They lied and didn't find it ?

[Dinoprophet]

These nested comments are getting to hard to read. So...

 

To Trader Rick & Rosie...

 

I'm totally in your court when you point out that the guidelines state that the physical line should be logged before the log is posted online. I'm with you 100% on that and I just posted a comment to that effect.

 

However...

 

As tozainamboku and others are trying to say, and where I agree with them is this: IN PRACTICE, cache owners are NOT REQUIRED to delete logs that don't meet the guidelines. It is perfectly acceptable for the cache owners to leave logs online that do not have corresponding physical log signatures.

 

It may seem odd to have guidelines/rules that owners are not required to enforce, but that is the reality. On Geocaching.com, the cache owners have flexibility in how they play the game as long as they don't delete logs due to an ALR.

 

However, if a CO deletes an online log because the physical log isn't signed the guidelines support that action.

Precisely. This is all anyone is arguing. Even Trader Rick & Rosie has said they'll allow such logs under certain conditions. And since "valid reasons" is subjective, we're left with "it's up to the cache owner".

[+tozainamboku]

The section addresses logging. The title is not "ALR's", the title is "Logging of All Physical Caches".

 

The first sentence is very clear "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

It simply and clearly discusses logging, then it addresses the contentious issue of ALR's in a more verbose manner.

Those who were around when this section was added to the guidelines know exactly what it means. There was a 24 page thread on the changes, starting with MissJenn's explanation of what was changed. Several posts by MissJenn and other Groundspeak representatives make it clear that the only intent of the new section was to eliminate what were know as Addtional Logging Requirements. Prior to April 2009, there were no guideline at all for the logging of physical caches - only guidelines that cache owners were responsible for the quality control of posts to the cache page and should delete logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

At the time the guideline was added, it was clear that many caches had additional logging requirements and that it would take some time for cache owners to update their cache page to make these optional tasks. So they came up with a sentence to tell finders that once the physical log was sign they could log the find online regardless of whether there were additional requirements called out on the cache page.

[4wheelin_fool]

Not signing the log is the exception rather than the rule. If they wanted it to be a rule, they would not have banned codeword verification caches awhile ago.

 

Sometimes problems occur when someone hides a cache as part of a "game", but then another cacher finds it as part of a "hobby". Usually the cacher who is the best "sport" wins..

Edited October 13, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Ecylram]

The section addresses logging. The title is not "ALR's", the title is "Logging of All Physical Caches".

 

The first sentence is very clear "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

It simply and clearly discusses logging, then it addresses the contentious issue of ALR's in a more verbose manner.

Those who were around when this section was added to the guidelines know exactly what it means. There was a 24 page thread on the changes, starting with MissJenn's explanation of what was changed. Several posts by MissJenn and other Groundspeak representatives make it clear that the only intent of the new section was to eliminate what were know as Addtional Logging Requirements. Prior to April 2009, there were no guideline at all for the logging of physical caches - only guidelines that cache owners were responsible for the quality control of posts to the cache page and should delete logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

At the time the guideline was added, it was clear that many caches had additional logging requirements and that it would take some time for cache owners to update their cache page to make these optional tasks. So they came up with a sentence to tell finders that once the physical log was sign they could log the find online regardless of whether there were additional requirements called out on the cache page.

Thanks for posting that link. I read the two posts by MissJenn in that thread. You might not be surprised to hear that we are still at logger heads on this subject. I see nothing in there that contradicts what I wrote. Sorry.

 

Though I will note that this very subject came up almost immediately in that thread and unfortunately it was not addressed by MissJenn and the rest of the thread focuses predominately on ALR debates.

 

I did see the word "puritan" pop up again once or twice.

[+addisonbr]

Not signing the log is the exception rather than the rule. If they wanted it to be a rule, they would not have banned codeword verification caches awhile ago.

