What constitutes a 'found' cache?

[+GeoBain]

Exceptions can always be made. That's why some people are so insistent on correcting the common misinterpretation of no sig = no find.

 

But it still stands that the only way you can guarantee that a CO cannot disallow you to log a find on their cache is to sign the physical logbook. Without that signature, you will always be at the mercy of the CO. Groundspeak will not reverse a deletion if you did not sign the logbook.

 

I wish Groundspeak would change the guideline to just say, "If you want Groundspeak to be the arbitrator of your online find, sign the physical logbook."

[+The_Incredibles_]

It's just a smilie. Not everybody has to find every cache.

[Mr.Yuck]

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 car showed up 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.

 

Scardy Cat, I assume.

 

When are log deletions not ugly, even if the deletee is totally wrong? I mean I once had a guy who met 0 of the 2 requirements for one of my Earthcaches go completely bonkers.

[+CanadianRockies]

... 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....

We came across a cache site that had been burned. Found charred bits and pieces of swag. All that was left of the log book was the metal coil. We were on a trip and are unlikely to ever return to that area. We took some pictures, performed a CITO, posted a "Needs Maintenance", did not claim a smiley, and moved on.

 

Everybody has their own standards. For some, it's meeting the CO's expectations. For others, it's getting away with whatever you're allowed to get away with. My standard is signing the log for all physical caches before I claim a smiley.

[+Harry Dolphin]

[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).

 

Ooh. That hurt! I'm older than that (though not a grandfather). If I cannot get to the cache to sign it (as noted in my previous post), then I will gladly post a DNF. I know my limitations and work within them. Just because I'm over 60, I am NOT asking for any freebies.

[+The A-Team]

You should still consider removing your note from the cache page. Even in its edited state it's still slightly inappropriate, and completely unnecessary. There's plenty on the cache page to let people know it's a tree-climbing cache.

[+DanOCan]

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’./quote]

 

You're right. Since a Terrain 3 usually means "not suitable for small children" I suggest the CO change this one down to a Terrain of 2.

 

I don't adhere to a strict "no sign = no find" policy. I believe there are plenty of situations where I believe someone can find a cache without signing the log. However, I don't think this is one of them.

 

As a seeker I likely would have logged a Note with something saw "Saw but could not retrieve". As a CO I likely would have deleted the Found It log.

[+GeoBain]

You should still consider removing your note from the cache page. Even in its edited state it's still slightly inappropriate, and completely unnecessary. There's plenty on the cache page to let people know it's a tree-climbing cache.

 

Like this?

 

[+BlueDeuce]

Exceptions can always be made. That's why some people are so insistent on correcting the common misinterpretation of no sig = no find.

 

There are at least a couple dozen people who have attempted a cache, couldn't signed the logbook and decided to either pass on or try again another day.

[+GeoBain]

Exceptions can always be made. That's why some people are so insistent on correcting the common misinterpretation of no sig = no find.

 

There are at least a couple dozen people who have attempted a cache, couldn't signed the logbook and decided to either pass on or try again another day.

 

Ok. That is not contradictory to what I stated.

[+The_Incredibles_]

[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).

 

Ooh. That hurt! I'm older than that (though not a grandfather). If I cannot get to the cache to sign it (as noted in my previous post), then I will gladly post a DNF. I know my limitations and work within them. Just because I'm over 60, I am NOT asking for any freebies.

 

We put out a tree-climbing cache and one of the first to find was over 60. 60 is really not that old, it's more about what kind of shape you're in.

[AZcachemeister]

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.

 

So, in the end it boils down to:

What do you think you can get away with?

and

What will the CO let you get away with?

 

Hey! I saw the cache from my car...that's good enough, eh?

 

I believe the original phrase was 'Sign the logbook to record your visit.', so that's how I roll.

[+BlueDeuce]

Exceptions can always be made. That's why some people are so insistent on correcting the common misinterpretation of no sig = no find.

 

There are at least a couple dozen people who have attempted a cache, couldn't signed the logbook and decided to either pass on or try again another day.

 

Ok. That is not contradictory to what I stated.

 

Which part do you mean by insistent?

 

 

bd

Edited January 24, 2012 by BlueDeuce

[+popokiiti]

We tried a tree climbing cache...I froze (no head for heights) then backed down. Popoki Nui went and got further, but it was so slippery, it wasn't worth it. Like the OP, the cache could be seen. Unlike the OP, we didn't log a find as we hadn't signed the log. We'll try again, hopefully we'll be successful - if not, there are plenty of other caches out there.

[+DubbleG]

You should still consider removing your note from the cache page. Even in its edited state it's still slightly inappropriate, and completely unnecessary. There's plenty on the cache page to let people know it's a tree-climbing cache.

 

Like this?

