Jump to content

Nano & Signing Log


Stoka

Recommended Posts

I've recently adopted a multi which consists of 4 caches. Each stage gives you a piece of the combination padlock code & coords for the final. Now the 3rd cache has already been muggled once and i'm not expecting the replacement container to last terribly long given it's location.

 

There's an ideal spot nearby for a nano, now as the log book in these would be rather full with the bits of information you need to collect, would it be against any rules to allow people to not sign the log but still count it as a find?

Link to comment

I've recently adopted a multi which consists of 4 caches. Each stage gives you a piece of the combination padlock code & coords for the final. Now the 3rd cache has already been muggled once and i'm not expecting the replacement container to last terribly long given it's location.

 

There's an ideal spot nearby for a nano, now as the log book in these would be rather full with the bits of information you need to collect, would it be against any rules to allow people to not sign the log but still count it as a find?

 

You are referring to replacing stage #3 of 4 with a nano, right? If I understand you correctly... stages of a multi don't need to be signed... only the final stage would have a log to sign. Or am I misunderstanding what you're asking?

Link to comment

After looking at your profile, I'm guessing you recently adopted 3 Traditional caches with a bonus.

 

Each cache that has its own listing must have a container and a logbook for signatures.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/cache_types.aspx

 

Traditional Cache

 

This is the original geocache type consisting of, at minimum, a container and a log book or logsheet. Larger containers generally include items for trade. “Nano” or “micro” caches are tiny containers that only hold a logsheet. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page provide the geocache’s exact location.

Edited by Isonzo Karst
Link to comment

Sorry about that, i'm still getting used to the terminology so I may have got that one wrong.

 

Basically this is the setup ... There are 4 caches in which all have logs and contain the necessary bits of info required to find the final 4th cache.

 

In that case, each standalone cache must have its own log.

Link to comment

...would it be against any rules to allow people to not sign the log but still count it as a find?

 

This goes against my:

grain

ethics

and comprehension of what constitutes a Geocache found.

 

Of course if they manage to find and sign the log in the 'bonus' cache, you could infer that they must have found all the caches leading up to that bonus cache. Unless a previous finder gave them the co-ordinates or showed it to them.

 

Toz won't have an issue though.

 

And so it's all fluffy bunnies, rainbows, and yummy ice-cream cones.

 

:mmraspberry:

Link to comment

...would it be against any rules to allow people to not sign the log but still count it as a find?

 

This goes against my:

grain

ethics

and comprehension of what constitutes a Geocache found.

 

Of course if they manage to find and sign the log in the 'bonus' cache, you could infer that they must have found all the caches leading up to that bonus cache. Unless a previous finder gave them the co-ordinates or showed it to them.

 

Toz won't have an issue though.

 

And so it's all fluffy bunnies, rainbows, and yummy ice-cream cones.

 

:mmraspberry:

 

I don't care what Toz says I think it stinks. Find cache, sign log. It ain't rocket surgery. That's my two cents.

 

Besides, I'm lactose intolerant.

:omnomnom:

Link to comment

...would it be against any rules to allow people to not sign the log but still count it as a find?

 

This goes against my:

grain

ethics

and comprehension of what constitutes a Geocache found.

 

Of course if they manage to find and sign the log in the 'bonus' cache, you could infer that they must have found all the caches leading up to that bonus cache. Unless a previous finder gave them the co-ordinates or showed it to them.

 

Toz won't have an issue though.

 

And so it's all fluffy bunnies, rainbows, and yummy ice-cream cones.

 

:mmraspberry:

 

I don't care what Toz says I think it stinks. Find cache, sign log. It ain't rocket surgery. That's my two cents.

 

Besides, I'm lactose intolerant.

:omnomnom:

 

You lactose puritan, you!!

Link to comment

...would it be against any rules to allow people to not sign the log but still count it as a find?

 

This goes against my:

grain

ethics

and comprehension of what constitutes a Geocache found.

 

Of course if they manage to find and sign the log in the 'bonus' cache, you could infer that they must have found all the caches leading up to that bonus cache. Unless a previous finder gave them the co-ordinates or showed it to them.

 

Toz won't have an issue though.

 

And so it's all fluffy bunnies, rainbows, and yummy ice-cream cones.

 

:mmraspberry:

 

Thanks for spawning a new thread. :laughing:

Link to comment

Sorry about that, i'm still getting used to the terminology so I may have got that one wrong.

 

Basically this is the setup ... There are 4 caches in which all have logs and contain the necessary bits of info required to find the final 4th cache.

 

In that case, each standalone cache must have its own log.

 

You must provide a log but as the CO, you can allow finders to bypass signing the log to save space.

Link to comment

You must provide a log but as the CO, you can allow finders to bypass signing the log to save space.

But you'd need to figure out a way of communicating that accommodation without mentioning it on the cache page.

 

Also, if someone signed the log despite secret instructions not to do so, the cache owner would not be able to delete their log.

 

Both of the above points are covered in the guidelines.

Link to comment

You must provide a log but as the CO, you can allow finders to bypass signing the log to save space.

But you'd need to figure out a way of communicating that accommodation without mentioning it on the cache page.

 

Also, if someone signed the log despite secret instructions not to do so, the cache owner would not be able to delete their log.

 

Both of the above points are covered in the guidelines.

Could you point out where the first point is mentioned? I understand that requiring someone to not sign the log would be construed as an ALR. But if the cache owner were to simple request on the cache page that the log not be signed, I'm not seeing where this would be against the guidelines.

Link to comment

You must provide a log but as the CO, you can allow finders to bypass signing the log to save space.

But you'd need to figure out a way of communicating that accommodation without mentioning it on the cache page.

 

Also, if someone signed the log despite secret instructions not to do so, the cache owner would not be able to delete their log.

 

Both of the above points are covered in the guidelines.

Could you point out where the first point is mentioned? I understand that requiring someone to not sign the log would be construed as an ALR. But if the cache owner were to simple request on the cache page that the log not be signed, I'm not seeing where this would be against the guidelines.

 

It would be viewed as a defacto virtual. But I am not a reviewer, so I could be wrong about that. But seems like someone posted a link recently to just this situation in New Zealand where a cache was hidden around some seals. The CO put text that said something like if the seals are there, don't try to get the cache. Just log it as a find.

 

The reviewer was ok with it.

 

But another cacher didn't care for it and pushed it until that verbiage had to be removed.

 

I don't have the link right now, but if you're curious, I can find it. That same cacher just changed his name and geocided a few weeks ago.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...