Jump to content

Signing the log


yellowdogs

Recommended Posts

I agree with this: TO CLAIM A SMILEY YOU MUST SIGN THE LOG. And I'm sick of getting logs that are just :TFTC...

 

We ALL agree on that. But I disagree that you have the right to delete a log that says TFTC.

 

True I wouldn't delete a log due to that, but I'd definitely hint that I wouldn't like them in my GC logs.

Link to comment

I agree with this: TO CLAIM A SMILEY YOU MUST SIGN THE LOG. And I'm sick of getting logs that are just :TFTC...

 

We ALL agree on that. But I disagree that you have the right to delete a log that says TFTC.

 

True I wouldn't delete a log due to that, but I'd definitely hint that I wouldn't like them in my GC logs.

 

The best way to avoid those logs is to hide caches that inspire better. Even the you'll get one occasionally. No sense getting worked up over it.

Link to comment

From the FAQ (http://www.geocaching.com/faq/default.aspx)...

 

---------------

 

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

1. If you take something from the cache, leave something of equal or greater value.

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

 

---------------

 

There are three basic rules and #2 is that you must sign the log.

That's not what #2 actually says, is it?

 

Verbatim. Go check it out for yourself.

So if I don't sign the log but I log online, I've broken rule #2. If I don't sign the log and I DON'T log online, I've broken rules #2 and 3!!

 

I'm glad to see that I didn't break any rules by leaving all those caches out in the open so they're easier to find.

 

All I was saying is that the quote was accurate.

Even though it wasn't.

 

#2 says to write about your find in the cache logbook. It never suggests that the log must be signed, does it?

 

The rest of what is logically wrong with enforcing those 'rules' has already been discussed.

Link to comment

From the FAQ (http://www.geocaching.com/faq/default.aspx)...

 

---------------

 

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

1. If you take something from the cache, leave something of equal or greater value.

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

 

---------------

 

There are three basic rules and #2 is that you must sign the log.

That's not what #2 actually says, is it?

 

Verbatim. Go check it out for yourself.

So if I don't sign the log but I log online, I've broken rule #2. If I don't sign the log and I DON'T log online, I've broken rules #2 and 3!!

 

I'm glad to see that I didn't break any rules by leaving all those caches out in the open so they're easier to find.

 

All I was saying is that the quote was accurate.

Even though it wasn't.

 

#2 says to write about your find in the cache logbook. It never suggests that the log must be signed, does it?

 

The rest of what is logically wrong with enforcing those 'rules' has already been discussed.

 

As I said, it is an exact quote. Follow the link and have a look.

 

Now, how it gets interpreted is a different matter.

Link to comment

From the FAQ (http://www.geocaching.com/faq/default.aspx)...

 

---------------

 

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

1. If you take something from the cache, leave something of equal or greater value.

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

 

---------------

 

There are three basic rules and #2 is that you must sign the log.

That's not what #2 actually says, is it?

 

Verbatim. Go check it out for yourself.

So if I don't sign the log but I log online, I've broken rule #2. If I don't sign the log and I DON'T log online, I've broken rules #2 and 3!!

 

I'm glad to see that I didn't break any rules by leaving all those caches out in the open so they're easier to find.

 

All I was saying is that the quote was accurate.

Even though it wasn't.

 

#2 says to write about your find in the cache logbook. It never suggests that the log must be signed, does it?

 

The rest of what is logically wrong with enforcing those 'rules' has already been discussed.

 

As I said, it is an exact quote. Follow the link and have a look.

 

Now, how it gets interpreted is a different matter.

Look, you misread my initial post and now rather than admit that, you are digging in your heals. You aren't fooling anyone.
Link to comment

And I'm sick of getting logs that are just :TFTC...

Too bad, so sad.

 

Well Said, Rule 2 just says you have to record your visit - could write "found it" and then log the fact online - I could write - "Found It, full details in the paper log" - would you delete that?

 

You want an essay then set me a decent cache in decent surroundings that take me out & about for a good walk to somewhere special. If its a micro stashed in the middle of a car park, or under a lamp post somewhere, then no matter how fiendish the clues to find it, its still not going to inspire me to write anything meaningful.

 

C

Link to comment

And I'm sick of getting logs that are just :TFTC...

Too bad, so sad.

 

Well Said, Rule 2 just says you have to record your visit - could write "found it" and then log the fact online - I could write - "Found It, full details in the paper log" - would you delete that?

