Skip the log sheet

[+MHCacher]

I have been going on long geocaching excursions lately, finding a dozen or more caches at a time. This morning for example, I found 17. By the end of the hike I wasn’t signing the log sheets anymore, and in most cases, I soon as I saw the cache I marked it as found and moved on to the next. The only time I’ve been open a cache anymore is if my 8 yr old is along to trade swag.

 

Anyone else skipping the log sheet?

[+2Jeeps2Jacks]

I have been going on long geocaching excursions lately, finding a dozen or more caches at a time. This morning for example, I found 17. By the end of the hike I wasn’t signing the log sheets anymore, and in most cases, I soon as I saw the cache I marked it as found and moved on to the next. The only time I’ve been open a cache anymore is if my 8 yr old is along to trade swag.

 

Anyone else skipping the log sheet?

 

Don't be surprised if the CO deletes your log.

[+cheech gang]

Play the game any way you want, but don't expect validation from this crowd.

 

Why are you bothering to log them on line?

Edited October 19, 2010 by cheech gang

[+Taoiseach]

So much fail...

 

There are very few actual 'rules' to geocaching, but signing the log book is one of them. I hope that all of those cache owners are deleting your logs.

[+Chokecherry]

Doesn't matter many caches I'm doing I take the time to open up the cache and sign the log book. And if there's stuff in the cache I paw through it just for fun.

[+ngrrfan]

Play the game any way you want, but don't expect validation from this crowd.

 

Why are you bothering to log them on line?

Why bother going out for them. Just sit back and arm chair them.

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

Chokecherry said:

Doesn't matter many caches I'm doing I take the time to open up the cache and sign the log book. And if there's stuff in the cache I paw through it just for fun.

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

My sentiments exactly. I want to see what kinds of goodies are in there....

[+Chrysalides]

This youtube video sums up how I feel about the direction this thread is going to take.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnE8RitIN4s

 

(no, it's not a rick-roll)

[Dinoprophet]

You're welcome to do that. You "found" the cache by any definition you'll find outside this site. However, without a signature in the log, whether your online log stays is entirely at the cache owner's discretion, and many -- probably most -- will delete it.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+u.rusty]

That's one of the cool things about geocaching, you don't have to play the game the way everyone else does.

 

I always open the caches that I find, sign the log and take a photograph of the cache. I log the cache finds in my personal log book rather than online, although I do log DNFs online.

 

I've had a couple times that I was enjoying the hike I was on so much that I didn't even look for the caches as I got near. Sometimes I find that geocaching takes a backseat to the hiking adventure.

[+Scooter Rider]

This youtube video sums up how I feel about the direction this thread is going to take.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnE8RitIN4s

 

(no, it's not a rick-roll)

 

Pardon me but what's this thread doing in this hand basket and were is it going ?

[+captnemo]

So much fail...

 

There are very few actual 'rules' to geocaching, but signing the log book is one of them.

 

I agree, don't be surprised if the CO deletes your find. I once had to backtrack several miles to sign a log of a find that I forgot to sign and it was a FTF, made it in time to keep the FTF.

[+TerraViators]

I have been going on long geocaching excursions lately, finding a dozen or more caches at a time. This morning for example, I found 17. By the end of the hike I wasn’t signing the log sheets anymore, and in most cases, I soon as I saw the cache I marked it as found and moved on to the next. The only time I’ve been open a cache anymore is if my 8 yr old is along to trade swag.

 

Anyone else skipping the log sheet?

No.

[+BlueDeuce]

I have been going on long geocaching excursions lately, finding a dozen or more caches at a time. This morning for example, I found 17. By the end of the hike I wasn’t signing the log sheets anymore, and in most cases, I soon as I saw the cache I marked it as found and moved on to the next. The only time I’ve been open a cache anymore is if my 8 yr old is along to trade swag.

 

Anyone else skipping the log sheet?

 

I guess I don't understand why you would attempt so many in one day and then not follow through on the signing. What is the reward to attempt a bucket load of caches? Wouldn't the walk/location be the point if retrieving the cache isn't? I'll do one leg of a multi-cache in a park just to get the chance to visit the park again.

 

If your goal is to claim a bunch of finds and retrieving the container is too much work...that ain't caching.

