What is the point? Logbook signing.

[gplee13]

I was just wondering what geocache owners do with the signed logbooks (if anything all). I am recently new to geocaching and have instantly become addicted finding 7 within my first two days of hearing of it. I like the spirit of finding a cache and signing the log, but if you also log your find online, is the point of signing the physical log just an old tradition kept alive, or a secondary confirmation that you actually found it?

 

Basically do the owners of the cache enter the names in online or do anything with the logs once they are full of sigs?

 

p.s. I wish I would have known about geocaching years ago. Loving the idea of it, the whole CITO campaign, and the spirit of being active in the beautiful outdoors!

[+BlackRose67]

It's just proof that you found it.

 

Cache owners can go and check the physical log to verify if people really did find it.

[+The Blorenges]

I think most geocachers view signing the physical log as the primary "confirmation" that they found it.

 

It's not enough to simply see where the cache is, you need to get it in your hands, sign the log, and then replace the cache where you found it.

 

Some cache owners do check the names on the physical logs and compare them to the on-line logs, especially if they've set a particularly challenging cache. If your name isn't in the logbook they may contact you to ask if there's a good reason why you haven't signed it - If you have no plausible excuse then they may delete your on-line log. But I'd say that for the vast majority of caches the logging is based on trust and as is stated so many times on these forums, "If you cheat on logging, you're only cheating yourself".

 

MrsB

[+niraD]

I haven't had a full log yet, so I don't speak from personal experience. But I've heard of cache owners: scanning/photographing full logs and posting the photos to the cache page, keeping a collection of full logs at home, rolling the sheets/pages into paper tubes and building a "log cabin", or just tossing full logs into the trash/recycling.

 

I don't make a habit of verifying signatures for online logs, but if an online log looks questionable (enough so that it attracts my attention), then I will verify the signature and delete the log if it is bogus. Some owners are more rigorous than this. Others are less rigorous.

 

But yes, to some degree, logs are signed because that's the tradition, that's the way geocaching is done. From the Geocaching 101 page:

7. Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

[...]

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

[...]

In its simplest form, a cache always contains a logbook or logsheet for you to log your find.

And from the guidelines:

Geocache containers include a logsheet or logbook.

And from elsewhere in the guidelines:

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

[+kunarion]

Basically do the owners of the cache enter the names in online or do anything with the logs once they are full of sigs?

Sometimes the paper log has more detail than the online log, cool signatures, or drawings, even stories. The little scrolls in Nanos may be not so interesting, but Cache Owners may enjoy keeping the larger cache logs.

 

If I like something about the hide, and don't want to spoil the surprise of finding it, I'll mention it in the log book, but not in the online log. Same thing if I add some nice Swag.

 

I found a container from a cache that had been archived two years before. It still had a log book inside, which I returned to the Cache Owner.

 

You never get a cool snake skin like this on your online log!

Edited July 13, 2012 by kunarion

[gplee13]

Thank you so much for clarifying. I look forward to gaining much more experience and knowledge throughout my future geocaching career! It sometimes is hard to believe that some people have been doing this since the early 2000s.

[+wsbucker]

I recently hid a 5 gallon bucket close to a very popular destination for people from all over the country. I placed a full size composition notebook in there as the logbook in the hope that it will collect a large variety of notes and stories. I plan to keep it once it is filled up!

[+fotimyr]

I plan to keep it once it is filled up!

Good idea! I recently found a cache which was somewhat off the beaten track, a two hour hike each way (a cluster of bronze age burial mounds, about 3000 years old). It has only 50 finds in 7 years, and it contains a proper, hardcover notebook. Almost all the finders took the time to write a whole page of their experiences while finding it, so I did the same while resting, eating and hydrating. When the log book is full, it will probably be a keepsake for the CO.

Edited July 13, 2012 by fotimyr

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I think most geocachers view signing the physical log as the primary "confirmation" that they found it.

 

It's not enough to simply see where the cache is, you need to get it in your hands, sign the log, and then replace the cache where you found it.

 

Some cache owners do check the names on the physical logs and compare them to the on-line logs, especially if they've set a particularly challenging cache. If your name isn't in the logbook they may contact you to ask if there's a good reason why you haven't signed it - If you have no plausible excuse then they may delete your on-line log. But I'd say that for the vast majority of caches the logging is based on trust and as is stated so many times on these forums, "If you cheat on logging, you're only cheating yourself".

 

+1..........as a cache finder I WANT to sign a log sheet. Geocaching is a game which uses a honor code.....90%+ of the logs are never checked or become destroyed before they can be.

