Posting a Found when cache isn't there

[+_Wolverine]

In regards to cache GC17NED, geocachers are posting a find even though they explicitly say they did not find it. Instead they find the letterbox nearby.

 

I thought in order to post a find, you have to 1) Find the actual cache 2) sign the physical log

 

But yet, people just want to get their smileys there.. Why don't they post a DNF, NM, or NA? I went to it a few months ago but could not find it.. so finally in order to stop these people from posting more smileys, I put a NA there.

 

sigh...

[+StarBrand]

I've been more amazed over the years at logs like this: "we couldn't find it after a 5 minute search so we dropped a 35mm film can with a scrap of paper down" - then they log the find. I've seen at least 20 of those over the years. Only 1 of them truly had a missing cache.

[+Semper Questio]

And another case....

 

It has become a regular occurrence here, even from veterans, that if any part of a cache is found, that is enough to claim the find. I have several on my watchlist that get "found" regularly but all that is left is the lid attached to an object. No container and no log, but folks say they found "the cache". And then some even mention the state of the cache and/or turn right around and log a "needs Maintenance" on the same cache!

 

This is why I completely disregard most others' numbers. I know what mine mean to me. I have NO idea what others' mean to them.

[+hukilaulau]

My all time favorite was by an out of state cacher with thousands of finds:

 

"If it had been there I would have found it, so I'm claiming the find."

 

This cache in Central Park was found by half a dozen people (including me) over the next few days.

[+wimseyguy]

I guess some people care more about the score of the game and not how they play it?

Some people take multiple mulligans and use a foot wedge on the golf course.

Some people fold the paper back to check the crossword solution.

Some people use cheat sites for computer games.

 

Most people don't.

[+SwineFlew]

That happen here in our area when there was a letterbox near by and people were logging the letterbox and claim a smiley. Someone finally got around and posted a NA. The cache page should be able to RIP.

[+_Wolverine]

I think some of them do it because they can get away with it... because the CO hasn't logged on for a year, so of course the "neglectful" CO won't delete their finds as they've neglected maintenance and proper monitoring of their cache.. so other geocachers see it as a way to get one more smiley..

[+briansnat]

Found it = didn't find it Edited July 8, 2011 by briansnat

[AZcachemeister]

I've been more amazed over the years at logs like this: "we couldn't find it after a 5 minute search so we dropped a 35mm film can with a scrap of paper down" - then they log the find. I've seen at least 20 of those over the years. Only 1 of them truly had a missing cache.

 

I had a high-numbers cacher from out-of-state try that on one of my caches.

When I called him on it (after deleting the log), he laughed it off and claimed he was 'just trying to help out a fellow geocacher'.

 

Yeah, right. More like helping yourself to yet another undeserved smiley.

[+Mushroom finder]

Every situation is different and every person has a different idea of what constitutes a find. Some people say it's not a find unless you sign the log, even if you had the cache in your hand. Others seem to think it is acceptable to log a find just because they were close to ground zero. While I personally don't agree with either extreme, I do think there are situations where it is acceptable to log a missing cache.

 

Let me first say that if I fail to find a cache I have no problem posting a DNF, and I feel that people who blatantly log bogus finds to boost their numbers only cheat themselves. However, I personally have logged a find on two caches that were missing. While I realize that some wouldn't consider them finds, in my eyes they were.

 

The first one was a micro in the woods that had several DNF's in a row, yet no action had been taken by the CO. One previous finder had posted a pic of the cache in it's hiding spot, so when I got to GZ there was no doubt I was looking in the right spot. The cache had been destroyed and was mostly missing but I found some bits of it's remains at GZ (small swag item and some camo tape). I posted my findings along with a pic and logged it as a find. I also offered to change it to a DNF if the CO preferred. This at least prompted the CO to disable until they could replace it, and when they did I went back and signed the log even though they didn't request it.

 

The other was a rural cemetery cache. The hide was inside a hollow spot in a tree. I spotted a piece of wire hooked over the edge of the hole. When I pulled it out it was a little wire basket made to hold a film canister but the canister was gone. Now I don't make a habit of maintaining other people's caches and I would never throw down a film can just because I couldn't find a cache. But in this case the cache was clearly missing and I did find it's holder still in it's hide. The cache page mentioned that the cache had been placed while driving home from someplace, so I figured there was a good chance the CO wasn't from the area and it could be a while before they could make a maintenance trip. I happened to have a film can in my car and I felt that replacing it was the right thing to do in that case. I later received a very nice email from the CO thanking me for helping out. Turns out it is the second time it has gone missing from it's holder and they think a pac rat is the muggle.

 

I realize that some might not consider these ligit finds, but to me they were. I found the exact spot where the cache was, experienced what the CO wanted me to see or experience, and found what was left of the cache. I didn't feel that I had cheated in any way and neither did the CO's. The point is everyone caches differently and for different reasons. What I may not consider to be a ligit find may be a very real find in the eyes of someone else and vise versa. Cache and let cache, and if you find yourself getting upset about how others play, perhaps you are taking things too seriously.

[+tzipora]

Just this past week, I had some people signing a (littered) cash register receipt and claiming that the cache container had been muggled. Uh, no. It was there the whole time. I don't mind if you forgot your pen, but if you didn't even find a container you don't get to log a smiley.

[+briansnat]

I recall one not too long ago where people were signing a porta jon (yes, marking it with graffiti) thinking it was the cache. The real cache was nearby.

[+The_Incredibles_]

LOL. Love these stories.

 

I did this once, though. Solved a puzzle, trekked through the woods, found the spot that matched the hint. The cache was missing and the owner archived it shortly after, rather than replacing. I gave myself a smilie.

[+captnemo]

LOL. Love these stories.

 

I did this once, though. Solved a puzzle, trekked through the woods, found the spot that matched the hint. The cache was missing and the owner archived it shortly after, rather than replacing. I gave myself a smilie.

I would have DNFed it. You found the spot not the cache.

[vagabond]

Here's one that I'd found the same day as the throw-down was placed, I wonder how they felt as they logged it online after I did.

