I signed the log...but should it have been a DNF?

July 3, 2011

I'd like to see some opinions on this caching "grey area" I've encountered now several times.

We all know that it's wrong, wrong, wrong to log a find on a missing cache. At the risk of slipping to the Dark Side, being mocked in the Found It=Didn't Find It thread, and because it's just plain evil, I would never log a Found It for a dangling string, lid found on the ground, "trying," or locating the spot where I'm sure the cache *was.* My way of playing also involves climbing the tree for tree-climb caches, logging my DNF's, and solving the puzzle for Mystery caches.

However...what about when the cache is missing...but the log isn't?

I would think that would be a rare situation, but I have now encountered it four times, and each time I was a bit torn as to how to handle it.

Case 1: Cache was a fun, themed cache. Found every item that belonged in it, including the themed swag, the logbook and "This is a Geocache" insert, and random toys, all in a pile a bit off of GZ. It was obvious that the container (no doubt a nice ammo can) had been muggled, but the contents unceremoniously dumped. A relatively new cacher at the time, I signed the log, gathered the stuff (the log book went back for years and was a pleasure to read), posted a NM, and met with the CO later to give him all the items. I counted this as a find, and soon the CO had it up and running again. I felt a little weird about it, though.

Case 2: Looking for a micro, found the baggie with log, but no container. We signed the log, placed it in a hiding spot at GZ, then I posted a NM mentioning the missing container, and didn't log a find. However, the errant container was found by a later cacher and put back with the log. When I was in the area next, the whole group went back to the spot, straight back to GZ, found it again (this time with the log *in* the film canister), in the exact same spot. Then I, uh...well, there wasn't anything else to do. We'd already signed the log. I posted a Found It, but now felt rather silly, the only difference from the previous search being that, well, there was a film canister this time. The feeling of this experience led me to the next two...

Case 3: Found log in baggie at GZ, no container. Signed log, posted NM, logged Found. CO replaced container and moved it slightly. I guess I could have gone back and looked again on this one...

Case 4: Out of state trip. Found the log in a plastic baggie, carefully hidden under a pile of sticks (obviously not a just-ravaged-by-muggles case). Signed (left a pathtag in the baggie), counted as Found, posted NM. This one, not much chance I would be back to re-find a replaced container.

So...what are your thoughts? I did sign the log, so should it be a find? Should I have declined to mark these as Found because they weren't found in the intended condition, or is it the log that "makes" the cache? (I'll not touch the issue of flat hides where the log's baggie IS the cache container!) Mind you, I'm not worrying excessively over this issue and feel comfortable enough with my moral compass, but just curious about others' views.

Thank you,

--Q

July 3, 2011

since log signing is what constitutes a find according to the consensus in the forums I'd say you did right. You have no way of knowing if the baggie was the cache container unless it was spelled out in the description.

7k · July 3, 2011

I have seen "caches" that intentionally were nothing more than a baggie and a log, or sometimes just a log hanging around, with no container. Now I understand that those placements might not be within the guidelines, but there's still plenty of them around. I don't see why I shouldn't log a find on those.

Of course your case(s) are slightly different in that the CO didn't intend them to be like that, probably anyway. But from my point of view, the effect is the same: log signed = found it.

8k · July 3, 2011

:rolleyes:

Ah the glory of being a puritan. Sign the log = find the cache (or at leas the right to log a find online). So even if you never found the cache you can justify a find.

Now I've log a find few times when I found a container with no physical log or where I was unable to sign the physical log for some reason. But just to prove to the puritans that I'm as consistent as they are, I present two logs:

Aug. 5, 2006

Dec. 9, 2007

I don't log a find unless I found the cache,

22k · July 3, 2011

Puritan here. I don't log any cache that isn't a functional cache. Carp dumped out on the ground isn't a cache. Rolled up paper isn't a cache. Caches that are magnetic sheets that you sign the sheet is pushing it, but apparently it's a valid cache container.

22k · July 3, 2011

Mind you, I'm not worrying excessively over this issue and feel comfortable enough with my moral compass, but just curious about others' views.

I went out to find a 5/4 level cache. We got out to the location and it was clear the cache was missing. You could even see the imprint of the ammocan in the dust. The owner confirmed we were at the right location and offered to let us claim a find. My caching buddy and I both declined and make the hour trip back out once the cache was replaced.

If I'm going for a 5/4 I want the real deal. No pretend caching. Fact is I want the real deal on a 1/1 as well.

