Canadian Style Advice

[+ToonAl]

I am looking for a constructive discussion about what people do in a certain circumstance I have come across a couple of times.

 

It is the circumstance where you see on line a log but you do not see the corresponding signature in the actual logbook of the cache. Do people write the owner or just ignore and move on.

 

ps. To make this fit the Canadian forum I am looking for at least one Canadian response.

Edited April 1, 2012 by ToonAl

[+northernpenguin]

Unless I own the cache I don't really care who has signed the logbook. Also remember people don't always sign in order. If the weather ( or mosquitos) is bad they may just open up to any page at random and sign there. Sometimes the page comes out of the book when a later finder mishandles it.

 

So, don't worry about it. You are just going to upset someone, possibly yourself, at the end of the day.

[+Juicepig]

ignore and move on - especially if there is no pen in the cache, or my pen has exploded in my pocket some time during the evening

[danoshimano]

There was a cache last week that for certain reasons I did not bother to open. I still logged it as found because, well, I found it. Not sure what possible problem there could be with that.

[+WCoaster]

After caching for many years and now doing caching only very randomly now I may not log a find at all.

 

With the advent of smart phone caching I find that I may go for a cache if I have time to kill. I may sign the log book if I actually open the cache. I will usually upload the find through my phone if I remember. I have not logged a cache back at the PC for years.

 

So I would say live and let live. This sport has become a lot less enjoyable over the years as more and more people who came into it were more focused on rules and ethics than just getting outside and having some fun exploring.

[+ShaunEM]

I am a Canadian and I say leave it. I am also someone who may not sign the "last page" if I can't figure out where the last page is.

 

Or maybe they were in a group and only one of them signed. In the end it's up to the cache owner.

 

I am not sure how attitudes differ globally.

 

Shaun

[+danielwest76]

I would leave it to the CO to police who's logged their caches. The only time I've ever called finds into question on my own caches is when people have logged my challenge caches without first completing the challenge.

[+Team Pixos]

Only time I will do something is if I see online the guy logged my cache in Alberta and one in south Carolina and one in Mexico all on one date. If his name isn't in my logbook it gets deleted.

[+DanOCan]

I don't pay any attention to it unless I own the cache and I have a reason to suspect the online log is a fake.

[+stagunner]

I have 2oo caches out now, and if someone can not honestly play the game then that is up to them,,

It is just a game,,,

[+CanadianRockies]

There was a cache last week that for certain reasons I did not bother to open. I still logged it as found because, well, I found it. Not sure what possible problem there could be with that.

We have hidden over a dozen caches where the main point is to figure out how to open the container to access the log book. We also have a couple caches that have nearby decoy containers (i.e., containers without log books).

Edited April 4, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+northernpenguin]

There was a cache last week that for certain reasons I did not bother to open. I still logged it as found because, well, I found it. Not sure what possible problem there could be with that.

We have hidden over a dozen caches where the main point is to figure out how to open the container to access the log book. We also have a couple caches that have nearby decoy containers (i.e., containers without log books).

 

While I'm sure they're creative fun hides, putting up antics that make finding the cache easy but finding the log difficult comes up real close to the line drawn by the banning of additional logging requirements, IMHO.

[+CanadianRockies]

There was a cache last week that for certain reasons I did not bother to open. I still logged it as found because, well, I found it. Not sure what possible problem there could be with that.

We have hidden over a dozen caches where the main point is to figure out how to open the container to access the log book. We also have a couple caches that have nearby decoy containers (i.e., containers without log books).

While I'm sure they're creative fun hides, putting up antics that make finding the cache easy but finding the log difficult comes up real close to the line drawn by the banning of additional logging requirements, IMHO.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. The Groundspeak guidelines, however, state that requiring people to both find the cache and sign the log is not considered Additional Logging Requirements:

 

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the geocache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional.

None of our caches require people to take a picture of themselves wearing a silly hat while they sign the log. They merely require people to sign the log.

[+northernpenguin]

There was a cache last week that for certain reasons I did not bother to open. I still logged it as found because, well, I found it. Not sure what possible problem there could be with that.

