What constitutes a 'found' cache?

January 23, 2012

I recently went seeking "Keara's Monkey Cache" and found it. The cache itself is located 15' in a tree and requires you to climb to retrieve it. It was clearly visible from the ground and I didn't want to risk injury by climbing onto snow-covered tree limbs to retrieve it. I logged this as 'found' but the CO deleted my log because I didn't climb the tree. Here is the email he sent me:

I am emiling you to know I deleted your log for Keara's Monkey Cache. I really am not in the habit of (nor have I ever till now) deleting logs or finds, so I figured I owed you a small explination. This cache is different from any of my other caches. It is very much intended for the cache to be up in that tree, and for the person finding the cache to climb the tree and log it (according to Geocaching requirments of signing the log to have a sucessful find).

I understand you were out on a snowy day. I definitely do not want you, or anyone else to attempt this cache in weather that they could hurt themselves on. Trust me, I almost fell out of the tree the second time I replaced the log on a rainy day. There have abeen a lot of people that have had to come back to this cache to do it the correct way, and I feel that climbing the tree is part of the experience of actually getting the cache, hence the terrain 3 rating.

If the log were full, and I couldn't sign, would it be considered a valid find? Can a CO require you to take such risks? Was he right to delete my log? What are your thoughts?

DubbleG

8.3k · January 23, 2012

No siggy in the log = no find. At least that is the way I play the game. Log full? That is why I carry small emergency logs. If the terrain was appropriate, and I assume it was, then climbing the tree to get the cache is a valid requirement. The cache owner was within his rights to delete the log.

2.6k · January 23, 2012

Yes they can.

I have a 4 terrain cache that requires climbing up and over some rocky slopes. I would not want a cacher to stand at the trailhead look up at the peak where the cache is and then log a find because it was rainy or snowy the day they were there.

You must get the cache to log the cache.

January 23, 2012

I agree with cache owner. The owner has the right to require that you sign the log in order log it online. This is the only thing that they can require from you. If the logbook inside the cache were to be full, almost all CO's will still allow you to log the cache, especially if you can provide some sort of "evidence" of your visit/successful retrieval of the cache. It is pretty rare that a logbook is actually full anyway...

All that being said, don't get your undies in a bunch. Different people like different things. A good practice from now on would to be only log online "found it" logs if you actually signed the log, and if you can't then explain why.

Also keep in mind that no one is requiring you to do anything outside your comfort zone. If you don't want to climb a tree, or wade through a creek to get a cache, then don't log it.

2k · January 23, 2012

alternatively, you could bring a friend to climb the tree for you, throw down the container and then you sign it. True, its not you doing the work, but your name would be in the log book. However, can definitely agree that in your case, I would have deleted your log too. It was nice of the CO to email you a very nice and even personal spelling challenged explanation.

If the log was full? There is always room to make a small moniker if its full. If not, do your best to scribble something. Log being full is not an excuse for me to not sign.

January 23, 2012

Can a CO require you to take such risks?

The CO is not requiring that you do anything. You choose to seek this cache, the CO did not require that you seek it.

If you choose to want the smiley for this cache then you choose to take the risk of climbing the tree.

5.7k · January 23, 2012

Cache owner is in the right. The whole point of a difficult terrain hide is that you overcome that difficult terrain to get the cache. Spotting it from above, or below, or across the canyon, or from the shore, or whatever, isn't enough.

I have a couple caches that are in trees. If you don't climb to get 'em, you didn't find 'em. Despite the climbing attribute on the cache page, some folks still show up in dress shoes. They log their DNFs and come back later with proper attire and climb.

I enjoy some climbing/scrambling to get to caches, but I still have a bit of a fear of heights. I've come across several caches that were out of my comfort zone and decided not to risk going for the cache. I didn't get to the cache, so I never logged them as found.

Side note: I find that even if a logbook is "full," I can normally squeeze a tiny sig in there somewhere. Even on nano logs. It's the mushy ones I normally can't sign, and even then I try to leave a red splotch of ink.

2.8k · January 23, 2012

No siggy in the log = no find. At least that is the way I play the game. Log full? That is why I carry small emergency logs. If the terrain was appropriate, and I assume it was, then climbing the tree to get the cache is a valid requirement. The cache owner was within his rights to delete the log.

The only requirement the CO can impose on a finder is that the log is signed. Someone else can do the climbing.

3.9k · January 23, 2012

Not speaking for the cache owner, but from Groundspeak's policy:

1) If you sign the logbook, it's a find.

2) You do not need to find every cache out there.

3) Safety is the responsibility of the cache seeker.

Whether it's climbing a mountain or walking across the city park, Groundspeak is not in a position to determine what is safe for each individual. Some folks can use rapeling gear whle others (like me) stand a good risk of tripping over one's own showlaces and breaking an ankle.

