No Stickers, Labels, or Stamps allowed.

July 28, 2010

There is a new cache in my part of town that reads.

Individual signatures must be on cache paper in order to claim find. No Stickers, Labels, or Stamps allowed. Logs that are cut and paste will be deleted.

I know for sure the last part is an ALR. How about the first ?

stickers/stamps don't have much of a place outside of a PnG power trail. is it really too much to ask a cacher to carry a pen?

or... maybe we should just join the sticker/stamp club and pass out a few rolls at the next event and ask everyone to place one of our stickers when they find a cache...they'll be part of our "team" and we can all just amass 1,000 caches a day. :yikes:

19k · July 28, 2010

I speak perfectly good English, thank you. My mother always told me that I could have my dessert once I finished my supper. She did not feel the need to include the word "only" in that sentence. I knew what she meant.

While I agree with you and I'm 99% sure that it is the way TPTB intended it to be, I also get that Toz is saying that your mother would also reserve the right to allow to eat dessert if you finished all your veggies and meat and maybe had a half of a roll left on your plate.

Basically it means that while finishing your supper guarantees that you get dessert, your mother could still choose to allow you have dessert if she felt you met her requirement for eating supper.

If that indeed is what Toz meant, then I'd have to agree. I am by no means intolerant regarding the signing of the logs on my own caches... in fact, I don't check the logs, and I have never deleted anyone's log that wrote, in their online log, that they couldn't sign because they forgot their pen, etc. etc.

20.7k · July 28, 2010

Yes it does, Toz. It says that you can't log online until the physical log has been signed. The keyword is the word "Once". The online log can only be signed, "once" the physical log has been signed. I think that is pretty clear.

(On the other hand, I am not a fundamentalist. If you* want to cheat, go for it. Everyone else in your caching neighborhood will soon pick up on it and be making jokes about you, but do what you need to do.)

* "you" in the generic sense. Certainly not aimed at Toz or any other particular individual.

I don't know what English you speak. If it said "only once the physical log has been signed..." then you could read it your way. Without the word only there could be other cases where a find can be logged online. At best once means that if you do sign the physical log you don't have meet any other requirements to log a find. See necessary and sufficient conditiions.

I speak perfectly good English, thank you. My mother always told me that I could have my dessert once I finished my supper. She did not feel the need to include the word "only" in that sentence. I knew what she meant.

TPTB disagree with you.

20.7k · July 28, 2010

stickers/stamps don't have much of a place outside of a PnG power trail. is it really too much to ask a cacher to carry a pen?

Why would it be bad to use a sticker on your run of the mill ammo box hide. The cache owner wouldn't have to try to decipher my scribble, thereby making his log check easier.

or... maybe we should just join the sticker/stamp club and pass out a few rolls at the next event and ask everyone to place one of our stickers when they find a cache...they'll be part of our "team" and we can all just amass 1,000 caches a day.

Just because people use stickers or stamps doesn't mean that they aren't finding the caches. Just because they log in a different manner than you do doesn't make them a cheater.

4.2k · July 28, 2010

stickers/stamps don't have much of a place outside of a PnG power trail. is it really too much to ask a cacher to carry a pen?
Why would it be bad to use a sticker on your run of the mill ammo box hide. The cache owner wouldn't have to try to decipher my scribble, thereby making his log check easier.

...assuming the adhesive hasn't failed and your label turned to mush at the bottom of the ammo can, making it harder to decipher or even notice.

I've seen mushy logs that were literally dripping wet that were still somewhat legible. I've also seen really nice, Geocaching.com branded log books made with waterproof paper... and labels that fell out when I opened the book.

6.1k · July 28, 2010

Geesh. This kind of hair-splitting is why the guidelines are so long. Does everything have to be defined? Can't people use their best judgment?

Whoa! Logbooks have to be signed?

I just discovered that I have been in violation of the guidelines, by printing my name in the logbook. Now I have to return to all the caches and sign them, or send out over 1000 e-mails to cache owners asking for forgiveness, or live under the radar as a rougue geocacher knowing that all my finds are not certified because I printed my name...

Edited July 28, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

7k · July 28, 2010

I just discovered that I have been in violation of the guidelines, by printing my name in the logbook. Now I have to return to all the caches and sign them, or send out over 1000 e-mails to cache owners asking for forgiveness, or live under the radar as a rougue geocacher knowing that all my finds are not certified because I printed my name...

i will start emailing the COs of all your found caches right away and demand that they delete all your logs.

i think i will stop putting my name on the logs from now on and instead just touch the log and put it back, as this leaves my fingerprints on the logs. how's that for a signature?!