 

Exploring Murrieta area caches in the drizzle with //////// today. Must be an addiction when you continue caching in the rain. Found what we thought was the attachment device without a cache so fashioned a replacement for you but now it looks like we were wrong. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for the hide.

 

View Log

October 13, 2009 by vagabond (4995 found)

 

WOW The Caches at this site are reproducing like the rabbits, we were looking for one cache and found 2. Anyway we signed both logs and put the caches right next to each other, maybe the owner should come out and chase one away before they reproduce anymore caches

Signed the log thanks for the hides??

 

View / Edit Log / Images Upload an Image for this Log

Funny thing about it was when I parted the bushes and spotted both caches they were only about a foot apart

[+DanOCan]

Four examples I can recall:

 

- The seeker before me logged a Find since they had found a broken McToy near ground zero and felt that was enough. That broke a long series of DNFs on the cache and created a false impression that the cache was there. After I DNF'ed it, I posted a Needs Archived log since the owner was no longer active.

 

- I read a log where the previous seeker says he saw a bear as he got out of his truck so he "...didn't bother to look for it but since I'm sure I would have found it anyway I'm logging this as found."

 

- A local "high number" cacher claimed a Find on a disabled cache. The CO emailed him asking how he had broken into her house to find it since she had pulled the cache container to dry out on a shelf in her basement.

 

- A friend of mine lost a nano in the trunk of his car while signing the log. He didn't get a chance to log/email the cache owner to let him know of the issue yet two days later another cacher (who just happened to be a friend of the CO) came along and logged a "Quick find. TFTC". This was followed by other seekers posting DNFs until my friend could alert the CO to the missing cache issue.

 

I'm always surprised at the lengths people will go to to avoid logging a DNF.

Edited July 11, 2011 by DanOCan

[+EdrickV]

I wouldn't log a find unless I signed the log, or at least attempted to sign the log. (If a log is too wet or full to be signed then I'd probably take a picture of it instead.)

 

There was one occasion where I found what I thought was the cache container, but it was open and had no log inside. It also was not hidden the way I think it was supposed to be. (It looked like it was designed to be a cache container, and was the most unique one I've seen to date.) Because there was no log, (and because I wasn't totally sure what I found) I did not post a find. I posted a note and sent the CO more details by e-mail. It turned out that what I found was the original cache container that had been lost and replaced. The CO said I could post a find, but since I did not find the current cache container I didn't. I went back there and found the proper cache container (also out of place, oddly enough) and signed the log before putting the container where it was supposed to be. Then I posted the find.

 

On another case I posted a note followed by a needs maintenance for a cache that I found but was unable to open. (Cache was rusted shut.) I sent full details to the CO by e-mail again. That particular Geocache is now disabled pending replacement of the container.

 

According to Groundspeak, you are supposed to sign the log sheet in order to log a find online. If the log sheet isn't there because the cache isn't there (or the cache is destroyed) then IMHO you should not be logging a find. (I personally make an exception for unsignable logs, though I don't think I've encountered any that I was totally unable to sign.) Oh, and just because you think you find something the cache was attached to before, it doesn't mean you are correct. I've seen a couple of red herrings at GZ before that turned out to not be related to the cache. (Though the basket one mentioned above sounds too specific to be a red herring. I would have posted a needs maintenance myself unless I knew the person wouldn't mind me "fixing" the cache for them.)

[+TerraViators]

I'm probably guilty of going too crazy with my DNF's. I have nearly 480 DNF's to 1639 finds and even posted 3 on a cache on the same day. I looked for it 3 different times that day.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Yup. I DNFed a cache that was missing. It wasn't there! Next 'cacher' tossed a throw-down and claimed a find. Obviously, s/he didn't find it either. Umm... Isn't that a DNF? If I don't find a cache, it's a DNF. If the CO is too lazy to replace a missing cache, and accepts a throw-down, I'll ignore that CO's cache hides. It wasn't there! What kind of idiot logs a find on a cache that isn't there???

[+kpanko]

According to Groundspeak, you are supposed to sign the log sheet in order to log a find online.

Well, sort of. There is a guideline telling cache owners that once the physical log is signed, then an online log must be allowed. This is the "anti ALR" guideline, meaning that cache owners must not force people to do other tasks beyond just signing the log, e.g. take a picture at the cache.

 

But that does not mean you MUST sign the physical log before logging online.

 

Of course, that is the general idea of geocaching, so please do make all reasonable attempts to sign the physical log!

[+BlueDeuce]

According to Groundspeak, you are supposed to sign the log sheet in order to log a find online.

Well, sort of. There is a guideline telling cache owners that once the physical log is signed, then an online log must be allowed. This is the "anti ALR" guideline, meaning that cache owners must not force people to do other tasks beyond just signing the log, e.g. take a picture at the cache.

 

But that does not mean you MUST sign the physical log before logging online.

 

Of course, that is the general idea of geocaching, so please do make all reasonable attempts to sign the physical log!

 

EdrickV didn't say MUST, they said supposed to. General idea and all.

 

Honestly I'm amazed that people can justify the act of geocaching and claim a find without actually finding a geocache.

 

Edit: proper quote

Edited July 12, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+Team Van Dyk]

Every situation is different and every person has a different idea of what constitutes a find. Some people say it's not a find unless you sign the log, even if you had the cache in your hand. Others seem to think it is acceptable to log a find just because they were close to ground zero. While I personally don't agree with either extreme, I do think there are situations where it is acceptable to log a missing cache.

 

Let me first say that if I fail to find a cache I have no problem posting a DNF, and I feel that people who blatantly log bogus finds to boost their numbers only cheat themselves. However, I personally have logged a find on two caches that were missing. While I realize that some wouldn't consider them finds, in my eyes they were.

 

The first one was a micro in the woods that had several DNF's in a row, yet no action had been taken by the CO. One previous finder had posted a pic of the cache in it's hiding spot, so when I got to GZ there was no doubt I was looking in the right spot. The cache had been destroyed and was mostly missing but I found some bits of it's remains at GZ (small swag item and some camo tape). I posted my findings along with a pic and logged it as a find. I also offered to change it to a DNF if the CO preferred. This at least prompted the CO to disable until they could replace it, and when they did I went back and signed the log even though they didn't request it.

