Geocaching rules debate please respond

[+csaws]

I am the owner of a cache that I adopted about 6 months ago. I disabled it immediatly and am going out this week to redo it as it was destroyed by flood water or muggles. After it was reported not there it was logged numerous times as a find because they found some of the contents on the ground (no log just trinkets) I say per rule two since no log was signed it doesn't count. I have two people arguing with me that the last owner didnt delete it and I have no right to as the new owner since I am screwing up one of their 100 day find steak and anothers milestones on their 2500 finds since they logged their "find"

 

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.

 

What say you?

[+pppingme]

Its not the finders fault that your cache was in need of maintenance.

 

While I'm big on agreeing that the paper log needs signed, I also think there is an obvious exception when there is a physical problem with the cache or the log is destroyed.

 

Its obvious these people found the location, and they were able to see the contents of the cache, with the missing log book.

 

Its not their fault, its your fault.

 

I would say the logs should stand.

 

Now, when I say its your fault, yes, you did just take possession of the cache, and yes, you were working on it, but again, its not their fault.

[GOF and Bacall]

Its not the finders fault that your cache was in need of maintenance.

 

While I'm big on agreeing that the paper log needs signed, I also think there is an obvious exception when there is a physical problem with the cache or the log is destroyed.

 

Its obvious these people found the location, and they were able to see the contents of the cache, with the missing log book.

 

Its not their fault, its your fault.

 

I would say the logs should stand.

 

Now, when I say its your fault, yes, you did just take possession of the cache, and yes, you were working on it, but again, its not their fault.

 

Um, archived. Why were they even looking for a cache that has been archived for months?

 

I have on many occasions found the spilled remains of a destroyed cache lying on the ground. It just indicates that the cache is missing and there for not findable.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I have two people arguing with me that the last owner didnt delete it and I have no right to as the new owner since I am screwing up one of their 100 day find steak and anothers milestones on their 2500 finds since they logged their "find"

 

I think they have a valid gripe. Twenty five hundred finds since the one in question covers a ton of milestones. Focus on activity since adopting.

[+csaws]

Its not the finders fault that your cache was in need of maintenance.

 

While I'm big on agreeing that the paper log needs signed, I also think there is an obvious exception when there is a physical problem with the cache or the log is destroyed.

 

Its obvious these people found the location, and they were able to see the contents of the cache, with the missing log book.

 

Its not their fault, its your fault.

 

I would say the logs should stand.

 

Now, when I say its your fault, yes, you did just take possession of the cache, and yes, you were working on it, but again, its not their fault.

 

It's not my fault it's the last owners fault. Their is no find to complain about as it was not a find as there was no cache or it was disabled at the time of their find.

Edited April 6, 2011 by csaws

[+ace862]

I've never been one to claim a find if the cache is not there or if for some reason I've not been able to sign the logbook. I've never been comfortable with throw down caches either. That's just me though.

 

If I was the cache owner and someone really wants to cause a stink over it, I'd probably let them have their find. I mean really? If you're going to get your underwear in a bunch over it then take the find. There are probably bigger things in life to worry about. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

 

Ultimately, as the cache owner, and you are now the cache owner, the decision lies with you. It's your call. And yes, the standard typically is, "No signature in the logbook, no smilie." They can appeal to Groundspeak if they're so inclined.

Edited April 6, 2011 by ace862

[+csaws]

Its not the finders fault that your cache was in need of maintenance.

 

While I'm big on agreeing that the paper log needs signed, I also think there is an obvious exception when there is a physical problem with the cache or the log is destroyed.

 

Its obvious these people found the location, and they were able to see the contents of the cache, with the missing log book.

 

Its not their fault, its your fault.

 

I would say the logs should stand.

 

Now, when I say its your fault, yes, you did just take possession of the cache, and yes, you were working on it, but again, its not their fault.

 

Um, archived. Why were they even looking for a cache that has been archived for months?

