Does posting a find imply approval of the cache?

[4wheelin_fool]

I've noticed a trend recently where people who do not personally approve of a cache will not log a find, because they say that it implies that they approve of it. This has come from discussions with other cachers, as well as reading it here from time to time.

 

To me, a find is a find. It does not mean that I approve of it.

 

Logging an NA without actually finding a cache is often frowned upon anyhow. When you read a "found" log, do you imagine that the finder approves of it, and why?

 

 

 

from another thread:

 

There was one just published in the parking lot of an adult bookstore - GC3K671

 

The first 2 logs are NA's. Should it be allowed?

 

LOL, posting an NA, complaining about the inappropriateness of the cache/location, but more than willing to go back and claim FTF.

 

 

Phhhttt. Hypocrites.

 

B.

[+tracou]

Me personally, I do not approve nor disapprove of where or what a cache may be. If it's near an adult bookstore, whatever. I'm in it for the hunt first and the location second because some locations have no meaning. Sometimes I do go for the location first if I know it's going to take me some place nice, but if I just need a quick cache fix, then I don't care.

[+tracou]

Of course it's always nice if a cache takes you some place nice where you can appreciate the hunt, but not all caches do this.

Edited May 13, 2012 by tracou

[+BaseOverApex]

When you read a "found" log, do you imagine that the finder approves of it, and why?

A find is a find. If I disapprove of a cache I say so in the logs. That's what they're for. I also try to read logs before setting out on a caching trip. If other folk repeatedly say "this is a garbage tip" I'll deprioritise the cache and not even look for it.

[+CanadianRockies]

I've noticed a trend recently where people who do not personally approve of that cache will not log a find, because they say that it implies that they approve of it.... To me, a find is a find. It does not mean that I approve of it.

I agree that logging a find doesn't necessarily mean the finder approves of that cache. On the other hand, I also understand that refusing to log a find sometimes can be used as a means of expressing disapproval of that cache.

 

It's sort of like purchasing a product. Buying a product doesn't necessarily mean the customer approves of all the manufacturer's business practices. But boycotting that product can be one means of protesting that manufacturer's business practices.

 

Logging an NA without actually finding a cache is often frowned upon anyhow.

I'm not sure how often that's the case. I think it's more likely that some people would frown upon someone logging a Needs Archive who didn't go to the site. Whether they logged a find, a DNF, a note, or nothing other than the NA is irrelevant.

[+1Husky]

I just think it's hypocritical to post a find and then post a NA because you object to the location. You can't have it both ways. There are more than enough caches out there for anyone to ignore one in a questionable location. Personally, I probably wouldn't look for the one in question because of the location.

[+wimseyguy]

Either you are OK with a location or you are not.

Just because you are in a parking lot doesn't mean you are shopping there too.

And if you find a business so offensive that you need to post an NA because there is a cache in the lot, then don't stop to find the cache in their parking lot. Who knew NJ had so many prudes?

 

PS am I the only one who finds it ironic that the first two complainers have handles that could also be products in the store-'redhotrutabaga' and 'devilstoy'.

Edited May 13, 2012 by wimseyguy

[+BaseOverApex]

It's sort of like purchasing a product. Buying a product doesn't necessarily mean the customer approves of all the manufacturer's business practices. But boycotting that product can be one means of protesting that manufacturer's business practices.

On principle, I'm sort of with you, but ... If I were the sort of cacher who's likely to put his cache in a sewer behind a Soho porn cinema, and folk didn't log finds on it, I'd call it a success. "Brilliant! No-one can find this!" I'd probably increase its "Difficulty" rating!

[+Max and 99]

If I do not approve of a cache, I do not log a find.

[+hukilaulau]

I just think it's hypocritical to post a find and then post a NA because you object to the location.

I agree with this. i think it's especially hypocritical when someone logs a find, posts an NA, and then comes on the forums to complain about it some more. OTOH, I admire those who strongly object to a cache and DON'T take the smiley even if they found the container. if you really believe a cache shouldn't have been placed, then it shouldn't be "found" either.