 

MrsB

[+Lieblweb]

I've had plenty of full logs..... When I replace them, I look at them quick and toss 'em.

 

The first few times I had full logs, I looked at them closely (kinda). And I did notice there were more signatures on the logs than there were logs online. Some folks are caching without logging anything online. I'm sure there are a few folks who log without signing....

 

I don't have time to verify the signatures to the logs online. People play by their own 'culture' and/or play the game however they want to play it. I'm not going to nitpick on how they want to play. I just replace my logs.....so folks can play!

[+Ike 13]

I've removed full log sheets from quite a few of my micros and smalls as they filled up. I verify the finds (never had an issue), look at all the people who found it but did not log it online, then tape them to a sheet of printer paper to keep.

[+briansnat]

Back before the days of micros, and logs have become little more than a name and a date, logbooks were actual notebooks and people would record their experiences therein. Sometimes logs would be a few sentences and sometimes they would take up a page or more.

 

If you were to find an old cache with it's original logbook intact you can see how this has practice has changed over the years.

 

But as others mentioned the chief purpose is to serve as confirmation that you actually visited the cache. And from the searcher's end it is the sort of the coup de grâce of the cache hunt.

[Mr.Yuck]

Back before the days of micros, and logs have become little more than a name and a date, logbooks were actual notebooks and people would record their experiences therein. Sometimes logs would be a few sentences and sometimes they would take up a page or more.

 

If you were to find an old cache with it's original logbook intact you can see how this has practice has changed over the years.

 

But as others mentioned the chief purpose is to serve as confirmation that you actually visited the cache. And from the searcher's end it is the sort of the coup de grâce of the cache hunt.

 

Yes! I am in Possession of a full-sized logbook from an early 2004 placed cache of my own, and it's quite amazing how the logs went from people writing a whole paragraph, to the point where they only started putting a name and date around 2009 or so. I am not imagining this, I have this thing.

 

By the way, there are several persons in my area who don't even date their paper log, including the top FTF hound in my area. Just a username scribbled int he logbook, and nothing else. I have on more than one occasion joked (on a small or regular) that the logbook is gonna last about 50 years on this cache, the way people are signing film canister style.

 

But yeah, it's quite the "tradition" to sign the log, and the ultimate verification of a find. Good thing you posted it here. I remember about 2 years ago some guy started a thread in Geocaching Topics that he just "looked" at hiking caches in California, and didn't bother to go over to them, and open them up. That one went over like a lead balloon.

[+kunarion]

A local cache log book was filled with pages and pages of stories, logs by muggles! Pages like this:

 

 

And there's more:

My link

My other link

Edited July 15, 2012 by kunarion

[+L0ne.R]

A local cache log book was filled with pages and pages of stories, logs by muggles! Pages like this:

 

 

And there's more:

My link

My other link

 

Those entries are fantastic. This one is a favourite muggle entry of mine from our Arboretum cache (2004):

 

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I have several of those books as well and in the early days more was written in the log book than on-line.

IMO on-line is the place to write your nice log.....its permanent. In the swamps of LA when the sweat is flowing and the mosquitoes are attacking its ALL I can do sometimes to just write my name and get out.

[+StarBrand]

I have a small but growing collection of the old logbooks from my caches - I keep meaning to scan the pages to a personal webpage but never seem to get around to doing it.

[+blackhorse221]

I have a small but growing collection of the old logbooks from my caches - I keep meaning to scan the pages to a personal webpage but never seem to get around to doing it.

 

That'd be a nice feature for Groundspeak to offer on this website! *hint, hint*

[+briansnat]

I have a small but growing collection of the old logbooks from my caches - I keep meaning to scan the pages to a personal webpage but never seem to get around to doing it.

 

I have a large and growing collection. This was taken several years ago. There are about 1/3 more in the pile these days.

 

[+Markwell]

Thank you so much for clarifying. I look forward to gaining much more experience and knowledge throughout my future geocaching career! It sometimes is hard to believe that some people have been doing this since the early 2000s.

I never thought the "2000s" would seem nostalgic...

[+firestars]

For me, paper logs (both providing and signing) are an outdated and pointless execise.

 

I dont check the logs in my caches, when they are full they go straight in the bin. If you dont sign the log, then I dont mind. In fact, I activley encourage you not to sign it so as to not fill it up to the point where it needs replacing.

 

For me, get the cache in your hands, and then replace it. To me, thats enough and I hardly every sign log books now.

 

Think of the reduction in miles travelled and hassle for CO's if there were no paper logs to keep replacing?

[Mr.Yuck]

For me, paper logs (both providing and signing) are an outdated and pointless execise.

