Found or Not Found - Or am I just being grumpy?!

[+Jungle_Tribe]

I've introduced a friend to Geocaching, they've been enjoying themselves, invested in a gps and started hiding their own caches. (I know some people would argue that they should have more experience before starting to hide caches.)

 

Concrete Stack

 

I feel people have been rather harsh with comments, and really, they shouldn't have claimed this as found!! I have yet to go an investigate the cache, but from looking at the terrain rating ad attributes, it looks like this is going to be difficult to get to, with climbing involved!

 

There are approx 215 caches on the Island, most of which are tupperware hidden at the bottom of trees... (there are some inventive caches also) and I'm wondering if maybe people have gotten to used to having 1 and 2 star caches around!!

 

My question really is am I just being silly? Getting all wound up because it's a friend? Do you think people should claim finds when they haven't even had the cache in hand? (I feel its ok if they can't open the container, ie rusted shut, not a puzzle.) Maybe I'm just after a good whinge!!!

[MisterEFQ]

None of those people should have claimed a find.

[+niraD]

If I had placed a cache like that, then I would have been prepared to delete bogus logs from people who didn't actually retrieve the cache and sign the log.

[+MartyBartfast]

The CO says it's a challenging cache, and it's a high terrain rating, so finders shouldn't be surprised to find it's a bit 'risky'.

 

The CO's quite right to insist on the log being signed to claim a find so those who claimed it without signing should have their finds deleted.

[+SwineFlew]

Wow...those are really rude logs. They will be deleted without any thoughts on the ground of rude logs and didnt sign the logbook. GS will stand with the CO there.

[+Ma & Pa]

None of those people should have claimed a find.

 

AGREED

 

Its rated 3/4.5 and you go for it and find it too difficult and decide to claim it anyway. Makes no sense.

 

Of course this likely occurs because people load a bunch of caches in the gps and do not check the rating.

 

PAul

[+steben6]

These are definitely not found! One of the basic requirements listed in the guidelines is that a "found" log can only happen on physical caches once the cache is found and the cache log is signed:

 

"3.1. Logging of All Physical Geocaches

 

This page is an extension of our Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

 

[updated 4/23/2012]

 

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

 

The cache owner may delete the bogus logs, if they desired. I would first email those who logged the find and give them the opportunity to change their "found it" log to a "note." If they don't, I would delete their logs. The cache description pretty much says it is a tough find.

[+stijnhommes]

I totally agree with all the comments in this thread.

The CO properly rated the terrain, gave the cache the right attributes and mentioned how challenging it was in the description.

There's really no excuse for logging a find when they haven't in fact retrieved and signed the log.

 

The cache owner is within his right to delete find logs he can't trace back to the physical log as the Groundspeak rules say.

But I would give the cachers the chance to change their logs to DNF or note first.

[+Jungle_Tribe]

The cache owner may delete the bogus logs, if they desired. I would first email those who logged the find and give them the opportunity to change their "found it" log to a "note." If they don't, I would delete their logs. The cache description pretty much says it is a tough find.

 

Thank you, that seems a polite and reasonable way to respond to the logs.

 

"What a dadgum stupid place to put a cache! Found, but not prepared to get to it to sign the log!"

I have read another post from the same cacher which I also found to be quite rude, when they were complaining about caches going missing and people not looking after them properly, I did point out I found the cache they couldn't... Maybe they're just old and grumpy?!

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Just have your newbie friend delete the logs. Seriously rude first logger. Others are taking their lead and following suit.

[+stijnhommes]

Or young and grumpy! Recently, I've also seen someone complain about a cache hidden beneath thorny bush and saying the CO should provide fireman suits and gloves to retrieve it, even though the cache page, the attributes and several logs included warnings about it. You can't satisfy people who don't read the description carefully.

[+T.D.M.22]

I would delete all the logs. And since they are being rude I personally wouldn't even send them an email explaining why, but that's just me. your friends can do it my way, but since he is new he should probably do it the nice polite way and email all those who logged it asking they change their logs or he will delete them.