2.3k · July 28, 2010

i think i will stop putting my name on the logs from now on and instead just touch the log and put it back, as this leaves my fingerprints on the logs. how's that for a signature?!

I think I will just continue to write notes as to avoid all this abject silliness.

2.3k · July 28, 2010

I speak perfectly good English, thank you. My mother always told me that I could have my dessert once I finished my supper. She did not feel the need to include the word "only" in that sentence. I knew what she meant.
TPTB disagree with you.

You have them on record disagreeing or are you just saying that the way you interpret the guidelines it is your opinion that TPTB disagree?

7k · July 28, 2010

I think I will just continue to write notes as to avoid all this abject silliness.

what if someone deletes your note because it should have been logged as a find?

2.3k · July 28, 2010

I think I will just continue to write notes as to avoid all this abject silliness.

what if someone deletes your note because it should have been logged as a find?

Arrrggggg!!!! That be what the plank is for!!!

July 28, 2010

Well, unless you run a DNA test on every log to check for the absence of my DNA that I used to sign it then I'm going to claim that I found every cache in existence...

OK perhaps that's going too far.

My feeling is that the spirit of the guidelines is that you must leave a physical indication on every log that you have been there. It should be visible and not require any special training or knowledge to know it was you.

However, if you don't have a writing instrument then feel free to log your find online with a note and leave it to the cache owner's discretion. I've done that once...

I would be interested in knowing whether an alternative logging requirement is acceptable, that seems reasonable enough to me. However there is the guideline that a GPS must be used (or at least usable) in the search. So I suspect that an alternative logging requirement should have a GPS involved somehow. Either climb this tree, find the cache and sign the log, or take a photo of yourself holding a GPS and wearing a hat (in your living room).

Z.

July 28, 2010

There is a new cache in my part of town that reads.

Individual signatures must be on cache paper in order to claim find. No Stickers, Labels, or Stamps allowed. Logs that are cut and paste will be deleted.

I know for sure the last part is an ALR. How about the first ?

Has anyone picked up on the term "cache paper", as opposed to logbook?

What is "cache paper", exactly? Does the CO have a special brand of paper we don't know about?

Or the fact that the terms "Stickers, Labels and Stamps" are in capital letters?

Putting them in caps renders them proper nouns, such as locations or people. Maybe those are three local cachers that the CO really doesn't like.

Just my two bits (and worth all that).

1.2k · July 28, 2010

it also can be taken as if you don't want to sign the log and still get credit for the find...go ahead and post a picture of you in hat found in the cache...

Hey dragoon of cheesy lineage, he didn't say the hat was in the cache.

lol

I was rollin' with the Hat in the Cache theme going down in the thread...

(by the way...yes, I know..."Hat in the Cache"...bad pun...)

19k · July 28, 2010

Yes it does, Toz. It says that you can't log online until the physical log has been signed. The keyword is the word "Once". The online log can only be signed, "once" the physical log has been signed. I think that is pretty clear.

(On the other hand, I am not a fundamentalist. If you* want to cheat, go for it. Everyone else in your caching neighborhood will soon pick up on it and be making jokes about you, but do what you need to do.)

* "you" in the generic sense. Certainly not aimed at Toz or any other particular individual.

I don't know what English you speak. If it said "only once the physical log has been signed..." then you could read it your way. Without the word only there could be other cases where a find can be logged online. At best once means that if you do sign the physical log you don't have meet any other requirements to log a find. See necessary and sufficient conditiions.

I speak perfectly good English, thank you. My mother always told me that I could have my dessert once I finished my supper. She did not feel the need to include the word "only" in that sentence. I knew what she meant.

TPTB disagree with you.

Are you daring to argue with my mother?

20.7k · July 28, 2010

I speak perfectly good English, thank you. My mother always told me that I could have my dessert once I finished my supper. She did not feel the need to include the word "only" in that sentence. I knew what she meant.
TPTB disagree with you.

You have them on record disagreeing or are you just saying that the way you interpret the guidelines it is your opinion that TPTB disagree?

Yes. Check the ALR threads.

Edited July 28, 2010 by sbell111

2.3k · July 28, 2010

Yes. Check the ALR threads.

