Skip the log sheet

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

What it ALWAYS comes down to is that IT IS UP TO THE CACHE OWNER whether to allow the online log to stand or not. If the cache owner is fine with the finder not signing the log, then the log will stand. If the cache owner is NOT fine with it, then they are permitted to delete the log, BUT THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO.

... except in those cases where the COs openly admit that they don't care whether you've signed the log or not and instead effectively turn the cache into a virtual cache, which isn't allowed (even if there is a real cache there). which proves this point wrong.

 

Does Groundspeak actually delete any of the logs if that occurs?

No, they have better things to do than monitor cache logs!

 

I don't monitor mine, either. I have never compared a paper log to the online log and don't plan to ever do so.

 

As far as I can recall I've deleted logs one time when some armchair cacher came to the attention of our local forum and we all deleted his logs.

 

Anyone can log my caches who wants to - the thing is, they don't, because this is a tempest in a teapot and rarely happens.

[g_o_caching]

When I am playing golf I don't mark it down as a par when I get the ball on the green. If he wants to skip the logsheet that's OK but don't log it as found online, which he did according to his profile.

[+dfx]

What it ALWAYS comes down to is that IT IS UP TO THE CACHE OWNER whether to allow the online log to stand or not. If the cache owner is fine with the finder not signing the log, then the log will stand. If the cache owner is NOT fine with it, then they are permitted to delete the log, BUT THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO.

... except in those cases where the COs openly admit that they don't care whether you've signed the log or not and instead effectively turn the cache into a virtual cache, which isn't allowed (even if there is a real cache there). which proves this point wrong.

Does Groundspeak actually delete any of the logs if that occurs?

they don't delete logs, but they're known to archive such caches. well, the reviewers do, not GS.

[+tozainamboku]

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.

 

Not sure what a "robo-puritan" is, but I found this fact....

 

From http://www.geocaching.com/faq/default.aspx

 

What are the rules in Geocaching?

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

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

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

 

These look like pretty simple rules to me....or am I missing something?

You didn't miss anything and that point has been made to Tozainamboku several times. Nothing you say will change his mind.

There is a problem in reading something into the so-called the "rules" in the FAQ that is not there in the first place.

 

First of all, these rules in the FAQ are meant to a be a short concise description of geocaching. They originally came from Dave Ulmer's instructions for the first cache that someone has already posted earlier in this thread so I won't repeat them here. Dave's instructions - and for many years the version on Geocaching.com as well - made no mention at all about logging online at Geocaching.com. At some point a few years ago, Groundspeak decided the "rules" needed some modification. They combined the rules about taking something and leaving something to stress the idea of trading up. They also made the trading rule conditional (though I think it already was understood to be so) because some puritans were attempting to use the rules to say that log only micros were not geocaches. Since three rules are better than two rules, they added a rule about logging your experience online.

 

No place in the rules do they say that they have to be done in order or that doing one is dependent on having done another. You basically have to find a cache before you can do 1 or 2. It would be hard to trade items or sign the physical cache without first having found the container. But certainly some people will sign the log before they start looking for items to trade. Rule number 3 can be done without even finding the cache. If you don't find the cache, you can still log your experience online. Everyone should agree that a DNF log is logging your experience online at www.geocaching.com.

 

Why some people want to read rule 3 as refering only to a Found It logs and then saying that doing nnumber 3 is dependent on having done rule 2 is beyond me. Now some may claim that aside from rule 1 which is conditional then all the rules must be followed. I prefer that doing these steps be optional as they always have been. Many people only sign the log book and never log online - but you don't see people call them cheaters. Some people simple look for caches and neither sign the log or share online. The idea is to have fun and not get bogged down is silly rules that can be interpreted many ways. However so long as robo-puritans continue to invent a rule that is not there, I will point it out.

 

Why do we always end up defending and arguing the exceptions? Did someone actually attack a frozen cache claimed a find log? Let's go beat up on the truly strict and the completely virtual loggers and cachers with trade restrictions. We might actually make some progress.

