Should I log this find?

July 17, 2011

3 months ago, about a week before I started actively caching again, we found a cache as part of our search & rescue training. It is a genuine cache placed in a local state park and our scenario was that we were looking for a cacher who had gone cross country & gotten lost. I didn't sign the log at the time because I hadn't started actively caching again. As a matter of fact, it was running that scenario that reminded me how much fun it was to cache. I helped find the cache & was on the team who physically found the cache. However, I didn't sign the log because I was in training mode & didn't start thinking about caching again until after our training.

I've always been a die-hard "If you didn't sign the log, you don't log the find." However, I'm wondering if it would be proper to go ahead & log it since I do have multiple witnesses to my involvement.

Your thoughts?

Thanks!

Melissa

4.3k · July 17, 2011

Go back and sign it, then log it online.

July 17, 2011

I would think yes and when you get the time go back and sign the log there have been a few times when I couldn't sign the log because it was wet, full or missing but I logged the find and noted the problem just do the same thing note you found it on a training run/work. I think if might have been improper for you to sign the log during training. Tim2

7.9k · July 17, 2011

As bonafide, dyed-in-the-wool Geocaching puritan, I'd say you need to return and sign the log.

Personally, I wouldn't post the find log until after said log was signed, but there are factions that will tell you it doesn't matter if you sign the log at all.

3.8k · July 17, 2011

You will find people on both sides of the fence on this one. It comes down to what do you feel comfortable doing? If you really think you need one more smiley then send the cache owner an e-mail and see what they think about logging the find.

If you keep going with caching at some point you will probably start to feel like you wish you had stuck with your stated die-hard "sign the log, log the find" self ethics. At that point you will go out and find the cache again or delete your original find. That will throw off any milestones that you obtain in the future.

But in the end the decision is between you and the cache owner.

July 17, 2011

I'd email the CO and ask what they think. Some really want you to sign the log book, some are happy to take your word for it.

July 17, 2011

Thanks for all of the replies. The only reason I haven't gone back and logged the find is because it's about 2/3 the way up a one mile hike that's a heck of a hike - especially with the 100+ temps we're having. (Yes, I'm lazy - I'll admit it.) I did a 4.2 mile training hike that included that section the week before we ran the scenario, then hiked it again for the scenario. I know it sounds silly, but I hate that darn trail. I may go back this fall, make the hike, and log it. Lazy me says log the find but my geoethics say "no log, no find." Darn ethics, lol. I may email the CO & see what they want me to do.

Thanks!

Melissa

6.7k · July 17, 2011

Was the cache sign by the team? If so, were you a part of that team? If so sounds like you are good to go. Log the find.

22k · July 17, 2011

3 months ago, about a week before I started actively caching again, we found a cache as part of our search & rescue training. It is a genuine cache placed in a local state park and our scenario was that we were looking for a cacher who had gone cross country & gotten lost. I didn't sign the log at the time because I hadn't started actively caching again. As a matter of fact, it was running that scenario that reminded me how much fun it was to cache. I helped find the cache & was on the team who physically found the cache. However, I didn't sign the log because I was in training mode & didn't start thinking about caching again until after our training.

I've always been a die-hard "If you didn't sign the log, you don't log the find." However, I'm wondering if it would be proper to go ahead & log it since I do have multiple witnesses to my involvement.

Your thoughts?

Thanks!

Melissa

Witness? fine. Claim the find with either a clarification in the log or a note sent directly to the owner.

Personally I'm disappointed that any geocacher would have to ask if they should log a find whether they found it through hook or crook. A finds a find.

Edited July 17, 2011 by BlueDeuce

2.1k · July 17, 2011

...I wouldn't post the find log until after said log was signed, but there are factions that will tell you it doesn't matter if you sign the log at all.

And then there is the middle of the road... (why should it be limited to only two options?) Signing the log is only one form of proof that you were there and did open the container. There can be alternative forms of proof. What usually works well is telling your story. Most cache owners will not fault you for logging a find without signing when you explain the situation. Make it a fun story and you get extra credit!

Signing the log is an important factor and we should always make every attempt to do so. With only a few exceptions opening the container is perhaps the most important factor, or, when caching with others, being in the presence of an open container.