My understanding is that codeword verification caches were banned along with any other systems that required interaction with the cache owner. This includes

 

- codewords

- puzzles that require emailing the C.O. for a file or any other information

- challenge caches where you are only given the coordinates after completing the challenge (now the true coordinates of the cache have to be posted, or be derived from a self-contained puzzle)

 

For all intents and purposes, new cache listings have to be able to operate independently of making successful contact with the CO to claim or confirm a find. I don't think that banning codeword caches had anything to do with Groundspeak's position on signing logbooks; only on Groundspeak's position on having to communicate with the CO.

[Clan Riffster]

It must be true - so it is true.

But... but... but... I read it on the INTERNET! It MUST be true!

[Trader Rick & Rosie]

"Easy Steps to Geocaching

 

 

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

 

What is to be misunderstood about this simple noun and verb sentence? More importantly WHY would some people want to argue that this is not an integral part of geocaching? All these never-ending volumes of forum posts that are mind-numbingly ridiculous, disguised as serious, concerned thought. What part of their brains can't get around it? Are they so stupid? NO. Are they evil? NO. Then what's their motive?? What conspiracy is at work here? It's a real mystery, isn't it--kind of like the flat earth folks...

 

Oh, maybe they just like to hear themselves talk. It all sounds like blah-blah-blah to us. Faulty logic and convoluted overthinking. It would be hilarious if it wasn't just a little disturbing.

 

The sky is blue (most of the time). The world turns (Except for once). It gets dark at night (Unless you light it up). Sign the log (If you can).

[+redsox_mark]

I may have missed something, but I don’t recall anyone disagreeing that the log should normally be signed, and it is part of the game.

 

The debate as I see it is between:

 

A. The view that in all cases, without exception, the physical log must be signed before you can claim a find online, and

 

B. The view that there can be exception cases where it acceptable to log a find without signing the log. This could range from not having a pen to being attacked by bears just as you were about to sign.

 

I am in the “B” camp. In 1000 finds, once I forgot my pen and took a photo of the logbook instead to prove my find. And once I was attacked by wasps as I grabbed the cache box, and was unable to sign. In both cases I claimed a find (with cache owner agreement), and I have no guilt about that. I log the cache with the log which I think best reflects my experience. In the wasp case, I solved a difficult puzzle, bushwacked my way through difficult terrain, and I had my hands on the box. I found it. I would have signed it if I could. Wasps were not intended by the CO to be part of the challenge. It was not in my local area, so coming back later (if/when the wasps were gone) was not an option. The cache owner was very understanding and said “of course you can claim it as a find”.

 

“B” implies there can be a range of reasons, and it is up to the cache owner to decide if they believe the find is valid.

 

The “legal” arguments are directed at those who state that “A” is the only and true answer based on the rules.

[+addisonbr]

The debate as I see it is between:

 

A. The view that in all cases, without exception, the physical log must be signed before you can claim a find online, and

 

B. The view that there can be exception cases where it acceptable to log a find without signing the log. This could range from not having a pen to being attacked by bears just as you were about to sign.

I think this is a reasonable, and refreshingly non-pejorative, way to frame it.

[Dinoprophet]

"Easy Steps to Geocaching

 

 

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

 

Where's the part that says you can't log online until you do?

 

And what about the other "rules":

Easy Steps to Geocaching

 

1. Register for a free Basic Membership.

2. Click "Hide & Seek a Cache."

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

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

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

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

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

8. Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

 

You can't log online if you find it without a GPS? You can't log it online if you don't share any photos? You can't log it online if you get the coordinates from someone else? Of course not. Nothing anywhere says any of these are prerequisites to logging online.

 

The sky is blue (most of the time). The world turns (Except for once). It gets dark at night (Unless you light it up). Sign the log (If you can).

You said in a previous thread (linked above) that you don't delete logs if they didn't sign for a valid reason. What do you consider a valid reason, since your stance everywhere else seems to be there is none?

 

I contend it is those who say you *must* sign the logbook to log online that are using contorted legalese to make their point. If you have to mash together three different sections of the website and ignore all context to prove it, then it's not straightforward.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[MisterEFQ]

I was just going to post what Dino just said.

 

That would really blow if a find was deleted because I didnt search for it by postal code.

 

In fact I have never used that to search the site for caches.

 

I guess I have zero finds.