I agree that when you log your experience online you should use the correct log type. Use Found when you found the cache, DNF when you look and didn't find the cache, and Write note otherwise. Bogus Found (or for that matter DNF) logs when a person didn't even look should be deleted. There is some disagreement on how you know if you found the cache. As has been pointed out, sometimes there is a decoy cache that the cache owner expects you will find before finding the real cache, or there may be some other object like a letterbox that could be mistaken for the cache. And there are caches that have a physical challenge to retrieve or open that the cache owner expect that you do. If you just claim "find" because you saw something, I don't know how you can be sure you found the cache. This should be the reason given for signing the physical log (or at least having it in your hand), not some imaginary rule.

[+BuckeyeClan]

What it ALWAYS comes down to is that IT IS UP TO THE CACHE OWNER whether to allow the online log to stand or not. If the cache owner is fine with the finder not signing the log, then the log will stand. If the cache owner is NOT fine with it, then they are permitted to delete the log, BUT THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO.

... except in those cases where the COs openly admit that they don't care whether you've signed the log or not and instead effectively turn the cache into a virtual cache, which isn't allowed (even if there is a real cache there). which proves this point wrong.

Does Groundspeak actually delete any of the logs if that occurs?

they don't delete logs, but they're known to archive such caches. well, the reviewers do, not GS.

 

Then my original statement stands. It is up to the cache owner to allow a log to stand or not. If GS decides that the CO is neglecting their duties, then the cache may be involuntarily archived. But the online logs, even the bogus ones, will remain--AS THE CO DECIDED.

 

And TAR is right--it's much ado about (mostly) nothing, because with all the caches and all the cachers and all the online logs being logged worldwide every day--such conflict doesn't happen often.

 

To answer the OP, I think Wright Shop Robert has the best response in post #92.

[+BelKen]

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.

 

Not sure what a "robo-puritan" is, but I found this fact....

 

From http://www.geocaching.com/faq/default.aspx

 

What are the rules in Geocaching?

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

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

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

 

These look like pretty simple rules to me....or am I missing something?

You didn't miss anything and that point has been made to Tozainamboku several times. Nothing you say will change his mind.

There is a problem in reading something into the so-called the "rules" in the FAQ that is not there in the first place.

 

First of all, these rules in the FAQ are meant to a be a short concise description of geocaching. They originally came from Dave Ulmer's instructions for the first cache that someone has already posted earlier in this thread so I won't repeat them here. Dave's instructions - and for many years the version on Geocaching.com as well - made no mention at all about logging online at Geocaching.com. At some point a few years ago, Groundspeak decided the "rules" needed some modification. They combined the rules about taking something and leaving something to stress the idea of trading up. They also made the trading rule conditional (though I think it already was understood to be so) because some puritans were attempting to use the rules to say that log only micros were not geocaches. Since three rules are better than two rules, they added a rule about logging your experience online.

 

No place in the rules do they say that they have to be done in order or that doing one is dependent on having done another. You basically have to find a cache before you can do 1 or 2. It would be hard to trade items or sign the physical cache without first having found the container. But certainly some people will sign the log before they start looking for items to trade. Rule number 3 can be done without even finding the cache. If you don't find the cache, you can still log your experience online. Everyone should agree that a DNF log is logging your experience online at www.geocaching.com.

 

Why some people want to read rule 3 as refering only to a Found It logs and then saying that doing nnumber 3 is dependent on having done rule 2 is beyond me. Now some may claim that aside from rule 1 which is conditional then all the rules must be followed. I prefer that doing these steps be optional as they always have been. Many people only sign the log book and never log online - but you don't see people call them cheaters. Some people simple look for caches and neither sign the log or share online. The idea is to have fun and not get bogged down is silly rules that can be interpreted many ways. However so long as robo-puritans continue to invent a rule that is not there, I will point it out.

 

Why do we always end up defending and arguing the exceptions? Did someone actually attack a frozen cache claimed a find log? Let's go beat up on the truly strict and the completely virtual loggers and cachers with trade restrictions. We might actually make some progress.

I agree that when you log your experience online you should use the correct log type. Use Found when you found the cache, DNF when you look and didn't find the cache, and Write note otherwise. Bogus Found (or for that matter DNF) logs when a person didn't even look should be deleted. There is some disagreement on how you know if you found the cache. As has been pointed out, sometimes there is a decoy cache that the cache owner expects you will find before finding the real cache, or there may be some other object like a letterbox that could be mistaken for the cache. And there are caches that have a physical challenge to retrieve or open that the cache owner expect that you do. If you just claim "find" because you saw something, I don't know how you can be sure you found the cache. This should be the reason given for signing the physical log (or at least having it in your hand), not some imaginary rule.