That said, my personal take is that you need to wait until it is safe enough for you to be comfortable to grab it.

A few months ago I was in SC/GA and came across a cache that is 33 feet off the ground and clearly visible. I was alone and the lowest branch was about 12 feet off the ground. I could have used ricketing log pile to get to there, but defered to my sense of mortality and moved on. I posted a note stating I was there.

January 23, 2012

No siggy in the log = no find. At least that is the way I play the game. Log full? That is why I carry small emergency logs. If the terrain was appropriate, and I assume it was, then climbing the tree to get the cache is a valid requirement. The cache owner was within his rights to delete the log.

The only requirement the CO can impose on a finder is that the log is signed. Someone else can do the climbing.

Where are the guidelines for setting 'terrain'? I can't imagine that climbing a snow-covered tree is only a 3 but I'd like to see how they're defined before I ponder this any further.

January 23, 2012

No siggy in the log = no find. At least that is the way I play the game. Log full? That is why I carry small emergency logs. If the terrain was appropriate, and I assume it was, then climbing the tree to get the cache is a valid requirement. The cache owner was within his rights to delete the log.

The only requirement the CO can impose on a finder is that the log is signed. Someone else can do the climbing.

Where are the guidelines for setting 'terrain'? I can't imagine that climbing a snow-covered tree is only a 3 but I'd like to see how they're defined before I ponder this any further.

This is set by the CO using their own judgment. Surely the tree isn't covered in snow every single day. And besides, I can think of much worse terrain that would still only constitute a 3 or 4 terrain.

3.1k · January 23, 2012

No siggy in the log = no find. At least that is the way I play the game. Log full? That is why I carry small emergency logs. If the terrain was appropriate, and I assume it was, then climbing the tree to get the cache is a valid requirement. The cache owner was within his rights to delete the log.

The only requirement the CO can impose on a finder is that the log is signed. Someone else can do the climbing.

Where are the guidelines for setting 'terrain'? I can't imagine that climbing a snow-covered tree is only a 3 but I'd like to see how they're defined before I ponder this any further.

The "guidelines" can be found by looking at the "ClayJar" system for ratings. It is, unfortunately, often overlooked.

Also, look to theHelp Center Knowledge Books.

The fact that you have to climb a tree looks like it fits the "not recommended for small children" part of a 3* terrain. Difficulty could be 2-4, depending on the owner's interpretation of the difficulty to find the cache.

Edited January 23, 2012 by NeverSummer

January 23, 2012

No siggy in the log = no find. At least that is the way I play the game. Log full? That is why I carry small emergency logs. If the terrain was appropriate, and I assume it was, then climbing the tree to get the cache is a valid requirement. The cache owner was within his rights to delete the log.

The only requirement the CO can impose on a finder is that the log is signed. Someone else can do the climbing.

Where are the guidelines for setting 'terrain'? I can't imagine that climbing a snow-covered tree is only a 3 but I'd like to see how they're defined before I ponder this any further.

The "guidelines" can be found by looking at the "ClayJar" system for ratings. It is, unfortunately, often overlooked.

Also, look to theHelp Center Knowledge Books.

This is most excellent! Thank you for posting this!

January 23, 2012

No siggy in the log = no find. At least that is the way I play the game. Log full? That is why I carry small emergency logs. If the terrain was appropriate, and I assume it was, then climbing the tree to get the cache is a valid requirement. The cache owner was within his rights to delete the log.

The only requirement the CO can impose on a finder is that the log is signed. Someone else can do the climbing.

Where are the guidelines for setting 'terrain'? I can't imagine that climbing a snow-covered tree is only a 3 but I'd like to see how they're defined before I ponder this any further.

The "guidelines" can be found by looking at the "ClayJar" system for ratings. It is, unfortunately, often overlooked.

Also, look to theHelp Center Knowledge Books.

The fact that you have to climb a tree looks like it fits the "not recommended for small children" part of a 3* terrain. Difficulty could be 2-4, depending on the owner's interpretation of the difficulty to find the cache.

Thanks for that info. Based upon everything that I read, and 'confirmed' by the rating calculator, this should have been rated a 4 (at least 3.5) given that the 'elevation' is basically straight up and hands are most definitely required to access the cache (snow or no snow).

8k · January 23, 2012

If the log were full, and I couldn't sign, would it be considered a valid find? Can a CO require you to take such risks? Was he right to delete my log? What are your thoughts?

DubbleG

Despite what others may say, there is no rule that you must sign the log in order to log it as found. Most cache owners do not check the logs and do not delete found logs even if you didn't sign - particularly if you have a "good" excuse like the log was full or the log was too wet to sign.