2.4k · July 4, 2011

Logging in here as a non -puritan.

I found one cache that was a baggie with a log sheet. There was never any other container other than that.

Found a log sheet in a baggie at another site. It took me a while to find it, so I signed it and put it back. I'm sure this one used to have a container though, so I emailed the owner and asked whether he considered it a find or not. He said "sure log it" so I did.

I try to just make my best judgement at the time and not get too caught up in it. It's just a game (although people try to argue this with me).

I don't log finds where I can see the cache but don't sign. I don't log anything I don't sign. But as you have noticed there are a few grey areas out there. I do my best and cache on. If I have questions I'll often ask the cache owner.

July 4, 2011

i think in all your cases you should have logged it as Found. You also took the right steps in getting it fixed by posting needs mateniance

July 4, 2011

Puritan here. I don't log any cache that isn't a functional cache. Carp dumped out on the ground isn't a cache. Rolled up paper isn't a cache. Caches that are magnetic sheets that you sign the sheet is pushing it, but apparently it's a valid cache container.

I agree, fish on the ground should never be counted as a cache container.

7k · July 4, 2011

Caches that are magnetic sheets that you sign the sheet is pushing it, but apparently it's a valid cache container.

Not according to the reviewers/guidelines. At least last I heard. There's still lots of them around though.

4.2k · July 4, 2011

However...what about when the cache is missing...but the log isn't?

we logged a find on a cache that was missing but the log was the only thing still around

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=463aad6b-3d89-46cf-802d-093b6a2dd750

July 4, 2011

I keep hearing that it's all about signing the log so sounds like a legitimate find to me.

22k · July 4, 2011

Puritan here. I don't log any cache that isn't a functional cache. Carp dumped out on the ground isn't a cache. Rolled up paper isn't a cache. Caches that are magnetic sheets that you sign the sheet is pushing it, but apparently it's a valid cache container.

I agree, fish on the ground should never be counted as a cache container.

Finally! Someone who takes me at my word.

22k · July 4, 2011

Caches that are magnetic sheets that you sign the sheet is pushing it, but apparently it's a valid cache container.

Not according to the reviewers/guidelines. At least last I heard. There's still lots of them around though.

Thanks. Not surprised really.

8k · July 4, 2011

Caches that are magnetic sheets that you sign the sheet is pushing it, but apparently it's a valid cache container.

Not according to the reviewers/guidelines. At least last I heard. There's still lots of them around though.

Thanks. Not surprised really.

The reviewer who has posted here makes the point that the guidelines says a cache is at a minimum a container and a log sheet. Therefore you needed a container and a log sheet and, according to this reviewer, the log sheet had to be something inside the container. Therefore a magnetic sheet could have a plastic bag attach that held a log sheet, but it could just be a log sheet on the back of the magnetic sheet.

The current guidelines say

Cache containers include a logsheet. For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

So I wonder if the old interpretation still holds. Seems the magnetic sheet might be the container* and it includes a log sheet on the back.

*Of course there will be many who will still say that the container needs an inside and an outside and the magnetic sheet does not have these.

But this has nothing to do with the OP. Sure a cache could be just a baggie with a log sheet, or magnetic sheet a log on back, or even just a logbook. I think the question has to do with what happens when you find a log sheet or logbook that is clearly not the cache but simply something that either got left behind when the cache was muggled or fell out of the container when a careless cacher (or muggle) rehid it. It would seem that in a least a few of these cases what you found wasn't the cache.

I won't tell the puritans they can't log that slip of paper or spiral bound notebook they found several feet from where the actual cache may still be hidden (so long as it's not my cache). If you are comfortable knock yourselves out. I'm just pointing out that an artificial rule for when you log an online find is silly and may result is some silly logs. My rule is if you found the cache log the find. If the cache owner doubts your find and you can't provide proof to convince them otherwise, they can delete your log. Stop confusing log signing with geocaching.

22k · July 4, 2011

Caches that are magnetic sheets that you sign the sheet is pushing it, but apparently it's a valid cache container.

Not according to the reviewers/guidelines. At least last I heard. There's still lots of them around though.

Thanks. Not surprised really.

The reviewer who has posted here makes the point that the guidelines says a cache is at a minimum a container and a log sheet. Therefore you needed a container and a log sheet and, according to this reviewer, the log sheet had to be something inside the container. Therefore a magnetic sheet could have a plastic bag attach that held a log sheet, but it could just be a log sheet on the back of the magnetic sheet.

