Jump to content

Is this a "find" or not a find?


AZWheeler
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

I have a cache in a tree and got this "find" log today:

 

I could see this cache, but it was too high for me to get to it safely, as I was alone and didn't want to fall and break a bone. So, I could not sign the log. Nice hide, though.

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks.

 

I don't know, what do you think? It's your hide.

Are you so adamant that a cacher HAS to sign the log to consider it a find? Is it so important that the cacher has to jum through a hoop to get a smiley? Is it important that a cacher who has limited ability to retrieve a cache placed high can't log a smiley?

 

Or is it cool with you that they visited your cache and was honest enough to tell you that they didn't actually "sign the log" but did, in fact, find the cache?

 

It's your cache. Follow your instincts.

Link to comment

I had a similar experience. Cache had previously been muggled as I had learned on my previous two attempts with others, including my monkey-like grandsons. Cache was relocated to a new hopefully mugglefree placement but I did not feel comfortable climbing the nearly 90 degree rock embankment. Sent email to CO describing EXACTLY where I believed it to be. CO confirmed the location and graciously told me to post it as a find.

 

IMO, it's up to the CO.

Link to comment

Know how many caches I could have logged found its on if counted seeing the cache as a find?

That's right my find count.

Don't let the tired old bitter "Controlling CO" argument sway you. You want a person on the ground, you hide on the ground.

The Speak allows you to reconcile the online logs with the log book.

Delete it if you want.

 

I'm not one for quoting GS...

So I'll site, Logging of All Physical Caches first sentence.

 

Nuff said.

Edited by Vater_Araignee
Link to comment

I would not log that as a find. And as a cache owner I would not allow it as a find based on the evidence presented. If you don't want to climb the tree to get to the cache container then it is ok for you to not get a find. I have been to a cache twice where I was not willing to climb a ladder to retrieve the container. Both times there were others in my group who were willing to climb the ladder. Both times I logged a note as I was not willing to do what was necessary to retrieve the cache. If others log a find is not my concern. YMMV.

Link to comment

I think it's up to you. Did you hide it high in a tree just to keep if from being muggled? Did you make the terrain level appropriate? Even better was the need to climb a tree clear in the description? Maybe the person was physically unable to climb the tree and didn’t want to come right out and say that. But if they were knew they would have to do so then a waiver in advance should be asked for. Did your cache discriminate against the vertically challenged? (Say a tall person could reach it and a shorter person would have to climb.)

 

Does the casher have a history of making excuses for not signing logs? Was it clear that they had to climb to claim the find? Did you hide it that way just to make it more difficult for someone to retrieve, wanting a more challenging cache? I think all these questions should be asked before you decide what you are going to do.

 

If it was my cache the biggest reason I can think of that I would remove a found log is if I truly thought the person hadn’t gone there or hadn’t actually found/seen the cache. Maybe there are some questions you can ask about the area to ascertain if they were actually there. Heck ask if they saw something fictional like the giant smiley on the side of the cache. If they say yes then you know they weren’t really there. Sorry I’m not more help.

 

(edited because in my sleep deprived haze I missed copying and pasting the first paragraph.)

Edited by wolfslady
Link to comment

Does the casher have a history of making excuses for not signing logs? Was it clear that they had to climb to claim the find? Did you hide it that way just to make it more difficult for someone to retrieve, wanting a more challenging cache? I think all these questions should be asked before you decide what you are going to do.

 

If it was my cache the biggest reason I can think of that I would remove a found log is if I truly thought the person hadn’t gone there or hadn’t actually found/seen the cache. Maybe there are some questions you can ask about the area to ascertain if they were actually there. Heck ask if they saw something fictional like the giant smiley on the side of the cache. If they say yes then you know they weren’t really there. Sorry I’m not more help.

Actually, "I went there, I saw it, now give me my find" is Waymarking.

But it is still ultimately CO choice.

Link to comment

I don't think it should be counted as a find. Half of the battle is actually "touching the cache AND signing it". I found a cache last week that was hidden in a tree. I was able to move and touch the container but was unable to actually retrieve it or sign the log. I wrote a note but did not log it as a find. I think that's part of the challenge and the history.

