Can cashe owner define criteria for "find"?

[+ChicagoJohn]

We're new to this, and we have one cashe. Our purpose in placing it is to attract people to the area. Unfortunately, in negotiating for permission we had to place it directly beside a path. It is disguised well enough to preclude an accidental find but would be obvious to a geocasher seeking it.

 

We wanted to minimize the chances of muggling in the event a geocasher has made the trek only to discover that hiking traffic is high, yet decides to take a high risk in order to sign the log instead of going away "empty handed". Although rare, this has happened to us more than once when trying to do cashe maintenance.

 

Is it our perrogative to authorize logging a "find" on our cashe page without signing the cashe log book if traffic precludes it, the geocasher believes they are at the site based upon GPS coordinates and sights the hide? While we would ideally like people to see the cashe contents, our main purpose is to get them to visit the area, and objective is accomplished without opening the cashe container.

 

The more general question would be, is it consistent with geocashing norms to log a find without signing the cashe log book, and, for that matter, opening the cashe container at all?

 

[+CanDMan47]

Here come the can of worms.

 

The answer to your question, though, is yes, it is your cache and you can allow anyone that you feel has found it to log it as a find.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

We're new to this, and we have one cashe. Our purpose in placing it is to attract people to the area. Unfortunately, in negotiating for permission we had to place it directly beside a path. It is disguised well enough to preclude an accidental find but would be obvious to a geocasher seeking it.

 

We wanted to minimize the chances of muggling in the event a geocasher has made the trek only to discover that hiking traffic is high, yet decides to take a high risk in order to sign the log instead of going away "empty handed". Although rare, this has happened to us more than once when trying to do cashe maintenance.

 

Is it our perrogative to authorize logging a "find" on our cashe page without signing the cashe log book if traffic precludes it, the geocasher believes they are at the site based upon GPS coordinates and sights the hide? While we would ideally like people to see the cashe contents, our main purpose is to get them to visit the area, and objective is accomplished without opening the cashe container.

 

The more general question would be, is it consistent with geocashing norms to log a find without signing the cashe log book, and, for that matter, opening the cashe container at all?

 

 

A cache owner may allow a find for someone based on other criteria in lieu of signing the log but those are generally special cases like yours. There have been a few recent discussions about this recently. I have encountered quite a few caches where the CO wrote in the description that if they were unable to sign the log a photo of some object, information obtained from a sign or identification of something near the cache would be considered as evidence that they "found" the cache.

 

Just be careful in your wording on the page so that it can be distinguished from a virtual cache (where there isn't an actual container) and make sure that the evidence that you're requiring finders to provide isn't something that can just be looked up on the internet.

[+ChicagoJohn]

Thanks very much for the quick anwer!

 

I will now review our language to make sure it is consistent with your answers.

[+ChicagoJohn]

We've modified the language as follows. If there are remaining issues, please let me know. Thanks again.

 

"To minimize chances of muggling in this public spot, please take the container a distance away to examine contents before re-hiding discretely at original site.

 

If there are too many hikers, your GPS indicates you are at the site, and you have a visual sighting of the hide (verified by touching surface), we authorize you to register a "find" without actually opening the container and signing the log."

 

(Hopefully, we managed to log a can of worms without opening it )

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

And the envelope is being pushed a little further....

 

 

[+webscouter.]

It looks fine to me but be prepared for some e-mails telling you that you are ruining the entire game because you are not requiring the signing of the log. Shrug them off and continue to hide caches that give you enjoyment.

 

Also for future reference the container is spelled with two C's and no S's

Cache is correct.

 

Have fun hiding.

[+Vater_Araignee]

If I find a bronze statue with a hole in it and chuck a log book inside that cant be reached, but say just touch the container if the logbook is unobtainable, it not a virtual right?

The statue is a container and it has a log.

[+hukilaulau]

not sure what the last poster's point is

I think your note on the cache page looks fine, and I am one of the hardliners who usually comes down on the "sign log, claim find" side of the issue.