However there are some caches that clearly have a component beyond finding the cache that owner intended for you to do. These include caches in trees or caches that have some puzzle involved in getting the cache container opened.

When Groundspeak changed the guidelines to prohibit the so called additional logging requirements, they understood there were caches where retrieving the container and signing the physical log were part of what the owner intended as a requirement to log a find. They made a decision to separate these caches from those which had a requirement to post a funny picture or write your online log as a limerick. They added a guideline which says "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

This guideline allows cache owners to delete online found logs if the physical log has not been signed. We can debate forever which cases a cache owner should delete the log and which they shouldn't. It almost always comes down to what the cache owner says. You may find a cache in a tree when the cache owner accepts your log because of snow and it being to slippery to climb, just as you may find a cache owner who deletes your log on a simple park and grab because you didn't have a pen or pencil.

An interesting aside in this case. Had you logged that your found the cache and not given the information that you didn't climb the tree and sign the log, the cache owner may have left your log in place. It's not clear that they are going to climb the tree and check on the log book. Of course the next person who does may post that they didn't see your signature and the cache owner might delete your log then. We have to remember this is just a fun activity. "There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find." Including if the cache owner's definition is different than yours.

10.1k · January 23, 2012

I've attempted two similar caches. The first was 15' up a tree. I could have dragged a pallet over to get me to the first branch, but that would have attracted too much attention in a busy park. So, I logged the DNF because I did not sgn the log. Second one I managed to climb ten feet up the tree, and I could feel the container, but I was not climbing any higher and I could not get the container unscrewed. Again, I logged a DNF because I did not sign the log.

January 23, 2012

I think the only way I would log something like this as a "find" without climbing the tree would be if I discovered that the tree had been bulldozed over and the cache container was crushed but still recognizable, and the log unsignable. I'd also log a "needs maintenance" or probably more approriate "needs archived" log in such a case. If the CO deleted the log in that case, I'd be fine with it.

I'm really not able to climb trees, so if I found one like this, and the "tree climbing" was not well disclosed, I'd probably be annoyed and log a note to that effect, especially if the cache were in any way remote. (If I drove only a short distance to it, I'd just move on and probably not log anything - life's too short to sweat stuff like this.) I don't think I'd log a DNF if I actually saw the cache but couldn't reach it. To me a DNF says "I looked, couldn't find it, maybe it's gone, maybe it isn't, but I couldn't find it' Several DNF's in a row are often used to indicate that a cache may be missing. I use a filter like this in GSAK myself, so I feel logging a DNF when I can see the cache but can't reach it wouldn't be appropriate, as it would imply that the cache might be missing, when that clearly is not the case. I would place the cache on my ignore list though - if I can't physically get to it personally, there's no reason to worry about it, just ignore, forget, and move on...

January 23, 2012

I recently went seeking "Keara's Monkey Cache" and found it.

BTW, I'd tend to view caches with names like this as indicative of something I probably couldn't do. If the terrain rating were just grossly inadequate (like T1.5 for a 15' tree climb), I'd probably log something to that effect, and email the CO.

38.2k · January 23, 2012

For caches like this climbing the tree is part of the challenge. I wouldn't log a find unless I made the climb. I own several of these and I would delete any logs from someone who just saw the cache from a distance.

2k · January 23, 2012

Where are the guidelines for setting 'terrain'? I can't imagine that climbing a snow-covered tree is only a 3 but I'd like to see how they're defined before I ponder this any further.

There are some recommendations for terrain ratings that have already been linked to. But terrain rating is left to the hider to determine. And terrain ratings are generally chosen based on conditions at the time the cache is hidden.

But regardless of the terrain rating stated, it is each seeker's responsibility to assess the situation they find themselves in and make the choice of whether or not to seek that cache. It could have been rated as a 1 and if you got to ground zero and saw it up the tree, it would still be your responsibility to assess the risk you are willing to take to retrieve that cache.

10.2k · January 23, 2012

I agree with the log deletion. And the Co was very polite, and the email well worded.

I actually ignore most tree climbers. I'm a big bad "cache in the woods" guy, but most of them aren't for me. I think I've found 2 that were 10-15 feet up.

7k · January 23, 2012

Can a CO require you to take such risks?

Just to add some slightly different, somewhat silly and largely hypothetical perspective: In order to get that smiley, technically you're not even required to climb that tree. All you're required to do (in order to get that smiley) is to sign the log somehow. You could haul a tall ladder in and use that. You could use a really long stick and try to get the cache down with that. You could send a trained monkey up to bring the cache down to you. You could approach with a helicopter and get the cache from above. The possibilities are endless! :lol: (as long as you're also able to place the cache back as you found it.... )

7.8k · January 23, 2012

But regardless of the terrain rating stated, it is each seeker's responsibility to assess the situation they find themselves in and make the choice of whether or not to seek that cache. It could have been rated as a 1 and if you got to ground zero and saw it up the tree, it would still be your responsibility to assess the risk you are willing to take to retrieve that cache.