 

You want an essay then set me a decent cache in decent surroundings that take me out & about for a good walk to somewhere special. If its a micro stashed in the middle of a car park, or under a lamp post somewhere, then no matter how fiendish the clues to find it, its still not going to inspire me to write anything meaningful.

 

C

I don't see where I posted that I'd delete a log. (unless you are referring to someone else)

And I agree that a boring find leads to a boring log entry.

Edit: I read back a few posts and I never posted that I would delete a log simply because the finder only wrote TFTC!... I simply stated I'm sick of getting them. < an opinion, my 2cents.

Edited by JK kid
Link to comment

From the FAQ (http://www.geocaching.com/faq/default.aspx)...

 

---------------

 

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

1. If you take something from the cache, leave something of equal or greater value.

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

 

---------------

 

There are three basic rules and #2 is that you must sign the log.

That's not what #2 actually says, is it?

 

Verbatim. Go check it out for yourself.

So if I don't sign the log but I log online, I've broken rule #2. If I don't sign the log and I DON'T log online, I've broken rules #2 and 3!!

 

I'm glad to see that I didn't break any rules by leaving all those caches out in the open so they're easier to find.

 

All I was saying is that the quote was accurate.

Even though it wasn't.

 

#2 says to write about your find in the cache logbook. It never suggests that the log must be signed, does it?

 

The rest of what is logically wrong with enforcing those 'rules' has already been discussed.

 

As I said, it is an exact quote. Follow the link and have a look.

 

Now, how it gets interpreted is a different matter.

Look, you misread my initial post and now rather than admit that, you are digging in your heals. You aren't fooling anyone.

 

LOL I thought that my having misread you post was obvious. That is why i said that I was only commenting on the quotes accuracy. But if it makes you feel good to think I'm trying to "dig in my heals" so be it.

Link to comment

 

On the other hand she didn't sign the log. She probably shouldn't have claimed it.

 

No probably about it. TO CLAIM A SMILEY YOU MUST SIGN THE LOG.

That is a position that is perfectly fine for you to take with caches that you own. However, other cache owners are free to allow finds if the logs weren't signed.

 

By extension, CO's could allow smilies when the cacher wasn't even within a thousand miles of the cache also. You're right in saying cache owners can do what they want. That doesn't make it right.

Link to comment

We don't mind if finders interpret what "sign the log" means in different ways, if circumstances require it. We've had people SIGN IN THEIR OWN BLOOD WITH A STICK, a smudge of dirt, dropping their geo calling card, dropping a signed scrap of paper, etc. etc. There is a REASON to sign the log, and part of that reason is proof of the visit.

 

NO SIGNEE THE LOGEE, NO SMILIE! :mellow:

 

(BTW, why must we endure trying to decypher posts quoting the entire thread to add a one line comment?) :)

 

 

Sign the Log. It's the Right Thing to Do.

Link to comment

 

On the other hand she didn't sign the log. She probably shouldn't have claimed it.

 

No probably about it. TO CLAIM A SMILEY YOU MUST SIGN THE LOG.

That is a position that is perfectly fine for you to take with caches that you own. However, other cache owners are free to allow finds if the logs weren't signed.

 

By extension, CO's could allow smilies when the cacher wasn't even within a thousand miles of the cache also. You're right in saying cache owners can do what they want. That doesn't make it right.

That's not true. In the case of virtuals at least, allowing such logs could get a cache archived by Groundspeak.

Link to comment

For a highly documented seven year battle on signing the log for a cache way up in a tree, go here:

 

UNCLAIMED LANDS: BRIDGE OUT

Wow. That seems like a whole bunch of childishness.

 

Yes it most certainly does. As we mature tho, we realize that CHEATING RUINS THE FUN for everyone, whether it's a game in the woods , or the game of life. That's why civilized folks have developed legal systems and codes of ethics. Fair Play.

Link to comment

For a highly documented seven year battle on signing the log for a cache way up in a tree, go here:

 

UNCLAIMED LANDS: BRIDGE OUT

Wow. That seems like a whole bunch of childishness.

 

Yes it most certainly does. As we mature tho, we realize that CHEATING RUINS THE FUN for everyone, whether it's a game in the woods , or the game of life. That's why civilized folks have developed legal systems and codes of ethics. Fair Play.

 

So how does that work, exactly?

