Loging your visit

[+Zoom Walkers]

We have hidden A Village Multi Cache By The Almanzora River GC2P2K1

Have we been missing something. We do not log a Cache as found until we complete the log book in the cache. Is this the way it should be done.

Only we have hidden the above Multi cache GC2P2K1 about 14 geocaches have found it and enjoyed the last person who claims to have found it was disturbed by muggles (Nothing in the Log Book). He sent me a message explaining what happened and wanted my email address to send a pic to show he was in the area I sent my email address no pic arrived the following day he booked as found. We are sure we could get into the area of lots of Cahes. When this happen can we book it, we are not sure. We could inrease our finds considerable by doing this. What are the rules.

[+mpilchfamily]

You need to sign the log. If there is no signature in the log then you shouldn't claim the find online. If someone has claimed to find your cache and they didn't sign the log book then you have the right to delete the find.

[+BCandMsKitty]

The guidelines say you can log online once you've signed the log book.

Generally it's considered bad form, or even "illegal", for want of a better term, to log online if you haven't signed the log. (No signature, no smiley.)

Many cache owners will delete online logs if the book hasn't been signed.

It really depends on the circumstances and how strongly you feel about the guidelines.

I certainly wouldn't log a find just by being in the area. The only time I did was a cache that was frozen in a block of ice, and to sign would have meant I'd have destroyed the cache. I took a picture, sent it to the CO explaining, and they thanked me for not destroying the cache, and allowed me to log online.

[+Sol seaker]

You need to sign the log. If there is no signature in the log then you shouldn't claim the find online. If someone has claimed to find your cache and they didn't sign the log book then you have the right to delete the find.

 

+1

 

There aren't many rules of this game. Signing the log is one of them.

No signature = no find.

[+Yeah_meoW]

How would someone know if you signed the log? Lets say 40 people log a cache and only 30 sign how can you pinpoint those who didn't. Are you supposed to sign as your screen name? So like I would sign as Yeah_meoW?

[+BCandMsKitty]

How would someone know if you signed the log? Lets say 40 people log a cache and only 30 sign how can you pinpoint those who didn't. Are you supposed to sign as your screen name? So like I would sign as Yeah_meoW?

 

Yep

 

For cache owners that this is an issue, and check the caches, if you sign some other way, they won't see your name there (screen name)and will think you didn't sign the log.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Toz will be by shortly with his/her fourteen-page dissertation on interpretation/misinterpretation of the guidelines. "Once you have found the cache and signed the log, you can log the cache on-line." Seems pretty simple! Some long-winded interpretation of ALR which were done away with a few years back.

If one does not sign the log, the CO may, if he/she so chooses, delete the find. Some COs don't care. Some do. Your approach to the problem is up to you. If the 'finder' did not sign the log, you are free to delete the find.

Without a signature in the log, you are free to delete the find if you so choose. It sounds as though you have a valid reason to delete the 'find'. It rather sounds like the cacher who was too 'old' to climb the tree to retrieve the cache, and sign the log. Duh! He didn't find it! Delete. Your options may vary.

[+Corked]

Signature or no find. Though I guess that can vary too...Interestingly enough, I had a find today that was clearly in need of maintenance (missing a lid for waterproofing and likely not where it was intended to be) but I found and signed the log. When I logged it I checked "needs maintenance" so the CO could fix it but it didn't count as a find for me because I did so. I'll probably go back after it is fixed to log it as found.

[jkettu]

You found it and signed the log: log it as found on the website. No need to wait for the cache to be fixed or get back to it, your signature already is in the logbook.

 

You noticed that maintenance is needed and made an online log to indicate it. That was a correct thing to do.

 

Two separate events, two separate online logs. Both are an essential part of cache history.

[+Corked]

You found it and signed the log: log it as found on the website. No need to wait for the cache to be fixed or get back to it, your signature already is in the logbook.

 

You noticed that maintenance is needed and made an online log to indicate it. That was a correct thing to do.

 

Two separate events, two separate online logs. Both are an essential part of cache history.

Will do, thanks.

[+DanOCan]

All cats are animals but not all animals are cats.

All signed logs are legitimate finds, but not all legitimate finds are signed logs.

 

There are plenty of ways to prove you found a cache. However, other than a signed log, it is up to the owner to decide what he/she wants to allow on his/her cache. Some owners will accept photographic evidence or an email with a detailed description of the hide. Other will not.

 

It also depends on the cache. Finding a cache frozen shut at the base of a tree and not signing the logbook because opening the container might damage it is a different beast than just seeing the cache at the top of the tree and not wanting to make the climb, for example.

[+junglehair]

In the end, it's just a game. You, as the cache owner, have the right to decide if it was a legitimate find or not.

 

There are times when I have claimed a find even though my name is not in the log book. Examples are when the cache is encased in ice as others have mentioned, or you find the container, but it is rusted shut so badly you cannot open it.

 

I'd say just "being in the right area" is not enough to warrant logging a find. If they had spotted the cache, but didn't want to risk exposing it by pulling it out when there were lots of muggles around, that might be different. I personally would not log a find in this case, but everyone plays the game a bit different. I doubt I would actually delete that person's log if it were my cache though. As I said at the beginning, it's just a game. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[+terrkan78]

If, as a CO, you delete someone's log, they will get an e-mail stating their log was deleted. This can lead to hard feelings. It's a good idea to precede the log deletion with an e-mail stating (nicely) the reasons why the log is going to be deleted. It'll still cause hard feelings with some, but at least it won't be a generic e-mail from Groundspeak that gives no rationale for the deletion.

 

These forums have had people come in here and post, mad as a hornet, that their log was deleted. Their anger is their own problem, but the CO can take steps to defuse the whole thing by writing an e-mail first.

 

Personally I wouldn't delete anyone's log unless I was absolutely convinced it was some person armchair logging their way through the state. If someone wants to claim a smiley and not sign the log, then I'm not going to squash their version of fun.

[mvarley84]

Who cares? Are you really that sensitive about someone falsely finding your cache?? If someone falsely claims an FTF, then fine, delete it...but after that, who really cares if someone does or does not find it...or does or does not sign the log. The only person being cheated is the finder.

 

People need to let go of that Rule Book Bible they carry around with them and just enjoy being in the outdoors. I only own one cache, and I really dont care who signs or doesnt sign the log. I placed the cache to bring people to a nice little park on a country road that hardly anyone knows about. I didn't place it so I could force the Geocaching rules on people who do or don't actually sign the log. It doesn't effect me at all, so why get all bent out of shape about it?

[+popokiiti]

Each cache I find, I sign - either as Popoki Iti, P.Iti or PI depending on the space available.

[+Chief301]

If a cache was not signed because it was located in a hard to reach place ("I saw it but I couldnt grab it") then no amount of other evidence, photographic or otherwise, should suffice. The challenge of such a cache is in retrieving it...if you are unable or just unwilling to climb, crawl, swim, swing from a vine like Tarzan, figure out the puzzle, etc. to get to it then you have not met the challenge. Likewise for muggle activity...for some cache locations this, too, is part of the challenge.

 

Now if the cache was unsignable for other reasons (rusted shut, frozen in ice and such) that was clearly NOT meant as part of the challenge, I would hope any reasonable CO would take that into account and allow the find, given sufficient corroborating evidence. But ultimately it's the CO's decision.