[+Jungle_Tribe]

Thanks people for the advice/views. I passed them onto the CO, and his wonderful reply was

 

i didn't realize i could delete logs, cheers

P.S. Oops my finger slipped on the delete buton... and the confirm delete button

 

[4wheelin_fool]

I'm waiting for the official Toz response.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I'm waiting for the official Toz response.

 

The official Toz response does not apply. If the found it logs were posted by some that didn't find the cache and sign the log, the cache owner is justified in deleting the logs. The official Toz response would apply if the CO owner allowed the found it logs for those that "saw the cache" but didn't sign the log.

[+GeoBain]

Thanks people for the advice/views. I passed them onto the CO, and his wonderful reply was

 

i didn't realize i could delete logs, cheers

P.S. Oops my finger slipped on the delete buton... and the confirm delete button

 

 

[+MartyBartfast]

Thanks people for the advice/views. I passed them onto the CO, and his wonderful reply was

 

i didn't realize i could delete logs, cheers

P.S. Oops my finger slipped on the delete buton... and the confirm delete button

 

 

Excellent. I think if I was them I would now either post a note stating that some false finds had been deleted, or put something on the main cache page to that effect, making the bit about not claiming finds a bit more prominent.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Thanks people for the advice/views. I passed them onto the CO, and his wonderful reply was

 

i didn't realize i could delete logs, cheers

P.S. Oops my finger slipped on the delete buton... and the confirm delete button

 

 

Excellent. I think if I was them I would now either post a note stating that some false finds had been deleted, or put something on the main cache page to that effect, making the bit about not claiming finds a bit more prominent.

 

The CO might even post it as a Owner Maintenance log and point out that he's checked on the status of the cache, it's still there, and that the log sheet is still blank.

[Clan Riffster]

I've introduced a friend to Geocaching...

Can you introduce them to waterproof containers?

It'll save them gobs of maintenance in the future.

[Pup Patrol]

I would delete all the logs. And since they are being rude I personally wouldn't even send them an email explaining why, but that's just me. your friends can do it my way, but since he is new he should probably do it the nice polite way and email all those who logged it asking they change their logs or he will delete them.

 

I agree with this. If it was me, I would delete the rude notes, as well as the fake "found it" logs.

 

A cache page is not a forum thread, and it's inappropriate to use it as such.

 

Mind you, the cache owner should remove that bit that basically said it was okay to write notes:

 

ALSO, If you are not prepared to sign the logbook then don't log it as FOUND By all means write a note saying you found it but do not log it as found!

 

That is a bad, bad thing to put on a cache page...as witnessed by people bashing the cache hide.

 

And, yes, the cache owner can edit the cache page, as well as delete logs.

 

B.

[+tozainamboku]

These are definitely not found! One of the basic requirements listed in the guidelines is that a "found" log can only happen on physical caches once the cache is found and the cache log is signed:

 

"3.1. Logging of All Physical Geocaches

 

This page is an extension of our Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

 

[updated 4/23/2012]

 

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

 

The cache owner may delete the bogus logs, if they desired. I would first email those who logged the find and give them the opportunity to change their "found it" log to a "note." If they don't, I would delete their logs. The cache description pretty much says it is a tough find.

 

I'm waiting for the official Toz response.

 

I'm waiting for the official Toz response.

 

The official Toz response does not apply. If the found it logs were posted by some that didn't find the cache and sign the log, the cache owner is justified in deleting the logs. The official Toz response would apply if the CO owner allowed the found it logs for those that "saw the cache" but didn't sign the log.

While steben6 is misinterpreting (and quoting out of context) that section of the guideline, NYPaddleCacher is correct that the cache owner may delete find logs if the physical log is not signed. What's more is the cache owner may delete logs for being off topic or otherwise inappropriate. It is generally considered inappropriate to use the cache page as a discussion forum as to whether or not a certain cache is a good idea.

 

If there is any doubt about toz's official position on this cache, I refer to this cache that I was FTF on back in 2004.