 

I have on many occasions found the spilled remains of a destroyed cache lying on the ground. It just indicates that the cache is missing and there for not findable.

 

Because their PQ showed it active???? Not sure how this is possible but that is the claim

[+fizzymagic]

It's not my fault it's the last owners fault. Their is no find to complain about as it was not a find as there was no cache or it was disabled at the time of their find.

 

Since the cache was disabled, the logs are invalid. Had they fixed the cache and put a logbook into it, I would consider it a find, but just finding stuff strewn on the ground for a cache that is disabled? No.

[+pppingme]

It's not my fault it's the last owners fault. Their is no find to complain about as it was not a find as there was no cache or it was disabled at the time of their find.

You adopted this on November 18th, if the logs happened around then, it might be a grey area, if the logs happened recently, its clearly your fault, you've had almost half a year to fix it. It was obviously in need of repair when you adopted it and your logs show you knew this a month before you adopted it (Oct 20th).

 

In all reality, this cache should be archived, not sitting disabled for half a year.

[GOF and Bacall]

Its not the finders fault that your cache was in need of maintenance.

 

While I'm big on agreeing that the paper log needs signed, I also think there is an obvious exception when there is a physical problem with the cache or the log is destroyed.

 

Its obvious these people found the location, and they were able to see the contents of the cache, with the missing log book.

 

Its not their fault, its your fault.

 

I would say the logs should stand.

 

Now, when I say its your fault, yes, you did just take possession of the cache, and yes, you were working on it, but again, its not their fault.

 

Um, archived. Why were they even looking for a cache that has been archived for months?

 

I have on many occasions found the spilled remains of a destroyed cache lying on the ground. It just indicates that the cache is missing and there for not findable.

 

Because their PQ showed it active???? Not sure how this is possible but that is the claim

 

Because they were using an outdated PQ. It could very well have been days, weeks or months old. If you don't update your PQ's who's fault is it?

[+briansnat]

I am the owner of a cache that I adopted about 6 months ago. I disabled it immediatly and am going out this week to redo it as it was destroyed by flood water or muggles. After it was reported not there it was logged numerous times as a find because they found some of the contents on the ground (no log just trinkets) I say per rule two since no log was signed it doesn't count. I have two people arguing with me that the last owner didnt delete it and I have no right to as the new owner since I am screwing up one of their 100 day find steak and anothers milestones on their 2500 finds since they logged their "find"

 

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.

 

What say you?

 

It doesn't matter what I say, you are the cache owner and it's your call. I can tell you that if it were my cache I'd probably let the logs stand because it's not worth the bad blood that deleting logs will generate. The finders found enough of the cache to consider it a find to their satisfaction. Obviously it's not to your satisfaction and yours is the only opinion that matters, but you have to ask yourself "is it worth it?".

Edited April 6, 2011 by briansnat

[+pppingme]

Um, archived. Why were they even looking for a cache that has been archived for months?

The cache is disabled, not archived, the OP/CO gave no indication of timelines of when these logs happened.

[+uxorious]

It sounds like they had logged it before you took it over. You then went back and deleted logs you felt were not properly signed before it was your cache.

 

If that is the case, then in my opinion you are wrong. What the previous owner allowed should stand.

 

If I misunderstood, and you wanted to delete what you felt was not properly logged after you took over the cache, then that should be up to you.

[+mpilchfamily]

My thought it no signed log then no online find. If they found it after you disabled it then you have every right to delete the log. If they claimed the find before you took ownership then it can go either way. You own it so its your choice.

[+Ecylram]

I know of a couple of cachers in our area that log disabled caches that they think are abandoned. It's a way to bump up the numbers.

[+csaws]

It's not my fault it's the last owners fault. Their is no find to complain about as it was not a find as there was no cache or it was disabled at the time of their find.

You adopted this on November 18th, if the logs happened around then, it might be a grey area, if the logs happened recently, its clearly your fault, you've had almost half a year to fix it. It was obviously in need of repair when you adopted it and your logs show you knew this a month before you adopted it (Oct 20th).

