signing log

[+sbell111]

.... I don't see people calling those who choose not to log online 'cheaters'......

I didn't call anybody a cheater.

 

I was simply explaining that the web site makes it quite clear that the expectation (as demonstrated by the 3 links provided) is that cachers will sign the onsite log before logging (claiming) a "find" online. Again that is a simple fact. If you have any links to knowledgebase articles, instructions, guidelines, getting started pages or whatever on the website that support your "anything goes - don't need to sign the log theory as long as both parties agree" - then please provide them here as I am unaware of such clauses.

You are aware that those posts from TPTB exist because you participated in threads in which these things were previously discussed. Also, just because you find three links doesn't mean that they are on point, as I previously pointed out.

 

The bottom line is this. It really is the cache owner who determines whether a find was made. No amount of thrashing about will change this fact. The online log exists as a way to 'prove' the find, but any other method found to be acceptable by the cache owner is also fine.

Edited June 4, 2009 by sbell111

[+StarBrand]

....

The bottom line is this. It really is the cache owner who determines whether a find was made. No amount of thrashing about will change this fact. The online log exists as a way to 'prove' the find, but any other method found to be acceptable by the cache owner is also fine.

Agian - show me links to documents to demonstrate this point??? I've 3 links to demonstrate my point - you have refuted but one.

[+BlueDeuce]

It really is the cache owner who determines whether a find was made.

 

Does that include pocket caches?

[+herrozerro]

....

The bottom line is this. It really is the cache owner who determines whether a find was made. No amount of thrashing about will change this fact. The online log exists as a way to 'prove' the find, but any other method found to be acceptable by the cache owner is also fine.

Agian - show me links to documents to demonstrate this point??? I've 3 links to demonstrate my point - you have refuted but one.

 

I agree, Starbrand has at least show some kind of proof, the opposition that its all jut up to the CO is just opinion.

[CoyoteRed]

I am vertically challenged and sometimes I am unable to retrieve the cache. I will have touched it however.

I did this today and logged that I had touched it but couldn't retrieve it. I got an email from the owner saying I couldn't count it unless I signed. Is this correct?

Yes, on multiple levels.

• The cache owner can delete a log on a whim with very few exceptions. Some will allow a good faith effort. Some don't care at all and won't even challenge an armchair log. Some require you to overcome all obstacles to sign the log.
  
• It's always a good idea to at least open the cache to make sure it's not a decoy or a cache listed on another site. You might be thinking you've found the right cache, but instead it is a decoy, a letterbox, a cache listed on another site or something else altogether. It's embarrassing and a PITA to go back and start over just because you've made an assumption.
  
• The standard is signing the log. If everyone had different standards of claiming a find then the hobby would be a lot harder. By simply going with "sign the log" as proof you visit you know you're golden. There is no other standard of proof. If there had been a standard for grabbing a picture of the cache container, then that would be the acceptable proof and folks would be asking "what if I don't have a camera" or "how long is it acceptable to wait to get my film developed," etc. Signing the logbook is the standard.
  
• Some folks try to make exceptions to signing the log. Some might claim they didn't have a pen (really? in a hobby where you're expected to write something?), the log was wet (no write-on-wet-paper pen or a dry replacement of any sort?), the log was full (and you're still able to get your name in those nano's log?), and on and on. I don't.
  • If I don't the sign the log, I don't claim the find. I won't put the cache owner in a position where he has to question the veracity of my claim.
    
  • If for some reason I simply can't sign the log and I don't want to go back to the cache, I put the cache on my ignore list. I know it's a bit tougher for non-PMs in this respect, but, no matter what, I don't claim a find where I didn't sign the log. (We've even put logbooks in a cache where the logbook was missing.)
    

So, basically, sign the log and you'll not have to worry about it. Is it a "law?" I don't think so. It is the accepted standard, regardless of what a few would say, i.e. signing the outside of the container was soundly rejected by the community.

Edited June 4, 2009 by CoyoteRed

[+sbell111]

It really is the cache owner who determines whether a find was made.

 

Does that include pocket caches?

Of course. LCs and ALRs, also.

[+Knight2000]

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

If that's a hard and fast rule, then micro owners need to get busy deleting logs. How many so-called-"finders" have just signed their name rather than writing about their find?

This was about geocaches. Geocaches didn't start as annoying little micros.

 

Don't get me wrong. I like good micros. In fact, I am leaving right now to go and find some.

[+tozainamboku]

.... I don't see people calling those who choose not to log online 'cheaters'......

I didn't call anybody a cheater.

 

I was simply explaining that the web site makes it quite clear that the expectation (as demonstrated by the 3 links provided) is that cachers will sign the onsite log before logging (claiming) a "find" online. Again that is a simple fact. If you have any links to knowledgebase articles, instructions, guidelines, getting started pages or whatever on the website that support your "anything goes - don't need to sign the log theory as long as both parties agree" - then please provide them here as I am unaware of such clauses.

puritans are known for finding chapter and verse to prove that witches exist and justify burning them.

