Found It = Didn't Find It - Discussion thread.

[knowschad]

We have a cache that involves a 22 km round trip walk on a sand dune. The only available spot is for a micro next to the lighthouse. Our cache cache page says to take a picture if the cache is missing so as not to disappoint anyone who makes the long trek.

I'd be very careful there. Without a log to sign, your cache has become a virtual, and is not allowed. You risk having it archived.

[+Ma & Pa]

I know, but I think it is OK. I will replace it as soon as I get a log saying it was missing. I am simply allowing a find if it is missing.

[+SwineFlew]

I know, but I think it is OK. I will replace it as soon as I get a log saying it was missing. I am simply allowing a find if it is missing.

Still in the gray area.

 

I had a few CO emailed me after my DNF log and told me I can go ahead and log it as a found because its really MIA and I reported it as DNF. They fixed it within a week. What that tell me if nobody logged a DNF, they wouldnt check on it.

 

The best way to handle it is to email them if they log a DNF. Do not have those info on the cache page. It will make it looks like a virtual to a reviewer.

 

I see reviewers in the past archived caches because CO got lazy and allowing too many "virtual" find.

[+CanadianRockies]

We have a cache that involves a 22 km round trip walk on a sand dune. The only available spot is for a micro next to the lighthouse. Our cache cache page says to take a picture if the cache is missing so as not to disappoint anyone who makes the long trek.

Personally, I won't log a "Found It" if I don't find the cache and sign the log. Hopefully, the walk to your cache would be rewarding all by itself. If not, then that's just a risk I take.

 

While I'm quite strict about what I count as finds, I'm more relaxed about what I allow others to log as finds on our caches. If they forgot a pencil, for example, I'll allow a photograph of the log book as substitute proof of their find. But I won't allow someone to log a find for one of our caches if they couldn't find that cache or it was missing. No matter how they rationalize it, they didn't find the cache.

[+a1elec]

how about when the container has found its way inside a log with no way to retrieve it.

[+Understandblue]

We have a cache that involves a 22 km round trip walk on a sand dune. The only available spot is for a micro next to the lighthouse. Our cache cache page says to take a picture if the cache is missing so as not to disappoint anyone who makes the long trek.

Personally, I won't log a "Found It" if I don't find the cache and sign the log. Hopefully, the walk to your cache would be rewarding all by itself. If not, then that's just a risk I take.

 

While I'm quite strict about what I count as finds, I'm more relaxed about what I allow others to log as finds on our caches. If they forgot a pencil, for example, I'll allow a photograph of the log book as substitute proof of their find. But I won't allow someone to log a find for one of our caches if they couldn't find that cache or it was missing. No matter how they rationalize it, they didn't find the cache.

 

Thank you. I only have one of these - I am still new and forgot my pen - takes three weeks to form a habit, right? - but I did photog the log and will go back. I never would EVER log a find that I didn't put my paws on - I guess I don't understand the fun in that - 100% of the fun for me is actually finding it, Nancy Drew style.

[Mr.Yuck]

How is it that this thread has become a discussion on geocaching guideline interpretation?

 

I dunno, but that is the nature of forum threads...

 

I believe 60 identical PVC pipes pushed into the ground on a rural roadside would pass muster, not unlike a phony sprinkler head.

 

While I believe 60 identical PVC pipes pushed into the ground on a rural roadside would pass muster when they were published. But not now.

 

Because NOW the guideline prohibits "breaking the ground". So the phony sprinkler head, if it's on piece of PVC, and driven into the ground no longer meets the guideline. This changed this spring.

 

I sent my own planned multi-cache to appeals, because I was planning to use geo-stakes as stages. PVC or maybe stainless flat rod, driven into the ground with coords in indelible marker. I was told no. As usual, the old stuff is grandfathered.... and likely new stuff is being published, because the reviewer isn't asking about the precise nature of the cache.

 

Back on topic, ie commentary on logging DNFs as Finds - I note that this is really an issue with webcams. People do seem to feel that it's "go to coords, take picture". The webcam part apparently is optional. I owned a webcam cache. I was happy to archive it when it went down for while. Felt bad about deleting the no webcam image logs, and felt bad about not deleting them. No fun, either way.

 

Does this mean I get to bump a thread last posted to by KnowsChad 6 months ago, and say that he's off-topic in retaliation? C'mon, just kidding.