[+BaseOverApex]

If I do not approve of a cache, I do not log a find.

No dis, but I just don't get that. If you fund it, you found it. If you wished you hadn't you should say.

[4wheelin_fool]

That's what I don't understand. To me a find is a find. Nothing more, nothing less. My finds do not imply approval. Logging a find is only communication.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Logging a find does not mean that I approve of the cache. Just that I found it. What did I log today?

Wow! What a spectacular parking lot! Full of parked truck trailers blocking the lanes, and illegal camper trailers.

If I find it. I log the find. If I disapprove intensely, I will let you know in the log.

Yes. i once tried to get a cache that I found archived for being in the parking lot of an adult video store. It also had an offensive name, once you realized where it was. Some finders reported having to dodge people having sex in the parking lot. Not a satisfactory reason for the frogs. Oh, well. Quickly archived because it was a terrible hide, though. Went missing, and the CO did not replace. Nothing hypocritical about logging a find, and strong disapproval. I found it. I log the find.

[+Don_J]

I just think it's hypocritical to post a find and then post a NA because you object to the location. You can't have it both ways. There are more than enough caches out there for anyone to ignore one in a questionable location. Personally, I probably wouldn't look for the one in question because of the location.

 

Well, if I find a cache, I'm logging the cache, plain and simple. What is hypocritical is sticking around and finding the cache if I think that the location is so inappropriate that the cache needs to be archived.

 

As far as the location that was mentioned. Locally, we have a United States Post Office, two buildings down and in perfect sight of a strip club. No one seems to be boycotting the post office. If you have business in the area, (like finding a cache), do your business and leave. I personally have boycotted the cache in front of it because it's in the bowels of a newspaper rack.

[+lamoracke]

if I find it, I find it, whether I approve of it or not. Have done some caches by friends of mine and did not appreciate the caches at all for various reasons, but I just kept my mouth shut (ie a nail in a tree). If a cache is egregiously wrong to some degree, then I might do an N/A. Whether I find it or not, has nothing to do with it though. Obviously if a cache is on private property and its obviously not supposed to be there, I can log a N/A without finding it. I've found some caches I do not like or approve, but they were legally findable so as P!nk said, so what.

[+Don_J]

My logs are a record of what happened. What I write in my logs is a record of how I felt about what happened.

 

To me, going through the trouble of finding a cache just to verify that I disapprove of it, is silly. If I were to go to that much trouble, (I wouldn't), I would post my find and say as much.

[+Flintstone5611]

To be honest, I think these are all interesting points on the subject. I recently went to a cache location that I had several problems with. I tool some photos and approached the CO about it. I didn't log it when I first went, but the CO dramatically changed the location and the hide and so I went later and and found the cache. I guess I won't log a cache that I disagree with based on my actions in that kind of situation.

[knowschad]

If anybody does not approve of this thread, please don't post to it so we know how many don't like it, OK?

 

(any volunteers for keeping count of those that don't post here?)

[+tozainamboku]

Why get your knickers in a twist because some post both a find and a needs archive? They found the cache, probably even signed the log. They also feel, that the cache doesn't meet the guidelines for one reason or another (or perhaps they are just not sure if the cache is in compliance with the guidelines and want a reviewer to take a look). Why is this so different than posting both a needs maintenance and a find when you find a cache that needs maintenance?

 

I suppose in this case one might ask why, if you are so offended being in this place, did you stick around and search for the cache. But I'm not sure that was the point of the Needs Archive log. Either they were concerned that someone else might be too offended or they are interpreting something into the guidelines or TOUs as prohibiting caches in locations that might offend someone.

Edited May 13, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+Katmomof3]

I've noticed a trend recently where people who do not personally approve of a cache will not log a find, because they say that it implies that they approve of it. This has come from discussions with other cachers, as well as reading it here from time to time.

 

To me, a find is a find. It does not mean that I approve of it.

 

Logging an NA without actually finding a cache is often frowned upon anyhow. When you read a "found" log, do you imagine that the finder approves of it, and why?