I read 99% of the threads in the Geocaching Topics section. I don't recall TPTB saying anything that would be in disagreement with what the dog said.

But you purport to have them on record so I would appreciate a link or quote, please.

July 28, 2010

There is a new cache in my part of town that reads.

Individual signatures must be on cache paper in order to claim find. No Stickers, Labels, or Stamps allowed. Logs that are cut and paste will be deleted.

I know for sure the last part is an ALR. How about the first ?

stickers/stamps don't have much of a place outside of a PnG power trail. is it really too much to ask a cacher to carry a pen?

or... maybe we should just join the sticker/stamp club and pass out a few rolls at the next event and ask everyone to place one of our stickers when they find a cache...they'll be part of our "team" and we can all just amass 1,000 caches a day.

Out of curiosity, would you find it different if someone were to use a hand carved, letterboxing style stamp as opposed to a stamp they had commercially made? I've made Narcissa and I (and a couple of other people) stamps, and I can hardly see how they in any way violate the spirit of logging.

Not allowing hand carved stamps just opens the whole 'does a log have to be signed in your own handwriting?' can of worms right back up

7.4k · July 28, 2010

stickers/stamps don't have much of a place outside of a PnG power trail. is it really too much to ask a cacher to carry a pen?

or... maybe we should just join the sticker/stamp club and pass out a few rolls at the next event and ask everyone to place one of our stickers when they find a cache...they'll be part of our "team" and we can all just amass 1,000 caches a day.

Why do you attribute ulterior motives to anyone who uses a stamp or a sticker? The vast majority of cachers who use these instead of a pen are doing it honestly. I really enjoy seeing unique stamps and stickers in log books - until reading this ridiculous thread it hadn't even occurred to me to attach a sinister motive to it.

There are cachers who operate as large teams and put all of their finds under a single account. While I don't see the appeal in this, it doesn't affect me in any way and I don't see the point in getting upset about it.

2.2k · July 28, 2010

stickers/stamps don't have much of a place outside of a PnG power trail. is it really too much to ask a cacher to carry a pen?

or... maybe we should just join the sticker/stamp club and pass out a few rolls at the next event and ask everyone to place one of our stickers when they find a cache...they'll be part of our "team" and we can all just amass 1,000 caches a day.

Why do you attribute ulterior motives to anyone who uses a stamp or a sticker? The vast majority of cachers who use these instead of a pen are doing it honestly. I really enjoy seeing unique stamps and stickers in log books - until reading this ridiculous thread it hadn't even occurred to me to attach a sinister motive to it.

There are cachers who operate as large teams and put all of their finds under a single account. While I don't see the appeal in this, it doesn't affect me in any way and I don't see the point in getting upset about it.

I agree... someone could coerce other cachers into signing their name just as easily as they could coerce them into stamping or stickering for them... unless the CO is into handwriting analysis there's really no way to tell.

I don't understand why this is really such a big deal!!??

20.7k · July 28, 2010

Yes. Check the ALR threads.

I read 99% of the threads in the Geocaching Topics section. I don't recall TPTB saying anything that would be in disagreement with what the dog said.

But you purport to have them on record so I would appreciate a link or quote, please.

Do you seriously not remember this thread?

2.3k · July 28, 2010

Yes. Check the ALR threads.

I read 99% of the threads in the Geocaching Topics section. I don't recall TPTB saying anything that would be in disagreement with what the dog said.

But you purport to have them on record so I would appreciate a link or quote, please.

Do you seriously not remember this thread?

I remember that thread. And I don't remember anything in it that shows TPTB disagree with what Knowschad said.

It's 24 pages long. You apparently have a post in mind. Please direct me to it.

20.7k · July 28, 2010

Yes. Check the ALR threads.

I read 99% of the threads in the Geocaching Topics section. I don't recall TPTB saying anything that would be in disagreement with what the dog said.

But you purport to have them on record so I would appreciate a link or quote, please.

Do you seriously not remember this thread?

I remember that thread. And I don't remember anything in it that shows TPTB disagree with what Knowschad said.

It's 24 pages long. You apparently have a post in mind. Please direct me to it.

Well, there's this one and this one. A wise poster agreed with this read of the guidelines here.

2.3k · July 28, 2010

Well, there's this one and this one. A wise poster agreed with this read of the guidelines here.

I still don't see where TPTB disagree with the dog.