 

Although off-topic, that is very interesting, IK. Who knew that? I didn't know that! It sounds like phony sprinkler head caches could now possibly be illegal? No matter to me, the only place you see real sprinkler heads in my plenty wet sub-arctic climate is on Golf Course Greens, and in really fancy industrial parks, and fake sprinkler head caches are unheard of.

 

On topic! Webcams. Even in the days they were still being accepted, a sizeable percentage of Geocachers were clueless on how to properly do them. I'm sure they still are too. I don't know though, I haven't done one in probably 3 years. I too owned one, and it was a pain, going down all the time. It was in some guys house overlooking a park and pond (with his permission, of course), but he went and sort of unexpectedly sold the condo and moved! I had no notice, I had to knock on the door of his vacant condo after a few DNF's, and talk to a neighbor. And I think I'm getting off-topic again, CYA.

[+CanadianRockies]

how about when the container has found its way inside a log with no way to retrieve it.

I wouldn't claim a find if I couldn't retrieve and sign the log. But I would allow others to claim a find on one of our caches if such a thing happened and they photographed the cache (or could adequately describe it)...assuming it wasn't one of our decoy hides. Your mileage might vary.

[+gcstraggler]

Have a question - so I'll post it here first rather than start a new thread.

 

A while ago I did one of the older virtual caches. In order to confirm the cache there was a link to download a confirmation document. That link is broken

(404 error - file/folder not found). From a review of logs the link to the document has been bad for several months. I e-mailed the CO about the error

and my answers to the questions in the Virtual. No response (which could mean the CO is no longer active - could mean my answers were correct and the CO

felt no need to confirm, etc.).

 

So my question - should I let this cache go - i.e. don't log it (as either a find or DNF) - assume my answers were correct (95%+ certain they were) and go

ahead and log it as found (originally I posted a note) - wait awhile and try e-mailing the CO again, etc.

[+JJnTJ]

So my question - should I let this cache go - i.e. don't log it (as either a find or DNF) - assume my answers were correct (95%+ certain they were) and go ahead and log it as found (originally I posted a note) - wait awhile and try e-mailing the CO again, etc.

 

I'm not trying to come off as flippant, but I don't think anyone's opinion matters except yours and the CO's (and he may be out of the game). If I were in your shoes, I would take the smiley since I visited the spot and did whatever was requested. My "caching conscience" would be clear and it would be irrelevant if somebody disapproved.

[+briansnat]

We have a cache that involves a 22 km round trip walk on a sand dune. The only available spot is for a micro next to the lighthouse. Our cache cache page says to take a picture if the cache is missing so as not to disappoint anyone who makes the long trek.

Personally, I won't log a "Found It" if I don't find the cache and sign the log. Hopefully, the walk to your cache would be rewarding all by itself. If not, then that's just a risk I take.

 

While I'm quite strict about what I count as finds, I'm more relaxed about what I allow others to log as finds on our caches. If they forgot a pencil, for example, I'll allow a photograph of the log book as substitute proof of their find. But I won't allow someone to log a find for one of our caches if they couldn't find that cache or it was missing. No matter how they rationalize it, they didn't find the cache.

 

Thank you. I only have one of these - I am still new and forgot my pen - takes three weeks to form a habit, right? - but I did photog the log and will go back. I never would EVER log a find that I didn't put my paws on - I guess I don't understand the fun in that - 100% of the fun for me is actually finding it, Nancy Drew style.

 

I'm with you. I simply don't get the concept of logging finds on caches that I didn't find. Nor do I understand Ma&Pas reasoning behind allowing virtual finds on their cache (and that indeed could result in its archival). The cache brings the searcher out on what I assume is a beautiful 22km walk on sand dunes. How can there be any disappointment, cache or no cache? I'd probably write a glowing DNF log mentioning the lovely walk and beautiful scenery and thanking the cache owner for bringing me out there.

[+Understandblue]

The cache brings the searcher out on what I assume is a beautiful 22km walk on sand dunes. How can there be any disappointment, cache or no cache? I'd probably write a glowing DNF log mentioning the lovely walk and beautiful scenery and thanking the cache owner for bringing me out there.

 

Yes, this.

[+Ma & Pa]

The cache brings the searcher out on what I assume is a beautiful 22km walk on sand dunes. How can there be any disappointment, cache or no cache? I'd probably write a glowing DNF log mentioning the lovely walk and beautiful scenery and thanking the cache owner for bringing me out there.

 

Yes, this.

 

I cannot argue that point.