 

The "rules" provided in the FAQ and the description of geocaching in getting started are meant to give a simplified description of the game for newbies. Clearly the idea is when you find a cache you write in the log book as "proof" that you found a cache. There are any number of reasons why it may not be possible or practicable to do this every time. There is nothing in any of the these "rule" about when you should use a "Found It" log online versus some other online log. In fact up till about a year ago the "rules" in the FAQ didn't even mention logging online.

 

When Dave Ulmer hid his first geocache, he didn't foresee any online site where people kept "score". He simply asked people to "Take some stuff, leave some stuff! Record it all in the log book." When Jeremy made his website, he thought allowing people to record their experiences online would be cool. Perhaps he was naive in thinking that people would not use the find count as some kind of score. The idea was to use 'Found It' logs as a way to keep track of what caches you found. It would also let other cachers know that the cache was still there. If you think about it, there is no reason to require the physical log to be signed in order to use 'Found It'. In the OP's case, they have lost their record of finding the cache just because some puritan is insisting on a signed log. In addition someone checking the recent logs will miss the record of the cache having been found on a certain date and perhaps some important information about the state of the cache. (In this case the owner may feel that knowing the cache is out of reach of some cachers is a spoiler, but if the cache owner was deleting information that the log was wet or the cache needed a pen or pencil that may delay someone doing maintenance).

 

There are of course cases where the cache owner clearly wants you to meet a physical challenge in retrieving a cache - climbing a tree or swimming to cache. And some have a mental challenge, placing decoys that you need to eliminate before finding the real cache, placing the cache in a area where you need to be really stealthy to retrieve the cache without attracting the attention of muggles, or having a puzzle or lock to open the cache. Because there are caches like this is often not enough to say "I saw the container and therefore found the cache". There is an argument that you need to at least open the cache and find the log book in it. In practice, however one can usually tell if the cache has such a component. At a minimum the difficulty or terrain will be set higher for these caches. Requiring a cacher to perform a challenge could be seen as an additional logging requirement (ALR). TPTB have chosen however to indicate that if the ALR is required in order to sign the physical log it is allowed while a requirement that is not connected to the physical log but only to the online 'Found It' log is not enforceable.

[Andronicus]

Here is my take. It is up to the CO to decide what he/she will do if (and only if) you have not signed the log. If you signed the log, he/she must let the online log stand.

 

I am not verticaly challanged (I am exactly average hight for a male), but I always carry special equipment with me that I think I will need (flashlight, magnet on a stick etc). If you are verticaly challanged, one of the things you need may be a folding stool. Just add it to your caching bag or tool kit or whatever you used. Problem solved.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

It really is the cache owner who determines whether a find was made.

 

Does that include pocket caches?

Yes, actually, it does!

 

Event hosts always made the decision to accept or deny multiple attended logs on the event for the pocket caches found there.

 

As far as I know they still can.

[Skippermark]

I recall walking through a park in mid winter with a lawn chair so I could retrieve a cache.

We've brought a 40' ladder (when extended) to a cache more than once. Thankfully no one was on the trail that day.

 

If anyone would have seen us, we would have said we were inspecting the trees for Dutch elm disease, which is common in CT.

[+Mule Ears]

When you log online without having signed the physical cache log, your online log exists in a limbo of uncertainty until the cache owner decides whether or not to allow it to stand. This phenomenon is the subject of the famous thought experiment known as "Schrödinger's Cache."

Edited June 4, 2009 by Mule Ears

[+Zop]

I am vertically challenged and sometimes I am unable to retrieve the cache. I will have touched it however.

I did this today and logged that I had touched it but couldn't retrieve it. I got an email from the owner saying I couldn't count it unless I signed. Is this correct?

 

Assuming that the cache was rated appropriately, absolutely. If it was a 1x1 however you may have room to negotiate but if the difficulty/terrain rating was such that you knew that you couldn't just walk up and grab it then I too would delete your log. I may be mistaken but I believe the guidelines are pretty clear that to log a find on a traditional hide, you must first sign the log.

 

Being fair minded however, if someone could genuinely convince me that because of my mis-rating of a cache one could not physically retreive the cache to sign the log, I would probably offer the option.

[+Zop]

I am vertically challenged and sometimes I am unable to retrieve the cache. I will have touched it however.

I did this today and logged that I had touched it but couldn't retrieve it. I got an email from the owner saying I couldn't count it unless I signed. Is this correct?

 

Just a tip -

 

One of these could make your caching experience more enjoyable:

http://www.pikespeakii.com/catalog.html

[+carolehu]

I am vertically challenged and sometimes I am unable to retrieve the cache. I will have touched it however.

