Can I Count It?

[+John in Valley Forge]

As long as you *could* have signed the log I'd claim it. If it were a situation where the cache was a long way up a light post and you couldn't climb the pole to grab it then I'd say "no", but if you were close enough to actually confirm it was the cache then it really doesn't matter. Take the smiley.

Awesome!! There are a whole bunch of caches in Nevada that I "could have signed" if only I were in Nevada. Boy, is this ever gonna get my numbers up!!

Come on, you know what he meant. I'll accept the argument that sometimes people leave a decoy, or there is something other than the cache itself that looks like a cache, so unless you actually open it up and look inside how can you actually confirm its the cache. But these situations are a rare and since the cache owner is free to delete your log, it seems reasonable to go ahead an log a find if you were actually close enough where you could have retrieved the cache but didn't because of muggles, or a swarm of bees, or some other excuse.

 

 

So what actually constitutes "getting" or "finding" the cache?

Holding it? Opening it? Spotting it in the field? Solving the puzzle?

Where is the cutoff?

[+M 5]

As long as you *could* have signed the log I'd claim it. If it were a situation where the cache was a long way up a light post and you couldn't climb the pole to grab it then I'd say "no", but if you were close enough to actually confirm it was the cache then it really doesn't matter. Take the smiley.

Awesome!! There are a whole bunch of caches in Nevada that I "could have signed" if only I were in Nevada. Boy, is this ever gonna get my numbers up!!

Come on, you know what he meant. I'll accept the argument that sometimes people leave a decoy, or there is something other than the cache itself that looks like a cache, so unless you actually open it up and look inside how can you actually confirm its the cache. But these situations are a rare and since the cache owner is free to delete your log, it seems reasonable to go ahead an log a find if you were actually close enough where you could have retrieved the cache but didn't because of muggles, or a swarm of bees, or some other excuse.

 

Nowhere is there a rule that says you have to sign the log. It is up to cache owner to decide if this is a good excuse for not signing the log. I know many cache owners who prefer that you don't compromise a cache to muggles and who would accept muggle activity as a good excuse. On the other hand, there are cache owners who intentionally place caches where muggles are as challenge to cache finder to figure out how to use stealth to retrieve and sign the log. You need to find out which kind of cache owner this is.

 

It might surprise some to know that I personally would not log a find if I had to leave because of muggles even if the cache owner said it was okay. If the smiley is that important, I'll wait till the muggles leave, come back later, or figure out how to be stealthy and sign the log.

 

I think it clearly states in the rules you must sign the log. Here is what it says under Additional logging requirements.

 

"As of April 4, 2009, Additional Logging Requirements can no longer be grounds for deleting a cache find. Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

So according to Groundspeak, yes you must sign the log. As others have said, let your conscience be your guide.

Wouldn't want to disappoint my fans so I will respond.

 

The supposed rule you quoted was added on April 3, 2009 precisely for the reason you quoted - Additional Logging Requirements were no longer allowed after that date. If a cacher finds a cache they are told that they can log a find online once they have signed the physical log regardless of any ALR that might appear on the cache page. The particular wording continues to allow a cache owner to delete logs that appear to be bogus; using the physical log book is one way to confirm a find is not bogus. Nowhere do it say that a cache owner must delete logs if the log book is not signed.

 

I've always wonder why to give the history and the "true meaning" of the guidelines, when it suits your case, but will read into the guidelines when you either, don't know the history, or it fits your case. It is obvious that the intent is for you to sign. There are many many many examples of this. You are right that there is nowhere that it says you have to delete the find, even if you should, to keep integrity in the game. There are just a bunch of whiners that want to change from the origins of the game to fit their entitlement sensibilities. I'm all for change to make the game better, just keep the basics of the game unpolluted.

[+BuckeyeClan]

As long as you *could* have signed the log I'd claim it. If it were a situation where the cache was a long way up a light post and you couldn't climb the pole to grab it then I'd say "no", but if you were close enough to actually confirm it was the cache then it really doesn't matter. Take the smiley.

Awesome!! There are a whole bunch of caches in Nevada that I "could have signed" if only I were in Nevada. Boy, is this ever gonna get my numbers up!!