 

 

[+Q10]

I know, but I think it is OK. I will replace it as soon as I get a log saying it was missing. I am simply allowing a find if it is missing.

 

You are a nice person. Love the way you think - and we are fortunately a lot of geocachers out there, who think that way. We do it quietly because we know what happen if we speak it out loud in the air.

 

Running and ducking ...

[Carla101]

Hi everyone! I'm from South Africa. Few days ago my family and I came to Madeira for the school holidays. We're staying in Porto Moniz, and today, my brother and I decided to go for a walk down to the Villa. Though it didn't exactly work out that way. Instead, we came across this random footpath down the side of a mountain and we tried it. As we walked down there was this small broken building, it was deep in to the bush but we had still gone there. We then found a small case with a logbook, a pen and few stuff. My brother started reading the paper aloud, and I was totally amazed! "Intentionally, OR NOT" ! Today was the first time I've ever heard of geocaching, and I LOVE the idea of it! Though I have no idea how it works? I'm still in Madeira, but would love to do the same in South Africa if it's possible?

[+Q10]

Hi everyone! I'm from South Africa ...[]... but would love to do the same in South Africa if it's possible?

 

Yes, yes, there are around 8000 caches hidden in South Africa. Take a look here: Caches in South Africa

[+terrkan78]

Hi everyone! I'm from South Africa. Few days ago my family and I came to Madeira for the school holidays. We're staying in Porto Moniz, and today, my brother and I decided to go for a walk down to the Villa. Though it didn't exactly work out that way. Instead, we came across this random footpath down the side of a mountain and we tried it. As we walked down there was this small broken building, it was deep in to the bush but we had still gone there. We then found a small case with a logbook, a pen and few stuff. My brother started reading the paper aloud, and I was totally amazed! "Intentionally, OR NOT" ! Today was the first time I've ever heard of geocaching, and I LOVE the idea of it! Though I have no idea how it works? I'm still in Madeira, but would love to do the same in South Africa if it's possible?

What a fun way to start! Congrats on your find!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Hi everyone! I'm from South Africa ...[]... but would love to do the same in South Africa if it's possible?

 

Yes, yes, there are around 8000 caches hidden in South Africa. Take a look here: Caches in South Africa

 

Yes, South Africa probably has more geocaches than all of the other countries in Africa combined. I found my first cache in Africa near the airport in Joburg during an overnight layover on the way to Zambia.

 

If you have a smart phone, you should try downloaded a geocaching app to your phone while you're still in Mediera and find a few more before returning to South Africa. Hopefully, you signed the look book in the one that you stumbled across. You can post a "found it" log online even though you found it "intentional or not".

[+The Rat]

This is a long thread so I may be covering ground mentioned somewhere before, but what about caching in groups? I've been in many groups where there was a cacher who never found anything but signed every log that someone else found. This was her lifelong pattern. Of course, there have been many times I was with someone who found the cache and I signed the log. Many times it's caches I know I never would have found for one reason or another. Is that cheating? I doubt anyone would say so, even though really only one person in the group found the cache. Many caching activities are excellent group activities that several people can contribute to, e.g. one person solves the puzzle or finds stage 1, someone else finds another stage or the final, etc. Many caches are even designed to force or encourage group searching. I've been with many geocachers who don't bother to sign the log and many times other geocachers sign my name without even asking me, if I'm there. I claim those as finds even though I may not have actually found it or signed the log. If we only allowed the person who actually found the cache to log it, the whole social part of geocaching would be lost.

 

I know one guy I'll call Mr. K who is a strict "you must sign the log to claim a find" type and who never lets anyone else sign his name. I remember on one expedition with a lot of geocachers seeking high-terrain/high difficulty caches I found one of the caches deep in a hole under a very large stump. My upper body was entirely in the hole and bent in a strange position facing down. I could tell it would be difficult, painful, and time-consuming to back out of there, sign it, then replace it and back out again so I handed the cache out. Everyone in the group signed it, including Mr. K, who later claimed the find with a log that said he could never have found it himself. Someone yelled at me asking if they should sign my name and I said yes since there was no way I could sign deep in that hole. I replaced the cache and backed out. So far, no problem in my mind. But then later Mr. K placed a cache on private property that was confiscated by the property manager. I was in a group that found the remaining concealment for the cache, which, ironically, was a piece of a log. We signed that and logged that we had found part of the cache, claiming a find. Mr. K disallowed the find because we had not signed THE log sheet that he had placed there, despite the fact our not finding was due to his illegal cache placement and the fact we found A log that was part of it anyway. So there's a lot of hypocrisy over this issue. Plenty of people log caches they haven't actually found and vice versa, and often there are valid reasons for it. The strict constructionists that I've know personally are pretty much all jerks, but I'm sure there are exceptions to that rule.

