Skip the log sheet

[+BelKen]

So I don't agree to any other rules. On my caches I am The Power That Be providing I don't violate the two agreements when the cache is listed on GC.com.

 

Interesting view. I am curious. Which side of the game is the most important? The hider or the seeker?

 

Neither is important as such. The hider is the only one that can make the rules regarding their cache providing those rules don't go outside the TOU or cache listing guidelines. The finder only has their log that must comply with the TOU.

[+escomag]

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

 

Seems real easy to me. Find the cache sign the log and claim the find. If you don't sign the log, no find. Simple.

 

Not simple. If you did this cache GCGRQ3 and forgot your pen or it quit working, would it be a not found cache? You can't run back to the truck to get another.

 

I'd say, your word that you found it, and maybe some pictures should be good enough.

Use a stick or something to make your mark. Thers's always that exception out there. Just going by what is written in the guidelines. For those to say it does not say you have to sign the log, it's written in there.

 

Always carry extra writing utensils.

 

Maybe. I am not going to sign in blood or some other such nonsense. My point in this whole discussion is that rules should have some flexibility. When I am driving through farm country, and can see for miles in any direction, and I come to a 4 way stop sign by myself, why should I have to stop? I completely take responsibility if I somehow miss another vehicle and cause an accident.

 

My thoughts also make me a poor juror. I refuse to just look at the letter of the law. Situations always affect behavior. The store owner who has his store repeatedly burglarized, and takes the piece of expanded steel, bolts it over the opening the thieves are using, and wires it up with 110 current, and then kills an intruder, is probably going to get off in my decision, even though he broke the law in setting a trap.

 

Ultimately, this is just a silly game we all like to play. If other cachers decide to claim finds they didn't, how is anyone damaged? There is no score, unless you win by the number of finds. Silly. Getting a 1000 caches in a day, doesn't compare with the person who next scores this one GC169A

 

Sad thing is, I have climbed Middle Palisade and probably will not ever do it again.

 

enough

[+escomag]

So I don't agree to any other rules. On my caches I am The Power That Be providing I don't violate the two agreements when the cache is listed on GC.com.

 

Interesting view. I am curious. Which side of the game is the most important? The hider or the seeker?

 

Neither is important as such. The hider is the only one that can make the rules regarding their cache providing those rules don't go outside the TOU or cache listing guidelines. The finder only has their log that must comply with the TOU.

 

hmmm, you say neither is important as such. Then you state the hider "makes the rules", and the finder "must comply" I am sure that Plantation Masters felt the same way.

[+BelKen]

So I don't agree to any other rules. On my caches I am The Power That Be providing I don't violate the two agreements when the cache is listed on GC.com.

 

Interesting view. I am curious. Which side of the game is the most important? The hider or the seeker?

 

Neither is important as such. The hider is the only one that can make the rules regarding their cache providing those rules don't go outside the TOU or cache listing guidelines. The finder only has their log that must comply with the TOU.

 

hmmm, you say neither is important as such. Then you state the hider "makes the rules", and the finder "must comply" I am sure that Plantation Masters felt the same way.

 

If a cache owner makes a rule that is valid and then polices it then yes the finder must comply.

 

If a cache owner chooses no rules and allows all comers then the finder can do as they wish.

 

Then there is the varying degrees in the middle.

 

Reread what I said in that post and my original. I meant that I believe a cache owner has the right to make the rule. I believe that signing the log is important and would delete bogus logs but I rarely check logbooks with online logs. Interpret that to mean that whilst I think its important to sign the log I don't police it.

 

My second statement said that the finders logs must comply with the TOU (of the GC.com site ). If you think GC.com as a Plantation Manager then so be it.

 

So you disgaree with me and believe that someone is more important. Who would you say is the most important?

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

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. I always sign the log. One time I didn't have a pen. But I took a pic of the cache and log sheet.

[+the4dirtydogs]

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

 

Seems real easy to me. Find the cache sign the log and claim the find. If you don't sign the log, no find. Simple.

 

Not simple. If you did this cache GCGRQ3 and forgot your pen or it quit working, would it be a not found cache? You can't run back to the truck to get another.

 

I'd say, your word that you found it, and maybe some pictures should be good enough.