Link to comment

As everyone else has said, it's your call. I don't see that you have any terrain 4 hides however, (per clayjar, climb requiring use of hands = 4) so I'm wondering what cache this might be? which is a backwards way of saying that if you've not rated the terrain correctly, you might want to let this slide for now, and go edit the cache to rate the terrain properly. Of course, a lot of cachers will disagree with me on that..... all the ones who can climb easily and consider their abilities to be the measure of the "average cacher".

 

I've logged DNFs on a couple of tree-climb caches, no complaints from me over that; they were rated terrain 4. I didn't know until I got there that the was for rating for the climb - as they also involved some heavy swamp bushwhacking. Still, if I get to a terrain 4 cache, and I see a climb I'm not willing to attempt, it's okay by me, I was warned. I'd be Not Amused by a 3 or less terrain rating that ended in a climb....

Link to comment

Hi,

I think here we have to consider the philosophy of the cacher. To some the cache and the search are the all important and obviously they would not allow the find. To others such as myself the cache is mainly to get people to visit a significant site. Some of my caches are on tops of mountains. If cachers put in the effort to climb the mountain then they are presented with an easily found cache. In such a case I would allow a find if they could show that they had seen the cache. Other caches are close to roads. These are more difficult to find, but I would still allow a find of a cache that the cacher could see but not reach. A photo of the cache would certainly satisfy me. I like my caches to be found - that's why I put them out.

Cheers,

Dan

Link to comment

I forgot that some caches were designed to exclude people from "finding" it.

 

My bad.

 

Tell those cachers that their physical inability to reach the cache is no excuse. Deny them the find. Make no excuses. Let them know, in no uncertain terms that people who are unable to climb are not welcome at this cache.

 

~note substantial dose of sarcasm~

Link to comment

I forgot that some caches were designed to exclude people from "finding" it.

 

My bad.

 

Tell those cachers that their physical inability to reach the cache is no excuse. Deny them the find. Make no excuses. Let them know, in no uncertain terms that people who are unable to climb are not welcome at this cache.

 

~note substantial dose of sarcasm~

 

Well, yeah, that's what the Terrain 4 rating should be doing...... except that the OP doesn't own any Terrain 4 caches.......

 

~note zero dose of sarcasm~

Link to comment

As everyone else has said, it's your call. I don't see that you have any terrain 4 hides however, (per clayjar, climb requiring use of hands = 4) so I'm wondering what cache this might be? which is a backwards way of saying that if you've not rated the terrain correctly, you might want to let this slide for now, and go edit the cache to rate the terrain properly. Of course, a lot of cachers will disagree with me on that..... all the ones who can climb easily and consider their abilities to be the measure of the "average cacher".

 

Clayjar's "Tool for helping geocachers rate the overall and terrain difficulty of their hidden caches." are not rules set in stone. If using your hands to climb is necessary, that doesn't mean the owner HAS to rate the cache a terrain of 4 because clayjars 'tool' said so.

 

I found the cache. The co's choice of terrain rating is easily within acceptable range.

Link to comment

I forgot that some caches were designed to exclude people from "finding" it.

 

My bad.

 

Tell those cachers that their physical inability to reach the cache is no excuse. Deny them the find. Make no excuses. Let them know, in no uncertain terms that people who are unable to climb are not welcome at this cache.

 

~note substantial dose of sarcasm~

 

Dude, you already made your point twice already. Why do you have to add more sarcasm?

Link to comment

I forgot that some caches were designed to exclude people from "finding" it.

 

My bad.

 

Tell those cachers that their physical inability to reach the cache is no excuse. Deny them the find. Make no excuses. Let them know, in no uncertain terms that people who are unable to climb are not welcome at this cache.

 

~note substantial dose of sarcasm~

 

Well, yeah, that's what the Terrain 4 rating should be doing...... except that the OP doesn't own any Terrain 4 caches.......

 

~note zero dose of sarcasm~

 

From what I can tell (haven't found the correct cache yet on the OPs hides), the terrain is listed as a 1.5. The only cache with a higher terrain rating, a 3, does not say anything about climbing a tree. In that case, I'm not sure that I'd be so picky about insisting that people climb the tree.

Edited by Lone R
Link to comment

I would agree that its not a find, but then again it is up to the CO to make that call. If the cacher has a disablility that prevents then from finding this cache then they should not have gone for it in the 1st place, but if it does not say in the description (D/T rating can be misleading, I always expect higher than posted) then they may not have known it was up a tree.