[+fizzymagic]

I know one guy I'll call Mr. K who is a strict "you must sign the log to claim a find" type and who never lets anyone else sign his name.

...

But then later Mr. K placed a cache on private property that was confiscated by the property manager... Mr. K disallowed the find because we had not signed THE log sheet that he had placed there, despite the fact our not finding was due to his illegal cache placement and the fact we found A log that was part of it anyway.

 

Whew! You had me worried there! I went through a time where I was very strict about signing logs myself and never allowing group logs, but I have never disallowed a find as described, so I guess it's not me!

 

I have actually gotten a lot looser in my standards for myself; I will now sometimes let somebody else sign the log for me or sign a group name. I figure if the CO cares that much, they can always delete my log, but they can't take the experience away!

[+CanadianRockies]

But then later Mr. K placed a cache on private property that was confiscated by the property manager. I was in a group that found the remaining concealment for the cache, which, ironically, was a piece of a log. We signed that and logged that we had found part of the cache, claiming a find. Mr. K disallowed the find because we had not signed THE log sheet that he had placed there, despite the fact our not finding was due to his illegal cache placement and the fact we found A log that was part of it anyway. So there's a lot of hypocrisy over this issue.

I agree with Mr. K's deletions, which I don't consider hypocritical. He made a mistake by putting a cache on private property (presumably without permission). Why compound that mistake by encouraging others to go on that same private property (presumably against the landowner's wishes) to sign something that isn't even the cache's log sheet?

[+The Rat]

But then later Mr. K placed a cache on private property that was confiscated by the property manager. I was in a group that found the remaining concealment for the cache, which, ironically, was a piece of a log. We signed that and logged that we had found part of the cache, claiming a find. Mr. K disallowed the find because we had not signed THE log sheet that he had placed there, despite the fact our not finding was due to his illegal cache placement and the fact we found A log that was part of it anyway. So there's a lot of hypocrisy over this issue.

I agree with Mr. K's deletions, which I don't consider hypocritical. He made a mistake by putting a cache on private property (presumably without permission). Why compound that mistake by encouraging others to go on that same private property (presumably against the landowner's wishes) to sign something that isn't even the cache's log sheet?

That might make sense except Mr. K then placed the same cache back there again and I again went there only to find that it was gone again. The property manager even came out wanting to know what was going on with people searching around his utility box. Mr. K then placed it on that private property a third time, although farther from the building. I was able to find it that time, but it disappeared once again and finally was moved to some other location. His concern wasn't to discourage people from going onto the private property against the owner's wishes. He seemed to want to encourage that. He just didn't give credit unless his log sheet was signed.

[alandb]

Sounds to me like that cache should have been logged as a N A.

[+NeverSummer]

Sounds to me like that cache should have been logged as a N A.

Yup.

[+The Rat]

Sounds to me like that cache should have been logged as a N A.

Agreed. But the cache was part of a year-long contest that a lot of people were participating in. The CO moved it eventually, but the points for that cache, given in order of find, became meaningless since people who were 10th or 15th to solve and find were listed as 4th or 5th and vice versa due to the multiple relocations, and it caused a lot of hard feelings about the whole contest thing, not to mention the impression left with the property manager about geocachers.

[+MountainWoods]

I've skim-read this old & new thread. There's a lot to read.

 

One thing that puzzles me is the number of times I've seen:

 

Found It!

Didn't find this one.

 

It's usually from a newbie. But I really don't understand it. Perhaps the cacher hasn't read that signature (sorry, forgot whose it is) that DNF is not = F. Anyway, I just don't get someone pulling down the status choices and choosing Found It!, but then stating very clearly that they didn't find it. (Twilight Zone music here...)

 

[+niraD]

Anyway, I just don't get someone pulling down the status choices and choosing Found It!, but then stating very clearly that they didn't find it.

If most of your logs are "Found It" logs, then it's really easy to fall into a habit of mindlessly selecting the "Found It" log type whenever you post a log. I unintentionally posted a few Finds to my first cache, when I intended to post Notes or Owner Maintenance logs. It happens. And I occasionally see "Found It" logs for the caches on my watchlist that clearly state that the person didn't find the cache, but usually the log has been changed to a DNF by the time I check.

