Logging "Find" and did not sign log

[+tozainamboku]

It is true that the one sentence that I quoted above did not change. But this sentence only makes sense in context.

 

When that sentence was originally added, Groundspeak was implemeting a decision to no longer allow additional logging requirements (ALRs) for logging finds on physical caches. Part of that decision was to make any existing ALRs void by telling cache owners that they could no longer delete find logs because of an ALR and telling cache finders that they could now log a find online once they had signed the physical log regardless of whether there were any ALRs stated. Groundspeak created a section in the guidelines called Logging of Physical Caches in order to describe this new policy. Because of this title, I questioned these guidelines at the time, feeling they would be interpreted as requiring a signature in the physical log. Several of Groundspeak lackeys and volunteers who had a hand in formulating this new section, posted to assure us that the only thing that was changing was the cache owners ability to delete logs because of ALRs that were not done. Cache owners were still asked to delete bogus logs and they could use the physical log as evidence in deciding if a log was bogus as before, but they could also choose to not use the physical log for this purpose, just as they had before. The unfortunate phrasing of the statement makes it easy for those who want to read more into it than it says. All I can say is "I do not think it means what you think it means."

[+M 5]

They added the sentence to the "logging requirements" that is a change. I also thought the wording was a little different, but I'm fuzzy on that, which is why I asked the question I did. Also, you say it doesn't mean what you think it means a lot, but they purposely move it to the new section after the alleged unfortunate wording with every opportunity to change it to say what you think it says, and didn't.

 

P.S. That is the shortest reply, other than emoticons, that I have ever seen you post. You must be breaking down. Get some rest and come back stronger than ever. I'm really disappointed. Even if I can usually never quite finish most of them.

Edited March 4, 2011 by M 5

[+mountainman38]

...The same for the cache being out of reach. If I can't reach it without special equipment and the description doesn't mention needing special equipment then I'll count it as a find if I'm 100% certain what I saw was the cache container.

 

The problem with logging a find just because you can see the cache, and no mention was made of needing special equipment, is when a cache is up a tree or on a cliff. The terrain rating may clue you in that you need special equipment, but then again, lots of trees can be climbed without special equipment.

 

There's a cache in Coeur d'Alene that's up a tree, and every so often a bunch of people will log it as a find just because they could see it. A bunch of notes get posted calling them out on it, then a reviewer will straighten the bogus logs out and delete the notes, and more time will pass before it happens again.

[+SubyJeff]

I found a cache last week that needed maintenance because the log was gone.

 

I found the container/object which should have had a log under it, but was deteriorated too badly and the log was not under it.

 

I logged it as a find since i DID find the geocache container, and also noted it as needing maintenance.

 

Had there been no container, i would have put it as a Didn't Find, however, finding the geocache container = FOUND

[+Student Camper]

After looking for 1/2 hour or more for what turned out to be a fake piece of gum, I realized that if I tried to remove it may not get replaced properly. I emailed the CO and logged the find. He was very appreciative for the email and the fact that I didn't accidentally destroy his cache.

 

As I said If the CO demands I sign the log I will attempt to replace log properly.

 

Correct, You sent the CO a message and gave him/her the option of accepting the explaination, or not.

I have no hides but if I did, I would want some assurance I was not dealing with an armchair logger, I think that's what it's all about.

If you didn't sign the log, you weren't there, unless you can show me otherwise.

[+jpamusher]

I think it all comes down to honesty. I have logged caches online where I haven`t been able to sign the physical log due to forgetting a pen. If I found the cache,then I found it and will claim it as a find. I would get no satisfaction of lying and claiming a find where I didn`t actually find the cache.

[+Rckhnd]

Wow, quite the discussion. Almost puts me off of wanting to create a hide.

I believe I would be more attentive to my caches, thus not being one of those who has hundreds of caches hidden.

I would stick more to the spirit of find it / log it / post it.