+1!

3.6k · January 23, 2012

If the log were full, and I couldn't sign, would it be considered a valid find? Can a CO require you to take such risks? Was he right to delete my log? What are your thoughts?

DubbleG

This has been brought up many times.

1) no signature no find

2) It is also up to the CO whether they will grant it as a find

3) the terrain rating usually reflects. If it is high usually you have to weigh whether you want to risk it or not.

I do some tree climbing while caching but when I'm alone I have to really have to decide if I want to risk a broken bone or death if I fall.

Edited January 23, 2012 by jellis

2k · January 23, 2012

If the log were full, and I couldn't sign, would it be considered a valid find? Can a CO require you to take such risks? Was he right to delete my log? What are your thoughts?

DubbleG

This has been brought up many times.

1) no signature no find

2) It is also up to the CO whether they will grant it as a find

3) the terrain rating usually reflects. If it is high usually you have to weigh whether you want to risk it or not.

I do some tree climbing while caching but when I'm alone I have to really have to decide if I want to risk a broken bone or death if I fall.

And each time it is brought up it must be corrected. The way the guidelines are set up, a signature guarantees a find. It is not, no signature no find.

While it may seem like semantics, there is a clear difference between what you stated and the reality of the guidelines. The end result is the same however.

January 23, 2012

Great post tozainamboku, but one part of it had me a bit puzzled. In the beginning you say:

Despite what others may say, there is no rule that you must sign the log in order to log it as found

but then you go on to say:

They added a guideline which says "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

Those two statements seem contradictory. Can you explain your thinking on this?

3.2k · January 23, 2012

Thanks for that info. Based upon everything that I read, and 'confirmed' by the rating calculator, this should have been rated a 4 (at least 3.5) given that the 'elevation' is basically straight up and hands are most definitely required to access the cache (snow or no snow).

Setting aside the rating, for which anything from 2 to 3 would have been appropriate, they did use the attributes so you knew ahead of time that bikes, motorcycles and dogs were allowed, the cache takes less than an hour and climbing was involved.

Bottom line, viewing a cache from a distance does not meet the CO's definition (or that of most) as a find. A signature is required by this CO. GS will support their decision.

Your note on the cache was very inappropriate and childish..

Edited January 23, 2012 by baloo&bd

2k · January 23, 2012

Great post tozainamboku, but one part of it had me a bit puzzled. In the beginning you say:

Despite what others may say, there is no rule that you must sign the log in order to log it as found

but then you go on to say:

They added a guideline which says "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

Those two statements seem contradictory. Can you explain your thinking on this?

It means that a signed physical log guarantees your online find. But a CO is free to allow your online find log if you can provide alternative proof that you found the cache.

January 23, 2012

BTW, just out curiosity, I wonder how people would log something like this. So I found this cache yesterday. It was about a 35 mile drive, part of it over extremely difficult roads to a remote area - not a trivial P&G. The container I found (see below) looked like it had been crushed by a burning tree or something. It was broken, and the contents largely melted. There wasn't a log as best I could tell. I didn't replace the log because the containter was full of water, and the top had been breached. I'm sure the CO will replace it at some point - it is in a remote area and NOT trivial to reach.

So would you log this as a find or not? I feel I met the CO's expectation - I made a really long drive and found the object he really wanted to highlight. (Not the geocache, there is a nearby historical feature of interest, which was still there, despite whatever happened to the cache container.) I pretty clearly found a geocache in the place the cache page described. Obviously this needs a "Needs maintenance" log. (BTW, I'm not trying to pick on the particular CO in this case - stuff happens beyond your control sometimes, and it can take a while to do maintenance on a cache that is physically remote, just asking "find" or "did not find"?)

January 23, 2012

BTW... <SNIP> ... just asking "find" or "did not find"?)

I would log a "Needs Maintenance" and send a message to the CO requesting that I may log the "find".

The big difference between your scenario and the Monkey Cache scenario is that you actually had the cache in hand, it was just damaged and absent of a log.

Edited January 23, 2012 by delphineous

7.5k · January 23, 2012

I recently went seeking "Keara's Monkey Cache" and found it. The cache itself is located 15' in a tree and requires you to climb to retrieve it. It was clearly visible from the ground and I didn't want to risk injury by climbing onto snow-covered tree limbs to retrieve it. I logged this as 'found' but the CO deleted my log because I didn't climb the tree. Here is the email he sent me:

I am emiling you to know I deleted your log for Keara's Monkey Cache. I really am not in the habit of (nor have I ever till now) deleting logs or finds, so I figured I owed you a small explination. This cache is different from any of my other caches. It is very much intended for the cache to be up in that tree, and for the person finding the cache to climb the tree and log it (according to Geocaching requirments of signing the log to have a sucessful find).