 

I myself and my girls have gotten credit for a find from a CO (who was there at the time) for finding a cache that was located on a disc golf course. The CO and myself didn't feel comfortable with allowing my girls out on the course during a game and the CO gave us credit. I even left a geocoin with the CO to place into the container when he went to check on it.

 

Odie

Edited by Odie442
Link to comment

Tough call... glad you're the one that is gonna have to make it! :wub:

 

Most every log on the cache is positive. One mention that the D rating could be higher. People in their 60's signing the log. A fair number of DNF logs, but not because they couldn't reach it.

 

Thinking back to numerous other threads where responders mention things like "You can always walk away if you aren't comfortable with the search...", we might be inclined to disallow the find. But it is still your choice, and we are glad it's your choice to make! :(

 

EDIT: Noted D rating of 2.5

Edited by Gitchee-Gummee
Link to comment

If all caches were within reach of everyone then the difficulty and terrain rating for every cache would be a 1/1.

There is no rule which forces anyone to find every cache. If you can't manage either the difficulty or terrain then forget it and move on to the next cache that is within your abilities.

Link to comment

I forgot that some caches were designed to exclude people from "finding" it.

 

My bad.

 

Tell those cachers that their physical inability to reach the cache is no excuse. Deny them the find. Make no excuses. Let them know, in no uncertain terms that people who are unable to climb are not welcome at this cache.

 

~note substantial dose of sarcasm~

This from the CO with 3* terrrain hides, which "exclude [some] people from "finding" it". Why are you discriminating against the handicaped?

 

~sarcasm at whatever level you need it to be~

Link to comment

If all caches were within reach of everyone then the difficulty and terrain rating for every cache would be a 1/1.

There is no rule which forces anyone to find every cache. If you can't manage either the difficulty or terrain then forget it and move on to the next cache that is within your abilities.

 

......and if you insist on logging it. Log it appropriately as a DNF or a note. Not as a find. :wub:

Link to comment

I forgot that some caches were designed to exclude people from "finding" it.

 

My bad.

 

Tell those cachers that their physical inability to reach the cache is no excuse. Deny them the find. Make no excuses. Let them know, in no uncertain terms that people who are unable to climb are not welcome at this cache.

 

~note substantial dose of sarcasm~

 

Well, yeah, that's what the Terrain 4 rating should be doing...... except that the OP doesn't own any Terrain 4 caches.......

 

~note zero dose of sarcasm~

 

Man, when he fills out a cache submission form, that 1.5 terrain radio button must already be checked by default. :wub:

 

But an observation of incorrect terrain rating aside, no, this isn't a find. Quite a few people have said delete the log. I wouldn't do that; people tend to get all crazed and irrational when they get their logs deleted. Even if they're totally wrong. Email them, explain it's not a find as nicely as you can, and ask them to change it.

Link to comment
What do you think?

 

I think it's not a find.

 

Also, I'm going to part ways with many of the above in saying it's not up to you as to what you consider a find on your cache. It's quite clear on this site and elsewhere what the concept of geocaching really is. Part of it is getting your hands on the box opening it, having the option of trading items, and recording your visit by signing in. Also, even though this site tasks you to delete bogus logs, I've not heard of anyone being officially sanctioned for not doing so.

 

So, yes, it's a fine distinction, but clear nonetheless. It's not a find, but it's up to you whether you're going to call them on it or not. You can allow bogus finds, but that doesn't turn it into a legitimate find. It's just a smilie.

 

Me, I'd delete it.

 

Here's another consideration: what of the folks who look at you allowing finds where the claimants didn't claim the tree and these others did. They might think, "Hey, look. We had to climb that tree, risk life and limb, yet this other person didn't. What gives?"

 

...or those who come later who attempt to claim a find without climbing the tree. Why allow those folks' claims to stand and not those who come later? If that fair? Next thing you know no one signs the log.

 

And that is the reason my belief is that in order to claim a find, the log has to be signed. (...or other proof that you had the cache accessed.)

Link to comment

I have a cache in a tree and got this "find" log today:

 

I could see this cache, but it was too high for me to get to it safely, as I was alone and didn't want to fall and break a bone. So, I could not sign the log. Nice hide, though.

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks.

