Log book only caches

2.7k · March 24, 2003

I would like to go on record as opposed to "log book only" or "log bok and pencil" caches.

On one occasion, I found a cache along with a new person I met at the site. The newbie seemed awfully disappointed, as was I, that the cache was "empty". I explained that this is not a common thing. (Now I am seeing literally dozens of these in my area).

The newbie has never logged on to my knowledge. Welcome to caching- isn't this fun?

I just spent 2 weeks in preparation of a cache that, admittedly, does not have much in it but a log book and 2 or 3 trinkets due to the open and clean nature of the park. I made a nice page with html, only to have it archived because a hastily placed "log and pencil" was registered a few HOURS prior to mine.

There seems to be some kind of race on to see who can place the most caches. These simple caches with simple posts are popping up in droves.

These "race caches" blow it for others who might take the time to do a little better job and, barring a very unique hide which might make the "log and pencil" a good hunt, these caches are very boring and serve as nothing more than another count in the profile.

I will be documenting on their log pages that room for a larger cache was available when I find that to be the case.

I think there should be special rules for "log and pencil" caches. The placer should have to justify why a cache with something in it could not be placed close-by or some redeeming value for a log only.

Dave,GDAE

March 24, 2003

For me, the thrill is in the hunt. I enjoy getting out and seeing different places.

I've noticed that many cachers seem to be against virtuals. At least the caches that you're describing have an actual container that must be found.

March 24, 2003

I appreciate what you're saying Dave, but I went and had a look at the cache in question and see that the cache owner did say "log and pencil" only in his/her description so it would be unfair of you to complain afterwards. Personally, I enjoy the hunt far more than the actual contents of a cache and frequently post TNLN. "The thrill of the hunt" as the previous poster said.

PS - cute picture on your bio page

6.4k · March 24, 2003

For me, it's all about getting there. If all I cared about are the goodies, I would have to weed out 90% of the caches around here anyway, since after a few months most of them don't seem to contain much more then broken McToys, dirty golf balls, and old soggy grocery store receipts. As long as the cache has a logbook, I'm happy. Now, if I was caching with children, I would try and seek out caches that were kid-friendly, and pick out caches that were likely to have some toys.

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

March 24, 2003

I think if the description is accurate that logbook only caches are fine. Even those that tell you to bring your own pencil.

Of course I also like virtuals if they are well done.

If you are in it for the trinket trading, that is fine. My 11 year old son really likes trading, and so do several of my friends.

I prefer a well thought out challenge. The container and contents at the end is not the important part for me.

If you don't like logbook only, don't go after them. If you go find a cache that is logbook only and the description doesn't reflect it, email the owner and ask them about it. I have found a cache that was raided of everything but the paper stuff, so it may not have been logbook only to start with.

I say, to each his own. Que sara, sara.

"Can't we all just get along?"

Dave_W6DPS

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

24.7k · March 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ChurchCampDave:
I would like to go on record as opposed to "log book only" or "log bok and pencil" caches.

Naturally they would have been more enthused if they found it full of McToys?

What did you leave in the cache to solve the problem of it being empty?

Wherever you go there you are.

March 24, 2003

Even virtuals can have McToys. Its not all about the trade but sometimes it is. A really good trade after a super find makes this "sport" what it is. If there are a lot of "log and pencil caches" in the area, are they all micros? Ive seen micros you could trade in. Why does it have to be just a log and a pencil?

You could probably cram a McTOy in there any way.

Or wheres georges, patches. I personally think a real cache would be better than a "log and pencil", but the opposite could be true as well.

KARMA: Its everywhere you are going to be.

2.7k · March 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team Giblert:
I appreciate what you're saying Dave, but I went and had a look at the cache in question and see that the cache owner did say "log and pencil" only in his/her description so it would be unfair of you to complain afterwards. Personally, I enjoy the hunt far more than the actual contents of a cache and frequently post TNLN. "The thrill of the hunt" as the previous poster said.

PS - cute picture on your bio page

I am really not objecting to a "cache in question" but simply stating that- as was made policy for virtuals- log only caches should not be placed where bigger onecs can. As per the "cache in question" I just logged the first find. It was a very good hide- showed great ingenuity. Unfortunately, because of the distance rule, it blocked my larger cache which I had been working on for several weeks, out.

I have solved the problem by making it the end of a multi.