The current guidelines say

Cache containers include a logsheet. For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

So I wonder if the old interpretation still holds. Seems the magnetic sheet might be the container* and it includes a log sheet on the back.

*Of course there will be many who will still say that the container needs an inside and an outside and the magnetic sheet does not have these.

But this has nothing to do with the OP. Sure a cache could be just a baggie with a log sheet, or magnetic sheet a log on back, or even just a logbook. I think the question has to do with what happens when you find a log sheet or logbook that is clearly not the cache but simply something that either got left behind when the cache was muggled or fell out of the container when a careless cacher (or muggle) rehid it. It would seem that in a least a few of these cases what you found wasn't the cache.

I won't tell the puritans they can't log that slip of paper or spiral bound notebook they found several feet from where the actual cache may still be hidden (so long as it's not my cache). If you are comfortable knock yourselves out. I'm just pointing out that an artificial rule for when you log an online find is silly and may result is some silly logs. My rule is if you found the cache log the find. If the cache owner doubts your find and you can't provide proof to convince them otherwise, they can delete your log. Stop confusing log signing with geocaching.

Understood.

July 4, 2011

About 2 weeks ago, I went on a short caching trip with a friend of mine. Just some "cleaning up" in our neighborhood.

We went for a cache, which my friend had already found last year. I didn't have a look at the listing and didn't print a sheet.

We looked for the cache, she gave me tips where it had been, when she last found it, but we didn't succeed. I decided, that I would log a DNF and a Needs Maintenance Log.

On our way back I found the logbook in the grass. Only 15m away from the huge tree, where the cache should have been.

I took the logbook home, uploaded a photo of it to my DNF log and asked the CO, if I may log the cache (in the meantime it had already been archived, because there had been many DNF before).

I didn't receive an answer so far and that's why I didn't log it as a found - even though I still have the logbook at home :rolleyes:

3.2k · July 4, 2011

Puritan here. I don't log any cache that isn't a functional cache. Carp dumped out on the ground isn't a cache. Rolled up paper isn't a cache. Caches that are magnetic sheets that you sign the sheet is pushing it, but apparently it's a valid cache container.

For me it would depend on the freshness of the carp.

3.2k · July 4, 2011

I've found several like those you described. There were logs to sign so I signed them. In one case where there was not even a plastic bag I gathered up the logbook and other contents, signed the log, and mailed everything back to the CO.

2.8k · July 4, 2011

I don't claim those that are bags on the ground with a log. For all you know a previous cacher couldn't find the actual cache or didn't want to log a DNF so they took a baggie and a log sheet/book and though it on the ground near GZ so they could claim the find anyway. I've heard stories of people finding multiple "caches" at GZ. They find the real cache and 1 or 2 throw downs.

2.2k · July 4, 2011

I think you should count all four examples as finds.

A few weeks ago I found this: The lid of a container, with a logbook underneath it, in a hole in a brick. The coordinates and the hint matched the location exactly. I logged a found it and a NM.

I looked in nearby trashcans for something to use as a container but couldn't find anything small enough.

6.1k · July 4, 2011

I found a cache on saturday that only consisted of a wooden board as a logsheet. I suppose the log was "planking". :huh:

However, over 500 people had signed it and there were a bunch of reviewers walking around, so I guess it was ok.

July 4, 2011

So my question is if I see the cache but there are muggles everwhere and if I pull it out of the hiding spot, I would compromise the cache and I KNOW it would most likely be stolen, etc., should I log on line that I found it or DNF?? I agree that it "should " be logged inside the cache but really,,,I would not wantsomeone to compromise one of mine and wouldn't mind if they signed on line but not inside the cache. Also, is it the responsiblility of the owner of a cache to pull out the logbook and check it against the on line log? Just wondering as I'm getting this instruction from a fellow cacher but I've never seen that info online anywhere. Happy 4TH of July!

1.4k · July 4, 2011

If you sign a log that isn't in the container the cache owner intended, there's always the danger that you (and maybe others who have left notes or clues in their logs) have found a throw - down cache that's been added by someone who couldn't (be bothered to) find the real one.

