Jump to content

Is this a "find" or not a find?


AZWheeler
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

I've been reading a lot of these posts and I see a lot of people saying that you should not log this as a find because it doesn't go along with the guidelines, or that if they were meant to climb the tree then they should be denied the find because they didn't climb the tree. Here's my own personal opinion on the matter.

 

First off, it's definitely NOT a DNF as far as I am concerned. A DNF implies that you DID NOT FIND a cache. Meaning that you could not find the container. Since the finder obviously could SEE the cache, they DID find it. They simply could not log it. That right there to me means that this is NOT a DNF. I can't understand how someone would think this situation is a DNF when they did actually find the cache. They didn't sign the log, that's it. To say that they didn't technically "find" the cache because they didn't sign the log to me is inaccurate. The idea of "finding" a cache is that you actually were able to "find" the container. Can you describe specific details about the container and tell me where it was specifically. That to me means that you FOUND the cache. The inability to sign the log to me is independent of "finding" the cache.

 

It's obviously up to the CO what he does but if this were my cache, I would likely let them log it as a find and here's why.

 

Regardless of whatever "guidelines" GSP has set up, I believe the intent of geocaching is to get people to go out and physically "find" something. Whether it's a container in a really nice spot with an awesome view, or it's a micro in a guardrail, you are still "finding" something. Heck even virtuals have you finding something specific somewhere.

 

To me, THAT is the point. You are trying to FIND something somewhere that someone has hidden. The very first sentence in the guidelines say "These are listing guidelines only". Yes, they say that in order to log a find on the site you have to have signed the physical log. I think that the point of that is that by signing the physical log, you are proving that you actually found the cache itself. This is why every physical cache is supposed to have a log book so you can PROVE that you actually found the container. It's about what the spirit of the requirement is there for. Not to be enforced like some kind of law.

 

The fact that SO many people are taking this little incident so seriously goes to show how passionate people get about this sport and forget that it is SUPPOSED to be about having fun finding little treasures all over the place.

 

If this were my cache, I would have let the log go and leave it as a find. To me, the cacher says they found/saw the container which is enough for me. I'm not going to make a federal case out of it because they didn't sign the log and I'm not going to email them or delete their log unless I have a real good reason to do so. It's a single find on a single cache. Why is it such a big deal? If the cacher was new to the sport, I might send them a casual email and let them know that they really should try their best to sign the log and wish them luck. If it was a cacher that I know definitively has questionable logging practices, then I might email them and ask for proof that they found the cache. Beyond that, it's not worth my time to bother chasing after people in situations like this. Exactly how does it help my caches, my reputation, and caching in general? To me, it doesn't.

 

I have gone to caches before and have not been able to sign the log sheet and have logged them as finds. I have indicated so in my logs and I have yet to ever receive an email or anything else because of it. I've even offered up extra proof if they wanted it so that they would know I had actually found the cache but have not had to offer any up. In fact, I've even logged a DNF on a cache and had the CO email me telling me to log it as a find because he went to check the cache and saw my footprints there and knew I would have seen the cache had it been there. In that case, the cache was actually missing. To me, THAT is what it's all about. The spirit of the hide.

 

Just my opinion.

Link to comment

So to expound what sbell111 and I are both saying according to a more complete usage of the guidelines and Groundspeak rulings..

 

Once you have found the cache and signed the log, if you want, you may log your find online.

If you do not sign the log the Cache Owner may legitimately delete your online log.

 

This simply means that the CO has no right to delete your log if you do sign the logbook and if you do not sign it they have the right to decide to let it stand or not.

 

And for the hard core interpreters, it don't get more hard core than zero wiggle room.

You can go a purist rout with it, but that is relegated to the realm of pure inconsequential opinion till you can get a guideline change.

Link to comment

Here's the thing that many people are overlooking (beyond the fact that the guidelines don't say what they claim they do). If I am looking for a bird and I spot one in a tree, I have found the bird. I don't need to climb the tree and sign the bird.

 

If a cache owner accepts a 'found' log as valid knowing that the physical log wasn't found, then the online 'found log IS valid.

This is true, but I haven't seen anyone claim a CO can not except an unsigned log as a valid find.

Then again I have not read every single post, I kind of glanced over a few nests, so some one may have changed their mind.

You appeared to be trying to make that argument, as were a number of other posters who were trying to use the ALR guideline to support their arguments.

No, I misinterpreted your intentions. I thought you where arguing against the COs who do insist the log be signed.

My apologies.

Link to comment

Hypothetically...

 

If I had a find up a tree I'd reiterate the point on the cache page that no-signy = no-findy.

 

If somebody posted a "Found It" log on the cache page and if I audited the log book -or- they mentioned in the log that they didn't sign the log I would offer them a chance to change the log type to either a "Did Not Find" or a "Note". If they were unwilling to change the log type then I would delete the log.

 

I think I've seen several reviewers support this response over the last 2-3 years, so I think I'd have TPTB backing up this move.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

Here's the thing that many people are overlooking (beyond the fact that the guidelines don't say what they claim they do). If I am looking for a bird and I spot one in a tree, I have found the bird. I don't need to climb the tree and sign the bird.

 

If a cache owner accepts a 'found' log as valid knowing that the physical log wasn't found, then the online 'found log IS valid.

This is true, but I haven't seen anyone claim a CO can not except an unsigned log as a valid find.

Then again I have not read every single post, I kind of glanced over a few nests, so some one may have changed their mind.

You appeared to be trying to make that argument, as were a number of other posters who were trying to use the ALR guideline to support their arguments.

No, I misinterpreted your intentions. I thought you where arguing against the COs who do insist the log be signed.

My apologies.

I would never argue against those cache owners who feel that the logs on their caches must be signed. However, there are those that believe that the same must be true regarding caches owned by other people. I am arguing against those posters.
Link to comment

Hypothetically...

 

If I had a find up a tree I'd reiterate the point on the cache page that no-signy = no-findy.

 

If somebody posted a "Found It" log on the cache page and if I audited the log book -or- they mentioned in the log that they didn't sign the log I would offer them a chance to change the log type to either a "Did Not Find" or a "Note". If they were unwilling to change the log type then I would delete the log.

 

I think I've seen several reviewers support this response over the last 2-3 years, so I think I'd have TPTB backing up this move.

I believe that I would take the same position if I owned such a cache.