 

 

 

from another thread:

 

There was one just published in the parking lot of an adult bookstore - GC3K671

 

The first 2 logs are NA's. Should it be allowed?

 

LOL, posting an NA, complaining about the inappropriateness of the cache/location, but more than willing to go back and claim FTF.

 

 

Phhhttt. Hypocrites.

 

B.

 

Hey guys. My first time trying to navigate this site.

I agree with Dan- I think it's rather hypocritical of the two cachers who found my cache- yes I'm the evil person who did such a dastardly deed of hiding a cache at a very innocuous adult bookstore- I don't feel they should request I archive it AND take the smilie. It is hypocritical. And all the neg comments from people who haven't even seen this locale - ridiculous. It's a cleaner parking lot than some of my other c and D's.

[+lamoracke]

If anybody does not approve of this thread, please don't post to it so we know how many don't like it, OK?

 

(any volunteers for keeping count of those that don't post here?)

 

Winner!! The butler will give you your envelope on the way out.

[4wheelin_fool]

Armchair NA logs are usually not well received versus someone who has actually visited though.

 

In addition, if someone does find the cache and only posts a note saying they don't approve of it, the CO can delete it, and there no recourse for it to be reinstated.

 

If it is a valid find, then it should be able to stay on the page as a heads up to others..

[+Trucker Lee]

A find is a find, if they dont like the cache they can say so there.

[AZcachemeister]

Pretty simple, actually.

How could I know if a cache was paced against the guidelines if I didn't find it?

(Given that my interpretation of the guidelines might differ from those of the reviewer.)

[+OZ2CPU]

I would not care if I am out caching with friends or wife,

and got to a really nasty adult shop,

we would find the cache and move on, maybe even look a bit and laugh.

 

but if we are out with the kids, it is for sure a very different thing,

I will not be happy to park right out of some of those shops

and let the kids out !! no way !!

 

the thing is geocaching is supposed to be a family thing

it is written all over the site and locations / containers are supposed to be family safe,

so yes a location outside (some) adult shops will not / should not be approved,

if placed such places, it is good someone who knows the location or the shop

can post a NA log..

 

remember you are supposed to send your kids out with a GPS and play,

they do not read the cache page, nor do I all the times.

Edited May 14, 2012 by OZ2CPU

[+briansnat]

I just think it's hypocritical to post a find and then post a NA because you object to the location. You can't have it both ways. There are more than enough caches out there for anyone to ignore one in a questionable location. Personally, I probably wouldn't look for the one in question because of the location.

 

I don't see how it's hypocritical. A found it log is a simple statement of fact and the tool this website provides to indicate that the cache was found.

 

If I find a cache where a CO dug a hole or drove a spike into a tree to hide it I will post a find because I found the cache. Then I will follow with a NA because the cache violates the guidelines. Two different logs, two distinct purposes.

 

I just think it's hypocritical to post a find and then post a NA because you object to the location.

I agree with this. i think it's especially hypocritical when someone logs a find, posts an NA, and then comes on the forums to complain about it some more. OTOH, I admire those who strongly object to a cache and DON'T take the smiley even if they found the container. if you really believe a cache shouldn't have been placed, then it shouldn't be "found" either.

 

The statement "Take the smiley" is telling. You seem to view it as some sort of reward. Viewed that way I can see why someone might see it as hypocritical. I see a found it log as a simple statement of fact and can't imagine why I would not log that I found a cache if I found a cache. If I saw a movie that I didn't like, would I tell people that I didn't see it?

Edited May 14, 2012 by briansnat

[+Mudfrog]

Nope!

 

You may not have liked the cache and/or you may think it goes against gc.com guidelines but you still found it. By itself, the "found it" log type is a simple statement of fact.

[+bflentje]

I think this thread is laughable.. the things people come up with when the answer is so obvious.