Come on, you know what he meant. I'll accept the argument that sometimes people leave a decoy, or there is something other than the cache itself that looks like a cache, so unless you actually open it up and look inside how can you actually confirm its the cache. But these situations are a rare and since the cache owner is free to delete your log, it seems reasonable to go ahead an log a find if you were actually close enough where you could have retrieved the cache but didn't because of muggles, or a swarm of bees, or some other excuse.

 

 

So what actually constitutes "getting" or "finding" the cache?

Holding it? Opening it? Spotting it in the field? Solving the puzzle?

Where is the cutoff?

 

The CO decides. If the CO audits the log, and your name isn't there, he has the right to delete your online "found it" log, but he isn't required to. If he accepts "I saw it, but couldn't reach it", or "I saw it, but too many muggles", then your online "found it" log will stand. If he accepts "I drove by there in 1998 so I should get to log a find", then your log will stand. Now, too much obvious abuse may well get a cache listing locked, but even then, it doesn't sound as if Groundspeak will actually delete any logs. It's up to the cache owner what they will accept.

[+tozainamboku]

So what actually constitutes "getting" or "finding" the cache?

Holding it? Opening it? Spotting it in the field? Solving the puzzle?

Where is the cutoff?

Does it really matter? It's between the finder and the cache owner as whether or not a found log stands.

 

There are cache owners who will tell you to log the cache as found if you DNF a cache and they verify it was indeed missing. Does it mean you have to log it? Of course not. Both the cache owner and the cache finder have to agree for there to be a found log that isn't deleted. An individual who only logs a found online when they have signed the physical log cannot be forced by a cache owner to log finds in other cases. You always have the option to not log a find online.

 

It used to be clear that the whether a find log stayed or not was up the cache owner. (Only in rare instance would TPTB step in when a cache owner was deleting found logs arbitrarily). Cache owners would create requirements for the online logs that they would accept. These became know as additional logging requirements - though I'm not sure they were ever "in addition to signing the log". When these got out of hand because some cache owners appeared to be more interested in deleting logs than in having people find their cache, TPTB decided to put an end to the so called ALRs.

 

An unfortunate side effect of this is that they added a phrase to the guidelines that has been interpreted by some as meaning that the physical log must be signed in order to log a find online and by others as meaning that once you have signed the log the cache owner has no option but to accept the online found log. I don't believe this either interpretation is correct. I believe the phrase simply means that the cache owner may not enforce additional logging requirements. It is worded so that a cache owner may delete find logs if the log is not signed, simply because a signed log is generally accepted as proof that the find log is not bogus. But what happens if a cache owner hides a cache in a tree with the intention that finders will climb the tree to sign the log. A group shows up and one of them climbs the tree. He then drops the logbook to the ground so the non-climbers can sign it. Did they find the cache? What if the climber simply signs the names for everyone (or signs a team name)? Can they all claim a find? The assumption that a name in log is equivalent to a find causes all kinds of problems. To me the only reasonable solution is to say that a find is what the finder and the cache owner agree to. However we wouldn't have the problem at all if caches owners simply didn't delete logs except when it appears obvious that the person didn't actually find the cache - in particularly if they are logging from their armchair caches they never looked for.

[+tozainamboku]

I've always wonder why to give the history and the "true meaning" of the guidelines, when it suits your case, but will read into the guidelines when you either, don't know the history, or it fits your case. It is obvious that the intent is for you to sign. There are many many many examples of this. You are right that there is nowhere that it says you have to delete the find, even if you should, to keep integrity in the game. There are just a bunch of whiners that want to change from the origins of the game to fit their entitlement sensibilities. I'm all for change to make the game better, just keep the basics of the game unpolluted.

Okay. A little history then.

 

When Dave Ulmer hid the first geocache he gave instructions. In addition to some items in the cache that he left that you could trade for, he also put a log book in the cache. He asked that when you found his cache you write about in the log book. This request from Dave became one of the three basic rules that were listed in the Geocaching FAQ on this site.

1. Take something from the cache.

2. Leave something.

3. Write about it in the log.

 

But geocaching.com added a new feature that was not foreseen by Dave Ulmer. Geocaching.com allowed you to share your experience online by leaving a Found or a Did Not Find log. I'll agree that the intent is clear, that you should log a Found online if you found the cache or a Did Not Find if you looked for the cache but did not find it. But never did it say that you needed to sign the log in order to log online. Writing in the physical log was something you were expected to do when you found the cache (because that's what Dave asked people to do for the first cache). Logging online was similarly something you were expected to do after you searched for a cache - reporting whether or not you found it by choosing the right log. Eventually the rules in the geocaching FAQ were changed to reflect these new expectations.