 

I don't know why we always try and read what the "rules" are from the guidelines posted on GC.com.

 

When I list a cache I agree to at least two things. The first is GEOCACHING.COM SITE

TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT

Last updated: June 10, 2009

 

When listing a cache I also need to agree to

Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines

Guidelines last updated June 2, 2010.

 

In those two items the quoted text is not mentioned so why argue about it. The cache lsiting guidelines does state

 

"Logging of All Physical Caches.

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

 

Pretty self explanatory. No ambiguity. Yes it does go on to talk about ALR's but it is the only rule or guideline I agree to when listing a cache. The terms of use don't seem to cover anything as a finder of a cache and any logging requirement.

 

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.

 

To the OP. I sign all the logs then log a find. I do delete blatant bogus logs on my caches. I rarely check logbooks to online logs. Enjoy.

[+Stargazer22]

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.

 

My analogy works perfectly. Looking at a cache without signing the log is just like looking at a beer without drinking it.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Stargazer22

[+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?

[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.

 

My analogy works perfectly. Looking at a cache without signing the log is just like looking at a beer without drinking it.

The finder can have every bit as much fun whether he opens the cache or not. I'd say it's more like drinking beer and not leaving a tip.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+sbell111]

Interesting thread.

 

I did a team speed run a while back where we signed the outside of most of the smalls and micros we found with a Sharpie rather than take the time to dig out and sign the log sheet.

 

It was pretty much unanimously felt at that time that if you didn't sign the log sheet it wasn't a 'legal' find, so I didn't log any of them.

 

So now I sign the log sheet but rarely log them online.

 

If signing the cache isn't sufficient proof of a find then I don't see how not signing anything can now be considered a find!

As I recall, some of the angst that befell you was due to your defacing the cache containers.

Actually that was trotted out in the forum as an objection and a few folks climbed aboard, but since we in fact did not in any way damage any cache and not a single cache owner made any objection or statement to that effect it was just bogus bellyaching by folks looking for a reason to criticize us.

 

Re-litigating that debacle has nothing to do with today's debate over signing the log, however.

One wonders why you brought it up.

[+sbell111]

When I am playing golf I don't mark it down as a par when I get the ball on the green. If he wants to skip the logsheet that's OK but don't log it as found online, which he did according to his profile.

The object of golf if to get the little ball into the little hole. The object of geocaching is to find the cache. The OP appears to have found the caches.

[+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.

 

My analogy works perfectly. Looking at a cache without signing the log is just like looking at a beer without drinking it.

No, it isn't.

 

You see, 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.

 

I'm sure that you can now see that your analogy doesn't work. I'm glad that I could help.

[+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.

 

My analogy works perfectly. Looking at a cache without signing the log is just like looking at a beer without drinking it.

The finder can have every bit as much fun whether he opens the cache or not. I'd say it's more like drinking beer and not leaving a tip.

Wouldn't the tip be the online log? The paper log tends to just be evidence of the find.

 

Some cache owners require such evidence and would delete the online log. Others would trust the CO when he posts that he found the cache and allow the online log to stand.

[+Stargazer22]

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.

 

My analogy works perfectly. Looking at a cache without signing the log is just like looking at a beer without drinking it.

No, it isn't.

 

You see, 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.

 

I'm sure that you can now see that your analogy doesn't work. I'm glad that I could help.

Of course it is!

 

All I can see from your post is that the world according to SBell111 isn't the world according to me.

Thanks for being helpful pointing out that your view isn't shared by everyone!!

[+redsox_mark]

For those with the view that one must sign the physical log before claiming a find in all cases - I would say the analogy is more like drinking a beer and not paying for it. The finder got the enjoyment, but not "legally" (to those with the "must sign the log" view).

[+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.

 

My analogy works perfectly. Looking at a cache without signing the log is just like looking at a beer without drinking it.

The finder can have every bit as much fun whether he opens the cache or not. I'd say it's more like drinking beer and not leaving a tip.

