Jump to content

physical log requirements


laura.j
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Hello, I am new to geocaching, but I think I have a pretty good understanding of the rules. There is a micro cache in my area that does not contain a log. The cache container is a 35 mm film cannister and the trade items are generally different types of coins. On the cache page, the CO says "given the small size of the cache, there is no log book. Please log your visit on-line."

 

Is this allowed? What prevents people from logging this as a find without actually finding it?

Link to comment

This is cut and paste from the published "Cache Listing Requirements" for a traditional cache

 

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

 

No log-book ... then it ain't a cache.

 

If it says in the cache description explictly that it has no log then I suprised that it got past review. Even so, there is always room for a log book ... you say you're new to this, ever found a nano?

 

If it bothers you - send a mesasge to the CO and/or the original reviewer.

Link to comment

This is cut and paste from the published "Cache Listing Requirements" for a traditional cache

 

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

 

No log-book ... then it ain't a cache.

 

If it says in the cache description explictly that it has no log then I suprised that it got past review. Even so, there is always room for a log book ... you say you're new to this, ever found a nano?

 

If it bothers you - send a mesasge to the CO and/or the original reviewer.

 

probably edited after review.

Link to comment

This is cut and paste from the published "Cache Listing Requirements" for a traditional cache

 

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

 

No log-book ... then it ain't a cache.

 

If it says in the cache description explictly that it has no log then I suprised that it got past review. Even so, there is always room for a log book ... you say you're new to this, ever found a nano?

 

If it bothers you - send a mesasge to the CO and/or the original reviewer.

 

probably edited after review.

 

Good point. How's this for a theory ... CO places a 35mm can in a high-traffic area, log gets filled up time and time again, CO gets fed-up with maintenance visits, removes log, edits cache description ! Voila !

 

laura.j - could you post the GC code we can all have a look

Link to comment

 

This excerpt from a note posted by the CO is the part I found remarkable: "...the container is a small 35mm film canister, there is very little room for anything bigger than a coin and certainly no room for a log-book and pencil, so please log your visit on-line."

 

If it can fit a coin, it's certainly big enough for a micro log. It may also be worth noting that the CO peviously tried to change the cache to a virtual but was stopped by the reviewer in January. Perhaps the CO became a cacher in 2002 and hasn't kept up caching over the years...thinking the log has to be an actual notebook?

Link to comment
probably edited after review.

 

No question about that no reviewer would approve a logless cache.

 

This is also an example of lazy placement. From the pictures it is obvious that a much larger container could have been used.

 

If you really care that much throw a NA log with note that it violates GC Guidelines.

Link to comment

Thanks for the advice. I'll send an email to the CO.

 

I think the use of a 35 mm film container is justified here? The post that the cache is tied to (shown in picture on cache page) is an Alberta survey marker, an interesting geomatic landmark?? This area is frequented by ATVs, and I think that is why the CO changed the container from a small tupperware.

Link to comment

Another possibility if it is an older cache is that it is grandfathered in from before the guidelines were changed to require a log in all physical caches.

 

To the OP. If you see a cache that doesn't seem to be within the guidelines you can always post a Needs Archive log. This log informs the local volunteer reviewer that the cache may need some attention. The reviewer will investigate and determine what needs to be done. The cache won't neccesarily be archived. The reviewer may decide that the cache is OK as is or they may ask the cache owner to make some changes and give them some time to comply before archiving the cache. However, if you do consider posting a Needs Archive log, consider the consequences. You may raise the ire of the cache owner - who believes that their cache should be allowed as is. Some cache owners may try to extract some revenge on you - deleting your found logs or even interfering with caches you may hide. Do you really want to get more enemies? Other cachers may see you as a cache vigilante, removing what they see as a perfectly good cache just because of a minor technical guideline violation. This may not be a reputation you will want if you continue geocaching.

 

I tend to view the guidelines as being of two types. The first are the common sense guidelines that should apply to all geocaches no matter where they are listed. Violation of these guidelines could cause serious problems for geocaching in general: Ignoring property rights (not having adequate permission), causing damage to public or private property, etc. I would also include caches that are not being maintained, particularly if people are posting DNFs on them. The game depends on cache owners maintaining their caches. The second I'll call Groundspeak guidelines - these are guideline that Grounspeak has added that either promote a specific view of geocaching that they have or that protect their rights for how the Geocaching.com website is used. These are rules like no commercial caches, no agenda caches, cache proximity, and requiring physical caches to have logs.

 

I personally would only use the NA log for the first set of guidelines violations. It is in the interest of all geocachers that these rules be enforced. I'd just ignore the second set of guideline. These exist for Groundspeak's benefit. Many geocachers may agree with some or all of these guidelines. I certainly agree with many of them. But I'm sure that many geoachers are enjoying caches that violate some of these guidelines and, as I see it, it doesn't hurt anyone. A puritan who won't log a find online unless they sign the physical log, would simply not log the cache that had no physical log to sign. They could post a note. If they are a premium member they could ignore it. They could even post a DNF since the obviously didn't find the cache since there was no log to sign. But someone who is not a puritan, will find this cache and enjoy it. I'm not going to be a cache cop to enforce the puritan view of a cache.