Link to comment

Sigh. puritans were never known for logic. Once they get in in their head that logging a find online when you haven't written in the physical log book is verboten, no amount of explaining affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent is going to convince them them that they have drawn a wrong conclusion. No amount of quoting the reviewers and lackeys who posted in the thread on the ALR guideline change that the statement on logging a find once you sign the log means only that additional logging requirements are no longer allowed, will stop the puritans from reading more into it than is there. No amount of explaining the "rules" in the Geocaching FAQ or the easy steps given to newbies in the Getting Starting system is going to make it clear that these sections don't even mention the Found It log and simply instruct cachers to share their experience online. Once the "rules" have been revealed to a puritan, logic and facts make no impression. The find log is the "official" score and the rules for when you may log a find are serious business. Forget about geocaching being a light, fun, non-competitive activity. Those rules protect the sanctity of the almighty smiley. Don't mess the "rules" even though they are made up.

 

(Reading some post after I began writting this response, I am compelled to add that , IMO, a cache owner can use the physical log as a proof that the cache was found. If the log is not signed, the cache owner could decide that the lfind og appears bogus and delete it.)

Link to comment
No amount of quoting the reviewers and lackeys who posted in the thread on the ALR guideline change that the statement on logging a find once you sign the log means only that additional logging requirements are no longer allowed, will stop the puritans from reading more into it than is there.

 

 

I am still waiting for you to produce this evidence from the last time we had this discussion.

Link to comment

 

The guideline in question forbids a cache owner from deleting a 'found' log if the log book is signed. As you so eloquently posted, once you have found the cache and signed the log, if you want, you may log your find online.

 

 

....and so, if the cacher has not signed the log, if they want they may delete the "found" log since they are not forbidden to do so.

 

Safe bet - sign the log. You, the happy cacher, has not only found the cache, but also cornered the cache owner. :blink:

 

If you want to spot birds, go to Audubon's website (audubon.org) and log away on bird finds.

Link to comment

I have a friend who is in a wheel chair with limited mobility but is a very active cacher. There have been caches that she has FOUND but wasnt able to get to. Does this denote a DNF because physically the cache couldnt be reached?

For some folks it would.

 

I have two very different, (and seemingly incompatible), standards I utilize with regards to signing logbooks:

1 ) I will not claim a find on any cache where my name is not in the logbook. Ain't happening.

2 ) I will not delete a find from my own caches simply because there is no matching name in the logbook.

 

This apparent contradiction comes from my belief that different folks have different definitions regarding what "Found It" means, and my definition is no more, or less, valid than someone else's definition. If BillyBobNosePicker goes for my cache hidden 90' down a muck filled culvert bristling with venomous snakes, and decides that looking in the culvert and seeing the ammo can hanging by its chain constitutes "finding" it, I am unwilling to argue the point. I will not try and impose my personal standards on others. :blink:

Link to comment

 

The guideline in question forbids a cache owner from deleting a 'found' log if the log book is signed. As you so eloquently posted, once you have found the cache and signed the log, if you want, you may log your find online.

 

 

....and so, if the cacher has not signed the log, if they want they may delete the "found" log since they are not forbidden to do so.

 

Safe bet - sign the log. You, the happy cacher, has not only found the cache, but also cornered the cache owner. :blink:

You might note that this thread is from the position of the cache owner as to what he should do about online logs when the physical log isn't signed. As such, your advice doesn't really apply. In fact, the 'safe bet' is for the cache owner not to delete these logs as it would likely cause angst in his actual, real-world life.
Link to comment

Sigh. puritans were never known for logic. Once they get in in their head that logging a find online when you haven't written in the physical log book is verboten, no amount of explaining affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent is going to convince them them that they have drawn a wrong conclusion. No amount of quoting the reviewers and lackeys who posted in the thread on the ALR guideline change that the statement on logging a find once you sign the log means only that additional logging requirements are no longer allowed, will stop the puritans from reading more into it than is there. No amount of explaining the "rules" in the Geocaching FAQ or the easy steps given to newbies in the Getting Starting system is going to make it clear that these sections don't even mention the Found It log and simply instruct cachers to share their experience online. Once the "rules" have been revealed to a puritan, logic and facts make no impression. The find log is the "official" score and the rules for when you may log a find are serious business. Forget about geocaching being a light, fun, non-competitive activity. Those rules protect the sanctity of the almighty smiley. Don't mess the "rules" even though they are made up.

 

(Reading some post after I began writing this response, I am compelled to add that , IMO, a cache owner can use the physical log as a proof that the cache was found. If the log is not signed, the cache owner could decide that the find log appears bogus and delete it.)

 

So in the first paragraph you, rather sarcastically, bemoan people that believe in the no signy=no findy concept and in the second paragraph you confirm that the lack of signature is the basis for log deletion.

 

So I guess if you use enough words your opinion can change by the time you're finished writing...?

Link to comment
No amount of quoting the reviewers and lackeys who posted in the thread on the ALR guideline change that the statement on logging a find once you sign the log means only that additional logging requirements are no longer allowed, will stop the puritans from reading more into it than is there.

 

 

I am still waiting for you to produce this evidence from the last time we had this discussion.

The search function actually works: link

 

Folks, don't get too hung up on the bit about "the physical log has been signed". This guideline change is all about ALRs. Any redundant wording about signing the log is simply to place the ALR changes in context. Please keep the discussion on topic about the ALR issue. Groundspeak and/or the volunteer reviewers are not starting a campaign to force everyone in a group to physically sign the log in person in a verifiable way that will stand up in a court of law. Nor is this an assault on Earthcaches or grandfathered virtuals.

 

Cache owners can, in practice, delete any log they feel like. The main change here, as I see it, is that doing so because a specific task has not been achieved, will no longer be considered "acceptable". For those who like everything in black and white, this may pose some questions at the margin. For what I hope is the majority who just want to go geocaching, it should bring some of the fun back into the game in the longer term.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
No amount of quoting the reviewers and lackeys who posted in the thread on the ALR guideline change that the statement on logging a find once you sign the log means only that additional logging requirements are no longer allowed, will stop the puritans from reading more into it than is there.

 

 

I am still waiting for you to produce this evidence from the last time we had this discussion.

Here is the thread from last April when MissJenn announced the changes to guidelines forbidding ALRs.

 

Here is a post from riviouveur, the French reviewer, who was involved in drafting the change. (quoted by sbell above)

 

Here is another post from riviouveur that specifically addresses my concerns about this issue.

 

There are a number of post by other reviewers as well, some however used their player accounts so I can't tell if they were just giving an opinion or giving Grounspeak policy. What appears to be the case here it that reviewers were seeing abuse of the ability to require cachers to do more than just sign the log in order to claim a find. Rather than trying to determine what ALRs were reasonable and which were not (akin to detemining which virtual caches were "wow" and which were not), they got the guidelines changed to say no deleting log because of a failure to perform an ALR. In order to put this in context for cache finder they are told the can log a find after signing the log regardless of what the cache owners asked them to do on the cache page. This also leaves the option for a cache owner to insist on a signed log as proof that the find log is not bogus. It does not require a cache owner to delete logs because the physical log was not signed.

