How to log burned up cache

[+wolfslady]

Just for the record I am in the "puritan" camp. (and it does not offend me for you to call me that).

 

I will take the words of the poster I quoted, and say I totally agree. To meet the definition of a "cache" it must have a log book. If you found an ammo can without a logbook, you found an ammo can. Not a cache. So how can you log a "I found the cache" when it isn't one??

 

 

 

Well I guess that precludes someone replacing a missing log with a new one, even if it’s clear that it has to be the cache. Do I need the smiley? No! If I did I’d have picked up 5 LPC’s over the last week, but really where’s the challenge? There must be so dang many of them because it is about the numbers. For 2 of them I was in the parking lot and didn’t bother. I did 1 to check out my new GPS because they can’t be moved several feet off GZ. IMO logging one of those is worse than logging one that you had to work for that was damaged so much that you couldn’t sign a log. If I traipsed all over a burned out area to find caches that were very likely harder to find than they would have been intact you are darned straight I’d want that smiley to remember it by. If I lived close by I’d return later and sign a fresh log assuming the owner ever replaced it. But if I was never going to make it back to that area then I’d want that as a record of my successes and not looking like failures. Even if I had paper with me I would not want to leave a piece that would end up being litter, because that is not the right thing to do. For that matter given the condition of the second 2 caches maybe we should be chastising the OP for not doing CITO and carrying out what is now trash. Not that I would unless it had been a very long time because I’d want to give the cache owner time to recover what they could, It’s an interesting debate.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Just for the record I am in the "puritan" camp. (and it does not offend me for you to call me that).

 

I will take the words of the poster I quoted, and say I totally agree. To meet the definition of a "cache" it must have a log book. If you found an ammo can without a logbook, you found an ammo can. Not a cache. So how can you log a "I found the cache" when it isn't one??

 

 

 

Well I guess that precludes someone replacing a missing log with a new one, even if it's clear that it has to be the cache. Do I need the smiley? No! If I did I'd have picked up 5 LPC's over the last week, but really where's the challenge? There must be so dang many of them because it is about the numbers. For 2 of them I was in the parking lot and didn't bother. I did 1 to check out my new GPS because they can't be moved several feet off GZ. IMO logging one of those is worse than logging one that you had to work for that was damaged so much that you couldn't sign a log. If I traipsed all over a burned out area to find caches that were very likely harder to find than they would have been intact you are darned straight I'd want that smiley to remember it by. If I lived close by I'd return later and sign a fresh log assuming the owner ever replaced it. But if I was never going to make it back to that area then I'd want that as a record of my successes and not looking like failures. Even if I had paper with me I would not want to leave a piece that would end up being litter, because that is not the right thing to do. For that matter given the condition of the second 2 caches maybe we should be chastising the OP for not doing CITO and carrying out what is now trash. Not that I would unless it had been a very long time because I'd want to give the cache owner time to recover what they could, It's an interesting debate.

 

 

 

 

I am giving up on debating, but had to lol when I read your comment about "you're darned straight I'd want that smiley to remember it by." as if logging a NM or a DNF would make the memory vanish.

 

From where I am standing it might just look like "entitlement". Just curious if you practice the same tactics on a cache you really did not find, but spent hours seeking? I mean, you want to remember that too right? I note you consider this "looking like failures".

 

Not trying to be contentious, just pointing out the logic you presented.

 

To be honest, I would not even venture to look for a cache in an area that was recently burned out in the first place.

 

I simply don't agree with you. The only reason I respond is you quoted me.

[Andronicus]

Well, for people without jobs, going back to the same cache again may be a great idea, but for most of us, we are just trying to streach our 1 or 2 hours per week we have free to do as much caching as possible. Going back takes a huge % of the available time. I would just note the situation on the Found log, submit a NM log, and move on. The CO may deside to delete your log, but it is rather unlikely. You could also try to be pre-emptive on the deleteing by contacting the CO. He/She will likely reply with "good enough, thanks for letting me know it was burt up". If you have pics to verify the find, that is even better.