[Mr.Yuck]

I've introduced a friend to Geocaching...

Can you introduce them to waterproof containers?

It'll save them gobs of maintenance in the future.

 

All that, and you notice the container is a film canister?

 

I notice your friend has 26 finds. The Official Groundspeak directive that no one talks about, or thinks exists is that they find 20 caches before hiding one. They're good.

 

I was just goofing around those two sentences. When I look, early in the day on Saturday, most of the logs have been deleted. One has reposted a note saying they are claiming find. Wrong. Groundspeak will side with this cache owner in a second if this gets escalated to what I like to call the drama department.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[+MartyBartfast]

One has reposted a note saying they are claiming find. Wrong.

 

But then they have posted it as a "write note" and not a "found it", which is what the CO suggested on the page, so leaving out the fact that they're pretty rude and ignorant in what they wrote I don't see a problem with that. To me that not just serves to show what an idiot that 'finder' is

Edited September 29, 2012 by MartyBartfast

[4wheelin_fool]

PLEASE DO NOT ARCHIVE THIS LOG (AGAIN) ... IT IS A SENSIBLE LOG INDICATING THE DIFFICULTY OF THE LOCATION ... YES IT HAS BEEN FOUND, AND PHOTOGRAPHED IN SITU!

 

in our opinion, this is a stupid, and unsafe, place to put a cache. The cache owner seems to consider the location suitaqble give it's rating. We shall have to agree to disagree.

 

Found, photographed in situ, but not prepared to get to it to sign the log! Therefore from our perspective we're recording it as a found.

 

If they consider it stupid and unsafe, they should just walk away from it. With a blank logbook, FTF is still up for grabs.

[Mr.Yuck]

PLEASE DO NOT ARCHIVE THIS LOG (AGAIN) ... IT IS A SENSIBLE LOG INDICATING THE DIFFICULTY OF THE LOCATION ... YES IT HAS BEEN FOUND, AND PHOTOGRAPHED IN SITU!

 

in our opinion, this is a stupid, and unsafe, place to put a cache. The cache owner seems to consider the location suitaqble give it's rating. We shall have to agree to disagree.

 

Found, photographed in situ, but not prepared to get to it to sign the log! Therefore from our perspective we're recording it as a found.

 

If they consider it stupid and unsafe, they should just walk away from it. With a blank logbook, FTF is still up for grabs.

 

Yes, that's the one I was talking about. Whatever floats their boat. Pun intended, living on Guernsey and all. Record it where? In a pocket notebook? On GSAK? Because it's not going to be on Geocaching.com.

 

P.S. What the heck is SITU???

Edited September 29, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[+Mudfrog]

PLEASE DO NOT ARCHIVE THIS LOG (AGAIN) ... IT IS A SENSIBLE LOG INDICATING THE DIFFICULTY OF THE LOCATION ... YES IT HAS BEEN FOUND, AND PHOTOGRAPHED IN SITU!

 

in our opinion, this is a stupid, and unsafe, place to put a cache. The cache owner seems to consider the location suitaqble give it's rating. We shall have to agree to disagree.

 

Found, photographed in situ, but not prepared to get to it to sign the log! Therefore from our perspective we're recording it as a found.

 

If they consider it stupid and unsafe, they should just walk away from it. With a blank logbook, FTF is still up for grabs.

 

Exactly! Sounds like another "entitled" member of our society writing that silly log. I wish that cache was close to us because it sounds like a good little challenge.

 

Of course, there may be more to this situation than what we know. It might be placed on top of a tower on private property without permission or under a heavily traveled highway bridge. These haven't been mentioned so with the info in hand,,, It does indeed seem like what i stated in my first statement above is probably the case.

 

situ???

[Pup Patrol]

in situ:

 

In situ (/ɪn ˈsɪtjuː/) is a Latin phrase which translates literally to 'In position'.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ

 

B.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Pup Patrol

[+Mudfrog]

In the cache page description and i quote,,

ALSO, If you are not prepared to sign the logbook then don't log it as FOUND By all means write a note saying you found it but do not log it as found!