Use a stick or something to make your mark. Thers's always that exception out there. Just going by what is written in the guidelines. For those to say it does not say you have to sign the log, it's written in there.

 

Always carry extra writing utensils.

 

Maybe. I am not going to sign in blood or some other such nonsense. My point in this whole discussion is that rules should have some flexibility. When I am driving through farm country, and can see for miles in any direction, and I come to a 4 way stop sign by myself, why should I have to stop? I completely take responsibility if I somehow miss another vehicle and cause an accident.

 

My thoughts also make me a poor juror. I refuse to just look at the letter of the law. Situations always affect behavior. The store owner who has his store repeatedly burglarized, and takes the piece of expanded steel, bolts it over the opening the thieves are using, and wires it up with 110 current, and then kills an intruder, is probably going to get off in my decision, even though he broke the law in setting a trap.

 

Ultimately, this is just a silly game we all like to play. If other cachers decide to claim finds they didn't, how is anyone damaged? There is no score, unless you win by the number of finds. Silly. Getting a 1000 caches in a day, doesn't compare with the person who next scores this one GC169A

 

Sad thing is, I have climbed Middle Palisade and probably will not ever do it again.

 

enough

How does running a stop sign or killing someone have to do with signing a simple log sheet. WOW!!!!!!!!!!! It's just a game sign the log and move on to the next cache.

[+escomag]

So you disgaree with me and believe that someone is more important. Who would you say is the most important?

 

Clearly the finder. I do assume that you place a cache to be found?

[+BlueDeuce]

So you disgaree with me and believe that someone is more important. Who would you say is the most important?

 

Clearly the finder. I do assume that you place a cache to be found?

 

Don't assume that either the finder or the owner can do whatever they want on this site. Push it outside the guidelines and you are out of the game.

Edited October 22, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+tozainamboku]

So I don't agree to any other rules. On my caches I am The Power That Be providing I don't violate the two agreements when the cache is listed on GC.com.

 

Interesting view. I am curious. Which side of the game is the most important? The hider or the seeker?

 

Neither is important as such. The hider is the only one that can make the rules regarding their cache providing those rules don't go outside the TOU or cache listing guidelines. The finder only has their log that must comply with the TOU.

 

hmmm, you say neither is important as such. Then you state the hider "makes the rules", and the finder "must comply" I am sure that Plantation Masters felt the same way.

 

If a cache owner makes a rule that is valid and then polices it then yes the finder must comply.

 

If a cache owner chooses no rules and allows all comers then the finder can do as they wish.

 

Then there is the varying degrees in the middle.

 

Reread what I said in that post and my original. I meant that I believe a cache owner has the right to make the rule. I believe that signing the log is important and would delete bogus logs but I rarely check logbooks with online logs. Interpret that to mean that whilst I think its important to sign the log I don't police it.

 

My second statement said that the finders logs must comply with the TOU (of the GC.com site ). If you think GC.com as a Plantation Manager then so be it.

 

So you disgaree with me and believe that someone is more important. Who would you say is the most important?

Cache owners shouldn't be making up rules. They used to be allowed to make rules for logging caches. These were called additional logging requirements The guidelines were changed to eliminate these made up rules. They added a guideline saying that the geocache could logged as found online once the physical log was signed (and any additional requirement ignored). I believe the general intent is that a Found log should be allowed when the cache is found. However Groundspeak did not want to tell cache owners they had to accept the word of finder on this. They also did not want cache owners to require proof a find by a photograph or by emailing a code word written in the cache. So they left the signed physical log book as the accepted verification that you found a cache. Finders were told to sign the log in order to verify that they found the cache. In that respect, cache owners can delete finds if the physical log was not signed. If a log appears bogus, cache owners should delete it. If it is a legitimate find and the finder signed the physical log (and the cache or log has not gone missing or otherwise become unreadable) the finder can always say that he signed the log. Then the owner (or the next finder) can verify the log is signed and the delete log can be reinstated. If the log does not appear bogus, the cache owner should not be deleting logs. Usually, if someone logs that they found the cache but were not able to sign and gives the reason the log would not appear bogus. If the OP's logs say he went on a hike and signed some logs but then stop signing logs because it took too much time, it may in fact appear as if the logs where he did not sign were bogus. So a cache owner could legitimately delete these without needing to make up a rule. However a cacher who went to look for a cache and didn't have anything to sign the log with, but who discovered a travel bug that was in the cache or took a picture of the cache hands would appear to have a legitimate find. Cache owners who delete this log because the finder didn't sign are making up a rule (IMO). Obviously most cases fall somewhere in between. The cache owner is given some freedom to make judgments as to whether a log is bogus or not.

