What should I have done?

[+B+L]

Actually the problem with his analogy is that a car has a VIN. The police would be highly unlikely, in my opinion, to say "we found your car" unless they found some portion of it with a VIN. There are reasons vehicles have identifying information like this - because there is a serious need for verification when crimes are commited.

 

In the case of a geocache - we have pen and paper logs that most CO's never check. There is no absolute requirement that you even label your geocache - although you are supposed to do that. But nobody will check that either. Oh yeah, that's totally comparable...

 

It is my contention that if Groundspeak really cared about verification of people's finds, then there are any number of things they could do to implement such things. (Conceivably they could make money off the deal, even.) However, since they have done no such things, and leave lots of wiggle room in the guidelines, then I have to conclude that they would prefer we all play by the rules, but not enough to force us to do so. Since they are pretty obviously not bent out of shape about this, I don't see any reason to get upset about it either.

The poor strawman has really met his match this time.

[+Don_J]

Example?

 

Have you been reading the thread?

Of course I've been reading the thread. That's why I asked for an example because there isn't one in this thread. No one is upset that a log might get deleted if the paper log wasn't signed. Everyone here seems to agree that it is the cache owners prerogative. It's the idea that it must be deleted that is being questioned.

[+Don_J]

I logged it as a find because I found were the co placed the cache honestly I feel comfortable saying I found it,

Let's say you were grabbing a few caches and you returned to where you parked your car only to find it gone. You report it as stolen and a few days later the police call to let you know they've recovered your vehicle. You go to the police station and the Desk Sargeant hands you a steering wheel and a hubcap and says, "here's your car." Would you honestly feel comfortable saying the police had found your vehicle? How would you feel if your insurance company agreed?

 

Wow! That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

 

Comparing a LPC to a car. What's a sense of humor.

[+B+L]

I logged it as a find because I found were the co placed the cache honestly I feel comfortable saying I found it,

Let's say you were grabbing a few caches and you returned to where you parked your car only to find it gone. You report it as stolen and a few days later the police call to let you know they've recovered your vehicle. You go to the police station and the Desk Sargeant hands you a steering wheel and a hubcap and says, "here's your car." Would you honestly feel comfortable saying the police had found your vehicle? How would you feel if your insurance company agreed?

 

Wow! That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

 

Comparing a LPC to a car. What's a sense of humor.

It's not quite as amusing as pretending you don't know what a metaphor is.

 

 

[+Mr.Benchmark]

The poor strawman has really met his match this time.

 

....

 

Let's say you were grabbing a few caches and you returned to where you parked your car only to find it gone. You report it as stolen and a few days later the police call to let you know they've recovered your vehicle. You go to the police station and the Desk Sargeant hands you a steering wheel and a hubcap and says, "here's your car." Would you honestly feel comfortable saying the police had found your vehicle? How would you feel if your insurance company agreed?

 

Did you, or did you not, compare how someone might feel about whether or not someone found a portion of a geocache with how they would feel if the police were able to recover only a portion of some vehicle? I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly wouldn't view those situations as being remotely comparable. I guess I don't understand your analogy.

 

BTW, I don't agree with the OP logging the cache "found". I don't think he has amazing evidence that he found the cache, which I think was one of your points. I don't think describing what he found as "found" in a geocache log provides very useful information for the next person who might choose to look for the cache, were they to read the log first, or note the "found it" status with a database search like GSAK. I don't really see this as a big deal, either way, though.

[+B+L]

The poor strawman has really met his match this time.

 

....

 

Let's say you were grabbing a few caches and you returned to where you parked your car only to find it gone. You report it as stolen and a few days later the police call to let you know they've recovered your vehicle. You go to the police station and the Desk Sargeant hands you a steering wheel and a hubcap and says, "here's your car." Would you honestly feel comfortable saying the police had found your vehicle? How would you feel if your insurance company agreed?

