Not reading cache page, still claiming find without signing Log

[+Autorita]

Recently people have been finding my traditional cache Sisters Tie Trail GC1BG36 and claiming a find although they have not retrieved or signed the logbook according to the cache page.

 

This cache is a traditional in the sense that it does provide the exact coordinates of the cache location yet when you find it, I expect that you have read the cache page to find the lock-code to unlock the box to retrieve the logbook and goods.

 

My issue: People have been finding the cache without reading the cache page and then either claiming a find stating that it is not a traditional or just signing the box itself!

 

Should this cache be changed to a puzzle cache although you do not need to figure out the coordinates? Is there a new cache type this sort of traditional cache falls under? Or is it the cacher's own fault for not reading the page before heading out on the hunt? Debating removing the recent finds and informing them that they need to sign the log, but want to make sure I'm not in the wrong.

 

Thanks!

[+sbell111]

Recently people have been finding my traditional cache Sisters Tie Trail GC1BG36 and claiming a find although they have not retrieved or signed the logbook according to the cache page.

 

This cache is a traditional in the sense that it does provide the exact coordinates of the cache location yet when you find it, I expect that you have read the cache page to find the lock-code to unlock the box to retrieve the logbook and goods.

 

My issue: People have been finding the cache without reading the cache page and then either claiming a find stating that it is not a traditional or just signing the box itself!

 

Should this cache be changed to a puzzle cache although you do not need to figure out the coordinates? Is there a new cache type this sort of traditional cache falls under? Or is it the cacher's own fault for not reading the page before heading out on the hunt? Debating removing the recent finds and informing them that they need to sign the log, but want to make sure I'm not in the wrong.

 

Thanks!

In my opinion, the cache should be listed as a 'mystery' cache, since it cannot be logged using coords alone. Since it is not listed as the correct cache type, I would let the logs stand.

 

If it is a new cache, I would contact my reviewer to cahnge teh cache type. If it isn't a new cache, I would archive it and relist it as a 'mystery' cache.

Edited August 11, 2009 by sbell111

[+Walts Hunting]

I would go with changing the type. Many people download the PQ to their device and head out. With the exception of recent devices they can't read the description. I would assume that if they had one of the newer ones they would read it and comply.

 

Before I got my Oregon I ran into similar instances where the cache wasn't a traditonal and you had to stand at that spot and shoot an azimuth or one said (look to the NE to the largest tree and it is behind it). It was pretty annoying when I spend 30 minutes searching the area and when I got home read the description.

 

I would venture to say that most people don't read the description before going out.

 

Just some thoughts.

[+Stargazer22]

I would say that this one should probably be a mystery cache, since it requires the finders to not only do something, they have to do those things at different places in the area.

 

I am a big believer in reading cache pages before I seek them. I enjoy reading a good cache page and want to know things about the area I cache in, so I like the additional information you put on your page.

 

However, there are some people out there who do not read cache pages prior to going out. If they arrive at your cache and then find that they needed to walk to several different places in order to get clues to open the lock, they may not be too happy to find out they should have done something first. Having your cache as a mystery cache alerts finders that they must do something other than just show up at the coordinates and sign the log. I'd change it if it were mine, and I wouldn't penalize prior finders by deleting their logs.

[+Mudfrog]

While it might help to change the cache type, i don't see that as being the problem.

 

I just can't imagine a cacher coming up to a locked box and then not asking themselves, "What am i missing"? Common sense should tell them that something is screwy and that they either need to read the cache description for more information or maybe question whether they even found the right cache.

[+ThirstyMick]

I'd probably change it to an "unknown" type of cache since there is additional info they need in order to get at the logbook. Some people will do a Pocket Query of just traditional caches with the expectation that they will be straightforward, and load it to a GPS that might not show the description. Marking it as a "?" will let people know they need to read the description.

 

I have a Colorado now so I just load everything and read it on my way, but if I went seeking your cache back when I didn't, I'd be kinda ticked to get there and find out there was more to it than finding a container and signing the log. I probably wouldn't log the find, not having signed the log. But I probably also wouldn't delete someones find if it were my cache. You wouldn't be wrong to delete it since they didn't sign the log, but it wouldn't be very nice since they did find the cache and the type shouldn't have been traditional..