 

I dont check the logs in my caches, when they are full they go straight in the bin. If you dont sign the log, then I dont mind. In fact, I activley encourage you not to sign it so as to not fill it up to the point where it needs replacing.

 

For me, get the cache in your hands, and then replace it. To me, thats enough and I hardly every sign log books now.

 

Think of the reduction in miles travelled and hassle for CO's if there were no paper logs to keep replacing?

 

That's a new and interesting perspective. I'd have to think you're in a fringe minority though, with that line of thinking. I'll bet a lot of people would like to debate you on some of that, but this isn't the proper forum for that.

[+firestars]

For me, paper logs (both providing and signing) are an outdated and pointless execise.

 

I dont check the logs in my caches, when they are full they go straight in the bin. If you dont sign the log, then I dont mind. In fact, I activley encourage you not to sign it so as to not fill it up to the point where it needs replacing.

 

For me, get the cache in your hands, and then replace it. To me, thats enough and I hardly every sign log books now.

 

Think of the reduction in miles travelled and hassle for CO's if there were no paper logs to keep replacing?

 

That's a new and interesting perspective. I'd have to think you're in a fringe minority though, with that line of thinking. I'll bet a lot of people would like to debate you on some of that, but this isn't the proper forum for that.

 

Trust me, I have already heard it.

 

Once Groundspeak realise that the cost in both time and resources (fuel to replace a paper log, the paper itself) is self defeatest in what is supposed to be an 'eco friendly' hobby, the better for all of us. I long for the day where a QR code in your cache is sufficent proof.

[Mr.Yuck]

For me, paper logs (both providing and signing) are an outdated and pointless execise.

 

I dont check the logs in my caches, when they are full they go straight in the bin. If you dont sign the log, then I dont mind. In fact, I activley encourage you not to sign it so as to not fill it up to the point where it needs replacing.

 

For me, get the cache in your hands, and then replace it. To me, thats enough and I hardly every sign log books now.

 

Think of the reduction in miles travelled and hassle for CO's if there were no paper logs to keep replacing?

 

That's a new and interesting perspective. I'd have to think you're in a fringe minority though, with that line of thinking. I'll bet a lot of people would like to debate you on some of that, but this isn't the proper forum for that.

 

Trust me, I have already heard it.

 

Once Groundspeak realise that the cost in both time and resources (fuel to replace a paper log, the paper itself) is self defeatest in what is supposed to be an 'eco friendly' hobby, the better for all of us. I long for the day where a QR code in your cache is sufficent proof.

 

That might happen some day, that they give in and go with the QR code thing. So keep patiently waiting. In the meantime, you can play that game we're not allowed to talk about that uses them.

[+JBnW]

Back before the days of micros, and logs have become little more than a name and a date, logbooks were actual notebooks and people would record their experiences therein. Sometimes logs would be a few sentences and sometimes they would take up a page or more.

 

If you were to find an old cache with it's original logbook intact you can see how this has practice has changed over the years.

 

But as others mentioned the chief purpose is to serve as confirmation that you actually visited the cache. And from the searcher's end it is the sort of the coup de grâce of the cache hunt.

 

Yes! I am in Possession of a full-sized logbook from an early 2004 placed cache of my own, and it's quite amazing how the logs went from people writing a whole paragraph, to the point where they only started putting a name and date around 2009 or so. I am not imagining this, I have this thing.

 

By the way, there are several persons in my area who don't even date their paper log, including the top FTF hound in my area. Just a username scribbled int he logbook, and nothing else. I have on more than one occasion joked (on a small or regular) that the logbook is gonna last about 50 years on this cache, the way people are signing film canister style.

 

But yeah, it's quite the "tradition" to sign the log, and the ultimate verification of a find. Good thing you posted it here. I remember about 2 years ago some guy started a thread in Geocaching Topics that he just "looked" at hiking caches in California, and didn't bother to go over to them, and open them up. That one went over like a lead balloon.

That reminds me, I'm still storing the very original container and logbook from this, now archived November 2001 cache: GC11ARQ. So cool to read through it and see real words, sentences, stories... and almost no acronyms! I do need to get to KC sometime and return it to the original owner.

[+hzoi]

I just archived some caches of ours that we kept active in Germany for a couple of years after we left. The German cacher who took over the cache locations sent me the old log books. It was fun reading through the logs, seeing familiar names.

 

We even keep the log book from our event caches -- we got a fancy notebook, glued a travel bug to the cover, and log it into all of our events. It's cool to go back through it -- one cacher even used a wax seal to log it, which I thought was pretty sweet.

[+L0ne.R]

For me, paper logs (both providing and signing) are an outdated and pointless execise.

