Are you serious?

[Influence Waterfowl Calls]

I placed another cache and the reviewer sent a form letter and one of the questions was asking if there was a logbook!

 

Well if this caching thing has gone that far off the deep end what is next?

[+Arrow42]

Well... is there?

Edited November 8, 2009 by Arrow42

[+StarBrand]

Since a logbook is required in every cache - you must have given them a reason to ask........

[knowschad]

There have been caches placed where there was no actual log book, where you had to sign the cache itself (zip ties, magnetic vinyl, etc). They are no longer allowed. That's probably why that is in the form letter.

[+duck_hunt]

Wrong account.

Edited November 8, 2009 by birdbrain05

[+jeffbouldin]

There have been caches placed where there was no actual log book, where you had to sign the cache itself (zip ties, magnetic vinyl, etc). They are no longer allowed. That's probably why that is in the form letter.

 

I just reread the guidelines and I can't find that anywhere in it.

 

Here is what I found.

 

Traditional Caches

 

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook. The cache may be filled with objects for trade. Normally you'll find a Tupperware-style container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container too small to contain items except for a logbook. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache. A container with no logbook and just an object or codeword for verification generally does not qualify as a traditional cache.

 

Notice all it says is they don't qualify as Traditional.

 

Guidelines that Apply to all Cache Types

 

3rd paragraph reads, For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

 

As long as there is something to sign it is OK. You might have to list it as a Unknown cache instead of a Traditional, since this is the "Catch-All" cache type. Meaning if it doesn't fit elsewhere stick it here. Who is to say that the outside of something I have created isn't a log? Why isn't the piece of waterproof paper glued on the back of a magnetic sign I created isn't a log? Just list it as a Unknown.

[+briansnat]

I placed another cache and the reviewer sent a form letter and one of the questions was asking if there was a logbook!

 

Well if this caching thing has gone that far off the deep end what is next?

 

Do you mean that it's gone off the deep end because reviewers need to ask what seems to be such a basic question, or it's gone off the deep end because logbooks are considered an essential element of a geocache?

[knowschad]

There have been caches placed where there was no actual log book, where you had to sign the cache itself (zip ties, magnetic vinyl, etc). They are no longer allowed. That's probably why that is in the form letter.

I just reread the guidelines and I can't find that anywhere in it.

Here is what I found.

Traditional Caches

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook. The cache may be filled with objects for trade. Normally you'll find a Tupperware-style container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container too small to contain items except for a logbook. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache. A container with no logbook and just an object or codeword for verification generally does not qualify as a traditional cache.

 

Notice all it says is they don't qualify as Traditional.

 

Guidelines that Apply to all Cache Types

 

3rd paragraph reads, For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

 

As long as there is something to sign it is OK. You might have to list it as a Unknown cache instead of a Traditional, since this is the "Catch-All" cache type. Meaning if it doesn't fit elsewhere stick it here. Who is to say that the outside of something I have created isn't a log? Why isn't the piece of waterproof paper glued on the back of a magnetic sign I created isn't a log? Just list it as a Unknown.

 

Sorry... I was only reporting what I have learned here in the forums by reviewers and moderators.

 

An Unknown cache is still a physical cache. A non-physical cache would be an Earthcache, a webcam cache, a virtual, etc.

[+Rainbow Spirit]

I'm sure I have seen a description of a cache that was actually a log (wooden) that had a section finished in such a way that you could sign the log with a felt tipped pen that was provided.

I have been thinking of doing something similar, is this still a legitimate way to do a cache, if you list it as a mystery cache?

[+sbell111]

I'm sure I have seen a description of a cache that was actually a log (wooden) that had a section finished in such a way that you could sign the log with a felt tipped pen that was provided.

I have been thinking of doing something similar, is this still a legitimate way to do a cache, if you list it as a mystery cache?

You might want to run that by your local reviewer.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I'm sure I have seen a description of a cache that was actually a log (wooden) that had a section finished in such a way that you could sign the log with a felt tipped pen that was provided.

I have been thinking of doing something similar, is this still a legitimate way to do a cache, if you list it as a mystery cache?

 

Found one over the summer that had been placed just before being found by myself (in other words, it was a new listing as of this summer). I liked it!

[+Team Cotati]

I placed another cache and the reviewer sent a form letter and one of the questions was asking if there was a logbook!

 

Well if this caching thing has gone that far off the deep end what is next?