I understand you were out on a snowy day. I definitely do not want you, or anyone else to attempt this cache in weather that they could hurt themselves on. Trust me, I almost fell out of the tree the second time I replaced the log on a rainy day. There have abeen a lot of people that have had to come back to this cache to do it the correct way, and I feel that climbing the tree is part of the experience of actually getting the cache, hence the terrain 3 rating.

If the log were full, and I couldn't sign, would it be considered a valid find? Can a CO require you to take such risks? Was he right to delete my log? What are your thoughts?

DubbleG

Uggghhh. I don't like tree climbing caches. Fell out of a tree when I was a kid and couldn't breath for a few seconds - very frightening. So I don't do them. To the COs credit he used the dangerous climbing attribute (he should consider the new Tree Climbing attribute). I think his terrain rating is too low, he needs to use the GC rating system supplied when submitting a cache.

The problem with tree climbing caches is people who go in a group get the most agile cacher to do the climb and s/he signs in for everyone else (or brings the cache down for everyone to sign in).

2.6k · January 23, 2012

So would you log this as a find or not? I feel I met the CO's expectation - I made a really long drive and found the object he really wanted to highlight. (Not the geocache, there is a nearby historical feature of interest, which was still there, despite whatever happened to the cache container.) I pretty clearly found a geocache in the place the cache page described. Obviously this needs a "Needs maintenance" log. (BTW, I'm not trying to pick on the particular CO in this case - stuff happens beyond your control sometimes, and it can take a while to do maintenance on a cache that is physically remote, just asking "find" or "did not find"?)

A NM log and then if the CO said to log a find I might or maybe wait and go bake later and then log it.

January 23, 2012

Hello everyone,

I am the CO for the cache in question. It's good to see that overall most people agree with my actions. I sure feel a terrain of 3 was appropriate for this cache. My overall thought was that it was not level ground, but it didn't require special equpiment like repelling gear, it was somewhere in the middle. I am glad to see most of you agree. The OP left a note on my cache that was written out of anger, threatening to continuously re-post it should I delete it. With a name like Monkey Cache and the description stating you need to be agile to get this, I would guess those would be clues to what was coming. This tree is not far from parking (100 feet or so), so by all means if you cant do it, move along. I guess you can't make everyone happy.

EDIT* I didn't know there is a tree climbing attribute now. I will gladly add that. I did have the "Difficult Climbing" Attribute on the cache. This cache was started a year and a half ago.

Edited January 23, 2012 by SteveSquirrel

2.8k · January 23, 2012

Great post tozainamboku, but one part of it had me a bit puzzled. In the beginning you say:

Despite what others may say, there is no rule that you must sign the log in order to log it as found

but then you go on to say:

They added a guideline which says "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

Those two statements seem contradictory. Can you explain your thinking on this?

They are not contradictory.

The guideline only states that if the log in the cache is signed, you may log it is "Found" online (effectively meaning a CO cannot deny your claim). The guideline does not say "You can't log it if you did not sign the logbook in the cache."

January 23, 2012

Great post tozainamboku, but one part of it had me a bit puzzled. In the beginning you say:

Despite what others may say, there is no rule that you must sign the log in order to log it as found

but then you go on to say:

They added a guideline which says "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

Those two statements seem contradictory. Can you explain your thinking on this?

It means that a signed physical log guarantees your online find. But a CO is free to allow your online find log if you can provide alternative proof that you found the cache.

Hmmm, ok. I see what you are saying, just not the way I would interpret that. Groundspeak should really add that part about "But a CO is free to allow your online find log if you can provide alternative proof that you found the cache" to the guidelines instead of leaving up to us to imply that from the statement in the guidelines about logging online. Groundspeak says nothing anywhere I can find about any other thing you can do other than to sign the physical log to be permitted to log a physical cache online.

January 23, 2012

Hello everyone,

I am the CO for the cache in question. It's good to see that overall most people agree with my actions. I sure feel a terrain of 3 was appropriate for this cache. My overall thought was that it was not level ground, but it didn't require special equpiment like repelling gear, it was somewhere in the middle. I am glad to see most of you agree. The OP left a note on my cache that was written out of anger, threatening to continuously re-post it should I delete it. With a name like Monkey Cache and the description stating you need to be agile to get this, I would guess those would be clues to what was coming. This tree is not far from parking (100 feet or so), so by all means if you cant do it, move along. I guess you can't make everyone happy.

EDIT* I didn't know there is a tree climbing attribute now. I will gladly add that. I did have the "Difficult Climbing" Attribute on the cache. This cache was started a year and a half ago.