[+tozainamboku]

It all sounds like blah-blah-blah to us. Faulty logic and convoluted overthinking. It would be hilarious if it wasn't just a little disturbing.

 

Physical geoacaches all have logs, and yes the intent is that when you find the cache you sign the log.

 

In the real world there are sometimes when the log doesn't get signed. The reasons vary. No pen. Log is too wet. Couldn't get the tiny scroll out of the nano. Just forgot.

 

Nobody is trying to say you shouldn't be signing logs. The issue is whether you can still make an online found log if you didn't sign the log for some good reason.

 

The online log is not the same as signing the cache log. If it were you would have to do something about all the people who sign the log but never log the find online. Where is the outrage. This happens far more often than someone whose pen wasn't working going ahead an logging the find online.

 

And don't make the the argument that not logging a find online doesn't hurt any one but logging one when you haven't signed does. A person who logs a find online but didn't sign lets us know the cache is still there and findable. If they let us know why they didn't sign the log, that might even indicate that cache needs maintenance. In most cases these logs are more beneficial than harmful. A finder who signed the log and then doesn't log online has not told the community anything. Is the cache still there? When was it last found? Sorry the "cheater" who didn't log online isn't going to help Some cachers may decide to pass up a cache they could have found. A cache owner may go and do some unnecessary maintenance. And yet the righteous indignation is aimed at the finders who didn't sign the log instead of the signer who didn't log the find online. Which is really worse?

 

Accept the fact that the online log is a personal record someone is keeping of their geocaching experiences. If they didn't sign the log and have some reasonable excuse, let the find stand. Don't go creating unnecessary rules. No matter how hard you try, you won't find them on Geocaching.com because TPTB realize that this is a simple game where the goal is to have fun and not some competition that needs a rigorous definition of a find in order to keep score. They tell cache finders to sign the log, because that is what Dave Ulmer asked people to do when they found the first geocache; but they don't tie signing the log to whether or not you can log a cache as found online (other than to tell finders that once they have signed the log, the cache owner can not force them to do additional tasks in order to have the online find stand).

[Trader Rick & Rosie]

This just gets zanier and zanier doesn't it?

[Trader Rick & Rosie]

Don't listen to these silly folks. It's really quite simple:

 

Just have FUN. Find the cache, sign the log, log it online. Anything else is just so much malarky.

[+swfirefly]

It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter...

[+cw1710]

Geocaching rules state that to log a find, one must sign the physical logbook.

What rule?

Not that there is a regulation, but

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

--Logging of All Physical Caches

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

That guideline doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

While it does mean that cache owners must allow a 'find' log if someone has signed the logbook, it does not give guidance regarding unsigned logbooks.

Apparently, it doesn't mean that owners must allow a find log. I recently had someone delete my logs without reason and after emailing him about it without response, I emailed Groundspeak and complained. They emailed him and their response to me was that he wouldn't budge and that I would just have to not log that cache. It would seem to me that you can delete any log you want to on any of your caches for any reason.

[Dinoprophet]

Geocaching rules state that to log a find, one must sign the physical logbook.

What rule?

Not that there is a regulation, but

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

--Logging of All Physical Caches

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

That guideline doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

While it does mean that cache owners must allow a 'find' log if someone has signed the logbook, it does not give guidance regarding unsigned logbooks.

Apparently, it doesn't mean that owners must allow a find log. I recently had someone delete my logs without reason and after emailing him about it without response, I emailed Groundspeak and complained. They emailed him and their response to me was that he wouldn't budge and that I would just have to not log that cache. It would seem to me that you can delete any log you want to on any of your caches for any reason.

What was the situation with the logbook?

[+addisonbr]

Apparently, it doesn't mean that owners must allow a find log. I recently had someone delete my logs without reason and after emailing him about it without response, I emailed Groundspeak and complained. They emailed him and their response to me was that he wouldn't budge and that I would just have to not log that cache. It would seem to me that you can delete any log you want to on any of your caches for any reason.

Is there anything more you can tell us about this situation?