I did this today and logged that I had touched it but couldn't retrieve it. I got an email from the owner saying I couldn't count it unless I signed. Is this correct?

OK., OK. So I t with a step stool and with great difficulty retrieved it and signed it.

[+carolehu]

I am vertically challenged and sometimes I am unable to retrieve the cache. I will have touched it however.

I did this today and logged that I had touched it but couldn't retrieve it. I got an email from the owner saying I couldn't count it unless I signed. Is this correct?

OK., OK. So I t with a step stool and with great difficulty retrieved it and signed it.

[Skippermark]

Yikes. Doubled up.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Skippermark

[+sbell111]

I am vertically challenged and sometimes I am unable to retrieve the cache. I will have touched it however.

I did this today and logged that I had touched it but couldn't retrieve it. I got an email from the owner saying I couldn't count it unless I signed. Is this correct?

... I may be mistaken but I believe the guidelines are pretty clear that to log a find on a traditional hide, you must first sign the log. ...

You are mistaken. The guidelines state that geocaches can be logged online as found once the physical log has been signed. This does not mean that they cannot be logged as found if the physical log has not been signed. TPTB leave the decision to allow those online logs to the cache owners.

[Skippermark]

There's a cache near me that's 25 feet up in a tree. The tree has no branches on the lower half, just tiny little nubs that you can barely put your feet on. To reach it you have to shimmy your way up the base and then climb onto the first branch. The cache is located a little bit above that.

 

The container is totally visible and tied in place with fishing line. Getting to it is the tricky part.

 

I've seen logs on it where people say, "Managed to get the cache down but couldn't put it back. Signed log." Or "Got the cache down but broke the fishing line holding it in place. Owner will have to come replace it. Sorry."

 

Even standing on a 6' step ladder doesn't get you close, so I'm pretty sure they rigged something up and broke the line to get the container down but then had no way to get it back up.

 

If you were an owner, would you allow the find to stand? Technically, they signed the log.

[+sbell111]

There's a cache near me that's 25 feet up in a tree. The tree has no branches on the lower half, just tiny little nubs that you can barely put your feet on. To reach it you have to shimmy your way up the base and then climb onto the first branch. The cache is located a little bit above that.

 

The container is totally visible and tied in place with fishing line. Getting to it is the tricky part.

 

I've seen logs on it where people say, "Managed to get the cache down but couldn't put it back. Signed log." Or "Got the cache down but broke the fishing line holding it in place. Owner will have to come replace it. Sorry."

 

Even standing on a 6' step ladder doesn't get you close, so I'm pretty sure they rigged something up and broke the line to get the container down but then had no way to get it back up.

 

If you were an owner, would you allow the find to stand? Technically, they signed the log.

I would. Then I would attach the can to the tree with paracord.

[+Knight2000]

I am vertically challenged and sometimes I am unable to retrieve the cache. I will have touched it however.

I did this today and logged that I had touched it but couldn't retrieve it. I got an email from the owner saying I couldn't count it unless I signed. Is this correct?

... I may be mistaken but I believe the guidelines are pretty clear that to log a find on a traditional hide, you must first sign the log. ...

You are mistaken. The guidelines state that geocaches can be logged online as found once the physical log has been signed. This does not mean that they cannot be logged as found if the physical log has not been signed. TPTB leave the decision to allow those online logs to the cache owners.

Sorry sbell, I'm gonna have to give that a face palm. Don't log online until you log it at the cache.

 

[+Mule Ears]

There's a cache near me that's 25 feet up in a tree. The tree has no branches on the lower half, just tiny little nubs that you can barely put your feet on. To reach it you have to shimmy your way up the base and then climb onto the first branch. The cache is located a little bit above that.

 

The container is totally visible and tied in place with fishing line. Getting to it is the tricky part.

 

I've seen logs on it where people say, "Managed to get the cache down but couldn't put it back. Signed log." Or "Got the cache down but broke the fishing line holding it in place. Owner will have to come replace it. Sorry."

 

Even standing on a 6' step ladder doesn't get you close, so I'm pretty sure they rigged something up and broke the line to get the container down but then had no way to get it back up.

 

If you were an owner, would you allow the find to stand? Technically, they signed the log.

 

I'd allow the online log of a valid find--even one that resulted in damage to or loss of my cache--to stand. Once you start deleting logs as a punitive measure you're already a long ways down a bad road.

 

(I would also re-engineer my cache to be less susceptible to damage/loss. Usually just moving it farther from pavement does the trick.)

[GOF and Bacall]

I am vertically challenged and sometimes I am unable to retrieve the cache. I will have touched it however.

I did this today and logged that I had touched it but couldn't retrieve it. I got an email from the owner saying I couldn't count it unless I signed. Is this correct?

OK., OK. So I t with a step stool and with great difficulty retrieved it and signed it.