 

Let's say that I go to that cache, climb the tree, sign the log. I have a great time. I go home and log it on the website, describing the great time that I had. It's an awesome experience for me.

 

The next day, CacheCheater goes to the cache site, realizes it's way up in the tree, decides not to climb it, but then goes home and logs it anyway.

 

How is my experience any less awesome because of that? In what way did the cheating ruin the fun for me?

 

I would argue that cheating only ruins the fun for the cheater. And if he wants to ruin his own fun, that's none of my business.

Link to comment

 

So how does that work, exactly?

 

Let's say that I go to that cache, climb the tree, sign the log. I have a great time. I go home and log it on the website, describing the great time that I had. It's an awesome experience for me.

 

The next day, CacheCheater goes to the cache site, realizes it's way up in the tree, decides not to climb it, but then goes home and logs it anyway.

 

How is my experience any less awesome because of that? In what way did the cheating ruin the fun for me?

 

I would argue that cheating only ruins the fun for the cheater. And if he wants to ruin his own fun, that's none of my business.

 

 

Oooh ooh I know this one

 

I have a couple of caches that are on my watchlist because I couldn't find them. Maybe they're not there, maybe they are there but I just didn't see them. If one of them pops up with a log that ways "woo hoo found it" then I'm going to think I just missed it and go back out there. If it's in fact muggled or has been abducted by aliens then I have in fact been cheated by some random person loging a smiley and making me look.

 

two for flinching

Link to comment

I found a couple of caches recently where I had no pen on me. I had a phone, so grabbed the caches, took out the log book and photographed them as proof I had found the cache. I claimed the smiley faces.

 

A few weeks later I was out elsewhere, the cache was an urban one that was magnetised and quite high out of reach with several logs stating it was hard to reach. I could have climbed to reach it but didn't as there were people nearby and it would have caused suspicion. I took a photo of the cache high up in his hiding place. I didn't class it as a find though, as I have not yet managed to get my hands on the log book; I will return at some point in the future and do the necessary climbing.

 

For me, the find comes when I have my hand on the cache and can get the log book. If I can't sign the log due to lack of a pen or the condition it is in I will try to prove I've been there and then claim the smiley.

 

Imagine if a cache took you to an area where there was a wall of bullet proof glass and you could see the cache behind the glass just inches away from you.

 

Also imagine a cache was easily found but in a puzzle box that you had to solve to get access; perhaps a cryptex. Would this be found without having your hands on the log? I don't think so.

 

The box, the glass, the tree; they are obstacles that you should get around - the whole point, in my opinion, is to place your hands on the cache and the log, not just catch a glimpse of it from a distance. I'm sure there are water caches around the world that you would be able to see from the land, but the whole point would be to get in the water to retrieve it. If I can't climb a tree, or if I can't swim, then I'll treat the cache like one where I can't rock climb, or I can't drive into a desert for 2 days - I would think it's not for me and move on to one of the many other caches that there are which are better suited to me.

Link to comment

 

So how does that work, exactly?

 

Let's say that I go to that cache, climb the tree, sign the log. I have a great time. I go home and log it on the website, describing the great time that I had. It's an awesome experience for me.

 

The next day, CacheCheater goes to the cache site, realizes it's way up in the tree, decides not to climb it, but then goes home and logs it anyway.

 

How is my experience any less awesome because of that? In what way did the cheating ruin the fun for me?

 

I would argue that cheating only ruins the fun for the cheater. And if he wants to ruin his own fun, that's none of my business.

 

 

Oooh ooh I know this one

 

I have a couple of caches that are on my watchlist because I couldn't find them. Maybe they're not there, maybe they are there but I just didn't see them. If one of them pops up with a log that ways "woo hoo found it" then I'm going to think I just missed it and go back out there. If it's in fact muggled or has been abducted by aliens then I have in fact been cheated by some random person loging a smiley and making me look.

 

two for flinching

You're describing a classic bogus log. Some dufus sitting at home posting finds on caches he never looked for. Sure in this situation it is possible that some with the cache on their watchlist will run out to look for a cache they otherwise wouldn't search for. I think everyone agrees these logs should be deleted. Even if some of us don't really believe this situation happens very often.