 

This whole thread has convinced me that any caches I create will be ammo cans or some other water proof container, and premium member only with no 'roadside access' for the cache-n-dashers, you will have to get out of your car and walk a bit, or be willing to go a few miles off pavement on dirt roads, serious cachers only please.

 

I may not get many logs, but at least it will be maintained and have less risk of being hit by bogus finders.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Rckhnd

[+PinkyBear2004]

If someone doesn't sign the log, but they find the cache it should be okay for them to log it as a find.

 

Even if occasionally someone logs something when they didn't really find it, it isn't the end of the world! I mean its not like you win a million bucks for having a certain number of finds or anything.

 

Chill out! B)

[+Michaelcycle]

If someone doesn't sign the log, but they find the cache it should be okay for them to log it as a find.

 

Even if occasionally someone logs something when they didn't really find it, it isn't the end of the world! I mean its not like you win a million bucks for having a certain number of finds or anything.

 

Chill out! B)

 

It has been five years, what do you think you are accomplishing with this post?

[+mountainman38]

If someone doesn't sign the log, but they find the cache it should be okay for them to log it as a find.

 

Even if occasionally someone logs something when they didn't really find it, it isn't the end of the world! I mean its not like you win a million bucks for having a certain number of finds or anything.

 

Chill out! B)

 

It has been five years, what do you think you are accomplishing with this post?

 

Helping.

[+TriciaG]

If someone doesn't sign the log, but they find the cache it should be okay for them to log it as a find.

 

Even if occasionally someone logs something when they didn't really find it, it isn't the end of the world! I mean its not like you win a million bucks for having a certain number of finds or anything.

 

Chill out! B)

If someone didn't sign the log, a CO doesn't know that they found the cache. It's OK for them to delete the find log.

 

Even if occasionally someone really did find it, it isn't the end of the world! I mean it's not like you win a million bucks for having a certain number of finds or anything.

 

Chill out! B)

Edited March 27, 2017 by TriciaG

[+cerberus1]

If someone doesn't sign the log, but they find the cache it should be okay for them to log it as a find.

 

Even if occasionally someone logs something when they didn't really find it, it isn't the end of the world! I mean its not like you win a million bucks for having a certain number of finds or anything.

 

Chill out! B)

I believe that some may agree with you, we have heard others with similar views.

Though the basic guidelines say it's not so.

 

Kinda sad that folks will fake-find logs, even when there's nothing to win.

I think most would agree that all heck'd break loose if there were.

[+WearyTraveler]

I carry a pen with me - so for logging purposes, I can usually sign a log. I also carry a baggie full of replacement logs and small baggies. My knife has tweezers.

 

If I lose or forget my pen, I take a picture to prove I actually had the cache in hand and didn't do a "drive by."

 

If you're a cacher with more than a few dozen finds, you know the tools of the trade...

 

If the CO went to the trouble to provide a challenge, then I should accomplish the challenge before claiming a find.

 

True - it's just a game / hobby. But cheating in any game is just plain wrong.

[+cleandrysurface]

If someone doesn't sign the log, but they find the cache it should be okay for them to log it as a find.

 

Even if occasionally someone logs something when they didn't really find it, it isn't the end of the world! I mean its not like you win a million bucks for having a certain number of finds or anything.

 

Chill out! B)

 

It has been five years, what do you think you are accomplishing with this post?

 

Helping.

 

More like trolling.

[+Zor]

In my area, we've talked about this exact issue many times, even on our podcast. Others have said it, but here's my two cents. It's just my own opinion...

 

If you go back to when geocaching started, the log book wasn't just for signing your name. The original first few caches had logs in them so people could write about how they found it and tell a little story about their adventure. This is something the owner could read and smile at. It was also a way that the owner would know that user X actually found the container. This is what I read and learned about when I first started caching (2007).