[+JohnnyVegas]

What do u do when u know someone logged one of ur caches but u are sure they didn't find it and there name is not in the log book

Delet their logs. I just deleted two logs on one og my caches last week.

 

Then there are some that will say some cachers have their own way of playing the game and to just ignore them.

 

Wow

What a mamby pamby world we live now when we are expected to look the other way when some one lies about finding a cache

[+SaltercreaseRangers]

If you don't get a reasonable response - wet log etc - delete it

 

Straight from Getting Started

 

Easy Steps to Geocaching

Register for a free Basic Membership.

Click "Hide & Seek a Cache."

Enter your postal code and click "search."

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

Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device.

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

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

Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

[+rickjill]

It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter...

 

It does matter. Games and hobbies have rules and guidelines so there is fairness and a level playing field for all participants. Unfortunately there are no umpires or police for logging geocaches. Just the honour system and we all know some people have no honour.

[+tozainamboku]

It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter...

 

It does matter. Games and hobbies have rules and guidelines so there is fairness and a level playing field for all participants. Unfortunately there are no umpires or police for logging geocaches. Just the honour system and we all know some people have no honour.

I'm trying to understand this. It seems to me that the object of geocaching is to have fun looking for hidden containers with a GPS. When you find a container you can write something in the log. Doing so provides a record which the cache owner and other geocachers can use to verify that you found the cache. Whether or not you found the cache you may log online to share you experience with others. If you found the cache you should use the Found It log. This lets others know the cache is still there. If you looked and didn't find the cache you can log a DNF, to let the cache owners and others know you were unable to find the cache.

 

Some people have decided to make a game over how many finds a person has. Those that wish to play this game may be looking for a rule to make it fair and level the playing field. However, even if you could make a rule that you haven't "found" the cache unless you sign the log, the playing field would not be level.There are enough caches out there that each cacher is looking for a different set of caches. The difficulty and terrain of the hides will not be equal. They will be hidden by different hiders with different skill levels. You simply can't compare the find counts of two cachers.

 

There is no rule that says you have to sign the log in order to log a find online. Those geocachers who prefer to use that personal definition of a find, are free to log caches only when they have signed the log. Since the main point of the game is for everyone to have fun, it doesn't seem like a good idea to arbitrarily delete logs of people how actually found the cache but who, for some good reason, were unable to sign the physical log. However, cache owners are still given the ability to delete find logs if the physical log book is not signed. It may the the physical log serves the purpose of verify the find is not bogus (i.e., the person who posted the didn't find the cache and may not have even looked for it.) If a cache owner has hidden a cache that has a physical or mental challenge thy may want to use the physical log book as a way to confirm the challenge was met. They are free to delete found logs where the physical log book is not signed.

[+cw1710]

Apparently, it doesn't mean that owners must allow a find log. I recently had someone delete my logs without reason and after emailing him about it without response, I emailed Groundspeak and complained. They emailed him and their response to me was that he wouldn't budge and that I would just have to not log that cache. It would seem to me that you can delete any log you want to on any of your caches for any reason.

Is there anything more you can tell us about this situation?

I had never met the CO and my find was legit. There were also no spoilers or anything improper in my logs that were deleted.

---My original response from Groundspeak:

Hi cw1710,

I'm very sorry to hear that. You are correct, that is not a valid reason. I am giving him a few days to respond--at least until Friday or Monday. However, if he declines to contact Groundspeak as well, we'll be happy to reinstate the logs ourselves.

Please send me the links to your father's logs as well.

Thanks again, and sorry for all the trouble. We like the site as family friendly as possible!

---Next Response from Groundspeak:

Hello cw1710,

Thank you for your patience. Just to check, are you sure you signed the log for this cache? Can you give me a description of the cache container, its contents, and exactly where you found it, and what day it was?

I am asking for pictures of the logbook from the cache owner as well. This will help verify the situation.

Thank you for your help.

---I answered with very exact details of the cache and informed them that the CO did not even live in my state so he never came to collect his pill bottle container so him providing a picture of the log wouldn't be possible nor could he say that I didn't sign it and the next response I got was:

Dear cw1710,

Thanks again for your patience.