[+BelKen]

So you disgaree with me and believe that someone is more important. Who would you say is the most important?

 

Clearly the finder. I do assume that you place a cache to be found?

 

Don't assume that either the finder or the owner can do whatever they want on this site. Push it outside the guidelines and you are out of the game.

 

I assume the finder wants to find something? Without a cache he is going for a walk as the OP is.

 

And your out of this site the game can continue without Groundspeak.

[+Niemela]

Anyone else skipping the log sheet?

 

No, I don´t break the rules. Also they might be "fake" caches with a hint to the real one. You never know if you found it until you sign the log.

[+BelKen]

So I don't agree to any other rules. On my caches I am The Power That Be providing I don't violate the two agreements when the cache is listed on GC.com.

 

Interesting view. I am curious. Which side of the game is the most important? The hider or the seeker?

 

Neither is important as such. The hider is the only one that can make the rules regarding their cache providing those rules don't go outside the TOU or cache listing guidelines. The finder only has their log that must comply with the TOU.

 

hmmm, you say neither is important as such. Then you state the hider "makes the rules", and the finder "must comply" I am sure that Plantation Masters felt the same way.

 

If a cache owner makes a rule that is valid and then polices it then yes the finder must comply.

 

If a cache owner chooses no rules and allows all comers then the finder can do as they wish.

 

Then there is the varying degrees in the middle.

 

Reread what I said in that post and my original. I meant that I believe a cache owner has the right to make the rule. I believe that signing the log is important and would delete bogus logs but I rarely check logbooks with online logs. Interpret that to mean that whilst I think its important to sign the log I don't police it.

 

My second statement said that the finders logs must comply with the TOU (of the GC.com site ). If you think GC.com as a Plantation Manager then so be it.

 

So you disgaree with me and believe that someone is more important. Who would you say is the most important?

Cache owners shouldn't be making up rules. They used to be allowed to make rules for logging caches. These were called additional logging requirements The guidelines were changed to eliminate these made up rules. They added a guideline saying that the geocache could logged as found online once the physical log was signed (and any additional requirement ignored). I believe the general intent is that a Found log should be allowed when the cache is found. However Groundspeak did not want to tell cache owners they had to accept the word of finder on this. They also did not want cache owners to require proof a find by a photograph or by emailing a code word written in the cache. So they left the signed physical log book as the accepted verification that you found a cache. Finders were told to sign the log in order to verify that they found the cache. In that respect, cache owners can delete finds if the physical log was not signed. If a log appears bogus, cache owners should delete it. If it is a legitimate find and the finder signed the physical log (and the cache or log has not gone missing or otherwise become unreadable) the finder can always say that he signed the log. Then the owner (or the next finder) can verify the log is signed and the delete log can be reinstated. If the log does not appear bogus, the cache owner should not be deleting logs. Usually, if someone logs that they found the cache but were not able to sign and gives the reason the log would not appear bogus. If the OP's logs say he went on a hike and signed some logs but then stop signing logs because it took too much time, it may in fact appear as if the logs where he did not sign were bogus. So a cache owner could legitimately delete these without needing to make up a rule. However a cacher who went to look for a cache and didn't have anything to sign the log with, but who discovered a travel bug that was in the cache or took a picture of the cache hands would appear to have a legitimate find. Cache owners who delete this log because the finder didn't sign are making up a rule (IMO). Obviously most cases fall somewhere in between. The cache owner is given some freedom to make judgments as to whether a log is bogus or not.

The rule I keep referring to is as you stated. A signed log is verification of a find. The rest of what you said. I thought I said, in less words.

 

However on an earlier [point regarding rules as such or it could be called conditions ie climb a tree rapel a cliff) providing the rule/condition does not violate the TOU and cache guidleines then it is ok. This is where the spirit of geocaching gets stretched. If the rules as people are apt to quote do not appear in those two documents then they are not rules as per listing caches on this site. IMHO

[+The Dodger Duo]

 

The only time I would skip logging is if the log is totally full, wet, or falling apart. In those cases I replace the log if I have one with me.