 

Did you, or did you not, compare how someone might feel about whether or not someone found a portion of a geocache with how they would feel if the police were able to recover only a portion of some vehicle? I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly wouldn't view those situations as being remotely comparable. I guess I don't understand your analogy.

 

BTW, I don't agree with the OP logging the cache "found". I don't think he has amazing evidence that he found the cache, which I think was one of your points. I don't think describing what he found as "found" in a geocache log provides very useful information for the next person who might choose to look for the cache, were they to read the log first, or note the "found it" status with a database search like GSAK. I don't really see this as a big deal, either way, though.

Perhaps Wikipedia can help:

 

A 'metaphor' is a literary figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object.

I used a metaphor to illustrate the absurdity of the situation. If metaphors are not to your taste, I think Post 47 should have been clear enough.

[4wheelin_fool]

Well, instead of a car, suppose it was the carcass of a horse?

A valuable steed went missing, an investigation ensues, and it is presumed to be stolen. But they don't know where it is. Then someone finds the body, without the skull intact and calls the police. They do a DNA test and find that it is one of the same. They certainly would exclaim that the horse was "found" , even if it was unrecognizeable from being beaten severely long after it died..

[+Z3ROIN]

Well, instead of a car, suppose it was the carcass of a horse?

[+B+L]

Well, instead of a car, suppose it was the carcass of a horse?

A valuable steed went missing, an investigation ensues, and it is presumed to be stolen. But they don't know where it is. Then someone finds the body, without the skull intact and calls the police. They do a DNA test and find that it is one of the same. They certainly would exclaim that the horse was "found" , even if it was unrecognizeable from being beaten severely long after it died..

I'm afraid you'll confuse the people who'll wonder what a horse has to do with an LPC, cars and ice cream. I almost have to admire trotting out the dead horse cliche, but getting in a couple good whacks on that carcass yourself.

 

As if anyone needed more proof, arguing just for the sake of arguing is most of what goes on around here.

[+GeoBain]

Dead horses, car metaphors, ice cream; I just hope everyone learned that you never, ever, ever come to the forums to ask what you should have done.

[+Don_J]

 

Perhaps Wikipedia can help:

 

A 'metaphor' is a literary figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object.

I used a metaphor to illustrate the absurdity of the situation. If metaphors are not to your taste, I think Post 47 should have been clear enough.

 

You compared a light pole cache to an automobile. At what point are they the same? That was not a metaphor, it was a joke.

 

BTW, absent a log book that clearly identified it as a cache, I would not have logged it as a find online. We are not different here. It's the part where we start to tell others how to behave is where our ideas divert.

[+Dan2099]

Yeah after further reading these post I can guarantee I will never go to a cache event because most of you all seem to be out to kill fun where ever and when ever you get a chance too. It goes to remind me why I generally never post on forums.

 

Also the cache owner responded saying he accepted it as a find.

[+Don_J]

Yeah after further reading these post I can guarantee I will never go to a cache event because most of you all seem to be out to kill fun where ever and when ever you get a chance too. It goes to remind me why I generally never post on forums.

 

Also the cache owner responded saying he accepted it as a find.

 

Don't be discouraged. An event is nothing like the forums. People actually have fun there. The people that post on these forums compulsively is but a tiny percentage of actual geocachers and the idea that they represent the general geocaching community is ludicrous. I would urge you to form your opinion of events by attending an event. You might be surprised.

 

I've come to realize that the people here that spend most of their time telling others how they should geocache, do very little actual geocaching themselves.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I used a metaphor to illustrate the absurdity of the situation. If metaphors are not to your taste, I think Post 47 should have been clear enough.

 

My apologies - I had fairly severe ISP issues last night (my router would drop connection every few minutes, and it took several resets to get it to reconnect) and I just missed this post:

 

What is expected is pretty simple, but these forums are teeming with examples of how people rationalize ways to say they found something that isn't there. Then we get to read all the reasons why DNFs are not actually DNFs. Did everyone grow up writing lies in their diaries or something?