Unfortunately, I cannot get this CO to budge. I ask that in this instance you please let it go and move on. We are not able to help any further in this dispute, and this cache must simply go unlogged by you.

Please refrain from contacting the cache owner again about the matter.

I wish you the best of luck in the future.

 

Big change in attitude from the initial response to the last response.

[Trader Rick & Rosie]

 

"Please refrain from contacting the cache owner again about the matter."

 

 

Curious.

[+sbell111]

 

"Please refrain from contacting the cache owner again about the matter."

 

 

Curious.

I'll say.

 

I would probably go out and take a pic of my signature on the log sheet. I'd then email it to TPTB and request that my log be reinstated.

Edited October 18, 2010 by sbell111

[+cw1710]

 

"Please refrain from contacting the cache owner again about the matter."

 

 

Curious.

That was only because I emailed him a couple of times when he first deleted my logs asking why he did so. The first time I complained to Groundspeak about him he turned around and archived all of his caches in 2 or 3 states and he no longer has any active hides.

 

Also, the cache is gone now and another is in its spot so I can't take a picture of the log.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

"Please refrain from contacting the cache owner again about the matter."

 

 

Curious.

That was only because I emailed him a couple of times when he first deleted my logs asking why he did so. The first time I complained to Groundspeak about him he turned around and archived all of his caches in 2 or 3 states and he no longer has any active hides.

 

Also, the cache is gone now and another is in its spot so I can't take a picture of the log.

 

That's strange behavior. I'd just let it go. It stinks that you don't get credit for the find, but it's probably for the best.

[+addisonbr]

That's strange behavior. I'd just let it go. It stinks that you don't get credit for the find, but it's probably for the best.

I agree. Seeing as the cache is archived, I'd just rack it up as an unfortunate encounter and move along (which you obviously have).

[knowschad]

What's odd is 34 responses and 1147 views.

 

So there is some 1100 views with no comment..

Lots of people:

• Just lurk, reading threads but not commenting
  
• Will not comment if someone has already made their point
  
• Pop into the thread many times, catching up on recently made posts.
  

You forgot a couple:

• Just shake our heads and move on
  
• Realize that Groundspeak has NEVER taken an official stance on the "sign the physical log" issue, hence any and all statements by forum regulars on that point are merely opinions and not facts, regardless of how they are stated, but know that it is pointless to mention it again.
  

[+BarbarianB]

I was looking for some information about log deletions and saw this thread.

 

Today, I deleted somebody's Found It log on one of my caches that is in a tree.

Their online Found It blatantly said: "Yeah, I am not signing that, but I am still counting it."

 

There's even a note in big bold red letters on the cache page saying that you should attempt at your own risk and should not claim a find unless you have signed the physical log or your log will be deleted.

 

As far as I am concerned, it has always been understood that in order to claim a Found It on any geocache with a physical container and log, that you should ONLY claim a Found It if you signed the physical log.

The only exceptions being Virtuals, Earthcaches and Web-cams.

 

Some people just don't get it that not all geocaches are for everyone and if you are unable to perform the necessary tasks to get to the geocache, whether it involves crossing a creek, taking a boat out to an island, rapelling down a cliff or climbing a tree, then you should just forget about it and move on to the next cache.

[MisterEFQ]

Trying to start this never ending argument in every thread or what?

[+lil_cav_wings]

Some people just don't get it that not all geocaches are for everyone and if you are unable to perform the necessary tasks to get to the geocache, whether it involves crossing a creek, taking a boat out to an island, rapelling down a cliff or climbing a tree, then you should just forget about it and move on to the next cache.

 

For those who like the adventure associated with caching, those are the best caches.

 

Perhaps some people just get frustrated with caches that require specialized equipment or training, beyond just their GPSr?

[+BarbarianB]

The point is that it's not a true find if you just see the cache and don't sign the log (minus certain issues such as a soaking wet log)

 

One just needs to realize that they can't claim a find on every cache on their radar

[+sbell111]

The point is that it's not a true find if you just see the cache and don't sign the log (minus certain issues such as a soaking wet log

That is certainly true about caches that you own, but other cache owners are free to go another way.