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.

 

Now, while it is clear that it is intended that you sign the log when you find a cache and that you log your find online as well, there is no connection between these two steps. Many people choose to do neither or choose only to write in the log book. My arguments is that it is just as valid to only log online. Still, cache owners who believe an online log is bogus can go look in the physical log book and use it as evidence one way or the other to decide on whether to delete the online log. Of course this means that a cache owner who relies solely on the evidence of the physical log may end up deleting your legitimate found log if you didn't sign the physical log book.

Edited December 20, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+M 5]

So what actually constitutes "getting" or "finding" the cache?

Holding it? Opening it? Spotting it in the field? Solving the puzzle?

Where is the cutoff?

Does it really matter? It's between the finder and the cache owner as whether or not a found log stands.

 

There are cache owners who will tell you to log the cache as found if you DNF a cache and they verify it was indeed missing. Does it mean you have to log it? Of course not. Both the cache owner and the cache finder have to agree for there to be a found log that isn't deleted. An individual who only logs a found online when they have signed the physical log cannot be forced by a cache owner to log finds in other cases. You always have the option to not log a find online.

 

It used to be clear that the whether a find log stayed or not was up the cache owner. (Only in rare instance would TPTB step in when a cache owner was deleting found logs arbitrarily). Cache owners would create requirements for the online logs that they would accept. These became know as additional logging requirements - though I'm not sure they were ever "in addition to signing the log". When these got out of hand because some cache owners appeared to be more interested in deleting logs than in having people find their cache, TPTB decided to put an end to the so called ALRs.

 

An unfortunate side effect of this is that they added a phrase to the guidelines that has been interpreted by some as meaning that the physical log must be signed in order to log a find online and by others as meaning that once you have signed the log the cache owner has no option but to accept the online found log. I don't believe this either interpretation is correct. I believe the phrase simply means that the cache owner may not enforce additional logging requirements. It is worded so that a cache owner may delete find logs if the log is not signed, simply because a signed log is generally accepted as proof that the find log is not bogus. But what happens if a cache owner hides a cache in a tree with the intention that finders will climb the tree to sign the log. A group shows up and one of them climbs the tree. He then drops the logbook to the ground so the non-climbers can sign it. Did they find the cache? What if the climber simply signs the names for everyone (or signs a team name)? Can they all claim a find? The assumption that a name in log is equivalent to a find causes all kinds of problems. To me the only reasonable solution is to say that a find is what the finder and the cache owner agree to. However we wouldn't have the problem at all if caches owners simply didn't delete logs except when it appears obvious that the person didn't actually find the cache - in particularly if they are logging from their armchair caches they never looked for.

 

We also wouldn't have a problem if every CO deleted all logs that said they didn't sign it or if they do maint./check on log and delete any online logs that weren't backed up by a sig. I know it's too much to ask for people of this day and age to follow the clear cut intent of the game, but I'll do my part to keep the game on the right path.

[+Charlie Fingers]

No scribble=no smilie

 

Getting your mark on the page is part of the game

[+bittsen]

It's a game with no winners and no losers.

 

Well, sort of.

 

The winners are the ones that play the game for fun. The losers... well.... nevermind.

[+M 5]

Games have rules, not guidelines. So is geocaching actually a game?

[+Castle Mischief]

I think it clearly states in the rules you must sign the log. Here is what it says under Additional logging requirements.

 

"As of April 4, 2009, Additional Logging Requirements can no longer be grounds for deleting a cache find. Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

So according to Groundspeak, yes you must sign the log. As others have said, let your conscience be your guide.

 

Please note, the preceding guideline is in the section for "Cache Listing Requirements" and is directed at the cache hider. It's in place to keep cache hider from disallowing a Found It log due to some other non-caching requirement.

 

It is not directed at the cache finder. It is not a guideline directing the cache finder in how they should log their find.

[+Castle Mischief]

I wouldn't but in the end it is only between you, your conscience and the cache owner.