 

Nobody is debating if he's having fun or not. I think the debate is if he's full-on caching.

[+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.

 

My analogy works perfectly. Looking at a cache without signing the log is just like looking at a beer without drinking it.

No, it isn't.

 

You see, 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.

 

I'm sure that you can now see that your analogy doesn't work. I'm glad that I could help.

Of course it is!

 

All I can see from your post is that the world according to SBell111 isn't the world according to me.

Thanks for being helpful pointing out that your view isn't shared by everyone!!

I guess that, for you, the object of geocaching is something other than finding the geocache.

[+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.

 

My analogy works perfectly. Looking at a cache without signing the log is just like looking at a beer without drinking it.

No, it isn't.

 

You see, 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.

 

I'm sure that you can now see that your analogy doesn't work. I'm glad that I could help.

Of course it is!

 

All I can see from your post is that the world according to SBell111 isn't the world according to me.

Thanks for being helpful pointing out that your view isn't shared by everyone!!

I guess that, for you, the object of geocaching is something other than finding the geocache.

 

Answer me one question. When you cache, do you make every effort to sign the log?

[+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.

My analogy works perfectly. Looking at a cache without signing the log is just like looking at a beer without drinking it.

No, it isn't.

 

You see, 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.

 

I'm sure that you can now see that your analogy doesn't work. I'm glad that I could help.

Of course it is!

 

All I can see from your post is that the world according to SBell111 isn't the world according to me.

Thanks for being helpful pointing out that your view isn't shared by everyone!!

I guess that, for you, the object of geocaching is something other than finding the geocache.

Answer me one question. When you cache, do you make every effort to sign the log?

I do. Signing the log allows the cache owner to verify that I did, indeed, find the cache if the cache owner chooses to check.

 

Signing the log does not equal finding a cache, however. After all, You find a cache the moment that you spot it. By the time the log is signed, some amount of time has passed since the cache was found. Signing the log is an additional activity that I choose to undertake to protect my online logs from deletion by those cache owners who would choose to not accept my word.

 

If a person was not concerned with the prospect of his online logs being possibly deleted, I see no reason for that person to concern himself with signing the physical log.

Edited October 21, 2010 by sbell111

[+Castle Mischief]

Answer me one question. When you cache, do you make every effort to sign the log?

I do. Signing the log allows the cache owner to verify that I did, indeed, find the cache if the cache owner chooses to check.

 

Signing the log does not equal finding a cache, however. After all, You find a cache the moment that you spot it. By the time the log is signed, some amount of time has passed since the cache was found. Signing the log is an additional activity that I choose to undertake to protect my online logs from deletion by those cache owners who would choose to not accept my word.

 

If a person was not concerned with the prospect of his online logs being possibly deleted, I see no reason for that person to concern himself with signing the physical log.

 

Quoting for posterity.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[+tozainamboku]

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.

 

My analogy works perfectly. Looking at a cache without signing the log is just like looking at a beer without drinking it.

The finder can have every bit as much fun whether he opens the cache or not. I'd say it's more like drinking beer and not leaving a tip.

 

Nobody is debating if he's having fun or not. I think the debate is if he's full-on caching.

Since the point is to have fun looking for containers with your GPS, you really can't debate if he is caching. The debate is really limited to whether or not he should post his experience online using the "Found It" if he hasn't signed the log. There is no rule against it, but perhaps there are other reasons for signing the physical log and these are what should be debated.

 

The proper analogy would be: Logging a find online without signing the log is like drinking a beer without first saying cheers, bottoms up, kampai, l'chaim, salud, prost, sláinte, skål, or something similar.

[jholly]

Since the point is to have fun looking for containers with your GPS, you really can't debate if he is caching. The debate is really limited to whether or not he should post his experience online using the "Found It" if he hasn't signed the log. There is no rule against it, but perhaps there are other reasons for signing the physical log and these are what should be debated.

 

The proper analogy would be: Logging a find online without signing the log is like drinking a beer without first saying cheers, bottoms up, kampai, l'chaim, salud, prost, sláinte, skål, or something similar.

 

So reading this, the cache I looked for yesterday with my GPS but didn't find I can go and log with a found it instead of a DNF. I'm liking this idea more and more.

[+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.

 

My analogy works perfectly. Looking at a cache without signing the log is just like looking at a beer without drinking it.