[+ras_oscar]

If I am uncomfortable with a particular location for whatever reason, I will not get out of my car to search. If I wish to comment of the nature of the hide in a non spoiler way for wahtever reason, I will log a Find (if I find it) a DNF(if I searched and didn't find it) or a note (if i choose not to search) In each case I would state factual information(cache is located in the middle of a 30 foot tall pile of household refuse) and not my personal opinion (cache is located next to an establishment that is not appropriate to a family activity). In general my notes on such caches would be meant to assist others in applying their own preferences when deciding whether or not to add it to their hit list. IMHO, there are far too many people that choose to present their own opinion as fact. Some perhaps don't truly understand the difference. Tolerance of all opinions, especially those you disagree with, is one of the principals upon which my country was founded. I now relinquish the soapbox to dissenters.

Edited May 14, 2012 by ras_oscar

[+Gustav129]

If I don't approve of a location, then I don't even look for it (done it many times). Then I post a DNF stating that I do not approve the location and that I really didn't even look for it.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Hey guys. My first time trying to navigate this site.

I agree with Dan- I think it's rather hypocritical of the two cachers who found my cache- yes I'm the evil person who did such a dastardly deed of hiding a cache at a very innocuous adult bookstore- I don't feel they should request I archive it AND take the smilie. It is hypocritical. And all the neg comments from people who haven't even seen this locale - ridiculous. It's a cleaner parking lot than some of my other c and D's.

 

Whether or not they found it is a different matter than whether or not they feel it meets guidelines or is a good idea for a cache. So I don't think it's hypocritical.

I wouldn't have a problem with the location, personally, but I don't cache with children in tow.

 

I think the way some are handling it with you isn't very nice - why not send you an email and say "I think your cache page needs a 'not appropriate for children' attribute, and a more explicit hint about the, well, explicit nature of the site?" Or if they feel they must do something public, then post a note, an angry, scathing found or DNF log, or whatever. But I don't think this type of location is against the guidelines, so multiple "NA" logs seems harsh.

 

I can understand why someone with young children might not want to find a cache at such a location. I hope it survives the NA logs.

 

BTW, some of the logs for this cache are just hilarious, both ones that didn't like it, and ones that did:

 

I thought I would get a chance to do some shopping for mom but unfortunately the business was not open. I never would have known about this place without geocaching.

 

Too funny!

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Logging an NA without actually finding a cache is often frowned upon anyhow.

 

I don't understand this statement.

 

How would you ever request archival for a cache that was, in all likelihood, completely missing, had multiple DNF's, mutliple NM logs, and a CO who appeared to have not logged in for 2 years, if you didn't file "NA" on a cache you hadn't found first?

 

Also if you found that a cache was CLEARLY on posted private property without permission (for example, because while looking for it, but before you found it, an armed security officer told you to leave the premises), wouldn't you post "NA" without finding it first?

[4wheelin_fool]

Logging an NA without actually finding a cache is often frowned upon anyhow.

 

I don't understand this statement.

 

How would you ever request archival for a cache that was, in all likelihood, completely missing, had multiple DNF's, mutliple NM logs, and a CO who appeared to have not logged in for 2 years, if you didn't file "NA" on a cache you hadn't found first?

 

Also if you found that a cache was CLEARLY on posted private property without permission (for example, because while looking for it, but before you found it, an armed security officer told you to leave the premises), wouldn't you post "NA" without finding it first?

 

It's often frowned upon, such as armchair logging. Those cases you mentioned seem fine for an NA.

 

In the example of the adult bookstore parking lot mentioned, someone may seem to think it's offensive from a computer monitor, but then they travel to the actual site, and discover nothing offensive there. For example, the sticky floors inside of the store usually have no bearing on the outside. However, if there are condoms and hypodermic needles spread thoughout the parking lot, thats a little different..

[+jellis]

The sign was very big and carved in wood. We felt so uncomfortable being there.

 

My question is why did you keep looking? If it is obvious that the area is private, I leave and head to the next one.

I posted this before in a different thread. That I went after a FTF and then logged as a find and requested NA.