Good for you! Now you have a find to be proud of and a good story for the next event.

[+Renegade Knight]

I am vertically challenged and sometimes I am unable to retrieve the cache. I will have touched it however.

I did this today and logged that I had touched it but couldn't retrieve it. I got an email from the owner saying I couldn't count it unless I signed. Is this correct?

 

For that owner, yes.

 

There is no "law" or universal geocaching rule about logging a cache. However it's perhaps the most commonly accepted means of verifynig your find.

 

While my group tends to play hot potato with the log book (loser has to sign for us all) we do sign. Even those caches where my size makes me wish I had a smaller person to get the cache since they would spill less of their own blood doing it.

[GOF and Bacall]

There's a cache near me that's 25 feet up in a tree. The tree has no branches on the lower half, just tiny little nubs that you can barely put your feet on. To reach it you have to shimmy your way up the base and then climb onto the first branch. The cache is located a little bit above that.

 

The container is totally visible and tied in place with fishing line. Getting to it is the tricky part.

 

I've seen logs on it where people say, "Managed to get the cache down but couldn't put it back. Signed log." Or "Got the cache down but broke the fishing line holding it in place. Owner will have to come replace it. Sorry."

 

Even standing on a 6' step ladder doesn't get you close, so I'm pretty sure they rigged something up and broke the line to get the container down but then had no way to get it back up.

 

If you were an owner, would you allow the find to stand? Technically, they signed the log.

 

I'd allow the online log of a valid find--even one that resulted in damage to or loss of my cache--to stand. Once you start deleting logs as a punitive measure you're already a long ways down a bad road.

 

(I would also re-engineer my cache to be less susceptible to damage/loss. Usually just moving it farther from pavement does the trick.)

 

Ayup. The error is the co's in this case for poor design.

[+Renegade Knight]

I am vertically challenged and sometimes I am unable to retrieve the cache. I will have touched it however.

I did this today and logged that I had touched it but couldn't retrieve it. I got an email from the owner saying I couldn't count it unless I signed. Is this correct?

... I may be mistaken but I believe the guidelines are pretty clear that to log a find on a traditional hide, you must first sign the log. ...

You are mistaken. The guidelines state that geocaches can be logged online as found once the physical log has been signed. This does not mean that they cannot be logged as found if the physical log has not been signed. TPTB leave the decision to allow those online logs to the cache owners.

Sorry sbell, I'm gonna have to give that a face palm. Don't log online until you log it at the cache.

...

sbells right on this one. That's a nice pic though.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'll refer you to step 7 on this page: http://www.geocaching.com/about/

 

The first full sentence under this link: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...gingofallcaches

 

See number 2 under "What are the rules in Geocaching?" on this page: http://www.geocaching.com/FAQ/

...

 

I'm going to pick up the guantlett you gave sbell.

 

The first full sentance on the 2nd link. That simply says you can log online once you log the physical log. We both know that came from the ALR ban. The point wasn't so much to require the physical log, but to ban the extra steps before you can log. It doesn't say you can't log online if you don't sign the log. That's another thing.

 

Your last link:

What are the rules in Geocaching?

1. If you take something from the cache, leave something of equal or greater value.

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

 

Lays out how caching is different than letterboxing.

2 and 3 are optional though a lot more folks opt out of #3. Most folks don't write about their find at all. They just sign the log. "Kilroy wuz here". So I'm not such much refuting as pointing out this is the spirit and intent, but not the iron law of the land. More than a few of my first caches had no log book at all. They were even covered in the guidelines at the time (though the memory is fuzzy on the 2002 rules...)

Edited June 4, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+herrozerro]

 

I'm going to pick up the guantlett you gave sbell.

 

The first full sentance on the 2nd link. That simply says you can log online once you log the physical log. We both know that came from the ALR ban. The point wasn't so much to require the physical log, but to ban the extra steps before you can log. It doesn't say you can't log online if you don't sign the log. That's another thing.

 

 

But is it affirmed by ommision or disproved? It also doesnt say that you you can only geocache on days that start with S or W but you can or cannot.

 

In my experiance specific beats general. It specifically says Log physical and then log digital. your right it doesnt say "You can log digital if you dont log physical" But does it have to when it specifically says do the opposite of what you are suggesting?

 

in every FAQ or intro to geocaching it puts the physical log before the digital. So why should it be different then that?

[+JacobBarlow]

 

Imagine a cache 40' up a tree. If you could log the find without signing the log, then it could be a 1/1 cache.

 

I have a lot of caches that high in trees, and they get a lot of people saying they saw it, but are too old, too something to climb and they log it found... I was upset at first, but I changed my mind and decided I don't mind.

[+TEAM HARTSOCK]

I am horizontally challenged and have trouble getting up large hills and mountain sides. So, if I send my kids up to those and they video tape it and I watch the video tape, will that count as a smilely for me?