 

I do wonder what people think about "What to do with a destroyed log?". I have come across many that are a mess!

 

I want to put a new log in but there is not room for both. Do we remove the old and put in the new? Some of them are just full. Is it okay to remove it and notify the owner and mail it to them?????

[+Castle Mischief]

Don't assume that either the finder or the owner can do whatever they want on this site. Push it outside the guidelines and you are out of the game.

 

Exactly. Either we gather around a basic principal or we'll never overcome our divisions.

 

Edited October 22, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[+sbell111]

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

 

Seems real easy to me. Find the cache sign the log and claim the find. If you don't sign the log, no find. Simple.

Did you even read the thread?

[Dinoprophet]

Don't assume that either the finder or the owner can do whatever they want on this site. Push it outside the guidelines and you are out of the game.

 

Exactly. Either we gather around a basic principal or we'll never overcome our divisions.

 

We have that: the cache owner determines what's a valid find. I'm pretty sure even the staunchest of legalists in these threads has agreed to that.

[Mr.Yuck]

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

 

Seems real easy to me. Find the cache sign the log and claim the find. If you don't sign the log, no find. Simple.

Did you even read the thread?

 

Why? It seems pretty simple. Except to you and one other guy, who likes to type a lot.

 

To answer the OP's question: No, no one else is just looking at what is probably the cache, skipping the logsheet, and logging "TFTC" on the website. Well, there might be two of you, just like there's two of them in this thread, but the other guy never posted here.

[+BlueDeuce]

We have that: the cache owner determines what's a valid find. I'm pretty sure even the staunchest of legalists in these threads has agreed to that.

 

Pocket caches.

Edited October 22, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[Mr.Yuck]

We have that: the cache owner determines what's a valid find. I'm pretty sure even the staunchest of legalists in these threads has agreed to that.

 

Pocket caches.

 

Four Windows (or several other European-based virtuals).

[Dinoprophet]

We have that: the cache owner determines what's a valid find. I'm pretty sure even the staunchest of legalists in these threads has agreed to that.

 

Pocket caches.

What about them? I'm not up on the whole event/pocket cache deal so I may be mistaken, but I thought those were still up to the cache owner.

Four Windows (or several other European-based virtuals).

That one "did not comply with the guidelines in place as of July 2002 which required virtual caches to be a physical object that can be referenced through Lat/Lon coordinates. At no time did the guidelines allow for virtual caches of this nature."

Edited October 22, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+addisonbr]

Pocket caches.

What about them? I'm not up on the whole event/pocket cache deal so I may be mistaken, but I thought those were still up to the cache owner.

My understanding is that Groundspeak can and will lock pocket caches if and when they become aware of them.

 

Four Windows (or several other European-based virtuals).

That one "did not comply with the guidelines in place as of July 2002 which required virtual caches to be a physical object that can be referenced through Lat/Lon coordinates. At no time did the guidelines allow for virtual caches of this nature."

Groundspeak has archived and locked several other virtual caches that had turned into couch caches with no owner moderation. For example, GCC27C:

December 1, 2009 by Sandy

 

Unfortunately, this cache allows for cachers to find the correct answer without actually going to the cache location.

 

The cache logs show many examples of geocachers logging a "find" without having been to the cache location. As a result, this cache page does not meet the guidelines for Virtual Caches: (visit link)

Therefore, this cache has been archived.

[Dinoprophet]

My understanding is that Groundspeak can and will lock pocket caches if and when they become aware of them.

Maybe so. Like I said, I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the whole pocket cache culture. I thought they were just extra logs on events. Will the events be locked? Or do they have separate listings?

 

Groundspeak has archived and locked several other virtual caches that had turned into couch caches with no owner moderation. For example, GCC27C:

December 1, 2009 by Sandy

 

Unfortunately, this cache allows for cachers to find the correct answer without actually going to the cache location.

 

The cache logs show many examples of geocachers logging a "find" without having been to the cache location. As a result, this cache page does not meet the guidelines for Virtual Caches: (visit link)

Therefore, this cache has been archived.