There were 2 other cachers there. 2 of us had different readings then the posted coords. The other just followed us. My original take was that it was on the side walk outside the park closer to the street. The coords were about 50 to 60 feet off. I did not ignore the sign but why would request a NA without being sure it was actually on PP. I did find it so yes I did log it. But at the same time it was against the guidelines. If I didn't find it what kind of reaction would I have by not proving it. Yes I could have written a note, but it was a find, so I logged it as a find.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

In the example of the adult bookstore parking lot mentioned, someone may seem to think it's offensive from a computer monitor, but then they travel to the actual site, and discover nothing offensive there. For example, the sticky floors inside of the store usually have no bearing on the outside. However, if there are condoms and hypodermic needles spread thoughout the parking lot, thats a little different..

 

Thanks for clarifying that - I asked because I have noticed cases where caches had pretty obvious problems (i.e. almost certainly gone and for a LONG time) but where people seemed to be reluctant to file "NA".

[+6NoisyHikers]

For me, logging a find and seeing that smiley means that I should have been happy about what I found. I really wish that some of my finds could be marked with a

 

I did log a note instead of a find for a cache I found when I specifically went there to rescue a travel bug (it was already gone). But that is my own personal stance and I don't begrudge anyone else theirs.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Posting a find implies you found the cache. Deciding to hunt for the cache implies approval of it. If you exit the car to sign the log of a Walmart LPC, you can't gripe about it being a lame cache. If you think it's lame, just keep driving/walking on by. It's not hard to do.

 

I would not care if I am out caching with friends or wife,

and got to a really nasty adult shop,

we would find the cache and move on, maybe even look a bit and laugh.

 

but if we are out with the kids, it is for sure a very different thing,

I will not be happy to park right out of some of those shops

and let the kids out !! no way !!

 

the thing is geocaching is supposed to be a family thing

it is written all over the site and locations / containers are supposed to be family safe,

so yes a location outside (some) adult shops will not / should not be approved,

if placed such places, it is good someone who knows the location or the shop

can post a NA log..

 

remember you are supposed to send your kids out with a GPS and play,

they do not read the cache page, nor do I all the times.

 

So, because there is a cache listed there, you have absolutely no choice in the matter? You simply HAVE to pull into the parking lot and get out, kids in tow?

 

You could take note of where the GPS is sending you and just keep driving or use the parking lot to turn around in and leave. Not every cache is going to be family friendly. You, as the parent, have to make that determination.

[AZcachemeister]

For me, logging a find and seeing that smiley means that I should have been happy about what I found. I really wish that some of my finds could be marked with a

 

 

Hey, that would be great!

But, it would be an implied rating system, and we were already turned down for that.

 

Simply NOT adding the cache to your Favorite List should be enough to tell everyone you were not impressed, right?

[+BaseOverApex]

If anybody does not approve of this thread, please don't post to it so we know how many don't like it, OK? (any volunteers for keeping count of those that don't post here?)

Winner!! The butler will give you your envelope on the way out.

Yup. Sweet summary! If you don't vote, your opinion don't count!

[+6NoisyHikers]

 

Hey, that would be great!

But, it would be an implied rating system, and we were already turned down for that.

 

Simply NOT adding the cache to your Favorite List should be enough to tell everyone you were not impressed, right?

 

Well, not quite... There are lots of caches that are nice caches - pleasant spot, clean, well-maintained - but I can't give them all a favourite point because I only get one for every ten caches. Luckily I enjoy more than one in ten caches I find I wouldn't want a CO to think I didn't like their cache because I don't award it a favourite point. It's just that I save my points for the "WOW" factor.

 

They aren't all "WOW!s", some are just "Ahhhs" and that's okay too.

 

So I still wish I could log a because that's how I feel sometimes.

 

Back on topic though: If I got far enough to find a cache and then discovered it needed to be archived (Let's pretend I inadvertently wandered onto private property, found the cache and signed the log, then ran into the property owner who pointed a gun in my face and growled: "Git outta here you lousy varmint!"), I think I would log it as a find anyway, then follow it up with a NA.

 

If, walking toward GZ, I saw a No Trespassing sign then stopped and walked away, I wouldn't log a DNF but I would write a note explaining what I saw and asking for confirmation that it was okay to search for this cache. I would probably send the owner a PM to that effect as well, just to double up. No NA in this case because I wouldn't have all the facts yet.