[Andronicus]

No! Signing the log is kind of the point. Otherwise it would be called a scavanger hunt.

[+tozainamboku]

So much fail...

 

There are very few actual 'rules' to geocaching, but signing the log book is one of them. I hope that all of those cache owners are deleting your logs.

There is actually no rule that says you must sign the log book in order to log a find online. (The puritans knew I would say this). There are rules that allow cache owners to delete logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not within stated requirements. Should a cache owner decide to delete your log, do not expect Groundspeak to reinstate it if you didn't sign the log. There may even be cases where you did sign the log where Groundspeak will not reinstate your find, but at least if you have signed you may have some luck.

[+WRASTRO]

Your way of playing the game doesn't appeal to me. If you posted a found log on one of my caches and stated what you did in your OP I would probably delete your log. And I have never deleted a log in almost seven years.

[+narcissa]

My main objection to this thread is the idea that 17 caches in one day is *LIKE OMG SO MANY CACHES I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THE LOGS*

 

In a very leisurely day of caching that involves driving some distance between caches, hiking in to the caches, and enjoying our time at the GZ, Taoiseach and I can easily find 20 caches in a day. That's with a 4-year-old in tow.

 

Anyway, regardless of what tozainamrobot has to say on the matter, for most geocachers, signing the log is the BARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT for a legitimate find. If you're not even going to bother OPENING the geocache, what's the point in geocaching?

 

There's a whole site for people who can't be bothered with containers. It's called Waymarking.com. I hear they're recruiting.

[+FunnyNose]

Anyone else skipping the log sheet?

 

If you want to skip the log sheet then you should also skip the online log.

[+BlueDeuce]

My main objection to this thread is the idea that 17 caches in one day is *LIKE OMG SO MANY CACHES I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THE LOGS*

 

In a very leisurely day of caching that involves driving some distance between caches, hiking in to the caches, and enjoying our time at the GZ, Taoiseach and I can easily find 20 caches in a day. That's with a 4-year-old in tow.

 

Anyway, regardless of what tozainamrobot has to say on the matter, for most geocachers, signing the log is the BARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT for a legitimate find. If you're not even going to bother OPENING the geocache, what's the point in geocaching?

 

There's a whole site for people who can't be bothered with containers. It's called Waymarking.com. I hear they're recruiting.

 

ayep.

[+u.rusty]

Wow! I'm really surprised at the negative responses.

 

Different people play the game differently. I can't speak for the original poster, but if he isn't concerned with signing the log, I would be surprised if he is concerned with the cache owner deleting an online log. The enjoyment may simply be the hunt for the cache.

 

I don't understand why this seems to upset some people.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Skipping the log is like skipping the thank you after you've been invited out for dinner.

[jholly]

Wow! I'm really surprised at the negative responses.

 

Different people play the game differently. I can't speak for the original poster, but if he isn't concerned with signing the log, I would be surprised if he is concerned with the cache owner deleting an online log. The enjoyment may simply be the hunt for the cache.

 

I don't understand why this seems to upset some people.

Spoken like a true grasshopper.

[+BlueDeuce]

Wow! I'm really surprised at the negative responses.

 

Different people play the game differently. I can't speak for the original poster, but if he isn't concerned with signing the log, I would be surprised if he is concerned with the cache owner deleting an online log. The enjoyment may simply be the hunt for the cache.

 

I don't understand why this seems to upset some people.

 

He seems to find enjoyment by claiming a find. Or did I misread the OP.

[+tozainamboku]

Anyway, regardless of what tozainamrobot has to say on the matter, for most geocachers, signing the log is the BARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT for a legitimate find. If you're not even going to bother OPENING the geocache, what's the point in geocaching?

Actually my experience is that most cache owners don't check logbooks and don't delete logs of people who actually found their cache but didn't sign the log for a good reason. I will grant that most geocachers assume that signing the log is expected when you find a cache and that at least a few cache owners would find the OPs reasons for not signing the log to not be a sufficient reason for skipping this. I would expect a few cache owners might delete his online logs.

 

If I sound like a robot, it is because I have to keep responding to the robo-puritans insisting that geocaching has a rule that in fact does not exist anywhere on the Geoaching.com website. If the puritans were to give reasons why they feel the log should be signed (it verifies to you that you actually found the cache, or it provides proof beyond just your word for it) or just left it as "cache owners can delete your log if you don't sign", I wouldn't have to keep correcting them.