You're quite correct that I did leave my note in anger and for that I apologize. (I've since toned it down to be more of a warning to others who, like me, don't see anything obvious in the description about having to risk their neck getting to the cache.) Unfortunately the terrain rating doesn't account for variables, such as weather, but even in perfect conditions this one is no '3'.

As an aside, I don't see why my log was deleted when there is another that reads "Made the find but not the sign. Too many people around on a warm winter Saturday. I took a picture instead. Will send to the CO if requested. Thanks!" that you left intact. My frustration is that you are being inconsistent in how you apply the rules. Why is it OK for someone not to sign to avoid muggles but not OK to avoid a broken neck?

January 23, 2012

Great post tozainamboku, but one part of it had me a bit puzzled. In the beginning you say:

Despite what others may say, there is no rule that you must sign the log in order to log it as found

but then you go on to say:

They added a guideline which says "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

Those two statements seem contradictory. Can you explain your thinking on this?

They are not contradictory.

The guideline only states that if the log in the cache is signed, you may log it is "Found" online (effectively meaning a CO cannot deny your claim). The guideline does not say "You can't log it if you did not sign the logbook in the cache."

Ok, I still think this should be clarified by Groundspeak. the statement says nothing about guaranteeing anything. It simply says that once you sign the physical log you can then sign the online log. It says nothing about any other way you should be allowed to log online. A lot of this discussion would be avoided if they simply said very concisely what they meant.

I mean, I just don't see their statement as that open to interpretation even though others disagree. Imagine a conversation like, "Hey can I log this cache online?". Well, "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed." Oh, but what if I didn't actually sign the log for some reason beyond my control. Well, "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.". Yeah, but maybe I have some other circumstances that won't allow me to sign the physical log. Well, "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.".

I guess the key word they could add to their statement to make it not open to interpretation would be to change it to "Physical geocaches can ONLY be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

Anyway, enough from me. I don't even check the logs on my own caches anyway. The way I figure it, no one is hurt by how others choose to play the game so everyone just have fun out there an stay safe

7.8k · January 23, 2012

Your note on the cache was very inappropriate and childish..

+1

The CO is completely within their rights in doing what they did. It's exactly what I would have done, too. There is plenty on the cache page to indicate what type of hide it is. It's unfortunate that the OP can't just pass by this cache quietly. Contrary to what some seem to believe, there is no requirement that all caches must be wheelchair-accessible. My closest-to-home at the moment is a boat-required cache, which I don't have access to. I'm not posting any notes on the cache complaining, though. I just go find other caches.

7.8k · January 23, 2012

As an aside, I don't see why my log was deleted when there is another that reads "Made the find but not the sign. Too many people around on a warm winter Saturday. I took a picture instead. Will send to the CO if requested. Thanks!" that you left intact. My frustration is that you are being inconsistent in how you apply the rules. Why is it OK for someone not to sign to avoid muggles but not OK to avoid a broken neck?

How do you know that cacher didn't climb? They may have climbed up and taken a close-up picture of the cache in its hiding spot. The CO may have taken such a photo as proof that they did indeed climb, but were unable to sign for whatever reason.

BTW, do you plan on going back once the weather is nicer and making the attempt then? It sounds like the added difficulty at the moment is because of snow.

3.9k · January 23, 2012

Groundspeak policy has already been referenced in this thread many times, not sure what answer is wanted instead of that.

Seems we are no longer talking about the cache inquestion, but a gambit of other caches around.

Unusable or missing logbooks?

- Sometimes the logbook get soaking wet and is unusable. Replace it or use it anyways. I have seen folks use a dollar bill in lieu of a missing logbook. You were there, you have the cache in hand... imporovise. You met the inent.

No writing instrument?

- I have seen people use mud and blood to leave their mark. Not that I would recommend anything other than being prepared, but do what you feel the CO would feel meets the intent. Again, improvise.

If anyone here is looking for a scenario where a geocacher does not need to make an effort to add the their signature to a log book, then ypu will be hard pressed to find it.

January 23, 2012

BTW... <SNIP> ... just asking "find" or "did not find"?)

I would log a "Needs Maintenance" and send a message to the CO requesting that I may log the "find".

The big difference between your scenario and the Monkey Cache scenario is that you actually had the cache in hand, it was just damaged and absent of a log.

I completely agree - I wouldn't log a find on the Monkey Cache. I'd just move on in that case and realize "not my type of cache." I think the dated and geotagged photo is fair evidence I was there anyway.