Dave,GDAE

2.7k · March 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

quote:
Originally posted by ChurchCampDave:
I would like to go on record as opposed to "log book only" or "log bok and pencil" caches.

Naturally they would have been more enthused if they found it full of McToys?

What did you leave in the cache to solve the problem of it being empty?

Wherever you go there you are.

So far I have left something in each empty cache that was big enough to hold ANYTHING.

See GCD0D4 for the first of several.

Dave,GDAE

2.7k · March 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by roasteroo:
...Why does it have to be just a log and a pencil?

You could probably cram a McTOy in there any way.

Or wheres georges, patches. I personally think a real cache would be better than a "log and pencil", but the opposite could be true as well.

KARMA: Its everywhere you are going to be.

Precisely my point. Why does it have to be just log and pencil? And I'm not totally opposed to them, I just think they should have similar justification as is done for virtuals, i.e. 'its the best we can do' and not allowed just to get out a buncha caches that block others who might find a way to do better.

BTW two of the latest log and pencil caches I recently logged were very good hides. Two of the last three could have easily been regular caches.

Now I truly see the problem with the DNR plan to limit each state park to 1 cache (we discussed this at Indiana geocachers meeting last night).

Might as well put a log book at the ranger station- first person to go to the park and drop a matchbox finishes the 'thrill of the hunt' (and especially the 'thrill of the hide') for everyone else.

Dave,GDAE

2.7k · March 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mad_Hatter:
For me, the thrill is in the hunt. I enjoy getting out and seeing different places.

I've noticed that many cachers seem to be against virtuals. At least the caches that you're describing have an actual container that must be found.

I think there is also 'the thrill of the hide'. Obviously 'bulk hiders' recognize it.

Let some newcomers hide some too. I do appreciate lots of caches to find, but hiding them is fun too. I don't want the 'bulk hiders' to stop, just take a little more time and maybe leave a patch of woods or two for somebody else to hide in.

It worrys me in general that the sport might be becoming saturated. Quickies exacerbate this possibility.

Dave,GDAE

March 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ChurchCampDave:
I would like to go on record as opposed to "log book only" or "log bok and pencil" caches.

I think there should be special rules for "log and pencil" caches. The placer should have to justify why a cache with something in it could not be placed close-by or some redeeming value for a log only.

Dave,GDAE

Yep thats what we need... More rules! I am currently placing micros that are log only (you bring the pencil). If you read the cache description you will allow yourself the option of not seeking these types of caches and not feeling the need to impose you desires on others. Myself I like a variety of cache styles and seldom find items in caches that I am compelled to trade for. The funny thing is people complain about all kinds of caches yet they still take the time to go look for the exact types of caches they complain about.

March 25, 2003

I certainly appreciate your concerns Dave. Obviously, a well thought out cache is great. But on a purely personal level, if a cache hunt takes me to a nice location I'll have fun no matter what the cache itself turns out to be.

5.7k · March 25, 2003

I love trading, and almost always trade if I see something I like, or just leave something for the next person without taking anything. I also like micro caches as they are a different kind of challenge and offer the hider a different way to be creative about the hide. I think there is plenty of room for all styles of caches. []

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

1.6k · March 25, 2003

Some people want to pull it one way, while others want to pull it another.

Don't like log-only caches? Don't do them.

Why do caches have to be trading caches? Why would you want to force a person to hide a large box with junk it when he prefers micros?

Special rules for non-trading caches. Jeeze, give me a break.

Don't like that you took so long to plant a cache that someone else got in there before you? Grab a waypoint and put in come coordinates to let the approvers know your intentions. They're not clairvoyant, you know. If they approve it, take it off line and finish it up. Other hiders aren't mindreaders, either. How the heck would they know what you are intending to do?

Variety is the spice of life. But don't complain when you took too long and someone jumped your spot.

CR

March 25, 2003

For me the cache hike and hunt is the reward. I don't care to sign the paper log book (but I do) as the web site is my official "log book".

Caches with crap become clutter over time. I suspect that most people, except for those who bring their kids along, don't care for any trinkets. Travel Bugs being my exception to the rule, I like to find and rehide T Bugs.

The best trinket to leave behind in a quality cache is a coin or two to reward the guy who placed the cache. These puppies get expensive after you start making a few of them (containers, note books, trinkets, and travel bugs, etc.).

Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups.

March 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Johnson:
The best trinket to leave behind in a quality cache is a coin or two to reward the guy who placed the cache. These puppies get expensive after you start making a few of them (containers, note books, trinkets, and travel bugs, etc.).