[Dinoprophet]

 

I'm going to pick up the guantlett you gave sbell.

 

The first full sentance on the 2nd link. That simply says you can log online once you log the physical log. We both know that came from the ALR ban. The point wasn't so much to require the physical log, but to ban the extra steps before you can log. It doesn't say you can't log online if you don't sign the log. That's another thing.

 

 

But is it affirmed by ommision or disproved? It also doesnt say that you you can only geocache on days that start with S or W but you can or cannot.

 

In my experiance specific beats general. It specifically says Log physical and then log digital. your right it doesnt say "You can log digital if you dont log physical" But does it have to when it specifically says do the opposite of what you are suggesting?

 

in every FAQ or intro to geocaching it puts the physical log before the digital. So why should it be different then that?

That sentence is being taken completely out of context. It is on the Listings Guidelines page; it is directed at the Lister. It is in a section the sole purpose of which is to explain that the hider must not delete a log once the physical log has been signed. Nowhere does it say you must delete a log if the physical log hasn't been signed.

[+briansnat]

I am horizontally challenged and have trouble getting up large hills and mountain sides. So, if I send my kids up to those and they video tape it and I watch the video tape, will that count as a smilely for me?

 

It can. Actually similar things have been done. It's generally between you and the cache owner. If you can think of the most bizarre rationalization for logging a find that you didn't find, it's probably already been done.

[+bittsen]

There's a cache near me that's 25 feet up in a tree. The tree has no branches on the lower half, just tiny little nubs that you can barely put your feet on. To reach it you have to shimmy your way up the base and then climb onto the first branch. The cache is located a little bit above that.

 

The container is totally visible and tied in place with fishing line. Getting to it is the tricky part.

 

I've seen logs on it where people say, "Managed to get the cache down but couldn't put it back. Signed log." Or "Got the cache down but broke the fishing line holding it in place. Owner will have to come replace it. Sorry."

 

Even standing on a 6' step ladder doesn't get you close, so I'm pretty sure they rigged something up and broke the line to get the container down but then had no way to get it back up.

 

If you were an owner, would you allow the find to stand? Technically, they signed the log.

 

If someone is stupid enough to put a cache up a tree that people can't get to then they deserve whatever they get.

What sadistic person would do something like that? That kills the "fun".

 

I probably would never vandalize a cache but I have complete empathy for anyone who would that took time out of their day to find a cache, only to find that some sadistic, ahem, person put it in a tree out of reach.

Edited June 4, 2009 by bittsen

[+Rockin Roddy]

There's a cache near me that's 25 feet up in a tree. The tree has no branches on the lower half, just tiny little nubs that you can barely put your feet on. To reach it you have to shimmy your way up the base and then climb onto the first branch. The cache is located a little bit above that.

 

The container is totally visible and tied in place with fishing line. Getting to it is the tricky part.

 

I've seen logs on it where people say, "Managed to get the cache down but couldn't put it back. Signed log." Or "Got the cache down but broke the fishing line holding it in place. Owner will have to come replace it. Sorry."

 

Even standing on a 6' step ladder doesn't get you close, so I'm pretty sure they rigged something up and broke the line to get the container down but then had no way to get it back up.

 

If you were an owner, would you allow the find to stand? Technically, they signed the log.

 

If someone is stupid enough to put a cache up a tree that people can't get to then they deserve whatever they get.

What sadistic person would do something like that? That kills the "fun".

 

I probably would never vandalize a cache but I have complete empathy for anyone who would that took time out of their day to find a cache, only to find that some sadistic SOB put it in a tree out of reach.

 

If the cache listing is correct, the T/D rating correct and/or there's a warning of needing to climb, I would be highly peeved should someone like yourself take it upon themselves to vandalize my cache (note I say "like" you, not meaning you personally, but someone thinking like you are). Possibly we should all admonish those who place the sadistic mountain climbing caches, the kayak caches and any puzzle cache too?? How dare they make the cache hard to get to?

 

Of course, if the T/D isn't proper and such, well, then I'd be a bit miffed, but vandalizing the cache wouldn't be a thought! Not the attitude I would want to put forward at all.

[GOF and Bacall]

There's a cache near me that's 25 feet up in a tree. The tree has no branches on the lower half, just tiny little nubs that you can barely put your feet on. To reach it you have to shimmy your way up the base and then climb onto the first branch. The cache is located a little bit above that.

 

The container is totally visible and tied in place with fishing line. Getting to it is the tricky part.

 

I've seen logs on it where people say, "Managed to get the cache down but couldn't put it back. Signed log." Or "Got the cache down but broke the fishing line holding it in place. Owner will have to come replace it. Sorry."

 

Even standing on a 6' step ladder doesn't get you close, so I'm pretty sure they rigged something up and broke the line to get the container down but then had no way to get it back up.