 

One time I didn't have a pen, and the regular sized cache had none. I just put in a temporary tatoo with my logo (my signature item), and noted it in the online log. I will likely never be back there, so that was the best I could do. If the CO decides to delete my log, I guess I will have to be OK with that.

[+BlueDeuce]

Well I guess that precludes someone replacing a missing log with a new one, even if it’s clear that it has to be the cache. Do I need the smiley? No! If I did I’d have picked up 5 LPC’s over the last week, but really where’s the challenge? There must be so dang many of them because it is about the numbers. For 2 of them I was in the parking lot and didn’t bother. I did 1 to check out my new GPS because they can’t be moved several feet off GZ. IMO logging one of those is worse than logging one that you had to work for that was damaged so much that you couldn’t sign a log. If I traipsed all over a burned out area to find caches that were very likely harder to find than they would have been intact you are darned straight I’d want that smiley to remember it by. If I lived close by I’d return later and sign a fresh log assuming the owner ever replaced it. But if I was never going to make it back to that area then I’d want that as a record of my successes and not looking like failures. Even if I had paper with me I would not want to leave a piece that would end up being litter, because that is not the right thing to do. For that matter given the condition of the second 2 caches maybe we should be chastising the OP for not doing CITO and carrying out what is now trash. Not that I would unless it had been a very long time because I’d want to give the cache owner time to recover what they could, It’s an interesting debate.

 

Not really sure how you can fail at this game, (Well maybe failing to have fun)

 

I don't use level of effort to decide whether or not I'm going to claim a find. I would, and I know I would because I've done it in the past, walk through the burned out area twice. The second time to sign the replaced cache log. I would walk out with a greater sense of satisfaction knowing I accomplished my goal and just maybe it was more difficult to achieve than anyone else's hunt for the cache.

 

Finding reasons to claim finds does not give me a feeling of satisfaction or success. DNFs are not a sign of failure in fact they are something to brag, or laugh about.

Edited March 22, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+wolfslady]

I am giving up on debating, but had to lol when I read your comment about "you're darned straight I'd want that smiley to remember it by." as if logging a NM or a DNF would make the memory vanish.

 

From where I am standing it might just look like "entitlement". Just curious if you practice the same tactics on a cache you really did not find, but spent hours seeking? I mean, you want to remember that too right? I note you consider this "looking like failures".

 

Not trying to be contentious, just pointing out the logic you presented.

 

To be honest, I would not even venture to look for a cache in an area that was recently burned out in the first place.

 

I simply don't agree with you. The only reason I respond is you quoted me.

 

 

 

Happy to give you an LOL. They are free.

 

 

To answer your question no I would not log one I did not find at all, no matter how many times I go back I always log at least the first DNF, when I don't find the cache. As you can see I'm new and just hit the 50 cache mark about a week ago. If you look at my logs you will see that on 2 of my DNF logs when I later found them I let the owner know that I had attempted them again before I found them. If there had not been finds on these between my attempts and if I hadn't been using my phone or old Nuvi 200 I would have logged the second and once 3rd attempts. The last one I’d guess I spent at least 2 hours on and it was supposed to be easy. I didn’t read the logs until after my last DNF so I didn’t realize that I should take a stick because it was buried under some pine straw. Armed with that and my brand new GPS I found it in less than a minute from the time I reached the area. At that point if I’d found it and the log was missing I would have still wanted to get it off my list of those I needed to head back out and find. I have nothing against DNF's if I deserve them. But I think it seems kind of silly to say a cache NM but then ignore the fact that I had to find it to report that. Maybe never getting credit for so many things I accomplished in the past had made me realize that sometimes you have to demand it. Just like respect. I wish the guidelines addressed things like missing logs or damaged caches. I’ve seen where someone has replaced a damaged cache or missing log but you could make a valid argument that they shouldn’t log the cache as found if it didn’t have a log when they did so. No a DNF would not erase my memory, but it would drive me nuts until I got back and fixed it, dull my sense of accomplishment and being new perhaps dampen my enthusiasm for the geocaching. After I've found a 1000 caches I'm sure I wouldn't care nearly as much unless it was a super hard one, that I was extra proud that I found. Hopefully now that I carry some paper I will never have to make the choice and risk being thought of as a smiley seeker.