I have only twice in over nine years felt the need to delete a find and that was when the signatures were not in the log AND the cachers opted not to tell me a credible story, a.k.a. alternative form of proof.

You found the cache and I am assuming that you opened the container. That is a find and I would not hesitate to log that as found. If you are back in that area again another visit to the cache to sign the log would be an admirable thing to do.

The cache owner has the power to delete your Found It log but, typically, they won't do that if you provide a story.

19k · July 17, 2011

Go back and sign it, then log it online.

That is what I would do.

19k · July 17, 2011

Thanks for all of the replies. The only reason I haven't gone back and logged the find is because it's about 2/3 the way up a one mile hike that's a heck of a hike - especially with the 100+ temps we're having. (Yes, I'm lazy - I'll admit it.) I did a 4.2 mile training hike that included that section the week before we ran the scenario, then hiked it again for the scenario. I know it sounds silly, but I hate that darn trail. I may go back this fall, make the hike, and log it. Lazy me says log the find but my geoethics say "no log, no find." Darn ethics, lol. I may email the CO & see what they want me to do.

Thanks!

Melissa

By all means, listen to your geoethics. Return in the fall, if that's better. From what you have told us, if you don't sign the log, that cache will always be a thorn in your side that you will regret.

22k · July 17, 2011

...What usually works well is telling your story.

ayep.

6.1k · July 17, 2011

Ask the cache owner. Post a long note with details about what occurred, and then send them an e-mail. if they agree, change it to a find.

8k · July 17, 2011

IMO, you found the cache so you can log a find.

Others have already brought up the "p" word. There are those who confuse signing a log book with finding a cache. Some personally will not log a find unless they sign the log and I can understand this. Signing the physical log serves a purpose as it provides some evidence that you did indeed find the cache. Not only is this evidence that the cache owner and other cachers can see to verify your online claim, but it provides evidence to you that you found the cache and not something else. Obviously your search and rescue team examined enough of the box to know it was a geocache. You probably even had the log book out and looked at the names. So I don't see the need to go back and sign anything. Of course you may have a cache owner who thinks the story of you finding a cache 3 months ago before you started geocaching is bogus. Cache owners are supposed to delete logs that appear bogus. So if you don't go back and sign the logbook there is a small chance that the cache owner would delete your log.

2.2k · July 17, 2011

If it were my cache I wouldn't mind at all if you claimed the find. But, as others have said, it sounds like you will feel uneasy about it. Looks like you just have to go back there and sign it. Just do it! You'll be glad you did!

6.1k · July 17, 2011

The difference between posting a note and logging a find is only a numerical tabulation, as otherwise both are an online record of your visit. The rules behind the numerical tabulation are governed by the social collective group meme that you choose to adhere to. The symbolic Puritan right hand historical conservative constituents actively promote a written record In the logbook before boosting the numerical value on your profile. Otherwise it's just a friggen game and as long as you found it, don't worry about it. If you want to dance nekkid in the summer rain under the moonlight at ground zero, just make sure the park allows it at those hours. I am aware that that this may not completely address the OP, but I'm planning to use it as a canned response to these type of questions.

3.7k · July 17, 2011

I would log it. Just say 'found a while ago with <whoever signed it> and they signed for both of us"

1.3k · July 17, 2011

Sign the physical log but leave a blank e-log.

38.2k · July 17, 2011

You found it, why not log a find. If it where my cache I'd certainly have no problem with you logging it.

July 17, 2011

I'd log it - after all, you found it.

However, in this game, you're only playing against yourself, so do whatever your personal rules say.

3.3k · July 18, 2011

I would log it. Just say 'found a while ago with <whoever signed it> and they signed for both of us"

As you have described the find I would log it. I wouldn't do as suggested above and lie about the situation. I think that would be pretty lame.

1.7k · July 18, 2011

I would log it. Just say 'found a while ago with <whoever signed it> and they signed for both of us"

As you have described the find I would log it. I wouldn't do as suggested above and lie about the situation. I think that would be pretty lame.

The sad part is, some people, such as a particularly argumentative forum user, will actually delete your log if you admit to not logging it. It's a shame it should ever come down to lying.

3.3k · July 18, 2011

I would log it. Just say 'found a while ago with <whoever signed it> and they signed for both of us"

As you have described the find I would log it. I wouldn't do as suggested above and lie about the situation. I think that would be pretty lame.