 

If you were an owner, would you allow the find to stand? Technically, they signed the log.

 

If someone is stupid enough to put a cache up a tree that people can't get to then they deserve whatever they get.

What sadistic person would do something like that? That kills the "fun".

 

I probably would never vandalize a cache but I have complete empathy for anyone who would that took time out of their day to find a cache, only to find that some sadistic SOB put it in a tree out of reach.

 

Perhaps you should rethink the name calling. Personal attacks are considered poor form and against the forum terms of use.

 

As for a cache in a tree many people enjoy such challenges. That is why we have difficulty and terrain ratings. As has been said time and time again, if you don't like 'em don't hunt 'em!

[+bittsen]

Consider it rethought.

[+Knight2000]

If someone is stupid enough to put a cache up a tree that people can't get to then they deserve whatever they get.

What sadistic person would do something like that? That kills the "fun".

 

I probably would never vandalize a cache but I have complete empathy for anyone who would that took time out of their day to find a cache, only to find that some sadistic SOB put it in a tree out of reach.

You go collect mindless micros, LPC's and magnetic key holders.

 

The rest of us will go and find caches that are actually memorable. Do you remember that micro under the lamp post from last month?

 

The majority of cachers would agree that a cache up a tree is something that they would enjoy. A challenge.

[+bittsen]

 

If the cache listing is correct, the T/D rating correct and/or there's a warning of needing to climb, I would be highly peeved should someone like yourself take it upon themselves to vandalize my cache (note I say "like" you, not meaning you personally, but someone thinking like you are). Possibly we should all admonish those who place the sadistic mountain climbing caches, the kayak caches and any puzzle cache too?? How dare they make the cache hard to get to?

 

Of course, if the T/D isn't proper and such, well, then I'd be a bit miffed, but vandalizing the cache wouldn't be a thought! Not the attitude I would want to put forward at all.

 

Just to clarify... I would NEVER vandalize a cache. I would merely empathize with whomever did. That doesn't mean I would approve of the vandalism either, just empathize.

[+tozainamboku]

Sorry sbell, I'm gonna have to give that a face palm. Don't log online until you log it at the cache.

For some us, listening to the puritan refrain that you must sign the physical log in order for your online find to stand, deserves a face palm. The online log is a personal record the cacher keeps of what he found. It also is used to share that experience with other cachers. So long as the logger isn't out and out lying about finding the cache who cares if the log was signed. If the cache owner wants to have additional requirement beyond finding the cache in order to sign the physical log, I personally will meet those requirements before I mark the cache found online. But just as some refused to do additional requirements that had nothing to do with signing a log, I imagine that some people aren't going to bother bringing a step stool just to accomplish a task they don't see as a part of geocaching.

 

My preference would be for GC.com to stop having different logs for 'Found It', 'DNF', and 'Note'. Let all online logs just be 'Report'. The logger can describe whatever experience they had with the cache. In addition there would be a check box that says "Hide this cache from my future searches". This would let people who believe they found the cache to mark it so they don't have look again and would also allow people who don't want to search anymore for a cache to mark it so they can ignore it. Instead of a find count, you would just have a report count. This would likely put an end both to people feeling the need to cheat and to people feeling the need to refer to others as cheaters.

 

There's a cache near me that's 25 feet up in a tree. The tree has no branches on the lower half, just tiny little nubs that you can barely put your feet on. To reach it you have to shimmy your way up the base and then climb onto the first branch. The cache is located a little bit above that.

 

The container is totally visible and tied in place with fishing line. Getting to it is the tricky part.

 

I've seen logs on it where people say, "Managed to get the cache down but couldn't put it back. Signed log." Or "Got the cache down but broke the fishing line holding it in place. Owner will have to come replace it. Sorry."

 

Even standing on a 6' step ladder doesn't get you close, so I'm pretty sure they rigged something up and broke the line to get the container down but then had no way to get it back up.

 

If you were an owner, would you allow the find to stand? Technically, they signed the log.

 

I'd allow the online log of a valid find--even one that resulted in damage to or loss of my cache--to stand. Once you start deleting logs as a punitive measure you're already a long ways down a bad road.

 

(I would also re-engineer my cache to be less susceptible to damage/loss. Usually just moving it farther from pavement does the trick.)

I have lost several caches in my time. These tend to be magnetic micro stuck on the railing of bridge over a creek. If I drop the cache before I signed the log I don't claim a find. If I drop the cache after I signed the log, I do claim a find. Any cache owner who doesn't trust me can try to find the cache in the creek and check

 

 

I'm going to pick up the guantlett you gave sbell.

 

The first full sentance on the 2nd link. That simply says you can log online once you log the physical log. We both know that came from the ALR ban. The point wasn't so much to require the physical log, but to ban the extra steps before you can log. It doesn't say you can't log online if you don't sign the log. That's another thing.