 

 

Its very easy to say that this is available when you're sitting in front of your computer. My GPSr doesn't show images, attributes, etc. All I have is the description and the logs which I try to avoid, if I can help it, because of the spoilers. Many of my outings are 'unplanned' - I just go if I find I have some time to kill. So, yes, I now know that this is a cache that I would have avoided but it certainly wasn't something I could easily tell at the time. And, no, I won't be removing the note since it makes it quite clear to others in my situation that this cache has certain requirements that are not readily apparent at first glance.

[+blue_eyedbutterfly]

You should still consider removing your note from the cache page. Even in its edited state it's still slightly inappropriate, and completely unnecessary. There's plenty on the cache page to let people know it's a tree-climbing cache.

 

I completely agree. That note is just plain rude.

 

It is quite obvious after reading the cache page that it is up a tree.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

And, no, I won't be removing the note since it makes it quite clear to others in my situation that this cache has certain requirements that are not readily apparent at first glance.

 

Well, to me, your note makes you sound like a spoiled child. Looking at just the listing, it was obvious to me there is a tree involved.

 

I have a cache that requires climbing a pretty imposing tree. Several finders got there and realized they didn't have the skills or the needed boost (or a child-monkey ). I have not received a single note or DNF as "whiney" as yours.

[+GeoBain]

Exceptions can always be made. That's why some people are so insistent on correcting the common misinterpretation of no sig = no find.

 

There are at least a couple dozen people who have attempted a cache, couldn't signed the logbook and decided to either pass on or try again another day.

 

Ok. That is not contradictory to what I stated.

 

Which part do you mean by insistent?

 

 

bd

 

I mean that at least Toz and I, and I believe there are a few others that understand and insist on correcting people when they say the guidelines equal a no sign, no find policy. That simply is not the case. The guideline does not state that you MUST sign the logbook in order to log a find online. That is a common misinterpretation of the guidelines.

 

Now seekers are free to adopt that as their own personal policy. I, in fact, adhere to that policy even though I do not even log finds online. I will not mark a cache as found in GSAK unless I personally signed my name to the logbook. But there is no guideline that says it is a requirement.

[+BlueDeuce]

Exceptions can always be made. That's why some people are so insistent on correcting the common misinterpretation of no sig = no find.

 

There are at least a couple dozen people who have attempted a cache, couldn't signed the logbook and decided to either pass on or try again another day.

 

Ok. That is not contradictory to what I stated.

 

Which part do you mean by insistent?

 

 

bd

 

I mean that at least Toz and I, and I believe there are a few others that understand and insist on correcting people when they say the guidelines equal a no sign, no find policy. That simply is not the case. The guideline does not state that you MUST sign the logbook in order to log a find online. That is a common misinterpretation of the guidelines.

 

Now seekers are free to adopt that as their own personal policy. I, in fact, adhere to that policy even though I do not even log finds online. I will not mark a cache as found in GSAK unless I personally signed my name to the logbook. But there is no guideline that says it is a requirement.

 

A. (netter not...)

 

B. Any excuse to not follow the concept of geocaching. None of my finds require an explanation. Obviously yours do.

[+BlueDeuce]

Exceptions can always be made. That's why some people are so insistent on correcting the common misinterpretation of no sig = no find.

 

There are at least a couple dozen people who have attempted a cache, couldn't signed the logbook and decided to either pass on or try again another day.

 

Ok. That is not contradictory to what I stated.

 

Which part do you mean by insistent?

 

 

bd

 

I mean that at least Toz and I, and I believe there are a few others that understand and insist on correcting people when they say the guidelines equal a no sign, no find policy. That simply is not the case. The guideline does not state that you MUST sign the logbook in order to log a find online. That is a common misinterpretation of the guidelines.

 

Now seekers are free to adopt that as their own personal policy. I, in fact, adhere to that policy even though I do not even log finds online. I will not mark a cache as found in GSAK unless I personally signed my name to the logbook. But there is no guideline that says it is a requirement.

 

A. (better not...)

 

B. Any excuse to not follow the concept of geocaching. None of my finds require an explanation.

 

 

Edited for clarification.

Edited January 24, 2012 by BlueDeuce

[+GeoBain]

Many of my outings are 'unplanned' - I just go if I find I have some time to kill. So, yes, I now know that this is a cache that I would have avoided but it certainly wasn't something I could easily tell at the time. And, no, I won't be removing the note since it makes it quite clear to others in my situation that this cache has certain requirements that are not readily apparent at first glance.

 

If you do not bother to read the cache listing then you have no reason to be upset with the CO about wasting your time or for not alerting you to what you were about to face.

 

I don't know if you realize this, but the next to last find log before yours (which would have been included in a PQ) states "Bring a good climber (or tall person) on your team for this one. Great cache!"

 

Other hints on the listing are:

 

Attribute: Difficult Climbing (Tree Climbing Required has been added since your search)

Title: Keara's Monkey Cache

Terrain: 3

Hint: Look Up

Description: "Keara's Monkey Cache is a cache inspired by a cache I recently did." ... "While you are in the park you can also grab Tree's Company GC1PCHZ as its pretty close, and a great cache as well."