 

One of the finders noted that the ALR rule change means he can log it.. not really since it isn't *exactly* and ALR... and ALR is something in addition to signing the log. Your cache involves an additional step to get to the log. Puzzles are still allowed, but should be marked as such.

[+Castle Mischief]

I want to say change it to a mystery, but...

 

I have a problem with lumping caches like these in with puzzle caches and filing them under the same cache type.

 

I'm not a huge fan of puzzle caches (I have nothing against, just not my cup of tea). I don't have these types checked off on my pocket queries.

 

By filtering out puzzle caches I would miss this cache, which really isn't a puzzle at all.

 

I don't have much sympathy for people that refuse to read the description and clearly the people that logged the finds should know that they didn't sign the log. But discussion in that direction leads to thorny paths...

 

I'm torn. I don't know where I stand.

 

I think there should be some way to flag the description to those people that would be willing to read it if they knew there was important information, but I understand the desire of some people to hunt coords only for what has listed as a traditional cache.

 

Could you add "(read description)" in the cache name or would that be too many characters, or just silly?

Edited August 11, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+Unkle Fester]

While it might help to change the cache type, i don't see that as being the problem.

I agree...

I just can't imagine a cacher coming up to a locked box and then not asking themselves, "What am i missing"? Common sense should tell them that something is screwy and that they either need to read the cache description for more information or maybe question whether they even found the right cache.

Common sense is so rare, it should be considered a super power.

 

I can see people walking up to the box and thinking "forget this! I'm not walking away empty...", people expect a traditional to be there and available. IMHO, the logs that did not sign the physical logbook should be deleted. I've found a few caches like this and DNF'd them until I could get back after reading the cache page to get into the container.

 

The problem is: do you want to be the cacher who deletes logs - even when justified? I think I'd send each person a note asking them to return and sign the log - or else the log gets deleted, and make sure that is clear on the cache page, state the various unacceptable practices along with it. There is a trend being established, you need to break that trend.

 

Maybe it would be easier to make it a puzzle. How much angst are you willing to suffer through?

[GOF and Bacall]

From the guidelines.

Mystery or Puzzle Caches

 

The "catch-all" of cache types, this form of cache often involves complicated puzzles that you will first need to solve in order to determine the coordinates.

 

There are two points in this quote that apply here. First that the puzzle cache type is the "catch-all of cache types" and the second that they "often" use puzzles to find the coordinates.

 

The word "often" implies that this is not always the case. I have a puzzle cache that is at the listed coordinates. You need to figure out the combination.

 

The phrase "catch-all" implies that if the cache doesn't fit in any of the other categories it goes in the puzzle group.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Didn't sign the logbook? Don't claim it as a find.

 

Even if the cache is listed as the wrong type.

 

That said, this cache should be listed as a mystery/unknown so cachers come prepared.

[LEAD DOG]

Didn't sign the logbook? Don't claim it as a find.

 

Even if the cache is listed as the wrong type.

 

That said, this cache should be listed as a mystery/unknown so cachers come prepared.

 

That should be the final word....oops!

[Dinoprophet]

Didn't sign the logbook? Don't claim it as a find.

 

Even if the cache is listed as the wrong type.

Unless the owner says it's okay.

 

That said, this cache should be listed as a mystery/unknown so cachers come prepared.

Yes.

[+Castle Mischief]

Didn't sign the logbook? Don't claim it as a find.

 

Even if the cache is listed as the wrong type.

 

That said, this cache should be listed as a mystery/unknown so cachers come prepared.

 

That should be the final word....oops!

 

Moderator != Reviewer

Edited August 11, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+Buddies-Buddies]

Regardless of how it is listed, for me it is quite straight forward - if you do not sign the log then you have not meet the most basic of logging requirements... But that is just me...

 

I have a multi-cache that takes most people 3 or 4 trips to my area before they get through all 7 stages, and I state on the cache page that if you do not sign, stamp, or sticker the log your find will be deleted. I have only had to delete one log so far. The cacher only had 3 or 4 finds and simply posted TFTC when they logged it which made me question the validity of the find (most other cahers wrote something about their experience). I went to the final and saw nothing in the log, so I sent the cacher the following Email:

 

Hello (insert cacher's name here),

 

Welcome to geocaching!