 

The other was a rural cemetery cache. The hide was inside a hollow spot in a tree. I spotted a piece of wire hooked over the edge of the hole. When I pulled it out it was a little wire basket made to hold a film canister but the canister was gone. Now I don't make a habit of maintaining other people's caches and I would never throw down a film can just because I couldn't find a cache. But in this case the cache was clearly missing and I did find it's holder still in it's hide. The cache page mentioned that the cache had been placed while driving home from someplace, so I figured there was a good chance the CO wasn't from the area and it could be a while before they could make a maintenance trip. I happened to have a film can in my car and I felt that replacing it was the right thing to do in that case. I later received a very nice email from the CO thanking me for helping out. Turns out it is the second time it has gone missing from it's holder and they think a pac rat is the muggle.

 

I realize that some might not consider these ligit finds, but to me they were. I found the exact spot where the cache was, experienced what the CO wanted me to see or experience, and found what was left of the cache. I didn't feel that I had cheated in any way and neither did the CO's. The point is everyone caches differently and for different reasons. What I may not consider to be a ligit find may be a very real find in the eyes of someone else and vise versa. Cache and let cache, and if you find yourself getting upset about how others play, perhaps you are taking things too seriously.

 

I could've sworn I read somewhere that caches can only be logged on the site if you've signed the physical log. Pretty sure that's in the KB somewhere. Not that I think what you did is bad (quite the opposite, in fact), but I don't think this is a matter that's up for interpretation. Under the rules laid out by Groundspeak, you probably should've posted a DNF and NM on the first one, and were probably okay on the second so long as you signed the replacement log.

 

Again, aside from how they were logged, I have no issues with what you did in either case (although I know others will disagree). In fact, I commend you for it. But "cache and let cache" isn't really a mantra that works. In a community game like this where we are all dependent on one another to some degree, the rules exist for a reason; if we're all out there making our own rules the integrity of the game -- and its enjoyment by others -- suffers.

[+Team Van Dyk]

According to Groundspeak, you are supposed to sign the log sheet in order to log a find online.

Well, sort of. There is a guideline telling cache owners that once the physical log is signed, then an online log must be allowed. This is the "anti ALR" guideline, meaning that cache owners must not force people to do other tasks beyond just signing the log, e.g. take a picture at the cache.

 

But that does not mean you MUST sign the physical log before logging online.

 

Of course, that is the general idea of geocaching, so please do make all reasonable attempts to sign the physical log!

 

Alright, after reading the above, I looked it up again. It's Guideline 3.1 in the KB if anyone is interested. Yes, the second paragraph of the guideline deals with ALRs, but that's unrelated to the first half which says that "[p]hysical caches can be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed." The paragraph goes on to provide the only exception -- challenge caches. The ALR discussion does not even begin until the next paragraph, and the title of the guideline is "Logging of ALL Physical Caches" (emphasis mine). The first sentence stands alone and states the general rule; they probably should've said "may" instead of "can", but the net effect is the same. In order to comply with the guideline, you can/may log the find only if you've signed the physical log.

 

That's the way I read it, anyway; and I'm not sure how it can be interpreted differently (unless we're saying that the "guidelines" are not "rules").

 

--Matt

Edited July 12, 2011 by Team Van Dyk

[+Fjordi]

I guess some people care more about the score of the game and not how they play it?

 

I have found 307 caches since May 2009 - so it is clearly not about the numbers, when we go caching.

 

But nevertheless I have logged 3 caches, where I didn't find the whole cache + logbook.

- a part of the canister attached to a tree, which had been felled

- the lid of the cache hanging from a small bridge - the cache was visible in the water below

- a broken box and a logbook on the ground (the cache had been archived some days before, which I hadn't realized) --> btw: I signed the logbook

 

According to our local reviewer there are three aspects for a cache: location, location and location

 

And that's what I want from caching as well. So when I find the box damaged, only a part, the lid or the logbook and the owner gives permission, I log the cache as a found. Only if I do not find anything, I log a DNF.

It is not my fault (and in most cases not the owner's fault), when the cache is damaged or partly missing. The owner wants to show a special location by hiding a cache there, at least, that's what I expect, when I go for a cache or hide one.

 

But I definitely won't visit a location, not even look for the cache and post a "hey, didn't find the cache, but log it because I have been there".

[7rxc]

Alright, after reading the above, I looked it up again. It's Guideline 3.1 in the KB if anyone is interested. Yes, the second paragraph of the guideline deals with ALRs, but that's unrelated to the first half which says that "[p]hysical caches can be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed." The paragraph goes on to provide the only exception -- challenge caches. The ALR discussion does not even begin until the next paragraph, and the title of the guideline is "Logging of ALL Physical Caches" (emphasis mine). The first sentence stands alone and states the general rule; they probably should've said "may" instead of "can", but the net effect is the same. In order to comply with the guideline, you can/may log the find only if you've signed the physical log.

 

That's the way I read it, anyway; and I'm not sure how it can be interpreted differently (unless we're saying that the "guidelines" are not "rules").

 

--Matt

I've read it many times in similar discussions. I still don't see the part that requires a particular person to sign the log.

Just that once the log has a signature in it, the cache can be logged online. Of course I don't do it that way, I like to sign it myself. Just another thought. What if the first finder used ASL to 'sign' the logbook? Would that count, it is an accepted form of signing isn't it? Just not a signature. There is always intent versus precise language presented to consider.

 

Doug 7rxc Have fun with it.

[+Avernar]

"[p]hysical caches can be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed."

That's the same as "You can watch the movie in the theater once you've bought a ticket." Just like the caching rule above, that rule doesn't mean buying a ticket is the only way to get in to see the movie.

 

The manager can let you in for free just like the CO can allow you to log without signing.

 

Or you can sneak in in which case the manager can throw you out just like the CO can delete your log.