[GOF and Bacall]

I think their point was that this sounds like a way to post a virtual cache on GC.com.

[Luckless]

Making your cache "idiot proof" is all part of the game. I personally would look for a better place to put the cache if I were that worried about it being muggled, but hey, if you want to try it there go ahead. I hope the cache is a micro- too small to hold TBs. I would hate to see someone's TB go missing if the cache did get muggled.

Put me down as someone who feels a cacher should always sign the logbook to a traditional cache to prove they found it, although I like the idea of logging a find (with the owners approval) when a cacher can't retrieve the cache by taking a photo of it to prove they found it.

[+Vater_Araignee]

not sure what the last poster's point is

I think your note on the cache page looks fine, and I am one of the hardliners who usually comes down on the "sign log, claim find" side of the issue.

see post #10

[+hukilaulau]

not sure what the last poster's point is

I think your note on the cache page looks fine, and I am one of the hardliners who usually comes down on the "sign log, claim find" side of the issue.

see post #10

Oh, I see... The question was really about something else?

If there is a log sheet and the MAIN expectation is that the log be signed, and it's in a spot where regular caches are allowed, then fine.

if the INTENT is to skirt the ban on virtuals, then the answer is pretty obvious, right?

now back to the actual question the OP asked...

 

edit to add: upon closer reading I see that the intent was indeed to circumvent the virtual policy. That's just silly and is in no way similar to what the OP is asking about.

Edited April 3, 2010 by hukilaulau

[+Vater_Araignee]

not sure what the last poster's point is

I think your note on the cache page looks fine, and I am one of the hardliners who usually comes down on the "sign log, claim find" side of the issue.

see post #10

Oh, I see... The question was really about something else?

If there is a log sheet and the MAIN expectation is that the log be signed, and it's in a spot where regular caches are allowed, then fine.

if the INTENT is to skirt the ban on virtuals, then the answer is pretty obvious, right?

now back to the actual question the OP asked...

 

edit to add: upon closer reading I see that the intent was indeed to circumvent the virtual policy. That's just silly and is in no way similar to what the OP is asking about.

If you allow it with container A then why not B?

It isn't just a slippery slope it is a Teflon coated slope slathered in KY jelly.

It needs to be kept on a case by case basis between the CO and the "finder".

 

The CO could make it a multi with that stage just being a tag with cords zip tied to something and the Final being in a more exceptable hide location.

Then you have the location intention and avoid creating a cache with virtual implications.

[CoyoteRed]

You are tasked to delete bogus logs. How do you know a log is bogus? The mechanism which is provided, and the standard and norm for the hobby, is signing the logbook.

 

If you're putting a cache in the place with high muggle traffic I would presume it would have high cacher traffic, too. This would mean more opportunities for a muggle to observe a cacher retrieving or replacing the container. While I understand the desire to make your cache last longer by providing an alternative logging mechanism, I don't think it's going to matter much in the end.

 

What you're going to get is a cacher who thinks he can retrieve and replace a cache unobserved when he really can't. It's going to be that failed attempt that alerts a muggle who doesn't appreciate other people activities and ends up taking the cache.

 

Me, I've hidden caches right along a trail and they've lasted several years. However, muggle traffic was very low and a cache could sign in and trade without encountering another soul the whole time.

 

High traffic? I'd say either make it part of the challenge by making a high-risk grab or move it somewhere else. Don't make a high-risk grab large enough for trade items--you're setting yourself up for losing someones' trackables.

[+ChicagoJohn]

I apologize for asking this question. We should probably have just followed the rule of "do it and ask permission later, if necessary."

 

As long as we are not going to get drummed out of the geocashing community for the way we've listed it; which, I believe, is rationally based in part upon the fact that we must meet certain requirements of the Forest Preseerve that we alone have met, by the way; I think we will stand with our listing statement above.