 

Previous logs:

"Bring a good climber (or tall person) on your team for this one. Great cache!"

"AWESOME HIDE!!! That tree was really fun. SteveSquirrel, the name is quite apt."

"Gave my son a boost and he got the log out and brought it down."

"Tree climbing is really fun. Found it pretty easy once we figured out it was up in a tree."

"My brother climbed the tree"

... more logs that you can read for yourself

 

Image Gallery:

 

As you can see, anyone viewing the cache listing can see that it is clearly a tree climbing cache. So your note is not needed. It is still a bit negative and I would actually classify it as abrasive.

 

Kudos on the CO for letting it stand though. If it makes you feel better and helps to ease tensions, then it's probably best to just allow you to say your peace and get it over with.

[+GeoBain]

Exceptions can always be made. That's why some people are so insistent on correcting the common misinterpretation of no sig = no find.

 

There are at least a couple dozen people who have attempted a cache, couldn't signed the logbook and decided to either pass on or try again another day.

 

Ok. That is not contradictory to what I stated.

 

Which part do you mean by insistent?

 

 

bd

 

I mean that at least Toz and I, and I believe there are a few others that understand and insist on correcting people when they say the guidelines equal a no sign, no find policy. That simply is not the case. The guideline does not state that you MUST sign the logbook in order to log a find online. That is a common misinterpretation of the guidelines.

 

Now seekers are free to adopt that as their own personal policy. I, in fact, adhere to that policy even though I do not even log finds online. I will not mark a cache as found in GSAK unless I personally signed my name to the logbook. But there is no guideline that says it is a requirement.

 

A. (netter not...)

 

B. Any excuse to not follow the concept of geocaching. None of my finds require an explanation. Obviously yours do.

 

Did you actually read my post or are you just looking to pick a fight?

[+BlueDeuce]

Did you actually read my post or are you just looking to pick a fight?

 

Both. What part of find the cache and sign the logbook is such a problem?

[+L0ne.R]

And, no, I won't be removing the note since it makes it quite clear to others in my situation that this cache has certain requirements that are not readily apparent at first glance.

 

Well, to me, your note makes you sound like a spoiled child. Looking at just the listing, it was obvious to me there is a tree involved.

 

I have a cache that requires climbing a pretty imposing tree. Several finders got there and realized they didn't have the skills or the needed boost (or a child-monkey ). I have not received a single note or DNF as "whiney" as yours.

 

Come on folks, give DubbleG a break. It's a learning experience. For some of us the first time we are confronted with a tree climbing cache it can be disappointing and irritating especially if it took us out of our way and we could have spent the time looking for a cache that's a better fit.

 

Personally if I saw terrain 3 I might not read further until I got to ground zero. My iphone app doesn't provide much info on the first page - just the basics: title, gc#, coords, D/T, Size and Fav Votes. I have to open up all the other info - description, attributes, logs, etc. So I might just head over to the cache based on the D/T rating and the Fav Votes and read the rest at ground zero. Using GS's rating system tree climbing caches are a T4:

Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.) Lesson learned. I'm sure DubbleG will be filtering out "tree climbing" and "difficult climb" attributes from now on.

[+Moose Mob]

How is the game played?

At its simplest level, geocaching requires these 8 steps:

 

Register for a free Basic Membership.

Visit the "Hide & Seek a Cache" page.

Enter your postal code and click "search."

Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name.

Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device.

Use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache.

Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

[+GeoBain]

Did you actually read my post or are you just looking to pick a fight?

 

Both. What part of find the cache and sign the logbook is such a problem?

 

Then I refuse to answer anymore of your questions since you are not asking questions in good faith. I will not be drawn into a deliberate fight.

[+DubbleG]

And, no, I won't be removing the note since it makes it quite clear to others in my situation that this cache has certain requirements that are not readily apparent at first glance.

 

Well, to me, your note makes you sound like a spoiled child. Looking at just the listing, it was obvious to me there is a tree involved.

 

I have a cache that requires climbing a pretty imposing tree. Several finders got there and realized they didn't have the skills or the needed boost (or a child-monkey ). I have not received a single note or DNF as "whiney" as yours.

 

Come on folks, give DubbleG a break. It's a learning experience. For some of us the first time we are confronted with a tree climbing cache it can be disappointing and irritating especially if it took us out of our way and we could have spent the time looking for a cache that's a better fit.

 

Personally if I saw terrain 3 I might not read further until I got to ground zero. My iphone app doesn't provide much info on the first page - just the basics: title, gc#, coords, D/T, Size and Fav Votes. I have to open up all the other info - description, attributes, logs, etc. So I might just head over to the cache based on the D/T rating and the Fav Votes and read the rest at ground zero. Using GS's rating system tree climbing caches are a T4:

Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.) Lesson learned. I'm sure DubbleG will be filtering out "tree climbing" and "difficult climb" attributes from now on.