 

Why does something this unimportant bother you? There has got to be more.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Wrong account.

Ringbone???

[+ArcherDragoon]

There have been caches placed where there was no actual log book, where you had to sign the cache itself (zip ties, magnetic vinyl, etc). They are no longer allowed. That's probably why that is in the form letter.

 

I just reread the guidelines and I can't find that anywhere in it.

 

Here is what I found.

 

Traditional Caches

 

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook. The cache may be filled with objects for trade. Normally you'll find a Tupperware-style container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container too small to contain items except for a logbook. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache. A container with no logbook and just an object or codeword for verification generally does not qualify as a traditional cache.

 

Notice all it says is they don't qualify as Traditional.

 

Guidelines that Apply to all Cache Types

 

3rd paragraph reads, For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

 

As long as there is something to sign it is OK. You might have to list it as a Unknown cache instead of a Traditional, since this is the "Catch-All" cache type. Meaning if it doesn't fit elsewhere stick it here. Who is to say that the outside of something I have created isn't a log? Why isn't the piece of waterproof paper glued on the back of a magnetic sign I created isn't a log? Just list it as a Unknown.

As the Knower of Chad pointed out...and you seemed to answer in your own post...

 

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

[+jeffbouldin]

As the Knower of Chad pointed out...and you seemed to answer in your own post...

 

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

 

Again, if I create some kind of special container and designate it as the item to sign I have supplied a log. It may not be considered a Traditional and thus may be better listed as a Unknown.

Edited November 10, 2009 by jeffbouldin

[Influence Waterfowl Calls]

OK

 

There is nothing more to it. I would think after 877 finds and 76 hides I would know there has to be a logbook. I guess I have not hidden a cache for a few months and may have missed some kind of uproar. It seem that as this thing progresses they just keep taking one thing at a time and soon we will have to purchase "their" official containers and place them in their predetermined location and hiding style. It just seems that to cover their rear ends the creativity keeps getting taken out. Sure there is a lot left but then again if they keep it up...

 

"""""One more whack on the dead horse"""""

[+Prime Suspect]

As the Knower of Chad pointed out...and you seemed to answer in your own post...

 

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

 

Again, if I create some kind of special container and designate it as the item to sign I have supplied a log.

No, probably not. As specified in the guidelines:

Traditional Caches

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook.

While this is listed under Traditional, it applies to all physical caches. If you've created something for finders to write their messages on, then you've created a log. But it still needs a container.

 

Changing the type to multi or puzzle doesn't remove the requirement for a container.

[+frinklabs]

This cache's container is so large it has become the log.

 

[+niraD]

As specified in the guidelines:

Traditional Caches

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook.

While this is listed under Traditional, it applies to all physical caches. If you've created something for finders to write their messages on, then you've created a log. But it still needs a container.

Is there any requirement that the log(book) fit inside the container? Or could the container be placed inside the log(book)?

[+Arrow42]

There is nothing more to it.

 

Yes, there is more too it. You completely left out the context.

 

I agree, the request sounds odd.

[+sbell111]

OK

 

There is nothing more to it. I would think after 877 finds and 76 hides I would know there has to be a logbook. I guess I have not hidden a cache for a few months and may have missed some kind of uproar. It seem that as this thing progresses they just keep taking one thing at a time and soon we will have to purchase "their" official containers and place them in their predetermined location and hiding style. It just seems that to cover their rear ends the creativity keeps getting taken out. Sure there is a lot left but then again if they keep it up...

 

"""""One more whack on the dead horse"""""

I'm pretty sure that the uproar of which you post happened before you even became a member. The 'log' requirement is not a new one.

[+Prime Suspect]

As specified in the guidelines:

Traditional Caches

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook.

While this is listed under Traditional, it applies to all physical caches. If you've created something for finders to write their messages on, then you've created a log. But it still needs a container.

Is there any requirement that the log(book) fit inside the container? Or could the container be placed inside the log(book)?

The log needs to be contained by the container.

[+niraD]

As specified in the guidelines:

Traditional Caches

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook.

While this is listed under Traditional, it applies to all physical caches. If you've created something for finders to write their messages on, then you've created a log. But it still needs a container.

Is there any requirement that the log(book) fit inside the container? Or could the container be placed inside the log(book)?

The log needs to be contained by the container.