 

That's the way I read it, anyway; and I'm not sure how it can be interpreted differently (unless we're saying that the "guidelines" are not "rules").

I'm amazed how people can't see that it doesn't exclude other things that allow you to log online.

 

And they're not rules, they're guidelines.

[+CanadianRockies]

But "cache and let cache" isn't really a mantra that works. In a community game like this where we are all dependent on one another to some degree, the rules exist for a reason; if we're all out there making our own rules the integrity of the game -- and its enjoyment by others -- suffers.

I'll respectfully disagree with you there. I find "cache and let cache" generally works very well for me. My enjoyment usually depends very little on how others play the game.

 

There are some basic guidelines, but, to a large extent, people have wide discretion to shape geocaching into an activity that best suits their individual preferences. If they want to "phone a friend," they can. If they want to cache in large groups, they can. If they want to claim a find for a cache they helped hide, they can. If they want to find a puzzle cache that someone else solved, they can. None of this really effects how I choose to play the game.

[+Team Van Dyk]

Alright, after reading the above, I looked it up again. It's Guideline 3.1 in the KB if anyone is interested. Yes, the second paragraph of the guideline deals with ALRs, but that's unrelated to the first half which says that "[p]hysical caches can be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed." The paragraph goes on to provide the only exception -- challenge caches. The ALR discussion does not even begin until the next paragraph, and the title of the guideline is "Logging of ALL Physical Caches" (emphasis mine). The first sentence stands alone and states the general rule; they probably should've said "may" instead of "can", but the net effect is the same. In order to comply with the guideline, you can/may log the find only if you've signed the physical log.

 

That's the way I read it, anyway; and I'm not sure how it can be interpreted differently (unless we're saying that the "guidelines" are not "rules").

 

--Matt

I've read it many times in similar discussions. I still don't see the part that requires a particular person to sign the log.

Just that once the log has a signature in it, the cache can be logged online. Of course I don't do it that way, I like to sign it myself. Just another thought. What if the first finder used ASL to 'sign' the logbook? Would that count, it is an accepted form of signing isn't it? Just not a signature. There is always intent versus precise language presented to consider.

 

Doug 7rxc Have fun with it.

 

Interesting. Seems like an odd rule it that's the intent, but it's definitely susceptible to that reading.

 

--Matt

[+Team Van Dyk]

"[p]hysical caches can be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed."

That's the same as "You can watch the movie in the theater once you've bought a ticket." Just like the caching rule above, that rule doesn't mean buying a ticket is the only way to get in to see the movie.

 

The manager can let you in for free just like the CO can allow you to log without signing.

 

Or you can sneak in in which case the manager can throw you out just like the CO can delete your log.

 

That's the way I read it, anyway; and I'm not sure how it can be interpreted differently (unless we're saying that the "guidelines" are not "rules").

I'm amazed how people can't see that it doesn't exclude other things that allow you to log online.

 

And they're not rules, they're guidelines.

 

I get the argument based on them being guideline, not rules. The other argument, though, makes very little sense. String that out to its conclusion; of course, it's not the only way you "can" log a cache; I "can" log thousands of caches online from my couch; you're not arguing for that, I'm assuming. So, I completely agree that their sloppy use of of the word "can" instead of "may" muddies this, but if they meant what you're suggesting they meant, they'd have been better off saying nothing at all. Sure, enforcement is up to a CO, but the guideline is pretty clear...IMHO...and subject to the above caveat re use of can/may...and the immediately prior post....clear as mud?

Edited July 12, 2011 by Team Van Dyk

[+Team Van Dyk]

But "cache and let cache" isn't really a mantra that works. In a community game like this where we are all dependent on one another to some degree, the rules exist for a reason; if we're all out there making our own rules the integrity of the game -- and its enjoyment by others -- suffers.

I'll respectfully disagree with you there. I find "cache and let cache" generally works very well for me. My enjoyment usually depends very little on how others play the game.

 

There are some basic guidelines, but, to a large extent, people have wide discretion to shape geocaching into an activity that best suits their individual preferences. If they want to "phone a friend," they can. If they want to cache in large groups, they can. If they want to claim a find for a cache they helped hide, they can. If they want to find a puzzle cache that someone else solved, they can. None of this really effects how I choose to play the game.

 

Don't do much with trackables then, I take it? Seriously, though, I agree that there are myriad ways of playing and enjoying the game (and, notably, there are no rules prohibiting any of the examples you give), but maintaining the integrity of the game for the sake of the community is every player's responsibility. Groundspeak has given us tools (i.e. NM logs, NA logs, etc.) and a few simple and easily-followed guidelines/rules (the KB) to that end, and I think we're not doing our part when we don't use and follow them, respectively.

 

Obviously, opinions differ, but to me, based on the above-discussed guideline, there's very little difference between an armchair cacher and a cacher in the field who posts a smilie without signing the log (even after hours of searching). At its most basic level, their "crime" (hyperbole) is the same.

 

Just my take.

[+niraD]

So, I completely agree that their sloppy use of of the word "can" instead of "may" muddies this, but if they meant what you're suggesting they meant, they'd have been better off saying nothing at all.

I don't see how the use of "can" or "may" changes anything.

 

Here's the actual guideline: "Physical geocaches can be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed."

 

Here's the guideline using "may": "Physical geocaches may be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed."

 

Here's the way the guideline is often interpreted: "Physical geocaches can be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed, and only once the physical log has been signed."

 

See the difference?

 

It helps to know the history. The guideline was originally created in response to Additional Logging Requirements. The guideline just bans COs from deleting online 'Found' logs once the physical log has been signed. The exception is challenge caches, where the CO is still allowed to delete online 'Found' logs if the terms of the challenge have not been met.

[+CanadianRockies]

Obviously, opinions differ, but to me, based on the above-discussed guideline, there's very little difference between an armchair cacher and a cacher in the field who posts a smilie without signing the log (even after hours of searching). At its most basic level, their "crime" (hyperbole) is the same.

 

Just my take.

Your take on the above-discussed guideline is that not signing the physical log means no online smilie. And that's fine with me, if that's how you want to play the game.