 

As I said in my last post, I don't expect the facts will change anyone's mind.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Sigh. puritans were never known for logic. Once they get in in their head that logging a find online when you haven't written in the physical log book is verboten, no amount of explaining affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent is going to convince them them that they have drawn a wrong conclusion. No amount of quoting the reviewers and lackeys who posted in the thread on the ALR guideline change that the statement on logging a find once you sign the log means only that additional logging requirements are no longer allowed, will stop the puritans from reading more into it than is there. No amount of explaining the "rules" in the Geocaching FAQ or the easy steps given to newbies in the Getting Starting system is going to make it clear that these sections don't even mention the Found It log and simply instruct cachers to share their experience online. Once the "rules" have been revealed to a puritan, logic and facts make no impression. The find log is the "official" score and the rules for when you may log a find are serious business. Forget about geocaching being a light, fun, non-competitive activity. Those rules protect the sanctity of the almighty smiley. Don't mess the "rules" even though they are made up.

 

(Reading some post after I began writing this response, I am compelled to add that , IMO, a cache owner can use the physical log as a proof that the cache was found. If the log is not signed, the cache owner could decide that the find log appears bogus and delete it.)

 

So in the first paragraph you, rather sarcastically, bemoan people that believe in the no signy=no findy concept and in the second paragraph you confirm that the lack of signature is the basis for log deletion.

 

So I guess if you use enough words your opinion can change by the time you're finished writing...?

I probably shouldn't have added the second paragraph (even in parentheses).

 

By the time I finished the first part I saw the intervening posts where the discussion turned to whether or not a cache owner could delete the log of someone who posted that they didn't sign the physical logbook for some reason. Cache owners are asked to delete bogus logs and that gives them some leeway in determining which logs are bogus. The comment was meant to indicate a cache owner could in fact make the claim that he doesn't know if you found his cache or just some other ammo can hanging in the tree unless he can check to see if your name in the log book. If he wants to delete the log, he is within his rights to do so. Another cache owner might take the approach that if you found an ammo can hanging in a tree you have found his cache and the log is not bogus.

 

If a cache is placed with the intention of requiring some mental or physical skill to retreive or open the cache, I am personally of the opinion that signing the log is a reasonable way to show that the task was performed. But I can also accept that some cache owners would take bittsen's approach and allow a cacher was unable to perform the task of retrieving and opening the cache to claim a find.

Link to comment

Allow me to respond to sbell111 with the response applying to Toz as well.

 

Both of you post repeatedly when this subject comes up. Neither of you have produced any evidence that what you assert is anything but an opinion. Yet you continually assert is with the tone of "authority" to your posts.

 

For every post you make asserting the "facts" I will continue to post disputing them "as facts" and your authority to render judgement about them on everyone who plays, beyond your own opinion.

 

I challenge either of you to produce any substantiating proof that Groundspeak has named you the "official arbiter or interpreter " of the Guidelines.

 

You can quote,(just as I can) any previous post you should choose, but unless you are Jeremy, posting with a sock-puppet account, you are still giving your interpretation.(just as I am)

 

Having participated in the drafting of the new guideline wording, please let me assure you that the first sentence of the section, to which you are referring in this (and a couple of your previous posts in this forum)

 

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

are not indicative of any change of policy towards cache logging by Groundspeak, whatsoever. They are simply there to clarify that, following the removal of ALRs, there is now no other requirement beyond signing the log to be able to say, online, "Yes, I found this cache".

 

If it is your assertion that there was never any requirement to log in the cache, therefore the first bolded part of this statement is clarification of "no change" to this, then how do you explain the second bolded part? I would humbly ask that you reference the Guideline pertaining to it. And sbell111... it is ridiculous to assume that I should look up proof substantiating YOUR argument. If you are so adamant about your position that you repeatedly take the time and energy to post on these threads it would seem a small thing for you to post the proof which would finally put this argument to rest. Yet you and Toz seem unable to accomplish this. Perhaps because your "compelling proof" is not so "compelling??? :blink:

 

The fact that you would continue to offer this quote as your "overwhelming evidence" and then saying the "puritans will probably not accept it", comes as no great surprise to me, as your argument seems baseless, in my opinion, and the very "fact" you present seems to contradict what you are saying.

 

I find it ironic that TPTB choose to "allow" the deletion of online logs, when the cache log does not substantiate the find. I am sure you have some profound explanation for this that the "puritans just dont comprehend".

 

Rest assured, for the benefit of those who would read these posts, every time you post your opinion without noting it as such, I will gladly post the opposing view.

 

So the puritans have won. The guideline now suggest the signing the physical log = finding a cache. There can be no other definition of a find. There is no room for the heretics anymore. (Of course there does seem to be room for a cache owner to not delete the log of someone who doesn't sign the log. But now if a person can show they did sign the log, the cache owner may not delete the log unless it is off topic.

 

Delete any logs that appear to be bogus (ie, didn't sign log), counterfeit (ie, didn't sign log), off topic (I guess the cache owner can still decide what that means, spoiler?, potty language?) or not within the stated requirements (since we're not allowed to have any requirements this is meaningless).

 

I suggest that TPTB update this sentence too as to not cause any confusion.

 

 

Your own words from post #38 of the MissJenn thread. Here you are 1 year after suggesting that TPTB update this sentence, and your suggestion going unacted upon, trying to convince others that this suggestion is no longer necessary. Interesting.

 

Bottom line here is the cache owners have the power to delete online logs if the corresponding signature does not appear on the cache log. Doesn't matter why or why not, who said or who didn't. This power is granted by Groundspeak, with the freedom of cache owners to choose its application, or not.

 

Argue from now till eternity about the "rules" it is or isn't based on, this fact is undisputable.

 

edit-typo

Edited by NeecesandNephews
Link to comment

 

 

Ok, Harry Dolphin described all of this best. "Bizarre."

 

From the Getting Started section of geocaching.com site:

 

Easy Steps to Geocaching

 

- Register for a free Basic Membership.

- Click "Hide & Seek a Cache."

- Enter your postal code and click "search."

- Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name.

- Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device.

- Use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache.

- Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

- Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

 

So, what logical fallacy would it be to interpret the above as online "find" = "sign physical cache log"??? So, what logical fallacy would it be to interpret the above as online "find" = "sign physical cache log"??? Logical fallacy of "applying the simple and obvious" perhaps?

Very good then...

 

If I don't use my postal code to look up Caches than it's not a find?

If I don't use the GPS to get there then it's not a find??