Why? The guidelines say a traditional container consists of "a container and a logbook", and that a "container with no logbook" is unacceptable. But they don't actually say that the logbook must fit inside the container. But maybe it's part of the current interpretation of the guidelines, and not part of the written guidelines themselves.

 

As a practical matter, if a cache owner wanted to have a wooden log that seekers signed (with permission), then the CO could simply include a scrap of paper inside the container as the official log, and encourage finders to sign the wooden log the container was hidden in. The unwritten requirement for a logbook inside the container is met, and the wooden log would collect signatures.

[+Chrysalides]

Why? The guidelines say a traditional container consists of "a container and a logbook", and that a "container with no logbook" is unacceptable. But they don't actually say that the logbook must fit inside the container.

My personal take on this is that the hobby encourages creativity, and if you come up with something that may not be traditional, but is totally appropriate, it will not only be approved, but admired by the community. Parsing the guidelines in this way makes me feel like I'm doing my taxes and not having fun with a hobby

[knowschad]

As specified in the guidelines:

Traditional Caches

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook.

While this is listed under Traditional, it applies to all physical caches. If you've created something for finders to write their messages on, then you've created a log. But it still needs a container.

Is there any requirement that the log(book) fit inside the container? Or could the container be placed inside the log(book)?

It is a container because it contains the log, not because it is contained by the log.

[+sbell111]

Why? The guidelines say a traditional container consists of "a container and a logbook", and that a "container with no logbook" is unacceptable. But they don't actually say that the logbook must fit inside the container.

My personal take on this is that the hobby encourages creativity, and if you come up with something that may not be traditional, but is totally appropriate, it will not only be approved, but admired by the community. Parsing the guidelines in this way makes me feel like I'm doing my taxes and not having fun with a hobby

That is absolutely correct. However, TPTB interpret the guidelines and give guidance to the reviewers. If that guidance goes against the creative container, the cache listing should be denied.

[+Team Cotati]

As specified in the guidelines:

Traditional Caches

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook.

While this is listed under Traditional, it applies to all physical caches. If you've created something for finders to write their messages on, then you've created a log. But it still needs a container.

Is there any requirement that the log(book) fit inside the container? Or could the container be placed inside the log(book)?

The log needs to be contained by the container.

 

Should that be interpreted the same as: "The log MUST be contained by the container"?

[+sTeamTraen]

Is there any requirement that the log(book) fit inside the container? Or could the container be placed inside the log(book)?

The log needs to be contained by the container.

Should that be interpreted the same as: "The log MUST be contained by the container"?

I'm started to understand how the grand jury felt when Bill Clinton said "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".

[+Prime Suspect]

As specified in the guidelines:

Traditional Caches

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook.

While this is listed under Traditional, it applies to all physical caches. If you've created something for finders to write their messages on, then you've created a log. But it still needs a container.

Is there any requirement that the log(book) fit inside the container? Or could the container be placed inside the log(book)?

The log needs to be contained by the container.

Why? The guidelines say a traditional container consists of "a container and a logbook", and that a "container with no logbook" is unacceptable. But they don't actually say that the logbook must fit inside the container.

Um, I guess they didn't explicitly say that, because they're assuming the reader has a some common sense.

 

You're just nit-picking semantics in order to be argumentative.

[+Team Cotati]

OK everbody, just back off!

 

It is clear that the log book, for a geocache that includes a container, must be inside said container.

 

Subject closed. Do not be argumentative....or nit-picky.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+niraD]

You're just nit-picking semantics in order to be argumentative.

Maybe I'm still in "gimmick rallye mode" from Saturday night, but I'm not just trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to point out that there isn't anything in the written guidelines that says that the log must fit inside the container. Yes, you need a log. Yes, you need a container. Yes, the container usually holds the log. But nothing explicitly requires the container to hold the log.

 

I've never found a "sign the (wooden) log" cache, but I think it sounds like fun, and I'd hate to see such a cache archived just because the container is inside the log, rather than the other way around. Especially when this interpretation of the guidelines could be satisfied trivially, just by throwing a scrap of paper into the container.

[+tozainamboku]

Unfortunately the rule for physical container and log has been given a narrow interpretation by the reviewers (possibly with guidance from Groundspeak).