[+NeecesandNephews]

 

Anyway, I just don't get someone pulling down the status choices and choosing Found It!, but then stating very clearly that they didn't find it. (Twilight Zone music here...)

 

 

Baffling isn't it??? I wonder if it's a smart phone thing?? I know when I connect my Delorme to my computer it always ask if I want to upload my log info to Groundspeak. I always choose "no" as I usually enter notes to myself on the caches I find or DNF, on the GPS, mainly as reminders of details, but prefer to sit down and type online logs with the convenience of a full size keyboard. Don't know if smartphone apps have the auto-log feature or not.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I've skim-read this old & new thread. There's a lot to read.

 

One thing that puzzles me is the number of times I've seen:

 

Found It!

Didn't find this one.

 

It's usually from a newbie. But I really don't understand it. Perhaps the cacher hasn't read that signature (sorry, forgot whose it is) that DNF is not = F. Anyway, I just don't get someone pulling down the status choices and choosing Found It!, but then stating very clearly that they didn't find it. (Twilight Zone music here...)

 

 

I think it's a slip of the finger thing. I've done it, both ways - logged clear DNFs as finds, and finds as DNFs.

I generally notice those errors, but I've not noticed, and only corrected when a cache owner emailed me. (find log as DNF).

 

In the last couple of days, I selected "archive" on log of one of my own caches, the "do you really want to archive this?" message stopped me -

I was trying to "write note".

[+FunnyNose]

Bringing this over from the "Found It = Didn't Find It" thread

A full log sheet

 

Thought this one was interesting.

 

A Groundspeak Lackey Found it

 

It's a great cache placement but it's totally busted open and no log to be found anywhere. Will recommend archival until it's fixed.

Is part of that quoting someone else...cause saying "archival" in place of temporary disabling shows a severe lack of knowledge on someone who is suppose to know the difference.

Just like at any business, I'm sure there are employees who don't fully understand the company's products. Mail room persons, warehouse, janitors, secretaries, etc.

 

As a follow up the same lackey put a needs maintenance one one of my caches.

 

I guess they didn't realize that log sheets have 2 sides and if one side is filled then you can turn it over and sign the BLANK side of the log.

Edited April 12, 2013 by FunnyNose

[+Scratch Ankle]

A couple weeks ago I found what I initially thought was a log at a site that I had manually entered coordinates. Turned out not be the log and I also entered the coordinates wrong so I was in the wrong area anyway. But it got me wondering about finding an actual log but not a container. I almost lost someone;s log to the wind one day. What's the feeling about counting a log only found? Personally, I doubt I would since I found a cache once that my GPSr insisted was 100 yards away. If I have the log but not the cache I don't think I would feel sure that I was in the right place? I probably would not count it -- and what do you do with a log in that situation? I don't see doing a throw down since it's quite possible the log got lost to the wind and I'm creating a problem by doing so.

 

I tend to look at caches as something I accomplished and, if I didn't, why count it? I am a ham operator (new) and I'm keeping track of different milestones that there are awards for. I'll never apply for those awards because I don't need a piece of paper to tell me I did it because I already know I did it. So if I'm not getting a certificate to impress someone else, why claim I did it? I probably wouldn't log caches other than I can see that it's the easiest way for me to personally keep up with where I've been as well as providing the opportunity for feed back to COs and other hunters about problems. I located one earlier this week that from the clue it was a rock solid 100% fact that where I found the cache was not where it was supposed to be. That gave me the opportunity to indicate that for those coming behind me (without telling them where it was) as well as contact the owner with good detail of the situation so he could fix it -- assuming I wasn't just full of myself thinking it was a rock solid fact that the cache was in the wrong location.

 

I have counted as found without a log signature for something like a water soaked log especially since the cache had several entries about that very problem. I wonder about things like wasp nests or a snake that decides he doesn't want to leave the cache that he's curled up with. He lives there so I figure I shouldn't be messing with him. Besides, the biggest majority of snake bites come about from messing with them. For myself, I think that if I can actually see the cache I would count it without signing a log. If I can't see that the cache is there it's a DNF. If I see what might be the cache but might be a piece of litter instead, it's DNF. I'm not a fanatic about signing logs if it gets me hurt. Of course, I won't count as found a cache I can see that's in a tree that requires me to climb -- too many injuries and I count it as a good day of I don't fall down just walking so trees are out. Likewise, I know exactly where a cache is that I can put my boat right over -- it's 80' deep and I don't scuba dive.