[+John in Valley Forge]

Some people just don't get it that not all geocaches are for everyone and if you are unable to perform the necessary tasks to get to the geocache, whether it involves crossing a creek, taking a boat out to an island, rapelling down a cliff or climbing a tree, then you should just forget about it and move on to the next cache.

 

For those who like the adventure associated with caching, those are the best caches.

 

Perhaps some people just get frustrated with caches that require specialized equipment or training, beyond just their GPSr?

 

For me, that kind of cache gets a DNF, a note of sadness that I could not get it and why, and a note of congratulations to the hider for a good hide that stumped me or pushed me to my limits. I also put those caches on my watchlist hoping to someday get when I get better at this to go back and get it for real.

I see this game/hobby/sport as a way to get myself out after too many years on my butt. Oh, and opening an ammo can is huge fun too.

[+BarbarianB]

 

For me, that kind of cache gets a DNF, a note of sadness that I could not get it and why, and a note of congratulations to the hider for a good hide that stumped me or pushed me to my limits. I also put those caches on my watchlist hoping to someday get when I get better at this to go back and get it for real.

I see this game/hobby/sport as a way to get myself out after too many years on my butt. Oh, and opening an ammo can is huge fun too.

 

I couldn't tell you how many have just TRIED more adventurous caches, only to realize that not only could they do it, but that they had fun doing it and wanted to do more.

 

Take for instance, if the cache was placed in a big pine tree.

They are usually very easy to climb like a ladder with lots of branches to hold on to all the way up.

That is a fun tree climb, not something that will scare the $#!t out of you.

You might get a little pine tar on you, but so what, it comes off.

 

My most recent adventurous cache and one of my most fun milestone finds is called Ghost Ship, an actual shipwreck near the Ohio River in northern Kentucky.

A terrain of 4.0, but a relatively easy 4.0 depending on which route you wanted to take.

I was actually able to walk to it without even getting wet or muddy.

Look up the cache and check out the fun pics.

 

My Number 1 Rule:

Never discount any cache no matter the D/T until I've had a chance to see for myrself whether or not I want to try it or not.

[+GRANPA ALEX]

HA! I have one that is up on top of an old oak tree limb and you can see it from the ground. To log it, you gotta get up there! I carry a fold-up ladder with me or I climb trees, if needed.

 

I have logs where cachers say they found it but could not sign the log and they call it a 'find'

 

I simply email them and remind them that a 'find' requires that the site log be signed and that they should return to do so or change their log to a DNF.

 

After that, I am done with it!

 

I am not a morality cop or a cache policeman so I leave it to them to do what is right while I go find some more neat hides for my own logging! Hiding, finding, logging, sharing interests/time with geofriends and cache maintenance are all I want to have in the game.

Edited November 24, 2010 by GRANPA ALEX

[+briansnat]

 

For me, that kind of cache gets a DNF, a note of sadness that I could not get it and why, and a note of congratulations to the hider for a good hide that stumped me or pushed me to my limits. I also put those caches on my watchlist hoping to someday get when I get better at this to go back and get it for real.

I see this game/hobby/sport as a way to get myself out after too many years on my butt. Oh, and opening an ammo can is huge fun too.

 

I couldn't tell you how many have just TRIED more adventurous caches, only to realize that not only could they do it, but that they had fun doing it and wanted to do more.

 

Take for instance, if the cache was placed in a big pine tree.

They are usually very easy to climb like a ladder with lots of branches to hold on to all the way up.

That is a fun tree climb, not something that will scare the $#!t out of you.

You might get a little pine tar on you, but so what, it comes off.

 

My most recent adventurous cache and one of my most fun milestone finds is called Ghost Ship, an actual shipwreck near the Ohio River in northern Kentucky.

A terrain of 4.0, but a relatively easy 4.0 depending on which route you wanted to take.

I was actually able to walk to it without even getting wet or muddy.

Look up the cache and check out the fun pics.