 

Thank you! I'm glad there is at least one person here who "gets it" as to why I was upset over this. Frankly, I still feel that I did find the cache (staring at it from 10 feet below is not the same as "where is it?") despite it not satisfying the "geocaching criteria" of the word.

[+BlueDeuce]

checking...

Edited January 24, 2012 by BlueDeuce

[jholly]

You should still consider removing your note from the cache page. Even in its edited state it's still slightly inappropriate, and completely unnecessary. There's plenty on the cache page to let people know it's a tree-climbing cache.

 

Like this?

 

 

Its very easy to say that this is available when you're sitting in front of your computer. My GPSr doesn't show images, attributes, etc. All I have is the description and the logs which I try to avoid, if I can help it, because of the spoilers. Many of my outings are 'unplanned' - I just go if I find I have some time to kill. So, yes, I now know that this is a cache that I would have avoided but it certainly wasn't something I could easily tell at the time. And, no, I won't be removing the note since it makes it quite clear to others in my situation that this cache has certain requirements that are not readily apparent at first glance.

To remove the note or not is your choice. But, in my opinion, the note does not show your best side.

[+BlueDeuce]

checking...

 

Nope. DNF.

Edited January 24, 2012 by BlueDeuce

[+tozainamboku]

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.

Here I am.

 

The guideline which gets quoted all the time was, as I said in my post, added as part of change to disallow the practice of additional logging requirements (ALR). Prior to April 4, 2009 cache owners could require addtional task (beyond find the cache and signing logs) in order to log a find online. There were quite a few caches like this. A prior guideline had required these to be listed as mystery/unknown type but there were still a few traditional caches that had additional requirements as well. While most ALRs were fun, like posting a picture of you at the cache wearing a funny hat, many people (including some reviewers) though the practice was getting out of hand. ALRs were made up that few cachers would be willing to do, it seem like just a way to give cacher owners excuses to delete logs. BTW, there is an exception to ALRs that are a reasonable geocaching related accomplishment - these are called challenge caches.

 

Groundspeak decided not only would no new ALR cache (other than challenge caches) be published but also that all ALRs were null and void. The idea was that the online find log is not something awarded by the cache owner, but simply a record of the caches you found. ALRs had perverted the meaning of the online log.

 

The statement "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed" was added as instructions to both the cache finder and the cache hider. The finder was told that they could go ahead and log a find once the physical log was signed regardless of whether or not the cache had any ALRs listed. The hider was told they could no longer delete online find because of failure to do an ALR.

 

The statement does not require cache owners to delete logs if the physical log is unsigned. Prior to this statement most cache owners would allow online logs to stand particularly if the cacher had a reasonable excuse for not signing a log. The statement does not change this practice.

 

The statement does not guarantee that a cache owner cannot delete your online log. Cache owners may delete your log if it appears to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. Cache owners may use the physical log a proof that a person actually found the cache (i.e. the online log is not bogus). Generally if you can provide some other reasonable proof that you found the cache, IMO, the cache owner ought to accept this as well.

 

Caches that have special physical or mental challenges to retrieve the container and to sign the log are a particular case. In writing the statement to end ALRs, Groundspeak considered these caches. They decided that climbing a try or figuring out how to open a puzzle box were not ALRs. Cache owners of these caches are permitted use the physical log as proof that a cacher (or someone in a group of cachers) met this challenge. Most cachers (including yours truly) believe that these tasks are part of finding 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

So why would you want them to change the guideline to require signing the logs?

 

Another favorite quote I like (third time today) is

Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com. 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.

 

The online find is not a score and doesn't need a ton of rules to define what it means unambiguously. Groundspeak instead leaves this to be worked out between the finder and the cache owner. While cache owners are told to delete bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate logs from their cache pages; there are no definitions of these terms. There is little guidance from Groundspeak. One of the few places the have given guidance has to do with couch potato logging of virtual caches.

 

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.

 

I agree with Moose Mob, an effort should be made to sign the log. Retrieve the cache and signing the log not only provides some evidence to others that you found the cache but also provides you as the finder that what you found is indeed the cache. Imagine that someone but a letterbox or a container with a QR code for that other game we aren't allowed to mention in the tree. The geocache is actually hidden on the ground somewhere nearby. Now when you climb the tree and open the container you know it's not the cache. So you have to keep looking.

 

Of course, based on other logs you know this cache is in the tree and you may even know what it looks like, so in this case you might be sure you found the cache.

[+tozainamboku]

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.

 

So, in the end it boils down to:

What do you think you can get away with?

and

What will the CO let you get away with?

 

Hey! I saw the cache from my car...that's good enough, eh?

 

I believe the original phrase was 'Sign the logbook to record your visit.', so that's how I roll.

puritan.

 

Of course I'm not saying you can log a find whenever you like. There are lots of good reasons why you should at least attempt to sign the log. But if there is a good excuse for not signing then I say go ahead and log the find online. Stop viewing the online log as the score and you won't get your knickers so twisted because someone forgot a pencil.

 

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?