[+Sol seaker]

I just think it's hypocritical to post a find and then post a NA because you object to the location. You can't have it both ways. There are more than enough caches out there for anyone to ignore one in a questionable location. Personally, I probably wouldn't look for the one in question because of the location.

 

I don't understand this post.

 

How can you object to the location if you haven't found it? If you haven't found it you don't know what the location is.

 

Posting a find does not mean you approve of the location, so what difference is it if someone posts a find or not?

 

So do you mean that if I show up at a cache and find it, I'm not supposed to post a find if I don't like the location? This is ludicrous.

 

If that were the case few people would ever log lamp post hides I guess.

 

So what do I do if I half approve of the cache?

[+Sol seaker]

If anybody does not approve of this thread, please don't post to it so we know how many don't like it, OK?

 

(any volunteers for keeping count of those that don't post here?)

 

Winner!! The butler will give you your envelope on the way out.

 

Thanks Knowschad!! DEfinitely the winning post!!!

 

And, since you asked so nicely I'll be happy to keep count of those who didn't post here.

 

Uh... how about those who liked the thread but didn't post? Maybe they couldn't come up with anything to say.

[4wheelin_fool]

Posting a find implies you found the cache. Deciding to hunt for the cache implies approval of it. If you exit the car to sign the log of a Walmart LPC, you can't gripe about it being a lame cache. If you think it's lame, just keep driving/walking on by. It's not hard to do.

 

So, because there is a cache listed there, you have absolutely no choice in the matter? You simply HAVE to pull into the parking lot and get out, kids in tow?

 

You could take note of where the GPS is sending you and just keep driving or use the parking lot to turn around in and leave. Not every cache is going to be family friendly. You, as the parent, have to make that determination.

 

Then all the logs would say nice things, no matter where it was.

 

If you posted a note saying the place was nasty, it may get deleted, but valid find logs are protected. After I take the time to visit a place, and arrive at the spot, I'm going to complete the process by looking for the cache. It in no way implies that I like the location, or I did it for the numbers.

 

A non-find could imply that I was saying I didn't like the location only because I really couldn't find it.

 

How one person handles the situation is up to them. Telling others how they should behave is much different. It's not hypocritical to post a find on a nasty cache. It would be only be hypocritical to hide a similar one.

[knowschad]

Well, not quite... There are lots of caches that are nice caches - pleasant spot, clean, well-maintained - but I can't give them all a favourite point because I only get one for every ten caches. Luckily I enjoy more than one in ten caches I find I wouldn't want a CO to think I didn't like their cache because I don't award it a favourite point. It's just that I save my points for the "WOW" factor.

They aren't all "WOW!s", some are just "Ahhhs" and that's okay too.

They are "favorite" points, not "enjoyed it" points. Sounds like you're doing it right.

[+Don_J]

Posting a find implies you found the cache. Deciding to hunt for the cache implies approval of it. If you exit the car to sign the log of a Walmart LPC, you can't gripe about it being a lame cache. If you think it's lame, just keep driving/walking on by. It's not hard to do.

 

So, because there is a cache listed there, you have absolutely no choice in the matter? You simply HAVE to pull into the parking lot and get out, kids in tow?

 

You could take note of where the GPS is sending you and just keep driving or use the parking lot to turn around in and leave. Not every cache is going to be family friendly. You, as the parent, have to make that determination.

 

Then all the logs would say nice things, no matter where it was.

 

If you posted a note saying the place was nasty, it may get deleted, but valid find logs are protected. After I take the time to visit a place, and arrive at the spot, I'm going to complete the process by looking for the cache. It in no way implies that I like the location, or I did it for the numbers.

 

A non-find could imply that I was saying I didn't like the location only because I really couldn't find it.

 

How one person handles the situation is up to them. Telling others how they should behave is much different. It's not hypocritical to post a find on a nasty cache. It would be only be hypocritical to hide a similar one.

 

Valid find logs may be protected, but is the content of the log protected?