 

and so on...That's just the basic overview of how the game works. If you use that as rules, then all the Name/Date logsheets are not finds.

Link to comment

After reading how some people are responding I have a new opinion.

 

Some people want to skirt the rules a little by listing a cache as a "traditional" but it's actually a "challenge" cache.

 

The basic train of thought is "if the cacher doesn't complete the challenge (ie climbing the tree) then it's not a find.

 

Skirting the guidelines is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. It really tweaks my melon when I come across a cache that is DELIBERATELY skirting the guidelines.

Link to comment
...Do you really want someone who is out there alone and unprepared attempting to climb 12 feet up a tree to sign a log?

I doubt that the cache owner's desires would play any role in a seeker's preparedness.

The cache page warned that there may be a need to climb. That, in itself, should tell folks they may need to climb.

Maybe 5'. Maybe 50'. Either way, the seeker needs to come prepared for any eventuality, or go home.

If someone looks at one of my cache pages and chooses to hunt the cache, everything after that point is a result of their choice.

We don't need a nanny state holding our collective hands, dictating what is, and what is not, too dangerous for us.

Nor do we need cache pages so detailed that the idea of a hunt fades to a distant memory.

 

 

 

I hate to be quoted out of context. 5 feet MAYBE OK for a rated 3. 50' would not be.

 

 

It boils down to; do you want to be fair to those who are going to hunt your caches or do you want to send them out on a limb without fair warning and then sit on your high horse and claim THEY didn't play by the rules? If I got to a cache that I had to climb 50 feet up a tree or swim to, to retrieve and it wasn't rated 5 and clearly stated in the description that I should bring the proper tools or attire I'd be angry. Even more so if I had to swim and wasn't a strong swimmer or if I'd come alone, because even though I am extremely comfortable (lifeguard training, swim team, years of scuba diving... when I was much younger) in the water I never swim alone. 12 feet is not a small climb, it's dangerous and deserves a higher rating than a 3. That is really all it boils down too. Everyone can show examples of their caches where it is clearly stated 1) It's rated 4-5 2) It's in a tree 3) No Log No Found and yes I would agree that they have every right to expect a DNF. But they played fair and didn't expect people to come unprepared for the challenge. Sure I would have climbed the tree, but I recognize that not everyone who plays the game can and that they shouldn't have one sprung on them if they knew there limitations and avoided the 4-5's or planned ahead for them.

 

 

I'm new I'm learning the rules. I read the guidelines. Someone else wants to decide that they know better and rate their cache the way they want to and I can't do it once I get there. Or I risk my neck doing it because I'm the type who can't resist a challenge. If you warned me so I could have brought the proper tools or at least a safety rope or decided in advance if I was prepared to do so, than my neck is on me. If you fudged the description a bit and I attempt the climb and fall, then it's on you.

 

 

Everyone argues around the issues and ignores the good points of both sides. I believe that playing fair is most important. if you want to do that and you are unsure if a log should stand you need to look objectively at what you required the person to do and then ask yourself could I have inadvertently mislead them to think this was easier than it was? If the answer is yes you should let it stand. And maybe a newbie should be given a bit of leeway as long as they haven’t been abusing the privilege, along with a note that in the future any of your caches that they find they must sign the log to claim a find. Along with some encouragement that they go back and sign this one when they have someone with them. And here I said I was going to let this go. My Bad.

 

:blink:

Link to comment

After reading how some people are responding I have a new opinion.

 

Some people want to skirt the rules a little by listing a cache as a "traditional" but it's actually a "challenge" cache.

 

The basic train of thought is "if the cacher doesn't complete the challenge (ie climbing the tree) then it's not a find.

 

Skirting the guidelines is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. It really tweaks my melon when I come across a cache that is DELIBERATELY skirting the guidelines.

 

That's not a "Challenge Cache" as I've seen TPTB define "Challenge Caches". What they're now calling a "Challenge Cache" involves the completion of a caching-based feat of cachiness that results in the revelation of yet another cache- the "Challenge Cache"

 

I'm confused by your post. What cache type would you feel is appropriate for the ammo-can-up-a-tree?

 

2.gif

3.gif

8.gif

 

?

 

I'm not trying to be a smarty-pants. I'm just not sure what your opinion is.

Link to comment

 

--SNIP--

 

Bottom line here is the cache owners have the power to delete online logs if the corresponding signature does not appear on the cache log. Doesn't matter why or why not, who said or who didn't. This power is granted by Groundspeak, with the freedom of cache owners to choose its application, or not.

 

Argue from now till eternity about the "rules" it is or isn't based on, this fact is indisputable.

 

Here's how I understand it- The part that I've quoted and bolded is correct and I'm pretty sure I've seen TPTB support this.

 

I'm also pretty sure that I've seen them say that there is not a guideline that reads "Thou shalt always signeth the log or suffereth on-line log deletion" because they want to leave the door open for special cases- these would include things like:

 

- Cacher finds cache, pen spontaneously explodes, cacher signs by putting smudge of dirt on paper with tongue

- Cacher finds cache, log has been eaten by rabid wolverines, takes pictures of cache and emails this "proof of find" to the cache owner

- Cacher finds cache, but the ammo can has been smashed by a wandering AT-AT and the cacher can't open the container- the cache owner did NOT intend for this to be a "puzzle" that involves the finder opening the container with lightsaber, finder takes picture of the remains of the container with notes to the cache owner in regard to the tight grouping of the nearby carbon scoring (and indication of Imperial activity).

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

- Cacher finds cache, but the ammo can has been smashed by a wandering AT-AT and the cacher can't open the container- the cache owner did NOT intend for this to be a "puzzle" that involves the finder opening the container with lightsaber, finder takes picture of the remains of the container with notes to the cache owner in regard to the tight grouping of the nearby carbon scoring (and indication of Imperial activity).

thank god my son wont see that!

He would start screaming to go caching instead of asking. :blink:

Link to comment

After reading how some people are responding I have a new opinion.

 

Some people want to skirt the rules a little by listing a cache as a "traditional" but it's actually a "challenge" cache.

 

The basic train of thought is "if the cacher doesn't complete the challenge (ie climbing the tree) then it's not a find.

 

Skirting the guidelines is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. It really tweaks my melon when I come across a cache that is DELIBERATELY skirting the guidelines.

 

That's not a "Challenge Cache" as I've seen TPTB define "Challenge Caches". What they're now calling a "Challenge Cache" involves the completion of a caching-based feat of cachiness that results in the revelation of yet another cache- the "Challenge Cache"

 

I'm confused by your post. What cache type would you feel is appropriate for the ammo-can-up-a-tree?