Certainly cache owners should be consistent. But they are only human and sometimes they make mistakes. The only way to be consistent is to never delete logs (and they you might be causing a problem with a bogus, counterfeit, inappropriate, or off-topic log). This cache owner is learning now the difficulty of deleting a log.

 

My comment to AZCachemeister applies to you as well. Stop viewing the find log as a score. You know you found the cache. If the cache owner deletes your find, write a polite note saying you found the cache and were unable to retrieve it because of the weather. Then ignore the cache. It's one cache. Don't obsess over it or over your statistic being exactly right. Go out and find more caches and have fun.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

And, no, I won't be removing the note since it makes it quite clear to others in my situation that this cache has certain requirements that are not readily apparent at first glance.

 

Well, to me, your note makes you sound like a spoiled child. Looking at just the listing, it was obvious to me there is a tree involved.

 

I have a cache that requires climbing a pretty imposing tree. Several finders got there and realized they didn't have the skills or the needed boost (or a child-monkey ). I have not received a single note or DNF as "whiney" as yours.

 

Come on folks, give DubbleG a break. It's a learning experience. For some of us the first time we are confronted with a tree climbing cache it can be disappointing and irritating especially if it took us out of our way and we could have spent the time looking for a cache that's a better fit.

 

Disappointment is one thing. Whiney is another. And to whine about it on the cache listing makes it worse.

 

Like I said, for my cache, there were numerous DNFs from beginners and expererienced cachers alike, and they all pretty much said "We figured where it was, just didn't have the means to get it. We'll be back". Not s single "Well...if I can't claim a find just by looking at it, I'm going to complain about it in public."

[+L0ne.R]

And, no, I won't be removing the note since it makes it quite clear to others in my situation that this cache has certain requirements that are not readily apparent at first glance.

 

Well, to me, your note makes you sound like a spoiled child. Looking at just the listing, it was obvious to me there is a tree involved.

 

I have a cache that requires climbing a pretty imposing tree. Several finders got there and realized they didn't have the skills or the needed boost (or a child-monkey ). I have not received a single note or DNF as "whiney" as yours.

 

Come on folks, give DubbleG a break. It's a learning experience. For some of us the first time we are confronted with a tree climbing cache it can be disappointing and irritating especially if it took us out of our way and we could have spent the time looking for a cache that's a better fit.

 

Disappointment is one thing. Whiney is another. And to whine about it on the cache listing makes it worse.

 

Like I said, for my cache, there were numerous DNFs from beginners and expererienced cachers alike, and they all pretty much said "We figured where it was, just didn't have the means to get it. We'll be back". Not s single "Well...if I can't claim a find just by looking at it, I'm going to complain about it in public."

 

I think the "whiney" stems from 2 things.....the CO not allowing a smiley because he didn't like her attitude and rewarding a smiley to someone else who had the same reason for asking for the smiley. But the CO read DG's request a whiney and Grandpa's request as cordial....so he said "No soup for you!" to DG. And the terrain rating - DG expected a 3 to be a 3 i.e. no need for a ladder or an agile child or the use of hands in order to climb something (it's easy to miss the attributes - most paperless GPS units don't list them, apps hide them, but they do come in very handy when creating a PQ so it's great to see the CO use them).

Edited January 24, 2012 by Solitario R

[+DanOCan]

Using GS's rating system tree climbing caches are a T4:

Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

 

Rather than focus on one item from the rating system, I prefer to look at the general description of the terrain ratings:

 

3 - Not suitable for small children. The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition.

 

4 - Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only.

 

I hardly think climbing that distance into a tree requires the experience of an outdoor enthusiast. Most kids do it for fun and they have no real outdoor experience at all.

[+L0ne.R]

Using GS's rating system tree climbing caches are a T4:

Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

 

Rather than focus on one item from the rating system, I prefer to look at the general description of the terrain ratings:

 

3 - Not suitable for small children. The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition.

 

4 - Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only.

 

I hardly think climbing that distance into a tree requires the experience of an outdoor enthusiast. Most kids do it for fun and they have no real outdoor experience at all.

 

How about a compromise... a T 3.5 and mention the tree climb in the description.

[Mr.Yuck]

And, no, I won't be removing the note since it makes it quite clear to others in my situation that this cache has certain requirements that are not readily apparent at first glance.

 

Well, to me, your note makes you sound like a spoiled child. Looking at just the listing, it was obvious to me there is a tree involved.

 

I have a cache that requires climbing a pretty imposing tree. Several finders got there and realized they didn't have the skills or the needed boost (or a child-monkey ). I have not received a single note or DNF as "whiney" as yours.

 

Come on folks, give DubbleG a break. It's a learning experience. For some of us the first time we are confronted with a tree climbing cache it can be disappointing and irritating especially if it took us out of our way and we could have spent the time looking for a cache that's a better fit.