The sad part is, some people, such as a particularly argumentative forum user, will actually delete your log if you admit to not logging it. It's a shame it should ever come down to lying.

Not my problem since I never lie in my logs. I find them and I log them. I DNF them and I log my DNFs.

July 18, 2011

I think I will just wait till cooler weather, make the hike, sign the log & log the find. There are 2 more caches up there that I need to grab so I'll probably just make a day of it. Besides, find #100 is very special; I don't want to throw off my stats.

Thanks all! :-)

3.3k · July 18, 2011

...I wouldn't post the find log until after said log was signed, but there are factions that will tell you it doesn't matter if you sign the log at all.

And then there is the middle of the road... (why should it be limited to only two options?) Signing the log is only one form of proof that you were there and did open the container. There can be alternative forms of proof. What usually works well is telling your story. Most cache owners will not fault you for logging a find without signing when you explain the situation. Make it a fun story and you get extra credit!

Signing the log is an important factor and we should always make every attempt to do so. With only a few exceptions opening the container is perhaps the most important factor, or, when caching with others, being in the presence of an open container.

I have only twice in over nine years felt the need to delete a find and that was when the signatures were not in the log AND the cachers opted not to tell me a credible story, a.k.a. alternative form of proof.

You found the cache and I am assuming that you opened the container. That is a find and I would not hesitate to log that as found. If you are back in that area again another visit to the cache to sign the log would be an admirable thing to do.

The cache owner has the power to delete your Found It log but, typically, they won't do that if you provide a story.

I am with Sagefox. I do not find it fun to get all legalistic. The odd time I have not been able to sign a log (cache frozen shut, no pen etc), I submit a nice log and explain the situation. Never had a log deleted yet.

9.3k · July 18, 2011

...we found a cache as part of our search & rescue training.

Thanx! I'm the coordinator for Seminole County's Search Team, and you just gave me an idea for an upcoming training session. As to claiming a find or not, it looks like both sides are well represented here. I have two completely opposing and utterly contradictory thoughts on signing logs and logging finds.

For caches that I own, I recognize that there are many different definitions regarding what constitutes a find. Since I'm not a huge fan of imposing my will on others, I tend to accept whatever definition is presented by those who log finds on my caches, not caring a bit if they signed the log or not.

For caches that I seek, I maintain what some refer to as a Puritan standard, refusing to log a find unless my moniker, or some variation, is in the logbook. If the cache is so rusty I can't open it, the cache was shredded by a lawn mower, the log was a gooey mass of moldy pulp, my pen died, the cache was out of my reach, or any of the other myriad reasons given for not signing a log, I will not claim it as a find.

You do what feels right to you, and you'll never have to worry.

July 20, 2011

What if a cache has its logbook completely missing (assuming that the cache container is properly hidden at GZ, with all the usual cache paraphernalia, except logbook, inside)? I know: no logbook = no cache, that's clear. But if a finder replaces it with a signed piece of clean paper (with space for a few more logs), does it promptly 'revive' the cache, so the finder can claim a valid find online?

2.1k · July 20, 2011

I know: no logbook = no cache, that's clear.

What on earth made you think that?

Logbooks go missing. They get full. The get wet and turn into spitballs on which one cannot write. In any of those cases, leaving a slip of paper with your trail name on it counts as "signing the log."

1.2k · July 20, 2011

Your post would make an awesome log for that cache! I would leave your story as a found.

July 20, 2011

I know: no logbook = no cache, that's clear.

What on earth made you think that?

A cache is a container that includes, at minimum, a logbook to sign, isn't it? Since there is no logbook, we may say that the container in itself does not qualify as a functional cache, only an empty box. Though a logbook can be full, or wet, but there _is_ a logbook. My concern is, if a finder can freely create a supposedly missing mandatory component from scratch, than one can say, "I found a box shaped item lying on the ground around GZ, the log must be missing, so I toss a piece of paper in it and call it a find". Don't take me wrong, i'm not an über-puritan, only a tadpole who likes to know if it's universally accepted to sign any little piece of paper instead of a completely missing real logbook? I rather err on the side of puritanism, than end up in the 'Found It = Didn't Find It' topic. :unsure:

1.8k · July 20, 2011

A cache is a container that includes, at minimum, a logbook to sign, isn't it? Since there is no logbook, we may say that the container in itself does not qualify as a functional cache, only an empty box. Though a logbook can be full, or wet, but there _is_ a logbook. My concern is, if a finder can freely create a supposedly missing mandatory component from scratch, than one can say, "I found a box shaped item lying on the ground around GZ, the log must be missing, so I toss a piece of paper in it and call it a find". Don't take me wrong, i'm not an über-puritan, only a tadpole who likes to know if it's universally accepted to sign any little piece of paper instead of a completely missing real logbook? I rather err on the side of puritanism, than end up in the 'Found It = Didn't Find It' topic.

I see where you're coming from. There are other issues that have been interpreted incredibly strictly in the past - for example, when the Seattle APE cache container recently went missing, it was near-instantly archived for no longer fitting the strict definition of an APE cache (no original container = no APE cache). This was despite what could be understated as a few objections.

So, because to be listed a cache *MUST* have a logbook (and new listings that do not feature logbooks are usually instantly archived once the reviewers realize it), does the cache get treated uber-strictly if the logbook goes missing?

The answer is no. There is a lot of leeway granted here. And if you find a cache (and are reasonably certain it is the cache and not a discarded container of some sort) and there is no logbook, it's generally accepted practice to sign a piece of paper to include in the container. There is a lot of debate about whether it is okay to replace an entire cache that has gone missing, but I've never heard an outcry over replacing a logbook or including a signed paper to mark a successful find. You're good.

8k · July 20, 2011

A cache is a container that includes, at minimum, a logbook to sign, isn't it? Since there is no logbook, we may say that the container in itself does not qualify as a functional cache, only an empty box. Though a logbook can be full, or wet, but there _is_ a logbook. My concern is, if a finder can freely create a supposedly missing mandatory component from scratch, than one can say, "I found a box shaped item lying on the ground around GZ, the log must be missing, so I toss a piece of paper in it and call it a find". Don't take me wrong, i'm not an über-puritan, only a tadpole who likes to know if it's universally accepted to sign any little piece of paper instead of a completely missing real logbook? I rather err on the side of puritanism, than end up in the 'Found It = Didn't Find It' topic.

You know geocaching is a pretty simple game. Someone hides something, they post the coordinates on Geocaching.com, you go and find the object.

Most of the the other trappings have been added over the years to provide a more uniform experience. This is good for some people who need tightly regulated rules, and bad for others who feel it stiffles their creativity. In the early days, inovators came up with virtual caches (where they used an existing object as the caches instead of hiding something) and code-word caches (where instead of signing the log you emailed the caches owner the code word in the cache to prove the find). There were also cache owners who "inovated" on when you could log a find online. They created additional logging requirements.

Over time, TPTB decided that new virtual caches could not be hidden and that cache owners should not enforce additional logging requirements. In making these changes, code word type caches were also effected. Rather than creating confusion and allowing these cache, TPTB decided instead to ban them as well. It turns out that some people used them as a way to sneak in a virtual cache (the cache page could be written in such a way that the reviewer could not tell if the was code word hidden by the cache owner or if this was an existing object). It also dealt with an ALR issue that occured even before the change that eliminated ALRs. Caches that required you to email to the cache owner in order to log a find were often frustrating for finders if a cache owner stopped responding to email (or even when they were just slow responding). While there are grandfathered caches (virtuals, code word, and some early challeng caches) that require emailing the cache owner in order to log a find, TPTB decided to no longer publish caches like this.

All this resulted in a requirement that physical caches have a log to sign. The expectation is that a cacher (even a puritan) would be able to log a find online once the physical log was signed without any need to contact the cache owner or any worry that the cache owner would create other obstacles to logging online.

Some reviewers will quickly archive a cache if the cache owner indicates there is no log book or if the cache owner later changes the cache page to create an ALR (including a code word) or a virtual cache. What reviewers will not do is archive a cache just because the log book went missing or got full. Cache owners are expected to do maintenance on the cache and replace the log book, but Groundspeak has no rules saying other cachers can't help out and leave a new log book or add a sheet of blank paper.