 

Guess it's a long way around to say that if you're going to lie yourself it isn't much of a hobby but there are plenty who do. I didn't get appointed boss of the world and I don't own any cashes so it's not skin off my nose. I may well run into a CO who thinks my exception for signing his log is not acceptable to him and he'll delete the entry. If so, fine. I won't cry about it.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Bringing this over from the "Found It = Didn't Find It" thread

A full log sheet

 

I guess they didn't realize that log sheets have 2 sides and if one side is filled then you can turn it over and sign the BLANK side of the log.

 

Have you considered getting paper with two sides? Insead of your traditional one-sided paper?

[+frinklabs]

Have you considered getting paper with two sides? Insead of your traditional one-sided paper?

 

But I like my Möbius strip logs...

[+Harry Dolphin]

And so, I went hunting for a cache. Previous DNF. Armed with the hint, cache page, and the last five logs. Followed the geotrail a bit further this time, and found a bison tube nailed to a tree. Yes, it's over thirty feet from the trail/listed coords. Logs indicated that. Log signed by the last five finders. Hint made no sense. Signed log, claimed find.

Two cache hiders on this trail. Neither seem to understand the concept of 'cache maintenance'. The one has two finds, and thirty-three hides, eleven of which are archived for non-mainteance. A few with two or more DNFs.

The other has one hide with a maintenance log from last November stating: This cache has issues.

Cache by the first hider was archived for non-maintenance. (Surprise?) Cache by the second hider is listed at the same coords.

Reading back through the logs, several people claim: Found on the ground. Must have been kicked out of the hiding place. That would not seem to apply to the bison cache nailed to the tree...

One person logged a DNF saying that she could only find the archived cache. (She had found it previously.) The last seven cachers logged the one we found. (Including the one who put in a new log sheet...)

Hints on neither one make any sense.

So, should I change my find to the archved cache? And go search for the listed one that 'has problems' and has not been 'found' since last September? Or keep my 'found it' on the cache that I found near the listed coords? No actual proof that it is not the listed cache...

[+wmpastor]

We logged one cache as a find without signing the log book....

 

We found the cache in a hole on the topside of a fallen tree, but the hole had filled up with water and then frozen solid.

No matter how we tried, we couldn't get the cache out of the ice.

 

 

Going out caching partially-equipped again, huh?! Left the chain saw & ice axe in the garage, huh?

You should've turned the tables on the CO and logged "found - needs maintenance."

[+CanadianRockies]

We logged one cache as a find without signing the log book....

 

We found the cache in a hole on the topside of a fallen tree, but the hole had filled up with water and then frozen solid.

No matter how we tried, we couldn't get the cache out of the ice.

Going out caching partially-equipped again, huh?! Left the chain saw & ice axe in the garage, huh?

You should've turned the tables on the CO and logged "found - needs maintenance."

You laugh, but I actually have a hammer and chisel in my geocaching kit. I'm more likely to use it to chip ice from a hole to uncover a benchmark, though.

[+cerberus1]

We logged one cache as a find without signing the log book....

 

We found the cache in a hole on the topside of a fallen tree, but the hole had filled up with water and then frozen solid.

No matter how we tried, we couldn't get the cache out of the ice.

Going out caching partially-equipped again, huh?! Left the chain saw & ice axe in the garage, huh?

You should've turned the tables on the CO and logged "found - needs maintenance."

You laugh, but I actually have a hammer and chisel in my geocaching kit. I'm more likely to use it to chip ice from a hole to uncover a benchmark, though.

I agree.

One of the few who use a mountaineering axe instead of a hiking stick in the Winter.

Chipped out quite a few over the years.

[+randco]

Q10 there are rules,

 

Jeremy about bickering over a cache "find"

 

The one thing that I have to say about that quote is that while Jeremy is the CEO of Groundspeak, but that does not make his opinion any more important or correct than yours or mine.

 

It may be an opinion, but his influence on the game is much greater than you or I. Language of location is emphasized, rather than containers. Unless the cache is a "challenge" type, such as up a tree, on a cliff or a purposely difficult hide, I don't see any problem with not signing the log if the container is sighted.

 

4wheelin_fool,

 

You may not "see any problem with not signing the log if the container is sighted." But, the very basics of the game/hobby under Geocaching 101 states: "7.Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location." and "8.Share your geocaching stories and photos online."