 

Personally if I saw terrain 3 I might not read further until I got to ground zero. My iphone app doesn't provide much info on the first page - just the basics: title, gc#, coords, D/T, Size and Fav Votes. I have to open up all the other info - description, attributes, logs, etc. So I might just head over to the cache based on the D/T rating and the Fav Votes and read the rest at ground zero. Using GS's rating system tree climbing caches are a T4:

Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.) Lesson learned. I'm sure DubbleG will be filtering out "tree climbing" and "difficult climb" attributes from now on.

 

Thank you! I'm glad there is at least one person here who "gets it" as to why I was upset over this. Frankly, I still feel that I did find the cache (staring at it from 10 feet below is not the same as "where is it?") despite it not satisfying the "geocaching criteria" of the word.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with Solitario R. Is that the first time ever? The note comes off as childish to me. There are thousands of tree climbing caches in the U.S. and Canada. No one needs to be warned, and I'd say just about every one of those cache owners expect seekers to climb the tree, not just look at the cache.

 

NO CACHE FOR YOU!! That's a Seinfeld reference.

[+DubbleG]

There are thousands of tree climbing caches in the U.S. and Canada. No one needs to be warned, and I'd say just about every one of those cache owners expect seekers to climb the tree, not just look at the cache.

 

Been caching a while, have you? It is common for folks with experience to forget that things they find to be simple are actually much more complicated to folks w/o that experience. There are many new cachers, obviously I'm one, who need it spelled out clearly. Perfect scenario is mine - I have the cache downloaded to my paperless device and the only information I have available is the description and logs. No images, no attributes, and certainly nothing that indicates that a climb of 15' is involved. One could easily assume that it is in the low branches of the tree and you just need a 'boost' to get to it. I simply don't understand the objection to providing detailed information telling people to avoid it if they're not up to the CO's challenge.

[+Totem Clan]

There are thousands of tree climbing caches in the U.S. and Canada. No one needs to be warned, and I'd say just about every one of those cache owners expect seekers to climb the tree, not just look at the cache.

 

Been caching a while, have you? It is common for folks with experience to forget that things they find to be simple are actually much more complicated to folks w/o that experience. There are many new cachers, obviously I'm one, who need it spelled out clearly. Perfect scenario is mine - I have the cache downloaded to my paperless device and the only information I have available is the description and logs. No images, no attributes, and certainly nothing that indicates that a climb of 15' is involved. One could easily assume that it is in the low branches of the tree and you just need a 'boost' to get to it. I simply don't understand the objection to providing detailed information telling people to avoid it if they're not up to the CO's challenge.

{Don't take this the wrong way. I am not trying to be snarky}

 

Who's fault is that? I often do the same. With my PQ's and GSAK and so forth I might pop in on a cache I have not fully read on site, but that is my fault not the owners. The owner post a page on the site. If we the seekers don't read it, then we should not blame the owner for what we fail to notice.

[+blue_eyedbutterfly]

There are thousands of tree climbing caches in the U.S. and Canada. No one needs to be warned, and I'd say just about every one of those cache owners expect seekers to climb the tree, not just look at the cache.

 

Been caching a while, have you? It is common for folks with experience to forget that things they find to be simple are actually much more complicated to folks w/o that experience. There are many new cachers, obviously I'm one, who need it spelled out clearly. Perfect scenario is mine - I have the cache downloaded to my paperless device and the only information I have available is the description and logs. No images, no attributes, and certainly nothing that indicates that a climb of 15' is involved. One could easily assume that it is in the low branches of the tree and you just need a 'boost' to get to it. I simply don't understand the objection to providing detailed information telling people to avoid it if they're not up to the CO's challenge.

 

Its the way you went about it. Whining about it and posting negative and childish notes will not get you the results that you are expecting.

[+DubbleG]

There are thousands of tree climbing caches in the U.S. and Canada. No one needs to be warned, and I'd say just about every one of those cache owners expect seekers to climb the tree, not just look at the cache.

 

Been caching a while, have you? It is common for folks with experience to forget that things they find to be simple are actually much more complicated to folks w/o that experience. There are many new cachers, obviously I'm one, who need it spelled out clearly. Perfect scenario is mine - I have the cache downloaded to my paperless device and the only information I have available is the description and logs. No images, no attributes, and certainly nothing that indicates that a climb of 15' is involved. One could easily assume that it is in the low branches of the tree and you just need a 'boost' to get to it. I simply don't understand the objection to providing detailed information telling people to avoid it if they're not up to the CO's challenge.

{Don't take this the wrong way. I am not trying to be snarky}

 

Who's fault is that? I often do the same. With my PQ's and GSAK and so forth I might pop in on a cache I have not fully read on site, but that is my fault not the owners. The owner post a page on the site. If we the seekers don't read it, then we should not blame the owner for what we fail to notice.

 

No 'snarkyness' taken.

First, I'm not familiar with all the acronyms and I didn't see many used here in the glossary. Can you enlighten me on 'PQ', 'GSAK', 'OP'?