[+tozainamboku]

Simple enough any way you want to look at it.

 

1. You're a puritan someone who feels the need for a simple black and white definition of a find. Since you can't be sure that the what you found is the cache (it may be a letterbox, a summit register, a decoy left by the owner, or just some trash left in the same place). Unless there is a log book that is clearly marked as the log book you don't know what you have found. So you make a rule that you won't log the find online unless you have signed the log book. You might even think there is something written in the guidelines or some geocaching FAQ to support such a rule. So far however, I've seen no evidence to support this claim.

 

2. You're someone who takes a common sense approach to what it means to find a cache. You find something that is clearly the container, but the log might be missing, too wet to write in, or burned up. You know that you have found the cache so you log that experience online. The cache owner too knows you have found the cache and therefore accepts the online log. (Or the cache owner reads the description you wrote and see that is is incosistent some way with what he knows about his cache, so he deletes your log or asks you to change it to a DNF or a note).

 

3. You're someone who enjoy geocaching because it takes you to interesting places. Sigining the log in the cache is pretty much just a technicality. So you got to some place and couldn't find the cache or found something you couldn't verify as the container. You might even leave a replacement container so the next person will have something to find. You log the find online because you have "found" the location the cache owner wanted to share with you and you have no intention to come back to fulfill as silly non-requirement to sign a log. The cache owner may delete your log - since you didn't actually find the cache. Or the cache owner may let your log stay since you actually were in the correct place and would have found the cache if it hadn't gone missing or been destroyed.

 

I'm not going to find the chart someone once posted with Darth Vader at one end logging finds on caches that he never visited and Yoda on the other only logging when he had signed the log. There is cleary a continuum of logging practices and different people are going draw the line at what is acceptable in different places.

 

To be honest, I would not even venture to look for a cache in an area that was recently burned out in the first place.

Where I live wildfires and controlled burns are common. When an area reopens after a fire, a group of us may go on a cache "rescue" mission where we check on the caches in the area and, with permission of the cache owners, we either replace caches that were damaged or remove the remains of the cache so the owner may archive the cache. Sometimes we don't find anything, but most often the containers either survived intact or they are recognizable as the cache. If we haven't logged them before, most of us would go ahead and log the cache as Found.

Edited March 23, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+BlueDeuce]

Common sense approach? Interesting breakdown.

 

I wonder which one you fall under.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Common sense approach? Interesting breakdown.

 

I wonder which one you fall under.

 

I would venture a guess, but since my spidey sense suspects a "possible baiting" in the previous post which BD added this reply to, I must summon all my Jedi powers and....must......resist.....replying.

Edited March 23, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[+CluelessnLuV]

We agree with BD. Others will not.

 

We adhere to one of the first things we read on the geocaching.com website: Sign the logbook, then log your find online.

 

If the logbook is burned up, it cannot be signed, right? No signed logbook=no find.

 

The NM log would suffice. Once the cache is replaced with a logbook, we would return.

 

But then, we aren't "number runners", either.

Well, what happens when the log is full and it's a small container that no more additional paper can fit? We're not number runners ( you can see it by our relatively low find numbers) but if we find the cache that has been devastated/ log full we try to fix it as best we can and still log it as found, cause, well, we did find it. Also we do add a new post as Needs Maintenance with description of problem (picture of location sometimes) for the cache owner. And if the owner is not satisfied, they can always delete our online log.

P.S.: how do you log the "virtual" or "camera" caches then, since there is no log to write on?