 

This cashe is probably the only one we will ever place. For us, this particular site is our motivation. We just want to try to make sure that the effort, time, and considerable expense isn't needlessy destroyed.

 

Thanks to everyone who has commented on our question. Let's consider the matter closed.

[+Walts Hunting]

First of all I am of the school that you must sign the log to get a find. Having Muggles around and being stealthy or coming back is part of caching. By taking it out you are removing an element. Also you might want to look at line 7 of the Getting Started guidelines on the website.

 

Easy Steps to Geocaching

 

1. Register for a free Basic Membership.

2. Click "Hide & Seek a Cache."

3. Enter your postal code and click "search."

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

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

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

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

8. Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

 

At the very least don't mention in the description that people can do walkbys. You will be inundated with them including some people who won't even walk by but just say they did. If someone writes a DNF or note saying what happened you might want to consider giving permission but I still think it is not only a bad idea but violates guidelines and the basic requirement. You will have created a virtual.

 

Looking at the listing does make me wonder if this "it's really a virtual" language was in the original posting the reviewer saw. Got to think that that would not have been approved.

 

Also this is your first hide and while your contribution is appreciated maybe you ought to start with some that don't raise issues.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Walts Hunting

[+Ambrosia]

I apologize for asking this question. We should probably have just followed the rule of "do it and ask permission later, if necessary."

 

As long as we are not going to get drummed out of the geocashing community for the way we've listed it; which, I believe, is rationally based in part upon the fact that we must meet certain requirements of the Forest Preseerve that we alone have met, by the way; I think we will stand with our listing statement above.

 

This cashe is probably the only one we will ever place. For us, this particular site is our motivation. We just want to try to make sure that the effort, time, and considerable expense isn't needlessy destroyed.

 

Thanks to everyone who has commented on our question. Let's consider the matter closed.

 

It never hurts to ask, otherwise how can you ever know?

 

The biggest issue here is if it is compliant with the listing guidelines. Because if it isn't, then you could possibly face having your listing archived. If it is compliant, then the only issues are if people disaprove. It's your cache, and you can do what you like with it (within the guidelines). Either you have to decide if it's worth the public critique or not. If you're fine with that, then enjoy your cache and don't worry about what some may say about it. Focus on the enjoyment you can share with others by bringing them to that spot.

[CoyoteRed]

This cashe is probably the only one we will ever place.

Don't do that! You've actually taken the time and effort to place a decent cache! Probably more effort than some I know having 20 caches for sure. We need more thoughtful and conscious cache placers like yourself.

 

Yes, placing decent caches are hard. Don't let that discourage you. Sometimes you have to simply place a cache and see how it goes. We're just giving you some advise winnowed from our own experiences.

 

Thanks to everyone who has commented on our question. Let's consider the matter closed.

Good luck to you! Don't let this one be the last!

[+hukilaulau]

What CR said above. looks like your cache is a winner! next time I'm in the neighborhood I'll definitely look for it...

[+tozainamboku]

Here come the can of worms.

Yep the OP opened the can and now all the puritans are crawling out.

 

To the OP

 

Geocaching is about hiding a cache for people to find. Generally, people mark that they have found the cache by signing the log book in the cache. All physical cache must have a log book so that people who want to can mark that they have found the cache by signing the log.

 

Some cache owners hide caches "to attract people to the area." While is is OK to select an area you would like to bring people to, it should not be the only purpose of placing a cache or even the primary purpose. The primary purpose is to place a cache for people to find (and those who mark their find by signing the logbook should be allowed to do so). If you just want to attract people to an area there is Waymarking, though it may not attract as many people a geocache will.