 

There are some guidlines in a gray area - like not burying caches. Clearly one should not be digging up someone else's property (including public property) without adequate permission. However to promote geocaching in certain public area, Groundspeak feels they need a stronger rule on buried caches in order to correct a misconception of some land managers that caches are often buried. While I agree with the rationale behind the rule, I'd likely not post a NA on a buried cache unless it was is some area where I thought the land manager would not allow it. But those who worry about how difficult it may be to change the perspective of a land manager who reads about one buried cache, may want to see this guideline strictly enforced, and I can't argue with that.

Link to comment

 

No question about that no reviewer would approve a logless cache.

 

This is also an example of lazy placement. From the pictures it is obvious that a much larger container could have been used.

 

If you really care that much throw a NA log with note that it violates GC Guidelines.

 

It appears that this cache did start out as a larger container but after being muggled a few times the owner turned it into a logless micro.

 

From the cache page:

Due to vandalism of the woods in this area; the trees, the slopes, the trails, and the repeated "accidental" discovery of this cache I have decided to replace the tupperwear container with a small 35 mm film container. Given the small size of the cache, there is no log book.

 

The cache was placed in 2002 and according to the logs, became a micro in December of 2006.

Link to comment

 

No question about that no reviewer would approve a logless cache.

 

This is also an example of lazy placement. From the pictures it is obvious that a much larger container could have been used.

 

If you really care that much throw a NA log with note that it violates GC Guidelines.

 

It appears that this cache did start out as a larger container but after being muggled a few times the owner turned it into a logless micro.

 

From the cache page:

Due to vandalism of the woods in this area; the trees, the slopes, the trails, and the repeated "accidental" discovery of this cache I have decided to replace the tupperwear container with a small 35 mm film container. Given the small size of the cache, there is no log book.

 

The cache was placed in 2002 and according to the logs, became a micro in December of 2006.

 

Corrrect. This is kind of cute, actually. A 2002 old-schooler who replaced the cache (one of his 3 hides) with a micro after repeated mugglings. He has only 17 finds in those 8 years. This is a very casual Geocacher, who probably never talked about Geocaching with anyone else, ever. He's quite certainly never visited this or any other Geocaching forums. Yeah, yeah, I know, he checked the little box saying he read the guidelines. I hope the only one who contacts him is the OP, and they kindly point him to the proper section of the guidelines.

Link to comment

 

No question about that no reviewer would approve a logless cache.

 

This is also an example of lazy placement. From the pictures it is obvious that a much larger container could have been used.

 

If you really care that much throw a NA log with note that it violates GC Guidelines.

 

It appears that this cache did start out as a larger container but after being muggled a few times the owner turned it into a logless micro.

 

From the cache page:

Due to vandalism of the woods in this area; the trees, the slopes, the trails, and the repeated "accidental" discovery of this cache I have decided to replace the tupperwear container with a small 35 mm film container. Given the small size of the cache, there is no log book.

 

The cache was placed in 2002 and according to the logs, became a micro in December of 2006.

 

Corrrect. This is kind of cute, actually. A 2002 old-schooler who replaced the cache (one of his 3 hides) with a micro after repeated mugglings. He has only 17 finds in those 8 years. This is a very casual Geocacher, who probably never talked about Geocaching with anyone else, ever. He's quite certainly never visited this or any other Geocaching forums. Yeah, yeah, I know, he checked the little box saying he read the guidelines. I hope the only one who contacts him is the OP, and they kindly point him to the proper section of the guidelines.

In 2002 the guidelines did not require there be a log in the cache. I'm not sure when the change was made; it is possible it wasn't even in place in 2006.

Link to comment

Along the same lines, I found this one a bit disturbing. (No. I am not giving out he GC number...)

When you find the cache, please add your name to the log, please do not remove the tag. If the log container is lost or damaged from high water you can still get credit for the find by emailing the log owner the number embossed on the metal tag.

Recent finders have logged: "At the dry portion of the bank, I saw where the cache was supposed to be attached because there was a TB tag wired in place. But, no cache."

"I'm sending the owner the tag number for verification of the find."

Owner last checked on the cache over a year ago.

Link to comment

On 12-26-2006 the owner says "Due to vandalism in the woods around this area and on the trails and the continued "accidental" discovery of this cache I have decided to remove the tupperware container and contents. This is a virtual cache for now. "

 

This happens from time to time, possibly because cache owners don't realize that doing so is a mistake.

Link to comment

On 12-26-2006 the owner says "Due to vandalism in the woods around this area and on the trails and the continued "accidental" discovery of this cache I have decided to remove the tupperware container and contents. This is a virtual cache for now. "

 

This happens from time to time, possibly because cache owners don't realize that doing so is a mistake.

 

OK, I didn't read all the logs. He got away with the old "changing to a virtual trick" for over 3 years? I've seen this many a time. Even found one myself at Disney World in like 2004. :( I see he was corrected there this year, I imagine he'll be corrected again. I'll bet he has no idea there are probably a few hundred 35 mm film canisters with logs in them further South in Alberta. :blink:

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 2
×
×
  • Create New...