 

In all reality, this cache should be archived, not sitting disabled for half a year.

 

In all reality it is being redone tomorrow.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Can I ask how many logs were deleted?

[+csaws]

At this point I may let the one guys stand as his were before I took it over, the problem with that is then I have to listen to the one that didn't update their PQ and "found" it after it was disabled complain that she thinks it isn't right that the other stand when hers doesn't, which is why I deleted everyone clear back to the last smiley and my didn't find attempt in 2009. Darn'ed if I do darn'ed if I don't.

[+csaws]

Can I ask how many logs were deleted?

 

I don't know 5-8 maybe... including one of my buddies that I got into GC'ing. There was at least 2 that were logged after it was disabled by me. The rest were on the previous owners time and dime. I am torn because this thing isn't easy to get to due to weeds, flooding, bugs the size of houses etc.

 

Here is the cache, the person asking for it to be archived is the 2500 person.

Edited April 6, 2011 by csaws

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Can I ask how many logs were deleted?

 

I don't know 5-8 maybe... including one of my buddies that I got into GC'ing. There was at least 2 that were logged after it was disabled by me. The rest were on the previous owners time and dime. I am torn because this thing isn't easy to get to due to weeds, flooding, bugs the size of houses etc.

 

Here is the cache, the person asking for it to be archived is the 2500 person.

 

To me, the logs prior to your adoption is a no-brainer. Let em stand. Honestly, this was a really sloppy adoption and you might want to rethink them all, but that's up to you.

[+Starkes]

I could see raising a fuss if that was a 3 star or higher difficulty cache, where actually finding the hiding spot is a significant challenge that wasn't overcome by people logging that they found the remains lying around.

 

In this case though, it's a 1 star with a description that tells what it is and where you can find it. I can see deleting 'TFTC' logs but if someone gave a description of what they found then it's reasonable to assume they visited the site and would've almost assuredly found the easy hide.

[+BlueDeuce]

At this point I may let the one guys stand as his were before I took it over, the problem with that is then I have to listen to the one that didn't update their PQ and "found" it after it was disabled complain that she thinks it isn't right that the other stand when hers doesn't, which is why I deleted everyone clear back to the last smiley and my didn't find attempt in 2009. Darn'ed if I do darn'ed if I don't.

 

Considering the timing with the change of owners this wouldn't be the time to tow a hard line. You don't need the bad feelings. Make friends first and then push your standards on them. That's what I do.

Edited April 6, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+csaws]

How was it sloppy? The guy wanted nothing to do with fixing it and gave it up to me, weather has kept me at bay since I took it over. I should've sucked it up and fixed it earlier but I know people deer hunt that area and I don't want to be shot and this winter was very cold and crazy snowy... now that spring is here and it is right by a river it floods on a semi regular basis.

[+csaws]

I am going to let the two that have fussed over it reinstate their "finds" even though I think they are not legit.

[ao318]

I personally would have logged a DNF mentioning the what I had found at GZ. I then would have posted a NM log stating the same thing. I have seen many CO's contact a cacher when this has happened and informed them that they could log this cache as a find if they wanted to because they found the cache contents but not a cache.

 

I had a cacher one time place a replacement cache right next to the cache he couldn't find and I let his log stay. It was his third time to the cache site and he couldn't find it so he thought it must have been missing.

 

Do what you think is right, you are the cache owner.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

How was it sloppy? The guy wanted nothing to do with fixing it and gave it up to me, weather has kept me at bay since I took it over. I should've sucked it up and fixed it earlier but I know people deer hunt that area and I don't want to be shot and this winter was very cold and crazy snowy... now that spring is here and it is right by a river it floods on a semi regular basis.

csaws,

 

I was just being honest based upon my opinion which I think is what you were seeking. That disabled duration, once again based on my opinion which means squat, was way too long which leads to situations like this. Not to beat a dead horse, but why did you adopt a cache that you can't maintain for half of the year?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Remember that a low horse is safer to ride than a high horse.