 

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

[+FunnyNose]

Continuing this from the Found It = Didn't Find It thread

 

To any one that has been to my cache A Gated Sitution at a Rest Area GC2HBCH. I know of NO munzees or anything of the sort as I don't do them. There is a REAL container on site with a LOG and I will remove the munzee if I can find it.

 

Why would you remove a game piece from a different game ? That's not playing nicely.

[+Harry Dolphin]

HQGT: Within Reach

 

Don't know what to make of this one! We found the cache, but were unable to open it, due to the lock not working. DNF! It was disabled the same day. And, yet, it has had eighteen 'finds' since,, after being disabled. And eighteen previous 'found, but could not open the cache to sign the log.'

I guess it is up to the CO to determine what constitutes a find. And it took a fair while to disable the cache. But eighteen finds after it was disabled???

What is GS trying to tell us here? A cacher does not have to sign the cache? Even after it's been disabled? Been disabled almost a month! Guidelines don't apply to some?

Don't know what to make of this one!

[+cerberus1]

HQGT: Within Reach

 

Don't know what to make of this one! We found the cache, but were unable to open it, due to the lock not working. DNF! It was disabled the same day. And, yet, it has had eighteen 'finds' since,, after being disabled. And eighteen previous 'found, but could not open the cache to sign the log.'

I guess it is up to the CO to determine what constitutes a find. And it took a fair while to disable the cache. But eighteen finds after it was disabled???

What is GS trying to tell us here? A cacher does not have to sign the cache? Even after it's been disabled? Been disabled almost a month! Guidelines don't apply to some?

Don't know what to make of this one!

To boot, a few even asked a lackey and she said it was okay, they know about it...

Some did say they took a pic just in case. Maybe your photologging thread is a prelude.

Edited October 25, 2013 by cerberus1

[+CanadianRockies]

From the other thread:

 

i really can't imagine people logging a find when they haven't found anything at all though. i legitimately thought about it for 5 minutes even though i had found it, technically. i can't understand how people could just lie about it and justify it.

Some people don't lie about it. Some CO's will allow "a find" on a cache when it's actually missing or a throw-down has been placed. That's between the cache owner and the "finder", and as a finder one should not assume that every cache owner would allow those sorts of "finds".

What constitutes a legitimate "find" isn't just between the cache owner and the "finder."

 

For example, Groundspeak has archived traditional caches that have gone missing and the owners have permitted photos of Ground Zero as substitutes for signing the logs.

 

Groundspeak has archived virtual caches that owners have allowed to be armchair logged.

 

Groundspeak has archived webcam caches where the webcams no longer operate and the owners have allowed self-photos to be used instead.

 

Groundspeak doesn't allow "pocket caches" where someone brings a cache to an event so "finders" can sign the log, even if owners permit this.

 

Groundspeak doesn't allow people to "attend" events via Internet live feeds, even though the hosts permit this.

 

Even when Groundspeak doesn't step in and disallow every illegitimate "find" (which would require huge resources to do), that doesn't mean the legitimacy of those finds is determined only by the cache owner and finders. An illegitimate find is still illegitmate, even if it isn't disallowed by the cache owner.

 

Armchair caching isn't "finding" geocaches, even when owners allow it.

 

Going to Ground Zero, discovering a traditional cache is missing, and uploading a photo of GZ instead isn't "finding" a geocache, even when owners allow it.

 

Claiming a "find" on a webcam cache with a self-photo isn't "finding" that cache, even when owners allow it.

 

Etc.

Edited July 8, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+JPreto]

Unless the cache is a "challenge" type, such as up a tree, on a cliff or a purposely difficult hide, I don't see any problem with not signing the log if the container is sighted.

 

Find the cache, sign the logbook!!! Simple right?!?!?!

 

Seeing the cache, with binoculars serves as a find for you?

[+Scratch Ankle]

goofed.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Scratch Ankle

[+wmpastor]

how about when the container has found its way inside a log with no way to retrieve it.

No such animal. It's just a matter of terrain and difficulty. Need special equipment? Ok, it's a 5.0.

[JASTA 11]

Unless the cache is a "challenge" type, such as up a tree, on a cliff or a purposely difficult hide, I don't see any problem with not signing the log if the container is sighted.

 

If you didn't open the container, how do you know that what you found was indeed the cache?

 

(The Schrödinger's Cat episode of 'The Big Bang Theory' comes to mind.)

[+cerberus1]

Browsing the Found It = Didn't Find It thread, we often wonder about the creativity in other's BS.