 

Anyone else skipping the log sheet?

 

If you want to skip the log sheet then you should also skip the online log.

According to puritans. However, many people see the online log as reporting that you found the cache, not whether you signed the log. If you are absolutely sure you found the cache without opening it and looking at the log, why shouldn't you report you found it. A cache owner may claim you found something else and that your find is bogus. But most won't. My guess is that the OP is finding the caches and usually knows that what he found was indeed the cache and not a decoy, a letterbox in the same location, or something else. He posts his online log to share his experience on his hike and to mark this cache as found so it won't show up on his maps.

 

There are reasons to argue against bogus logging - reporting a cache as found when you didn't find it. And they may be reason for some caches (decoy, nearby letterbox, physical challenge that the owner expects to be met) for owners to insist on the log being signed. But puritans worry about the find count too much. While it may happen, it is rare that people are logging online finds in order to cheat. They are logging caches they feel they legitimately found. Sometimes the rationale for claiming a find bothers even me. For example, I don't think you should claim a find because the cache was missing and you found where it was supposed to be. But rather than calling someone a cheater because they violated some imaginary rule, I prefer to explain why this is not a find and let them and the cache owner make up their own minds if the log should be deleted or not.

[+u.rusty]

Wow! I'm really surprised at the negative responses.

 

Different people play the game differently. I can't speak for the original poster, but if he isn't concerned with signing the log, I would be surprised if he is concerned with the cache owner deleting an online log. The enjoyment may simply be the hunt for the cache.

 

I don't understand why this seems to upset some people.

Spoken like a true grasshopper.

 

A Shaolin geocacher can walk through walls...looked for, he can not be seen... ;-)

[+briansnat]

Wow! I'm really surprised at the negative responses.

 

Different people play the game differently. I can't speak for the original poster, but if he isn't concerned with signing the log, I would be surprised if he is concerned with the cache owner deleting an online log. The enjoyment may simply be the hunt for the cache.

 

I don't understand why this seems to upset some people.

 

Are people upset? He asked a question and received answers, most of which did not agree with him. Why does that automatically mean that those who disagree with him are upset?

[+u.rusty]

Wow! I'm really surprised at the negative responses.

 

Different people play the game differently. I can't speak for the original poster, but if he isn't concerned with signing the log, I would be surprised if he is concerned with the cache owner deleting an online log. The enjoyment may simply be the hunt for the cache.

 

I don't understand why this seems to upset some people.

 

...Why does that automatically mean that those who disagree with him are upset?

 

It doesn't.

 

It just seems to me that it upsets some people, judging by their replies. If I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. Perhaps I'm just too sensitive. I'm just surprised by the responses.

[+dreamarcher]

Wow! I'm really surprised at the negative responses.

 

Different people play the game differently. I can't speak for the original poster, but if he isn't concerned with signing the log, I would be surprised if he is concerned with the cache owner deleting an online log. The enjoyment may simply be the hunt for the cache.

 

I don't understand why this seems to upset some people.

Because human behavior is to knock someone down to boost their relative standing. In this case it's to disqualify someone's finds. Valid or otherwise. Or maybe simply because people feel that they have to play by the rules so other do also. Who likes it when they're in 5mph traffic on the freeway and somebody drives down the shoulder and then cuts in. Why do they not have to play by the rules?

 

On signing: Do lame caches deserve to be signed. I feel I deserve to log a find because I made an effort to find it. I've still been out caching on my bum leg. However the cache owner made almost no effort placing a leaky film canister, cigar tube, etc with a wet log. Thank you for the cache you put some effort into, but lame cache = no signing.

Edited October 20, 2010 by dreamarcher

[aniyn]

Wasn't it Dave Ulmer that said he thought the logbooks were pointless now that we have online logging?

I can see both sides of this anyways. TPTB have decided that the logbook is a critical part of geocaching, and that's fine with me. I'll sign it unless it's wet and mushy.

[+pppingme]

By the end of the hike I wasn’t signing the log sheets anymore, and in most cases, I soon as I saw the cache I marked it as found and moved on to the next..