 

My Number 1 Rule:

Never discount any cache no matter the D/T until I've had a chance to see for myrself whether or not I want to try it or not.

 

A few weeks ago another cacher and I were out to do a local paddle cache and noticed a 5/5 a mile or so away. We decided to check it out. It was a cache about 40 feet up in a tree. No way to get it without climbing equipment. We saw the cache easily, but there was no chance we could grab it. I mentioned in my DNF log that I thought it should be a 1/5, but left it at that.

 

My companion on the other hand recruited another cacher who was a climber and went back with the proper equipment and claimed the find.

 

It's all about the intent of the CO when he places the cache. In this case, it's obvious that the intent was for me to make the climb. I couldn't do it, so DNF.

[+narcissa]

The point is that it's not a true find if you just see the cache and don't sign the log (minus certain issues such as a soaking wet log)

 

One just needs to realize that they can't claim a find on every cache on their radar

 

As a cache owner, you're well within your authority to delete logs if the cacher doesn't sign the log. If other cache owners choose to be more permissive with their geocaches, it's not really any of your concern.

[mukanshin]

The log book is in there for a reason: to prove you found the cache. I plan on putting out my first cache soon and when I do, you better be ready to prove you found it. The most obvious way is to sign the log. If you say you couldn't sign the log because it was wet, I'll go out and check it myself and if it is wet, that's sufficient proof that you did find it. It's my fault that it was wet in the first place. If you forgot your pen but take a picture of the log, I'd probably allow that too as it's obvious you found it, even though in similar circumstances I just went to the nearest gas station and bought some pens and returned. If you just say you forgot your pen and that's it, well I guess you can try again after you learn how this works.

 

Cache owners who let anyone log their cache online with no evidence that they really found it ruin the sport of it. Those who are competing for numbers are getting screwed because some people are marking caches they haven't found and the owner doesn't care. I'm not into this, but I like to find challenging caches and it's not fun to think that others may be getting credit for it when they didn't actually do it. No matter what kind of challenge you want to set for yourself, you can't really take it seriously when people are allowed to log things they didn't actually find.

[+BarbarianB]

The log book is in there for a reason: to prove you found the cache. I plan on putting out my first cache soon and when I do, you better be ready to prove you found it. The most obvious way is to sign the log. If you say you couldn't sign the log because it was wet, I'll go out and check it myself and if it is wet, that's sufficient proof that you did find it. It's my fault that it was wet in the first place. If you forgot your pen but take a picture of the log, I'd probably allow that too as it's obvious you found it, even though in similar circumstances I just went to the nearest gas station and bought some pens and returned. If you just say you forgot your pen and that's it, well I guess you can try again after you learn how this works.

 

Cache owners who let anyone log their cache online with no evidence that they really found it ruin the sport of it. Those who are competing for numbers are getting screwed because some people are marking caches they haven't found and the owner doesn't care. I'm not into this, but I like to find challenging caches and it's not fun to think that others may be getting credit for it when they didn't actually do it. No matter what kind of challenge you want to set for yourself, you can't really take it seriously when people are allowed to log things they didn't actually find.

 

AMEN BROTHER !!!!!!!!!!

 

THAT'S HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE PLAYED.

 

HONORABLE FINDS AND GOOD CACHER ETIQUETTE !!!!!

[Clan Riffster]

The log book is in there for a reason: to prove you found the cache.

Welcome to Control Freak 101.

Logbooks, originally, were devices for folks to share their experiences, not something to be used as proof. This whole game is fundamentally based upon the goodwill of others. Starting your game play on the assumption that everyone else is a liar, and must therefor provide proof is a recipe for failure.

 

But if being a control freak is your thing, by all means, have at it.

The rest of us will giggle at you behind our hands.

[+BarbarianB]

It's not only proof to the owner that you signed the log, if they even decided to check from time to time, but also to those who find the cache afterwards.

It's a small thing to require that the physical log have the finders name on it before they post their online log.