 

If someone finds a cache's log is too full to sign or too wet to sign, then I have no problem with that. If another person forgets to bring a pen or pencil, then I have no problem with that. If a cache container is frozen in place and a finder doesn't hack away at it for fear of damaging the cache, then I have no problem with that. If a person discovers a cache hidden next to a wasp nest and doesn't sign the log, then I have no problem with that. If a driver claims a smilie for a cache 100-feet away that his buddy found and signed for both of them, then I have no problem with that.

 

I could go on and on with examples of cache "finds" that might not meet your interpretation of the guidelines or even most people's interpretations. But these "finds" don't really effect how I play the game or the enjoyment I get from playing it.

 

By the way, I've never claimed an online smilie for a physical cache that didn't have my name on its log. That's how I opt to play. But I don't expect everyone else to play in the same way.

[+Mushroom finder]

But "cache and let cache" isn't really a mantra that works. In a community game like this where we are all dependent on one another to some degree, the rules exist for a reason; if we're all out there making our own rules the integrity of the game -- and its enjoyment by others -- suffers.

I'll respectfully disagree with you there. I find "cache and let cache" generally works very well for me. My enjoyment usually depends very little on how others play the game.

 

There are some basic guidelines, but, to a large extent, people have wide discretion to shape geocaching into an activity that best suits their individual preferences. If they want to "phone a friend," they can. If they want to cache in large groups, they can. If they want to claim a find for a cache they helped hide, they can. If they want to find a puzzle cache that someone else solved, they can. None of this really effects how I choose to play the game.

 

Well said Rockies. I always get chuckle out of those who create angst for themselves out of things that neither directly or indirectly effect them or anyone else. I also laugh when people quote "rules" when there are no rules at all. They are called guidelines for a reason and it would behoove some folks to look up the definition of that word. Requiring the physical log to be signed before claiming the find is ridiculous and impractical. The bottom line is if you found it (or what's left of it) then you found it.

 

I didn't sign a log on several of the caches I've found but that doesn't change the fact that I found them. I've found a few that were missing their log book, a few that were too full to fit even so much as my initials on, several whose logs were wet soggy lumps that could not be signed. I've forgotten my pen, lost my pen, and even had a pen that worked fine in my car but wouldn't write when I got too the cache. If I don't sign the log for whatever reason, I always mention it in my online log and I've never had a CO delete my find or ask for additional proof, and if they did they'd just end up on my ignore list.

 

Personally, I think the biggest mistake Groundspeak ever made was calling Geocaching a game. IMO it's not a game at all, but an activity, a past time, perhaps even a hobby, but definitely not a game. Unfortunately, anytime the word game enters the equation(on anything, not just geocaching), competition becomes the driving force for many. Spouting of rules, allegations of cheating and "holier than thou" attitudes are what spoils the enjoyment of other participants, not someone logging differently than I would.

 

I cannot lie though. Clearly another smiley is all I care about and I will go to any lengths I have to to get it. Just look at my stats, they speak for themselves. How could I possibly have gotten 104 smilies in just over 3 years without cheating somehow.

[+DanOCan]

I could go on and on with examples of cache "finds" that might not meet your interpretation of the guidelines or even most people's interpretations. But these "finds" don't really effect how I play the game or the enjoyment I get from playing it.

 

I agree. There are only two situations where I can recall where questionable (bogus) finds have impacted my enjoyment.

 

1) A fake find that lead me to spend extra time searching for a cache that was missing. After all, it was just found yesterday so it must be here, right? I was very annoyed with the cacher who posted a bogus find in that case.

 

2) Armchair finds caused a Virtual being archived and locked thus preventing me from getting a chance to log it.

 

The vast majority of the time, someone logging questionable finds has no impact on me. If they feel their high numbers somehow make them a better cacher than me that's fine.

[+Avernar]

I get the argument based on them being guideline, not rules. The other argument, though, makes very little sense. String that out to its conclusion; of course, it's not the only way you "can" log a cache; I "can" log thousands of caches online from my couch; you're not arguing for that, I'm assuming.

No, I'm not arguing for that. Most people read the guideline this way "[p]hysical caches can be logged online as 'Found' and not be permanently deleted once the physical log has been signed." This assumes the log doesn't violate any other guidelines.

 

Any other way without the CO's approval risks getting deleted.

 

So, I completely agree that their sloppy use of of the word "can" instead of "may" muddies this, but if they meant what you're suggesting they meant, they'd have been better off saying nothing at all. Sure, enforcement is up to a CO, but the guideline is pretty clear...IMHO...and subject to the above caveat re use of can/may...and the immediately prior post....clear as mud?

It's not just the word "can" being sloppy. You wrote before that you thought that the first paragraph was distinct from the ALR paragraph that follows while Groundspeak's intention was that they weren't. That whole section was created because of ALRs. But the way they worded it has left a lot of room for the rules lawyers to have a field day with it.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Avernar

[+Team Van Dyk]

So, I completely agree that their sloppy use of of the word "can" instead of "may" muddies this, but if they meant what you're suggesting they meant, they'd have been better off saying nothing at all.

I don't see how the use of "can" or "may" changes anything.

 

Here's the actual guideline: "Physical geocaches can be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed."

 

Here's the guideline using "may": "Physical geocaches may be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed."

 

Here's the way the guideline is often interpreted: "Physical geocaches can be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed, and only once the physical log has been signed."

 

See the difference?

 

It helps to know the history. The guideline was originally created in response to Additional Logging Requirements. The guideline just bans COs from deleting online 'Found' logs once the physical log has been signed. The exception is challenge caches, where the CO is still allowed to delete online 'Found' logs if the terms of the challenge have not been met.

 

Thanks. I understand the history; I just think that if their intent had been to just to prohibit log deletions for failing to complete ALRs, they would have said that. I see what you're saying -- that the language means that the only "requirement" a CO can place on a smilie is physically signing the log -- but if they intended it that narrowly, they surely picked awfully broad terms to say it in. The guideline just strikes me as much broader than that. Not to mention, if your smilie can rightfully be deleted for not doing X, isn't X a requirement of a smilie? If I can rightfully be put in jail for not paying my taxes, sure seems that paying my taxes is required (even if the particular IRS Agent assigned to me may be willing to cut me a break).