 

If the terrain rating of the cache was appropriate for climbing a tree, then the finder should not receive credit for finding the cache. Those ratings are there to allow cachers to know somewhat what to expect. If the cacher was concerned regarding safety and caching alone, he/she should not have been seeking a high terrain rated cache.

Link to comment

The OP does not give too many particulars about the hide so let me pose a "what-if" to those who are quick to fault the CO about being anal, not listing the correct difficulty, ect.

 

What if the cache is in a viewable location, high in a tree, but has a fishing line leader that has to be found so the cache can be lowered?

 

Cacher spots the cache, assumes he has to climb for it, (although the terr. rating does not indicate this) gives up and posts the log described?

 

Some people do not investigate the clues closely enough. The CO is under no requirement to give clues about the fishing line. (Or it could be Diff rated wrong.) :wub:

Link to comment

I've seen a few of those. I did not climb the tree. Climbing the tree is part of the challenge. I did not sign the log. That's a DNF. I would delete the so-called find.

 

I say it's not a find, but it's not exactly a DNF, either. The cacher did FIND it, so no DNF. But he didn't sign the log, so it's not a Find, even though he found it. This is why we have "notes." I'd log a note.

Link to comment

"7. Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location."

I often forget about the instructions in the Getting Started page. It does sort of clarify that the basic concept is to use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache, sign the the logbook and return the geocache to its original location, and then share your geocaching stories and photos online. Too bad we don't have as many complaints about people who didn't use their GPS device to assist in finding the hidden geocache, or quite as many about pepole who log TFTC instead of sharing a story or photo.

 

I think the whole controversty has to do with people who view the find count as a score get somewhat upset if they find out that any one can post a Found log online and it is simply up to the cache owner as to whether to let that log stand or not. It would seem that a owner who intends for people to climb a tree to find the cache can insist that a person has climbed a tree and signed the log in order to use the Found log. Of course the ALR guideline changes this somewhat. If a cacher brings a TOTT that alllows him to reach the cache without climbing the tree and sign the log, he can now log a Find online. This also applies to the group of cachers where one climbs the tree, and brings down the cache so that everyone in the group can sign the log.

 

The puritans may believe that a signature in the log book is both necessary and sufficient for logging a Found online. Since the ALR change it has been a sufficient condition, but it has never been necessary. The ALR guideline may be the only place that talks about logging a Find. TPTB generally talk about sharing your experience online. The find is not a score. A Found log is a cacher indicating that he has "done" this cache. Someone who has seen the cache in the tree and has no intention of every climbing the tree to get it, is being reasonable in logging a Find. He found the cache, he just isn't able to sign the log. If the cache owner wants to accept this as find, that seems perfectly reasonable. If a cache owner wants to delete the find log as bogus becasue the log book wasn't signed, she can under the current guidelines.

Link to comment

I have a cache in a tree and got this "find" log today:

 

I could see this cache, but it was too high for me to get to it safely, as I was alone and didn't want to fall and break a bone. So, I could not sign the log. Nice hide, though.

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks.

That is a DNF.

Link to comment

I fear I may not like your collective answer to this question, but here is what I faced this past weekend. I visited a cache in a hole in a tree which required climbing. I climbed the tree, found the intended container. Unfortunately the container was put together similar to a travel bug with a little container chained to a ceramic dog, and somebody earlier that day had broken and dropped the smaller container and the log sheet down into a deep hole in the tree. I had the cache in hand, there just wasn't a log available to sign.

 

I left both a "Needs Maintenance" and a "Found" log. The person who broke it logged their find after I did. It occurs to me now that I might have taped a new log to the cache and that would have allowed me to physically leave a log. I logged the find with the consideration that the only thing preventing me from signing the log was that it was no longer attached to the cache.

Edited by missionMode
Link to comment

Reading your description I would say it is a clear DNF since climbing the tree to sign the logbook is the challange of this cache. It something else when you did hide it on the ground and a squirrel did take it up the tree, so it was not the intention the cacher has to go up the tree. In that case you as a CO can grant him the opertunaty to log a Found.

Link to comment

I have a cache in a tree and got this "find" log today:

 

I could see this cache, but it was too high for me to get to it safely, as I was alone and didn't want to fall and break a bone. So, I could not sign the log. Nice hide, though.

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks.

 

NOT a find. Getting credit for a high star cache and not doing the work? Imagine the possibilities.