Logs before your adoption should be left as is. Logs afterwards are at your discretion. I certainly would not log a 'find' on 'stuff strewn about' with no container nor a log. I have logged finds on a marked geocaching container with nothing in it. I added a log. (Searching for a cache recently, and found a tiger rubber duck on the ground. I am not claiming a find on that cache for finding a rubber duck. Though it probably came out of the cache.) If there is no cache to find, one cannot find it.

Disable caches are available on GPX files. So you cannot blame one for searching for a cache, even if it is disabled. I even found an archived cache that 'had been removed' using a week old GPX file. So yelling about that does not help your argument.

But, if there was no cache to find (even though you left it disabled for so many months), then you may delete the log.

But, learn to smile sometime. It's more fun that way.

[+csaws]

How was it sloppy? The guy wanted nothing to do with fixing it and gave it up to me, weather has kept me at bay since I took it over. I should've sucked it up and fixed it earlier but I know people deer hunt that area and I don't want to be shot and this winter was very cold and crazy snowy... now that spring is here and it is right by a river it floods on a semi regular basis.

csaws,

 

I was just being honest based upon my opinion which I think is what you were seeking. That disabled duration, once again based on my opinion which means squat, was way too long which leads to situations like this. Not to beat a dead horse, but why did you adopt a cache that you can't maintain for half of the year?

 

I am not mad I was curious as to what your whole opinion was. As I stated weather has kept me from getting to it, right wrong or indifferent.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

How was it sloppy? The guy wanted nothing to do with fixing it and gave it up to me, weather has kept me at bay since I took it over. I should've sucked it up and fixed it earlier but I know people deer hunt that area and I don't want to be shot and this winter was very cold and crazy snowy... now that spring is here and it is right by a river it floods on a semi regular basis.

csaws,

 

I was just being honest based upon my opinion which I think is what you were seeking. That disabled duration, once again based on my opinion which means squat, was way too long which leads to situations like this. Not to beat a dead horse, but why did you adopt a cache that you can't maintain for half of the year?

 

I am not mad I was curious as to what your whole opinion was. As I stated weather has kept me from getting to it, right wrong or indifferent.

 

Nuff said. Maybe we'll make it over there someday and find it once it's back up.

[+ATXTracker]

It is up to the cache owner, but I think it is silly for owners to delete logs of good-intentioned cacher's who found the cache container but didn't sign a log for some good reason. Good reasons in my book are thing that do not undermine the intentional challenge of the cache.

 

If the cache is hidden up high and climbing is part of the challenge, then the cacher must climb. If it is hidden in a tight nook, then having the right tools and retrieving the cache is part of the challenge. A cacher should not claim the find if the challenge as intended by the hider is not complete.

 

However, there are lots of good reasons a cacher may not sign a log. For example: The log is full, the log is soaking wet, the container is there but has been eaten, it has started to rain and the cacher opts not to open the cache to protect the log from water, the cacher's third back up pen just ran out of ink, etc.

 

I totally agree that it must ultimately be up to the cache owner, but I don't believe the most important thing in finding a cache is signing a log. I think the definition of a find should be about locating the physical container and overcoming any intentional challenge the cache presents. I'm tiered of cache owners who are so uptight about signing.

 

Still, I do always try to sign the log.

[+BlueDeuce]

However, there are lots of good reasons a cacher may not sign a log. For example: The log is full, the log is soaking wet, the container is there but has been eaten, it has started to rain and the cacher opts not to open the cache to protect the log from water, the cacher's third back up pen just ran out of ink, etc.

 

There are a lot of good reasons why you can't sigh a logbook but that doesn't make claiming a find reasonable. Geocaching isn't an intent it's an action. If you find pieces on the ground, come back later and search for a real cache.

 

I totally agree that it must ultimately be up to the cache owner,...

 

Yes, and when there's a bit of a changing of a guard, get the cache in place and then set the expectations.