 

We only check the ones with higher terrain, as some odd reason, they're the ones with the most fake logs.

Problem is, with that terrain, checking sometimes becomes a pain-in-the-can.

 

We had two within the last month or so.

One, a multi hour lengthy paddle-to, the log was...

Thanks

The other, a tech rope climb (or a 30' ladder) was...

Yay!

 

If they were gonna fib, we kinda wish they'd at least be a bit more inventive with their logging.

[+ubermick]

While I believe 60 identical PVC pipes pushed into the ground on a rural roadside would pass muster when they were published. But not now.

 

Because NOW the guideline prohibits "breaking the ground". So the phony sprinkler head, if it's on piece of PVC, and driven into the ground no longer meets the guideline. This changed this spring.

 

Does this make future wv-tim style bird house caches prohibited? Granted, they can be tied to a tree somehow, but that's basically a bat-signal to all and sundry that "this should not be here!"

 

And so, I went hunting for a cache. Previous DNF. Armed with the hint, cache page, and the last five logs. Followed the geotrail a bit further this time, and found a bison tube nailed to a tree. Yes, it's over thirty feet from the trail/listed coords. Logs indicated that. Log signed by the last five finders. Hint made no sense. Signed log, claimed find.

 

Similarly on the subject of violating "the rules", isn't nailing something to a tree also a big no-no?

 

Anyways - on the topic of found it/didn't find it, there deffo seems to be a grey area. Of course I wholeheartedly agree that people who simply sit in front of a computer logging finds without making the attempt shouldn't count. Then you have the people who do venture forth, get to the vicinity of GZ, poke around a bit, and announce that they found it without ever actually seeing the cache. You have instances where they get there, find the cache, but aren't able to retrieve it. Then you have folks who retrieve it, but for whatever reason can't sign it. (No pen, wet log, etc.)

 

I admit to having a few where I had the physical cache in hand, but didn't sign the log. Two of them were for microscopic nanos where the log couldn't be extracted without tweezers, which weren't on my person. Another two were for caches where I SHOULD have signed the log, but didn't have a pen (both cases, I keep meaning to return to them, since they're relatively local, and sign the logs posthumously.) All four I logged as finds, because at the very least, I had the geocache in hand. There have been other instances where I got to GZ, but couldn't find or get to the cache. Those get logged, but as a note saying I got there, looked but couldn't find it (and will try again). Occasionally I'll post a DNF if I search thoroughly and still can't come up with it.

 

Point being though, grey areas. One end of the spectrum (sitting at home logging finds without actually leaving), to the other (if you didn't sign it, you didn't find it.)

 

And if the finds are to be enforced to the letter of Groundspeak's law (which I agree they should, at least more closely) what does that do to other finds? Notably caches along power trails, where you have instances of people claiming the find when they were driving the car (and therefore not at the physical GZ), and those who leapfrog caches along things like the ET, where cache X is retrieved by the runner, brought to the car, and then placed in the location of a cache further down the road?

Edited July 22, 2015 by ubermick

[+L0ne.R]

While I believe 60 identical PVC pipes pushed into the ground on a rural roadside would pass muster when they were published. But not now.

 

Because NOW the guideline prohibits "breaking the ground". So the phony sprinkler head, if it's on piece of PVC, and driven into the ground no longer meets the guideline. This changed this spring.

 

Does this make future wv-tim style bird house caches prohibited? Granted, they can be tied to a tree somehow, but that's basically a bat-signal to all and sundry that "this should not be here!"

 

 

OT but ....we have 5 caches tied to trees. The oldest 2 are 1.5 years old now. Each have about 70 finds. No problem so far. They are well hidden within about 20 steps of the trail but generally out of site.

[+31BMSG]

I joined in 2010 while deployed but never looked for a cache until retirement in January 17 when I took to it with a vengeance. During that time I logged three caches as found even though the log wasn't signed, two nanos that were paper pulp and a small in a tree covered by reptiles. In two cases I held the cache, in the other I had eyes on so I logged them as found but something didn't feel right. After lurking around here and Geospeak I found, to paraphrase, "the cache is found once the log is signed". Seemed pretty specific to me.

 

Earlier today I went back to these logs and changed them to DNF. I lost 3 off my total but have a better understanding of the spirit of the game and don't feel like I've earned a participation trophy. From here on I will pack enough stuff with me to be able to sign the log, lessons learned. Thanks all!