But those are entire listings that are invalid. I don't deny there are very many guidelines as to what can and cannot be a cache. That's not what we're talking about.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+Castle Mischief]

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

 

Seems real easy to me. Find the cache sign the log and claim the find. If you don't sign the log, no find. Simple.

Did you even read the thread?

 

Why? It seems pretty simple. Except to you and one other guy, who likes to type a lot.

 

To answer the OP's question: No, no one else is just looking at what is probably the cache, skipping the logsheet, and logging "TFTC" on the website. Well, there might be two of you, just like there's two of them in this thread, but the other guy never posted here.

 

Actually, to be fair, sbell111 has already confirmed that he does sign the physical logs, regardless of how many times he's argued that you don't have to. Semantic granularity vs. practical application.

[+addisonbr]

Maybe so. Like I said, I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the whole pocket cache culture. I thought they were just extra logs on events. Will the events be locked? Or do they have separate listings?

Pocket caches, from what I understand, are physical caches that are literally carried around at events so that people can sign the logbook. It's not quite the same as people logging events multiple times to track their event-specific, temporary cache finds.

 

Some traveling caches which have been grandfathered will sometimes become pocket caches at events like GeoWoodstock, before going back to 'regular' pocket caches. I think it's taking a bit of a risk myself.

 

But those are entire listings that are invalid. I don't deny there are very many guidelines as to what can and cannot be a cache. That's not what we're talking about.

I think it's subtle, but here's my interpretation.

 

The listing itself WAS valid. It was a virtual in a location that required a visit (not like Four Windows, which always was just a riddle). However, it ultimately was not left up to the CO to determine what did and didn't constitute a legal "found it" log - when it was understood that the CO wasn't requiring people to visit the site and provide confirmation, the listing was archived and locked. The listing itself was fine, and would still be alive today had the CO's determination of a "valid find" been applied differently.

[+the4dirtydogs]

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

 

Seems real easy to me. Find the cache sign the log and claim the find. If you don't sign the log, no find. Simple.

Did you even read the thread?

I did.

[+lachupa]

I don't see the point in not actually opening the cache to check it out. Half the fun is seeing what is in the cache and reading through the logs. That's why I don't so much care for nanos but alas I live in a city so that ends up being the most common type of cache.

 

As a CO I would be disappointed if someone didn't actually take the time to open the thing.

 

whatever - I guess

it just seems a bit pointless to me

[+sbell111]

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

 

Seems real easy to me. Find the cache sign the log and claim the find. If you don't sign the log, no find. Simple.

Did you even read the thread?

I did.

OK. You will note that the bit of the guidelines that you posted doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

It requires cache owners to allow online 'find' logs if the physical log was signed. It does not direct cache owners that they must dissallow any online 'find' logs if the logbook was not signed.

 

This position on the referenced guideline verbiage is in agreement with statements made by tptb immediately after the verbiage was added to the guidelines.

Edited October 22, 2010 by sbell111

[Dinoprophet]

I don't see the point in not actually opening the cache to check it out. Half the fun is seeing what is in the cache and reading through the logs. That's why I don't so much care for nanos but alas I live in a city so that ends up being the most common type of cache.

 

As a CO I would be disappointed if someone didn't actually take the time to open the thing.

 

whatever - I guess

it just seems a bit pointless to me

I mentioned in one of these threads -- maybe it was this one, maybe another -- that I think nanos and micros have had a big part in the angst over this subject. The two things you mention -- seeing what's in there and reading the logs -- mostly don't apply to micros, and certainly not nanos. We used to get quite a few threads complaining about people who don't trade. Now, we rarely even get a "junk in cache" thread. Swag used to be a big aspect of the game -- they're called "caches", after all. With so many caches that don't have trade items, I don't think it's all that surprising that some people don't see the point in opening one.

[+BuckeyeClan]

I don't see the point in not actually opening the cache to check it out. Half the fun is seeing what is in the cache and reading through the logs. That's why I don't so much care for nanos but alas I live in a city so that ends up being the most common type of cache.

 

As a CO I would be disappointed if someone didn't actually take the time to open the thing.