 

2.gif

3.gif

8.gif

 

?

 

I'm not trying to be a smarty-pants. I'm just not sure what your opinion is.

 

I was speaking more to the mentality of the cache owner.

Link to comment

After reading how some people are responding I have a new opinion.

 

Some people want to skirt the rules a little by listing a cache as a "traditional" but it's actually a "challenge" cache.

 

The basic train of thought is "if the cacher doesn't complete the challenge (ie climbing the tree) then it's not a find.

 

Skirting the guidelines is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. It really tweaks my melon when I come across a cache that is DELIBERATELY skirting the guidelines.

 

That's not a "Challenge Cache" as I've seen TPTB define "Challenge Caches". What they're now calling a "Challenge Cache" involves the completion of a caching-based feat of cachiness that results in the revelation of yet another cache- the "Challenge Cache"

 

I'm confused by your post. What cache type would you feel is appropriate for the ammo-can-up-a-tree?

 

2.gif

3.gif

8.gif

 

?

 

I'm not trying to be a smarty-pants. I'm just not sure what your opinion is.

 

I was speaking more to the mentality of the cache owner.

 

I still don't understand. This may be more my problem than yours.

Link to comment

When reading my reply, bear in mind that it is only my opinion, as I am not an expert on the subject.

 

5 feet MAYBE OK for a rated 3. 50' would not be. 12 feet is not a small climb, it's dangerous and deserves a higher rating than a 3.

I think this is where subjectivity comes into play. We have been provided with the ClayJar rating system as a guideline to determine how to rate our caches. Here's what ClayJar defines as a "3":

 

Difficulty rating: 3 = Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

 

Terrain rating: 3 = Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

 

You've described a 12' climb, which seems, to me, to be perfectly consistent with the rating of 3.

That being said, someone who was not in reasonably good health might rate it higher, but I doubt it.

Even a 50' climb, if no safety gear was required, would at best rate a 4 in my book.

A swim, unless it was in treacherous waters, would barely rate a 2, in my book.

 

I'm new I'm learning the rules. I read the guidelines.

Awesome! Welcome to the addiction! Ain't this kewl? I think you'll fit in well here. :P

 

If you fudged the description a bit and I attempt the climb and fall, then it's on you.

Here's where our fundamental differences are most notable. Let's say you hide a match safe 50' up an oak tree. On the cache page you call it a simple park & grab, rating it a 1.5/1.5. When I show up, I'll check the easy spots first, because I assume you were honest. Prior to giving up, I look up and see it tethered way up in the air. I'm gonna grumble and gripe about deceptive practices, but then I'm going to make a decision. If I elect to go after your improperly rated cache, and injure myself in the process, it's not on you, it's on me. I was the one who chose to make the attempt. If I get injured because I decided to do something outside of my abilities, how could that possibly be your fault? I knew as soon as I saw the hypothetical cache up in the tree that I was not dealing with an easy find, regardless of any claims made on the cache page.

 

(Note: This is in no way intended to excuse folks who intentionally falsify cache pages. They are goobers who should be beaten about the head and shoulders with rotting lemming carcasses) :blink:

Link to comment

I still don't understand. This may be more my problem than yours.

 

Let me try to explain my train of thought.

 

In my opinion, as humble as I always try to be, a cache is a container. A traditional cache is a traditional container. A traditional container, cache, is one that you find the location and find the cache. Inside is a piece of paper (or something) to sign that proves you were there.

 

Some people like to take it a step further. They not only want you to find the container but perform some sort of task. In the past TPTB were wise enough to determine that someone could claim a find by simply signing the logsheet and not performing some additional task. But, some cache owners aren't satisfied with having no extra challenge so they add an extra challenge just to sign the paper. Some make it a puzzle at the cache site that a person is supposed to solve, thus making it more difficult to log a find, even though they found the cache. Some will take the container and make a physical challenge at the cache site, thus making it more difficult to log a find, even though a cacher finds the cache.

 

Perhaps we could add "additional signing requirements" to the list of "no no" practices.

 

Some will argue that the cache is just a higher "difficulty" because you have to complete a physical challenge at the cache site but then doesn't it become a challenge cache? Perhaps we need a new icon for challenge caches. I argue that a cache that requires an additional challenge at the cache site is not really a traditional. Perhaps they are puzzle caches since you need to figure out a way to get the cache which can be puzzling for some people.

 

I do have two caches that can be quite puzzling in order to reach them. If someone said "I could see the cache, it's XXXX but I couldn't reach it" I would allow a find because I am not a control freak where it comes to allowing someone to log a smiley on my caches. But, hey, that's how I roll.

Link to comment

I still don't understand. This may be more my problem than yours.

 

Let me try to explain my train of thought.

 

In my opinion, as humble as I always try to be, a cache is a container. A traditional cache is a traditional container. A traditional container, cache, is one that you find the location and find the cache. Inside is a piece of paper (or something) to sign that proves you were there.

 

Some people like to take it a step further. They not only want you to find the container but perform some sort of task. In the past TPTB were wise enough to determine that someone could claim a find by simply signing the logsheet and not performing some additional task. But, some cache owners aren't satisfied with having no extra challenge so they add an extra challenge just to sign the paper. Some make it a puzzle at the cache site that a person is supposed to solve, thus making it more difficult to log a find, even though they found the cache. Some will take the container and make a physical challenge at the cache site, thus making it more difficult to log a find, even though a cacher finds the cache.

 

Perhaps we could add "additional signing requirements" to the list of "no no" practices.

 

Some will argue that the cache is just a higher "difficulty" because you have to complete a physical challenge at the cache site but then doesn't it become a challenge cache? Perhaps we need a new icon for challenge caches. I argue that a cache that requires an additional challenge at the cache site is not really a traditional. Perhaps they are puzzle caches since you need to figure out a way to get the cache which can be puzzling for some people.

 

I do have two caches that can be quite puzzling in order to reach them. If someone said "I could see the cache, it's XXXX but I couldn't reach it" I would allow a find because I am not a control freak where it comes to allowing someone to log a smiley on my caches. But, hey, that's how I roll.

dude simply put a site is the place, scene, or point of an occurrence or event or object.

If there was a cache up a tree that you could not reach then you never made it to the cache site, you made it to the tree site.

No ALR involved.

Keep following your entitlement logic and eventualy your going to start arguing the COs should bring their caches to the seekers. :blink:

Link to comment

snip

Prior to April 1 last year it was generally accepted that the cache owner had the ultimate responsibilty to determine which Find logs were allowed to remain or not. Jeremy and others posted that Geocaching.com was not going to be the log police. They would get involved only in very rare instances where a a cache owner was deleting legitimate logs out of spite. Usually a warning to the cache owner to stop deleting logs was sufficient, but I know of one instance where a cache was archived and the page locked down when the cache owner continued to delete a legitimate log.