July 21, 2011

...we found a cache as part of our search & rescue training.

Thanx! I'm the coordinator for Seminole County's Search Team, and you just gave me an idea for an upcoming training session.

OT but we our team was getting our SARTECH III certification. Our team leader (who is already certified & is one of the rangers at the SP we trained in) was our "victim." He left "clues" in the caches in the park that were marked as such. I grabbed one of the caches about a month later that we hadn't made it to on the mock & found one of the clues in the cache & it brought a smile to my face. I left the clue there for someone to claim as swag. The training was great & the geocaching scenario made it even more interesting for me. Since getting certified, it has changed what I pack in my cache bag (as I'm sure you can imagine) as well as what info I leave with the fam if I'm going out after caches that are off the beaten track.

Edited July 21, 2011 by melissafred

July 21, 2011

but Groundspeak has no rules saying other cachers can't help out and leave a new log book or add a sheet of blank paper.

And if you find a cache (and are reasonably certain it is the cache and not a discarded container of some sort) and there is no logbook, it's generally accepted practice to sign a piece of paper to include in the container.

In any of those cases, leaving a slip of paper with your trail name on it counts as "signing the log."

I had basically the same idea. Happy to hear that it's quite universal. Thanks guys!

July 21, 2011

What if a cache has its logbook completely missing (assuming that the cache container is properly hidden at GZ, with all the usual cache paraphernalia, except logbook, inside)? I know: no logbook = no cache, that's clear. But if a finder replaces it with a signed piece of clean paper (with space for a few more logs), does it promptly 'revive' the cache, so the finder can claim a valid find online?

I had something like that happen to me once, though I wasn't sure it actually was the cache container. (What else it could have been, I had no idea.) And it was not able to be sealed. What I did do is in this post here:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=278330&view=findpost&p=4782742

Now if a container is obviously a Geocache container (Has geocache logos, swag, etc.) but the log is not usable or missing, and I have something that could work as a temporary log, then I would sign and drop off a temporary log, log the find online, and also log a Needs Maintenance log so that the CO can replace the log with a proper one. (If a log is getting full or damp but usable, I'd just note that in the found log.)

A rusted shut container would be an entirely different story.

July 21, 2011

Since I know from several other actual topics how much people are into physical logs at GZ, I´d probably log a write note first and tell the whole story about the find like you did here. As most of the usual find logs are some sort of "NICKNAME DATE TFTC" your log will be outstanding and interesting to the CO. I as the CO therefore would give you permission to log the find, becouse you actualy found my cachecontainer AND told me an interesting story about it. And we both would be happy.

Since I read on another thread that most of the COs throw theyr full logbooks to the bin, I even more don´t understand why people make such a thing out of the physical log, ´couse it seems to me, that the logbook isn´t any thing of interest at all in the end ... But everyone like he pleases ...

July 21, 2011

Do what you feel is right.

1.2k · July 21, 2011

3 months ago, about a week before I started actively caching again, we found a cache as part of our search & rescue training. It is a genuine cache placed in a local state park and our scenario was that we were looking for a cacher who had gone cross country & gotten lost. I didn't sign the log at the time because I hadn't started actively caching again. As a matter of fact, it was running that scenario that reminded me how much fun it was to cache. I helped find the cache & was on the team who physically found the cache. However, I didn't sign the log because I was in training mode & didn't start thinking about caching again until after our training.

I've always been a die-hard "If you didn't sign the log, you don't log the find." However, I'm wondering if it would be proper to go ahead & log it since I do have multiple witnesses to my involvement.

Your thoughts?

Thanks!

Melissa

Sounds like a find to me...heck, even that could be your log!!!

If it were my cache, I would say just go ahead and log your find...no need to find the cache a second time.

1.2k · July 21, 2011

What if a cache has its logbook completely missing (assuming that the cache container is properly hidden at GZ, with all the usual cache paraphernalia, except logbook, inside)? I know: no logbook = no cache, that's clear. But if a finder replaces it with a signed piece of clean paper (with space for a few more logs), does it promptly 'revive' the cache, so the finder can claim a valid find online?

That is just splitting hairs...

I have replaced plenty of log books in my journey...wet, missing, full...etc...it is just the right thing to do if you are able to do it...

Should I log this find?

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

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