 

 

edit: missing word.

Edited April 6, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+darklighter]

Finding GZ ≠ finding the cache.

 

Finding things that used to be in the cache ≠ finding the cache.

 

Signing logbook discovered in cache container = finding the cache.

(An argument could be made that cachers who don't want to sign logbooks still find the cache. It probably is a find. But that's not what happened here.)

 

I'd delete those logs if I'm the CO every time. The adoption makes it screwy (and probably not worth the grief), but it doesn't change the fact that these well-intentioned cachers didn't find the cache. It doesn't matter WHY it couldn't be found, or whose fault it was. A destroyed cache is a DNF.

 

Why are people so reluctant to post a DNF? Beyond being valuable information for the CO (and future searchers), it can help other cachers ascertain the difficulty of the cache, or maybe even help YOU find it if the CO decides to give you a hint (which has happened to me, more than once).

[+vds]

I am the owner of a cache that I adopted about 6 months ago. I disabled it immediatly and am going out this week to redo it as it was destroyed by flood water or muggles. After it was reported not there it was logged numerous times as a find...

 

What say you?

 

If you archived it, it's not a find until you UN-archive it, in my opinion.

 

Now whether you delete their logs etc is up to you. My normal inclination is to be lenient if it seemed benign and they were polite, but I wouldn't think twice about deleting it if they inflicted any attitude on you.

[+StarBrand]

I'd be inclined to just let the issue go as you were not the cache owner at the time it got logged.

 

You own it now - enforce the guidelines on it from that day forward.

[+Shop99er]

The logs should stand.

 

You are very remiss by letting the thing sit for 6 months before you claim you're gonna do something about it. You should have fixed the thing when you adopted it. Or archived it. Cluttering up an area with your comatose cache was just plain wrong.

 

I can not, for the lie of me, fathom why the Reviewer didn't post some sort of note months ago.

[+tozainamboku]

What the FAQ calls "rules" are simply instructions or requested behavior of cachers when they find a cache: If you trade, leave something of greater or equal value to what you take; write something in the log book; and share your experience online. They are not rule in the sense you use them. Caching is seldom that simple. There are many reasons why a cache log might not be signed. Sometimes people forget a pen. Sometimes the log is too wet to write in. Some people feel if you find something that is clearly the remains of the the cache you've found it. Some even feel that if you found the spot where the cache should be and the owner confirms it is missing you found it.

 

Sure there are some who believe that if you don't sign the physical log you can't post a find. But the "rules" don't say this. In fact they only say "Share your experience at www.geocaching.com". They say nothing about an online find log. Clearly, even if you did not find the cache you can still share your experience. Most will do so with a DNF log.

 

What always strikes me is that no one complains about the cheaters who follow the first two "rules" and then never share their experience online. There are a lot more people who break this rule - yet we never hear about it.

 

I believe that the issues are because some people are misinterpreting why people log "finds" online. They act as it the purpose of the find count is to keep some sort of score, and people who are logging finds when they didn't sign the log are cheating to get a bigger score. If you can log a find without signing then your on the slippery slope where you can log a find for finding the remains of cache or the location of a missing cache, and evetually what's to stop a cheater from logging a find for driving by a cache, or just sitting at home in front of their computer logging finds?

 

I believe there are very few people who log finds solely to inflate their find count. Those who do, mostly stop on their own when they realize it's more fun to go out and search for caches than to sit in front of a computer logging caches they never looked for. And if some does this regularly they will eventually get caught and Groundspeak has been known to ban these accounts.

 

That leaves the people who are willing to log a cache as found even though they didn't sign the log. Someone one posted a chart with Yoda at one end and Darth Vader at the other. Yoda only logs caches when he signed the log. Darth Vader sits at home logging caches he never looked for. Most cachers fall somewhere in between. Each has their own idea of what is a legitimate find. My guess is that most tend toward Yoda, but will log a find if there was malfunction with the cache or the writing instrument that prevented them from signing the log. Others will be more liberal with excuses for not signing. An still others may claim a find when then find the remains of what seems to have been the cache or if they find where the cache was and are sure it is missing.