The finder can have every bit as much fun whether he opens the cache or not. I'd say it's more like drinking beer and not leaving a tip.

 

Nobody is debating if he's having fun or not. I think the debate is if he's full-on caching.

Since the point is to have fun looking for containers with your GPS, you really can't debate if he is caching. The debate is really limited to whether or not he should post his experience online using the "Found It" if he hasn't signed the log. There is no rule against it, but perhaps there are other reasons for signing the physical log and these are what should be debated.

 

The proper analogy would be: Logging a find online without signing the log is like drinking a beer without first saying cheers, bottoms up, kampai, l'chaim, salud, prost, sláinte, skål, or something similar.

 

Caching really isn't lik drinking beer at all, but sometimes these forums remind me of a hangover.

[Dinoprophet]

Since the point is to have fun looking for containers with your GPS, you really can't debate if he is caching. The debate is really limited to whether or not he should post his experience online using the "Found It" if he hasn't signed the log. There is no rule against it, but perhaps there are other reasons for signing the physical log and these are what should be debated.

 

The proper analogy would be: Logging a find online without signing the log is like drinking a beer without first saying cheers, bottoms up, kampai, l'chaim, salud, prost, sláinte, skål, or something similar.

 

So reading this, the cache I looked for yesterday with my GPS but didn't find I can go and log with a found it instead of a DNF. I'm liking this idea more and more.

Is this really news to you? Of course you can do that. Just don't be surprised if the cache owner deletes it.

 

People love this "Oh, I guess I can log a Found on every cache I fly over then" argument. Yes, absolutely you can. But expect deletions from the cache owners. Most cache owners want some kind of proof that you at least got near the cache, and a subset of those will only accept a signature as that proof.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+Stargazer22]

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.

 

My analogy works perfectly. Looking at a cache without signing the log is just like looking at a beer without drinking it.

No, it isn't.

 

You see, 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.

 

I'm sure that you can now see that your analogy doesn't work. I'm glad that I could help.

Of course it is!

 

All I can see from your post is that the world according to SBell111 isn't the world according to me.

Thanks for being helpful pointing out that your view isn't shared by everyone!!

I guess that, for you, the object of geocaching is something other than finding the geocache.

 

No, that is exactly what geocaching is for me. Finding the cache. Not a container that I assume is the cache.

 

So if you find a container that you don't open, you assume you have found the cache. Interesting.

I guess you've never found a cache with a decoy or some kind of container in the vicinity of the cache that wasn't the actual cache. I have found both of these. Even found a letterbox in the vicinity of a cache once that I could easily have just assumed must be the cache, but it wasn't. Know how I discovered it wasn't the cache? It's when I opened it up to sign the log and realized what I found wasn't the cache I was looking for.

 

The only way to be sure you have found the actual cache is to open the container and see what's inside.

Anything short of that is an assumption on the finder's part.

If you want to log a cache that you never opened, based on your assumptions, that's fine with me. Everybody is free to play any way that makes them happy as far as I am concerned. It's the cache owners that really decide what defines a find on their caches. Personally, I don't have X-Ray vision and I have to open them up to find out what's inside. Until I verify what I found is the real cache, to me it's not a find yet.

[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.

 

My analogy works perfectly. Looking at a cache without signing the log is just like looking at a beer without drinking it.

No, it isn't.

 

You see, 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.

 

I'm sure that you can now see that your analogy doesn't work. I'm glad that I could help.

Of course it is!

 

All I can see from your post is that the world according to SBell111 isn't the world according to me.

Thanks for being helpful pointing out that your view isn't shared by everyone!!

I guess that, for you, the object of geocaching is something other than finding the geocache.

 

No, that is exactly what geocaching is for me. Finding the cache. Not a container that I assume is the cache.

 

So if you find a container that you don't open, you assume you have found the cache. Interesting.

I guess you've never found a cache with a decoy or some kind of container in the vicinity of the cache that wasn't the actual cache. I have found both of these. Even found a letterbox in the vicinity of a cache once that I could easily have just assumed must be the cache, but it wasn't. Know how I discovered it wasn't the cache? It's when I opened it up to sign the log and realized what I found wasn't the cache I was looking for.