 

There were of course some cache owners who insisted on checking the physical log and deleting found logs if they didn't find the cachers name in the logbook. Fortunately most cache owners don't bother with this step unless the log appeared to be bogus. Most are understanding about a failed pen or a wet logbook. Some even allow finds when the cacher didn't find the cache and left a throw down replacement. The puritans were angry, but the response was always "It is up to the cache owner"

 

Since last year there have been two changes that removed some power from cache owners.

 

One is the ALR change. Cache owners were told they could not delete logs becasue a cacher did not perform an additional task beyond signing the log book. This did not change that cache owner might be able to delete logs for some other reason such as having a spoiler, containing foul language, or being used as SPAM. It also did not take away the cache owner's discretion to allow a find even if the physical log was not signed.

 

The second change had to do with couch potato logging of virtual caches. At one time a virtual cache owner could decide to allow a find to be logged if a person could answer the verification question even if they never visited the cache. From the start this bothered TPTB and they tried to stop it by changing the guideline to emphasize a virtual cache needed to be visited. However, it was still up to the virtual owner to police their own logs so coach potato logging was still possible. Some cachers abused this by posting logs to any virtual cache wheter or not the owner said they would allow it. Often the owners of virtual caches were inactive and weren't checking verirication anyhow. TPTB made the descision to stop this practice by stating that caches that allowed couch potato logs would be subject to being archived if the owner failed to delete coach potato logs. (I still object to this decision, as it removed many interesting virtual caches that could still be found simply because a few people in Germany liked to play a different game.)

 

The second change is the first time that Groundspeak was going to enforce the maintenance guideline that a cache owner delete bogus logs and it made it clear that a couch potato log on a virtual cache is a bogus log.

 

The two changes together are seen by some as saying that since lack of a signature in the log seems to be one of the remaining reasons a cache owner can use to delete a found log, it is an indication that the log is bogus and that the cache owner must delete it. I cannot find any evidence that this is the intent of the the changes. The changes may signify that TBTP saw the need to have clearer rules for logging finds online. If this is the case, I am waiting to see these changes that I requested a year ago (that NeecesAndNephews was so nice to quote).

 

I've always enjoyed the fact that logging a find on Geocaching.com is an honor system. We can give the benefit of the doubt to the person using the find log. They felt they found the cache for whatever reason, we let them log a find instead of getting hung up on some technical definition of a find. Cache owners, while permitted to delete logs (in fact they are told to delete bogus logs), have been trusted to make this a fun light activity and for the most part they are reluctant to delete a find log that describes not signing a logbook for some reason. Clearly, caches like the OP that require some special physical or mental skill to retrieve and/or open the cache in order to sign the log fall in a special place. Is figuring out how to get your name in the log book part of finding the cache or is it some ALR? I don't object to the cache owner deleting a found log in this case. But at the same time, I don't object to a cache owner who would allow the find to stand.

Link to comment

dude simply put a site is the place, scene, or point of an occurrence or event or object.

If there was a cache up a tree that you could not reach then you never made it to the cache site, you made it to the tree site.

No ALR involved.

Keep following your entitlement logic and eventualy your going to start arguing the COs should bring their caches to the seekers. :blink:

 

It's hilarious how some people use hyperbole.

My "entitlement logic" is not anything you would imply it to be.

I just don't see why some people seem to get their jollies by making people jump through hoops for a coveted smiley. It is not I who has a sense of entitlement, it's the cache owner who loves to have a reason to skunk someone.

 

IMHO

Link to comment

After reading how some people are responding I have a new opinion.

 

Some people want to skirt the rules a little by listing a cache as a "traditional" but it's actually a "challenge" cache.

 

The basic train of thought is "if the cacher doesn't complete the challenge (ie climbing the tree) then it's not a find.

 

Skirting the guidelines is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. It really tweaks my melon when I come across a cache that is DELIBERATELY skirting the guidelines.

 

Never, NEVER tweak a dragon's melon!

The challenge is in getting the cache in one's paws or fins (and, of course, signing the log, and replacing the cache.) That does not make it a 'challenge' cache. Otherwise, to exrapolate what you are indicating, all caches should be 1/1, so anyone can get them. It IS a traditional cache. Not a Mystery. Not a Multi. Not a Letterbox Hybrid. And definitely NOT a virtual.

Else, all caches become Virtuals. "I drove nearby at 65 on the Interstate. I think I sort of saw it. So I will log it." Two mile hike? Too much of a 'challenge'? Clever hide? Too much of a 'challenge'?? Have to move a rock? Too much of a 'challenge'???

Link to comment

Never, NEVER tweak a dragon's melon!

The challenge is in getting the cache in one's paws or fins (and, of course, signing the log, and replacing the cache.) That does not make it a 'challenge' cache. Otherwise, to exrapolate what you are indicating, all caches should be 1/1, so anyone can get them. It IS a traditional cache. Not a Mystery. Not a Multi. Not a Letterbox Hybrid. And definitely NOT a virtual.

Else, all caches become Virtuals. "I drove nearby at 65 on the Interstate. I think I sort of saw it. So I will log it." Two mile hike? Too much of a 'challenge'? Clever hide? Too much of a 'challenge'?? Have to move a rock? Too much of a 'challenge'???

 

Again, hyperbole to attempt to make my point seem ridiculous...

 

Hiding a cache in a tree, no matter how high, is not clever. It's boring.

Making someone climb said tree to get a cache, not clever, boring bordering on just plain being mean.

 

Denying someone a find, when they clearly FOUND the cache, based on a technicality is, again, just mean and/or rude. It's not friendly behavior. It's bullyish at best.

Link to comment

dude simply put a site is the place, scene, or point of an occurrence or event or object.

If there was a cache up a tree that you could not reach then you never made it to the cache site, you made it to the tree site.

No ALR involved.

Keep following your entitlement logic and eventually your going to start arguing the COs should bring their caches to the seekers. :P

 

It's hilarious how some people use hyperbole.

My "entitlement logic" is not anything you would imply it to be.

I just don't see why some people seem to get their jollies by making people jump through hoops for a coveted smiley. It is not I who has a sense of entitlement, it's the cache owner who loves to have a reason to skunk someone.

 

IMHO

what you talking about is pure entitlement, plane and simple, if you cant get to the cache but can see it then you are entitled to log it.

This is what you're arguing, im only pointing out how it could be taken further.

The simple fact remain, if you don't sign the log the cache owner is not required to allow your log to stand. They aint even required to give you an opportunity to change it.