 

The situation GeoGeeBee points out is someon who logs "We found the cache in the tree but we didn't want to climb the tree and sign the log". If this was on your watchlist, you now know the cache is there and you can decide if you want to go look for it and whether or not you going to climb the tree. Now certainly, you could see a log that simply says "Found It" and its by someone you know is not likely to climb a tree. So you might think the cache is not in the tree. Then if you go to look and don't find it because you didn't look high in the tree, you might blame a bogus log. But you might be surprised. I know a tree cache near me, where a cacher who is retired from the city parks department made the find. I was pretty sure he didn't climb the tree. What I've been told is that he called one of his friends who still works for the parks department. The friend let him know when they were going to trim the trees in that park, and met him with a cherry picker which he rode up to sign the log. So if you miss the cache because of a found log in this case, I'm not sure you want to be blaming the log.

 

Most cachers understand that if the hider put a cache up in a tree, or in some other location that is hard to retrieve, that he probably intended that people who find the cache actually figure out how to retrieve the cache and sign the log. The issue is that most people also realize this is game where the goal is have fun. If someone can't sign the log for some good reason, and they can show they aren't logging a bogus log, then deleting a find log just because you can sounds like you didn't think the person had fun finding the cache. However, in order to accommodate challenges like tree climbing or physical puzzles, it's left to cache owner to decide what is a good reason for not signing the log.

Link to comment

I will never understand how not having a pen is an excuse to not sign a log. If you have a GPS and you like to geocache... you should have a pen or two.

 

Even before I geocached I almost always had a pen or pencil nearby.

 

I mean c'mon...

 

You remember to bring along a GPS and go looking for a cache but don't have a pen?

 

No smiley for you on my caches.

 

Perhaps that will make you remember next time.

Link to comment
I will never understand how not having a pen is an excuse to not sign a log. If you have a GPS and you like to geocache... you should have a pen or two.
I've seen a number of logs that used improvised writing materials: plant juice, mud, bug juice, blood,... whatever. Even without a pen, most people should be able to leave their mark on most logs. It's just part of the adventure.
Link to comment

We flew over Oklahoma City a few weeks ago and so I saw all the caches within a five mile radius of the airport. I'm going to log them all as found.

;)

 

I am now going to start logging all the caches on North America.

 

google-earth-17.jpg

 

NO<NO<NO You actually have to see it, like from a spaceship--looking at a photo or map doesn't count!!!

You may be correct. TPTB have decided that couch potato logs virtual caches should must be deleted. Finding the answer on the internet, for example in Google Street View, is not sufficient for logging a find online. They haven't made it as clear as to what is bogus for a traditional cache. So the puritans still have hope that one day they will say the log must be signed. Until then there is no such requirement and should a cache owner allow you to claim a find because you saw his cache from your spaceship, you could log this as a find if you wanted. Remember, however, if you are a puritan, that even if a cache owner allows a find, they cannot force you to log your find online. You are free to adopt a personal rule that you don't log the find online unless you have signed the log. Now, can a cache owner delete an online log if the physical log wasn't signed? Certainly as the guidelines are written. However most cache owners realize this is a silly game and autocratic rules are out of place. If the log appears bogus, delete it. Otherwise, if the finder seems to have a good reason for not signing the log, let it be.

Link to comment

We flew over Oklahoma City a few weeks ago and so I saw all the caches within a five mile radius of the airport. I'm going to log them all as found.

;)

 

I am now going to start logging all the caches on North America.

 

google-earth-17.jpg

 

NO<NO<NO You actually have to see it, like from a spaceship--looking at a photo or map doesn't count!!!

 

Oh crap! Now I have to go and delete all my finds!

Link to comment

For a highly documented seven year battle on signing the log for a cache way up in a tree, go here:

 

UNCLAIMED LANDS: BRIDGE OUT

Wow. That seems like a whole bunch of childishness.

 

Yes it most certainly does. As we mature tho, we realize that CHEATING RUINS THE FUN for everyone, whether it's a game in the woods , or the game of life. That's why civilized folks have developed legal systems and codes of ethics. Fair Play.

Actually, I was including your behavior (at least somewhat) in my prior post.

Link to comment

However most cache owners realize this is a silly game and autocratic rules are out of place.