 

As for can/may, try to re-run the analogy re movie tickets using "may" instead of "can". I think you'll see why that sloppy word choice in the guideline is part of the problem here. If you use the permissive term "may" in the guideline instead of "can" and read it in the context of the following sentence (which contains and identifies the sole exception), the instruction is pretty clear -- smilies may be logged if physical log is signed, and the negative is true as well, by implication.

 

That's (clearly) how I read it, anyway; and how I hope most other folks do too. Sorry, I really wasn't trying to start a whole semantical discussion on it. Seriously. I had no idea there were so many people who don't believe it's their obligation to sign the log before logging the smilie!

 

Thanks for the discussion, though. Enlightening to see how others view this one. I always took it as a fundamental tenet of the game. Interesting to see that others disagree (even if they ascribe to it when they can).

 

--matt

[+Team Van Dyk]

But "cache and let cache" isn't really a mantra that works. In a community game like this where we are all dependent on one another to some degree, the rules exist for a reason; if we're all out there making our own rules the integrity of the game -- and its enjoyment by others -- suffers.

I'll respectfully disagree with you there. I find "cache and let cache" generally works very well for me. My enjoyment usually depends very little on how others play the game.

 

There are some basic guidelines, but, to a large extent, people have wide discretion to shape geocaching into an activity that best suits their individual preferences. If they want to "phone a friend," they can. If they want to cache in large groups, they can. If they want to claim a find for a cache they helped hide, they can. If they want to find a puzzle cache that someone else solved, they can. None of this really effects how I choose to play the game.

 

Well said Rockies. I always get chuckle out of those who create angst for themselves out of things that neither directly or indirectly effect them or anyone else. I also laugh when people quote "rules" when there are no rules at all. They are called guidelines for a reason and it would behoove some folks to look up the definition of that word. Requiring the physical log to be signed before claiming the find is ridiculous and impractical. The bottom line is if you found it (or what's left of it) then you found it.

 

I didn't sign a log on several of the caches I've found but that doesn't change the fact that I found them. I've found a few that were missing their log book, a few that were too full to fit even so much as my initials on, several whose logs were wet soggy lumps that could not be signed. I've forgotten my pen, lost my pen, and even had a pen that worked fine in my car but wouldn't write when I got too the cache. If I don't sign the log for whatever reason, I always mention it in my online log and I've never had a CO delete my find or ask for additional proof, and if they did they'd just end up on my ignore list.

 

Personally, I think the biggest mistake Groundspeak ever made was calling Geocaching a game. IMO it's not a game at all, but an activity, a past time, perhaps even a hobby, but definitely not a game. Unfortunately, anytime the word game enters the equation(on anything, not just geocaching), competition becomes the driving force for many. Spouting of rules, allegations of cheating and "holier than thou" attitudes are what spoils the enjoyment of other participants, not someone logging differently than I would.

 

I cannot lie though. Clearly another smiley is all I care about and I will go to any lengths I have to to get it. Just look at my stats, they speak for themselves. How could I possibly have gotten 104 smilies in just over 3 years without cheating somehow.

 

If I offended you somehow, I apologize. Such was not my intent. I certainly didn't mean to imply (and I don't think I did) that you were a "cheater".

 

As for suggesting this is somehow derived from an overcompetitiveness and a holier-than-thou attitude, I would encourage you to look at my stats (which are roughly the same as yours) on the first point (it's a hobby I do primarily with my kids), and on the second point, I'd ask that you please read my comments regarding why I believe following the guidelines is important.

 

I am genuinely surprised that there are folks who think it's harmless to play this way, but learn something new every day, I guess. I just hope none of those folks end up wasting hours of their time on a wild goose chase for a cache that no longer exists because the prior cacher logged a smilie because they found a scrap of the container.

 

--Matt

Edited July 12, 2011 by Team Van Dyk

[+Don_J]

According to Groundspeak, you are supposed to sign the log sheet in order to log a find online.

Well, sort of. There is a guideline telling cache owners that once the physical log is signed, then an online log must be allowed. This is the "anti ALR" guideline, meaning that cache owners must not force people to do other tasks beyond just signing the log, e.g. take a picture at the cache.

 

But that does not mean you MUST sign the physical log before logging online.

 

Of course, that is the general idea of geocaching, so please do make all reasonable attempts to sign the physical log!

 

Alright, after reading the above, I looked it up again. It's Guideline 3.1 in the KB if anyone is interested. Yes, the second paragraph of the guideline deals with ALRs, but that's unrelated to the first half which says that "[p]hysical caches can be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed." The paragraph goes on to provide the only exception -- challenge caches. The ALR discussion does not even begin until the next paragraph, and the title of the guideline is "Logging of ALL Physical Caches" (emphasis mine). The first sentence stands alone and states the general rule; they probably should've said "may" instead of "can", but the net effect is the same. In order to comply with the guideline, you can/may log the find only if you've signed the physical log.

 

That's the way I read it, anyway; and I'm not sure how it can be interpreted differently (unless we're saying that the "guidelines" are not "rules").

 

--Matt

 

Why do people insist on adding the word only? It simply is not in the guideline.

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

Our own personal logging ethics are: found cache --> sign log --> log online. If we didn't find the container, or if we could see the container but not get to the log, we don't log it online. That's just the way we play. Others may play different.

 

It took us a while to understand that, and yea in the first year or so it really bothered us that other cachers had different caching ethics than we did. But I guess one day we just woke up and realized it isn't our mission to change everyone to our way of thinking or living, and we just let it go. Chain eating antacid tablets over how other people live their lives gets expensive.

[+tozainamboku]

That's (clearly) how I read it, anyway; and how I hope most other folks do too. Sorry, I really wasn't trying to start a whole semantical discussion on it. Seriously. I had no idea there were so many people who don't believe it's their obligation to sign the log before logging the smilie!