Second, I've already admitted my initial note on the cache was written in anger, apologized for it, and edited it. I hardly think that telling folks they must be able to "act like a squirrel like the CO" can be offensive given his user name. If folks can't read the humor into that well, too bad. So can we get past that and focus on what is fundamentally wrong with me providing a "non-whiny" warning note so it is available to anyone w/o access to the 'extras' that are available online?

[+DubbleG]

There are thousands of tree climbing caches in the U.S. and Canada. No one needs to be warned, and I'd say just about every one of those cache owners expect seekers to climb the tree, not just look at the cache.

 

Been caching a while, have you? It is common for folks with experience to forget that things they find to be simple are actually much more complicated to folks w/o that experience. There are many new cachers, obviously I'm one, who need it spelled out clearly. Perfect scenario is mine - I have the cache downloaded to my paperless device and the only information I have available is the description and logs. No images, no attributes, and certainly nothing that indicates that a climb of 15' is involved. One could easily assume that it is in the low branches of the tree and you just need a 'boost' to get to it. I simply don't understand the objection to providing detailed information telling people to avoid it if they're not up to the CO's challenge.

 

Its the way you went about it. Whining about it and posting negative and childish notes will not get you the results that you are expecting.

 

Casting the first stone? You've never written something in anger? I've already apologized so get over it. And what results am I expecting?

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

There are thousands of tree climbing caches in the U.S. and Canada. No one needs to be warned, and I'd say just about every one of those cache owners expect seekers to climb the tree, not just look at the cache.

 

Been caching a while, have you? It is common for folks with experience to forget that things they find to be simple are actually much more complicated to folks w/o that experience. There are many new cachers, obviously I'm one, who need it spelled out clearly. Perfect scenario is mine - I have the cache downloaded to my paperless device and the only information I have available is the description and logs. No images, no attributes, and certainly nothing that indicates that a climb of 15' is involved. One could easily assume that it is in the low branches of the tree and you just need a 'boost' to get to it. I simply don't understand the objection to providing detailed information telling people to avoid it if they're not up to the CO's challenge.

{Don't take this the wrong way. I am not trying to be snarky}

 

Who's fault is that? I often do the same. With my PQ's and GSAK and so forth I might pop in on a cache I have not fully read on site, but that is my fault not the owners. The owner post a page on the site. If we the seekers don't read it, then we should not blame the owner for what we fail to notice.

 

No 'snarkyness' taken.

First, I'm not familiar with all the acronyms and I didn't see many used here in the glossary. Can you enlighten me on 'PQ', 'GSAK', 'OP'?

Second, I've already admitted my initial note on the cache was written in anger, apologized for it, and edited it. I hardly think that telling folks they must be able to "act like a squirrel like the CO" can be offensive given his user name. If folks can't read the humor into that well, too bad. So can we get past that and focus on what is fundamentally wrong with me providing a "non-whiny" warning note so it is available to anyone w/o access to the 'extras' that are available online?

 

The note as it currently stands still seems a bit whiny and "entitled".

 

WARNING - You must climb 15' into a tree to log this. I refused to risk the climb onto snow covered tree limbs since signing the log isn't worth injury.

 

This cache is NOT suitable for folks who are unable to act like a squirrel like the CO. Merely locating the cache doesn't satisfy a "find" and he will delete your log, as he did mine.

 

"I refuse to climb the tree since signing isn't worth the risk" OK. There are caches I got to and didn't feel like doing for any number of reasons. I move on.

 

"..doesn't satisfy a find.." Correct. Unless there are extuenuating circumstances preventing you from signing the log, you didn't make the find. I actually climbed a tree to find a cache, but the container slipped through my fingers, deeper into the leaf filled recess it was in. I logged a DNF. And I moved on.

 

Do you really want everything spelled out for you in every cache listing?

[+frinklabs]

Here's a note on a cache that I found but didn't sign:

 

Good news was that I was able to locate the container at the final coordinates.

 

Bad news was that it was frozen in place and I was unable to lever it out with what was at hand.

 

Will return in warmer weather to sign the log and check out the contents.

 

Thanks!

 

Did I want the find? Yes - the D/T will bring up my average for another challenge cache. Did I NEED the find? Not badly enough to initial the outside of the container with a Sharpie as my log.

 

I still dipped my personal traveler for the mileage, since I was there.

 

I am looking forward to going back to see what was inside this one, and the area in which it is located is awesome so its not a problem for me to return.

[+Totem Clan]

No 'snarkyness' taken.

First, I'm not familiar with all the acronyms and I didn't see many used here in the glossary. Can you enlighten me on 'PQ', 'GSAK', 'OP'?

PQ = Pocket Querries - A service provided to Premium Members to look for and download caches by various filters.

 

GSAK = Geocaching Swiss Army Knife - A sortable database you can upload your PQs and sort/search/organize caches with and then upload to your GPSr.

 

OP = Original Poster

[+The A-Team]

So can we get past that and focus on what is fundamentally wrong with me providing a "non-whiny" warning note so it is available to anyone w/o access to the 'extras' that are available online?