 

I dont check the logs in my caches, when they are full they go straight in the bin. If you dont sign the log, then I dont mind. In fact, I activley encourage you not to sign it so as to not fill it up to the point where it needs replacing.

 

For me, get the cache in your hands, and then replace it. To me, thats enough and I hardly every sign log books now.

 

Think of the reduction in miles travelled and hassle for CO's if there were no paper logs to keep replacing?

 

That's a new and interesting perspective. I'd have to think you're in a fringe minority though, with that line of thinking. I'll bet a lot of people would like to debate you on some of that, but this isn't the proper forum for that.

 

Trust me, I have already heard it.

 

Once Groundspeak realise that the cost in both time and resources (fuel to replace a paper log, the paper itself) is self defeatest in what is supposed to be an 'eco friendly' hobby, the better for all of us. I long for the day where a QR code in your cache is sufficent proof.

 

That might happen some day, that they give in and go with the QR code thing. So keep patiently waiting. In the meantime, you can play that game we're not allowed to talk about that uses them.

 

If they implemented a QR code system now, a logbook would still be necessary for the majority of cachers that don't have the ability to capture QR codes. But it could make the logbook/sheet last a little longer.

 

Personally it disappoints me when I read that people find logbooks and the extra maintenance required a problem. Whenever I find a cache with a logsheet where a logbook would fit, I think that it perpetuates the trend towards trailnames-only and acronym-only online logs. I'm one of those COs that consider the logbook as part of the whole caching experience. A nice logbook makes for a more pleasant overall caching experience. For our cache hides I try to make the logbook a little interesting:

 

[+firestars]

Its 2012. For those of us that dont want to sign what is (50% of the time) a dirty, damp, torn, fiddly piece of paper, we shouldn't have to. Its time to look at moving on Groundspeak!

[+L0ne.R]

Its 2012. For those of us that dont want to sign what is (50% of the time) a dirty, damp, torn, fiddly piece of paper, we shouldn't have to. Its time to look at moving on Groundspeak!

 

How you going to get a QR Code in a nano?

[+firestars]

http://www.quora.com/QR-Codes/How-small-can-a-QR-code-be

 

Happy to help.

[+ohmelli]

For me, paper logs (both providing and signing) are an outdated and pointless execise.

 

I dont check the logs in my caches, when they are full they go straight in the bin. If you dont sign the log, then I dont mind. In fact, I activley encourage you not to sign it so as to not fill it up to the point where it needs replacing.

 

For me, get the cache in your hands, and then replace it. To me, thats enough and I hardly every sign log books now.

 

Think of the reduction in miles travelled and hassle for CO's if there were no paper logs to keep replacing?

 

 

That's a new and interesting perspective. I'd have to think you're in a fringe minority though, with that line of thinking. I'll bet a lot of people would like to debate you on some of that, but this isn't the proper forum for that.

 

Trust me, I have already heard it.

 

Once Groundspeak realise that the cost in both time and resources (fuel to replace a paper log, the paper itself) is self defeatest in what is supposed to be an 'eco friendly' hobby, the better for all of us. I long for the day where a QR code in your cache is sufficent proof.

 

I would be very sad to see physical logs go the way of the wind. I have one cache that has a T-shirt in it for the log, along with fabric markers to sign it with. I get more compliments on the log than on the cache! Thus far no one has spoiled the surprise by posting a picture... but I have had a few people send me pictures of what they wrote or drew on my t-shirt! I can't wait for it to get full. I will wear it to Geocaching events!!! I have another one I'm getting ready to place that is full with colored pencils and asks the hunter to draw a picture in the log. You can't DO that on the on-line log!!!

Edited July 20, 2012 by ohmelli

[+L0ne.R]

http://www.quora.com...an-a-QR-code-be

 

Happy to help.

 

That was quite interesting. I look forward to smartphones being able to accurately scan tiny qr's. For one thing it'll make the M-game more discreet. Right now the smallest I've been able to successfully scan almost every time is about 2cm square code. I'd much prefer a QR Code in a nano cache rather then trying to get the scroll out, unfurl it and write in tiny letters then try to tightly scroll it back up again. But I would miss logbooks in larger containers (I've seen decent logbooks in micro caches but it requires a CO who is willing to replace them more often).

[+firestars]

Of course, loosing paper caches won't happen overnight but COs should have the option of not having logs if they don't want them in their caches. This rule I think needs relaxing in the future and the Geocaching dinosaurs need to move with the times ;-)

 

The T shirt idea is a good one but a damp nano log? No thanks!

[+mymren]

I enjoy signing the log - gives me a feeling of accomplishment!