 

I wasn't around in those days but I would guess that the owners back then may have occasionally read their log book to read the stories. But now a days, the log books are literally just a piece of paper for your name. There's no real incentive, or need, for a cache owner to look at the log. Most cache owners (not all, but definitely most of the ones I know personally) never check their logs and compare them to the online ones. Why? Because for most of the owners, it's not the end of the world if someone doesn't sign the log on a cache in a lamp post or guard rail. In 10 years of geocaching, I have only checked a couple of caches and compared the written logs to the online logs. In fact, a lot of the events we have in our province have no log book at all.

 

The "rule" may say that you can't log online without signing the physical log, but it's on the owner as to whether or not that needs to be enforced.

 

For me, I see the "rule" as a way for Groundspeak to have something to fall back on when there's an issue between an owner and a finder. If an owner deletes a log because they checked the physical log and saw that the finder didn't actually sign the log, and then the finder disputes it with Groundspeak, Groundspeak can say "We can't restore your log because our guidelines say you have to sign the physical log to log it online.". If they didn't have that rule, then anyone could log any cache and a cache owner would have nothing to back up their reason for deleting a log.

 

There are always going to be people who will stick hard and fast to the exact word written. But even the actual law around us is not that black and white. How many times do judges interpret the true meaning or intention behind a law to address a specific case? It's never black and white, no matter what anyone says.

 

So for me, I take that rule as something that was written as a way of protecting the owners, and finders, for when the situation becomes cloudy. Again, just my opinion.

 

There's also the fact that the entire point of geocaching is to go out and "find" a container. That's the actual point of this activity. We FIND things. If I find the physical container, to me, that IS a find. I did find the container by navigating to the location given to me.

 

But again, even that for me personally sometimes is not enough. There have been times where I have found the container, or seen the container (which is technically finding it) and I did not log it because I knew the point of the cache was for me to do something else to find it. Underwater caches or caches that require me to climb are prime examples. I would not feel comfortable signing those knowing the owner went through great lengths to place them there with the intention of them being found a certain way. Not everyone works like that but for me, I have my own thresholds of what I think makes sense.

 

Just my own take on the whole logging thing...

[+J Grouchy]

In my area, we've talked about this exact issue many times, even on our podcast. Others have said it, but here's my two cents. It's just my own opinion...

 

If you go back to when geocaching started, the log book wasn't just for signing your name. The original first few caches had logs in them so people could write about how they found it and tell a little story about their adventure. This is something the owner could read and smile at. It was also a way that the owner would know that user X actually found the container. This is what I read and learned about when I first started caching (2007).

 

I wasn't around in those days but I would guess that the owners back then may have occasionally read their log book to read the stories. But now a days, the log books are literally just a piece of paper for your name. There's no real incentive, or need, for a cache owner to look at the log. Most cache owners (not all, but definitely most of the ones I know personally) never check their logs and compare them to the online ones. Why? Because for most of the owners, it's not the end of the world if someone doesn't sign the log on a cache in a lamp post or guard rail. In 10 years of geocaching, I have only checked a couple of caches and compared the written logs to the online logs. In fact, a lot of the events we have in our province have no log book at all.

 

The "rule" may say that you can't log online without signing the physical log, but it's on the owner as to whether or not that needs to be enforced.

 

For me, I see the "rule" as a way for Groundspeak to have something to fall back on when there's an issue between an owner and a finder. If an owner deletes a log because they checked the physical log and saw that the finder didn't actually sign the log, and then the finder disputes it with Groundspeak, Groundspeak can say "We can't restore your log because our guidelines say you have to sign the physical log to log it online.". If they didn't have that rule, then anyone could log any cache and a cache owner would have nothing to back up their reason for deleting a log.

 

There are always going to be people who will stick hard and fast to the exact word written. But even the actual law around us is not that black and white. How many times do judges interpret the true meaning or intention behind a law to address a specific case? It's never black and white, no matter what anyone says.

 

So for me, I take that rule as something that was written as a way of protecting the owners, and finders, for when the situation becomes cloudy. Again, just my opinion.