First off, if they can see your warning note, then they CAN see the "extras". Therefore, it's redundant.

 

As for the "whiny" nature, the entire note has the same tone, but I find the last line to be the biggest problem:

Merely locating the cache doesn't satisfy a "find" and he will delete your log, as he did mine.

That's the part that sounds the most whiny. You didn't get your way, and you're going to tell everyone else about it. Actually, I just thought of a better word to describe it:

Petulant

Adjective: (of a person or their manner) Childishly sulky or bad-tempered.

[+DubbleG]

So can we get past that and focus on what is fundamentally wrong with me providing a "non-whiny" warning note so it is available to anyone w/o access to the 'extras' that are available online?

First off, if they can see your warning note, then they CAN see the "extras". Therefore, it's redundant.

 

For some reason you choose to only respond to portions of what I've been written and ignore anything that you don't have a valid response to. Let's try something else. Here is a quote from another poster who has stated what I've already said:

(it's easy to miss the attributes - most paperless GPS units don't list them, apps hide them, but they do come in very handy when creating a PQ so it's great to see the CO use them).

Understand now? It is NOT redundant because the extras are not available to someone in the field using one of those devices.

[+DubbleG]

My Mistakes:

• Using too much information in my original post. I should have kept the cache information out of it and tried to keep it as anonymous as I could have. Apologies to SteveSquirrel.
• Posting my original note on the cache in anger when my log had been deleted. No excuse for this - my bad but that's part of the price of being human.
• Failing to understand that finding the cache does not equate to a "found cache" in geocaching terms. I can't imagine anyone can argue that I actually located the cache but I will admit that I did not fulfill the "letter of the law" by actually retrieving and signing the log. Chalk this one up to my being a newbie.
• Expecting that an accurate terrain rating was available or at least some indication that the find wasn't going to involve much more than reaching up into the low branches of the tree. Doesn't matter how many times you post attributes/images, etc. Like it or not, if it isn't in the description or the logs then it doesn't exist for some devices so all this 'hindsight' is pointless.
• Relying upon the information available in my GPS instead of doing a bunch of 'research' into all past attempts at this cache. (Did anyone even consider how many others may have shown up, looked at the climb, and said "this is nuts" w/o logging it?) Guess that is just another newbie mistake.
• Assuming a uniform application of the rules as the CO views them rather than the "I'll grant exceptions to those I like" application that has been applied in this case. Is that whiny? You betcha. I do tend to whine when treated unfairly. Don't like it? Too bad - I can't please everyone either.
• Wasting more time on this topic.

I can't fix most of these but I can certainly do something about the last. I will close by saying 'thanks' for the education to the group and 'get a life' to a couple of you who feel that personal attacks helped move this topic forward in any way. This will be my last reply on this topic. Thanks for the enlightening experience.

[+kissguy&frannyfru]

There are thousands of tree climbing caches in the U.S. and Canada. No one needs to be warned, and I'd say just about every one of those cache owners expect seekers to climb the tree, not just look at the cache.

 

Been caching a while, have you? It is common for folks with experience to forget that things they find to be simple are actually much more complicated to folks w/o that experience. There are many new cachers, obviously I'm one, who need it spelled out clearly. Perfect scenario is mine - I have the cache downloaded to my paperless device and the only information I have available is the description and logs. No images, no attributes, and certainly nothing that indicates that a climb of 15' is involved. One could easily assume that it is in the low branches of the tree and you just need a 'boost' to get to it. I simply don't understand the objection to providing detailed information telling people to avoid it if they're not up to the CO's challenge.

15 FEET?? Am i understanding it was 15 ft up?? I thats the case a 3 terrain is right,maybe even a 2.5. I did a cache that was 45ft up a pine tree and it was a 3 and i felt like it was correct. I thought we were talking about something really high.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I hardly think that telling folks they must be able to "act like a squirrel like the CO" can be offensive given his user name. If folks can't read the humor into that well, too bad. So can we get past that and focus on what is fundamentally wrong with me providing a "non-whiny" warning note so it is available to anyone w/o access to the 'extras' that are available online?

 

What's wrong with your note is that you make the risk at the cache seem much worse than it is. That isn't very nice. I realize you were surprised by this, and apparently quite frustrated by it. This particular cache doesn't look just insanely risky, so if you aren't willing or able to do it, just move on and let it go. (I am disabled, and I'd have to pass on this cache as well - I wouldn't especially blame the cache owner for this, it is my problem.) People climb trees. Lots of people can climb trees. Figuring out that it's snowy and icy and a bad time to climb a tree should be a fairly straight-forward proposition. I see no reason to ring alarm bells here. Anyway, your note is mostly complaining about stuff that would appear to be your problem. (BTW, even if you are totally fit and able to climb trees, and just hate doing it, it's no reason to take it out on the cache - just move on and realize "not my type of cache.")

 

BTW, I have a question for the CO - how often do you verify the paper logs against the online logs?