Jump to content

False logs


Recommended Posts

 

Where I usually get into trouble is debating the the question "What is a find".

 

Dave said 'Sign the logbook', and for me (at least for traditional caches) the discussion ends there.

 

You can spin all the gossamer webs you like, and attempt to distract by pointing to fuzzy bunnies, rainbows and butterflies...

 

but...

 

Dave said 'Sign the logbook'.

Is it okay if I stamp the logbook?

Link to comment

 

Where I usually get into trouble is debating the the question "What is a find".

 

Dave said 'Sign the logbook', and for me (at least for traditional caches) the discussion ends there.

 

You can spin all the gossamer webs you like, and attempt to distract by pointing to fuzzy bunnies, rainbows and butterflies...

 

but...

 

Dave said 'Sign the logbook'.

 

ayep.

Link to comment

 

Where I usually get into trouble is debating the the question "What is a find".

 

Dave said 'Sign the logbook', and for me (at least for traditional caches) the discussion ends there.

 

You can spin all the gossamer webs you like, and attempt to distract by pointing to fuzzy bunnies, rainbows and butterflies...

 

but...

 

Dave said 'Sign the logbook'.

What Dave said was: "Look for a black plastic bucket buried most of the way in the ground. Take some stuff, leave some stuff! Record it all in the log book. Have Fun!"

 

Of course today no rule-following geocacher would look for a black plastic bucket buried most of the way in the ground. Burying caches is a no-no.

 

And most would agree that taking some stuff and leaving some stuff is optional. (Though perhaps if you take stuff you should leave stuff of equal or greater value.)

 

But the most interesting thing is that Dave said nothing at all about recording it online. Dave didn't imagine recording it online. It's surprising that he didn't even say to post in the newsgroup if you found the cache.

 

Geocaching.com fundamentally changed things when they provided a way to record it all online. For some the online log was the new way to record and share your experiences. For others it seems to be more of a place to keep a tally of finds. And some want to compare their tallies with those of other geocachers. If we don't all define a find the same way, then someone is bound to bee seen as having an advantage, and others will call them "cheaters". Then they point to Dave and say "Dave said", when in fact Dave never imagined a score and never defined "find". Dave said "Have Fun!" and for me that is where the discussion should end.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Then they point to Dave and say "Dave said", when in fact Dave never imagined a score and never defined "find".

Perhaps that's because the definition of "find" is blindingly obvious. There is no need to define something that is self-evident to everyone but those suffering from intractable obstreperousness. When Dave formalized the game in the first FAQ, he said this:

 

Even after the Great Asteroid Impact of year 4023 when most

everyone died, your stash and its location could survive.

Archeologists of the year 16428 may find a disk with a list of

stash coordinates. Once decoded, the stash hunt is on again.

Lets just hope they do the right thing:

 

1. Take something from the stash

2. Leave something in the stash

3. Write about it in the logbook

 

Stashed in Perpetuity !

Here's what Dave thought of the way things turned out a only a year later:

 

What right do you geocacher's have to place a cache anywhere if you

don't have permission of the landowner?

 

I'll bet most caches have no permission.. that's irresponsible!

Link to comment

Then they point to Dave and say "Dave said", when in fact Dave never imagined a score and never defined "find".

Perhaps that's because the definition of "find" is blindingly obvious. There is no need to define something that is self-evident to everyone but those suffering from intractable obstreperousness. When Dave formalized the game in the first FAQ, he said this:

 

Even after the Great Asteroid Impact of year 4023 when most

everyone died, your stash and its location could survive.

Archeologists of the year 16428 may find a disk with a list of

stash coordinates. Once decoded, the stash hunt is on again.

Lets just hope they do the right thing:

 

1. Take something from the stash

2. Leave something in the stash

3. Write about it in the logbook

 

Stashed in Perpetuity !

Here's what Dave thought of the way things turned out a only a year later:

 

What right do you geocacher's have to place a cache anywhere if you

don't have permission of the landowner?

 

I'll bet most caches have no permission.. that's irresponsible!

 

I look at finding a cache, signing the logbook and recording it online through a "Found It" log as three different actions. I consider a cache as found if I am physically holding it in my hand. If there are reasons, especially those out of my control, that I can't sign the physical log it doesn't change the fact that I have found the cache, and I am going to record the fact that I did so, online.

 

What I find interesting in the posting of all of this historical data is the fact that Dave didn't seem to see the need to prove to anyone, especially those that don't even own the cache, that you actually found the cache. In fact, I don't believe that he ever said that you had to sign anything. He wanted us to write about our experience in the logbook. I have done that maybe three times this year because I have only found three logbooks that were big enough to write about my experience. I guess I didn't follow Dave's rules for the other 217, but even that doesn't mean that I didn't actually find them and can't record it online.

Link to comment

On one of our recent finds the log was soaked and if we tried to sign it the paper started tearing. So we improvised and added a new paper that was dry. Is this considered bad form or is it kosher? (We counted it as found.)

 

On another recent one in NOLA we found part of a cache (Magnet) but container was gone. We just logged a "Needs Maintenance" but not a DNF because we did sorta find it.

Link to comment

On one of our recent finds the log was soaked and if we tried to sign it the paper started tearing. So we improvised and added a new paper that was dry. Is this considered bad form or is it kosher? (We counted it as found.)

 

On another recent one in NOLA we found part of a cache (Magnet) but container was gone. We just logged a "Needs Maintenance" but not a DNF because we did sorta find it.

 

That is exactly what I would have done in both cases. If I had no paper to add I would consider it a find and post a NM log as well as a find log. That is the point where a lot of people's opinions diverge. Some people feel that if you find a cache, open it up and the log is mush and you can't sign it, then you didn't find the cache. Others take to the other extreme and log finding a magnet as if they had found a cache.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...