 

Sometimes cache owners choose to hide caches in high muggle areas. Sometime, restrictions by land owners or land managers will require that if you want to place a cache in that area it will be where muggles are likely to find it or to see a cacher signing the log. It is understandable for cache owners to want to ask finders to use stealth. They may look for creative ways to claim a find in order to discourage behavior that might compromise the cache. Cache owners need to understand that they have no control over cache finders. A cacher who believes that they must sign the physical log to log the cache online will sign the log. Some cachers, in order to get that online log, will ignore the request to be stealth or to not remove the cache if muggles are around. You could try to put such a request on your cache page but if this is an area where the cache is likely to be muggled, it will probably not help much.

 

Some people have pointed out that cacher owners are responsible for the quality control of posts to the cache page. They are supposed to delete logs that appear bogus. They have argued that without a signature in the physical log how will the cache owner know the logs are bogus. This is nonsense. The guideline says logs that appear to be bogus. A log that says "I visited the location, but there were too many muggles, so I accepted the cache owner's offer and didn't sign the log. However here is a picture I took". does not appear to be bogus. A log that says "Greetings from Germany. I logged your wonderful cache in Chicago from my couch in Dusseldorf" would appear to be bogus. It's pretty simple.

 

The puritans don't agree with me, but I will say it again. The guidelines nowhere make it a requirement to sign the physical cache log in order to log a find online. A cache owner can choose to allow an online find log to remain for almost any reason. Certainly log that are obviously bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or contain foul language should be deleted. If a cache owner doesn't delete these they might be deleted in very rare instances by a Groundspeak lackey. But Groundspeak doesn't police the logs. There are certainly not going to get involved in this case, because frankly there is no rule that say a cache can't be logged as found unless the finder has signed the physical log.

Edited April 3, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Thanks to everyone who has commented on our question. Let's consider the matter closed.

Heh. Subject closed. He doesn't know us very well!

[+NeecesandNephews]

Once again, I feel it necessary to point out the error of "blanket statements"

 

They have argued that without a signature in the physical log how will the cache owner know the logs are bogus. This is nonsense. The guideline says logs that appear to be bogus. A log that says "I visited the location, but there were too many muggles, so I accepted the cache owner's offer and didn't sign the log. However here is a picture I took". does not appear bogus. A log that says "Greetings from Germany. I logged your wonderful cache in Chicago from my couch in Dusseldorf" would appear to be bogus. Its pretty simple.

 

Now you are telling people how the word "bogus" is to be interpreted?? Is there any opinion of yours you are not going to try to force on others?

 

This is an opinion, based on the beliefs of the poster, and his interpretation of what the Guidelines say. Just like the "puritans" opinion.

 

For those who might find this confusing, I offer the simple advice that you bear in mind "Tozspeak is NOT Groundspeak"

edit-typo

Edited April 3, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

not sure what the last poster's point is

I think your note on the cache page looks fine, and I am one of the hardliners who usually comes down on the "sign log, claim find" side of the issue.

Just dumping some worms into what should have been an empty can.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

It isn't just a slippery slope it is a Teflon coated slope slathered in KY jelly.

You cannot slather a Teflon coated slope in KY Jelly...It won't stick.

 

The CO could make it a multi with that stage just being a tag with cords zip tied to something and the Final being in a more exceptable hide location.

Then you have the location intention and avoid creating a cache with virtual implications.

 

I had to do something imilar with a hide at a statue. I just couldn't fir the Cace inside like I wanted, so I made it a Micro containing coordinates to the final 20 feet away.

 

Anyway, back to the topic. Yes, you are permitted to allow that as a find, but I might avoid advertising it.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I'm working from memory here, always dangerous for me, but if I recall correctly Groundspeak deep sixed caches that could be logged without having been found. There used to be a number of caches with a description like "Anyone can log this cache" and I think they were archived.

 

Yes, as the CO you can accept any log you choose, you just can't advertise on the cache listing that no signature is required.

 

Check with your Reviewer because I may be wrong. There's a first time for everything, so who knows, it could happen!

[4wheelin_fool]

They will not list caches without a logbook or codeword verification caches either.

Edited April 3, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+ChicagoJohn]

[

Just dumping some worms into what should have been an empty can.