[+ShaunEM]

In a small log I leave a little. In a "book" I at least leave a few sentences. Sometimes the swarming skeeters make me rush though!

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Its 2012. For those of us that dont want to sign what is (50% of the time) a dirty, damp, torn, fiddly piece of paper, we shouldn't have to. Its time to look at moving on Groundspeak!

 

How you going to get a QR Code in a nano?

 

I guess nano's will just have to go

[+John in Valley Forge]

In a small log I leave a little. In a "book" I at least leave a few sentences. Sometimes the swarming skeeters make me rush though!

 

Sometimes a log may be so full that you can just make a mark. Especially "vacation" caches (no longer allowed, but there are still plenty out there). Cachers add new paper when they can but the logs are a bit unorganized. Still a big part of the challenge is making that mark. I was rushed in my logs several times last week by heavily armed police and soldiers in tourist places in Europe. This just adds to the challenge.

 

There are certainly circumstances that lead to not signing a log. It might be soaked, your pen might break. I had a unigue situation last week that prevented me from signing a logbook. The CO however, invited me to log the find. I thought about it and logged it without guilt.

[+firestars]

"Logged without guilt" - and why shouldn't you? If you can tell the CO what the cache was, where it was located and your inside leg measurement IF they question your on-line log, whats the problem?

[+jk3700]

I've read the whole thread on logbooks and agree that there is a lot of ways to look at them. Having been caching now for a couple of weeks, it was a real cool experience to find the log books in the caches. The feeling of accomplishment was intense as someone said. I wanted to leave something significant of myself there in the cache. I was excited to see entries from way back and I felt priviledged to be able to add something to it for others to see. The online Logs are ok too, but to be at the cache site, having just found it, and holding this treasure that many (like me) have worked so hard to find, speaks volumes to the function of the logging activity adding good feelings to the experience.

 

I'd say that if folks are geocaching and not physically logging, their first feelings of their experience have wained as many of our first feelings have a want to do.

[+jk3700]

I've read the whole thread on logbooks and agree that there is a lot of ways to look at them. Having been caching now for a couple of weeks, it was a real cool experience to find the log books in the caches. The feeling of accomplishment was intense as someone said. I wanted to leave something significant of myself there in the cache. I was excited to see entries from way back and I felt priviledged to be able to add something to it for others to see. The online Logs are ok too, but to be at the cache site, having just found it, and holding this treasure that many (like me) have worked so hard to find, speaks volumes to the function of the logging activity adding good feelings to the experience.

 

I'd say that if folks are geocaching and not physically logging, their first feelings of their experience have wained as many of our first feelings have a want to do.

[+6NoisyHikers]

My perspective on logbooks and signing is that putting pen to paper (even wet paper) is the small but significant equivalent of leaving one's mark on the world. It says: "I was here." In this spot. On this planet. I existed. Our names listed alongside others in our community is the story of us, the things we have done, the places we have been.

 

I wax poetic here but the physical nature of the logbook and the writing of my name is, to me, a really important aspect of this hobby. Even though I generally write more in my online log than the paper one (usually due to space and/or time constraints), I like to think of my ink scratches as an artifact that digital writing will never match.

 

One day in the future someone will unearth a battered ammo can and find it contains, among other things, a book with "6NoisyHikers" written in it. Who were they? Why were they here? They must have been happy - they drew a smiling face next to their name. We - geocachers - will be a civilization of oddly-named characters that archaeologists will study for years but never quite comprehend.

[+firestars]

I would suggest that 99% of log books are destroyed by the CO's. If the remaining 1% is that important to you, then I respect your decision to sign the logs.

[+6NoisyHikers]

I'd be willing to bet that in its day 99% of Greek pottery was handled thusly as well. Good thing that 1% survived. It's a chance I'm willing to take.

[+L0ne.R]

My perspective on logbooks and signing is that putting pen to paper (even wet paper) is the small but significant equivalent of leaving one's mark on the world. It says: "I was here." In this spot. On this planet. I existed. Our names listed alongside others in our community is the story of us, the things we have done, the places we have been.

 

Well said.

[+knowltonGeo]

My son and I recently found a cache with a log book going back 7 years. It was "fun" to go back in time and see what people had written. Yes, it was mostly just dates with geocache "handles" beside them, but some people had a lot to say. Maybe to some it seems pointless, but there is something to be said about the "history" of a cache. One day, the CO may claim the logbook and have something really special to share with posterity. I have no idea how the log book as survived 7 years without deteriorating or getting muggled. I hope nothing happens to it. That would be a real shame.

Edited July 22, 2012 by knowltonGeo