 

whatever - I guess

it just seems a bit pointless to me

I mentioned in one of these threads -- maybe it was this one, maybe another -- that I think nanos and micros have had a big part in the angst over this subject. The two things you mention -- seeing what's in there and reading the logs -- mostly don't apply to micros, and certainly not nanos. We used to get quite a few threads complaining about people who don't trade. Now, we rarely even get a "junk in cache" thread. Swag used to be a big aspect of the game -- they're called "caches", after all. With so many caches that don't have trade items, I don't think it's all that surprising that some people don't see the point in opening one.

 

That's a really interesting observation. I know I have DNF'd a few micro caches after only a few minutes of searching because it just didn't seem to be worth my time to continue hunting. But I'm willing to spend more time hunting for a reqular, especially if it is an ammo can. Just my own little bias, I guess.

 

On a side note: One major angst per thread wasn't good enough for you? You just *had* to introduce cache size into the mix?!?!

Edited October 22, 2010 by BuckeyeClan

[Dinoprophet]

On a side note: One major angst per thread wasn't good enough for you? You just *had* to introduce cache size into the mix?!?!

Well, the original topic alone doesn't justify this many pages.

[+BlueDeuce]

I don't see the point in not actually opening the cache to check it out. Half the fun is seeing what is in the cache and reading through the logs. That's why I don't so much care for nanos but alas I live in a city so that ends up being the most common type of cache.

 

As a CO I would be disappointed if someone didn't actually take the time to open the thing.

 

whatever - I guess

it just seems a bit pointless to me

I mentioned in one of these threads -- maybe it was this one, maybe another -- that I think nanos and micros have had a big part in the angst over this subject. The two things you mention -- seeing what's in there and reading the logs -- mostly don't apply to micros, and certainly not nanos. We used to get quite a few threads complaining about people who don't trade. Now, we rarely even get a "junk in cache" thread. Swag used to be a big aspect of the game -- they're called "caches", after all. With so many caches that don't have trade items, I don't think it's all that surprising that some people don't see the point in opening one.

 

hmmm, good point.

[+Castle Mischief]

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

 

Seems real easy to me. Find the cache sign the log and claim the find. If you don't sign the log, no find. Simple.

Did you even read the thread?

I did.

OK. You will note that the bit of the guidelines that you posted doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

It requires cache owners to allow online 'find' logs if the physical log was signed. It does not direct cache owners that they must dissallow any online 'find' logs if the logbook was not signed.

 

This position on the referenced guideline verbiage is in agreement with statements made by tptb immediately after the verbiage was added to the guidelines.

 

At what point did the4dirtydogs indicate that as a cache owner they would dissallow a "Found It" on a cache they owned. Did you even read their post?

[+Castle Mischief]

With so many caches that don't have trade items, I don't think it's all that surprising that some people don't see the point in opening one.

 

How else will they sign the log?

[+BuckeyeClan]

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

 

Seems real easy to me. Find the cache sign the log and claim the find. If you don't sign the log, no find. Simple.

Did you even read the thread?

I did.

OK. You will note that the bit of the guidelines that you posted doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

It requires cache owners to allow online 'find' logs if the physical log was signed. It does not direct cache owners that they must dissallow any online 'find' logs if the logbook was not signed.

 

This position on the referenced guideline verbiage is in agreement with statements made by tptb immediately after the verbiage was added to the guidelines.

 

At what point did the4dirtydogs indicate that as a cache owner they would dissallow a "Found It" on a cache they owned. Did you even read their post?

 

From what he says in post #146 and post #150, that certainly seems to be what he is getting at.

 

DP is right--I can't believe this thread is still going. I think we are talking in circles now.

[+Tape worm]

To the OP. If they where my caches, I'd delete your on-line "found log". Since it's not my cache, I don't care.

[+sbell111]

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

 

Seems real easy to me. Find the cache sign the log and claim the find. If you don't sign the log, no find. Simple.

Did you even read the thread?

I did.

OK. You will note that the bit of the guidelines that you posted doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

It requires cache owners to allow online 'find' logs if the physical log was signed. It does not direct cache owners that they must dissallow any online 'find' logs if the logbook was not signed.

 

This position on the referenced guideline verbiage is in agreement with statements made by tptb immediately after the verbiage was added to the guidelines.

At what point did the4dirtydogs indicate that as a cache owner they would dissallow a "Found It" on a cache they owned. Did you even read their post?