We have hidden over a dozen caches where the main point is to figure out how to open the container to access the log book. We also have a couple caches that have nearby decoy containers (i.e., containers without log books).

While I'm sure they're creative fun hides, putting up antics that make finding the cache easy but finding the log difficult comes up real close to the line drawn by the banning of additional logging requirements, IMHO.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. The Groundspeak guidelines, however, state that requiring people to both find the cache and sign the log is not considered Additional Logging Requirements:

 

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the geocache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional.

None of our caches require people to take a picture of themselves wearing a silly hat while they sign the log. They merely require people to sign the log.

 

That is 100% technically correct. Still seems very similar when the cacher is expected to perform some action in addition to finding the cache. That's just my opinion but I don't see much difference between "you must all climb the tree" and "you must now find the logbook". Same spirit if technically within the "rules".

 

Having said that I have ENJOYED several caches of the "puzzle to get the logbook" type. I also enjoyed the silly hat cache I found in Michigan.

 

The problem scenario with the "now get to the log" cache type in my eyes is the cache that's frozen in place. Some cachers will take your philosophy to heart and break the cache trying to get at the precious log rather than take a photo, or come back later.

[+Turtle_Sask]

There was a cache last week that for certain reasons I did not bother to open. I still logged it as found because, well, I found it. Not sure what possible problem there could be with that.

We have hidden over a dozen caches where the main point is to figure out how to open the container to access the log book. We also have a couple caches that have nearby decoy containers (i.e., containers without log books).

While I'm sure they're creative fun hides, putting up antics that make finding the cache easy but finding the log difficult comes up real close to the line drawn by the banning of additional logging requirements, IMHO.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. The Groundspeak guidelines, however, state that requiring people to both find the cache and sign the log is not considered Additional Logging Requirements:

 

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the geocache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional.

None of our caches require people to take a picture of themselves wearing a silly hat while they sign the log. They merely require people to sign the log.

 

That is 100% technically correct. Still seems very similar when the cacher is expected to perform some action in addition to finding the cache. That's just my opinion but I don't see much difference between "you must all climb the tree" and "you must now find the logbook". Same spirit if technically within the "rules".

 

Having said that I have ENJOYED several caches of the "puzzle to get the logbook" type. I also enjoyed the silly hat cache I found in Michigan.

 

The problem scenario with the "now get to the log" cache type in my eyes is the cache that's frozen in place. Some cachers will take your philosophy to heart and break the cache trying to get at the precious log rather than take a photo, or come back later.

 

Thats just it, come back when the cache is not frozen in the ground so your able to sign the logbook, as a cache owner I have never checked on my logbooks to see if the online logs match the actual logbook, I might now out of curiosity. But If anything I would expect to see signatures on the actual logbook and not online because im sure a few people forget to sign it online. In that case I would message the cacher to remind them that they found my cache.

[+northernpenguin]

There was a cache last week that for certain reasons I did not bother to open. I still logged it as found because, well, I found it. Not sure what possible problem there could be with that.

We have hidden over a dozen caches where the main point is to figure out how to open the container to access the log book. We also have a couple caches that have nearby decoy containers (i.e., containers without log books).

While I'm sure they're creative fun hides, putting up antics that make finding the cache easy but finding the log difficult comes up real close to the line drawn by the banning of additional logging requirements, IMHO.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. The Groundspeak guidelines, however, state that requiring people to both find the cache and sign the log is not considered Additional Logging Requirements:

 

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the geocache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional.

None of our caches require people to take a picture of themselves wearing a silly hat while they sign the log. They merely require people to sign the log.

 

That is 100% technically correct. Still seems very similar when the cacher is expected to perform some action in addition to finding the cache. That's just my opinion but I don't see much difference between "you must all climb the tree" and "you must now find the logbook". Same spirit if technically within the "rules".

 

Having said that I have ENJOYED several caches of the "puzzle to get the logbook" type. I also enjoyed the silly hat cache I found in Michigan.