 

There's also the fact that the entire point of geocaching is to go out and "find" a container. That's the actual point of this activity. We FIND things. If I find the physical container, to me, that IS a find. I did find the container by navigating to the location given to me.

 

But again, even that for me personally sometimes is not enough. There have been times where I have found the container, or seen the container (which is technically finding it) and I did not log it because I knew the point of the cache was for me to do something else to find it. Underwater caches or caches that require me to climb are prime examples. I would not feel comfortable signing those knowing the owner went through great lengths to place them there with the intention of them being found a certain way. Not everyone works like that but for me, I have my own thresholds of what I think makes sense.

 

Just my own take on the whole logging thing...

 

All true and well-stated...but folks who consciously choose not to sign and still log the find cannot therefore complain when one of those COs DOES indeed check the log sheet for signatures. They know the 'rules'...

[+dprovan]

For me, I see the "rule" as a way for Groundspeak to have something to fall back on when there's an issue between an owner and a finder.

Well, I suppose that's not inaccurate, but a better way to look at it is that when geocachers act like children and can't reach an agreement, Groundspeak has to be the adult and resolve the dispute. The more black and white the rules, the more likely feuding geocachers will be able to anticipate what will happen when GS steps in, so they'll be more likely to back off if GS will rule against them in the end. Furthermore, GS's authority is undermined if their rulings seem arbitrary.

 

But none of that comes into play as long as people cooperate.

[+hal-an-tow]

For me, I see the "rule" as a way for Groundspeak to have something to fall back on when there's an issue between an owner and a finder.

Well, I suppose that's not inaccurate, but a better way to look at it is that when geocachers act like children and can't reach an agreement, Groundspeak has to be the adult and resolve the dispute. The more black and white the rules, the more likely feuding geocachers will be able to anticipate what will happen when GS steps in, so they'll be more likely to back off if GS will rule against them in the end. Furthermore, GS's authority is undermined if their rulings seem arbitrary.

 

But none of that comes into play as long as people cooperate.

 

A good analogy, I'll suggest another:

Groundspeak are like the referee/umpire ruling on a scoring / not scoring dispute in some team sport. Altho' I have no interest in it, I'll employ soccer to extend my analogy,( because I'm English therefore have acquired a passing understanding purely by being alive ) and say signing the log is like the ball being in the back of the net - it proves to everyone that it really did go over the goal line between the posts and under the cross bar.

 

If the point of the game is 'ball over the line and within the posts' , then the sight of the ball in the back of the net proves the goal (sorry , hard to avoid a pun there ) has been achieved, to the players, all spectators, and the referee

 

If the point of the game is 'find the cache' , then the sight of a signature on the log proves the cache find has been achieved, to the C.O., all following cachers, and Groundspeak.

 

It's a simple, clear and easy requirement to make of a finder.

[+dprovan]

A good analogy, I'll suggest another:

Groundspeak are like the referee/umpire ruling on a scoring / not scoring dispute in some team sport. Altho' I have no interest in it, I'll employ soccer to extend my analogy,( because I'm English therefore have acquired a passing understanding purely by being alive ) and say signing the log is like the ball being in the back of the net - it proves to everyone that it really did go over the goal line between the posts and under the cross bar.

I have to admit, I don't care for that analogy. In soccer, the only point is to put the ball in the goal. In geocaching, we can all have fun doing all kinds of different things, and it's only when someone becomes a sticker that it matters whether the ball went into the goal. I guess my problem with the soccer analogy is that one side scores and wins, while the other side is scored upon and loses. In geocaching, the best result is when both sides win, and it's just unfortunate when one of the two sides involved insists on winning at the expense of a loser.

[+hal-an-tow]

A good analogy, I'll suggest another:

Groundspeak are like the referee/umpire ruling on a scoring / not scoring dispute in some team sport. Altho' I have no interest in it, I'll employ soccer to extend my analogy,( because I'm English therefore have acquired a passing understanding purely by being alive ) and say signing the log is like the ball being in the back of the net - it proves to everyone that it really did go over the goal line between the posts and under the cross bar.