January 23, 2012

Hello everyone,

I am the CO for the cache in question. It's good to see that overall most people agree with my actions. I sure feel a terrain of 3 was appropriate for this cache. My overall thought was that it was not level ground, but it didn't require special equpiment like repelling gear, it was somewhere in the middle. I am glad to see most of you agree. The OP left a note on my cache that was written out of anger, threatening to continuously re-post it should I delete it. With a name like Monkey Cache and the description stating you need to be agile to get this, I would guess those would be clues to what was coming. This tree is not far from parking (100 feet or so), so by all means if you cant do it, move along. I guess you can't make everyone happy.

EDIT* I didn't know there is a tree climbing attribute now. I will gladly add that. I did have the "Difficult Climbing" Attribute on the cache. This cache was started a year and a half ago.

You're quite correct that I did leave my note in anger and for that I apologize. (I've since toned it down to be more of a warning to others who, like me, don't see anything obvious in the description about having to risk their neck getting to the cache.) Unfortunately the terrain rating doesn't account for variables, such as weather, but even in perfect conditions this one is no '3'.

As an aside, I don't see why my log was deleted when there is another that reads "Made the find but not the sign. Too many people around on a warm winter Saturday. I took a picture instead. Will send to the CO if requested. Thanks!" that you left intact. My frustration is that you are being inconsistent in how you apply the rules. Why is it OK for someone not to sign to avoid muggles but not OK to avoid a broken neck?

Thank You for revising your note on the cache.

As for other peoples logs, there was also a man who was 60 years old who contacted me about this cache. He had said he was unable to get to it but he tried many things to get it down (and detailed them to me) but could not. He then asked me if he could log it as a find considering all the effort he put into the cache, but he was physically unable. He said he would be happy logging it as a DNF, but was hoping I would allow him to log it as a find under a "Grandfather Clause" (in this case meaning he was old and a grandfather). I emailed him back happily and told him to log it as a find. Your log of a find, which I deleted, was full of anger. You were rude and insistant that I was somehow the villian here, and therefore you diserved to have this logged as a find. You basically said I was forcing people to do things that I should not be forcing them to do, and therefore validated you doing nothing to get this cache. I told you in the email I sent you (which you posted without my permission) that I have never deleted someones post before. That is because people are usually generally nice to me. Had you have started out emailing me your situation and being nice, I probably would have done the same for you. Exceptions can be made. This is a game, and is meant to be fun. I am not trying to ruin anyones fun.

As for this being a terrain 3, I still believe thats an appropriate terrain level. Once you get on the initial branch, its a pretty easy climb from there. No special equipment needed, no super long hikes or going in water or scaling the side of a cliff, just a basic tree climb. Terrain 3 can mean different things to different people and have different attributes apply to different caches. If you look at the logs, there are 8 and 10 year olds getting this cache unassisted.

I hope we can all just move on from this situation.

Have a great day everyone and happy caching!

2k · January 23, 2012

Great post tozainamboku, but one part of it had me a bit puzzled. In the beginning you say:

Despite what others may say, there is no rule that you must sign the log in order to log it as found

but then you go on to say:

They added a guideline which says "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

Those two statements seem contradictory. Can you explain your thinking on this?

It means that a signed physical log guarantees your online find. But a CO is free to allow your online find log if you can provide alternative proof that you found the cache.

Hmmm, ok. I see what you are saying, just not the way I would interpret that. Groundspeak should really add that part about "But a CO is free to allow your online find log if you can provide alternative proof that you found the cache" to the guidelines instead of leaving up to us to imply that from the statement in the guidelines about logging online. Groundspeak says nothing anywhere I can find about any other thing you can do other than to sign the physical log to be permitted to log a physical cache online.

I gave you the short version. Toz will be along at some point to give the the 5 page history lesson on how that guideline came to be. (just teasing Toz)

There is a forum post which Toz probably has bookmarked from when this guideline was first introduced where the person who actually wrote that guideline explained the reasoning behind it.

But the short answer is that it is only a guarantee, not a requirement.

And in reality, even the guarantee comes with exceptions such as your log can still be deleted if it contains spoilers, hostile or adult language (cursing), etc. But you would still be able to relog your find once the offending language is removed.

January 23, 2012

As an aside, I don't see why my log was deleted when there is another that reads "Made the find but not the sign. Too many people around on a warm winter Saturday. I took a picture instead. Will send to the CO if requested. Thanks!" that you left intact. My frustration is that you are being inconsistent in how you apply the rules. Why is it OK for someone not to sign to avoid muggles but not OK to avoid a broken neck?

How do you know that cacher didn't climb? They may have climbed up and taken a close-up picture of the cache in its hiding spot. The CO may have taken such a photo as proof that they did indeed climb, but were unable to sign for whatever reason.

BTW, do you plan on going back once the weather is nicer and making the attempt then? It sounds like the added difficulty at the moment is because of snow.