 

The guideline is there of course to prevent cachers from sneaking in a virtual cache under the guise of a traditional. First would be code word caches, where the cache owner would ask for an email with the code word, and then cachers would use some existing sign or other object for the code word - i.e. an end run around the ban on virtual caches. So TPTB looked at a simple way to distinguish a real physical cache from something they wanted to keep separate from geocaching. They decided that you needed a container and a log that you would sign. The container should be something that a finder would recognize as the cache. They should then be able to find the log in the container. Another reason for having the log separate from the container is that it allows for cache maintenance. When a log is full it can be replaced with out replacing the entire cache.

 

In my opinion a broad interpretation is preferable. If cachers understand that you can't have codeword only caches and you can't have virtual caches, it should be enough there is an object placed by the cacher owner (i.e not preexisting - although a cache owner might take a pre-existing stick or rock and modify it , assuming you are allowed to remove such objects in the first place.) And it should be obvious to the finder what the log is. Writing on the container itself is generally not obvious, but can be made so by the cache owner clearly designating the area to use for the log. I understand that exceptions have been given for caches that have some unique kind of log. It is also clearly the case that many cachers hide unique container/log combinations and since reviewers generally don't know what the cache or log look like these get approved. I suppose that there may be a few puritans that can only stand a narrow interpretation of guideline who might report these as SBA. But so far I've mostly seen geocachers enjoying finding something different and creative. My favorite was the child's magic slate that served both as cache and log. When the log got full you just peeled the plastic off the backing to erase it an start with a clean slate. That one must have really infuriated the puritans.

[+Ambrosia]

You're just nit-picking semantics in order to be argumentative.

Maybe I'm still in "gimmick rallye mode" from Saturday night, but I'm not just trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to point out that there isn't anything in the written guidelines that says that the log must fit inside the container. Yes, you need a log. Yes, you need a container. Yes, the container usually holds the log. But nothing explicitly requires the container to hold the log.

 

I've never found a "sign the (wooden) log" cache, but I think it sounds like fun, and I'd hate to see such a cache archived just because the container is inside the log, rather than the other way around. Especially when this interpretation of the guidelines could be satisfied trivially, just by throwing a scrap of paper into the container.

 

Ok, here's the definition of a container:

 

1.A receptacle, such as a carton, can, or jar, in which material is held or carried.

 

2.A large reusable receptacle that can accommodate smaller cartons or cases in a single shipment, designed for efficient handling of cargo.

 

That shows that a container is something that you can put something inside of. A log has no insides, it is solid. Writing names on the outside of a solid object does not translate to a log on the outside of a containter, because there is not container in this instance. Unless you count the wood on the inside of the log.

[+dakin55]

"This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook"

 

A container is meant to contain, a dam contains water and would be a container!

A book is paper contained by a cover.

 

So a log by itself is not a geocache but something to keep the log in place is a geocache, So yes you can think outside the box IMO

 

A piece of paper held under a rock is contained yet has no inside!

Agruementative not me

Edited November 11, 2009 by dakin55

[+niraD]

Ok, here's the definition of a container:

 

1.A receptacle, such as a carton, can, or jar, in which material is held or carried.

 

2.A large reusable receptacle that can accommodate smaller cartons or cases in a single shipment, designed for efficient handling of cargo.

 

That shows that a container is something that you can put something inside of.

I wasn't questioning the definition of a container. I was questioning whether a geocache container must contain the log for that geocache.

 

A log has no insides, it is solid.

I've found a lot of geocache containers inside logs. The logs weren't solid.

 

Writing names on the outside of a solid object does not translate to a log on the outside of a containter, because there is not container in this instance. Unless you count the wood on the inside of the log.

Let me explain again what I'm referring to.

 

A geocache needs a container, so let's assume an ammo can or a large Lock & Lock, containing a stash note and a bunch of trade items. A geocache needs a log that finders can sign, so let's assume a large wooden log with the at least some of the bark removed, leaving a smooth wooden surface for geocachers to sign. And if the log were hollow (either naturally, or through the appropriate use of tools), then a good place to hide the container would be inside the log, right?

 

So we have a container, and we have a log for finders to sign. It just happens that the container fits inside the log, rather than the other way around.

[+Ambrosia]

Ok, here's the definition of a container:

 

1.A receptacle, such as a carton, can, or jar, in which material is held or carried.

 

2.A large reusable receptacle that can accommodate smaller cartons or cases in a single shipment, designed for efficient handling of cargo.

 

That shows that a container is something that you can put something inside of.

I wasn't questioning the definition of a container. I was questioning whether a geocache container must contain the log for that geocache.

 

A log has no insides, it is solid.