I have to admit, I don't care for that analogy. In soccer, the only point is to put the ball in the goal. In geocaching, we can all have fun doing all kinds of different things, and it's only when someone becomes a sticker that it matters whether the ball went into the goal. I guess my problem with the soccer analogy is that one side scores and wins, while the other side is scored upon and loses. In geocaching, the best result is when both sides win, and it's just unfortunate when one of the two sides involved insists on winning at the expense of a loser.

 

Fair enough, mind you I had no intention of having the soccer analogy stretch any further than making the point about clear evidence to all interested parties that a goal had been reached.

 

I don't see caching as a competition or a sport either, and like to think of the relationship between cache hiders and their finders as a playful co-operative process: I want to set caches people like finding, and find caches I wish I'd set.

[+L0ne.R]

1492802384[/url]' post='5649169']

In my area, we've talked about this exact issue many times, even on our podcast. Others have said it, but here's my two cents. It's just my own opinion...

 

If you go back to when geocaching started, the log book wasn't just for signing your name. The original first few caches had logs in them so people could write about how they found it and tell a little story about their adventure. This is something the owner could read and smile at. It was also a way that the owner would know that user X actually found the container. This is what I read and learned about when I first started caching (2007).

 

I wasn't around in those days but I would guess that the owners back then may have occasionally read their log book to read the stories. But now a days, the log books are literally just a piece of paper for your name. There's no real incentive, or need, for a cache owner to look at the log. Most cache owners (not all, but definitely most of the ones I know personally) never check their logs and compare them to the online ones. Why? Because for most of the owners, it's not the end of the world if someone doesn't sign the log on a cache in a lamp post or guard rail. In 10 years of geocaching, I have only checked a couple of caches and compared the written logs to the online logs. In fact, a lot of the events we have in our province have no log book at all.

 

The "rule" may say that you can't log online without signing the physical log, but it's on the owner as to whether or not that needs to be enforced.

 

For me, I see the "rule" as a way for Groundspeak to have something to fall back on when there's an issue between an owner and a finder. If an owner deletes a log because they checked the physical log and saw that the finder didn't actually sign the log, and then the finder disputes it with Groundspeak, Groundspeak can say "We can't restore your log because our guidelines say you have to sign the physical log to log it online.". If they didn't have that rule, then anyone could log any cache and a cache owner would have nothing to back up their reason for deleting a log.

 

There are always going to be people who will stick hard and fast to the exact word written. But even the actual law around us is not that black and white. How many times do judges interpret the true meaning or intention behind a law to address a specific case? It's never black and white, no matter what anyone says.

 

So for me, I take that rule as something that was written as a way of protecting the owners, and finders, for when the situation becomes cloudy. Again, just my opinion.

 

There's also the fact that the entire point of geocaching is to go out and "find" a container. That's the actual point of this activity. We FIND things. If I find the physical container, to me, that IS a find. I did find the container by navigating to the location given to me.

 

But again, even that for me personally sometimes is not enough. There have been times where I have found the container, or seen the container (which is technically finding it) and I did not log it because I knew the point of the cache was for me to do something else to find it. Underwater caches or caches that require me to climb are prime examples. I would not feel comfortable signing those knowing the owner went through great lengths to place them there with the intention of them being found a certain way. Not everyone works like that but for me, I have my own thresholds of what I think makes sense.

 

Just my own take on the whole logging thing...

 

Exactly.

Edited April 23, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+cerberus1]

In my area, we've talked about this exact issue many times, even on our podcast. Others have said it, but here's my two cents. It's just my own opinion...

 

If you go back to when geocaching started, the log book wasn't just for signing your name. The original first few caches had logs in them so people could write about how they found it and tell a little story about their adventure. This is something the owner could read and smile at. It was also a way that the owner would know that user X actually found the container. This is what I read and learned about when I first started caching (2007).