While I understand what the actual language says, I am still 99% sure that it was the intention of TPTB that everyone sign the logbooks in order to get their dessert (smiley).

And just to be clear, neither you nor I are TPTB, so what we say has no bearing on policy. But riviouveur did help craft the guideline change. And I think what she says pretty much sums things up:

Geocaches 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".

All this is saying is that the guideline change is not a change in policy. Signing the logbook has always been a part of geocaching. As such, the rules were amended so that there could be no other requirement beyond signing the logbook.

I also happen to agree that TOZ's interpretation is spot on. TPTB are crafty enough to leave a little wiggle room for occasions when things don't work out as intended.

And I think it has always been the intention of TPTB for the logbook to be signed. I don't recall TPTB ever saying otherwise.

2.3k · July 28, 2010

Ok, let's back the train up a bit. If this is the part you are saying TPTB disagree with:

It says that you can't log online until the physical log has been signed.

Then you are correct.

This is what I thought you were saying they disagreed with:

My mother always told me that I could have my dessert once I finished my supper. She did not feel the need to include the word "only" in that sentence. I knew what she meant.
TPTB disagree with you.

This statement falls well within what I believe to be TPTB's intentions.

20.7k · July 29, 2010

Ok, let's back the train up a bit. If this is the part you are saying TPTB disagree with:

It says that you can't log online until the physical log has been signed.

Then you are correct.

This is what I thought you were saying they disagreed with:

My mother always told me that I could have my dessert once I finished my supper. She did not feel the need to include the word "only" in that sentence. I knew what she meant.
TPTB disagree with you.

This statement falls well within what I believe to be TPTB's intentions.

It seems that if you disagreed with one, then you would disagree with the other.

If you disagree with the statement that "It says that you can't log online until the physical log has been signed.", then you must agree that there may be paths to smileys that don't include signing the log. In other words, the cache owner remains the arbiter of what a find is if the physical log has not been signed. This, of course, has always been Groundspeak's policy on the matter, as aluded to by riviouveur.

Edited July 29, 2010 by sbell111

2.3k · July 29, 2010

It seems that if you disagreed with one, then you would disagree with the other.

No. While TPTB may have left it open for situations in which the log cannot be signed, I think it is clear that their intention is for the logbook to be signed.

Their intention has always been that the logbook be signed. Anything else a cache owner may want a finder to do is extra. Thus, the entire ALR argument.

The way to answer this would be to get Jeremy to pine in. Because we can debate what someone may or may not intend all day.

As long as I can remember, signing the logbook has been an integral part of geocaching. If it weren't, then logbooks would not be a requirement for all traditional caches.

Therefore, while I do agree with TOZ that the guidelines make allowance for online finds in cases where the logbook wasn't signed, that doesn't mean it is not the intention of the lilypad that cachers sign the logbook.

And I think the way it is worded is very close to Knowschad's example of what momma meant when she said once. I just don't agree that it is as strict as ONLY once would be.

In other words, when Momma said "you can have dessert once you eat your supper", I always knew that meant that once I ate most of my supper that Momma would give me ice cream. I knew "eat your supper" was not a strictly defined term, but I also realized it was a fairly well defined one.

As far as the CO being the arbiter of what constitutes a find, TPTB realize that there is absolutely no way for them to police cache finds. In fact, I'm not sure how they even manage to reinstate finds based on the logbook being signed. Unless the finder had the foresight to take a picture of the logbook, then TPTB are still using the honor system when enforcing this.

I also think TPTB opened themselves up for a lot of extra work when they started reinstating logs. This, more than anything else, may have been the catalyst for removing ALRs altogether.

8k · July 29, 2010

As long as I can remember, signing the logbook has been an integral part of geocaching. If it weren't, then logbooks would not be a requirement for all traditional caches.

A requirement for a log in all physical caches doesn't imply that Groundspeak intends for you to sign the log. They may simply have that requirement to satisfy the puritans who won't log a find unless they have signed something.

Early on, I found a cache where the log was missing. I don't know if it was muggled or had just fallen out when someone replaced the cache. I did what most cachers would do. Since I wasn't paperless yet, I tore off a strip from the print out I was carrying, signed it, and put in in the cache. Would a purtitan have claimed a find? There was no log to sign. It seems siging a strip of paper and putting it in the cache isn't signing the log. But I bet most of the people on the forum would have done what I did.