 

I noticed that you did not sign the logbook for my multi-cache "A Sporting Adventure". I suspect you may have found the traditional cache "Sports Cache" and logged mine in error, so I have deleted the find. If this is not the case then please return to the final location and sign the logbook. After that you can log finding my cache online and I will let it stand.

 

Happy Caching!

 

If leaving the finds on the cache page really bothers the OP then may I suggest a similar approach to rectify the situation.

[+Lil Devil]

I agree with most of the posts above. The logs should be deleted, a nice email sent to invite them back, and the cache type should be changed.

 

I also want to point out that one of the errant loggers tried to justify their log with "at least under the new logging rules we can still claim a find since we got the cache" but that is incorrect. The new logging rules say "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed." but they didn't sign the physical log

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Didn't sign the logbook? Don't claim it as a find.

 

Even if the cache is listed as the wrong type.

 

That said, this cache should be listed as a mystery/unknown so cachers come prepared.

 

That should be the final word....oops!

 

Moderator |= Reviewer

| != !

 

 

 

SRSLY, pipe?

[+J-Way]

I agree it should be listed as a "Mystery/Unknown". Also, just to be safe, do NOT put the container at the posted coordinates. Put it about 100-ft away (outside your typical GZ search radius), with clear directions for locating the cache in the description. Anyone who reads the description will have no problem finding the cache. Any cache placed at the listed coordinates will eventually be claimed as a "find" by someone who didn't read the instructions.

 

With any activity that involves the general public (anyone can play, and no one has to pass an entrance exam), you have to work with the least common denominator. With tradition caches, the LCD is the cacher who dumps the coordinates into their receiver (or buys the preloaded GEOMATE.JR) and heads for ground zero without benefit of description, clue, or past logs. So pleading instructions to only hunt during daylight hours, or avoid the professionally landscaped flower beds, or watch out for the wild alligators, are never even seen, much less read and followed.

 

The LCD player has every right to play the game their way, and to be honest, I think that type of player outnumbers the rest of us by a significant margin. So the rest of us have to adapt.

 

In the OP's case, the only options I can think of are to:

1) archive the cache and re-list as a Mystery (unless a reviewer will change the type, which I doubt because it's already been found),

2) remove all requirements and put a typical log in the container, or

3) keep fighting a losing battle by deleting bogus logs.

 

Good luck!

[+Renegade Knight]

...Personally I expect people to read my cache page. All the info is there. There is no mystery about the cache if you do.

 

Since they didn't access the cache, any folks who didn't sign the log, don't have a valid find. It's fair to invite them to change their find to a note, and log a find when they do sign the log. If they are unwilling to do so, zap the log.

[Dinoprophet]

Didn't sign the logbook? Don't claim it as a find.

 

Even if the cache is listed as the wrong type.

 

That said, this cache should be listed as a mystery/unknown so cachers come prepared.

 

That should be the final word....oops!

 

Moderator |= Reviewer

| != !

 

 

 

SRSLY, pipe?

Oh, I was wondering what Mew{ewor meant!

[+steve p]

I have found three caches that required a combination to be entered on a lock in order to open the container. I believe all three were listed as regular.

 

I don't think a combination lock makes a cache a puzzle, a mystery, or an ALR cache. You just have to know the combination which is openly provided on the cache page.

[GOF and Bacall]

I have found three caches that required a combination to be entered on a lock in order to open the container. I believe all three were listed as regular.

 

I don't think a combination lock makes a cache a puzzle, a mystery, or an ALR cache. You just have to know the combination which is openly provided on the cache page.

 

The thing is that the combination is not provided on the cache page. A way to find it is. Once you solve that you can open the lock.

[+Kibiras]

Its normally when people do not read description for tradional cache, because they make query and search this type caches when ar not far away from cache. Not many gps receivers offer full text of listing. When i go for mystery or multi cache - i am solve/print description.

Do not delete logs, just change cache type!

or change cache to traditional and make another mystery.