His post that I quoted used the guideline verbiage to support an argument that if the physical log wasn't signed, then the cache wasn't found.

 

Did you read his post?

[+sbell111]

<hiccup>

Edited October 22, 2010 by sbell111

[+the4dirtydogs]

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

 

Seems real easy to me. Find the cache sign the log and claim the find. If you don't sign the log, no find. Simple.

Did you even read the thread?

I did.

OK. You will note that the bit of the guidelines that you posted doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

It requires cache owners to allow online 'find' logs if the physical log was signed. It does not direct cache owners that they must dissallow any online 'find' logs if the logbook was not signed.

 

This position on the referenced guideline verbiage is in agreement with statements made by tptb immediately after the verbiage was added to the guidelines.

I know what it means. You sign the log then log online if you want. I understand you read it a diiferent way. Everywhere you look the guidelines say sign the log book. Its doesn't say to look at the cache from afar and you get to claim the cache as a find. So again real easy sign the log and you get a find.

[+tozainamboku]

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

 

Seems real easy to me. Find the cache sign the log and claim the find. If you don't sign the log, no find. Simple.

Did you even read the thread?

 

Why? It seems pretty simple. Except to you and one other guy, who likes to type a lot.

 

To answer the OP's question: No, no one else is just looking at what is probably the cache, skipping the logsheet, and logging "TFTC" on the website. Well, there might be two of you, just like there's two of them in this thread, but the other guy never posted here.

Gosh. I even said in this thread that a cache owner would be justified in deleting the OP's logs. What I type about is not whether you should or shouldn't sign the log. My point is that is is silly to think you haven't found the cache if you didn't sign the physical log. Signing the physical is something you do after you find the cache. Finding a cache mean you located (and in some instances retrieved) the cache container. Once you have found and retrieved the contain then you open it and sign the log. If there is a good reason you couldn't open the container or sign the log it doesn't mean you didn't find the cache. You can log the fact that you found the cache online using a Found log. There is no rule saying you cannot log your find online or that a cache owner must delete a find online if you didn't sign the physical log. Just think about what it would take to enforce such a rule and you will understand why Groundspeak doesn't have one.

 

If you were to ask me "Should you sign the log?", the answer would be yes. Signing the log verifies that you have found the cache and not some other object like a decoy or a letterbox. The signature in the log book can also be used by the cache owner and other cachers to verify you did find the cache. But this only makes sense when there is something in the online log that appears to be bogus. Some cache owners will take all logs at face value and believe them. Others will suspect every log and regularly check the physical log book.

 

Now there are some cache owners that go a bit further. They allow cachers to change DNF to find in the case the cache was missing or log a find because they solved a puzzle cache in a distant city. I don't particularly like these practices any more than the puritans. However I can't get too worked up over them. If someone else want to make silly found logs when they didn't find anything and the cache owner lets them it doesn't effect me. I'll log a find only on caches I've found. It is true that Groundspeak has decided to act against some of these practices by archiving the cache and locking the page. I have posted elsewhere that I object to this policy. I have found one virtual that I am unable to log because Groundspeak had archived and locked the cache. So I see the policy as punishing legitimate cachers because someone is complaining about silly logs that didn't effect them .

[+Castle Mischief]

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

 

Seems real easy to me. Find the cache sign the log and claim the find. If you don't sign the log, no find. Simple.

Did you even read the thread?

I did.

OK. You will note that the bit of the guidelines that you posted doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

It requires cache owners to allow online 'find' logs if the physical log was signed. It does not direct cache owners that they must dissallow any online 'find' logs if the logbook was not signed.

 

This position on the referenced guideline verbiage is in agreement with statements made by tptb immediately after the verbiage was added to the guidelines.

At what point did the4dirtydogs indicate that as a cache owner they would dissallow a "Found It" on a cache they owned. Did you even read their post?

His post that I quoted used the guideline verbiage to support an argument that if the physical log wasn't signed, then the cache wasn't found.

 

Did you read his post?

 

Yes I did. And did he say that he would delete a log?

[+Castle Mischief]

Back to the OP:

 

The guidelines are written the way they are to allow for some smidgen of head-room to allow for exceptions.

 

When you start making a habit out of not signing the physical log it's no longer the exception.

[+sbell111]

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

 

Seems real easy to me. Find the cache sign the log and claim the find. If you don't sign the log, no find. Simple.