[+CluelessnLuV]

And just so everyone calms down - read the new rules for posting a cache - from April of last year that do not allow to set any other requirements by cach owners to the cah finders to log teh cache besides tehm actually finding one (what they can use as proof of find is different story - whether it's a picture of container directly sent to cache owner or a tattoo with your a special note in oline log - depends on what owner and finder agree upon). So if you're the cache owner - you can't deny people the find if they in fact did find it but log was too wet or full. After all the conditions of the log are the owners responsibility and lets face it, some cache owners start pumping out caches like mad but do nothing to take care of them later.

As for not finding a container no matter how hard you looked - it's a DNF - no ifs or buts about it. Just because you thought it belonged somewhere but missing, YOU DID NOT FIND IT (the actual container AKA the cache) so you don't get the find. Make sure you post the DNF though - owners might not know that cache is missing untill the see a bunch of DNFs posted. - And it helps the other cachers who are setting out to find the cache.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Well, what happens when the log is full and it's a small container that no more additional paper can fit? We're not number runners ( you can see it by our relatively low find numbers) but if we find the cache that has been devastated/ log full we try to fix it as best we can and still log it as found, cause, well, we did find it. Also we do add a new post as Needs Maintenance with description of problem (picture of location sometimes) for the cache owner. And if the owner is not satisfied, they can always delete our online log.

P.S.: how do you log the "virtual" or "camera" caches then, since there is no log to write on?

We can well understand your finding it and want the "find", and have no argument with that. Play the way you want. But as we read it, logging a "find" w/o signing the log flies in the face of the concept of this "game".

 

In our opinion, a devastated/full log deserves the addition of a new book (which we carry spares for), not everyone throwing in a separate piece of scribble paper which simply adds to "cache-trash" at the end of the day! Ultimately, somebody needs to CITO. Yes, we believe that a "NM" log is in order, even when we added a new logbook.

 

Now, as far as the highlight portion of your posting is concerned...

 

Neither are currently acceptable placements. Such existing caches are simply grandfathered, and probably rightfully so. No new virtuals or webcam caches are allowed at geocaching.com. They are allowed (we think) at Waymarking.com.

If you are to think real hard about it, having your pic taken, or emailing the ALR to the CO, fulfilled the logging requirement, as it stood.

 

Now, we stated our opinion on the subject, and provided support for those reasoning's. As stated previously, we agreed with **. Others will not. Please, don't compile lists of "what if's" to throw at us. Back to the topic at hand...

 

EDIT: Typing, and unable to read the re-post. Yes, let's just play the game.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+Jennifer&Dean]

Hello!

We found a similar cache a few years ago, same situation. Read our log at:What, No Goose!

 

Inside the Ammo Can:

 

In this kind of situation I had no qualm about logging the find after replacing the logbook. With plastic

containers, I would probably take photos and post them as a note and ask the cache owner's permission for the Found It log. Letting them determine what it counts as a find on their cache.

 

Jen

[+Harry Dolphin]

And just so everyone calms down - read the new rules for posting a cache - from April of last year that do not allow to set any other requirements by cach owners to the cah finders to log teh cache besides tehm actually finding one (what they can use as proof of find is different story - whether it's a picture of container directly sent to cache owner or a tattoo with your a special note in oline log - depends on what owner and finder agree upon). So if you're the cache owner - you can't deny people the find if they in fact did find it but log was too wet or full. After all the conditions of the log are the owners responsibility and lets face it, some cache owners start pumping out caches like mad but do nothing to take care of them later.

 

Beg to differ. Signing the log is not an ALR.

 

Logging of All Physical Caches

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

 

If it is appropriate for your cache location or theme, you may ask the cache seeker to accomplish an optional and simple task, either close to the cache site (normally within 0.1 miles or 161 meters) or when writing their online log. For example, wear the goofy hat inside the cache container and upload a photograph. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish optional tasks. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

[+BlueDeuce]

Well, what happens when the log is full and it's a small container that no more additional paper can fit?

 

Do you honestly believe I am walking around thinking that if you couldn't sign a full logbook that you didn't find the cache?