I actively discourage common pocket change in my caches.

The "reward" for me is my fellow cachers enjoying the cache. For this reason, I ask finders to think of those who come behind them and please trade kindly.

2.7k · March 26, 2003

I think I did a pretty poor job of defining my intentions for this thread. Perhaps we've about beat this horse to death so here's my final comments on the subject. (believe that and I'll sell you some swamp land in the Sahara!)

The bottom line, to me, is that it is not fair for a simple, log only cache to forever negate the possibility of placing a larger cache in the same area- especially if it is clearly apparent that a larger cache could have been hidden.

I realize there is no way for the approvers to know this except if someone reports a regular cache in the same area.

A simple exception to the 'one and one only' rule would be in order if the existing 'one' happens to be a micro or a 'log book only'.

Several have posted that there is a place in the sport for all types, and that fits my point exactly. If someone places a 'log only', there MIGHT be plenty of room for a little bigger cache. I simply think that room should be useable.

As for the 'for each his own', an analogy:

Hunting 'log only' caches is like hunting wild game- with a camera. While there is nothing wrong with this (and its especially cool because you don't have seasons, you can do it in a park, you don't need a license, and there is no mess to clean up).

However, most gun and bow hunters will tell you there is something more in actually killing (and perhaps eating) the game. It is their right and priviledge to do so as long as they obey all the hunting laws. (No matter if you personally believe hunting is 'wrong'- it IS legal).

Putting a 'log only' cache in an area that would support a full fledged cache is like posting a 'no hunting' sign on someone's favorite little patch of woods.

Actually, I do like micro caches, and the several posts are quite right, they don't have to stay 'log only'. I shall shortly prove that most emphatically with a TB specially designed for pill bottle caches. (coming soon to a 'log only' cache near you) Won't that be a surprise to a cache owner that thought their cache was too small for any trinkets.

A large part of the 'thrill' for me is the suprise of what I might find IN the cache. It doesn't matter if it has any value, its just the curiosity of what might be there.

If something is cute or unusual, I take it. With rare exceptions, you'll get a chance to find it yourself in a different cache later on. It aint about the trinkets, its about the wonder, the surprise, or as Joseph Wambaugh wrote: 'The unknown lurks...'

GDAE, Dave

2.7k · March 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
...Grab a waypoint and put in come coordinates to let the approvers know your intentions. They're not clairvoyant, you know. If they approve it, take it off line and finish it up....

Thanks for a great idea!

However this plan could be VERY easily abused. Simply go to TOPO USA (or equivalent), get coords for every little greenspace in an area, and post 'intent' caches for them... that would effectively block EVERYONE out.

Rules aren't always a bad thing.

Outback says 'no rules- just right'. I told the manager I didn't have to pay. No, he said, THAT's A RULE!

GDAE, Dave

5.7k · March 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ChurchCampDave:
The bottom line, to me, is that it is not fair for a simple, log only cache to forever negate the possibility of placing a larger cache in the same area- especially if it is clearly apparent that a larger cache could have been hidden.

The bottom line here is that you are trying to impose your preference on others. What about all the people who would prefer a micro? They might feel the same way as you about full sized caches. There's room for all types of caches. I'll bet that you never colide with another cache placement again. The odds are against it. Now get out there and hide some caches!

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

1.7k · March 27, 2003

We prefer all types of caches, however many microcaches are imaginative and challenging. We like that. And there are days when we just want to go into the desert and find a regular sized cache. If all caches were alike, we'd get bored very quickly. Why shouldn't a micro log only carry the same weight as a traditional ammo can? For the record, our one regular cache has only had 2 hits on it, yet one of our virtual art walks is popular, and one of our micros has been highly rated by those who attempted the challenge. Perhaps micros should be limited to urban areas and regular ones limited to the rural areas.

March 27, 2003

I love the hunt and a logbook is all I need to celebrate a find. As a matter of fact, one of mine is like that and people seem to love it (Analyze This!).

2.7k · March 27, 2003

quote:
The bottom line here is that you are trying to impose your preference on others.

That's not true at all. But if it was, do you consider that wrong? What gives you the right to impose your preference on me?

Why is it that whenever someone expresses an opinion, those who disagree always say 'you're trying to impose your will on me'?

I'm neither God nor dictator. My will don't mean squat.

Didn't I say, in the same post, that there is room for all?

Impose my will on you? God forbid!