I believe the requirement was added to prevent some clever ways to sneak virtuals in as physical caches. If you started to allow code words and other methods for verification of a find, someone could start using the wording on a plaque or a photo as proof you found the cache. Find something with a preexisitng box or container of some kind and you don't even need to leave a cache. The container and logbook are a minimal set of things someone needs to hide to make a cache. This was not always the case. It was something that was added when virtuals were grandfathered to prevent people from pushing the limits as a way to get a virtual approved as a cache.

I agree that signing the log is normally part of finding a geocache. The issue I have is making the online find log dependent on this act. There are too many cases where a log cannot be signed for a perfectly good reason. There is no reason to not log a find online just because the log wasn't signed. There may be some special cases where a cache owner wants to check the physical log a proof that the finder did complete some physical or mental challenge to retrieve and/or open the cache.

I also think TPTB opened themselves up for a lot of extra work when they started reinstating logs. This, more than anything else, may have been the catalyst for removing ALRs altogether.

TPTB weren't in the reinstate log business until the ALR ban. Prior to this, a cache owner had nearly carte blanche to delete logs. Only in a few rare instances would Groundspeak reinstate logs. Now they have to respond everytime a cache owner appears to be enforcing some ALR. My guess is that usually they simply remind the cache owner that ALRs are no longer allowed and have the finder relog the find so I'm not convinced the extra work is all that much.

7.4k · July 29, 2010

A requirement for a log in all physical caches doesn't imply that Groundspeak intends for you to sign the log.

This is astonishingly ridiculous. Move beyond the semantic pedantry, for a moment please, and take a look at reality.

The guidelines require that all physical geocaches contain a log, and one of the ONLY instructions given to new geocachers is "Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location." Groundspeak certainly intends for geocachers to sign the log.

And again, for those in the back, the "Cache Listing Requirements and Guidelines" provide guidelines for cache owners, not cache seekers. The amount of instruction given to cache seekers is very minimal, but it explicitly includes signing the log.

Edited July 29, 2010 by narcissa

2.3k · July 29, 2010

A requirement for a log in all physical caches doesn't imply that Groundspeak intends for you to sign the log. They may simply have that requirement to satisfy the puritans who won't log a find unless they have signed something.

And this brings us back around full circle.

The only way we will know for certain whether TPTB agree or disagree is if someone heads up to Seattle, hogties Jeremy, drags him into the forums and we beat the snot out of him until he gives us the answers we demand.

Until then, we are left to our opinions on what TPTB intended with the guidelines.

4.2k · July 29, 2010

I think from now on I'm going to starting signing the log. That's how I'm now interpreting the guidelines. I'll just walk up to that cache and...

19k · July 29, 2010

I feel the need to mention here that while my mother was concerned about nutrition and the well-being of her children, she was not a dessert nazi. There were times that she let us off the hook and let us have our dessert despite not being able to tolerate her sometimes overcooked beef liver or occasional recipe disaster.

6.1k · July 29, 2010

A requirement for a log in all physical caches doesn't imply that Groundspeak intends for you to sign the log. They may simply have that requirement to satisfy the puritans who won't log a find unless they have signed something.

And this brings us back around full circle.

The only way we will know for certain whether TPTB agree or disagree is if someone heads up to Seattle, hogties Jeremy, drags him into the forums and we beat the snot out of him until he gives us the answers we demand.

Until then, we are left to our opinions on what TPTB intended with the guidelines.

It's not important what TPTB intended.

It is in the guidelines because most of the cachers want their logs signed.

20.7k · July 29, 2010

Until then, we are left to our opinions on what TPTB intended with the guidelines.

I don't know how you can say that since when the new guideline came out TPTB stated specifically why the change was made and why it says what it says (and doesn't say).

20.7k · July 29, 2010

A requirement for a log in all physical caches doesn't imply that Groundspeak intends for you to sign the log. They may simply have that requirement to satisfy the puritans who won't log a find unless they have signed something.

And this brings us back around full circle.

The only way we will know for certain whether TPTB agree or disagree is if someone heads up to Seattle, hogties Jeremy, drags him into the forums and we beat the snot out of him until he gives us the answers we demand.

Until then, we are left to our opinions on what TPTB intended with the guidelines.

It's not important what TPTB intended.

It is in the guidelines because most of the cachers want their logs signed.