 

I literally didn't see this - and was surprised when you linked back to it. Thanks for doing that - I'd have likely continued to miss it, and been further confused in our discussion. I think on this point we largely agree. Had I seen this, I'd likely have said nothing further on the matter.

 

I'm sorry you felt the need to rather condescendingly explain the concept of "metaphor" to me - I do understand the concept. I just didn't see yours as being especially helpful. It seemed to me - given your comparison to the OP's log to "fraud" and "theft" - that you take this matter extremely seriously. I thought that was kind of silly. The post you linked seems to explain what you really think, so I guess we'll leave it at that. Have a great day.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Yeah after further reading these post I can guarantee I will never go to a cache event because most of you all seem to be out to kill fun where ever and when ever you get a chance too. It goes to remind me why I generally never post on forums.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think the ambiguity of the rules leads to debate over what does or does not constitute a find, particularly in exceptional situations where one finds a geocache in some state of disrepair. It also doesn't help that some of us suspect that there are those who simply treat virtually every instance where they don't find a geocache as an exception, and log it found. (The worst examples of this, in my opinion, are people who search briefly, don't find the cache, and then leave a replacement and treat that as a find, while the original cache is still in place - they just never found it. Now subsequent finders are left with two caches at the same site they can find - a messy situation.) Obviously your situation is nothing like that - so I think you got kind of a rough treatment. (I apologize if I contributed to this.)

 

Also the cache owner responded saying he accepted it as a find.

 

At the end of the day, this is really the only opinion that matters.

[+Chrysalides]

Well, instead of a car, suppose it was the carcass of a horse?

What you did there, I see it. But I have a stick, and I feel strangely compelled to follow through.

[+tozainamboku]

The poor strawman has really met his match this time.

 

....

 

Let's say you were grabbing a few caches and you returned to where you parked your car only to find it gone. You report it as stolen and a few days later the police call to let you know they've recovered your vehicle. You go to the police station and the Desk Sargeant hands you a steering wheel and a hubcap and says, "here's your car." Would you honestly feel comfortable saying the police had found your vehicle? How would you feel if your insurance company agreed?

 

Did you, or did you not, compare how someone might feel about whether or not someone found a portion of a geocache with how they would feel if the police were able to recover only a portion of some vehicle? I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly wouldn't view those situations as being remotely comparable. I guess I don't understand your analogy.

 

BTW, I don't agree with the OP logging the cache "found". I don't think he has amazing evidence that he found the cache, which I think was one of your points. I don't think describing what he found as "found" in a geocache log provides very useful information for the next person who might choose to look for the cache, were they to read the log first, or note the "found it" status with a database search like GSAK. I don't really see this as a big deal, either way, though.

Perhaps Wikipedia can help:

 

A 'metaphor' is a literary figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object.

I used a metaphor to illustrate the absurdity of the situation. If metaphors are not to your taste, I think Post 47 should have been clear enough.

I think you're just trolling now.

 

The ice cream metaphor was of course meant only to poke fun a the use of metaphors like the car. These have little to do with the finding of caches.

 

When I look for cache, I am not the police investigating a car robbery. Instead I'm engaging in a fun activity. Certainly, the cache owner can decide that if I wasn't able to sign the log, I might not have found his cache, and per the guidelines, he is allowed to delete my online found log. What is absurd is the claim that there is some requirement that prevents cache owners from accepting online finds with a physical log being signed or that finders who post such logs are cheating. Often in cases like the OP, where some remains are found that are convincing evidence of the cache, cache owners will allow a find. If as a player you don't want to log a find if you find remains, nobody is forcing you to log a find.

 

The second car example that I gave was supposed to show the absurdity of insisting on a signed log. But of course a stolen car is different, for one thing, it has a VIN number, so the police don't actually insist on finding your registration.

[+B+L]

I think you're just trolling now.

 

The ice cream metaphor was of course meant only to poke fun a the use of metaphors like the car. These have little to do with the finding of caches.