 

That is a serious question that I don't know the answer to.

[4wheelin_fool]

Posting a find implies you found the cache. Deciding to hunt for the cache implies approval of it. If you exit the car to sign the log of a Walmart LPC, you can't gripe about it being a lame cache. If you think it's lame, just keep driving/walking on by. It's not hard to do.

 

So, because there is a cache listed there, you have absolutely no choice in the matter? You simply HAVE to pull into the parking lot and get out, kids in tow?

 

You could take note of where the GPS is sending you and just keep driving or use the parking lot to turn around in and leave. Not every cache is going to be family friendly. You, as the parent, have to make that determination.

 

Then all the logs would say nice things, no matter where it was.

 

If you posted a note saying the place was nasty, it may get deleted, but valid find logs are protected. After I take the time to visit a place, and arrive at the spot, I'm going to complete the process by looking for the cache. It in no way implies that I like the location, or I did it for the numbers.

 

A non-find could imply that I was saying I didn't like the location only because I really couldn't find it.

 

How one person handles the situation is up to them. Telling others how they should behave is much different. It's not hypocritical to post a find on a nasty cache. It would be only be hypocritical to hide a similar one.

 

Valid find logs may be protected, but is the content of the log protected?

 

That is a serious question that I don't know the answer to.

 

I imagine the only case is if it was non-family friendly. Perhaps spoilers also, but the CO can encript the log, I believe.

[+BaseOverApex]

I would not care if I am out caching with friends or wife,

and got to a really nasty adult shop,

we would find the cache and move on, maybe even look a bit and laugh.

 

but if we are out with the kids, it is for sure a very different thing,

I will not be happy to park right out of some of those shops

and let the kids out !! no way !!

 

the thing is geocaching is supposed to be a family thing

it is written all over the site and locations / containers are supposed to be family safe,

so yes a location outside (some) adult shops will not / should not be approved,

if placed such places, it is good someone who knows the location or the shop

can post a NA log..

 

remember you are supposed to send your kids out with a GPS and play,

they do not read the cache page, nor do I all the times.

 

Is this a poem? I like the structure and where you put the carriage returns, but I don't see the rhyme.

[+ohmelli]

Personally, if I don't approve of where the hide is (when I reach GZ)... I leave! I not only don't LOG a find... I don't MAKE a find! I have driven away from several caches that for whatever reason were not "okay" with me. HOWEVER... I will say this... I think that it is much kinder to simply not LOG a find than it is to speak your mind about the find. I do NOT believe that THAT is what the logs are there for! I believe that if you CAN'T say something nice, saying NOTHING is preferred! JMO!

[+StripyJules]

We had a query about this. Recently found - and logged - a cache, but it felt wrong, so said so in my log. It was a bison tube clipped to a wire stock fence bearing warning signs that the fence was electrified. Having seen the way my poor dog reacted when he got a belt off an electric fence a few months back, and having the dog with us on the trip this time, we had kept well away from the fence. Plus, my partner is a real country boy and knows when not to mess with stuff. Puzzled with not finding, we read previous logs which hinted that the cache was, in fact, on the fence. It turned out the current wasn't on. But what if it is next time somebody searches? Or somebody searches a similar location elsewhere with a live fence? We just didn't think it was, as we say round here, big or clever.

 

But we were the only people to comment on this in the logs (apart from one person remarking on the "yellow red herrings", meaning the warning signs) so maybe we're the only ones bothered or this is a common thing? We're relative newbies, but we're told to think "Where would you hide the cache?"; well, not on an electric fence, actually...

[+BaseOverApex]

If I don't approve of a location, then I don't even look for it (done it many times). Then I post a DNF stating that I do not approve the location and that I really didn't even look for it.

 

Naaaaaah! Nope! Uh-uh! No way!

 

Did Not Find is different from "Did Not Look." That's what write log is for.

 

If you post DNFs then the next guy, who might be perfectly happy to poke at a big pile of steamy manure with a stick, might not try so hard, thinking your DNF is genuine!

 

So what do I do if I half approve of the cache?

 

Half look for it!