You're stretching things a bit but I'll play along. I don't "know" that the previous cacher didn't climb and it doesn't matter. Logic says my log was deleted for 1 of 2 reasons:

I didn't sign
I didn't climb

If it is due to not signing, as the CO said, then the previous cacher's log should also have deleted because they also didn't sign. According to the consensus on this thread the reasons don't matter. If it is because I refused to climb (not saying that it is) then it is not following the rules since the CO can't impose any requirement other than signing the log.

To answer your question, no I don't plan to return to this one. It is too far to travel for something this trivial and my tree climbing days are long past. The snow was actually a blessing since I probably would have made a foolish attempt in better weather and ended up regretting it.

January 23, 2012

I think my favorite part about this is the first picture in the gallery, showing a little kid putting the cache back.

2k · January 23, 2012

A lot of this discussion would be avoided if they simply said very concisely what they meant.

+1000

Edited January 23, 2012 by GeoBain

7.8k · January 23, 2012

Logic says my log was deleted for 1 of 2 reasons:

I didn't sign

I didn't climb

Actually, based on the CO's post a couple of posts up, it was because of these 2 reasons:

No effort was made to retrieve the cache
An apparent (because I haven't seen the original log) hostile attitude

If either of these had gone the other way, the CO would likely have allowed the find.

January 23, 2012

As for other peoples logs, there was also a man who was 60 years old who contacted me about this cache. He had said he was unable to get to it but he tried many things to get it down (and detailed them to me) but could not. He then asked me if he could log it as a find considering all the effort he put into the cache, but he was physically unable. He said he would be happy logging it as a DNF, but was hoping I would allow him to log it as a find under a "Grandfather Clause" (in this case meaning he was old and a grandfather). I emailed him back happily and told him to log it as a find.

Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Either you require signing, as is your right, or you don’t. You’re making arbitrary exceptions based upon your feelings about the cacher and that simply isn’t fair.

Your log of a find, which I deleted, was full of anger.

My log, which you apparently misinterpreted, was not written in anger. I didn’t get angry until you expressly pointed out that I was the only person you did that to. There certainly wasn’t anything there that was critical of you. I actually wrote that I wasn’t even sure if you were aware how far up the cache was with the thought that it might have been moved from where you’d intended it to be. It doesn’t matter at this point.

Exceptions can be made.

That doesn't seem to be the general consensus. It seems pretty clear that you sign or you don't log it. But you seem to want to follow the "It is OK to log w/o signing if I like you rule" which is unreasonable.

As for this being a terrain 3, I still believe thats an appropriate terrain level.

We'll have to agree to disagree about this. All I can say is that the terrain rater tool would have given this a '4' and there was at least one other person who left a note indicating they felt the same way. Again, it doesn't matter to me anymore but I hope future cachers will read the logs before heading out to find your cache so they can be a bit better informed about the reality of being able to log this one.

If you look at the logs, there are 8 and 10 year olds getting this cache unassisted.

8 & 10 year olds are, generally, much better suited to tree climbing than most middle-aged men for which there may not be any such thing as a ‘basic tree climb’.

I hope we can all just move on from this situation.

Done. I'm happy to have learned from this experience and wish you well. I will, again, offer my apologies for my initial inappropriate note but do insist that my log was never intended to be critical.

January 23, 2012

I had a somewhat similar situation last month. I went to GZ and started climing the tree, I could see the cache but unfortunately my inner scardy cat showed up :blink: so I had to climb down. I never considered logging the find just because I "saw" the cache, in my mind I can't log a find until I sign the log. I would also not post a nasty note just because I couldn't get to it. It really suprises me sometimes how people can get their panties in a twist just because something didn't go their way.

You are right SteveSquirrel, you can't make everybody happy.

Edited January 24, 2012 by blue_eyedbutterfly

January 23, 2012

Actually, based on the CO's post a couple of posts up, it was because of these 2 reasons:

No effort was made to retrieve the cache

Let's see. I drove to the site, tramped over a snow covered field, searched until I found the target tree, looked around for a while, and finally spotted the cache. The only thing I didn't do was climb up the icy branches. How do you define "No effort"?

An apparent (because I haven't seen the original log) hostile attitude

You're right - you didn't see the original log so have no business commenting.

If either of these had gone the other way, the CO would likely have allowed the find.

Actually, the CO was pretty clear in the above posts that he would have made an exception if I had started out emailing him the situation and being nice. It didn't seem necessary to 'ask permission' when I'd posted the cache was visible but unreachable due to the conditions. It also doesn't seem necessary to need an exception. Either he requires a signed log or he doesn't. This arbitrary application of the rules, based upon his feelings about the cacher, shouldn't come into play.

At this point it doesn't matter. I'm now clear about the rules and will confine myself to other caches that aren't going to require me to risk my neck.

What constitutes a 'found' cache?

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

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