 

When I say find the cache and sign the logbook I mean logging functional caches, not almost caches or caches that you kinda maybe found.

 

Saying 'What about soggy logbooks?' or "What if the logbook is full?' is nitpicking and tells me you don't get the point of what I said.

[+wycacher]

That is why I always try to have my geo bag with me. usually just a spare tupperware, log book, and plastic baggies. It may not be the best cache you find after I replace it, but at least it keeps it active until the CO can repair it.

[Laserion]

Or you could just sign a scrap of paper and stuff it in the burnt-out carcass of the container.

 

I was thinking precisely that. If you have a piece of paper with you, you can collect all burnt pieces of cache you can find and add your signed piece of paper with them.

 

Then again, I may want to see and hold an actual cache, so I might just wait for the owner to repair it, if it's easy enough for me to revisit.

[+Trucker Lee]

I agree with hoosier guy. The purpose of this whole endeavor is to FIND THE CACHE. Signing the log is simply a means of verifying that you found it and could hold it in your hands. If there is no log or it is unsignable, the bottom line is that you still found the cache. (Assuming that you found enough of the container to verify that it actually was the cache.)

 

Or you could just sign a scrap of paper and stuff it in the burnt-out carcass of the container.

 

I can honestly say that circumstance has never occured to me. To me you found the caches you get the smilely. I'd just note the special little problem there.

But how do you know it was the cache and not a letterbox or other debris the fire made visible. You most likely can have a good guess at the location, but there is no surety of that. (I have found several caches that were not located near any structure)

[+fishgeek]

I agree with hoosier guy. The purpose of this whole endeavor is to FIND THE CACHE. Signing the log is simply a means of verifying that you found it and could hold it in your hands. If there is no log or it is unsignable, the bottom line is that you still found the cache. (Assuming that you found enough of the container to verify that it actually was the cache.)

 

[sarcasm=on] Or you could just sign a scrap of paper and stuff it in the burnt-out carcass of the container. [/sarcasm]

 

I can honestly say that circumstance has never occured to me. To me you found the caches you get the smilely. I'd just note the special little problem there.

But how do you know it was the cache and not a letterbox or other debris the fire made visible. You most likely can have a good guess at the location, but there is no surety of that. (I have found several caches that were not located near any structure)

 

We could play "what if?" for pages of forum. Bottom line is that it's between the CO and the finder to determine if it's a find or not.

[+CluelessnLuV]

I agree with hoosier guy. The purpose of this whole endeavor is to FIND THE CACHE. Signing the log is simply a means of verifying that you found it and could hold it in your hands. If there is no log or it is unsignable, the bottom line is that you still found the cache. (Assuming that you found enough of the container to verify that it actually was the cache.)

 

[sarcasm=on] Or you could just sign a scrap of paper and stuff it in the burnt-out carcass of the container. [/sarcasm]

 

I can honestly say that circumstance has never occured to me. To me you found the caches you get the smilely. I'd just note the special little problem there.

But how do you know it was the cache and not a letterbox or other debris the fire made visible. You most likely can have a good guess at the location, but there is no surety of that. (I have found several caches that were not located near any structure)

 

We could play "what if?" for pages of forum. Bottom line is that it's between the CO and the finder to determine if it's a find or not.

Agree with the FishGeek Nyuk nyuk nyuk. Like i said earlier - if the CO is not satisfied - he'll replace the log. The new Rules state that you can NOT set any additional requirements to log the cache as "found". If you add a replacement log to the cache, sign it, and there is proof that it really was the right cache - you found it (that's for those who don't log the caches with full logs - it's your choice overall). I came across quite a few of the caches that are beat up and need serious TLC - soaked logs, etc. And that's after numerous posts of other caches to the CO to fix the problems. Those caches i also mark as found, after giving them as much tlc as i can, and post a note about it to the CO (again, if the CO doesn't feel we met requirement i'd expect him to cancel our find and let us know why). However, just finding a burned ammo can with ashes inside isn't finding a cache to my opinion. It could be some other game too (like terracaching). Still should post your DNF and a note at what you found so the CO can check up on the hide.