 

It is up to each cache owner to decide what level of find they will let stand. It is certainly within a cache owner's power to delete the log if the logbook wasn't sign. They are a basically saying, "I don't believe you found the cache and the only way you can prove it is to have signed the log". In reality, most cache owners find it easier to accept most finds at face value. As long as the log doesn't appear to a bogus log from someone who never looked for the cache they let it stand. Some may make an exception for a cache where there is a mental or physical challenge to retrieve the logbook from the cache. In these case the cache owner may check the log book, or they may delete find logs that clearly indicate challenge wasn't met. Generally cache owners are willing to accept most logs even if they personally would not log a find in some cases. It's much more pleasant to deal with other cachers this way then to go around deleting logs based on your personal interpretation of some so-called "rules".

[+darklighter]

That leaves the people who are willing to log a cache as found even though they didn't sign the log. Someone one posted a chart with Yoda at one end and Darth Vader at the other. Yoda only logs caches when he signed the log. Darth Vader sits at home logging caches he never looked for. Most cachers fall somewhere in between. Each has their own idea of what is a legitimate find. My guess is that most tend toward Yoda, but will log a find if there was malfunction with the cache or the writing instrument that prevented them from signing the log. Others will be more liberal with excuses for not signing. An still others may claim a find when then find the remains of what seems to have been the cache or if they find where the cache was and are sure it is missing.

 

[+Sol seaker]

I generally agree with the fact that if you don't sign the log you can't log the cache.

 

But I do have to agree with some of the arguments here.

 

Those guys were nuts trying to claim a cache they didn't find or sign, yet the other facts remain.

Do you want to make friends or do you want to be right?

 

The fact is that you are not supposed to leave a cache disabled more than three months (preferably a lot shorter). So the caching community has let you slide with getting it together, so maybe you should return the favor at this point.

 

I really don't agree with those people having a legitimate find, yet I have to agree with other posters here, that there are more important things than that.

 

My tendency would be to delete, but I'll have to suggest that you let it stand.

It is just a game.

[Dj Storm]

How I see it:

 

The "finders" found something, but not the log. In cases like this, I'm for deleting their "Found it" log, as long as the deletion occurs shortly after them posting the find. Deleting 3 months old "Found it"s is cheesy in my book.

 

On the other hand, the cache was disabled, and it was my fault for keeping it disabled so long. Since I'm at fault, their logs would have stayed.

[Trader Rick & Rosie]

 

It is just a game.

 

IT'S NOT JUST A GAME!!!!!

 

But, even so, Right and Wrong still apply, even in games....

[+rjb43nh]

It sounds like the cachers whose logs you've deleted have described some of the contents of the cache to confirm that they did indeed find the cache. The reason they didn't sign the log book was because of a cache maintenance problem, which isn't their responsibility. I can't understand why you want to compound your cache maintenance issues with deleting logs from cachers who can describe the actual cache contents to prove they found it. They found as much of the cache as you had left there therefore they found the cache. Why take it out on them because you failed to maintain your cache for such a long time?

 

As Shakespeare said: ""The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves..." Let the logs stand and move on.

[+t4e]

I am the owner of a cache that I adopted about 6 months ago. I disabled it immediatly and am going out this week to redo it as it was destroyed by flood water or muggles. After it was reported not there it was logged numerous times as a find because they found some of the contents on the ground (no log just trinkets) I say per rule two since no log was signed it doesn't count. I have two people arguing with me that the last owner didnt delete it and I have no right to as the new owner since I am screwing up one of their 100 day find steak and anothers milestones on their 2500 finds since they logged their "find"

 

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.

 

What say you?

 

they logged it before you adopted it, how is it your business to "police" the logs from the time when the cache wasn't yours?

 

seriously, is it really worth the aggravation of arguing with those people or you got too much time in your hands?