Did you even read the thread?

I did.

OK. You will note that the bit of the guidelines that you posted doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

It requires cache owners to allow online 'find' logs if the physical log was signed. It does not direct cache owners that they must dissallow any online 'find' logs if the logbook was not signed.

 

This position on the referenced guideline verbiage is in agreement with statements made by tptb immediately after the verbiage was added to the guidelines.

At what point did the4dirtydogs indicate that as a cache owner they would dissallow a "Found It" on a cache they owned. Did you even read their post?

His post that I quoted used the guideline verbiage to support an argument that if the physical log wasn't signed, then the cache wasn't found.

 

Did you read his post?

 

Yes I did. And did he say that he would delete a log?

Are you not reading his posts?

[+sbell111]

Back to the OP:

 

The guidelines are written the way they are to allow for some smidgen of head-room to allow for exceptions.

 

When you start making a habit out of not signing the physical log it's no longer the exception.

Given that the vast majority of cachers still sign the logbooks and that the OP even typically signs the logbooks, I would say that this practice is still an exception. Of course, you have to have a rule for there to be an exception...

Edited October 22, 2010 by sbell111

[+Avernar]

Of course, you have to have a rule for there to be an exception...

De facto

[+Castle Mischief]

Are you not reading his posts?

 

I challenge you to quote the post and highlight the exact part where he said that he would disallow or delete a "Found It" log on a cache that they own.

 

It's my opinion that you're more interested in telling people they are wrong than you are in actual debate and discussion.

[+Castle Mischief]

Back to the OP:

 

The guidelines are written the way they are to allow for some smidgen of head-room to allow for exceptions.

 

When you start making a habit out of not signing the physical log it's no longer the exception.

Given that the vast majority of cachers still sign the logbooks and that the OP even typically signs the logbooks, I would say that this practice is still an exception. Of course, you have to have a rule for there to be an exception...

 

Who said anything about rules? I'm talking about an exception to accepted practices. I never mentioned rules in that post, I specifically said "guidelines". Either read my posts and respond to what I'm actually saying or step off. It's disrespectful and rude.

 

Have a good weekend, I'm done here.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[+sbell111]

Are you not reading his posts?

 

I challenge you to quote the post and highlight the exact part where he said that he would disallow or delete a "Found It" log on a cache that they own.

 

It's my opinion that you're more interested in telling people they are wrong than you are in actual debate and discussion.

Why don't you just ask him rather than working so hard at arguing over what he meant? He's active in the thread, after all.

Edited October 22, 2010 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Back to the OP:

 

The guidelines are written the way they are to allow for some smidgen of head-room to allow for exceptions.

 

When you start making a habit out of not signing the physical log it's no longer the exception.

Given that the vast majority of cachers still sign the logbooks and that the OP even typically signs the logbooks, I would say that this practice is still an exception. Of course, you have to have a rule for there to be an exception...

 

Who said anything about rules? I'm talking about an exception to excepted practices. I never mentioned rules in that post, I specifically said "guidelines". Either read my posts and respond to what I'm actually saying or step off. It's disrespectful and rude.

 

Have a good weekend, I'm done here.

Given that his logs still appear on the cache pages, it appears that you might be wrong about what is an 'excepted practice'. Plus, you apparently didn't bother to read the rest of my post. Here it is again, for your reading enjoyment:

Given that the vast majority of cachers still sign the logbooks and that the OP even typically signs the logbooks, I would say that this practice is still an exception.

[+David]

To the OP, not I don't skip signing the log.

 

To insure the geocache has indeed been found, it must be opened. If a logbook is inside, you have found the cache. This eliminates decoys and incorrect assumptions. Since you have the logbook handy, why not sign it to eliminate any confusion or potential online log deletions?

 

I am curious. Which side of the game is the most important? The hider or the seeker?

 

You can't have seekers without hiders. Obviously, the hider is most important.

 

These threads are amazing, and much like a car accident.

 

I would encourage everyone to go out this weekend, find a few caches and sign the logs. It's a lot of fun. Make sure you carry a pen.

 

Edited October 22, 2010 by David

[ertyu]

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?

 

Bah! 17 is a long excursion, pfft. Take the time and sign the log, its the rule.