 

When I look for cache, I am not the police investigating a car robbery. Instead I'm engaging in a fun activity. Certainly, the cache owner can decide that if I wasn't able to sign the log, I might not have found his cache, and per the guidelines, he is allowed to delete my online found log. What is absurd is the claim that there is some requirement that prevents cache owners from accepting online finds with a physical log being signed or that finders who post such logs are cheating. Often in cases like the OP, where some remains are found that are convincing evidence of the cache, cache owners will allow a find. If as a player you don't want to log a find if you find remains, nobody is forcing you to log a find.

 

The second car example that I gave was supposed to show the absurdity of insisting on a signed log. But of course a stolen car is different, for one thing, it has a VIN number, so the police don't actually insist on finding your registration.

Trolling? How is it trolling to illustrate the absurdity of finding something that is not there? You are completely missing my point (not to mention your insistence on treating the metaphorical as literal). Finding some stuff that might have been part of your car is not the same thing as finding your car, just like finding some some stuff that might have been part of a cache is not the same thing as finding the cache. If the cache is not there anymore, there is nothing to find.

 

What some owners may or may not allow is not the question. The question is whether or not a missing cache should be logged as found. There is an obvious answer and it does not start with Y.

 

As for your accusation of trolling, I have seen you have admit to trolling these forums yourself, so it is more than a little hypocritical to accuse someone else of it. Not entirely unexpected, when hypocrisy is what this topic is about anyway.

[+the4dirtydogs]

Yeah after further reading these post I can guarantee I will never go to a cache event because most of you all seem to be out to kill fun where ever and when ever you get a chance too. It goes to remind me why I generally never post on forums.

 

Also the cache owner responded saying he accepted it as a find.

 

Don't be discouraged. An event is nothing like the forums. People actually have fun there. The people that post on these forums compulsively is but a tiny percentage of actual geocachers and the idea that they represent the general geocaching community is ludicrous. I would urge you to form your opinion of events by attending an event. You might be surprised.

 

I've come to realize that the people here that spend most of their time telling others how they should geocache, do very little actual geocaching themselves.

Best post in this thread. I did like the stolen car analogy. That's some funny stuff there. I'm glad the CO let you claim a find. I would have let you log a find as well. It's just a game. Time to close this thread.

[+B+L]

Perhaps Wikipedia can help:

 

A 'metaphor' is a literary figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object.

I used a metaphor to illustrate the absurdity of the situation. If metaphors are not to your taste, I think Post 47 should have been clear enough.

You compared a light pole cache to an automobile. At what point are they the same? That was not a metaphor, it was a joke.

No. I compared finding some stuff that might have been part of a cache to finding some stuff that might have been part of a car. The whole point was that it does not make sense. Allow me to quote what i said in post 47 that you've linked to, but are so studiously ignoring:

 

What is expected is pretty simple, but these forums are teeming with examples of how people rationalize ways to say they found something that isn't there. Then we get to read all the reasons why DNFs are not actually DNFs. Did everyone grow up writing lies in their diaries or something?

Logging a find on some stuff found near where you think a cache was makes about as much sense as finding an old saddlebag in the desert with the initials "L.D." on it and claiming you found the Lost Ductchman mine.

 

This has become a fascinating cognitive dissonance exhibition, but I think I've provided enough entertainment for the ever-present dwellers of these forums. You are now free to return to your regularly scheduled Thursday topic, which I believe was "Will it Log?"

[Dulce-Joy]

I logged it as a find because I found were the co placed the cache honestly I feel comfortable saying I found it,

Let's say you were grabbing a few caches and you returned to where you parked your car only to find it gone. You report it as stolen and a few days later the police call to let you know they've recovered your vehicle. You go to the police station and the Desk Sargeant hands you a steering wheel and a hubcap and says, "here's your car." Would you honestly feel comfortable saying the police had found your vehicle? How would you feel if your insurance company agreed?