 

Don't really see a reason to add the above but if i did, i would use the words "think you saw it" instead of "found it".

[+MartyBartfast]

It might be placed on top of a tower on private property without permission or under a heavily traveled highway bridge. These haven't been mentioned so with the info in hand,,

 

Looking at the Bing Maps link, it seems to be on the remains of some sort of tower, which is in the open just above the beach line by a footpath. It's difficult to tell the height but judging by the shadows and the width of the paths it certainly doesn't look like a full scale attack with ropes/carabiners/pitons/helmets is going to be required, something I would have climbed without a second thought when I was a kid, nowadays I'd probably still give it a go, but if I felt it was out of my league I'd just leave it for the younger/fitter/more adventurous. It sounds like that one particular 'finder' has an axe to grind.

 

BTW in situ is quite a common phrase over this side of the pond, it means "in place".

[Pup Patrol]

BTW in situ is quite a common phrase over this side of the pond, it means "in place".

 

It's not uncommon on this side of the pond, either.

 

 

B.

[+Mudfrog]

It might be placed on top of a tower on private property without permission or under a heavily traveled highway bridge. These haven't been mentioned so with the info in hand,,

 

Looking at the Bing Maps link, it seems to be on the remains of some sort of tower, which is in the open just above the beach line by a footpath. It's difficult to tell the height but judging by the shadows and the width of the paths it certainly doesn't look like a full scale attack with ropes/carabiners/pitons/helmets is going to be required, something I would have climbed without a second thought when I was a kid, nowadays I'd probably still give it a go, but if I felt it was out of my league I'd just leave it for the younger/fitter/more adventurous. It sounds like that one particular 'finder' has an axe to grind.

 

BTW in situ is quite a common phrase over this side of the pond, it means "in place".

 

As has been said, it's not a matter of how hard or dangerous it might be. My point was about potentially being placed on private property without permission. Only mentioned the highway bridge scenario because they are very iffy over here. Certain types or sizes of containers hidden under them might look suspicious (look like a bomb for example) to a non cacher.

 

I had never heard situ used before,, Thanks!

[+Jungle_Tribe]

I shall head out to the location this evening and get some snaps. The Co placed it without use of ropes and safety harness, but is young (18) and physically able! I don't think I'd be able to get it, I'm just not fit enough!

 

Will grab some photos for your info.

[Mr.Yuck]

BTW in situ is quite a common phrase over this side of the pond, it means "in place".

 

It's not uncommon on this side of the pond, either.

 

 

B.

 

Um, you're Canadian, so you're like practically British. And stop calling your electricity "hydro".

[Pup Patrol]

BTW in situ is quite a common phrase over this side of the pond, it means "in place".

 

It's not uncommon on this side of the pond, either.

 

 

B.

 

Um, you're Canadian, so you're like practically British.

 

Not even close, thank you very much. (No offence intended to the folks who consider themselves "British".)

 

The phrase is "in situ", easily googleable. ("Googleable", on the other hand, is not really a word, is it?)

 

And stop calling your electricity "hydro".

 

Don't blame me:

 

Hydro One

 

 

 

B.

[+tozainamboku]

PLEASE DO NOT ARCHIVE THIS LOG (AGAIN) ... IT IS A SENSIBLE LOG INDICATING THE DIFFICULTY OF THE LOCATION ... YES IT HAS BEEN FOUND, AND PHOTOGRAPHED IN SITU!

 

in our opinion, this is a stupid, and unsafe, place to put a cache. The cache owner seems to consider the location suitaqble give it's rating. We shall have to agree to disagree.

 

Found, photographed in situ, but not prepared to get to it to sign the log! Therefore from our perspective we're recording it as a found.

 

If they consider it stupid and unsafe, they should just walk away from it. With a blank logbook, FTF is still up for grabs.