 

Most cache owners don't consider geocaching a silly game, and realize that rules are good! :rolleyes:

 

Far from being a "silly game", Geocaching is a wonderful family activity that provides meaningful fun and good times for literally millions of Americans. It fosters a love and respect of the outdoors, and promotes hiking and all sorts of outdoor physical activities. It brings family and friends together sharing common goals and memories. :)

 

Of course, the downside is it litters wal-Mart parking lot lamp post skirts with stupid, useless, planet killing nanos... :laughing:

Link to comment

lol, brslk

 

in fact I have (several times :) ) left the house without my GPS

and have still been able to complete some from memory

but usually requires another trip

and, haven't learned quite yet

 

and i almost always have a pen, or two, in the car

but rarely have pockets

and often walk off without a pen

(unless i know it's a micro/nano or BYOP)

 

in regards to other posts about signing even if the log is full/damaged/missing...

there is no way to fit even a scrap of nada in some of these nanos

concept is nice

execution is illogical...

Link to comment

lol, brslk

 

in fact I have (several times :) ) left the house without my GPS

and have still been able to complete some from memory

but usually requires another trip

and, haven't learned quite yet

 

and i almost always have a pen, or two, in the car

but rarely have pockets

and often walk off without a pen

(unless i know it's a micro/nano or BYOP)

 

in regards to other posts about signing even if the log is full/damaged/missing...

there is no way to fit even a scrap of nada in some of these nanos

concept is nice

execution is illogical...

 

Is that you, archy?

Link to comment
I have a couple of caches that are on my watchlist because I couldn't find them. If one of them pops up with a log that ways "woo hoo found it" then I'm going to think I just missed it and go back out there.

Are we not responsible for our own decisions any more?

For instance, assume for arguments sake that I DNF a cache after a thorough hunt. I scour the Bejesus out of the area, searching every conceivable square inch, and conclude that the hide is either MIA, or hidden much better than my ability to locate it. I put it in my watch list, to read the experiences of others. Then I get a found it log in my inbox that reads:

 

"Whoo Hoo! Easy Find"

 

Now I've got a choice to make. I know from my past experience that it is not easy to locate, which should raise my suspicions a bit. Do I go running out of the house based on a single, suspect log? Not a chance. If I do, then any disappointment I face when I get back to ground zero is a direct result of my choice, and not the fault of the guy who posted the find. Now assume a different log, which reads:

 

"Finally! After reading CR's log, I knew this was going to be a challenge. I hunted this one for several hours, went a grabbed some lunch, came back and hunted some more, finally stumbling upon an amazing bit of camo. CR, the cache is there, and the coords are spot on. Just keep looking!"

 

Again, I've got a choice to make. That log looks a lot more legitimate, as it more closely matches my experience. Of the two, this one would be far more likely to get me off the couch, and back at ground zero. Yet, as with the first log, the choice would be entirely mine, and if I DNFed again, the blame would be mine, and mine alone.

 

...then I have in fact been cheated by some random person logging a smiley and making me look.

Pretending that some mook forced you to hunt for a cache might be interpreted as an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment
I have a couple of caches that are on my watchlist because I couldn't find them. If one of them pops up with a log that ways "woo hoo found it" then I'm going to think I just missed it and go back out there.

Are we not responsible for our own decisions any more?

For instance, assume for arguments sake that I DNF a cache after a thorough hunt. I scour the Bejesus out of the area, searching every conceivable square inch, and conclude that the hide is either MIA, or hidden much better than my ability to locate it. I put it in my watch list, to read the experiences of others. Then I get a found it log in my inbox that reads:

 

"Whoo Hoo! Easy Find"

 

Now I've got a choice to make. I know from my past experience that it is not easy to locate, which should raise my suspicions a bit. Do I go running out of the house based on a single, suspect log? Not a chance. If I do, then any disappointment I face when I get back to ground zero is a direct result of my choice, and not the fault of the guy who posted the find. Now assume a different log, which reads:

 

"Finally! After reading CR's log, I knew this was going to be a challenge. I hunted this one for several hours, went a grabbed some lunch, came back and hunted some more, finally stumbling upon an amazing bit of camo. CR, the cache is there, and the coords are spot on. Just keep looking!"

 

Again, I've got a choice to make. That log looks a lot more legitimate, as it more closely matches my experience. Of the two, this one would be far more likely to get me off the couch, and back at ground zero. Yet, as with the first log, the choice would be entirely mine, and if I DNFed again, the blame would be mine, and mine alone.

 

...then I have in fact been cheated by some random person logging a smiley and making me look.

Pretending that some mook forced you to hunt for a cache might be interpreted as an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

 

It could have been worse ...

