Should I be a GeoCop?

[medoug]

I recently received an on-line log for one of my caches stating the following:

 

"I saw it up there but I'm getting a little old for climbing. That being said, I didn't sign the log... Took pic of general area though."

 

Should I be a GeoCop and delete the "found it" log? I don't want to discourage the finder from future geocaching since they're fairly new and have only found 28 caches so far.

 

The cache is hidden in a tree and requires climbing. The "requires tree climbing" attribute has been included. It is only rated a 2.5 for terrain because it isn't a difficult tree to climb and getting to the base of the tree is very easy (wheelchair accessible).

 

Any advice/suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,

medoug.

[+Roman!]

I recently received an on-line log for one of my caches stating the following:

 

"I saw it up there but I'm getting a little old for climbing. That being said, I didn't sign the log... Took pic of general area though."

 

Should I be a GeoCop and delete the "found it" log? I don't want to discourage the finder from future geocaching since they're fairly new and have only found 28 caches so far.

 

The cache is hidden in a tree and requires climbing. The "requires tree climbing" attribute has been included. It is only rated a 2.5 for terrain because it isn't a difficult tree to climb and getting to the base of the tree is very easy (wheelchair accessible).

 

Any advice/suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,

medoug.

 

If he's new he needs to learn the rules: sign the log. I'd delete it in a heartbeat. If he's not new he should know better; delete.

[+Max and 99]

I would delete the Found It log, but send the cacher a very nice and encouraging email. Maybe you can suggest that next time he bring along a kid to climb the tree for him?

[+ohmelli]

I would NOT delete it... because he is so new to the game. But I WOULD pm him and "gently" explain that the rule IS you must sign the log for it to be considered a find. You might also explain to him about attributes as he might not have gotten that far in his exploration around the site. (while you're at it, explain TBs!)

[knowschad]

I would NOT delete it... because he is so new to the game. But I WOULD pm him and "gently" explain that the rule IS you must sign the log for it to be considered a find. You might also explain to him about attributes as he might not have gotten that far in his exploration around the site. (while you're at it, explain TBs!)

 

I was going to say "delete it", but you're right. Deleting a log at this stage of his experience with the activity might just turn him off to it, but he also needs to understand what is expected. A well-worded email as you suggest would probably do that better than deleting his log. Great answer!

[Pup Patrol]

I recently received an on-line log for one of my caches stating the following:

 

"I saw it up there but I'm getting a little old for climbing. That being said, I didn't sign the log... Took pic of general area though."

 

Should I be a GeoCop and delete the "found it" log? I don't want to discourage the finder from future geocaching since they're fairly new and have only found 28 caches so far.

 

The cache is hidden in a tree and requires climbing. The "requires tree climbing" attribute has been included. It is only rated a 2.5 for terrain because it isn't a difficult tree to climb and getting to the base of the tree is very easy (wheelchair accessible).

 

Any advice/suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,

medoug.

 

Send a polite email to the person, explaining the difference between "found it", "did not find" and "write a note".

 

A newbie could use some gentle explaining that it's not generally a good idea to log a "found it" without actually finding the cache. That proof of finding the cache is generally accepted as signing the log book.

 

You might also explain that not all caches are meant to be found by all cachers. Terrain and difficulty ratings and attributes are intended to let them decide if they are able to actually find the cache or not.

 

"Seeing" the cache, or being at the location, does not constitute a find.

 

I wouldn't delete the "found it" log immediately. I would email the person, explain things, and invite them to change their log to either a "dnf" or a "write a note" log.

 

Some times it looks to me like a lot of people just don't realize that there are more log types than just "found it".

 

 

B.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Pup Patrol

[Mr.Yuck]

I would NOT delete it... because he is so new to the game. But I WOULD pm him and "gently" explain that the rule IS you must sign the log for it to be considered a find. You might also explain to him about attributes as he might not have gotten that far in his exploration around the site. (while you're at it, explain TBs!)

 

I was going to say "delete it", but you're right. Deleting a log at this stage of his experience with the activity might just turn him off to it, but he also needs to understand what is expected. A well-worded email as you suggest would probably do that better than deleting his log. Great answer!

 

Two great answers, actually. Open a dialogue. Very kindly explain climbing the tree is a requirement. Chances are, you'll get a "sorry, my bad, didn't know" response, and a self-deletion.

[AZcachemeister]

Just like ol' four-eyes, I would send a PM stating that you normally expect the log to be signed. (assuming you do...of course you do, otherwise I wouldn't be typing this reply!)

Further explain that the attributes would have given them a clue that they would need to climb the tree to sign the log.

Go on to explain that it's a game based on the honor system, and that you will let their conscience be their guide.

 

If that doesn't shame them into deleting (or modifying it to a note) the log...let it go.

[+oxford comma]

bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do?

 

initial response : delete . but, maybe cut him some slack . on the other side if I saw a cache but wasn't physically able to get to it I wouldn't log it as found. I'm stubborn enough that I'd probably do it and end up with some battle wounds though . I do not have many finds under my belt yet , but I'm trying to fix that.

[+Sol seaker]

I had a new cacher log, "Found it again."

I checked and he had logged it previously.

I wrote him an email and politely explained the game, that you can only "find" a cache once, and after that you already know where it is, so you can't "find" it and asked him to delete one of the logs himself. He never did so I finally did.

 

Another new cacher didn't sign the log, saying they had forgotten a pen. That cache is about a mile and a half from a car. I let it slide that time, but wrote an email explaining that it's a rule they have to sign it and that as a cacher they have to learn to carry pens with them. Oh, I remember. I asked them to describe the container. It's highly unusual. They did and I let it stand.

 

I guess it just depends what mood you're in.

It's good they learn the rules early on really.

But it's good to not be a hard-a**.

 

I'd write them an email nicely explaining it all and ask them to delete it themselves. Maybe if they didn't I'd let it go.

[+Max and 99]

I would NOT delete it... because he is so new to the game. But I WOULD pm him and "gently" explain that the rule IS you must sign the log for it to be considered a find. You might also explain to him about attributes as he might not have gotten that far in his exploration around the site. (while you're at it, explain TBs!)

 

I change my answer to this. I like it much better!

[Pup Patrol]

You might also like to direct them to the Guidelines:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=309

 

3.1. Logging of All Physical Geocaches

 

This page is an extension of our Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

 

[updated 4/23/2012]

 

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

 

Log deletion is covered in the Help Center section titled "Cache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship":

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=204

 

Logs can be deleted by the owner of the log, by the owner of the listing (the cache owner) and by site administrators. Logs that fail to meet stated requirements (such as Found It logs by people who have never found the cache) or logs that conflict with our Terms of Use Agreement may be deleted.

 

There's more to read in that article, that's just a snippet. It might help the OP to read the entire article, as it deals with communication with the cacher whose log is deleted.

 

 

 

B.

[+oxford comma]

I recently found a cache- it was a soggy lump - replaced log. the CO messages me and asked me ro describe the cache.... turns out it was the old one. the CO had responded to a NM log, couldn't find the old one, so they placed a new container somewhere close by. I was kind of surprised bc it was fairly easy to find, and it seemed to be accurate according to the coords. I was worried they would delete my log, but they didn't. :-)

Edited April 27, 2012 by lampethree

[+SwineFlew]

Don't delete it. I don't delete anyone log unless they are abusing the system. Just one cache? Let it go. The deleting log only draw bad blood. People that are on a power trip would delete logs. It makes them feel powerful. All newbies made mistakes and trying to correct them will only make them quit the game. I wish GS take the delete log option away.

[Pup Patrol]

Don't delete it. I don't delete anyone log unless they are abusing the system. Just one cache? Let it go. The deleting log only draw bad blood. People that are on a power trip would delete logs. It makes them feel powerful. All newbies made mistakes and trying to correct them will only make them quit the game. I wish GS take the delete log option away.

 

That's an overly-dramatic assessment. And just a bit of a pessimistic generalization.

 

Not all owners who delete logs are on power trips. Where do you get this from?

 

The OP has the opportunity to help a new cacher learn the ropes. There's nothing wrong with attempting to help a new cacher.

 

I doubt very much that GS will take the ability to delete logs away from cache owners. See the Guidelines and Help Center articles I posted to up above... part of the cache owner's responsibility is to monitor the logs posted on their caches.

 

 

B.

[+GeoBain]

But I WOULD pm him and "gently" explain that the rule IS you must sign the log for it to be considered a find.

 

There is no such rule. You are free to allow such a find if you so please. You are also very much allowed to delete the find if there is no corresponding signature in the physical logbook. The signature simply ensures your right to log online.

 

I'll let Toz explain in more detail as he is sure to do.

[+Ohiosiouxfan]

The cache is hidden in a tree and requires climbing. The "requires tree climbing" attribute has been included. It is only rated a 2.5 for terrain because it isn't a difficult tree to climb and getting to the base of the tree is very easy (wheelchair accessible).

 

I'm guessing the guy didn't see the tree climbing symbol in the attributes section. (Another attribute of this cache is "In abandoned structure"?) He seems to be a pretty casual cacher, as he has 28 finds over the past three years. Sometimes cops just give out a warning.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I would post a note on the cache page "Just a gentle reminder that the physical logbook must be signed in order to log a find online."

[Pup Patrol]

But I WOULD pm him and "gently" explain that the rule IS you must sign the log for it to be considered a find.

 

There is no such rule. You are free to allow such a find if you so please. You are also very much allowed to delete the find if there is no corresponding signature in the physical logbook. The signature simply ensures your right to log online.

 

I'll let Toz explain in more detail as he is sure to do.

 

Okay, so Groundspeak doesn't call them "rules", preferring the gentler term "guidelines".

 

You might also like to direct them to the Guidelines:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=309

 

3.1. Logging of All Physical Geocaches

 

This page is an extension of our Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

 

[updated 4/23/2012]

 

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

 

Log deletion is covered in the Help Center section titled "Cache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship":

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=204

 

Logs can be deleted by the owner of the log, by the owner of the listing (the cache owner) and by site administrators. Logs that fail to meet stated requirements (such as Found It logs by people who have never found the cache) or logs that conflict with our Terms of Use Agreement may be deleted.

 

There's more to read in that article, that's just a snippet. It might help the OP to read the entire article, as it deals with communication with the cacher whose log is deleted.

 

 

 

B.

[+lamoracke]

as someone who has had a few logs deleted, I know that getting logs deleted can be like a slap in the face, especially how/why its done. A very nice email to the cacher before hand would be the minimum. Suppose its up to you whether to let stand or not. I would at least tell them what they did was not a valid find. We have high terrain caches for a reason, they are hard to get to.

 

However, I would still delete the find in the end, because it would stand a testimony to future loggers that I will let anyone log it if they are going to freely admit in a log they never found it. Hopefully it will not come to that as the logger may delete their own find once they realize they are logging this cache incorrectly.

[medoug]

I would post a note on the cache page "Just a gentle reminder that the physical logbook must be signed in order to log a find online."

 

On this cache, and most of my caches, I have this note included in the description:

 

"Please sign the log, trade fairly, and return the cache to its original location and state of concealment for others to enjoy."

 

Here is what I PMed the cacher in question:

 

"Hi xxxxx,

 

I see that you recently logged my “xxxxxxxx” cache with a “found it” log. Note that seeing the cache or being at the location does not constitute a find. According to the geocaching guidelines, “physical caches can be logged online as “Found” once the physical log has been signed.” Other acceptable types of on-line log entries are “did not find” or “write a note”.

 

In the case of this cache, climbing the tree is a requirement. The cache listing includes several attributes, one of which is “requires tree climbing”. Geocachers need to consider the terrain and difficulty ratings and attributes when deciding whether to pursue a cache or not. Unfortunately, not all caches are meant to be found by all cachers.

 

medoug."

 

Thank you everyone for your suggestions on this issue. As you can see I have included many of them in my message.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I recently received an on-line log for one of my caches stating the following:

 

"I saw it up there but I'm getting a little old for climbing. That being said, I didn't sign the log... Took pic of general area though."

 

Should I be a GeoCop and delete the "found it" log? I don't want to discourage the finder from future geocaching since they're fairly new and have only found 28 caches so far.

 

The cache is hidden in a tree and requires climbing. The "requires tree climbing" attribute has been included. It is only rated a 2.5 for terrain because it isn't a difficult tree to climb and getting to the base of the tree is very easy (wheelchair accessible).

 

Any advice/suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,

medoug.

 

I'm not trying to say anything bad about you or your cache here - not at all - just trying to provide some perspective.

 

Do consider that people who physically can't do this are going to be disappointed if they go to your cache, thinking they might be able to do it, and then discover that they can't. You don't owe such people a find - but it is nice if you don't inadvertantly disappoint them. (If you give them enough warning, then it's mostly their problem at that point in my opinion.)

 

T 2.5 seems too low for a terrain rating that involves any serious tree climbing, and attributes don't come across on all GPSrs. Were it rated T4, I feel that anyone who doesn't do their homework first and really look at the cache page and a map before setting out kind of deserves what they get.

 

What's the point of having a tree climbing cache that you can roll a wheel chair to? What are you expecting from people who go to your cache without realizing what is required, and are physically unable to climb the tree? How would you expect them to react - do you think they will enjoy your cache? If not, then is there anything else you can do to discourage such people from attempting it? A cache like this sounds really fun for people who can do it. I presume you are looking to do stuff that is fun for people - so the main thing then is to do your best to steer people away who aren't going to find it fun. (You are close here, I think, I just think your terrain rating is low.)

[+OZ2CPU]

if people get more and more friendly slack,

then you actually ruin the game for honost people who like a hard challenge,

if it is really accepted in general to take a picture of the tree,

this is really bad, not signing the log is a NOT FOUND !!

he can log it with a note or a DNF, but for sure not a found !!

many hard to get caches are made specially for the kicks of getting there.

 

a cacher contacted me, asking for a hint about a tree cache I made,

he wanted a secret number in it, for a puzzle final, he got all 9 other less hard caches in a series,

so I told him the code he needed, no big deal offcourse. I kindly arranged a meeting next morning with him,

then I climb the tree so he get access to the log book, man he was happy,

it turned out he got only one leg, so I was very impressed he handled all the other caches,

and I made a new local cacher friend.

 

in other words, if you can not access a hard to get cache,

the trick is NOT to take a picture of it and log it as found,

but to go caching with friends who can access it,

there will always be other caches where you got the brains, or other skils or equipment, so work together, it is more fun !

Edited April 27, 2012 by OZ2CPU

[+JBnW]

I would post a note on the cache page "Just a gentle reminder that the physical logbook must be signed in order to log a find online."

 

On this cache, and most of my caches, I have this note included in the description:

 

"Please sign the log, trade fairly, and return the cache to its original location and state of concealment for others to enjoy."

 

Here is what I PMed the cacher in question:

 

"Hi xxxxx,

 

I see that you recently logged my “xxxxxxxx” cache with a “found it” log. Note that seeing the cache or being at the location does not constitute a find. According to the geocaching guidelines, “physical caches can be logged online as “Found” once the physical log has been signed.” Other acceptable types of on-line log entries are “did not find” or “write a note”.

 

In the case of this cache, climbing the tree is a requirement. The cache listing includes several attributes, one of which is “requires tree climbing”. Geocachers need to consider the terrain and difficulty ratings and attributes when deciding whether to pursue a cache or not. Unfortunately, not all caches are meant to be found by all cachers.

 

medoug."

 

Thank you everyone for your suggestions on this issue. As you can see I have included many of them in my message.

Just a simple suggestion, take it or leave it. Follow up with this note with another something like: "BTW, I was going to do a maintenance run on that cache next weekend, care to meet and I'll lend you a hand?"

[+kenttela]

I have sent several messages about caches that were broken, missing, half missing, burned, etc. In most case I have emailed the CO and received a reply to log it as found. That is the way to make friends.

 

So, why delete a log from a newbie that probably doesn't know any better? That really is a slap in the face. I have had one log deleted and I can tell you it might have been "right", but it certainly wasn't what I expected since it was a FTF and the tether broke making it impossible to obtain or sign the log.

 

My favorite log along these lines is "Found the lid. Thanks for the lid."

[+the4dirtydogs]

But I WOULD pm him and "gently" explain that the rule IS you must sign the log for it to be considered a find.

 

There is no such rule. You are free to allow such a find if you so please. You are also very much allowed to delete the find if there is no corresponding signature in the physical logbook. The signature simply ensures your right to log online.

 

I'll let Toz explain in more detail as he is sure to do.

You pretty much hit it on the head in 4 sentences instead of TOZs' 4 paragraphs.

[Pup Patrol]

I have sent several messages about caches that were broken, missing, half missing, burned, etc. In most case I have emailed the CO and received a reply to log it as found. That is the way to make friends.

 

So, why delete a log from a newbie that probably doesn't know any better? That really is a slap in the face. I have had one log deleted and I can tell you it might have been "right", but it certainly wasn't what I expected since it was a FTF and the tether broke making it impossible to obtain or sign the log.

 

My favorite log along these lines is "Found the lid. Thanks for the lid."

 

None of those maintenance issues have any relevance to the situation being discussed in this thread.

 

In this situation, the cache is clearly a tree-climbing cache, and the "finder" clearly understood that climbing the tree was necessary, but chose not to do it and still claim a find.

 

The cache owner has reported that he has sent a note to the "finder".

 

Deleting a log that clearly illustrates that a "find" is being claimed without actually finding the cache is not a slap in the face. Being "in the area" can't possibly be considered the same as finding the cache, and I'm pretty sure most adults recognize that fact. Being called on it is "honesty", not insulting.

 

If being "in the area" counts as a find, then we should all have incredibly huge find numbers.

 

 

B.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Pup Patrol

[+rockandroll_acdc]

I would leave alone. Ive found a few where i either forgot a pin or there wasn't one available. What i do is take a picture of the cache in my hand not showing the surroundings. I then log a find. So far no taken one away from me

[+The A-Team]

I would leave alone. Ive found a few where i either forgot a pin or there wasn't one available. What i do is take a picture of the cache in my hand not showing the surroundings. I then log a find. So far no taken one away from me

But that's different than what happened here. You had the log in hand, whereas the cacher in question never even attempted to retrieve the container.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Do consider that people who physically can't do this are going to be disappointed if they go to your cache, thinking they might be able to do it, and then discover that they can't. ....

 

T 2.5 seems too low for a terrain rating that involves any serious tree climbing, and attributes don't come across on all GPSrs. Were it rated T4, I feel that anyone who doesn't do their homework first and really look at the cache page and a map before setting out kind of deserves what they get.

 

100% agreeing with Mr.Benchmark.

A climb using hands = 4 terrain.

I've never seen a tree climb that could be done without using hands.

 

I like the polite email approach, no log deletion. And rethink that terrain rating.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Just a simple suggestion, take it or leave it. Follow up with this note with another something like: "BTW, I was going to do a maintenance run on that cache next weekend, care to meet and I'll lend you a hand?"

 

This is an excellent idea. This suggestion, and OZ2CPU's tale of doing the same thing, are just full of win.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I would leave alone. Ive found a few where i either forgot a pin or there wasn't one available. What i do is take a picture of the cache in my hand not showing the surroundings. I then log a find. So far no taken one away from me

 

There's an important difference between logging a find when you've forgotten a pen and logging a find on a that requires climbing a tree when you never even touched the container.

 

As I see it, in order to "find a cache" one must first locate the container, then retrieve and open the container, and finally sign the log.

 

For most caches, once you've located the container there is not anything that the cache owner has intentionally done to make it difficult to retrieve the container and sign the log. For caches like this, *most* cache owners are going to be be pretty lenient about accepting the finders word that they found the cache, especially if providing additional proof that the cache was found such as a description or photo of the container is provided. If a pen ran out of ink (just don't make it a habit), a previous finder left the cache open resulting in the log sheet turning to mush, or the container is frozen shut, most cache owners will accept that the finder met the spirit of the hide.

 

However, there are also caches which are intentionally designed such that locating the container is not enough. It might require climbing a tree or some other hiding technique which make the container difficult to retrieve or open. It's not the same as forgetting a pen because the cache owner has intentionally made the "retrieve the container and sign the log" part of finding the cache more difficult. It's quite understandable that a cache owner might delete a log if someone only located the container, because the finder didn't satisfy the spirit in which is was placed.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Deleting a log that clearly illustrates that a "find" is being claimed without actually finding the cache is not a slap in the face. Being "in the area" can't possibly be considered the same as finding the cache, and I'm pretty sure most adults recognize that fact. Being called on it is "honesty", not insulting.

 

I can see how a new cacher would be hazy on this concept. He "found" the box - hey, it was RIGHT THERE. The distinction that he needed to sign the log to PROVE he found the cache is a subtle one - that is, I bet many of the caches the new guy had found are just trivial. Once you find the container, there is no additional challenge to signing the log. Well in this case, the challenge isn't finding the container. It's in plain sight. The challenge is REACHING the container and the log. (This is also why the terrain rating is too low.)

 

I know to almost all of us, this is just common sense, but I can see how a new cacher could legitimately be confused about this. In general, the challenge is navigating to the coords, and then finding the physical container. Implicit in this process is actually physically attaining the container - but that is implied, not really explicitly stated. It's a pretty strong implication, and it wouldn't have been lost on me - but not everyone thinks this stuff through.(The language used in the guidelines is not quite federal reserve statement murky - but I think it is legitimately unclear and hard to parse.)

 

I'm not sure if "honesty" is the right concept to use in this case - the finder was up-front about what they did and didn't do - they didn't try to pull a fast one. (They also didn't complete the cache either, in my opinion.) It's hard to know though - because some people are perfectly aware of the rules, and just choose to ignore them, knowing most people are too nice to call them out.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

As I see it, in order to "find a cache" one must first locate the container, then retrieve and open the container, and finally sign the log.

 

I really, really, really wish they called it "found cache and signed log" rather than "found it". It would've reduced a lot of ambiguity. There is NOTHING in the term "found it" that suggests you need to sign the log. Nothing.

 

I agree about 99% with your definition of "find a cache," and the only time I've logged a find without signing the log have been weird maintenance type situations where I absolutely positively 100% sure I'd found the cache - but the physical log was just unsignable for some reason. (Had there been a log type "found but unable to sign log" that didn't count for a +1 smiley, I'd have picked that instead.)

 

I think the ambiguity in language on this is very unfortunate and leads to misunderstandings. Well, it's been 10 years, so there's no changing it, but I still say it's unfortunate.

[BoredRoom]

if people get more and more friendly slack,

then you actually ruin the game for honost people who like a hard challenge,

if it is really accepted in general to take a picture of the tree,

this is really bad, not signing the log is a NOT FOUND !!

 

I am unable to see how someone else's (allegedly dis-honost) logging methodology could possibly affect your experience?

[stldenise]

I found a cache the other day and couldn't sign the log--it was a micro with a foot long strip that was totally filled. Does that mean I didn't "find" it? Yesterday was another micro with a log too soggy to sign. I've taken to carrying paper and baggies with me and I can add some extra log sheets to a cache with room for the paper--but these micros have no room to spare.

 

I signed both of these online with a notation that the log was full or soggy. In the future, should I mark them as needing maintenance too? (And yes, I'm one of those newbies who's taken 2 years to get 23 finds. I've decided that since no one wants to go with me, I'm just taking the dog from now on.)

Edited April 27, 2012 by stldenise

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I've taken to carrying paper and baggies with me and I can add some extra log sheets to a cache with room for the paper--but these micros have no room to spare.

 

In principle, you'd just set "NM". In practice, in my opinion, just replace the log sheets - don't add one. You can email the CO and offer to return the original sheet to them. They'll likely never take you up on this. Adding a log sheet does not help - it just adds junk and confuses people about what they should sign. BTW, if the CO *really* cares about verifying a micro log like that, they should check the cache pretty often and know the log is getting full, and replace it themselves long before you ever need to. Do not replace the log sheet if you don't have a properly sized, nicely printed sheet. (Sounds like what you have - you rock. Some people think it's helpful to recycle their 7-11 receipt into a log sheet...)

 

I signed both of these online with a notation that the log was full or soggy. In the future, should I mark them as needing maintenance too? (And yes, I'm one of those newbies who's taken 2 years to get 23 finds. I've decided that since no one wants to go with me, I'm just taking the dog from now on.)

 

If you don't replace the log, you can set "NM". (This is what you are supposed to do.) I don't think the "NM" log is extremely helpful as implemented. Much of the time it just gets stuck on because CO's who actually do maintenance don't clear the flag. So oddly enough, mainly this is helpful in making the case that the CO is inactive, as a prelude to someone filing "NA".

[Pup Patrol]

I found a cache the other day and couldn't sign the log--it was a micro with a foot long strip that was totally filled. Does that mean I didn't "find" it? Yesterday was another micro with a log too soggy to sign. I've taken to carrying paper and baggies with me and I can add some extra log sheets to a cache with room for the paper--but these micros have no room to spare.

 

I signed both of these online with a notation that the log was full or soggy. In the future, should I mark them as needing maintenance too? (And yes, I'm one of those newbies who's taken 2 years to get 23 finds. I've decided that since no one wants to go with me, I'm just taking the dog from now on.)

 

Yes, you should post a "needs maintenance" log to alert the cache owner to the problems with the cache.

 

But these "maintenance issues" have nothing to do with this thread's topic, do they?

 

Apples and oranges:

 

"I found the cache, but the log was too wet to sign. I signed my caching name on a slip of paper and left it in the cache. In addition to my "found it" log, I'll post a "needs maintenance" log."

 

"I arrived at the location indicated by the coords. I realized that the cache is up a tree, but I made no attempt to do the required climbing to look for the cache container. I didn't actually even see the cache container, but I'll claim this as a "found" any way. I have no idea what condition the cache is in, if it's even there. I didn't look. But I was in the general area, so that should count as a "find"."

 

 

B.

[+Roman!]

I found a cache the other day and couldn't sign the log--it was a micro with a foot long strip that was totally filled. Does that mean I didn't "find" it? Yesterday was another micro with a log too soggy to sign. I've taken to carrying paper and baggies with me and I can add some extra log sheets to a cache with room for the paper--but these micros have no room to spare.

 

I signed both of these online with a notation that the log was full or soggy. In the future, should I mark them as needing maintenance too? (And yes, I'm one of those newbies who's taken 2 years to get 23 finds. I've decided that since no one wants to go with me, I'm just taking the dog from now on.)

 

Yes, you should post a "needs maintenance" log to alert the cache owner to the problems with the cache.

 

But these "maintenance issues" have nothing to do with this thread's topic, do they?

 

Apples and oranges:

 

"I found the cache, but the log was too wet to sign. I signed my caching name on a slip of paper and left it in the cache. In addition to my "found it" log, I'll post a "needs maintenance" log."

 

"I arrived at the location indicated by the coords. I realized that the cache is up a tree, but I made no attempt to do the required climbing to look for the cache container. I didn't actually even see the cache container, but I'll claim this as a "found" any way. I have no idea what condition the cache is in, if it's even there. I didn't look. But I was in the general area, so that should count as a "find"."

 

 

B.

 

I flew from Vancouver to Florida through Chicago, I should be up to 60-70,000 caches by now based on some of the philosophy in this thread. As I said originally, delete it, if you want to be nice send a message explaining why and if you want to be nicer meet him at the cache and climb up for him so he can log it properly.

 

As Pup Patrol stated: apples to oranges. The comparisons made by some are purely ridiculous.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Roman!

[knowschad]

But I WOULD pm him and "gently" explain that the rule IS you must sign the log for it to be considered a find.

 

There is no such rule. You are free to allow such a find if you so please. You are also very much allowed to delete the find if there is no corresponding signature in the physical logbook. The signature simply ensures your right to log online.

 

I'll let Toz explain in more detail as he is sure to do.

You pretty much hit it on the head in 4 sentences instead of TOZs' 4 paragraphs.

 

Actually, I think that TOZ would disagree with the need to have a corresponding signature in the physical logbook and that your signature simply ensures your right to log online. His stance, I believe, is usually that you are NOT required to sign the paper in order to log online. Of course, we all know that he is wrong about that.

[+Ohiosiouxfan]

I just noticed this prior log on a cache I found today:

 

"Nice Hide - In Toledo for the RC show at the Seagate center. I didn't remove the cache but could feel where it was. Just too many people around at lunch time."

 

It was logged as a find. I suppose the guy could have just grabbed it and signed it off and replaced it as stealthily as he could, but that would jeopardize the cache. Log subject to deletion?

[+T.D.M.22]

Depends. For most cachers I would delete it. If it happens to be one of the experienced cachers I know, and he/she was injured and couldn't get to it, when they normally would, I would let it stay. Just remember it is technically only a find if the log was signed, so don't feel bad about deleting it.

[+Wadcutter]

I've got a cache that's rated a 3 terrain. You can see it fom 50 ft away but it takes something to get to it and replace it. Seeing it isn't getting the cache. If it was then it would only be a 1 terrain. I've deleted 2 logs who claimed a find because they could see it but didn't have the right tools to climb for it. I sent both "finders" an email explaining why their log was being deleted and both replied in a huff saying they didn't think it was fair because they couldn't reach it even tho in the cache description I was clear that the cache had to be replaced exactly as found and I gave a hint on what to bring to get to it. They were both high numbers cachers with over 10,000 finds. They can get over it. There's a reason it's a 3 terrain.

[+zack_black]

I had a new cacher log, "Found it again."

I checked and he had logged it previously.

I wrote him an email and politely explained the game, that you can only "find" a cache once, and after that you already know where it is, so you can't "find" it and asked him to delete one of the logs himself. He never did so I finally did.

 

I "find" lots of caches more than once - I'll bring a new cacher to the GZ of a cache that I previously found and let them find it. Sometimes I even log the find (for reasons that are far too wordy to explain in this reply) - doesn't mater though because it's not about the numbers for me and besides the CO's for these specific caches like seeing new logs about how "fun" or "hard" their cache is (I hardly ever sign just TFTC ).

 

Another new cacher didn't sign the log, saying they had forgotten a pen. That cache is about a mile and a half from a car. I let it slide that time, but wrote an email explaining that it's a rule they have to sign it and that as a cacher they have to learn to carry pens with them. Oh, I remember. I asked them to describe the container. It's highly unusual. They did and I let it stand.

 

I forget my pen all the time - doesn't mean I didn't find the cache or didn't have it "in hand". I put in my log that I didn't sign it so the CO doesn't go looking for my signature. I USED to take pictures of the logs I signed (and didn't sign) but an anal CO deleted the picture (and log) on their cache stating that "it spoiled the fun for other cachers because they could figure out the size of the cache based on the size of the log in the picture" - then then proceeded to accuse me of a bunch of crap (that I didn't do) to geocaching.com when I asked for the log and picture to be re-instated.

 

I guess it just depends what mood you're in.

It's good they learn the rules early on really.

But it's good to not be a hard-a**.

 

And remember that we are supposed to be having fun - so if it doesn't detract from YOUR fun then just let it slide.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I've got a cache that's rated a 3 terrain. You can see it fom 50 ft away but it takes something to get to it and replace it. Seeing it isn't getting the cache. If it was then it would only be a 1 terrain. I've deleted 2 logs who claimed a find because they could see it but didn't have the right tools to climb for it. I sent both "finders" an email explaining why their log was being deleted and both replied in a huff saying they didn't think it was fair because they couldn't reach it even tho in the cache description I was clear that the cache had to be replaced exactly as found and I gave a hint on what to bring to get to it. They were both high numbers cachers with over 10,000 finds. They can get over it. There's a reason it's a 3 terrain.

 

I agree. Seeing the cache is not finding the cache. Saw one up a tree. took a photo of it, and logged DNF. Too many park emplyees about for me to want to drag the pile of skids over so I could get up the tree. Nice hide, but I DNFed it.

Another cache listed as 'in plain sight'. I actually got 15 feet up the tree, and could feel the bottom of the cache. But I wasn't climbing any further (and I'm probably older than the cacher mentioned by the OP). No way to unscrew it from where I was. DNF. Good try, but still DNF.

I guess my problem is that I don't feel entitled to log every cache I look for. If I don't sign the log, I do not claim a find.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

What's actually fun (for the finder) about a cache they can't actually log? I can totally understand what's fun about climbing a tree - that's awesome. What's fun about it for people who can't do it though?

 

[+tozainamboku]

But I WOULD pm him and "gently" explain that the rule IS you must sign the log for it to be considered a find.

 

There is no such rule. You are free to allow such a find if you so please. You are also very much allowed to delete the find if there is no corresponding signature in the physical logbook. The signature simply ensures your right to log online.

 

I'll let Toz explain in more detail as he is sure to do.

 

Okay, so Groundspeak doesn't call them "rules", preferring the gentler term "guidelines".

 

You might also like to direct them to the Guidelines:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=309

 

3.1. Logging of All Physical Geocaches

 

This page is an extension of our Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

 

[updated 4/23/2012]

 

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

 

Log deletion is covered in the Help Center section titled "Cache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship":

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=204

 

Logs can be deleted by the owner of the log, by the owner of the listing (the cache owner) and by site administrators. Logs that fail to meet stated requirements (such as Found It logs by people who have never found the cache) or logs that conflict with our Terms of Use Agreement may be deleted.

 

There's more to read in that article, that's just a snippet. It might help the OP to read the entire article, as it deals with communication with the cacher whose log is deleted.

 

 

 

B.

I don't see anything in the guidelines that answers the OPs initial question or, for that matter, addresses whether the person who found the cache but did not climb the tree to sign the log can log it as Found online.

 

Unfortunately, some people are so convinced that signing the log is a requirement that they trot out these same sections of the guidelines over and over claiming they say something more than they actually say.

 

The first part was added to guidelines as part of the change to eliminate addtional logging requirements. The point is that some can log the cache as found online once the physical log is signed regardless of any additional requirements the owner may have. It goes on to say that cache owners may no longer enforce such requirements by deleting online found logs and that there is an exception to this for challenge caches.

 

The second part predates that change and goes back as long as I have been geocaching. In fact a small change was made to this section, because as it was originally written it seemed to allow additional logging requirements. Geocache owners are told to maintain the quality of logs on their cache pages. There is no official Groundspeak definition of what is meant by bogus. Generally it's accepted that you have to go look for a cache and find it to use a Found log. Bogus could be interpreted as couch potato logs for example and not as log from someone who was unable to climb a tree.

 

Now the good news for puritans is that the guidelines do not forbid a cache owner from deleting logs because someone did not sign the log in a tree cache and mentioned this in their online log. I believe there have been some good arguments here why the OP may want to let the log stand and simply write the logger indicating that the intent was for the cache to be retrieved and that a note might be more appropriate than a Found It log.

 

I would leave alone. Ive found a few where i either forgot a pin or there wasn't one available. What i do is take a picture of the cache in my hand not showing the surroundings. I then log a find. So far no taken one away from me

 

There's an important difference between logging a find when you've forgotten a pen and logging a find on a that requires climbing a tree when you never even touched the container.

 

As I see it, in order to "find a cache" one must first locate the container, then retrieve and open the container, and finally sign the log.

 

For most caches, once you've located the container there is not anything that the cache owner has intentionally done to make it difficult to retrieve the container and sign the log. For caches like this, *most* cache owners are going to be be pretty lenient about accepting the finders word that they found the cache, especially if providing additional proof that the cache was found such as a description or photo of the container is provided. If a pen ran out of ink (just don't make it a habit), a previous finder left the cache open resulting in the log sheet turning to mush, or the container is frozen shut, most cache owners will accept that the finder met the spirit of the hide.

 

However, there are also caches which are intentionally designed such that locating the container is not enough. It might require climbing a tree or some other hiding technique which make the container difficult to retrieve or open. It's not the same as forgetting a pen because the cache owner has intentionally made the "retrieve the container and sign the log" part of finding the cache more difficult. It's quite understandable that a cache owner might delete a log if someone only located the container, because the finder didn't satisfy the spirit in which is was placed.

This is probably why Groundspeak still allows cache owners to delete logs where the log is not signed. I think they understand that sometimes the retrieval and even opening the container involve challenges the owner intends the finder (or at least someone in a group of finders) to accomplish. I'm personally not convinced that its necessary to delete online logs in order for people to realize this. But Groundspeak apparently thinks that by allowing cache owners to delete found logs that more people will understand that there is often some physical or mental challenge beyond just locating the container.

 

As I see it, in order to "find a cache" one must first locate the container, then retrieve and open the container, and finally sign the log.

 

I really, really, really wish they called it "found cache and signed log" rather than "found it". It would've reduced a lot of ambiguity. There is NOTHING in the term "found it" that suggests you need to sign the log. Nothing.

 

I agree about 99% with your definition of "find a cache," and the only time I've logged a find without signing the log have been weird maintenance type situations where I absolutely positively 100% sure I'd found the cache - but the physical log was just unsignable for some reason. (Had there been a log type "found but unable to sign log" that didn't count for a +1 smiley, I'd have picked that instead.)

 

I think the ambiguity in language on this is very unfortunate and leads to misunderstandings. Well, it's been 10 years, so there's no changing it, but I still say it's unfortunate.

I really, really, really wish that people did not view the Found log as some kind of score or as a reward that cache owner gives for meeting their definition of a find. While NYPaddleCacher's definition may be the most widely accepted definition of find, there's no reason to get one's knickers in a twist if some uses a different definition. Of course as some point that we all may define differently, someone's definition of a find may become your definition of bogus. Most of agree, for example, that couch potato logs should be deleted.

Edited April 28, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+tozainamboku]

But I WOULD pm him and "gently" explain that the rule IS you must sign the log for it to be considered a find.

 

There is no such rule. You are free to allow such a find if you so please. You are also very much allowed to delete the find if there is no corresponding signature in the physical logbook. The signature simply ensures your right to log online.

 

I'll let Toz explain in more detail as he is sure to do.

You pretty much hit it on the head in 4 sentences instead of TOZs' 4 paragraphs.

 

Actually, I think that TOZ would disagree with the need to have a corresponding signature in the physical logbook and that your signature simply ensures your right to log online. His stance, I believe, is usually that you are NOT required to sign the paper in order to log online. Of course, we all know that he is wrong about that.

Don't speak for me. My personal definition of a find is pretty puritanical (though I'll claim a find if my pen doesn't work or the log is too wet to write on).

 

What I say is that the guidelines don't require anything. It's up to the cache owner to decide.

 

I can say what GeoBain said in two sentences. But perhaps I like to be long winded because I hope to also convey that there's not a good reason to delete someone's found log just because they have a different definition of find. There are other less drastic ways to let someone know that that they haven't met your intent to climb the tree or open the puzzle box.

[+Mushroom420]

I must say, I am a little surprised to see the type of attitude displayed here.

I was at a cemetery cache yesterday, found the cache but in the process a visitor pulled in. I didnt sign the log..or even pull the container down, out of respect, but I logged it found as I dont plan on being in that area much.

Is it the general idea that I should log that as a DNF due to the circumstances?

I know its not the same, but its an older man who couldnt reach the cache physically. I mean come on, its not always about the destination, but the voyage. Is some ink in your book worth being so prude about something so trivial?

 

If a wheelchair-bound person cant actually sign the book, but has been to where he/she has been directed and had fun (that is what this is about, right?) can they not "find" the cache online?

I know attributes, but thats like saying theyre not allowed to participate if theyre not ablebodied enough to meet your requirments.

Edited April 28, 2012 by Mushroom420

[Pup Patrol]

Where does it say that ALL caches should be findable by ALL cachers?

 

Attributes and D/T ratings should let a person know whether they are capable of physically finding the cache or not, and "age" has nothing to do with it.

 

There are cave caches out there. No way in heck am I ever going to even consider looking for those. And high-altitude caches...not for me.

 

Seriously..."I was in the area where the cache might be" should count as a find? Seriously????

 

As has been said, if you feel entitled to claim something you haven't accomplished, you certainly can do so.

 

And it's perfectly acceptable for the cache owner to delete such false "found it" logs.

 

 

 

B.