 

Yes, that's the one I was talking about. Whatever floats their boat. Pun intended, living on Guernsey and all. Record it where? In a pocket notebook? On GSAK? Because it's not going to be on Geocaching.com.

 

P.S. What the heck is SITU???

I have a find that I count only in my GSAK statistics. It's on a virtual cache that was archived and locked because of couch potato logs. I actually went and found the cache and got the information off the object to answer the question - so as far as I'm concerned it's a find.

 

If someone wants to claim that seeing the cache in situ and taking a picture is a find, I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist. However the guidelines clearly allow the cache owner to delete the log if the log book was not signed.

 

There are several reasons why it may make sense, even for an otherwise non-puritan cache owner, to required logs be signed. One is caches that have a mental or physical challenge component to retrieve or open the cache. If you find a cache with combination lock you should expect to have to figure out the combination and open the lock. If you find a cache that is halfway up a cliff, you should expect to have to scale the cliff, or devise some kind of TOTT to retrieve and replace the cache. However, if your can't do this, you're more then welcome to log a find on one of your own caches so your "count" will be right.

[+Valeites]

For all those self-opinionated responders out there:

 

Frankly, judging by the responses it has nothing at all to do with the majority of you if we consider this a find or not.

 

What you do not know is the location of the cache, or the area surrounding it. If you did, you would understand the reason for the "Write note" post; it is not a "found it" post! What we have said is that we can see the cache, have photographed it (for our reference), and will be removing it from the "unfound caches" in our list.

 

The cache is not marked as accesible only with "special equipment"; unlike those marked (quite correctly) as requiring kayaks, climbing, or scuba equipment. Those are appropriately marked, and trying to access them is up to the individual, their abilities, and their equipment. This one is simply marked as difficult terrain, with some climbing required; frankly whilst that is correct, there are a lot more safety issues that should be disclosed in order to ensure safe access to it.

 

Indeed, whilst we have kayaks we have not posted on any cache that we have not physically signed the logbook, and would have no intention to do so.

 

So, before jumping onto a wobbly bandwagon, you may wish to be certain of your facts first.

 

Indeed, as far as the abusive emails from across the pond are concerned you have simply been reported for your abuse.

 

Remember, each person has their own safety limits, this cache exceeds ours, and hence it has not been posted as a find on geocaching.com, but has been posted as an "ignore"; therefore it has nothing to do with anyone else!

Edited September 29, 2012 by Valeites

[+Valeites]

The cache owner may delete the bogus logs, if they desired. I would first email those who logged the find and give them the opportunity to change their "found it" log to a "note." If they don't, I would delete their logs. The cache description pretty much says it is a tough find.

 

Thank you, that seems a polite and reasonable way to respond to the logs.

 

"What a dadgum stupid place to put a cache! Found, but not prepared to get to it to sign the log!"

I have read another post from the same cacher which I also found to be quite rude, when they were complaining about caches going missing and people not looking after them properly, I did point out I found the cache they couldn't... Maybe they're just old and grumpy?!

 

We quite agree ... hence the "Write Note" post ... and as for the CO being polite, then they simply were not, and have made no contact at all!

 

As for being grumpy, perhaps if you had actually contacted us on the supposed "rude posts" you would have had a response. It is interesting to note that we have had no contact from you before, and that there is a groundswell of opinion that caches are going missing on a regular basis!

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I shall head out to the location this evening and get some snaps. The Co placed it without use of ropes and safety harness, but is young (18) and physically able! I don't think I'd be able to get it, I'm just not fit enough!

 

Will grab some photos for your info.

 

Is this it? I got this from Google maps.

 

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

The cache is not marked as accesible only with "special equipment"; unlike those marked (quite correctly) as requiring kayaks, climbing, or scuba equipment. Those are appropriately marked, and trying to access them is up to the individual, their abilities, and their equipment. This one is simply marked as difficult terrain, with some climbing required; frankly whilst that is correct, there are a lot more safety issues that should be disclosed in order to ensure safe access to it.