How about someone gave you an ice cream cone, but before you ate the whole thing you dropped it? Later you posted on their ice cream page how you only took one lick before you dropped the cone, but that from what you tasted it was pretty good. Then they delete your log because you didn't eat the whole thing. The rules say "you can post an online tasted it log once you have eaten the cone" but since you didn't finish that would be cheating.

What in the Wide World of Sports does that have to do with anything? If you have to strain that hard to pass a metaphor, you should seek immediate medical attention.

 

And It's not cheating. It's smiley fraud.

Ice cream analogies are always spot on. [] But the more I think about it the more your car analogy needs a serious response.

 

So let's say may car was stolen and a few days later the police call to say that they arrested some guy trying to sell a steering wheel and a hubcap. However, they are not going to press charges since they can't prove it was my car (or any other stolen car). And they won't give me the steering wheel or the hubcap either. So I ask, "How much of my car would you need to find in order for you to identify it as my stolen car?".

 

"Well", they say, "if we recovered the whole car but it didn't have your registration in it, we would not be able to identify this as your car."

 

"Nonsense" I reply.

 

"Perhaps we would know it was your car, but a good lawyer he would be able to convince a jury there was a reasonable doubt. And the law says that you need the registration to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is your car."

 

"But it is my car. You can see the stain on the seat where I dropped my ice cream."

Ha ha ha! Now that's humor!

[+tozainamboku]

I think you're just trolling now.

 

The ice cream metaphor was of course meant only to poke fun a the use of metaphors like the car. These have little to do with the finding of caches.

 

When I look for cache, I am not the police investigating a car robbery. Instead I'm engaging in a fun activity. Certainly, the cache owner can decide that if I wasn't able to sign the log, I might not have found his cache, and per the guidelines, he is allowed to delete my online found log. What is absurd is the claim that there is some requirement that prevents cache owners from accepting online finds with a physical log being signed or that finders who post such logs are cheating. Often in cases like the OP, where some remains are found that are convincing evidence of the cache, cache owners will allow a find. If as a player you don't want to log a find if you find remains, nobody is forcing you to log a find.

 

The second car example that I gave was supposed to show the absurdity of insisting on a signed log. But of course a stolen car is different, for one thing, it has a VIN number, so the police don't actually insist on finding your registration.

Trolling? How is it trolling to illustrate the absurdity of finding something that is not there? You are completely missing my point (not to mention your insistence on treating the metaphorical as literal). Finding some stuff that might have been part of your car is not the same thing as finding your car, just like finding some some stuff that might have been part of a cache is not the same thing as finding the cache. If the cache is not there anymore, there is nothing to find.

 

What some owners may or may not allow is not the question. The question is whether or not a missing cache should be logged as found. There is an obvious answer and it does not start with Y.

 

As for your accusation of trolling, I have seen you have admit to trolling these forums yourself, so it is more than a little hypocritical to accuse someone else of it. Not entirely unexpected, when hypocrisy is what this topic is about anyway.

The issue is where you draw the line. If the police only recover the steering wheel and one hubcap, you may not think they found enough to say they recovered the car. But it may be enough for the insurance company to say the car is a total loss and make a payment. And it may be enough for the prosecutor to bring charges against someone for receiving stolen property.

 

At what point is there "enough" car? What if just the stereo was removed? or the GPS? What it the car had no registration papers or license plates and had to be identified by the VIN number?

 

Unlike the police trying to recover a stolen object, geocaching is supposed to be a fun game. Certainly someone claiming a find when they are sitting at home or even because they were in the neighborhood of the cache, is not what the find log is for. However many players choose to use it when they do find something they are pretty certain is or was the cache. You choose to have a definition that you find something only when you have signed the log. Just two extremes of what to call a find. I've personally not log a find three times when all that I found was a logbook - not even a baggie. I could have claimed that I signed the logs and taken a smiley, but I chose not to. On the other hand, I accepted the log of someone who found only the log sheet when looking for one of my caches. It's not worth getting one's knickers twisted over anyone else's definition of a find.