 

Thanks for the discussion, though. Enlightening to see how others view this one. I always took it as a fundamental tenet of the game. Interesting to see that others disagree (even if they ascribe to it when they can).

 

--matt

Prior to April 4, 2009 the guidelines regarding online Found logs were entirely different. Up until that date, cache owners could create any requirements they wanted for posting an online Found log. The only restriction was that if a cache owner intended to delete logs that contained an additional requirement beyond signing the physical log, they had to list the cache as a mystery/unknown cache type. This was so that finders would read the cache description before hunting the cache and be aware that there were additional logging requirements. Originally there was not even this guideline. Any cache onwer could put ALRs on any cache and delete online logs, but as more people did paperless caching more and more were finding caches and getting their logs deleted because they didn't know about the ALR. One problem with an official guideline recoginizing ALRs was that it encouraged many more to be created.

 

Leading up to the April 4, 2009 change, Groundspeak and the volunteer reviewers determined that while additional tasks sometimes added to the fun of finding a cache, many cachers were including ALRs that were either too burdensome or inappropriate. Some particular ALRs such as those requiring as cache be hidden were deem as detrimental to geocaching as caches should be placed by a cache owner voluntarily and not in order to get a smiley on another cache. After attempting to come up with guidelines for reasonable and fun ALRs, it was decided to instead get rid of all ALRs (with an exception made for certain geocaching related challenge caches). It was also decided that existing ALR caches should not be grandfathered. Cache owners could still request finders to do an additional task, but doing the task would now be optional.

 

In order to be clear that existing ALRs could not be enforced the following was added to the guidelines: "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

There had never been a guideline before that indicated when a cache could or could not be logged as Found online. The online log was originally envisioned as way for cachers to share their geocaching experiences with one another and as way for a individual to keep track of which caches they had found. It was not meant as a score and the find was not meant as a reward for cache owners to give out.

 

Cache owners were given the ability to delete online logs that were bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not within stated requirements. These terms were never fully defined, but bogus was generally agreed to mean logs where some hadn't actually found the cache. In practice this was supposed to deter someone from sitting at home logging caches they never looked for as these logs could be then be deleted by cache owners. Some owners looked for a way to determine if a log was bogus or not not. For many cache owners it becames the practice to check the physical log for evidence the cacher found the cache. But the physical log is imperfect. Sometimes logs get destroyed or go missing. Certainly there are times when a cacher is unable to sign the log - no pen, log is wet, cache is frozen shut, etc. Most cache owners either accept a log at face value or will ask the cacher who logs a questionable log for some other evidence that they found the cache. The signing of the physical log was never meant as only proof that an online find is not bogus, just that is was the most widely accepted and in most instances the easiest to provide.

 

In the discussions of the new guidelines in April 2009, some people asked if the change now meant that a signature was required. Several Groundspeak lackeys and reviewers who were involved in the drafting of the new guidelines posted that the answer was no. The changes only addressed the issue of additional logging requirements. There was no intent to change the ability of cache owners to accept or reject online logs beyond the new guideline not to enforce ALRs. In revisions in the guidelines since then (particularly the reorganization of the guidelines in the Knowledge Books that puts the ALR guideline in a section on the logging of caches), I and others have questioned if this new arrangement meant that physical logs must now be signed. Again, the response from Groundspeak has been a resounding "no". The reorganization was simply a reorganization and was not meant to change the meaning or interpretation of any of the guidelines.

 

I find it interesting that some people are so convinced that they have read somewhere that signing the physical log is a fundamental "rule" of geocaching that they cannot accept the guidelines at face value. In any case, regardless of what the guidelines say, the de facto practice of most cache owners is to not delete people's online logs unless there is strong reason to believe the log is bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise in violation of the TOU of the website. Many individuals will not log a find unless they signed the log. While others have varying degrees of when they will log the find where they could not sign the log. To some degree, each cache owner is allowed to determine when these "finds" are bogus and can delete the online log if they want to. A signed physical log only serves as evidence that the log is not bogus.

Edited July 12, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+TL&MinBHIL]

So far, in my area, I've only come across one instance where someone logged a find they didn't actually find (although I'm sure there are many more I don't know about). The person said they pulled up to the cache location but a truck (with driver inside) was parked next to where they were pretty sure the cache was. They waited 5-10 minutes, the truck didn't leave, so they logged it as Found and moved on. That was the first time I'd ever seen anyone so brazenly admit they didn't actually find the cache but logged as if they did, so I was a bit shocked.

 

This topic reminds me of one we found over a month ago that had been destroyed by flood waters. It was hidden under a small foot bridge that crossed a ditch. The area had flooded and we first assumed the cache was underwater. As we walked back to the car, we spotted what looked like cache debris about 500 ft. downstream of the bridge. First a lid to a container then some small toys & plastic bags. I finally found the logbook still in its bag and in good shape. So since we were able to sign the logbook, I counted it. We gathered up what we could and placed it back under the bridge under a couple rocks so they wouldn't get blown away. Logged the find & a NM. I just looked and almost 2 months later, the CO still hasn't gone back. They haven't been active on the site since March. No one else has logged it (found or DNF) so I don't even know if it's still there. I sent them a message so we'll see if they respond.

[+Team Van Dyk]

I find it interesting that some people are so convinced that they have read somewhere that signing the physical log is a fundamental "rule" of geocaching that they cannot accept the guidelines at face value.

 

Thanks for the history. That's helpful (particularly the parts where it sounds like Groundspeak has spoken directly to the question).

 

Re the above excerpt, to be fair, you yourself suggested you were confused by the meaning of the language, so I'm not sure it's fair to ascribe the confusion to a refusal to accept the language at "face value". At "face value", it's ambiguous, at best.

 

It is good to know that Groundspeak doesn't intend the language to mean what I thought it meant, though. It won't change the way I go about it (no log, no smilie), but good to know nonetheless.

 

Thanks!

 

--Matt

[+tozainamboku]

Re the above excerpt, to be fair, you yourself suggested you were confused by the meaning of the language, so I'm not sure it's fair to ascribe the confusion to a refusal to accept the language at "face value". At "face value", it's ambiguous, at best.