 

 

But is it affirmed by ommision or disproved? It also doesnt say that you you can only geocache on days that start with S or W but you can or cannot.

 

In my experiance specific beats general. It specifically says Log physical and then log digital. your right it doesnt say "You can log digital if you dont log physical" But does it have to when it specifically says do the opposite of what you are suggesting?

 

in every FAQ or intro to geocaching it puts the physical log before the digital. So why should it be different then that?

When Dave Ulmer hid the first cache he didn't imagine there would be a online site for reporting your finds. He simply asked that people write something in the log he included and have fun. Jeremy Irish ruined the game by allowing people to log online when they found the cache. I'm pretty sure it wasn't intentional, but it was inevitable that some people would now see the online found log as an official score. As such it needed a definition of what constituted a find you could log online.

 

Jeremy used Dave Ulmer's instructions to write something in the log book as part of the "rules" he put on his site. I think he use the word "rules" as a shorthand for instructions for playing the game rather than as "official" rules. Until less than a year ago, the "rules" didn't even say anything about logging online. Yet puritans can read into these that you must sign the log to claim an online find.

 

They rules still don't say anything about whether you should log a 'Found It' or a 'DNF'. They simply say "Log your experience at www.geocaching.com". If the puritans are really such sticklers for rules, I ask why is there no outrage over the many people who find geocaches, maybe even sign the physical log, and never log online - not even notes. Before you condemn people who log 'Found It' online where there only lapse was not signing the physical log, you ought to checking the physical logs for the names of the cheaters who signed them and then never logged their experience online. Cross out the names of these cheaters who are degrading geocaching.

 

The actual way it works is that the cache owner can decide whether or not to delete a log. Should a cache owner appear to be deleting logs inappropriately (such as trying to force a cacher to perform a additional task beyond finding the cache), the person whose log it is can complain to Geocaching.com. If Geocaching.com feels that reason for deletion was inappropriate they will probably begin by asking the cache owner to allow the person to relog the cache. In some extremely rare instances if the cache owner continues to delete logs, Geocaching.com may allow the person to log the find and then lock the cache page. In most cases, however, they will defer to the cache owner. It may appear that deletion of a log due to failure to sign the physical book is a valid reason; I doubt that Geocaching.com would take any action against a cache owner in this case. On the other side, should a cache owner allow a log to stand, other users may post a SBA claiming that the cache owner is failing to do maintenance as required in the cache listing guidelines

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.

This generally has occurred on virtual caches that were being armchair logged as opposed to failure to sign a physical cache. In some instances the cache has been archived. However, I don't know of any cache being archived because an active cache owner is allowing so-called bogus logs to remain on a cache. Rather these caches are archived because they have been "abandoned". I'm not sure if there have been cases of abandoned physical caches being archived. However with the current policy prohibiting adoption of these caches, I suspect that a reviewer might archive a physical cache if it were getting a lot of "Found but didn't sign the log" logs and no one did maintenance (replace log book, add pen, get cache unstuck so it can be opened) so that people could sign the log.

[+Chrysalides]

OK., OK. So I t with a step stool and with great difficulty retrieved it and signed it.

Congratulations! And as you can see, that didn't affect the debate you started in the slightest

 

BTW I got a shorter version of the PikStik, looks pretty decent. I like it better than the one I saw at Fry's.

[+Knight2000]

What have we learned from this?

 

Stop hiding caches that can be seen but not easily retrieved. Apparently you only need to see the container now.

 

If the hider only wanted you to see the container they would never hide it in a way it is hard to get to.

 

Honestly, I can't even believe this is being discussed.

 

How can you log it online if you haven't signed the log in the actual cache?

Edited June 4, 2009 by Knight2000

[+bittsen]

 

Honestly, I can't even believe this is being discussed.

 

 

Honestly, I can't believe that people take this so seriously.

 

But, to make your point more pliable for both sides.

If you have no physical record of the find then how would anyone know, for sure, that you actually made the find. The logbook is the only recognized proof on a traditional cache.

 

But, seriously, does it really matter so much? Yes, people could cheat and say they found something that they didn't. But doesn't that speak more as to the character of the "cheater" than the owner of the cache?

[GOF and Bacall]

 

Honestly, I can't even believe this is being discussed.

 

 

Honestly, I can't believe that people take this so seriously.

 

But, to make your point more pliable for both sides.

If you have no physical record of the find then how would anyone know, for sure, that you actually made the find. The logbook is the only recognized proof on a traditional cache.

 

But, seriously, does it really matter so much? Yes, people could cheat and say they found something that they didn't. But doesn't that speak more as to the character of the "cheater" than the owner of the cache?

 

But it does takes the fun out of it for the hider. What is the point of expending the effort to hide a challenging cache if others are just going to shortcut it? Demoralizing.

 

And yes, it does speak volumes about those who would "cheat".