Edited May 18, 2012 by tozainamboku

[jholly]

I found what I believe to be a cache. It was a complete container, had some used lotto tickets, a couple real estate agent business cards, a couple broken McToys and a condom. But the logbook had a different GC number on it than the one outside the container. What should I do? Should I log a find or do I log a DNF? There was a used tire and a a headlight nearby. Should I call the police and report the stolen car? Please help.

Edited May 18, 2012 by jholly

[+B+L]

I think you're just trolling now.

 

The ice cream metaphor was of course meant only to poke fun a the use of metaphors like the car. These have little to do with the finding of caches.

 

When I look for cache, I am not the police investigating a car robbery. Instead I'm engaging in a fun activity. Certainly, the cache owner can decide that if I wasn't able to sign the log, I might not have found his cache, and per the guidelines, he is allowed to delete my online found log. What is absurd is the claim that there is some requirement that prevents cache owners from accepting online finds with a physical log being signed or that finders who post such logs are cheating. Often in cases like the OP, where some remains are found that are convincing evidence of the cache, cache owners will allow a find. If as a player you don't want to log a find if you find remains, nobody is forcing you to log a find.

 

The second car example that I gave was supposed to show the absurdity of insisting on a signed log. But of course a stolen car is different, for one thing, it has a VIN number, so the police don't actually insist on finding your registration.

Trolling? How is it trolling to illustrate the absurdity of finding something that is not there? You are completely missing my point (not to mention your insistence on treating the metaphorical as literal). Finding some stuff that might have been part of your car is not the same thing as finding your car, just like finding some some stuff that might have been part of a cache is not the same thing as finding the cache. If the cache is not there anymore, there is nothing to find.

 

What some owners may or may not allow is not the question. The question is whether or not a missing cache should be logged as found. There is an obvious answer and it does not start with Y.

 

As for your accusation of trolling, I have seen you have admit to trolling these forums yourself, so it is more than a little hypocritical to accuse someone else of it. Not entirely unexpected, when hypocrisy is what this topic is about anyway.

The issue is where you draw the line. If the police only recover the steering wheel and one hubcap, you may not think they found enough to say they recovered the car. But it may be enough for the insurance company to say the car is a total loss and make a payment. And it may be enough for the prosecutor to bring charges against someone for receiving stolen property.

 

At what point is there "enough" car? What if just the stereo was removed? or the GPS? What it the car had no registration papers or license plates and had to be identified by the VIN number?

 

Unlike the police trying to recover a stolen object, geocaching is supposed to be a fun game. Certainly someone claiming a find when they are sitting at home or even because they were in the neighborhood of the cache, is not what the find log is for. However many players choose to use it when they do find something they are pretty certain is or was the cache. You choose to have a definition that you find something only when you have signed the log. Just two extremes of what to call a find. I've personally not log a find three times when all that I found was a logbook - not even a baggie. I could have claimed that I signed the logs and taken a smiley, but I chose not to. On the other hand, I accepted the log of someone who found only the log sheet when looking for one of my caches. It's not worth getting one's knickers twisted over anyone else's definition of a find.

You sure like talking about knickers, but you really will do just about anything to avoid a direct response. Take jholly's advice and report this thread as stolen.

 

[+Chrysalides]

I found what I believe to be a cache. It was a complete container, had some used lotto tickets, a couple real estate agent business cards, a couple broken McToys and a condom. But the logbook had a different GC number on it than the one outside the container. What should I do? Should I log a find or do I log a DNF? There was a used tire and a a headlight nearby. Should I call the police and report the stolen car? Please help.

Well, if you had found a steering wheel as well, you'd have obviously found some geocacher's lost car. But since there's no steering wheel it's probably just trash.

 

Logbook with wrong GC number is covered in another thread. By consensus, you should have logged a Found It, a DNF, and a Needs Maintenance on both the cache you're looking for, as well as the cache whose GC# is on the logbook.