Link to comment

I have, on separate occasions, done the following:

 

* Remnants of cache container found, no log to be seen, maintenance has been needed for several weeks. Logged find online.

 

* Found cache, actually touched it with my bare hand, but could not retrieve from its resting place, and ultimately scared off by muggles. Logged DNF - multiple times.

 

Part of that may be a result of my "growth" as a cacher; were I to make the first discovery today, I might log it as a DNF and, depending on the age of the NM logs, log an NA to boot.

Edited by dakboy
Link to comment

I've seen a few of those. I did not climb the tree. Climbing the tree is part of the challenge. I did not sign the log. That's a DNF. I would delete the so-called find.

 

I say it's not a find, but it's not exactly a DNF, either. The cacher did FIND it, so no DNF. But he didn't sign the log, so it's not a Find, even though he found it. This is why we have "notes." I'd log a note.

 

DNF to me means no sig in log book, for whatever reason. I have no lost pride in DNFs.

Link to comment

I have a tree cache. It has Tree in the name. It says that you have to climb a tree to get it. It even has a "4" diff rating due to having to climb up 25 feet or so. The only possible excuse that I could see for not having to delete such a log would be an un-signable log. Even then, most people would take a picture, drop a token, post a "Needs Maintenance", or something. But, "I saw it, therefore I found it?" :wub: No way, dude. Your log is outta there. If you want to leave a note, fine, but don't take credit for a find with no log signed.

Link to comment

I have a cache in a tree and got this "find" log today:

 

I could see this cache, but it was too high for me to get to it safely, as I was alone and didn't want to fall and break a bone. So, I could not sign the log. Nice hide, though.

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks.

If the log isn't signed, it is a find if you, as the owner, think it's a find.

Link to comment

I forgot that some caches were designed to exclude people from "finding" it.

 

My bad.

 

Tell those cachers that their physical inability to reach the cache is no excuse. Deny them the find. Make no excuses. Let them know, in no uncertain terms that people who are unable to climb are not welcome at this cache.

 

~note substantial dose of sarcasm~

 

The cache in question is a physical cache.

 

There seems a plethora of opinion about climbing, and rating, and.... whatever else comes to mind of passionate posters in the forum. Yet, it seems to me to be a question of logging.

 

Don't let the guidelines get in the way of opinions, however. Pesky guidelines.

 

Owners are required to ensure "quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

 

Far out.

 

Another section of the guidelines, quite clearly entitled Logging of All Physical Caches outlines that "geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

Hopefully, this is of assistance to the OP in making a decision, since in this case it seems quite obvious that the physical log had not been signed.

 

~note substantial dose of "just the facts"~

Link to comment

I have a cache in a tree and got this "find" log today:

 

I could see this cache, but it was too high for me to get to it safely, as I was alone and didn't want to fall and break a bone. So, I could not sign the log. Nice hide, though.

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks.

If the log isn't signed, it is a find if you, as the owner, think it's a find.

 

...and I think you already know the answer to that or you would not have asked here - go with your gut.......

Link to comment

I forgot that some caches were designed to exclude people from "finding" it.

 

My bad.

 

Tell those cachers that their physical inability to reach the cache is no excuse. Deny them the find. Make no excuses. Let them know, in no uncertain terms that people who are unable to climb are not welcome at this cache.

 

~note substantial dose of sarcasm~

This from the CO with 3* terrrain hides, which "exclude [some] people from "finding" it". Why are you discriminating against the handicaped?

 

~sarcasm at whatever level you need it to be~

 

Ah, you silly Jester.

 

My terrain is rated for the caches (and than you for taking the trouble to stalk into my listings so you could glean a little information to supposedly prove a point).

If a cacher sent me an email that said they could see the cache (and described it) but were unable to reach it due to physical limitations, I would allow a find. You see, I don't have that stick lodged that some appear to have. I want people to be happy. Heck, some say I should apply for the Happiness Fairy job! I spread sunshine wherever I go.

 

(rhetorical question for all)

Don't you want people to be happy?

Link to comment

To me, the joy of Geocaching isn't in the "Found It"s, so maybe that gives me a bias. But an inability to sign the log is not a find, IMO. A DNF isn't a failure, anymore than a "Found It' is a success, in my book. Maybe we'd be better off if the logs were changed to "Signed It' and "DNS." Still, I wouldn't allow that as a find, myself.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...