 

The only way to be sure you have found the actual cache is to open the container and see what's inside.

Anything short of that is an assumption on the finder's part.

If you want to log a cache that you never opened, based on your assumptions, that's fine with me. Everybody is free to play any way that makes them happy as far as I am concerned. It's the cache owners that really decide what defines a find on their caches. Personally, I don't have X-Ray vision and I have to open them up to find out what's inside. Until I verify what I found is the real cache, to me it's not a find yet.

Yup.

[+Castle Mischief]

Everybody is free to play any way that makes them happy as far as I am concerned. It's the cache owners that really decide what defines a find on their caches.

Yup.

 

Finally somebody has given me the courage to cache the way that makes me happy! Now all I need is the fireman suit, 30 gallons of aloe vera gel, a chicken, 20' of nylon rope, and a wooden board approximately 2' x 6'!

 

Man, I love this sport*.

 

 

 

*Not a actual sport.

[+zoltig]

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?

 

It amazes me how the OP will state something then it is (for the most part) the same forum regulars that will argue and hack over what is right and wrong and the OP has not bothered yet to repost again.

 

This is not the first time this type of thing has happened.

[jholly]

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?

 

It amazes me how the OP will state something then it is (for the most part) the same forum regulars that will argue and hack over what is right and wrong and the OP has not bothered yet to repost again.

 

This is not the first time this type of thing has happened.

Why should he post again? It seems to me with the exception of the Toz no one has validated his point of view.

[+escomag]

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?

 

It amazes me how the OP will state something then it is (for the most part) the same forum regulars that will argue and hack over what is right and wrong and the OP has not bothered yet to repost again.

 

This is not the first time this type of thing has happened.

Why should he post again? It seems to me with the exception of the Toz no one has validated his point of view.

 

I also validated his point of view. It just got side tracked by my way of dealing with it personally

[4wheelin_fool]

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?

 

It amazes me how the OP will state something then it is (for the most part) the same forum regulars that will argue and hack over what is right and wrong and the OP has not bothered yet to repost again.

 

This is not the first time this type of thing has happened.

 

It could be considered hit and run trolling. It amazes me that they don't care to sign the logs, but are ready to post about it. Most cachers expect their logs to be signed. Making people believe that not signing cache logs on a regular basis is OK, is bound to create some problems. There are exceptions to the rule, but the exceptions are not the rule.

[+escomag]

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.

 

My analogy works perfectly. Looking at a cache without signing the log is just like looking at a beer without drinking it.

No, it isn't.

 

You see, 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.

 

I'm sure that you can now see that your analogy doesn't work. I'm glad that I could help.

Of course it is!

 

All I can see from your post is that the world according to SBell111 isn't the world according to me.

Thanks for being helpful pointing out that your view isn't shared by everyone!!

I guess that, for you, the object of geocaching is something other than finding the geocache.

 

No, that is exactly what geocaching is for me. Finding the cache. Not a container that I assume is the cache.

 

So if you find a container that you don't open, you assume you have found the cache. Interesting.

I guess you've never found a cache with a decoy or some kind of container in the vicinity of the cache that wasn't the actual cache. I have found both of these. Even found a letterbox in the vicinity of a cache once that I could easily have just assumed must be the cache, but it wasn't. Know how I discovered it wasn't the cache? It's when I opened it up to sign the log and realized what I found wasn't the cache I was looking for.

 

The only way to be sure you have found the actual cache is to open the container and see what's inside.

Anything short of that is an assumption on the finder's part.

If you want to log a cache that you never opened, based on your assumptions, that's fine with me. Everybody is free to play any way that makes them happy as far as I am concerned. It's the cache owners that really decide what defines a find on their caches. Personally, I don't have X-Ray vision and I have to open them up to find out what's inside. Until I verify what I found is the real cache, to me it's not a find yet.

 

Of course I have found decoys. I guess its also my right to use brute force to open a cache, when I am unable to figure out how to open it regularly. I will not be posting, " I found your cache, but I am too stupid to figure out how to open and sign it, so I guess its a DNF" If I want a cache opened, it WILL be opened. I figure if I can't open the container, it's just best left as is.

[+escomag]

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?

 

It amazes me how the OP will state something then it is (for the most part) the same forum regulars that will argue and hack over what is right and wrong and the OP has not bothered yet to repost again.