[Hope13]

I'd hope that people have enough common sense to see the difference between a 1/1 which happens to be too tall for some people and a harder one where the challenge is getting to it (and it's challenging for most people or whatnot).

 

Slippery slope arguments are actually fallacies unless you can prove a necessary connection between the antecedent and the consequent.

 

Also, the wording in the "rules" looks like signing the paper log is a sufficient condition for signing online. It is up to debate whether the wording makes it look like it's a necessary condition. Although, based on why that line was introduced (to deal with the elimination of ALR), it seems unlikely that it was meant as a necessary condition.

[+Chrysalides]

When you log online without having signed the physical cache log, your online log exists in a limbo of uncertainty until the cache owner decides whether or not to allow it to stand. This phenomenon is the subject of the famous thought experiment known as "Schrödinger's Cache."

Fantastic! Can we get this one into the geocaching lexicon?

[+bittsen]

 

But it does takes the fun out of it for the hider. What is the point of expending the effort to hide a challenging cache if others are just going to shortcut it? Demoralizing.

 

And yes, it does speak volumes about those who would "cheat".

 

Yes, but the hider isn't injured in any way by someone who is too short to reach a cache. If one wanted to cry foul for discrimination, one could.

The OP was stating that if she were of average height, she could have reached the cache but she isn't. The OP indicates that the cache wasn't intended to need a ladder for average height people.

 

I doubt the OP was trying to cheat, in any way shape or form.

 

As for the cheaters, again I would say what harm does it cause the hider if one cheats? I am sure that there are less than 5% cheaters out there.

[Chumpo]

When you log online without having signed the physical cache log, your online log exists in a limbo of uncertainty until the cache owner decides whether or not to allow it to stand. This phenomenon is the subject of the famous thought experiment known as "Schrödinger's Cache."

Fantastic! Can we get this one into the geocaching lexicon?

This thread has been won. Mule Ears gets the prize for best post.

[GOF and Bacall]

I'd hope that people have enough common sense to see the difference between a 1/1 which happens to be too tall for some people and a harder one where the challenge is getting to it (and it's challenging for most people or whatnot).

 

Slippery slope arguments are actually fallacies unless you can prove a necessary connection between the antecedent and the consequent.

 

Also, the wording in the "rules" looks like signing the paper log is a sufficient condition for signing online. It is up to debate whether the wording makes it look like it's a necessary condition. Although, based on why that line was introduced (to deal with the elimination of ALR), it seems unlikely that it was meant as a necessary condition.

 

Most certainly I am not arguing that a 1/1 and a more challenging cache should be considered the same. To recap my position these need to be taken on a case by case basis. "I can't reach it" isn't enough if reaching the cache is a part of the challenge. Short cutting a cache doesn't take away from the finds of others but can reduce the hiders enjoyment, making them feel like their effort was wasted. While I may accept that there where extenuating circumstances for not signing the log it is up to me, the cache hider, to make the call. In the guidelines or not signing the logbook is a part of the conventions of geocaching. These are my opinions.

 

 

But it does takes the fun out of it for the hider. What is the point of expending the effort to hide a challenging cache if others are just going to shortcut it? Demoralizing.

 

And yes, it does speak volumes about those who would "cheat".

 

Yes, but the hider isn't injured in any way by someone who is too short to reach a cache. If one wanted to cry foul for discrimination, one could.

The OP was stating that if she were of average height, she could have reached the cache but she isn't. The OP indicates that the cache wasn't intended to need a ladder for average height people.

 

I doubt the OP was trying to cheat, in any way shape or form.

 

As for the cheaters, again I would say what harm does it cause the hider if one cheats? I am sure that there are less than 5% cheaters out there.

 

My point has been all along that "I'm too short." may or may not be acceptable. If reaching the cache is a part of the challenge then no. I never said the OP was cheating but the conversation has gone beyond that It seems to be a discussion of the general state of caching. An attempt at understanding each others point of veiw. That or a total wast of time.

 

5% or 95% cheating is wrong. Accepting it blindly in anything harms our society as a whole. But don't let it worry you, I'll sleep fine tonight.

[Skippermark]

Ayup. The error is the co's in this case for poor design.

Yes, agreed. Even doing the cache by climbing to it, you had to be very careful not to accidentally break the line. It looked to be very light weight line. It's not my cache, but if it were, I would have zip tied it in place so it couldn't be broken or used para cord as someone else mentioned.

[GOF and Bacall]

When you log online without having signed the physical cache log, your online log exists in a limbo of uncertainty until the cache owner decides whether or not to allow it to stand. This phenomenon is the subject of the famous thought experiment known as "Schrödinger's Cache."

Fantastic! Can we get this one into the geocaching lexicon?

This thread has been won. Mule Ears gets the prize for best post.

Agreed! All in favor say "AYE!"...