Here is your (cache owner) mistake

[+brokenoaks]

One of the attractions of geocaching is that you can personalize it to yourself. sometimes, to add a little difficulty, I will search a cache with coordinates s only and purposely not read the cach page. if I ever find one with a lock box I still found it and I will log it on the web site. if the owner wants to delete my log so be it, I still found it. for me it's not about the logs, I am in it for the search and find.

Of course if it is really all that important one could simply use their trusty multi tool and open the lock.

[GOF and Bacall]

One of the attractions of geocaching is that you can personalize it to yourself. sometimes, to add a little difficulty, I will search a cache with coordinates s only and purposely not read the cach page. if I ever find one with a lock box I still found it and I will log it on the web site. if the owner wants to delete my log so be it, I still found it. for me it's not about the logs, I am in it for the search and find.

Of course if it is really all that important one could simply use their trusty multi tool and open the lock.

 

You are saying the finders should vandalize the cache if that is what it takes to sign the log?

[+brokenoaks]

No, I am ont saying what anyone should or should not do. it's simply an option. Probably not the best one

[+Harry Dolphin]

Since one must figure out the combination, I would agree that it should be a mystery cache.

I have no qualms about deleting logs for people who did not sign the log. Sign log - Get smiley!

As to people who do not read cache pages before hunting caches: There are a lot of caches that would be almost impossible to find without reading the cache page. If you don't read the cache page: TBSS. That's the cache hunter's problem, not the cache owner's.

[+LightHouseSeekers]

Many times I will search for a cache based on coords alone and NOT

read the description until standing near GZ (for a Traditional cache).

So my 3 cents worth would be to change the cache type to ? or multi.

Would get my attention to research extra steps required to complete.

 

BTW an unsigned log is an unfound cache IMHO

[+bflentje]

Recently people have been finding my traditional cache Sisters Tie Trail GC1BG36 and claiming a find although they have not retrieved or signed the logbook according to the cache page.

 

This cache is a traditional in the sense that it does provide the exact coordinates of the cache location yet when you find it, I expect that you have read the cache page to find the lock-code to unlock the box to retrieve the logbook and goods.

 

My issue: People have been finding the cache without reading the cache page and then either claiming a find stating that it is not a traditional or just signing the box itself!

 

Should this cache be changed to a puzzle cache although you do not need to figure out the coordinates? Is there a new cache type this sort of traditional cache falls under? Or is it the cacher's own fault for not reading the page before heading out on the hunt? Debating removing the recent finds and informing them that they need to sign the log, but want to make sure I'm not in the wrong.

 

Thanks!

 

If it were mine it'd be instant delete.

[knowschad]

No, I am ont saying what anyone should or should not do. it's simply an option. Probably not the best one

 

Vandalizing a cache to sign the log is not an option, best or otherwise.

 

 

Suggestion to the OP: Rename the cache to "Must Read the Cache Page!"

Oops! I see that you've already thought of that.

Edited August 11, 2009 by knowschad

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Reading the cache page description is a prerequisite for caching, in my mind. Why do you think the "Instant Notifications" do not include the coordinates? You are supposed to read the directions.

 

No, my GPS does not have the descriptions and hints in it. But my PDA does. Many times I'll hunt a cache without reading the page but if I came across one with a combo lock, I'd go back to the PDA and read that.

 

And, if all you've found is a lockbox with a lock you can't open, how do you even know if you found the cache if you haven't seen a logbook.

 

I'd say that if the combo is in the cache description or the hints (i.e. on the cache page) then it can stay as a traditional. If they aren't there but directions to go find them are, then I'd move it over to the Mystery/Puzzle/Unknown group.

[+bflentje]

Since one must figure out the combination, I would agree that it should be a mystery cache.

I have no qualms about deleting logs for people who did not sign the log. Sign log - Get smiley!

As to people who do not read cache pages before hunting caches: There are a lot of caches that would be almost impossible to find without reading the cache page. If you don't read the cache page: TBSS. That's the cache hunter's problem, not the cache owner's.

 

I think the pro-[make it a puzzle] people are looking at it all wrong. I simply see the lock as additional stars of difficulty. Because you don't need to solve jack to locate GZ. But at GZ, you need to use your senses. Just my humble and lame opinion.