Just like nobody is required to claim an online found it.

Just like nobody is required to have every icon.

Just like nobody is required to find every cache.

With your logic, if I go after an cache and it turns out to be an lpc because that's the only place it can be and I'm correct, then without even seeing it I should be able to claim a found it.

I know it is there.

The co knows I know it is there.

I get to claim a found it, right?

 

I'm at cache A. I use binoculars to help me plan my rout to cache B. I just happen to spot other cachers putting cache B back in it's hiding spot. I get to claim a found it because I know exactly where it is at and bothering to go there is now an ALR. Right?

 

Come on dude, having to go out my front door to claim a find for a cache that a CO told me the exact hiding spot on, is an ALR? Right?

 

One last thing. Just because someone uses an extravagant exaggeration, doesn't make the exaggeration wrong. :blink:

Link to comment

Here's the thing that many people are overlooking (beyond the fact that the guidelines don't say what they claim they do). If I am looking for a bird and I spot one in a tree, I have found the bird. I don't need to climb the tree and sign the bird.

 

If a cache owner accepts a 'found' log as valid knowing that the physical log wasn't found, then the online 'found log IS valid.

 

Help me here, what is the difference between the above description and a virtual?

 

I go, I see statue, I claim find.

Link to comment

Here's the thing that many people are overlooking (beyond the fact that the guidelines don't say what they claim they do). If I am looking for a bird and I spot one in a tree, I have found the bird. I don't need to climb the tree and sign the bird.

 

If a cache owner accepts a 'found' log as valid knowing that the physical log wasn't found, then the online 'found log IS valid.

 

Help me here, what is the difference between the above description and a virtual?

 

I go, I see statue, I claim find.

It is simple, CO choice.

If the CO does not require you to sign the log that is his her choice, but since the log has to be there, it is your choice to sign it.

 

I don't care if said CO would let me get a smilie without signing the log, I'm still going to sign it, but I'm not going to tell the CO that they have to delete every logger who didn't sign it either.

Link to comment

You guys are so funny.

 

Puritans, gotta love em.

 

I never said that the cache owner shouldn't be allowed to delete the find. I just said it's my opinion that any cache owner that hides a cache in a tree simply to add a difficulty, and then deletes the "find" of someone who was unable to reach it, is exhibiting a degree of jerkiness.

 

Yes, it's allowed. Yes people do it. Yes, I understand the rules. I still think it's jerky behavior.

Link to comment

After reading how some people are responding I have a new opinion.

 

Some people want to skirt the rules a little by listing a cache as a "traditional" but it's actually a "challenge" cache.

 

The basic train of thought is "if the cacher doesn't complete the challenge (ie climbing the tree) then it's not a find.

 

Skirting the guidelines is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. It really tweaks my melon when I come across a cache that is DELIBERATELY skirting the guidelines.

 

bittsen, you have a good point about the definition of a challenge cache based on level of effort and consequences. I wouldn't mind talking about that a bit more.

 

When you say 'doesn't complete the challenge' do you mean like someone passed them down the cache and they signed the log?

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

After reading how some people are responding I have a new opinion.

 

Some people want to skirt the rules a little by listing a cache as a "traditional" but it's actually a "challenge" cache.

 

The basic train of thought is "if the cacher doesn't complete the challenge (ie climbing the tree) then it's not a find.

 

Skirting the guidelines is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. It really tweaks my melon when I come across a cache that is DELIBERATELY skirting the guidelines.

 

bittsen, you have a good point about the definition of a challenge cache based on level of effort and consequences. I wouldn't mind talking about that a bit more.

 

When you say 'doesn't complete the challenge' do you mean like someone passed them down the cache and they signed the log?

 

That would be one example.

 

If a CO deleted a log because cacher A said "Cacher B signed for me since he was already up the tree".

Technically speaking, the find isn't official since they didn't sign the log themselves. Right? So a cache owner could delete the find and it's not any different than the person who said they couldn't climb the tree to sign the logsheet.

 

What I thought of, just a bit ago, is why not make the one up the tree into a decoy. That way you could insure that people climb the tree for nothing, as long as people are into denying some people a find and all.

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~

 

Exactly what I did:

 

Disclaimer:

 

The following persons should not attempt this cache:

 

Children * Elderly People * Out of Shape People

but most importantly,

NO Whiners, Crybabies, and Wusses.

PLEASE NOTE:

Armchair logging of this cache is specifically NOT allowed.

If you cannot retrieve the cache yourself, please do not log a find.

 

Why rate a cache as a 5 if anyone can get within eyesight and log it as a find?

 

I am not a child.

I am not elderly.

I am not out of shape.

I am not a whiner, crybaby or wuss.

 

I do have mobility issues due to severe and progressive arthritis that would make crybabies out of the most extreme tough guys.

 

Should I look for your cache? no, not if you rated it a 5.

 

If you rated your cache at a 5 then no one should complain about it.

Edited by brslk
Link to comment

Here's the thing that many people are overlooking (beyond the fact that the guidelines don't say what they claim they do). If I am looking for a bird and I spot one in a tree, I have found the bird. I don't need to climb the tree and sign the bird.

 

If a cache owner accepts a 'found' log as valid knowing that the physical log wasn't found, then the online 'found log IS valid.

 

Help me here, what is the difference between the above description and a virtual?

 

I go, I see statue, I claim find.

It is simple, CO choice.

If the CO does not require you to sign the log that is his her choice, but since the log has to be there, it is your choice to sign it.

 

I don't care if said CO would let me get a smilie without signing the log, I'm still going to sign it, but I'm not going to tell the CO that they have to delete every logger who didn't sign it either.

 

Again, what is the difference between this and a virtual? My choice is I don't require anyone to sign the physical log when I own a virtual.

Link to comment

Hiding a cache in a tree, no matter how high, is not clever. It's boring.

Making someone climb said tree to get a cache, not clever, boring bordering on just plain being mean.

 

Wow, you must have had a boring childhood. I used to love climbing trees as a kid and that is why I had so much fun hiding caches in trees. I wish that there were as many tree climbing caches as there are lpc. :blink:

Link to comment

These word-by-word dissections remind me that you could just as well ask this question another way... are you a literalist who sees the world in absolutes of white or black, or do you see the world as flexible in ever-changing shades of gray?

 

The literal will require a signed cache log, the flexible will say that finding the cache is enough. It's less about the guidelines than the personalities.

Link to comment

Hiding a cache in a tree, no matter how high, is not clever. It's boring.

Making someone climb said tree to get a cache, not clever, boring bordering on just plain being mean.

 

Wow, you must have had a boring childhood. I used to love climbing trees as a kid and that is why I had so much fun hiding caches in trees. I wish that there were as many tree climbing caches as there are lpc. :blink:

 

Me? Boring childhood?