I've found a lot of geocache containers inside logs. The logs weren't solid.

 

Writing names on the outside of a solid object does not translate to a log on the outside of a containter, because there is not container in this instance. Unless you count the wood on the inside of the log.

Let me explain again what I'm referring to.

 

A geocache needs a container, so let's assume an ammo can or a large Lock & Lock, containing a stash note and a bunch of trade items. A geocache needs a log that finders can sign, so let's assume a large wooden log with the at least some of the bark removed, leaving a smooth wooden surface for geocachers to sign. And if the log were hollow (either naturally, or through the appropriate use of tools), then a good place to hide the container would be inside the log, right?

 

So we have a container, and we have a log for finders to sign. It just happens that the container fits inside the log, rather than the other way around.

 

Sorry, I meant a solid log of course, couldn't contain anything other than wood. If the log were hollow and something could go inside of it, then it could contain something.

 

If someone wanted to hide a container or a logbook/sheet inside a hollowed out log, but also allow people to draw (whatever) on the outside of the hollowed out log after signing the official logbook/logsheet, that is their choice. But the signatures on the outside shouldn't replace the actual logbook/sheet inside.

[+BlueDeuce]

Unfortunately the rule for physical container and log has been given a narrow interpretation by the reviewers (possibly with guidance from Groundspeak).

 

The guideline is there of course to prevent cachers from sneaking in a virtual cache under the guise of a traditional. First would be code word caches, where the cache owner would ask for an email with the code word, and then cachers would use some existing sign or other object for the code word - i.e. an end run around the ban on virtual caches. So TPTB looked at a simple way to distinguish a real physical cache from something they wanted to keep separate from geocaching. They decided that you needed a container and a log that you would sign. The container should be something that a finder would recognize as the cache. They should then be able to find the log in the container. Another reason for having the log separate from the container is that it allows for cache maintenance. When a log is full it can be replaced with out replacing the entire cache.

 

In my opinion a broad interpretation is preferable. If cachers understand that you can't have codeword only caches and you can't have virtual caches, it should be enough there is an object placed by the cacher owner (i.e not preexisting - although a cache owner might take a pre-existing stick or rock and modify it , assuming you are allowed to remove such objects in the first place.) And it should be obvious to the finder what the log is. Writing on the container itself is generally not obvious, but can be made so by the cache owner clearly designating the area to use for the log. I understand that exceptions have been given for caches that have some unique kind of log. It is also clearly the case that many cachers hide unique container/log combinations and since reviewers generally don't know what the cache or log look like these get approved. I suppose that there may be a few puritans that can only stand a narrow interpretation of guideline who might report these as SBA. But so far I've mostly seen geocachers enjoying finding something different and creative. My favorite was the child's magic slate that served both as cache and log. When the log got full you just peeled the plastic off the backing to erase it an start with a clean slate. That one must have really infuriated the puritans.

 

That's all fine and dandy but I see a question like 'is there a logbook' as opening a dialog to determine more information about the cache. There are guidelines to be followed even if they seem to limit creativity.

 

I can understand how a cacher could take it as someone questioning their fundamental understanding of cache requirements. I can also understand that reviewers deal with hundreds if not thousands of cache submissions and simply want to cut to the baseline of cache requirements to try to stay on top of their workload.

 

Communication can be a tricky thing, especially online. Don't jump to conclusions from one posted question.

 

Talk to your reviewer. You might be surprised how flexible they are once they know the full details.

[+niraD]

If someone wanted to hide a container or a logbook/sheet inside a hollowed out log, but also allow people to draw (whatever) on the outside of the hollowed out log after signing the official logbook/logsheet, that is their choice. But the signatures on the outside shouldn't replace the actual logbook/sheet inside.

Why can't the signatures on the surface of the (wooden) log be the cache's log(book)? Why must a scrap of paper inside the container be the cache's log(book)?

[+Ambrosia]

If someone wanted to hide a container or a logbook/sheet inside a hollowed out log, but also allow people to draw (whatever) on the outside of the hollowed out log after signing the official logbook/logsheet, that is their choice. But the signatures on the outside shouldn't replace the actual logbook/sheet inside.

Why can't the signatures on the surface of the (wooden) log be the cache's log(book)? Why must a scrap of paper inside the container be the cache's log(book)?

 

Because the guidelines say that a cache is "consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook". Those are two different items.