Carol and I became aware of Nelson Lake early last summer when I had a furlough day do to the economic downturn. That morning, we got a call from our neighbor from across the street. They thought our tortoise, Ball, had escaped from his backyard enclosure. He hadn't... (but would later that Fall).

 

It turned out to be a yellow-eared slider. Don't ask me where it came from, but since we had some knowledge of chelonians, we told them we would try to place it. After considering a number of options, we decided upon one we'd driven past several times but never visited, Dick Young / Nelson Lake Forest Preserve. I took the turtle in a bucket and headed for the lake while Carol and our dog Sally waited in the parking lot.

 

The lake was much further than I had anticipated, but I walked down an embankment adjacent to the observation platform and proceeded, undaunted toward the lake. After some considerabe difficulty, in about 1/10 mile, on my hands and knees, I released the turtle on a small sandy shore. Turning back, I began sinking into what I later learned was a quicksand-like substrate under the reeds, Houghton muck. falling down several times next to 3/4" diameter tree stems that had been cut off at a 45 degree angle, narrowly missing vital areas such as my head.

 

Needless to say, I made it back, albeit with some cuts and bruises. After that, Carol and I developed a bond for the place and took some nice photos there that summer. Then we saw some guy on TV placing something called a "geocache" under evergreens in a camoflaged tupperware container, and that triggered the thought of placing a geocache at Nelson Lake. So we checked out geocashing.

 

But it wasn't as easy as that. It took four months of planning and negotiations with the Forest Preserve to get an approval. That process resulted in a much better product than would have otherwise occurred, one that provides educational information on the natural history of the place and is in full conformance with Preserve requirements that made it a difficult and somewhat costly in-plain-sight hide.

 

We go there at least weekly to maintain it, and we are committed to replace it once, if necessary. I think it is not unreasonable to grant a "find" to a geocasher who clearly identifies it, even if traffic precludes safe examination of its contents and signature of the log. If they made half mile hike and have physically touched the hide, then I'm sure they will have been touched by the place as well, and that is what we intend.

 

"We called him Tortoise because he taught us." - Lewis Carroll

[+wimseyguy]

It sounds like a neat place and a great reason to place a cache. But don't be so hasty to offer the alternative logging options. I don't consider myself a puritan, and doubt many in here would either, but if I don't sign your cache log I don't feel entitled to log it as a find. That is one of the most basic tenets (#7) of geocaching.

 

I own several high exposure urban micros that have thousands of passers by daily, including a busy sidewalk, one block urban park, parking lot, street corner, and another corner at a Krispy Kreme. These may not offer the long hike (unless one want to take a nice walk around downtown) or have the sentimental attachment as your location, but they are placed for good reasons. I work downtown and wanted to share some nice history of the nearby buildings on the cache pages-our State Capitol, the Governor's Mansion, and the original master plan for our capital city. They were placed several years ago, get found regularly, and have not had to be replaced because of a muggling, just routine container replacement.

 

I wouldn't advertise your flexibility/leniency on the cache page, but if a well meaning seeker contacted you and asked if they could enter that grey area of claiming a find without actually signing the log as they didn't want to risk exposing the cache, then you could grant a special request.

[Luckless]

I began sinking into what I later learned was a quicksand-like substrate under the reeds, Houghton muck. falling down several times next to 3/4" diameter tree stems that had been cut off at a 45 degree angle, narrowly missing vital areas such as my head.

 

Needless to say, I made it back, albeit with some cuts and bruises. After that, Carol and I developed a bond for the place

 

Good times- some of my best caching memories involve cuts and bruises.

[+WRASTRO]

I have many finds of caches placed in high traffic areas. I have found that patience is a key virtue when retrieving and replacing such caches. If I don't have time to retrieve and replace without being seen I take a pass and come back another time. I have waited over 30 minutes to replace a cache after signing the log in order to replace said cache without being seen. I would say it is up to the CO to decide if someone can log a find without signing the actual log but I would not advertise the option on the cache page.