Edited May 17, 2010 by CluelessnLuV

[+CluelessnLuV]

Well, what happens when the log is full and it's a small container that no more additional paper can fit?

 

Do you honestly believe I am walking around thinking that if you couldn't sign a full logbook that you didn't find the cache?

 

When I say find the cache and sign the logbook I mean logging functional caches, not almost caches or caches that you kinda maybe found.

 

Saying 'What about soggy logbooks?' or "What if the logbook is full?' is nitpicking and tells me you don't get the point of what I said.

 

If you don't give a dadgum about the cache you placed and just let it sit there not caring what happens to it - you're not Geocaching, You're Littering and there are hefty fines for that. Excuse my frustration, it's just really there are a lot of caches in my area that are being plopped all over the place randomly and then not ever being checked up on. It kills the sport. And it's those kinds of caches/COs that are the reason for the creation of Terracaching

[+tomfuller & Quill]

Looked for about 30 minutes for any remnant of a cache that was within a large forest fire. The CO had no idea that his cache was burned. Filed a DNF followed by a NA. CO took my word for it and archived rather than try to put a new cache in an area that is not as nice as it once was.

If you found a readable log with names that match previous finders, take a picture and sign a slip of paper to leave with the old log. The CO will decide to replace or archive.

[+BlueDeuce]

Well, what happens when the log is full and it's a small container that no more additional paper can fit?

 

Do you honestly believe I am walking around thinking that if you couldn't sign a full logbook that you didn't find the cache?

 

When I say find the cache and sign the logbook I mean logging functional caches, not almost caches or caches that you kinda maybe found.

 

Saying 'What about soggy logbooks?' or "What if the logbook is full?' is nitpicking and tells me you don't get the point of what I said.

 

If you don't give a dadgum about the cache you placed and just let it sit there not caring what happens to it - you're not Geocaching, You're Littering and there are hefty fines for that. Excuse my frustration, it's just really there are a lot of caches in my area that are being plopped all over the place randomly and then not ever being checked up on. It kills the sport. And it's those kinds of caches/COs that are the reason for the creation of Terracaching

 

First you were suggesting that my opinion was that finding a cache with a soggy logbook wasn't a find. Now you are all about people who don't take care of their caches. Things are that much better at TC?

 

Topic: Claiming a find on a destroyed cache.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

If you don't give a dadgum about the cache you placed and just let it sit there not caring what happens to it - you're not Geocaching, You're Littering and there are hefty fines for that. Excuse my frustration, it's just really there are a lot of caches in my area that are being plopped all over the place randomly and then not ever being checked up on. It kills the sport. And it's those kinds of caches/COs that are the reason for the creation of Terracaching

 

These comments are completely off-topic for this thread. Please stay on topic. Thanks.

[Andronicus]

I can honestly say that circumstance has never occured to me. To me you found the caches you get the smilely. I'd just note the special little problem there.

Technically, remnants of a cache was found. Much like finding only a lid. Guidelines call for a logbook in a traditional cache. If no logbook, no cache.

 

We do understand the other side of the argument, just don't agree with it.

I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it. This hobby/sport/game is called geocaching, not geologbooking. I aggree with not logging a find if you can't actualy get your hands on the cache and open it do to CO intended gotchas (up in a tree, in a deep hole, combonation lock etc), but when the log isn't signed because of some reason the CO did not intend (as in this case), I see the log book as a technicality. I have logged probably 5-10 caches that for verious reasons I did not sign the actual log book. (log way too full to sign, no writing tool etc.). I always notified the CO and made sure that he/she know that I would not be holding a grudge if they deleted my log. They were always thankfull for telling them of the issue.

[+Geovius]

Usually a little bit of patience, politeness, and communication goes a long way.

 

In that you are 100% correct!

 

So please communicate with cache owner first and if you do not get answer you can decide what to do.