 

So, the guidelines talk about the logbook/sheet as being a separate object from the container. When the wood log was empty of space to put more signatures on, how would you "replace" it (like you replace a logbook)? The only way would be to take the wood log home and replace it with a whole new one. That makes the log and container one and the same. The way it is described in the guidelines, you should be able to replace the logbook/sheet when it is full, without having to replace the container, itself.

 

I hope that makes sense.

[+niraD]

If someone wanted to hide a container or a logbook/sheet inside a hollowed out log, but also allow people to draw (whatever) on the outside of the hollowed out log after signing the official logbook/logsheet, that is their choice. But the signatures on the outside shouldn't replace the actual logbook/sheet inside.

Why can't the signatures on the surface of the (wooden) log be the cache's log(book)? Why must a scrap of paper inside the container be the cache's log(book)?

 

Because the guidelines say that a cache is "consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook". Those are two different items.

In my example, the (wooden) log is not the container. The Lock & Lock inside the (wooden) log is the container. The (wooden) log is the log(book). So the container and the log(book) would be two different items.

[+Prime Suspect]

In my example, the (wooden) log is not the container. The Lock & Lock inside the (wooden) log is the container. The (wooden) log is the log(book). So the container and the log(book) would be two different items.

Writing on the outside of a log isn't logging, it's graffiti.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Prime Suspect

[+Ambrosia]

If someone wanted to hide a container or a logbook/sheet inside a hollowed out log, but also allow people to draw (whatever) on the outside of the hollowed out log after signing the official logbook/logsheet, that is their choice. But the signatures on the outside shouldn't replace the actual logbook/sheet inside.

Why can't the signatures on the surface of the (wooden) log be the cache's log(book)? Why must a scrap of paper inside the container be the cache's log(book)?

 

Because the guidelines say that a cache is "consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook". Those are two different items.

In my example, the (wooden) log is not the container. The Lock & Lock inside the (wooden) log is the container. The (wooden) log is the log(book). So the container and the log(book) would be two different items.

Ok, I was confused. That was what I was trying to figure out, if there was an actual container and/or log that could be separated from the wood log. Thanks for clarifying.

[+edscott]

So if I read all the above correctly...

 

1. find a trashed refrigerator in the woods.

2. insert a large debarked chunk of firewood as a "log".

ya got a legal cache. Sign the log.

[+Ambrosia]

[+Team Cotati]

[+bittsen]

Forest is the cache, log is the....um....log.

[+globalgirl]

So if I read all the above correctly...

 

1. find a trashed refrigerator in the woods.

2. insert a large debarked chunk of firewood as a "log".

ya got a legal cache. Sign the log.

Or better yet...

 

@#&% Baldwin!!

 

Simply drop an entire piano in the woods along with a good supply of felt-tip pens and... use the keys as the logbook.

[+Taoiseach]

I think that this thread has nicely demonstrated a need for a minor amendment to the guidelines

 

Definition: 'Container' - An item which conceals a logbook

 

Of course this won't stop us all from trying to be amateur lawyers either, but at least it would give us more to work with

 

For the record, if I were a reviewer, I almost certainly wouldn't publish a cache where the log wasn't inside of the container. As I define the log as 'an object for the finder to sign as a verification of their visit', and the container as 'something to "contain" the log,' a cache where the log is not 'contained' by the 'container,' lacks one of the basic and required elements - a 'container.'

Edited November 12, 2009 by Taoiseach

[+Taoiseach]

So if I read all the above correctly...

 

1. find a trashed refrigerator in the woods.

2. insert a large debarked chunk of firewood as a "log".

ya got a legal cache. Sign the log.

 

Agreed

 

1) The Firewood is the 'log'

2) The 'log' is 'contained' by the fridge

[+sTeamTraen]

A container is meant to contain, a dam contains water and would be a container!

I can't believe I'm replying to this, but here goes: a dam does not contain water, except to the extent that there may be a bathroom inside the dam somewhere. The big volume of water that the dam is trying to stop from washing away everything down the valley is retained by the dam. In the geocaching analogy, it would be like placing a rock on top of the log sheet to stop it from flying away.

 

I can think of at least three reasons why the container is required:

- To protect the log - both the paper and the writing on it - from the elements.

- To allow for trade items (even a nano could accommodate a small piece of gold weighing a few milligrams, say).

- To demonstrate that the cache can be removed from the site without leaving a trace (compared to, say, nailing a plywood log sheet to a tree).