 

This is not the first time this type of thing has happened.

 

It could be considered hit and run trolling. It amazes me that they don't care to sign the logs, but are ready to post about it. Most cachers expect their logs to be signed. Making people believe that not signing cache logs on a regular basis is OK, is bound to create some problems. There are exceptions to the rule, but the exceptions are not the rule.

The exceptions are all we are talking about. I sign at least 95% of my finds. I enjoy signing. It is a statement that I have been there. But, a guardrail cache, at an off ramp in the middle of nowhere, with no legal parking, that I have pulled up next to with my emergency lights flashing, and I can see the CHP on the on ramp to the freeway, No, that cache might just be quickly found, and not signed.

[Andronicus]

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.

Yes it was Dave. He came here on the 10th anniversary of geocaching, and that is one of the things he said.

[Dinoprophet]

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?

 

It amazes me how the OP will state something then it is (for the most part) the same forum regulars that will argue and hack over what is right and wrong and the OP has not bothered yet to repost again.

 

This is not the first time this type of thing has happened.

Why should he post again? It seems to me with the exception of the Toz no one has validated his point of view.

I also validated his point of view. It just got side tracked by my way of dealing with it personally

Several of us validated it, in fact. Though escomag seems to be the only other one who does things the OP's way.

 

As of now, the OP is also validated by the continued existence of his logs -- I count 18 finds for the day in question. That may change in time, of course. And probably will, based on past posts by at least one of the COs involved. So again to the OP: you're totally fine doing it that way, but you risk losing your Found logs.

[+sbell111]

Answer me one question. When you cache, do you make every effort to sign the log?

I do. Signing the log allows the cache owner to verify that I did, indeed, find the cache if the cache owner chooses to check.

 

Signing the log does not equal finding a cache, however. After all, You find a cache the moment that you spot it. By the time the log is signed, some amount of time has passed since the cache was found. Signing the log is an additional activity that I choose to undertake to protect my online logs from deletion by those cache owners who would choose to not accept my word.

 

If a person was not concerned with the prospect of his online logs being possibly deleted, I see no reason for that person to concern himself with signing the physical log.

 

Quoting for posterity.

Seems like my posting my post saved it for posterity. I didn't realize that you had to take action on any posts for them to be saved on the servers.

 

Still, I wonder why you bothered, since this 'saved' post is in line with every post that I've made in this thread and similar ones.

[+sbell111]

I guess that, for you, the object of geocaching is something other than finding the geocache.

No, that is exactly what geocaching is for me. Finding the cache. Not a container that I assume is the cache.

 

So if you find a container that you don't open, you assume you have found the cache. Interesting.

I guess you've never found a cache with a decoy or some kind of container in the vicinity of the cache that wasn't the actual cache. I have found both of these. Even found a letterbox in the vicinity of a cache once that I could easily have just assumed must be the cache, but it wasn't. Know how I discovered it wasn't the cache? It's when I opened it up to sign the log and realized what I found wasn't the cache I was looking for.

 

The only way to be sure you have found the actual cache is to open the container and see what's inside.

Anything short of that is an assumption on the finder's part.

If you want to log a cache that you never opened, based on your assumptions, that's fine with me.

Two thoughts:

• If the owner had hidden a decoy or there was a nearby letterbox that could be confused with the cache, wouldn't he be able to easily shoot an email to the OP asking for more specifics about the cache find in order to prove that the cache was, indeed, found. After all, cache owners often do this very thing if someone posts that they couldn't sign the log or if a review of the physical log doesn't yield an easily matchable signature?
  
• Once you've opened the geocache, you know that you've found it, right?
  

Everybody is free to play any way that makes them happy as far as I am concerned. It's the cache owners that really decide what defines a find on their caches. Personally, I don't have X-Ray vision and I have to open them up to find out what's inside. Until I verify what I found is the real cache, to me it's not a find yet.

It's good to see that you've come to agree with me. Thanks for having an open mind.

[+sbell111]

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?

 

It amazes me how the OP will state something then it is (for the most part) the same forum regulars that will argue and hack over what is right and wrong and the OP has not bothered yet to repost again.

 

This is not the first time this type of thing has happened.