We went to look for a cache which we'd downloaded to the GPS some time before and hadn't realised it had since become archived because so many people had had DNFs and someone else (not the cache owner) had been sent out to check and hadn't found it either. We found it in its cool container and with log, swaps and so on intact & sent a note to the CO who reactivated it & we logged our find. Another local geocacher has checked up on it from time to time, and there have been dozens of finds since.

July 5, 2011

Thank you for all the thoughtful replies. I have puritan leanings, which is why I questioned my own actions in the first place, but I just felt so darn silly after returning to that one cache site to re-find the thing, with its log already signed... Still, if the situation does come up again, I know I'll have your comments in mind.

I have to add that I'm quite sure none of these were throw-downs, but had logs that went back a while. I've encountered throw-downs, and I hate them! And, to answer the question of another poster in this thread: No, you shouldn't log a find for a cache which you could not retrieve due to muggle activity. Either just reach in and get it (most muggles don't care or really aren't noticing you in the least) or come back later for it. Log a DNF or, if it makes you feel better, a note stating why you couldn't get it. Just my opinion on that one.

Again, thanks for the discourse. Always great to hear the thoughts of fellow cachers on these "iffy" situations.

--Q

Edited July 5, 2011 by Quossum

3.1k · July 5, 2011

Sometimes, the cache IS the log...

July 5, 2011

Hey Guys ... any input on the cache we "found" today and what I should have logged it as? ... and does it need maintenence? http://coord.info/GC15QRD

This is the note I added to the log as I didn't know how to correctly categorise my visit ...

I'm not sure how to log this ... if anyone has an ideas please let me know!

... well, firstly my GPS put GZ about 10 meters into a private driveway on the other side of the road from the church ... from the clues we assume this was incorrect & had a look behind the three different signs in the church yard for the cache ...

... nada behind the first two churchyard signs that looked anything like the usual small tupperware we were expecting ... but behind the third sign was a shoe box (yes, very large & made of cardboard) with "geocache" and "open if you dare" inscribed on the top of the box ...

... well, we opened, signed a piece of paper, left a charm & puzzled over what on earth was going on ...

... whatever we found certainly hasn't been there since 2007 when this cache was published, as a shoebox would definitely have turned to mush by now ... in fact franaynay (who I was searching with) has been looking for this cache for a couple of days and only first noticed the shoebox yesterday so it must be pretty new! ... it looks like a child placed the shoebox given the contents ... and whoever placed the shoebox obviously knows about geocaching, although I'm not sure why a shoebox has been placed either as a replacement for the original cache or so close by a real cache site ...

So ... did we find the real cache that is now a shoebox ... or is this some kid's toy cache located in the vicinity of the real cache that we inadvertantly signed ... or is something else going on that I'm tooo dim to have suspected? ... thanks!

20.7k · July 6, 2011

Caches that are magnetic sheets that you sign the sheet is pushing it, but apparently it's a valid cache container.

Not according to the reviewers/guidelines. At least last I heard. There's still lots of them around though.

As I recall from that discussion, If the magnetic sheet is the log, it's not a cache. If the log is attached in some way to teh magnetic sheet and can be replaced, it is a cache.

July 6, 2011

To EmmaGX:

I think you should log a find and see what happens. I had a very similar situation for this cache: there was a container with a log, but pretty far off from the coordinates and not as described in the write-up. Since my log, the CO seems to have confirmed that the "strange" cache is actually the cache; they've even changed the coordinates. By the same token, here's a cache where we found a throw-down and, because its nature didn't match the other logs, kept on looking until we found the real cache. If you've given it a good honest look, I think you have to assume that what you found was the cache until notified otherwise. With the cache you found, the CO hasn't been on since Nov. 2010, so perhaps another cacher took matters into their own hands?

To all:

Caching morality is so funny. I posted about this "grey area" where I felt comfortable logging a find on a log-with-no-cache, and not everyone agreed with me. Yet, in another thread, people are discussing logging finds on puzzles and multis where the finder didn't do the puzzle or solve the multi...and that's something that I would not feel comfortable doing. I have no problem with others doing it, and certainly wouldn't delete such finds if I had published a puzzle or multi, just commenting. It's interesting!

--Q

July 6, 2011

That does sound surprisingly similar to our situation ... guess there are enough geocaches in the world that even the more unusual situations have to try very hard to be unique! ... will see if the CO responds to my note ... would definitely love to know the story behind this cache, it was obviously lovingly created even if they were a child who doesn't quite understand the waterproof properties of cardboard!

I signed the log...but should it have been a DNF?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation