DNF? No way!

 

We were hiking a really remote preserve a few weeks ago and as with many areas around here there had been a brush fire. One hide was a waterproof match holder wired to a branch in a tree. The fire had burned hot enough to deform the container and melt the lid to the base. Could of gotten it open by crushing it with a rock (and would of done that had I had a replacement with me), but we just left it in place and snapped pictures of us with it. Entered a find even though couldn't sign the log. If that would of been deleted I'd of avoid that owner's caches but the owner appreciated the feedback and put it on their maintenace list (and disabled it until they could replace it). We had also found out of place and damaged caches of theirs along the way we replaced and repaired. Responsible caching.

 

In a similar thing, I had stage 4 of a 5 stage multi (+11 mile hike) get fried the same way only it was a puddle of plastic, log and final coord marker totally gone. No one even attempted to log a find as it was stage 4 and not the final and I didn't want to get into any confrontation about that. Was out the same day and replaced the stage but you have to use common sense....

 

Oh yeah, laziness = DNF... any way you cut it.

[+blb9556]

I deleted the logs

[+TeamGumbo]

What finally convinced you?

[Trinity's Crew]

New "found it" log... We thawed the cache and its contents with a propane torch. Signed what was left of the charred log. We took nothing, but left some ashes and a little smoke. TFTC!

Edited March 15, 2008 by Trinity's Crew

[Trinity's Crew]

Hmmm, the cache page shows that is available in winter, so it seems to me that if the cache owner isn't making sure it is available then some lenience should be in order here.

 

You might also want to delete the "Available In Winter" attribute. The general consensus on the meaning of that attribute is that the cache should be retrievable in winter. Yours obviously isn't.