[+uxorious]

I have little sympathy for those who do not read the cache page, but at the same time I have little sympathy with someone who lists their cache wrong, and then complains.

 

If you read the cache page for this cache, it sure seems to me to be a mystery/puzzle. Shouldn't matter if the numbers you find on the path lead to correct coordinates, or to the combination of the lock. If you have to find numbers on the way to the cache it is not a traditional.

 

Change the type of cache, or you are no better than those logging in error.

[+rob3k]

You need extra info found away from the cache site, so it shouldn't be a traditional cache IMO.

 

Multi-cache with the other spots listed as 'Question to Answer' maybe?

[+flask]

i'll add my voice to the choir, in case you're making a tally.

 

if the combination is on the cache page and all a person has to do is read the description, it's a traditional.

 

people who do not read the cache description (and i sometimes number among them) have only themselves to blame.

 

ya pays yer nickle, ya takes yer chances.

 

if there is any other step besides reading the description that must be taken in order to learn the combination, it should properly be a puzzle, however obvious.

 

finders who do not sign the logbook should have their logs deleted.

 

if a finder arrives at a box and it is not possible to open the box due to circumstances NOT part of the owner's design (frozen in comes to mind) the finder might perhaps sign the box and call it found.

 

if (s)he arrives at the box to find an intended obstacle, (s)he must not log it until (s)he has cleared the obstacle.

 

because a combination lock nearly never occurs naturally in the wild and is almost always an intended obstacle, the finders have no excuse for calling it found without opening the box.

 

you may delete their logs with impunity.

 

while you may wish to send a soothing email by way of explanation, those finders knew full well your intent with regard to the lock and it was an arrogance for them to sign the box and call your cache found. they knew what they were doing and if you do not wish to let their bogus logs stand, you have no obligation to make nice over it.

[+steve p]

The thing is that the combination is not provided on the cache page. A way to find it is. Once you solve that you can open the lock.

Oh, I see.

I had read the original post and not the cache page. The original post said that you must read the cache page to find the lock code. That's why I said it would not be a puzzle.

 

This cache is a traditional in the sense that it does provide the exact coordinates of the cache location yet when you find it, I expect that you have read the cache page to find the lock-code to unlock the box to retrieve the logbook and goods.

After reading the cache page I agree that it definitely is a puzzle cache. BTW, I do like the puzzle he created. Would be a nice one for a family to do.

Edited August 11, 2009 by steve p

[+sbell111]

Didn't sign the logbook? Don't claim it as a find.

 

Even if the cache is listed as the wrong type.

 

That said, this cache should be listed as a mystery/unknown so cachers come prepared.

 

That should be the final word....oops!

 

Moderator |= Reviewer

| != !

 

 

 

SRSLY, pipe?

≠

[+brokenoaks]

Reading the cache page description is a prerequisite for caching, in my mind. Why do you think the "Instant Notifications" do not include the coordinates? You are supposed to read the directions.

 

exactly!, in one's mind they can play the game in any way they want. But, Groundspeak does not require that you read the cache page.

BTW I do sign the log books and believe that everyone should. I just prefer guidelines to inflexible rules.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Didn't sign the logbook? Don't claim it as a find.

 

Even if the cache is listed as the wrong type.

 

That said, this cache should be listed as a mystery/unknown so cachers come prepared.

 

That should be the final word....oops!

 

Moderator |= Reviewer

| != !

 

 

 

SRSLY, pipe?

≠

Yeah, but i can never remember the code for that one. :Þ

[+Castle Mischief]

Didn't sign the logbook? Don't claim it as a find.

 

Even if the cache is listed as the wrong type.

 

That said, this cache should be listed as a mystery/unknown so cachers come prepared.

 

That should be the final word....oops!

 

Moderator |= Reviewer

| != !

 

 

 

SRSLY, pipe?

 

Funny story, there's a scratch on my "|\" key. The | looks like a !. Brain fart.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

The thing is that the combination is not provided on the cache page. A way to find it is. Once you solve that you can open the lock.

 

Oh, well that changes everything. That is a "?" cache.

[+Mudfrog]

I have found three caches that required a combination to be entered on a lock in order to open the container. I believe all three were listed as regular.