 

yes, we once went to a terrain 4 cache, found the lid only, signed it and logged it as found, same as all the other visitors in the past few months before us

 

other time we found the logbook only, logged it as found too...i guess there will be no argument there, we did sign the log

[+KDotBlueDot]

Just hypothetical, but let's just imagine the next time one of your containers is frozen in place, shall we? Will that finder rip that sucker open no matter what to sign the log to avoid getting their log deleted? Yep! Imagine if you will a crack in the container? Will the finders, whose log you deleted add some tape...nope. Will they replace the container EXACTLY how they found it...they sure will, even if it's totally exposed to muggles..."Well, that's how I found it!", they'll say. Your standards will determine how finders treat your caches. I suggest you look beyond the rules here.

[+baloo&bd]

Just hypothetical, but let's just imagine the next time one of your containers is frozen in place, shall we? Will that finder rip that sucker open no matter what to sign the log to avoid getting their log deleted? Yep! Imagine if you will a crack in the container? Will the finders, whose log you deleted add some tape...nope. Will they replace the container EXACTLY how they found it...they sure will, even if it's totally exposed to muggles..."Well, that's how I found it!", they'll say. Your standards will determine how finders treat your caches. I suggest you look beyond the rules here.

 

So, sitting at my computer I decide to log several caches in the area. I need the numbers and my logic is I found them online and maybe even Google Earth. The logs get deleted and it screws up the record of 1016 caches in one day, only achievable by virtual logging. Now I am mad.

 

I go out and actually find some of your caches and destroy them, after all, what should you expect for deleting my logs?

 

Sorry, because someone is lacking integrity, social skills and was improperly raised by absentee parents should not dictate how the guidelines are enforced. If that were the case my example of a find was as valid finds as yours.

 

If you can't sign the log, you can't claim the cache online. You can do what you want with your personal stats, however the basic premise of this whole thing is signing the log. If we didn't, the site would turn into Waymarking and no one wants that.

[+Car54]

I probably shouldn't wade into this issue, but here goes. For those of you blasting the CO for "ignoring" his cache and letting it trash up the area, I think you're being a little harsh. He/she adopted it in November. From what I have read, this cache requires you to cross a spillway and it is definitely *not* winter-friendly. Add to that the fact that IN had a fairly harsh winter and I think it's reasonable for the new owner to wait until spring to replace the cache.

 

Perhaps the whoop-de-doo here is the fact that this cache is a required find for a certain challenge. We have been actively working on this particular challenge for a couple of years now, working at it when we're in the various areas, so the cache has been on my watchlist for some time. I kept reading the logs in which folks were finding cache remnants instead of the cache. I am making no judgement on how others determine the validity of a find, but our own policy is "sign the log = find the cache".

 

So I was getting pretty impatient that this disabled cache was sitting in the way of our meeting the challenge. Actually, there were 2 disabled caches that we still needed to find. Knowing how folks get emotional over these older caches, and since we hadn't actively tried to find either one, I didn't post either a NM or NA note to the cache page. But I did e-mail the reviewer about the issue. I got a nice note from the reviewer thanking me for bringing the matter to his/her attention and assuring me that he/she would deal with it.

 

Happily, both caches were adopted out - to different new owners. Cache #1 was just re-enabled about a month ago, right before an event held at the park. Csaw's cache is cache #2 and I was figuring he/she would get around to fixing it up sometime this spring. I had enough confidence in the new owner, whom I've never met or contacted, that we made camping reservations in the area this summer to pick up this cache and a few others for other challenges we are working on.

 

I am in the camp of letting the cache owner decide which logs should stay. Personally, I would probably only concern myself with logs after my adoption of a cache, but I do think it's tacky for one of the disgruntled cachers to retaliate by slapping a NA log on the cache.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

It's one thing to delete bogus logs from the point you adopted the cache, but to go back to the previous year or so when the cache was in disrepair is going overboard.