 

This is the only correct answer.

 

This needs to be restated.

[+Fusilli Jerry]

I let a nice caching streak die because I didn't feel right claiming a find on a cache that I couldn't sign because of muggles. Oh well.

 

On the other hand, I've claimed a find on a cache I didn't sign because i lost my pen and the container had only a log. In that case, I did take a pic of the log and attach it to my log entry.

 

Is one ok and not the other?

[+Tobias & Petronella]

Games have rules, not guidelines. So is geocaching actually a game?

That's the BIG question. Geocaching (like other things) is different things to different people.

 

For someone that spends 20+ hours and $100.00 in gas a week caching, they may see geocaching as something very important. But another person that only caches 3 hours a month and only if the cache is on their way to somewhere, may only see it as one step from meaningless. But this could be said about a lot things.

 

On a larger picture, some might say Life itself is just a game with some basic rules that we all play by. So therefore anything we do is also just a game.

 

Signing the logbook is very important to some and to others it doesn't really matter, regardless what others say. As I have already stated we have our own rules that we play by. We even have a rule about when we will and will not share a co-ftf (but that's us).

 

But really, in a hundred thousand years from now, will any of the stuff we do really matter?

[+Ecylram]

Please note, the preceding guideline is in the section for "Cache Listing Requirements" and is directed at the cache hider. It's in place to keep cache hider from disallowing a Found It log due to some other non-caching requirement.

 

It is not directed at the cache finder. It is not a guideline directing the cache finder in how they should log their find.

This section is called "Logging of All Physical Caches". The first paragraph is directed to the finders and the rest is directed at the hiders.

 

The paragraph directed at the finders is very straight forward:

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

Physically signing the physical log has been part of the game since the Original Stash.

 

Having said that...the CO has no obligation to play 'cop' and is not required to delete online logs when the physical log has not been signed. In addition, geocaching tradition allows the CO to accept online logs without the finder physically signing the log. That, however, is up to the CO to decide and the finder cannot expect his/her online-only logs to be accepted.

[+Castle Mischief]

Please note, the preceding guideline is in the section for "Cache Listing Requirements" and is directed at the cache hider. It's in place to keep cache hider from disallowing a Found It log due to some other non-caching requirement.

 

It is not directed at the cache finder. It is not a guideline directing the cache finder in how they should log their find.

This section is called "Logging of All Physical Caches". The first paragraph is directed to the finders and the rest is directed at the hiders.

 

The paragraph directed at the finders is very straight forward:

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

Physically signing the physical log has been part of the game since the Original Stash.

 

Having said that...the CO has no obligation to play 'cop' and is not required to delete online logs when the physical log has not been signed. In addition, geocaching tradition allows the CO to accept online logs without the finder physically signing the log. That, however, is up to the CO to decide and the finder cannot expect his/her online-only logs to be accepted.

 

Dude. I'm all for signing the log. But that particular guideline is not directed at cache finders at all. Not even a little bit.

[+Ecylram]

Dude. I'm all for signing the log. But that particular guideline is not directed at cache finders at all. Not even a little bit.

Who else would that portion of the guidelines be directed at? It's not the CO that logs the finds, only the finder.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Ecylram

[+sbell111]

Dude. I'm all for signing the log. But that particular guideline is not directed at cache finders at all. Not even a little bit.

Who else would that portion of the guidelines be directed at? It's not the CO that logs the finds, only the finder.

The sentence is clearly directed at hiders, as is the rest of the guidelines. It is directing hiders that they may not enforce any other guidelines beyond signing the logbook and must allow online logs to remain if the physical logbook was signed.

[+Castle Mischief]

Dude. I'm all for signing the log. But that particular guideline is not directed at cache finders at all. Not even a little bit.

Who else would that portion of the guidelines be directed at? It's not the CO that logs the finds, only the finder.

The sentence is clearly directed at hiders, as is the rest of the guidelines. It is directing hiders that they may not enforce any other guidelines beyond signing the logbook and must allow online logs to remain if the physical logbook was signed.

 

I've taken the banana out of my ear for a moment to agree with this, because it's the truth. That section is adressing log validation in regards to ALRs and how ALRs are no longer a valid reason to dis-allow a find. It's directed at the CO.

 

Context is important.