 

The problem scenario with the "now get to the log" cache type in my eyes is the cache that's frozen in place. Some cachers will take your philosophy to heart and break the cache trying to get at the precious log rather than take a photo, or come back later.

 

Thats just it, come back when the cache is not frozen in the ground so your able to sign the logbook, as a cache owner I have never checked on my logbooks to see if the online logs match the actual logbook, I might now out of curiosity. But If anything I would expect to see signatures on the actual logbook and not online because im sure a few people forget to sign it online. In that case I would message the cacher to remind them that they found my cache.

 

Well, I have a different play style I guess. I will happily accept alternate logging methods on my caches for various reasons. I'm not "hard and immutable" about the "player must sign the physical log book" rule. Mainly because I'm playing to have fun, both as a finder and as a CO. I don't want people taking desperate measures to free a lock-n-lock from an icy tomb so they don't have to come back later. Tupperware/Lock'n'Lock get very brittle in winter and those containers more often break when the attempt is made to force them out of icy tombs. That means I get a "needs maintenance" / wet mouldy cache with water to attend to when spring arrives. I still ask for proof of find, but I'll accept a photo of my (say, frozen in place) cache container in most cases.

 

I've also gone out in a group caching, and rather than fill up the log book on the spot with 50 names, we've signed in as a group. Thus you don't see my name in the logbook directly. In the spirit of the "player must sign the physical log book" rule, I should probably delete about half my finds as I normally go caching in a group.

 

Except.

 

Remind me what the prize is for having the most finds is again?

[+L0ne.R]

 

Well, I have a different play style I guess. I will happily accept alternate logging methods on my caches for various reasons. I'm not "hard and immutable" about the "player must sign the physical log book" rule. Mainly because I'm playing to have fun, both as a finder and as a CO. I don't want people taking desperate measures to free a lock-n-lock from an icy tomb so they don't have to come back later. Tupperware/Lock'n'Lock get very brittle in winter and those containers more often break when the attempt is made to force them out of icy tombs. That means I get a "needs maintenance" / wet mouldy cache with water to attend to when spring arrives. I still ask for proof of find, but I'll accept a photo of my (say, frozen in place) cache container in most cases.

 

I've also gone out in a group caching, and rather than fill up the log book on the spot with 50 names, we've signed in as a group. Thus you don't see my name in the logbook directly. In the spirit of the "player must sign the physical log book" rule, I should probably delete about half my finds as I normally go caching in a group.

 

Except.

 

Remind me what the prize is for having the most finds is again?

 

I completely agree with northernpenguin. I'm glad to see that the Canadian responses have been generally 'laissez-faire'. From what I've seen in the forums a lot of angst gets created when COs delete finds.

 

I also think NP makes a good point about frozen caches - in Canada that's a likely scenario for a lot of caches, including some of our own hides. I'd rather people didn't smash open the container to get at the log. And with gas prices as high as they are I don't want to force people to drive back when the weather warms up to visit the area again for one smiley. They could be spending that money driving to new places and enjoying a new hunt.

Edited April 5, 2012 by L0ne R

[+CanadianRockies]

I will happily accept alternate logging methods on my caches for various reasons. I'm not "hard and immutable" about the "player must sign the physical log book" rule.

I see a significant difference between someone photographing an ice-bound Lock & Lock versus someone photographing a cache placed high in a tree. For tree caches, the owners usually intend for the climb to be part of the experience of finding the caches and signing their logs. For the frozen L&L, chipping ice normally isn't part of the intended experience.

 

I allow photographic (and other) evidence in lieu of signing logs on most of my cache hides but not on the ones where accessing the log book is intended to be part of the challenge. This sometimes means more maintenance is required, but that's something I accept.

Edited April 5, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+Turtle_Sask]

I have had a few individuals contact me and given me a reason why they could not sign the logbook and that's fine by me since their reasoning was reasonable but if I were to notice someone who does that on a lot of caches Then I would probably delete there log, simple as that

[+coman123]

Best advice is that if it is not your own cache, move on.