There has to be a line, if not, what comes next?

 

Trail caching? I know there were 3 caches along that trail I just walked.

 

Drive by caching? I was driving down the street and I knew there was a cache near by.

 

Fly over caching? I flew over the state of Kansas, so I logged all of them online.

 

Vacation caching? I visited California, so I just logged all the caches in the state.

 

Most people generally agree that the log book is the line.

 

The only time I've ever skipped signing the log is when there was a physical problem with the log itself, and I generally collect other evidence (like a snapshot of the open container if I have my cell cam).

[+Isonzo Karst]

Anyone else skipping the log sheet?

 

Okay, I'll bite. >>>>yeah, me too.

 

I'll also note that NOWHERE in the original post does it state that he then logs "Found it!" online. I don't.

I don't log some percentage of the caches where I do sign the log.

 

Also, per Toz, it may well be okay by the cache owner for the cache to be logged as found online without a signature in the logbook.

[+Chokecherry]

He did log the caches online you can see that simply from the profile with the simple TFTC online logs.

 

I just don't agree with that way of geocaching. Even at the end of a long day caching I want my name in that log. I don't want to walk all the way out to where ever and simply look at the container and go back. For me that would just be a monumental waste of time. If I'm getting otu there I'm going to make sure to open that container up, sign the log, and paw through stuff before enjoying the sights. In all of this the quickest part of geocaching is scribbling my name in that log book.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Wow! I'm really surprised at the negative responses.

 

Different people play the game differently. I can't speak for the original poster, but if he isn't concerned with signing the log, I would be surprised if he is concerned with the cache owner deleting an online log. The enjoyment may simply be the hunt for the cache.

 

I don't understand why this seems to upset some people.

 

Are people upset? He asked a question and received answers, most of which did not agree with him. Why does that automatically mean that those who disagree with him are upset?

 

I didn't see anyone upset either. There were many that replied that "skipping the log" was not how they, and likely most played the game. That's not being upset, or even judgemental.

 

All most responses were trying to do was say, "that's not how most people play the game, but if that how you want to play it, there may be consequences such as some cache owners deleting an online log if the log has been signed.

 

That's not negative, it's just the way it is.

[+Stargazer22]

A few weeks ago we did a 6+ mile hike with 17 caches we searched for. We found 14 and signed the log on every one of them. One was a real challenge to open since the container had been melted in a fire.

 

I have probably 75 finds or so that I haven't logged online that all have my signature on the log. To me, finding a cache is like having a beer. If I don't open it up to get to the contents inside, the fun from the experience just isn't the same.

 

I always sign the log on every cache I find. I don't expect others to do the same, though.

[Skippermark]

Anyone else skipping the log sheet?

No, we sign the log. We once lost our pen on the hike to the cache, and the person we were with didn't have one either, so we used some mud and a stick to write in the logbook. As an extra step, we even photographed ourselves at the cache, holding the container and the logbook in case there were any questions. We of course didn't upload it to the site, though so it wouldn't spoil anything for future finders.

 

I will not sign with blood, though, as some claim do when they don't have a pen. That's just downright icky.

[Pup Patrol]

It's been said over and over that posting nothing more than "TFTC" is disrespectful to the cache owner who took the time and made the effort to place a cache.

 

Not even bothering to open the cache and sign the log would be in the same category, no?

 

And then to log it as "found" online with nothing more than "TFTC"? C'mon.

 

Yes, you can play this game any way you like. But....the cache owner has the option to play the game his/her way. Deleting online "found it" logs when there is no corresponding entry in the physical log book is their prerogative.

 

Knowledge Books articles:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?p....page&id=67

 

3.6. Log Book Etiquette

 

When you find a geocache, write the date of the visit, your username and the experience you had into the log book. You may want to share funny stories about your adventure, or tell about the condition of the cache and the area of the hide. Some people prefer to enter just their name into the log book. Others have special stamps, stickers or paper-punchers that leave signature marks in the pages.

 

Sometimes, for smaller cache containers, there is no book but only sheet. It is best to simply write your username and the date on these sheets.

 

From the Guidelines:

 

Logging of All Physical Caches

 

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

 

Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

You "saw" a cache. You didn't open it. You didn't sign the logbook. You didn't "find it" according to the very basics of the game.