 

In reality, I knew the language didn't mean that the log had to be signed. What I did was point out that certain people were likely to interpret it that way, so I asked if TPTB had any intent that it should be interpreted that way. Only after there were statements clarifying this did I come to accept the ALR changes and the reasons behind it.

 

Later when the guidelines were reorganized, I again made a point that certain people would interpret this change as supporting their view, even though it was clear to me that it was just a reorganization. The few small changes in the wording actual made the intent clearer, IMO.

 

To me the face value of the guidelines are clear. But I do realize that when someone already believes there is a requirement to sign the physical log that words will be parsed differently. I agree that Groundspeak could write the guidelines so it is clear that there is no requirement to sign the physical log in order to log a find online. I don't think they will do this however, since they seem to believe that signing a piece of paper in the cache is the best way to prove a find. With certain caches that involve some challenge to retrieve and/or open the container, signing a log is often the only accurate way to determine the challenge was met. And in other cases where there is a decoy (or perhaps where a letterbox is hidded near a cache), signing the log is the only way for the finder to know they found the cache and not something else. Groundspeak is likely to support cache owners who delete online logs where the log wasn't signed simply because there are situations where a cache owner may not find any other proof convincing. However, they will also clearly support any cache owner that accepts some other evidence of a find.

[+EdrickV]

Can't say I know much about the history of the guidelines, but there is one place where signing the log book is actually referred to as a rule rather then a guideline.

 

From the Geocaching Guide:

What are the rules of geocaching?

 

1. If you take something from the geocache (or "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.

 

There is an additional part of the guidelines that I didn't see posted here that seems (intentionally or not) to imply that signing the log book is not optional for logging a find online. (Though of course enforcement is up to individual COs who obviously can make exceptions.)

 

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 log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional.

 

Whether this is how it's intended to be interpreted or not would be up to Groundspeak.

[+tozainamboku]

Can't say I know much about the history of the guidelines, but there is one place where signing the log book is actually referred to as a rule rather then a guideline.

 

From the Geocaching Guide:

What are the rules of geocaching?

 

1. If you take something from the geocache (or "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.

 

There is an additional part of the guidelines that I didn't see posted here that seems (intentionally or not) to imply that signing the log book is not optional for logging a find online. (Though of course enforcement is up to individual COs who obviously can make exceptions.)

 

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 log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional.

 

Whether this is how it's intended to be interpreted or not would be up to Groundspeak.

The "rules" are a short statement in the FAQ for people who want to know what geocaching is about rather than some "official" rules for playing the game. They are derived from the instructions that Dave Ulmer posted on the USENET when he hid the first cache. There was no online website for logging your finds at the time. Dave asked that people who found his cache "take something from the cache, leave something in return, and write about in the logbook". For a long time the rules in the Geocaching.com FAQ were the same. No mention was made at all about logging your experience online. Only more recently did Grounspeak add the "rule" to log your experience online and changed the trading rules to one of leaving something of greater or equal value.

 

There is of course an issue as whether you must do all three things in order to be geocaching. The trading rules were rewritten to make trading optional. But if signing the physical log and logging online aren't optional then where is the outcry about people who sign the physical log but never log their experiences online? I prefer to see the "rules" as a suggested way to play the game and not get too upset if there are some variations.

 

Once again the section you have bolded was simply meant to identify what an additional logging requirement is. As of the change that was made in April 2009, cache owners must consider any tasks beyond finding a cache and signing the log as optional and not delete the online log just because these task were not done. Groundspeak decided to explicitly allow cache owners to delete online logs if the physical log is not signed. There are some specific situations where a cache owner could conceivably find that only a signed physical log provides sufficient proof that the online log is not bogus. Rather than trying to define what these are, Groundspeak leaves it up to the cache owner to decide if lack of a signature in the physical log warrants deleting the online log. Most cache owners will allow reasonable excuses for not signing the physical log. Certainly a cache owner who hides a cache high in a tree with the intent that the finder climbs the tree to retrieve the cache can delete an online find log that says "Saw the cache in the tree but I didn't want to climb up to get it."

[+geo-jenkins]

Makes you wonder how many people might log the cache as a "Missed it by that much", if that was an option, besides the DNF option. Or maybe just and 'Attempted' option if it made them feel better.

[+niraD]

Thanks for the discussion, though. Enlightening to see how others view this one. I always took it as a fundamental tenet of the game. Interesting to see that others disagree (even if they ascribe to it when they can).

If it's any consolation, I agree that signing the physical log is a fundamental part of geocaching. But I also think that there can be exceptions, and I don't think anything in the guidelines (including the sentence in question) obligates cache owners to delete online logs whenever the physical log isn't signed.

[+Avernar]

Not to mention, if your smilie can rightfully be deleted for not doing X, isn't X a requirement of a smilie?

No. The hole in your logic is that the CO is not forced to delete the log. Since the deletion is optional then X is not a requirement of a smilie.

 

If I can rightfully be put in jail for not paying my taxes, sure seems that paying my taxes is required

But there are legal ways of not paying taxes (tax credits, losses, etc) so paying taxes is not required.

 

(even if the particular IRS Agent assigned to me may be willing to cut me a break).

The IRS Agent (CO) can allow you not to pay taxes if you follow the guidelines of the government (Groundspeak). So if you have the proper proof that you don't have to pay taxes then the IRS Agent will allow it just as if you have proper proof of a find (photo, detailed description) the CO will allow it.

 

But just as the IRS Agent can't turn a blind eye, neither can the CO. If the CO states that anyone can log a smilie without signing the log (making it a virtual in effect), Groundspeak will intervene.

 

I had no idea there were so many people who don't believe it's their obligation to sign the log before logging the smilie!

That's not what most people here are saying. They're saying that signing the log is the best way of proving you found the cache. Many, including myself, consider it a fundamental part of the game. But it's not the only way to be allowed to log a smilie. These other ways do have to be approved by the CO on a case by case basis however.