 

In all honesty, this cache should have been archived. You could have then recycled whatever was still in good enough condition to make your own cache.

[+M 5]

Sure there are some who believe that if you don't sign the physical log you can't post a find. But the "rules" don't say this. In fact they only say "Share your experience at www.geocaching.com". They say nothing about an online find log. Clearly, even if you did not find the cache you can still share your experience. Most will do so with a DNF log.

 

Toz always says this, or similar, and he is always wrong.

 

3.1. Logging of All Physical Geocaches

This page is an extension of our Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

 

Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the challenge requirements have been met and documented to the cache owner's satisfaction.

 

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the geocache and signing the logare considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional......

 

And spare us your history of the unfortunate wording. When Groundspeak updated the knowledgebooks a few months ago, they conciously added that the the "Logging Guidelines". In my opinion, the only reason they don't word it even more severe, is that there is no way to enforce it. The intent is clear and those that want to shape the wording to their way are part of the problem and are the ones that take things to far that result in further issues. Virtuals, AlRs etc...

Edited April 6, 2011 by M 5

[+KDotBlueDot]

Just hypothetical, but let's just imagine the next time one of your containers is frozen in place, shall we? Will that finder rip that sucker open no matter what to sign the log to avoid getting their log deleted? Yep! Imagine if you will a crack in the container? Will the finders, whose log you deleted add some tape...nope. Will they replace the container EXACTLY how they found it...they sure will, even if it's totally exposed to muggles..."Well, that's how I found it!", they'll say. Your standards will determine how finders treat your caches. I suggest you look beyond the rules here.

 

So, sitting at my computer I decide to log several caches in the area. I need the numbers and my logic is I found them online and maybe even Google Earth. The logs get deleted and it screws up the record of 1016 caches in one day, only achievable by virtual logging. Now I am mad.

 

I go out and actually find some of your caches and destroy them, after all, what should you expect for deleting my logs?

 

Sorry, because someone is lacking integrity, social skills and was improperly raised by absentee parents should not dictate how the guidelines are enforced. If that were the case my example of a find was as valid finds as yours.

 

If you can't sign the log, you can't claim the cache online. You can do what you want with your personal stats, however the basic premise of this whole thing is signing the log. If we didn't, the site would turn into Waymarking and no one wants that.

Wow, what a non-sensical argument. You elevate the example to hyperbole and then argue your point. I did not suggest that someone would go out and destroy their cache or find them via google earth, I said someone would not help maintain them. This is a social game...and as such we depend on each other's positive nature. My point was, why create bad blood so that you can be right? Yes, they didn't sign the log and yes, they should not claim a find. And yes, you have every right to delete the logs. You have right on your side! Good for you...and what of it? You created ill will, in what this thread shows is at least a grey area, and alienated a fellow cacher. You go preserve the integrity of the game as you define it. Have fun with that...sounds like a blast worrying about how others play it.

 

One last note...I always love how people use "guidelines" and "enforced" in the same sentence. I savour the irony.

[+sbell111]

How was it sloppy? The guy wanted nothing to do with fixing it and gave it up to me, weather has kept me at bay since I took it over. I should've sucked it up and fixed it earlier but I know people deer hunt that area and I don't want to be shot and this winter was very cold and crazy snowy... now that spring is here and it is right by a river it floods on a semi regular basis.

csaws,

 

I was just being honest based upon my opinion which I think is what you were seeking. That disabled duration, once again based on my opinion which means squat, was way too long which leads to situations like this. Not to beat a dead horse, but why did you adopt a cache that you can't maintain for half of the year?

 

I am not mad I was curious as to what your whole opinion was. As I stated weather has kept me from getting to it, right wrong or indifferent.

The weather didn't keep 5-8 cachers from getting there.

[+M 5]

During an adoption changeover, weather, hunting etc... I would give the new CO a break. Moving forward, not so much. Same with the loggers. Before your adoption, leave the lame-o's be, moving forward, handle it how you want.