 

I don't think a combination lock makes a cache a puzzle, a mystery, or an ALR cache. You just have to know the combination which is openly provided on the cache page.

 

The thing is that the combination is not provided on the cache page. A way to find it is. Once you solve that you can open the lock.

 

I didn't go look up the cache in question and for some reason, assumed that the combination was right there on the page when i made my previous post. Allthough i still see the main problem as being lack of common sense on the finder's part, i do see now where the cache would be better off being listed as a mystery. It might not get searched for as often but it would certainly cut down on the false find logs!

[+WRASTRO]

 

The thing is that the combination is not provided on the cache page. A way to find it is. Once you solve that you can open the lock.

 

Oh, well that changes everything. That is a "?" cache.

I had a quick look at the cache page. If it was my cache I would have listed it as a "?" cache. That said I believe the cachers logging finds for finding the container are out of bounds. I always read the cache page before hunting a cache so I would never find myself in the situation where I arrived at a cache and didn't have the information that was clearly laid out on the cache page.

 

I would suggest consulting with the reviewer and deciding if the existing listing should be archived or if the cache type should be changed.

 

Sounds like a nice cache.

[+papatom2]

IMHO if you dont sign the log then its not a find!

[AZcachemeister]

While the cache may not be properly listed, I would certainly know if I signed the log or not.

If I tried to claim a find (even thought I had not signed the log...{NOT LIKELY, assuming the log was signable}), I would fully expect to have my log deleted.

[+bittsen]

Keep in mind that some use pocket queries to download GCs directly to their units and don't have access to the pages when in the field. How would they know you had a code for the lock.

 

I would be grateful that people weren't busting the lock and let them keep their smiley. What is the damage? Really?

[+Taoiseach]

There is a simple solution to all of this - Buy an Oregon!

 

[+paleolith]

I would call it a multicache, since solving it involves going to a series of places near the cache.

 

But whether multi or unknown, the type needs to be changed.

 

Edward

[+sbell111]

There is a simple solution to all of this - Buy an Oregon!

 

I don't see how buying a new GPSr would aid the OP in his dilemma.

[Dj Storm]

After reading the cache description, I would list the cache as a multi, with two waypoints: trailhead and final (eventually another waypoint for the sign). I would list the coordinates of the trailhead as the cache's coordinates.

 

Regarding the traditional/mystery debate: What if the (traditional) box is protected by a padlock, and finders must brute-force the combination (i.e. no combination listed on the cache page)? I think that's still a traditional, with a difficulty of 4+. If the cache invites the searchers to pick the lock, that's still a traditional with a difficulty rating of 5. If the hint decrypts to "the key is in the fake rock", that doesn't change the cache type.

What if the cache has a "child-proof" lid? Almost everybody knows how to open that, but somebody might not know, and fail to open it (even with instructions written on the lid!). Would you accept a find from someone who signed the container?

 

I wouldn't delete the finds, simply because I think the cache has the wrong type. In case it was like the traditionals listed in my examples above, I would offer searchers the chance to change the log to a note/dnf, and delete the logs if they don't comply.

[+sbell111]

After reading the cache description, I would list the cache as a multi, with two waypoints: trailhead and final (eventually another waypoint for the sign). I would list the coordinates of the trailhead as the cache's coordinates.

 

Regarding the traditional/mystery debate: What if the (traditional) box is protected by a padlock, and finders must brute-force the combination (i.e. no combination listed on the cache page)? I think that's still a traditional, with a difficulty of 4+. If the cache invites the searchers to pick the lock, that's still a traditional with a difficulty rating of 5. If the hint decrypts to "the key is in the fake rock", that doesn't change the cache type.

What if the cache has a "child-proof" lid? Almost everybody knows how to open that, but somebody might not know, and fail to open it (even with instructions written on the lid!). Would you accept a find from someone who signed the container?

 

I wouldn't delete the finds, simply because I think the cache has the wrong type. In case it was like the traditionals listed in my examples above, I would offer searchers the chance to change the log to a note/dnf, and delete the logs if they don't comply.

The bolded hypothetical caches are puzzles and should be listed as such.