[+brslk]

We've modified the language as follows. If there are remaining issues, please let me know. Thanks again.

 

"To minimize chances of muggling in this public spot, please take the container a distance away to examine contents before re-hiding discretely at original site.

 

If there are too many hikers, your GPS indicates you are at the site, and you have a visual sighting of the hide (verified by touching surface), we authorize you to register a "find" without actually opening the container and signing the log."

 

(Hopefully, we managed to log a can of worms without opening it )

 

I see nothing wrong with that and those that do can simply not look for it right?

I hardly see how it will effect those that don't agree.

 

I have seen numerous threads where people say that they "just let it slide","don't get worked up about it" or "don't even check the log book to see if they actually signed it".

[+tozainamboku]

I don't consider myself a puritan, and doubt many in here would either, but if I don't sign your cache log I don't feel entitled to log it as a find. That is one of the most basic tenets (#7) of geocaching.

So is using a GPS device to assist in finding the geocache (#6) yet I don't see all the puritans up in arms about people who log finds and say they didn't use a GPS. I think the problem is that people make a connection between signing the logbook (#7) and sharing geocaching stories and photos online (#8) that isn't there. So long as the OP's cache has a logbook for finders to sign and they don't put silly requirements like "Your online find will be deleted if you didn't use proper stealth when searching for the cache" or "You can log this cache even if you stay at home on the couch and read about the Nelson Lake Forest Preserve" I think they are alright.

[+BlueDeuce]

Yep the OP opened the can and now all the puritans are crawling out.

 

I resent your description, I prefer to slither. Thank you very little.

[GOF and Bacall]

Leaving aside the arguments for and against if the paper log must be signed I suspect that if the cache is in such a place that you need to worry over if folks compromise it with the simple act of signing the log it isn't likely to last long.

[+BlueDeuce]

Leaving aside the arguments for and against if the paper log must be signed I suspect that if the cache is in such a place that you need to worry over if folks compromise it with the simple act of signing the log it isn't likely to last long.

 

ayep.

[knowschad]

OK, since this apparently hasn't really been closed yet, my two cents:

 

I have NO problem with a cache owner allowing a no-sign in situations like where the cache is frozen in ice and can't be removed without damage... stuff like that. As a cache owner, I am very lenient in that area, and as a cacher, I have also taken advantage of the good will of the hider in similar situations, always after sending an email describing the situation.

The problem that I see is in not only expressly allowing a no-sign find, but actually requesting it. You state that the cache is in a high muggle area. This implies that the majority of "finds" may well not be logged on paper. You are also blatantly inviting and enabling armchair cachers, whether you realize it, or not.

[+DENelson83]

I've heard of ALR's, but this qualifies as an ALM ("additional logging method"). Excellent idea.

[Clan Riffster]

"To minimize chances of muggling in this public spot, please take the container a distance away to examine contents before re-hiding discretely at original site.

 

If there are too many hikers, your GPS indicates you are at the site, and you have a visual sighting of the hide (verified by touching surface), we authorize you to register a "find" without actually opening the container and signing the log."

If I were to consider such a thing for one of my caches, I'd probably try and explain, on the cache page, why I am making what might appear as an unusual request. Perhaps adding a line worded to the effect of: "I mention this because I would rather you not attempt physically removing the cache from its hiding spot, and I don't want you to feel pressured to sign the log if muggles might compromise the hide. Thanx!"

[+Max and 99]

Maybe if this is such an interesting place for people to visit you could waymark it instead? Muggles don't usually interfere with waymarks!

[+Walts Hunting]

Maybe if this is such an interesting place for people to visit you could waymark it instead

 

Oh yeah that's going to get a bunch of people maybe even both of the waymarkers will com.