"Finally! After reading CR's log, I knew this was going to be a challenge.. Whoo Hoo! Easy Find! CR, the cache is there, and the coords are spot on. Just keep looking!"

 

Now you feel like a real noob and you know at the next event everyone will point at you and laugh. Your only choice is to pack breakfast, lunch and dinner and go look for that one again. :laughing: Not sure I would call that a overwhelming sense of entitlement :)

Link to comment

However most cache owners realize this is a silly game and autocratic rules are out of place.

 

Most cache owners don't consider geocaching a silly game, and realize that rules are good! :rolleyes:

 

Far from being a "silly game", Geocaching is a wonderful family activity that provides meaningful fun and good times for literally millions of Americans. It fosters a love and respect of the outdoors, and promotes hiking and all sorts of outdoor physical activities. It brings family and friends together sharing common goals and memories. :)

 

Of course, the downside is it litters wal-Mart parking lot lamp post skirts with stupid, useless, planet killing nanos... :laughing:

The only thing sillier than geocaching might be spending time in the geocaching caching forums.

 

However, silly or not, wonderful family activities don't need silly autocrats deleting online lines over some technicality like siging a log. Sure there will be be people who abuse the good faith of most cache owners and will log bogus finds. Hypothetically, someone may run out and look for a cache that isn't there or an owner may delay needed maintainance based on a bogus find; but it comes down to looking at each log skeptically and deciding which appear to bogus or not. The real silliness is in believing that a find count is some score that you need to protect from silly people who would log bogus finds to inflate their score. Once you stop worrying about the find count, you can have more fun and even worry less about nanos in Wal-Mart parking lot lamp posts.

 

I hope that not just Americans get meaningful fun and good times from Geocaching. I think you meant millions of people worldwide.

Link to comment

It is simply this...

 

Anyone placing a cache, it MUST have a logbook/paper to sign. Otherwise it is considered a virtual, which is NOT allowed on GC any longer.

 

A picture of the cache container in the tree from the ground is logging it as a virtual cache - ie: not signing the logbook/paper. Therefore the person was making the OPs cache into a virtual cache which is no longer allowed on GC.

 

To the OP. Send an E-mail to the person and politely ask them to delete their find log and set a time period for them doing so. If they do not delete their found log within that time period, you are then free to delete it with their blessings. Sweet and simple.

 

Shirley~

Link to comment

I will never understand how not having a pen is an excuse to not sign a log. If you have a GPS and you like to geocache... you should have a pen or two.

 

Even before I geocached I almost always had a pen or pencil nearby.

 

I mean c'mon...

 

You remember to bring along a GPS and go looking for a cache but don't have a pen?

 

No smiley for you on my caches.

 

Perhaps that will make you remember next time.

Great attitude there. A GPSr is needed for finding a cache -- a writing utensil is not, so your implied insult to those who don't carry something to write with is childish and uncalled for.

 

I've found two caches when I didn't have something to write with, and claimed them anyway. I had the cache in my hands, and if the CO had a problem I would have either deleted my find or made the trek back to them. As it is, when I get in that area I plan to go ink the log belatedly.

 

I have learned to carry a writing tool now, but it's not something cachers should be belittled for not always having with them. :)

Link to comment

For a highly documented seven year battle on signing the log for a cache way up in a tree, go here:

 

UNCLAIMED LANDS: BRIDGE OUT

 

wow just wow

 

interesting read for a Friday afternoon though

 

Well, I didn't see that post until 4 days later, but it's pretty interesting on a Tuesday too, believe me.

 

I dunno man, there must not be very many tree climbing caches in that part of Indiana, because the number of people thinking they deserve a smiley for seeing a cache up a tree is amazing. Someone even dropped an SBA on it in 2005!!!!

 

I just can't imagine that "battle" going on in my region. I think most people know that every cache isn't for everyone. Me, I'm 47, and I ignore most tree climbing caches. I have a handful, but I'll bet the highest one was 15 feet up. :)

Link to comment

 

Great attitude there.... so your implied insult to those who don't carry something to write with is childish and uncalled for...

 

 

I have learned to carry a writing tool now, but it's not something cachers should be belittled for not always having with them. :laughing:

 

Who is belittling whom??? No Attitude problem. There is no "implied insult" there. Nothing childish or uncalled for, sorry.

 

Carrying a writing tool is a no-brainer for most cachers since YOU HAVE TO SIGN THE LOG.

:(

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...
×
×
  • Create New...