Why should he post again? It seems to me with the exception of the Toz no one has validated his point of view.

I guess that depends on what you mean by 'validated'. I'm fairly certain that my position on this issue is the same as Toz'. Also, Stargazer22 has come to agree with me.

[Dinoprophet]

Just for fun, here are some 7-8 year old threads on the subject.

 

I don't know that they bolster one view or another, but they're fun to read. I did see at least one post from a lackey with some insight as to the origin of the logbook requirement.

Claiming finds that weren't found

The Extinction of Code Word Micros

No-find logged as a find

[+Castle Mischief]

Just for fun, here are some 7-8 year old threads on the subject.

 

I don't know that they bolster one view or another, but they're fun to read. I did see at least one post from a lackey with some insight as to the origin of the logbook requirement.

Claiming finds that weren't found

The Extinction of Code Word Micros

No-find logged as a find

 

You're going to make me hunt for it aren't you?

[+Castle Mischief]

Quoting for posterity.

Seems like my posting my post saved it for posterity. I didn't realize that you had to take action on any posts for them to be saved on the servers.

 

Still, I wonder why you bothered, since this 'saved' post is in line with every post that I've made in this thread and similar ones.

 

I'm also having t-shirts printed. You want one?

 

Also: postering for quoterity.

[+tozainamboku]

Why should he post again? It seems to me with the exception of the Toz no one has validated his point of view.

The OP asked if anyone else skips signing the log sheet. If his point of view is that you can skip signing the log sheet and still log a find online then I suppose I may have validated it by saying that there is no rule that you must sign the log in order to post a find online. I've also agreed with those who say that a cache owner could delete the found log.

 

My main point in posting in this thread is to refute those who believe that signing physical logs is an intrinsic part of finding caches. Signing the physical log is something you do after you find the cache. Since you have already found the cache you should be able to use a Found log to share that on Geocaching.com There are some reasonable arguments for signing the physical log to verify to yourself that you found the cache as well as to verify to the cache owner and others that you found the cache. But if you and the cache owner agree to some other level of verification (e.g., simply trust that you found the cache) then you can log a Found log.

Edited October 21, 2010 by tozainamboku

[Dinoprophet]

Just for fun, here are some 7-8 year old threads on the subject.

 

I don't know that they bolster one view or another, but they're fun to read. I did see at least one post from a lackey with some insight as to the origin of the logbook requirement.

Claiming finds that weren't found

The Extinction of Code Word Micros

No-find logged as a find

 

You're going to make me hunt for it aren't you?

Just make sure you don't settle on a decoy post!

 

But seriously, I just don't want to decontextualize anything anyone said way back then. And I forget which of those three it was in Oh, yeah, it was the code word one. The topic only warranted about 20 posts then, too, so it shouldn't be hard to find.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+addisonbr]

Why should he post again? It seems to me with the exception of the Toz no one has validated his point of view.

I validated it as well; I just don't have Toz's energy.

[4wheelin_fool]

Quoting for posterity.

Seems like my posting my post saved it for posterity. I didn't realize that you had to take action on any posts for them to be saved on the servers.

 

Still, I wonder why you bothered, since this 'saved' post is in line with every post that I've made in this thread and similar ones.

P

I'm also having t-shirts printed. You want one?

 

Also: postering for quoterity.

 

Why would you want to quote a posterior?

 

 

I'd better stop before I make an a** of myself.

[+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.

[+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.

[+narcissa]

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.

 

Making a good faith effort to get your name in the log book is a whole different case than skipping the log book because you're just too busy finding 17 caches a day.

[+CaptainKevin]

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 have always signed the log except for one time when I had left my pen on a rock and didn't feel like riding several miles to get it and ride back. I explained this to the CO in my online log and he never deleted my log.

 

As a cache owner, I enjoy reading the logs online and also like to review the written logs. What I find more disturbing than the less than thrilling TFTC, is the number of folks who sign the paper log and then never log on line. I don't get upset though. After all, it is just a game and people can play in their own way.

 

Over time playing the game, you may very well change your ideas about this. After all, this is a big and varied community and part of the fun (for many, including me) is the sharing of experiences through the logs and the physical challenge of finding and inking the cache log. But, it is a game and you can play the way you want.

 

Cache on!

[+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.