Let me tell you a little secret about my childhood.

 

I've been set on fire before I was 4 years old.

I was fed LSD before I was 3

I had moved to over a dozen different houses and traveled by car over 7,500 miles before I was 5

I have come within a gnats breath of death by drowning at least 7 times that I can remember

I have been within 2 feet of a bullet fired from a handgun, and it was pointed in my direction at the time

I have stared down the barrel of a hunting rifle that was being pointed at me by someone who had just escaped prison, and yes it was loaded and the safety was off.

I have been lost in the wilderness with just myself and zero survival tools.

I have been to the emergency room with a life-threatening condition, more than once.

I have climbed trees, higher than anyone in my neighborhood.

I have climbed to the top of billboards

I have been within inches of live, active, rattlesnakes more than once.

I have ridden motorcycles in the Mojave and survived a windstorm that knocked over a camping trailer

And much more when I was still a child...

 

A boring childhood? I hardly think so.

 

Climbing trees is boring because I have done so much more than climb trees.... Hiding a cache in a tree isn't clever at all. Sorry if that hurts feelings.

 

These word-by-word dissections remind me that you could just as well ask this question another way... are you a literalist who sees the world in absolutes of white or black, or do you see the world as flexible in ever-changing shades of gray?

 

The literal will require a signed cache log, the flexible will say that finding the cache is enough. It's less about the guidelines than the personalities.

 

Well said!

Link to comment

These word-by-word dissections remind me that you could just as well ask this question another way... are you a literalist who sees the world in absolutes of white or black, or do you see the world as flexible in ever-changing shades of gray?

 

The literal will require a signed cache log, the flexible will say that finding the cache is enough. It's less about the guidelines than the personalities.

 

I am flexible when a cacher emails me to say that the log was too wet to sign, the cache was wedged in the hole and could not be removed, the log book was gone, they forgot a pen and describe where and how they found the cache, etc. For my caches that the whole challenge of the cache is the retrieval, not the finding of it since I give explicit instructions as to where it is on the cache page, I expect the log to be signed in order to claim the find. I think I made one exception on one of my climbing caches because the cacher admitted in the log that they were too scared to make the grab. To me that highlighted the challenge of the cache and that it wasn't for the faint of heart. Yes, I am an EVIL CONTROLLING cache owner!!! :blink: On my one tree climbing cache where you had to climb 34ft to retrieve it there was a cacher who logged that johny made the climb and threw the cache down to him to sign. While I would have preferred that each cacher make the climb, I would not delete the log since he did sign it. I did get a little annoyed when at an event he was bragging about how he found the cache even though he logged that he never made the climb but to each his own.

Link to comment

Here's the thing that many people are overlooking (beyond the fact that the guidelines don't say what they claim they do). If I am looking for a bird and I spot one in a tree, I have found the bird. I don't need to climb the tree and sign the bird.

 

If a cache owner accepts a 'found' log as valid knowing that the physical log wasn't found, then the online 'found log IS valid.

 

Help me here, what is the difference between the above description and a virtual?

 

I go, I see statue, I claim find.

It is simple, CO choice.

If the CO does not require you to sign the log that is his her choice, but since the log has to be there, it is your choice to sign it.

 

I don't care if said CO would let me get a smilie without signing the log, I'm still going to sign it, but I'm not going to tell the CO that they have to delete every logger who didn't sign it either.

 

Again, what is the difference between this and a virtual? My choice is I don't require anyone to sign the physical log when I own a virtual.

Virtual = no option to sign.

There is your difference.

Can I explain it any simpler?

If a virtual has a log book then it absolutely does not warrant it's type. Therefor it should be rendered to one of the physical cache types and the CO can dump the ALR to log it.

 

:blink::P:P

Hey now there is an argument to dump the most of the virts.

ALRs couldn't be grandfathered so there go the ones that require owner contact, code word hidden in a post, pictures etc. etc.

OOPS, there went earth caches.

;):PB)

Link to comment

Hiding a cache in a tree, no matter how high, is not clever. It's boring.

Making someone climb said tree to get a cache, not clever, boring bordering on just plain being mean.

 

Wow, you must have had a boring childhood. I used to love climbing trees as a kid and that is why I had so much fun hiding caches in trees. I wish that there were as many tree climbing caches as there are lpc. :blink:

 

Me? Boring childhood?

Let me tell you a little secret about my childhood.

 

I've been set on fire before I was 4 years old.

I was fed LSD before I was 3

I had moved to over a dozen different houses and traveled by car over 7,500 miles before I was 5

I have come within a gnats breath of death by drowning at least 7 times that I can remember

I have been within 2 feet of a bullet fired from a handgun, and it was pointed in my direction at the time

I have stared down the barrel of a hunting rifle that was being pointed at me by someone who had just escaped prison, and yes it was loaded and the safety was off.

I have been lost in the wilderness with just myself and zero survival tools.

I have been to the emergency room with a life-threatening condition, more than once.

I have climbed trees, higher than anyone in my neighborhood.

I have climbed to the top of billboards

I have been within inches of live, active, rattlesnakes more than once.

I have ridden motorcycles in the Mojave and survived a windstorm that knocked over a camping trailer

And much more when I was still a child...

 

A boring childhood? I hardly think so.

 

Climbing trees is boring because I have done so much more than climb trees.... Hiding a cache in a tree isn't clever at all. Sorry if that hurts feelings.

 

These word-by-word dissections remind me that you could just as well ask this question another way... are you a literalist who sees the world in absolutes of white or black, or do you see the world as flexible in ever-changing shades of gray?

 

The literal will require a signed cache log, the flexible will say that finding the cache is enough. It's less about the guidelines than the personalities.

 

Well said!

Wow, you have had such an interesting life that I am surprised that you geocache. Isn't caching boring to you? Do you find LPC, ammo cans in the forest, micros hanging in a tree, etc. boring as well? If my tree climbing cache was on top of a mountain with a beautiful view would it still be boring?

Edited by slukster
Link to comment

Wow, you have had such an interesting life that I am surprised that you geocache. Isn't caching boring to you? Do you find LPC, ammo cans in the forest, micros hanging in a tree, etc. boring as well? If my tree climbing cache was on top of a mountain with a beautiful view would it still be boring?

 

WOW, sarcasm. I'm shocked.

 

Is geocaching boring? Sometimes it is. But, hey, I can't afford to do much more. And I've done so much that it can all get boring after a while.

Plus, I'm not a kid anymore. My body can only handle so much and the stuff I did when i was younger has taken a toll.

 

But I am still fearless in many ways...

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...