[+Avernar]

but lame cache = no signing.

but lame cache = smiley. Nice double standard you have there.

[+dfx]

Wasn't it Dave Ulmer that said he thought the logbooks were pointless now that we have online logging?

in a way i agree, but the problem is that these days there's all kinds of statistics linked to the found logs, and challenge caches make this even worse. people are thinking that finding a particular cache constitutues an accomplishment of some sorts and since they had to "earn" that smiley, everyone else also needs to.

 

it's less of an argument of the challenge/accomplishment of finding a cache is getting to GZ, e.g. long hike, remote area, paddle cache, solving the puzzle, etc. however, some caches are specifically designed so that either retrieving them or opening them is the challenge, e.g. caches up in a tree or locked caches. by logging a find when you've only seen the caches and never opened them, you're basically skipping the challenge and that's when people will start to talk about cheating.

Edited October 20, 2010 by dfx

[MisterEFQ]

The only time I want to skip it is when its a really small log, like the nanos. Or the sprinker cache that we found.

 

But we took the time to unroll it, sign it and re-roll it up anyways.

[+sbell111]

By the end of the hike I wasn’t signing the log sheets anymore, and in most cases, I soon as I saw the cache I marked it as found and moved on to the next..

There has to be a line, if not, what comes next?

 

Trail caching? I know there were 3 caches along that trail I just walked.

 

Drive by caching? I was driving down the street and I knew there was a cache near by.

 

Fly over caching? I flew over the state of Kansas, so I logged all of them online.

 

Vacation caching? I visited California, so I just logged all the caches in the state.

The difference in your examples and the OP's is that he actually found the caches.

 

This is not a thread about logging finds on caches that you didn't find. It's a thread on signing the logbooks of caches that you did find.

[+sbell111]

He did log the caches online you can see that simply from the profile with the simple TFTC online logs.

 

I just don't agree with that way of geocaching. Even at the end of a long day caching I want my name in that log. I don't want to walk all the way out to where ever and simply look at the container and go back. For me that would just be a monumental waste of time. If I'm getting otu there I'm going to make sure to open that container up, sign the log, and paw through stuff before enjoying the sights. In all of this the quickest part of geocaching is scribbling my name in that log book.

I'm not sure how the OP wasted any more time than he would have had he signed the logbooks. Based solely on his post, it would appear that not signing the books as his hike progressed added to his joy.

[+addisonbr]

There has to be a line, if not, what comes next?

I think of it the way I think of running. Some win marathons, others shuffle slowly around the block at a pace slower than what I comfortably walk... I'm somewhere in the middle, and none of it bothers me.

 

I sign the logbook, because that's how I started. But I don't mind that other people don't. If someone logged my cache online without signing the logbook, but I had no reason to believe he didn't "find" it, I'd happily let the log stand.

 

Someone in my area was photographing cache containers as his idiosyncratic way of registering his find without disturbing the container. He got barked at by locals and as near as I can tell, dropped out of the game. That bummed me out a little.

 

some caches are specifically designed so that either retrieving them or opening them is the challenge, e.g. caches up in a tree or locked caches.

In these cases I would agree that the spirit of the cache comes into play.

[+sbell111]

To me, finding a cache is like having a beer. If I don't open it up to get to the contents inside, the fun from the experience just isn't the same.

Your analogy doesn't work.

 

In geocaching, the object is to find the cache. At least for the OP, the act of 'finding' doesn't include signing the logbook.

 

In the sport of beer drinking, drinking the beer is the thing, so the container must be opened.

[+sbell111]

It's been said over and over that posting nothing more than "TFTC" is disrespectful to the cache owner who took the time and made the effort to place a cache.

That is the opinion of a few complainers, not a consensus of the community.

Yes, you can play this game any way you like. But....the cache owner has the option to play the game his/her way. Deleting online "found it" logs when there is no corresponding entry in the physical log book is their prerogative.

No one has taken the position that cache owners cannot choose to delete these logs.

3.6. Log Book Etiquette

 

When you find a geocache, write the date of the visit, your username and the experience you had into the log book. You may want to share funny stories about your adventure, or tell about the condition of the cache and the area of the hide. Some people prefer to enter just their name into the log book. Others have special stamps, stickers or paper-punchers that leave signature marks in the pages.