 

If you worry about everyone else, it will take the fun out of the game for you.

[+DanOCan]

Ran into a situation with one of my Multi caches recently. Both of the last two loggers claimed a "Found It" log even though they both clearly stated in the log they did not search for the second/final stage. One because they ran out of time and the other because the batteries on their GPSr died.

 

I opted to email both cachers and explain that the "Found It" log should be reserved for finding the last stage of a Multi and signing the log. I suggested to them that they change their logs to Notes instead, but I wasn't going to delete their logs if they didn't. Both cachers emailed me back and said they changed their logs.

 

Another Found It came in on a different cache. Didn't have a pencil and didn't sign but claimed the Find. I'm OK with that -- it's a pretty simple straightforward cache and I have no reason to doubt them.

 

Many times it's best to be flexible. Deleting logs and treating caches like they are binding legal contract only leads to hurt feelings, especially if the person being "slapped down" is a newer or casual cacher and they start wondering what kind of tyrants participate in this hobby.

 

I was more worried about the Multi because a Find implies both stages are in place and findable and I'd hate to see someone get to the final and discover the container went missing but the two bogus Found It's created the impression it was there.

[+northernpenguin]

^ what he said

[danoshimano]

There was a cache last week that for certain reasons I did not bother to open. I still logged it as found because, well, I found it. Not sure what possible problem there could be with that.

We have hidden over a dozen caches where the main point is to figure out how to open the container to access the log book. We also have a couple caches that have nearby decoy containers (i.e., containers without log books).

 

I have found caches like that in the past. This was not one of those.

[+Skyecat]

Ran into a situation with one of my Multi caches recently. Both of the last two loggers claimed a "Found It" log even though they both clearly stated in the log they did not search for the second/final stage. One because they ran out of time and the other because the batteries on their GPSr died.

 

I opted to email both cachers and explain that the "Found It" log should be reserved for finding the last stage of a Multi and signing the log. I suggested to them that they change their logs to Notes instead, but I wasn't going to delete their logs if they didn't. Both cachers emailed me back and said they changed their logs.

 

Another Found It came in on a different cache. Didn't have a pencil and didn't sign but claimed the Find. I'm OK with that -- it's a pretty simple straightforward cache and I have no reason to doubt them.

 

Many times it's best to be flexible. Deleting logs and treating caches like they are binding legal contract only leads to hurt feelings, especially if the person being "slapped down" is a newer or casual cacher and they start wondering what kind of tyrants participate in this hobby.

 

I was more worried about the Multi because a Find implies both stages are in place and findable and I'd hate to see someone get to the final and discover the container went missing but the two bogus Found It's created the impression it was there.

 

I ran into this issue of people logging a found it on a multi stage cache when in fact the final stage was missing. Since I was on holiday and looking for caches that were active, I based my decision to look on ones that had recent finds. I would not have bothered if I knew that the final was missing and did not realize this until I got to the final.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Skyecat

[+ibycus]

I figure except for blatant cheating, I prefer to let people police themselves.

 

If you feel you've met the 'spirit' of the cache, then I'm fine with it. I *might* send an e-mail to a cacher should they make a comment blatently disregarding the intent of the cache, but that's about the limit of it (like smashed open the cache with a hammer to get the log, or didn't find the last stage, etc.).

[mvarley84]

Who really cares if someone signs the log, or if they even find the cache at all. Anyone who falsely claims that they have found a cache is only cheating themselves.

 

As for a "tree cache", some people are not able to climb for physical reasons...if they can see the cache, IMO they found it. The CO should not be able to dictate who has or has not found their cache...This is supposed to be a fun game, a game that is played for personal enjoyment. The point where the "fun" is reached is different for every player, and as such, should be up to the finder to decide whether they have fulfilled the challenge or not.

 

I only have placed 1 cache, and honestly I don't care who finds/doesn't find/doesn't sign for my cache. I placed the cache to bring people to a little known park on a nice country road...I did not place it to be a cache cop and start dictating that the log must be signed, or a photo must be taken etc.