GDAE, Dave

2.7k · March 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by -=(GEO)=-:
I love the hunt and a logbook is all I need to celebrate a find. As a matter of fact, one of mine is like that and people seem to love it (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=54595).

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/82972_1100.jpg

Just sort of a 'survey'... How would you feel if there was no log book, but only a cache full of junk?

GDAE, Dave

March 28, 2003

At first, I rather liked the novelty of the 'micro' caches - the earliest ones I hunted didn't even have a log book (personally, I really like having the log book). After finding a dozen or so, the micro caches were beginning to feel repetitive and uninspired, and I began to worry that they would become too prolific and choke out the 'real' caches.

However, I must have found well over 50 micro caches by now, and I'll have to admit that I've come to like them as much as traditional caches (as long as there's a logbook). The reason is that as they've evolved, the people hiding them have become VERY creative with them!

That's the key for me. I love any cache that's a little different from the norm, and that may involve the location, hide, container, theme, or concept - the size doesn't matter to me. I prefer caches that allow trading if possible, but I'm willing to sacrifice that if the cache is unique and bears evidence that the hider has really considered 'the art' of geocache hiding.

quote:
Just sort of a 'survey'... How would you feel if there was no log book, but only a cache full of junk?

I really like having a logbook - to me it is the 'soul' of the cache. Otherwise, it doesn't matter if it's full of junk or empty.

1.6k · March 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ChurchCampDave:

quote:
The bottom line here is that you are trying to impose your preference on others.

That's not true at all. But if it was, do you consider that wrong? What gives you the right to impose your preference on me?

Here's another quote,

quote:
I think there should be special rules for "log and pencil" caches. The placer should have to justify why a cache with something in it could not be placed close-by or some redeeming value for a log only.

I'm sure you know what you've written, but it sure comes off as you wanting to impose your will. It's not imposing anyone's preference on anyone if you're not forcing people to put out specific caches, but you want people to "justify" putting a log only cache.

What's next, having to "justify" the particular container I want to use? The color of the container? The color of the pen I use?

As has been mentioned so many times before that everyone should know it by now, a cache in it's basic form is a logbook and a container.

Why should it have a "redeeming value" to be a cache in it's most basic form?

Why the heck should I have to "justify" placing a cache in it's most basic form?

What's next, I need to "justify" not having a cache full $5 items or the trades have to have some kind of "redeeming value?"

Give me a break!

CR

1k · March 28, 2003

Why the discussion? According to the official geocaching glossary,

quote:
cache

Pronounced "cash" - In geocaching it is a hidden container filled with a log book and pencil/pen, and possibly prizes...

Logbook-only caches clearly meet the definition of a cache. There is no need to have any special justification for them.

And on a personal rant, I'd much rather find a logbook-only cache than one filled with the typical geo-crap I see in most caches. One man's trash is another man's garbage. Worn out golf balls, broken McToys, and assorted rocks, leaves, and feathers picked up near the cache and dropped therein are inexcusable. They are what cheapen this sport/game, not logbook-only caches.

Worldtraveler

2.7k · March 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

quote:
Originally posted by ChurchCampDave:

quote:
The bottom line here is that you are trying to impose your preference on others.

That's not true at all. But if it was, do you consider that wrong? What gives you the right to impose your preference on me?

Here's another quote,

quote:
I think there should be special rules for "log and pencil" caches. The placer should have to justify why a cache with something in it could not be placed close-by or some redeeming value for a log only.

I'm sure you know what you've written, but it sure comes off as you wanting to impose your will. It's not imposing anyone's _preference_ on anyone if you're not forcing people to put out specific caches, but you want people to "justify" putting a log only cache.

What's next, having to "justify" the particular container I want to use? The color of the container? The color of the pen I use?

As has been mentioned so many times before that _everyone_ should know it by now, a cache in it's basic form is a logbook and a container.

Why should it have a "redeeming value" to be a cache in it's most basic form?

Why the heck should I have to "justify" placing a cache in it's most basic form?

What's next, I need to "justify" not having a cache full $5 items or the trades have to have some kind of "redeeming value?"

Give me a break!

CR

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/72057_2000.gif

Since when does SUGGESTING a rule change constitute 'imposing your will on others'?

I thought the purpose of the forum was to discuss possible changes.

Please forgive me for playing GOD! I won't TROUBLE you with any more of my OPINIONS!

GDAE, Dave

Log book only caches

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