 

Sometimes, for smaller cache containers, there is no book but only sheet. It is best to simply write your username and the date on these sheets.

That may be the etiquette, per the site, but it's not a hard and fast rule.

From the Guidelines:

 

Logging of All Physical Caches

 

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

That bit of the guidelines doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

While it is true that cache owners can choose to delete logs if the logbook was not signed, they are under no obligation to do so. They are free to decide for themselve whether such an online 'find' log is appropriate and may choose to let it stand.

[+Castle Mischief]

Anyone else skipping the log sheet?

 

Generally no. For me, it's part of the finding. If I wanted to the skip the log I'd find Virtuals, Earthcaches, or Waymarks. For me that physical log has meaning.

[+Castle Mischief]

To me, finding a cache is like having a beer. If I don't open it up to get to the contents inside, the fun from the experience just isn't the same.

Your analogy doesn't work.

 

In geocaching, the object is to find the cache. At least for the OP, the act of 'finding' doesn't include signing the logbook.

 

In the sport of beer drinking, drinking the beer is the thing, so the container must be opened.

 

For most the "cache" is the sum of its parts- the log, the trinkets and the container. To represent the cache as the exterior of the container itself is a little disingenuous.

 

How many empty ammo cans/bison tubes/matchstick holders have you found and hidden?

[Dinoprophet]

To me, finding a cache is like having a beer. If I don't open it up to get to the contents inside, the fun from the experience just isn't the same.

Your analogy doesn't work.

 

In geocaching, the object is to find the cache. At least for the OP, the act of 'finding' doesn't include signing the logbook.

 

In the sport of beer drinking, drinking the beer is the thing, so the container must be opened.

 

For most the "cache" is the sum of its parts- the log, the trinkets and the container. To represent the cache as the exterior of the container itself is a little disingenuous.

 

How many empty ammo cans/bison tubes/matchstick holders have you found and hidden?

You know, this suggests an interesting point. I bet there was a lot less angst about signing the logbook back when caches were typically worth opening -- back when "found a cache" meant "located (found) a container of objects (cache)", not "signed a piece of paper". When you know there's nothing in there but a rolled up strip of paper, the motivation quickly fades.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+sbell111]

To me, finding a cache is like having a beer. If I don't open it up to get to the contents inside, the fun from the experience just isn't the same.

Your analogy doesn't work.

 

In geocaching, the object is to find the cache. At least for the OP, the act of 'finding' doesn't include signing the logbook.

 

In the sport of beer drinking, drinking the beer is the thing, so the container must be opened.

 

For most the "cache" is the sum of its parts- the log, the trinkets and the container. To represent the cache as the exterior of the container itself is a little disingenuous.

 

How many empty ammo cans/bison tubes/matchstick holders have you found and hidden?

None. I bet that the OP hasn't found or hidden any empty ones, either. That's why when he locates an ammo can hidden under a pile of sticks at ground zero, he's certain enough that he found the cache.

[+Castle Mischief]

For most the "cache" is the sum of its parts- the log, the trinkets and the container. To represent the cache as the exterior of the container itself is a little disingenuous.

 

How many empty ammo cans/bison tubes/matchstick holders have you found and hidden?

None. I bet that the OP hasn't found or hidden any empty ones, either. That's why when he locates an ammo can hidden under a pile of sticks at ground zero, he's certain enough that he found the cache.

 

I'm fairly certain it will have no affect on your position, but the CO made no indication that the caches he strolled past were ammo cans. Having defended every imaginable container possible, I'm sure you realize that there's a potential to eyeball something that is not the container and mistake it for the cache.

[+Avernar]

None. I bet that the OP hasn't found or hidden any empty ones, either. That's why when he locates an ammo can hidden under a pile of sticks at ground zero, he's certain enough that he found the cache.

Too many times what I thought was the cache for a small distance away turned out not to be. Once you're close enough to be sure it's a cache it's not much effort to open it.

 

Opening it also makes sure that the contents haven't been muggled. It would be bad if the next finder logs that the cache contents were damaged or missing and you're the previous finder.

 

And then there's decoy caches. While I haven't found any decoy ammo cans yet, I've found plenty of smaller decoy caches.