[+buttaskotch]

If I find a bronze statue with a hole in it and chuck a log book inside that cant be reached, but say just touch the container if the logbook is unobtainable, it not a virtual right?

The statue is a container and it has a log.

LOL, too funny! But the point is quite evident.

The game is certainly changing....we either need to change with it or find a new game to play

[+buttaskotch]

Lots of differing opinions, now if only I know what a cashe was....

[+narcissa]

Lots of differing opinions, now if only I know what a cashe was....

 

People who spell it with an S should have their accounts deleted.

[+wolfslady]

I love the story and that you went the extra mile to make an actual container to be found and didn't just stick another micro somewhere because it was easier. I've found quite a few places that I thought would be great for a "real" (can't wait to see what that opens) cache, only to discover someone had already placed a micro there. It's even for frustrating when it's a place that would be perfect for young kids who prefer the treasure hunting aspect of geocaching. Thank you for taking the time to do something better.

 

I think some people on here just like to be contrary. Worse I think a few take pleasure in making others feel bad. Don't let them get to you. Maybe you could add a note that says if you are unable to sign the provided log (since some people seem to think that you don't want to provide one) due to high muggle activity please post a note PM me and tell me your story and provide whatever proof you can offer (pictures preferred) before you log a DNF. I may allow a find on a case by case basis. Then before I allowed a find I would check the persons logs to make sure it was possible for them to have found it (they weren’t in 3 states at the same time) and that they didn’t make a habit of not signing the logs. The last thing I’d do is check this board and make sure they hadn’t posted that “Logs must always be signed.” I’m making a list of those just in case any of them ever visit a cache I’m going to visit. I’m going to check the logs.

 

It seems like in anything you do there are too many people trying to impress their narrow vision of it upon others. I say; unless someone official clarifies this issue we are going to have this same debate for the next 100+ years. Let your conscience guide you and if the puritans need to sign the log no one is keeping them from lurking for hours or revisiting 15 times so they can put their mark on the paper. Me: I want to spend that time enjoying the view.

Edited April 5, 2010 by wolfslady

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Lots of differing opinions, now if only I know what a cashe was....

 

People who spell it with an S should have their accounts deleted.

Grammar police should have their accounts deleted.

[+narcissa]

Lots of differing opinions, now if only I know what a cashe was....

 

People who spell it with an S should have their accounts deleted.

Grammar police should have their accounts deleted.

 

Lighten up, d00d.

[+paleolith]

Two problems. And neither one is the possible similarity to a virtual cache.

 

First, as others have noted, if this many muggles are around then you'll likely have problems anyway. Most of us tend to underestimate the chance that someone not looking for a cache will notice it, no matter how well hidden it is.

 

Second -- some have said that advertising the Alternate Logging Method on the cache page is undesirable. Whether that is true or not, the larger problem is that many cachers won't read that far before going to find it. Yes, if it's going to work, it has to be on the page, a point that some miss -- if cachers are not aware of the ALM before searching, then they may compromise the cache unnecessarily. But it also won't work if the cachers just don't read the full description, and that WILL happen, and will happen a lot. As a result, I don't think the ALM will be very effective in achieving the intent.

 

To my mind -- and this is not verified -- the most effective measure would be to have the cache clearly labeled with ID indicating that it's part of the Forest Preserve. Since you worked with them on the placement, I'd think it very likely you could also get permission for this. That won't always protect it -- young kids for example may pay little attention -- but many accidental finders would be much more likely to replace it with such an ID.

 

Edward

[4wheelin_fool]

Lots of differing opinions, now if only I know what a cashe was....

 

People who spell it with an S should have their accounts deleted.

Grammar police should have their accounts deleted.

 

Lighten up, d00d.

 

Why do people pronounce Jimmy Buffet as it appears?

 

Shouldnt it be pronounced "Buffay". ???

 

[Clan Riffster]

Why do people pronounce Jimmy Buffet as it appears?

I think his brother Daylee was playing at a local Asian restaurant this weekend.