If they didn't, then they may as well as not even bothered to drive out to find it at all and just logged it from their lazy chair

[+BlueDeuce]

The point is that it's not a true find if you just see the cache and don't sign the log (minus certain issues such as a soaking wet log)

 

One just needs to realize that they can't claim a find on every cache on their radar

 

As a cache owner, you're well within your authority to delete logs if the cacher doesn't sign the log. If other cache owners choose to be more permissive with their geocaches, it's not really any of your concern.

 

Permissive sure, but to a point.

[+John in Valley Forge]

 

Not that there is a regulation, but

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

--Logging of All Physical Caches

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

 

.

 

I'm confused. Is the above statement, really all that ambiguous?

I'm new, maybe I've been doing this wrong all along by signing logs of caches I find and by not logging caches that I did not sign.

[+BlueDeuce]

I'm confused. Is the above statement, really all that ambiguous?

 

Not by the way I play it. I'd rather DNF than say I should be able to make a claim because...

[+John in Valley Forge]

 

For me, that kind of cache gets a DNF, a note of sadness that I could not get it and why, and a note of congratulations to the hider for a good hide that stumped me or pushed me to my limits. I also put those caches on my watchlist hoping to someday get when I get better at this to go back and get it for real.

I see this game/hobby/sport as a way to get myself out after too many years on my butt. Oh, and opening an ammo can is huge fun too.

 

I couldn't tell you how many have just TRIED more adventurous caches, only to realize that not only could they do it, but that they had fun doing it and wanted to do more.

 

Take for instance, if the cache was placed in a big pine tree.

They are usually very easy to climb like a ladder with lots of branches to hold on to all the way up.

That is a fun tree climb, not something that will scare the $#!t out of you.

You might get a little pine tar on you, but so what, it comes off.

 

My most recent adventurous cache and one of my most fun milestone finds is called Ghost Ship, an actual shipwreck near the Ohio River in northern Kentucky.

A terrain of 4.0, but a relatively easy 4.0 depending on which route you wanted to take.

I was actually able to walk to it without even getting wet or muddy.

Look up the cache and check out the fun pics.

 

My Number 1 Rule:

Never discount any cache no matter the D/T until I've had a chance to see for myrself whether or not I want to try it or not.

 

From some of the opinions I've read here, I don't have to worry about how hard the cache is. I can log it if I can see it. Or do I even need to do that? I can't I just log all the 5* caches in the river near me? I can see the island location from the highway bridge.

[Clan Riffster]

It's not only proof to the owner that you signed the log, if they even decided to check from time to time, but also to those who find the cache afterwards.

I think, if you require such proof, you must live in a very sad world.

Here's how I view our differences on this matter:

 

Clan Riffster: "Hey! 5BizzyBs just logged a find on my new cache! How kewl is that?"

 

5BizzyBs: "Hey! Clan Riffster just logged a find on my new cache! Lemme rush out there and see if that lying goober really found it"

 

Only you can decide how pathetic your world is.

 

I'm confused. Is the above statement, really all that ambiguous?

Wait. Didn't you suggest earlier that it was OK to log a find if you can't sign the log due to it being a spitwad?

Or was that some other control freak?

 

Either the guidelines require a signature in a logbook or they do not. Groundspeak seems fairly quiet on the issue. If they do, as you claim, then any exception, including allowing finds when the seeker discovered your log was a spitwad, would be a clear violation. If the guidelines don't require that, (as claimed in many lengthy Toz posts), then the statement is entirely ambiguous. Personally, I won't log any cache unless my signature is in the logbook. No exceptions. But I'm not such a control freak as to try infecting others with my preferred method of play.

[Clan Riffster]

From some of the opinions I've read here,...

Can you provide a link? I tried reading through both pages in this thread, but I'm not seeing it.

Or is this just an exaggeration to justify being a control freak?

[mukanshin]

Welcome to Control Freak 101.

 

A little control is necessary to preserve any gaming aspect of what we do. Otherwise online logs and stats are completely meaningless. Groundspeak would seem to agree as they ban people who obviously do this repeatedly. They can't check the logs but it's obvious when someone logs caches all over the country in a single day. Feel free to laugh at my caches when I put them out, but when someone logs them as found, you can be pretty certain they actually did find them.