 

I wasn't around in those days but I would guess that the owners back then may have occasionally read their log book to read the stories. But now a days, the log books are literally just a piece of paper for your name. There's no real incentive, or need, for a cache owner to look at the log. Most cache owners (not all, but definitely most of the ones I know personally) never check their logs and compare them to the online ones. Why? Because for most of the owners, it's not the end of the world if someone doesn't sign the log on a cache in a lamp post or guard rail. In 10 years of geocaching, I have only checked a couple of caches and compared the written logs to the online logs. In fact, a lot of the events we have in our province have no log book at all.

 

The "rule" may say that you can't log online without signing the physical log, but it's on the owner as to whether or not that needs to be enforced.

 

For me, I see the "rule" as a way for Groundspeak to have something to fall back on when there's an issue between an owner and a finder. If an owner deletes a log because they checked the physical log and saw that the finder didn't actually sign the log, and then the finder disputes it with Groundspeak, Groundspeak can say "We can't restore your log because our guidelines say you have to sign the physical log to log it online.". If they didn't have that rule, then anyone could log any cache and a cache owner would have nothing to back up their reason for deleting a log.

 

There are always going to be people who will stick hard and fast to the exact word written. But even the actual law around us is not that black and white. How many times do judges interpret the true meaning or intention behind a law to address a specific case? It's never black and white, no matter what anyone says.

 

So for me, I take that rule as something that was written as a way of protecting the owners, and finders, for when the situation becomes cloudy. Again, just my opinion.

 

There's also the fact that the entire point of geocaching is to go out and "find" a container. That's the actual point of this activity. We FIND things. If I find the physical container, to me, that IS a find. I did find the container by navigating to the location given to me.

 

But again, even that for me personally sometimes is not enough. There have been times where I have found the container, or seen the container (which is technically finding it) and I did not log it because I knew the point of the cache was for me to do something else to find it. Underwater caches or caches that require me to climb are prime examples. I would not feel comfortable signing those knowing the owner went through great lengths to place them there with the intention of them being found a certain way. Not everyone works like that but for me, I have my own thresholds of what I think makes sense.

 

Just my own take on the whole logging thing...

I wouldn't say the "original first few", when we were still finding caches with full-sized logbooks well into '09.

Our remaining caches (other than one micro) still have ledgers or notebooks inside 'em.

We still get an ocassional lengthy cache log, but it was around '07 or so we started noticing that even though there's an actual logbook, people were only logging their name/date inside.

 

I understand your point, but since we don't place caches at lamp posts or guardrails, we check our logs.

Hopefully that person who doesn't feel they have to abide by the most basic of rules realizes that when I delete his find, it's not the end of the world.

 

You're correct, the "point" of this hobby is to find things.

But the hobby isn't only about you, the hobby includes the cache Owner, who'd have no clue you found anything without your signature...

 

Good for you.

We allow folks working as a Team to log our tree rope climb, whether they were spotter, photographer, or simply maintaining gear.

Most who do those kinda caches (we're one) realize that their help is sometimes necessary to accomplish the task safely.

Odd though that our two "5" terrain hides are the most faked...

[+dprovan]

Fair enough, mind you I had no intention of having the soccer analogy stretch any further than making the point about clear evidence to all interested parties that a goal had been reached.

 

I don't see caching as a competition or a sport either, and like to think of the relationship between cache hiders and their finders as a playful co-operative process: I want to set caches people like finding, and find caches I wish I'd set.

That's the danger of analogy. I knew you didn't intend to make that point, but your analogy made it, anyway, without your blessings.

 

Golf might be the better sports analogy. My golf buddies and I aren't really interested in exactly who gets what score because we don't bet on the game or anything, so we don't sweat mulligans and we don't always count the penalty stroke when we launch a ball into the lake. Yet we all know the rules and can follow them if we somehow end up in a foursome with someone that thinks they're important, and we know how an official will rule if we're playing in a tournament.

[+SeattleWayne]

What's a logbook?