What theyare saying is in the guidelines, isn't. What is in the guidelines is that online logs can be made if the physical log has been signed. This was added to make it clear that no additional logging requirements made by cache owners beyond the signing of the logbook are valid and enforceable. Whether a cache can be logged online if the logbook couldn't be signed remains the decision of the cache owner, as it always has been.

4.2k · July 29, 2010

I think it was TPTB intention that we all go out and cache a little and not get so overwrought over what the guidelines say and don't say.

EDIT: Just adding that I wasn't addressing sbell111 directly. My post just happened to come after his.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Castle Mischief

July 29, 2010

C'mon folks this is a game we are playing. We aint taking out a mortgage on a house. So sign it,stamp it,stick it,it dont matter. Geez

7.7k · July 29, 2010

I think from now on I'm going to starting signing the log. That's how I'm now interpreting the guidelines. I'll just walk up to that cache and...

Might be fun to do that for a webcam cache, esp. if you have 2 other people with you.

2.3k · July 29, 2010

Until then, we are left to our opinions on what TPTB intended with the guidelines.
I don't know how you can say that since when the new guideline came out TPTB stated specifically why the change was made and why it says what it says (and doesn't say).

Ok, you win. TPTB do not intend for people to sign the logbooks.

19k · July 29, 2010

Until then, we are left to our opinions on what TPTB intended with the guidelines.
I don't know how you can say that since when the new guideline came out TPTB stated specifically why the change was made and why it says what it says (and doesn't say).

Ok, you win. TPTB do not intend for people to sign the logbooks.

Sit back down and finish your carrots!

2.3k · July 29, 2010

Until then, we are left to our opinions on what TPTB intended with the guidelines.
I don't know how you can say that since when the new guideline came out TPTB stated specifically why the change was made and why it says what it says (and doesn't say).

Ok, you win. TPTB do not intend for people to sign the logbooks.

Sit back down and finish your carrots!

Yes sir!

July 30, 2010

Not to stir the pot but is does say

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

So after the FTF signs the log we can all log it as found online

Correct ???!!!?? :laughing:

7k · July 30, 2010

Not to stir the pot but is does say
"Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

So after the FTF signs the log we can all log it as found online

Correct ???!!!??

correct, but how do you know that the FTF actually did sign the logbook, without checking it yourself? :shocked: :angry: :angry: :angry:

July 30, 2010

Umm.. I just got back from finding a cache that was not only signed by someone but they left their sticker too! That's what brought me looking for a "where can I get those little stickers?!" thread but came across this one first.

So uh.. where can I get those lil stickers made up? :laughing:

19k · July 30, 2010

Umm.. I just got back from finding a cache that was not only signed by someone but they left their sticker too! That's what brought me looking for a "where can I get those little stickers?!" thread but came across this one first.

So uh.. where can I get those lil stickers made up?

I'd suggest you try http://www.gotohelenwaite.com. Might take a while, but you can't beat the prices. :shocked:

Edited July 30, 2010 by knowschad

July 30, 2010

I'd suggest you try http://www.gotohelenwaite.com. Might take a while, but you can't beat the prices.

Well now you have me more than convinced to get purdy stickers with sparkles all over them *tilts head to side while talking* Like oh my god! That would be so awesome!! :laughing:

2.3k · July 30, 2010

7.7k · July 30, 2010

Well now you have me more than convinced to get purdy stickers with sparkles all over them *tilts head to side while talking* Like oh my god! That would be so awesome!!

Remember to visit Minnesota and leave them on the logbook of these caches.

For non glitter you can print your own with Avery ID labels. No experience with custom printed ones - Google turned up a bunch of printers.

19k · July 30, 2010

Well now you have me more than convinced to get purdy stickers with sparkles all over them *tilts head to side while talking* Like oh my god! That would be so awesome!!

Remember to visit Minnesota and leave them on the logbook of these caches.

For non glitter you can print your own with Avery ID labels. No experience with custom printed ones - Google turned up a bunch of printers.

At least they'd have to have more than three of them printed up. :angry:

5.7k · July 30, 2010

Well now you have me more than convinced to get purdy stickers with sparkles all over them *tilts head to side while talking* Like oh my god! That would be so awesome!!

Remember to visit Minnesota and leave them on the logbook of these caches.

For non glitter you can print your own with Avery ID labels. No experience with custom printed ones - Google turned up a bunch of printers.

At least they'd have to have more than three of them printed up.

At least they'd have to have more than three of them printed.

No Stickers, Labels, or Stamps allowed.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment