Should I be a GeoCop?

[+jellis]

I sometimes let cachers slide on some of my caches but when you let one or two do it then everyone wants to. Then what's the point any more? It's like if I claimed a find on the Space Station Cache because I can't reach it but I know it's there. I've turned down many caches when I am alone and can't climb the tree or swim across to the island or crawl across a pipe. But if I am with someone who did it then yes I will sign the log.

[+TeamTwoStar]

Aww let the old guy slide.

 

He'll learn. Cut the new people some slack til they figure it all out. With 28 finds he's probably so excited to even have found GZ.

 

But Maybe send him a message so he is aware?

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I sometimes let cachers slide on some of my caches but when you let one or two do it then everyone wants to.

There is something to be said for that. There are enough examples of caches that only the lid or velcro is left and the logs start reading like "Well, the last two people claimed a find for finding the lid, I guess I will too".

 

It may not happen with this climbing cache, but I could definitely see a string of cachers logging "Just like Cacher Joe, I saw this one from the ground, so I'm calling it a find" just because someone opened the floodgates and the CO didn't close them.

 

It's like if I claimed a find on the Space Station Cache because I can't reach it but I know it's there.

 

Don't forget about the thermal vent cache! In fact, you could log that you found them both on the same day! How cool is that?

[+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.

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.

 

I don't believe I said anything of the sort. I am genuinely confused as to what you are talking about. My only points in this thread are:

1. If people who can't complete your cache are attracted to your cache, you should figure out what is wrong with your description, because that isn't a fun situation for anyone. There is no problem with having caches that not everyone can complete. That they can't complete it physically should not come as a surprise to be discovered only when they visit the cache site, in my opinion.

 

2. I wish the guidelines and terminology were less vague. I realize that you probably don't - that's fine. I'm not especially interested in policing what other people do - I just hate ambiguity.

 

For what it's worth, my only actual interest in any sort of "rules" are that this game should continue to be fun for people. I am against arm-chair logging mainly because if the game devolved into that, I think it would rather quickly become boring because it is simply too easy to do this. The online logging portion of this game is not sufficiently engaging to be fun, if that is all you do.

 

On the other side of the coin, designing caches that are extremely difficult merely for the sake of being difficult, and that don't involve some element that is fun for the finder are not good either. If the goal is to see how many DNF's you can rack up on a cache, that is not a good design in my opinion. (For example, I don't think it would be healthy for the game if most people decided to place caches that are essentially unfindable - what the hell good would that be if everyone did that?)

 

Between these two extremes (and this would encompass very easy and quite challenging caches), is where fun lies, in my opinion. My personal view is that placing a cache that looks like a park-n-grab, is rated like a park-n-grab, but requires real climbing is not a well designed cache, because people who show up who can't possibly complete it, and who wouldn't have bothered with it were it rated correctly, are apt to be disappointed.

 

I'm all for challenges - don't get me wrong. I just think that the information on the cache page should be sufficient so that people have a reasonable shot at deciding before they depart whether or not they are up to the challenge of a given cache. "Surprise! You can't do this!" is a lousy design feature, in my opinion.

[+Mushroom420]

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.

it just seems really petty to me when were talking about certain disabilities. If theyre okay with their effort and its all they can safely do, i would just let it slide. And i understand not all caches are for everone, but THIS specific example and the conversation here that followed, theres (IMO) an ugly face of this activity I didnt expect to see.

Petty, is again, the word the comes to my mind.

Its for fun, its not 'serious business'. He did find the cache, just couldnt (not wouldnt) sign the log. Just like I do when I find a wet log book.

I could personally see myself being turned off in a hurry if I was on the recieving end of this situation, being a beginner and all.

Be well, be kind, folks. Our opinions differ, but try to keep in mind were all humans and in this together.

Have a pleasant day/evening

[+GeoBain]

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?

 

They can log it as a find online if the cache owner is willing to allow it.

 

But as a wheelchair-bound person myself, I would DNF such a cache.

 

However, if I were with friends or could otherwise figure out a way to retrieve the cache and sign the log, I would mark that cache as found in my database.

 

Regardless of what the guidelines actually state or not, I have my own caching ethics by which I play this game.

[+jellis]

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?

 

They can log it as a find online if the cache owner is willing to allow it.

 

But as a wheelchair-bound person myself, I would DNF such a cache.

 

However, if I were with friends or could otherwise figure out a way to retrieve the cache and sign the log, I would mark that cache as found in my database.

 

Regardless of what the guidelines actually state or not, I have my own caching ethics by which I play this game.

+1

You have friends who witnessed you were there.

[+cerberus1]

To the OP, it seems your low terrain rating is what's causing the problem you face. Most tree climbs here are rated 3.5-4.5. By the terrain rating and the tree attribute, one should know if they're capable of doing it and pass if they can't.

Common sense really.

But at 2.5, you've placed it in that "well, maybe I can get that one" group of people who (now you know) probably can't and could get hurt attempting it.

Up your terrain rating for clarity and safety.

 

Frequently, higher terrain hides are done in pairs/teams and any team members claiming a find are allowed to do so (and allowed by Groundspeak) under their guideline 3.1, "Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed." and "For physical caches, all logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional."

- So if you simply took pics of everyone else doing the climbing, or were on the cheering squad (in your wheelchair) you claim a smiley. Everyone in that group doesn't need to climb. Most times someone passes the log around for the rest to sign.

Note that someone has to physically access the container and log.

 

But, "I saw it up there but I'm getting a little old for climbing." should get deleted with an email sent, explaining a note would be okay it he really wanted to log something - other than found.

- Otherwise, next week fifty cachers found your hide the same way and it'll have to be okay. You set the stage.

[medoug]

What I have done on the terrain rating was average the entire experience (wheelchair accessible to tree climbing) to give it a 2.5 rating. In hindsight, I now understand that I probably should have rated it based on its most difficult aspect. The guidelines suggest a rating of 4 for a cache requiring use of your hands to get to the cache. The 1/2 stars are for applying a slight decrease or increase to the rating based on other aspects. Sinc the rest of the terrain aspects are very easy (wheelchair accessible) and the tree is a particularly easy tree to climb (a little more difficult than a 12 foot ladder), I would lower the rating by 1/2 star down to 3.5 stars for terrain. I have now modified the terrain rating of this cache for future finders.

 

As the original poster of this thread, there are a few other aspects to this situation which I didn't mention up to now. (Perhaps I should have revealed these earlier, but I didn't realize that this was going to become such a heated topic.):

 

1. Although the "finder" has only 28 finds, he has been a geocacher for about 3 years and has even placed a hide himself. As others have pointed out, he's not exactly a newbie.

 

2. When he states, "I'm getting a little old for climbing." it's not like he's a 70 or 80 year old man. Looking at a couple of his posted photos, I would estimate him to be around 55 to 60 years old. That's not a lot older than myself. Maybe its just me, but his statement sounds more like he's viewing tree climbing as a childish activity that he'd rather not do, not as a too-stenuous activity that he is not able to do.

 

3. I am seriously questioning whether the "finder" even "found (but didn't sign)" the cache at all. He wrote, "I saw it up there", yet the cache was not hidden in a spot that is visible from the ground. It is hidden about 12 feet up in a hollowed out portion of the tree.

 

4. Also, he wrote, "Took pic of general area though." I've had another situation where the "finders" did not sign the logbook but provided a photo of the general area (not the cache container) showing that they had visited the area. Thinking that they might have simply forgotten to sign the cache in their excitement, I asked them to give me a description of the container and its hiding place to verify their find. It ended up that they could not because they didn't actually find the cache, but felt that since they visited the site, they were entitled to count it as a find.

 

medoug.

Edited April 28, 2012 by medoug

[medoug]

What's the point of having a tree climbing cache that you can roll a wheel chair to?

 

I saw a kid on the "athlete of the week" segment on our local news the other day who used a wheelchair. He was very big into wheelchair racing and basketball. He presently holds the school record of 36 consequetive pull-ups. After he broke the record, he strapped his wheelchair to his body and did another 10 pull-ups. Using a non-motorized wheelchair can result in very strong arm muscles. I have a feeling that he could have made it up this tree and had the cache signed like lickety-split!

[medoug]

OK, I'm not a good swimmer. If I saw a cache that required swimming, I shouldn't just log it as a find. Even if I saw it in clear water 12 feet down from a boat, I wouldn't claim it unless I actually acheived the dive, retrieved the cache, and signed the logbook.

 

I once cached with someone who was deathly afraid of heights. She could not go any higher than standing on a chair. She said that she did not actively do caches that required any vertical climbing or involved any heights. I'm sure if she was with a group and signed the logbook if it was retrieved for her, but she would never attempt such a cache on her own.

 

We need to realize our limitations when we cache, just like any other activity. If you can't do it, then you just can't do it, whether its due to fear, physical, or mental limitations; otherwise, I should be able to claim a "found it" on all those puzzle caches that I have not been able to figure out. Unfortunately, we're not entitled to succede in everything we attempt, or even worse, don't attempt.

[medoug]

BTW... Still no response from the "finder".

 

Also, to those that mentioned that I should offer to retrieve the cache with this cacher...

It appears that the "finder" lives 125 miles away from the cache. Unless this is on one of his regularly traveled routes, or he wants to make a special caching trip to do this (doubtful at only 28 finds in 3 years), I don't think this will happen. I suspect he was just passing through this area when traveling for other reasons, and decided to stop for a couple caches along the way.

[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.

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.

 

I didn't speak for you. I spoke for myself, saying what I thought you'd say. Subtle difference, much like signing or not signing the log.

[medoug]

What I have done on the terrain rating was average the entire experience (wheelchair accessible to tree climbing) to give it a 2.5 rating. In hindsight, I now understand that I probably should have rated it based on its most difficult aspect. The guidelines suggest a rating of 4 for a cache requiring use of your hands to get to the cache. The 1/2 stars are for applying a slight decrease or increase to the rating based on other aspects. Sinc the rest of the terrain aspects are very easy (wheelchair accessible) and the tree is a particularly easy tree to climb (a little more difficult than a 12 foot ladder), I would lower the rating by 1/2 star down to 3.5 stars for terrain. I have now modified the terrain rating of this cache for future finders.

 

In addition to raising the terrain rating by 1 star, I have also decided to raise the difficulty rating by 1 star as well. I mainly did this because the cache container isn't actually visible from the ground. You can see the likely hiding place from the ground, but you actually have to climb about 10 feet up in the tree to actually determine if the cache is really there.

 

medoug.

[+Riggyman]

Delete it. Caches should only be logged on line if they've been found in the wild. Outside of exceptional circumstances, the only way you can demonstrate this is by signing the log. That's how the game works.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

OK, I'm not a good swimmer. If I saw a cache that required swimming, I shouldn't just log it as a find. Even if I saw it in clear water 12 feet down from a boat, I wouldn't claim it unless I actually acheived the dive, retrieved the cache, and signed the logbook.

 

Sure, but if you saw a cache like that rated T2, you'd have a right to be annoyed. (hey you can drive right to the boat ramp...)

 

We need to realize our limitations when we cache, just like any other activity. If you can't do it, then you just can't do it, whether its due to fear, physical, or mental limitations; otherwise, I should be able to claim a "found it" on all those puzzle caches that I have not been able to figure out. Unfortunately, we're not entitled to succede in everything we attempt, or even worse, don't attempt.

 

Agreed about limitations, that is why an accurate terrain rating is important. I'm glad you upped yours a bit, that plus the attribute should help keep people who have no business trying the cache from attempting it. Really, that is all you can do.

[+redsox_mark]

I've not yet deleted a log (I only own 10 caches). In general - my first reaction is let the finder use their judgement. If they think they did enough to find it, then that's OK.

 

But in this case I would ask them to change their log. What bothers me is their log which says they didn't actually climb the tree to find the cache. Why does that bother me? Mostly as it will bother some other finders. If I am hiding a cache which requires climbing, it is not to be mean to those who can't climb. I would do it because I know some people would like the challenge. And whilst you can argue it should't make any difference what anyone else is doing; here is what I'm concerned about. A finder climbs the tree and finds the cache. They feel good that they were able to do it. They post their log, then read others claiming finds who didn't climb the tree. That will "cheapen" the accomplishment for some finders I fear.

 

Also, doing nothing could encourage others to do the same.

 

Now - if they didn't say anything in the log, I'd probably never know. If I checked the logs and they explained they didn't really climb but they felt they did enough, I'd let it stand. Or if they emailed he and said the same thing in the log - that they were unable to climb - I'd let it stand.

 

So I would at least want them to remove the statement about not actually getting the cache from the log.

[+tozainamboku]

I understand that some cache owners who have hidden caches where there is a special challenge in retrieving or opening the cache (or in signing the log), feel that allowing online find logs that indicate that challenge was not met, somehow cheapens the experience of the those who did do the challenge. In my opinion, those who did do the challenge did so because they see such a challenge as part of the cache experience and they get some enjoyment or feeling of accomplishment from completing the challenge. If people are doing challenges just to get a smiley face this is a silly motivation to risk falling from a tree or even to spend time working a frustrating puzzle, IMO.

 

Now I get the response all the time that it is the people who log a find online without meeting the challenge or signing the log who are the ones motivated by a smiley face. First of all, I think that a smiley motivating you to skip the challenge part of signing a log is just as silly as doing the challenge just to get the smiley. On top of that, skipping the challenge to get a smiley opens you up to ridicule in places like this.

What I think is happening in most cases, it that someone is uncomfortable doing the challenge, or knows they are aren't going to enjoy it, and they feel that whatever they did accomplish is best reported with a Found It log. Sometimes, they may not realize that they can post a Note instead of either a Found or Did Not Find and that this may be the better log to use. Others may still feel that Found It log is appropriate, because it keeps a record of the caches they have completed on Geocaching.com. Since they have been to GZ, they spotted the cache in the tree, and they know they will never climb to retrieve it; the cache is complete, as far as they are concerned, and they want to cross it off their list.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I would probably delete the find, but definitely send a polite note to explain why.

 

Also, tree climbing the terrain should be higher (T4 usually).

 

FWIW I think there's a big difference between finding a 1.5/1.5 ammo can behind a tree but not signing the log because you forgot your pen vs seeing a cache from the ground but not climbing the tree to get it because you're old/weak/scared. Sometimes the retrieving and/or opening of the cache is integral to its design.

[+terrkan78]

I understand that some cache owners who have hidden caches where there is a special challenge in retrieving or opening the cache (or in signing the log), feel that allowing online find logs that indicate that challenge was not met, somehow cheapens the experience of the those who did do the challenge. In my opinion, those who did do the challenge did so because they see such a challenge as part of the cache experience and they get some enjoyment or feeling of accomplishment from completing the challenge. If people are doing challenges just to get a smiley face this is a silly motivation to risk falling from a tree or even to spend time working a frustrating puzzle, IMO.

 

Now I get the response all the time that it is the people who log a find online without meeting the challenge or signing the log who are the ones motivated by a smiley face. First of all, I think that a smiley motivating you to skip the challenge part of signing a log is just as silly as doing the challenge just to get the smiley. On top of that, skipping the challenge to get a smiley opens you up to ridicule in places like this.

What I think is happening in most cases, it that someone is uncomfortable doing the challenge, or knows they are aren't going to enjoy it, and they feel that whatever they did accomplish is best reported with a Found It log. Sometimes, they may not realize that they can post a Note instead of either a Found or Did Not Find and that this may be the better log to use. Others may still feel that Found It log is appropriate, because it keeps a record of the caches they have completed on Geocaching.com. Since they have been to GZ, they spotted the cache in the tree, and they know they will never climb to retrieve it; the cache is complete, as far as they are concerned, and they want to cross it off their list.

As a new cacher I logged a "found it" on a puzzle cache for which I couldn't get my name on the log - I couldn't get the thing open (combo lock - rusted shut I think). My motivation for claiming the "find" was similar to what you state. I did want it off my list. I did find it. I didn't realize at the time that my name on the log was that important. I felt a little bit "cheated" out of my smiley (yes, I agree that's silly) after spending days on the puzzle (one stage was missing, as was the CO, so it was tough to solve).

 

I will do a lot to meet a challenge, and I do like beating challenges. But I really hate it when I start a challenge, thinking I can beat it, and then fail. I've felt cheated before when I've come up to low terrain caches and found them too high in a tree for me to get. I don't claim them as finds because of what I've read in the forums, but had I never found the forums? I don't know, I might still be logging them thinking it was fine (unless someone told me otherwise).

[+OldLog]

My take on this. We do not have a lot of rules. The only real proof of a find is signing the log. If you can not sign it do not claim the find. If some one claims a find without signing the log delete it. It is not rocket science

[+redsox_mark]

FWIW I think there's a big difference between finding a 1.5/1.5 ammo can behind a tree but not signing the log because you forgot your pen vs seeing a cache from the ground but not climbing the tree to get it because you're old/weak/scared. Sometimes the retrieving and/or opening of the cache is integral to its design.

 

I agree. I'm not one who says the log must always be signed. To me, if (for example) you find a cache (clearly marked as a cache) but you can't open it because the lock is rusted shut, it is valid to choose "Found it" if you feel that best describes your experience. To me, this (and not having a pen, etc) are "technicalities".

 

In the tree climbing example, it is different. In my opinion, it was not "found" (even if it was spotted from the ground) as getting to the cache is part of the intended challenge. So I don't think a "found" log is appropriate. But as I said earlier I'd let it stand; my main issue is with a log which publicly admits it wasn't really "found".

[+bflentje]

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 it were mine, it'd get deleted without a second thought. If you're going to cheat, keep it to yourself and I would be none the wiser.

[+bflentje]

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!

 

Who is John Galt?

[+Shop99er]

If the log isn't signed, the cache isn't found.

 

It doesn't get much simpler than that.

[+GeoBain]

If the log isn't signed, the cache isn't found.

 

It doesn't get much simpler than that.

 

Wanna bet?

 

If the log isn't signed the CO may choose not to allow the online found log. However, it has no bearing on whether or not you found it.

 

That cache 15' up a tree was still found even though it might not count as a smiley. But even then a CO can allow the found log to stand.

[+tozainamboku]

If the log isn't signed, the cache isn't found.

 

It doesn't get much simpler than that.

 

Wanna bet?

 

If the log isn't signed the CO may choose not to allow the online found log. However, it has no bearing on whether or not you found it.

 

That cache 15' up a tree was still found even though it might not count as a smiley. But even then a CO can allow the found log to stand.

True. But Shopper99er can't be forced to log a Found It on any cache no matter what the cache owner thinks. And per the guidelines (as recently updated), a cache owner like Shopper99er can delete online Found logs where the cache log has not been signed. Therefore, as personal rule, cache puritanism is protected. What the puritans need to understand it that there's no reason to get their knickers in a twist if a cache owner is willing to accept logs from players who use a Found log despite not signing the physical log. The vast majority of cache owners will allow some flexibility in the use of Found logs. There is quite a lot of variation.

Edited May 4, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+B+L]

True. But Shopper99er can't be forced to log a Found It on any cache no matter what the cache owner thinks. And per the guidelines (as recently updated), a cache owner like Shopper99er can delete online Found logs where the cache log has not been signed. Therefore, as personal rule, cache puritanism is protected. What the puritans need to understand it that there's no reason to get their knickers in a twist if a cache owner is willing to accept logs from players who use a Found log despite not signing the physical log. The vast majority of cache owners will allow some flexibility in the use of Found logs. There is quite a lot of variation.

The mighty Toz has finally seen the light. Kind of.

 

Can we please stop calling the people who like to keep simple things simple, Puritans? I'm sure you are well aware that Puritan was a pejorative used to characterize religious extremists and you are using it in the same fashion.

[+Don_J]

True. But Shopper99er can't be forced to log a Found It on any cache no matter what the cache owner thinks. And per the guidelines (as recently updated), a cache owner like Shopper99er can delete online Found logs where the cache log has not been signed. Therefore, as personal rule, cache puritanism is protected. What the puritans need to understand it that there's no reason to get their knickers in a twist if a cache owner is willing to accept logs from players who use a Found log despite not signing the physical log. The vast majority of cache owners will allow some flexibility in the use of Found logs. There is quite a lot of variation.

The mighty Toz has finally seen the light. Kind of.

 

Can we please stop calling the people who like to keep simple things simple, Puritans? I'm sure you are well aware that Puritan was a pejorative used to characterize religious extremists and you are using it in the same fashion.

 

Cool!

It's almost like watching a fly, fly into a spider web.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

...And per the guidelines (as recently updated), a cache owner like Shopper99er can delete online Found logs where the cache log has not been signed...

'Can' being an important word. The guidelines do not say 'must'. Thus it's up to each cache owner to decide.

 

Is it your desire to provide cachers with a fun experience getting to a cool location and having fun finding the cache? If so then signing the log isn't important. I have never compared a cache log to online logs and don't ever intend to. I cache for fun and trying to control or police other cachers is not fun for me. But Groundspeak does give you the right to if that's what cranks your tractor.

[medoug]

I came to the difficult decision to delete the log in question. Here is a copy of the message sent to the "finder":

 

Hi XXXXXX,

 

Sorry, but I had to delete your "found it" log on my "Ceres Pioneer Rock Church" cache. I did so only after much consideration. The cache description clearly states that you need to sign the log. Also, the description shows "tree climbing" as one of the attributes. Climbing the tree and signing the log is an expected action for counting this cache as a "find". I also visited the cache and verified that it was highly unlikely that you actually saw the cache in its hiding spot from ground level. (It would be confusing to make other geocachers reading the logs to think that this is possible.) Unfortunately, visiting a cache location does not entitle geocachers to a "find". Signing the logbook is typical as proof that the actual cache container was found and retrieved in geocaching. I have included your log text below if you would like to resubmit your visit to the cache area as a "Did Not Find" or "Note" instead.

 

"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. Nice roadside park to take a break at."

 

My sincere apologies,

medoug.

[+GeoBain]

It was a nice note until you called him a liar.

 

I also visited the cache and verified that it was highly unlikely that you actually saw the cache in its hiding spot from ground level.

 

It is also confusing to tell him that his log would lead others to think it is visible from below while at the same time giving him a copy of his log and inviting him to relog it as a DNF.

[+Ohiosiouxfan]

Is it also confusing that one of the attributes of the cache in question is "In abandoned structure?" Is it located in an old tree house?

[+Avid Cacher]

This is a touchy subject, but I'll voice my opinion on it.

 

Honestly, I would say that it completely depends on the circumstances. If the person who found it but didn't sign the log is relatively new to Geocaching, then I would leave the log alone, but send them a polite e-mail explaining the ins and outs of how Geocaching works. Explain to them that in order to legitimately log a find, you have to both sign the logbook in the cache container itself, and then log it as found on the website as well. Also, you might take the time to help them better understand how to judge whether or not they will be able to physically make it to the cache; teach them to understand the difficulty and terrain ratings, as well as the attributes associated with a particular cache listing as well. With your help, they may be able to better understand which caches they should and shouldn't go after, and will know how to properly log one!

 

Now, if the person is an experienced Geocacher who has been participating for some time, has numerous finds, etc. then I would say that by all means, the log should be deleted. While I understand that often times people are physically unable to make it to a cache due to age, height, weight, etc. that does not overpower the fact that there are difficulty and terrain ratings, as well as a complete attribute system for a reason. Granted, some people don't properly fill these out when the list their cache, most people do, and therefore everyone should be able to judge relatively well if they're going to be able to physically make it to the cache location or not. Just because you could see where the cache was, doesn't mean that it counts as you finding it; you need to make the effort to get to it and sign the log before logging it on the cache listing.

 

This is all my personal opinion, and in now way is it meant to insult or offend anyone, nor do I expect everyone to agree with my opinion either. It's simply my $0.02 is all.

[medoug]

It was a nice note until you called him a liar.

 

I also visited the cache and verified that it was highly unlikely that you actually saw the cache in its hiding spot from ground level.

 

Yes, after revisiting the cache location, I am trying to "politely" call him a liar (if that is possible), because he did in fact lie. I knew that the cache is not visible from the ground in its intended hidding spot. My initial hesitation was because I thought that possibly the previous finder did not replace it in the correct spot. During my visit, I verified that the cache was in the correct hiding spot and was not visible from the ground. You can see the potential hiding spot from the ground, but not the cache container hidden in the spot.

 

It is also confusing to tell him that his log would lead others to think it is visible from below while at the same time giving him a copy of his log and inviting him to relog it as a DNF.

 

Perhaps I should have clarified that the wording of a repost would need to be changed. I also provided his original log as a reminder of what he had posted to help him understand along with my message why it did not constitute a "found it" status.

[medoug]

The cacher in question has been caching for 3 years with 28 finds and 1 hide. He's been doing it long enough that he should know better, yet his experience in number of caches is fairly low. Newbie? No. Limited experience? Maybe.

[medoug]

Note that I had earlier sent the cacher in question this message hoping that they would change their "found it" log on their own:

 

"Hi xxxxx,

 

I see that you recently logged my “Ceres Pioneer Rock Church” 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."

 

It was only after verifying that the cacher didn't even see the cache as he had claimed that I decided to delete his on-line log.

[medoug]

Is it also confusing that one of the attributes of the cache in question is "In abandoned structure?" Is it located in an old tree house?

 

The cache is hidden in a tree near the "abandoned structure". Unfortunately, the insides of this non-active church is not open to the general public for hiding/finding a cache within.