 

There is no requirement to use attributes at all. And I suspect when you got to GZ, you realized the safety issues, and realized they exceeded your level of experience/expertise/comfort level and you decided not to go for it. Not all caches can (or should be) found by everyone.

 

But to go on and say "in our opinion, this is a stupid, and unsafe, place to put a cache. The cache owner seems to consider the location suitable given it's rating. We shall have to agree to disagree." is wrong. (emphasis mine)

 

Would you consider any cache requiring special equipment (such as scuba or climbing gear) "stupid"? Probably not. If there is a cache I cannot get, I wait until I can or ignore it. There's a cache that requires rappelling down to. A group of us tried reachign it from below, but were not able to. So, I'll be back. I won't get all bent out of shape over it.

[+Jungle_Tribe]

That is indeed the Concrete Stack! It's located next to a small parking area next to the coast. I went this evening to have a look, and can understand peoples misgivings about trying to locate the cache! The first line of steel hand holds (the rusty lines of spots) is just above my head (i'm 5'8"). The other two sides of the stack are plain concrete. I would be tempted to try it with the local climbing club, or people with those skills! I certainly won't be getting a smiley on this in a while!

[+Valeites]

The cache is not marked as accesible only with "special equipment"; unlike those marked (quite correctly) as requiring kayaks, climbing, or scuba equipment. Those are appropriately marked, and trying to access them is up to the individual, their abilities, and their equipment. This one is simply marked as difficult terrain, with some climbing required; frankly whilst that is correct, there are a lot more safety issues that should be disclosed in order to ensure safe access to it.

 

There is no requirement to use attributes at all. And I suspect when you got to GZ, you realized the safety issues, and realized they exceeded your level of experience/expertise/comfort level and you decided not to go for it. Not all caches can (or should be) found by everyone.

 

But to go on and say "in our opinion, this is a stupid, and unsafe, place to put a cache. The cache owner seems to consider the location suitable given it's rating. We shall have to agree to disagree." is wrong. (emphasis mine)

 

Would you consider any cache requiring special equipment (such as scuba or climbing gear) "stupid"? Probably not. If there is a cache I cannot get, I wait until I can or ignore it. There's a cache that requires rappelling down to. A group of us tried reachign it from below, but were not able to. So, I'll be back. I won't get all bent out of shape over it.

 

Agreed ... perhaps you should have read our full post before quoting a selected part of it?

[+Valeites]

That is indeed the Concrete Stack! It's located next to a small parking area next to the coast. I went this evening to have a look, and can understand peoples misgivings about trying to locate the cache! The first line of steel hand holds (the rusty lines of spots) is just above my head (i'm 5'8"). The other two sides of the stack are plain concrete. I would be tempted to try it with the local climbing club, or people with those skills! I certainly won't be getting a smiley on this in a while!

 

Thanks for the post ... seems like we weren't so far out of line after all!

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

The cache is not marked as accesible only with "special equipment"; unlike those marked (quite correctly) as requiring kayaks, climbing, or scuba equipment. Those are appropriately marked, and trying to access them is up to the individual, their abilities, and their equipment. This one is simply marked as difficult terrain, with some climbing required; frankly whilst that is correct, there are a lot more safety issues that should be disclosed in order to ensure safe access to it.

 

There is no requirement to use attributes at all. And I suspect when you got to GZ, you realized the safety issues, and realized they exceeded your level of experience/expertise/comfort level and you decided not to go for it. Not all caches can (or should be) found by everyone.

 

But to go on and say "in our opinion, this is a stupid, and unsafe, place to put a cache. The cache owner seems to consider the location suitable given it's rating. We shall have to agree to disagree." is wrong. (emphasis mine)

 

Would you consider any cache requiring special equipment (such as scuba or climbing gear) "stupid"? Probably not. If there is a cache I cannot get, I wait until I can or ignore it. There's a cache that requires rappelling down to. A group of us tried reachign it from below, but were not able to. So, I'll be back. I won't get all bent out of shape over it.

 

Agreed ... perhaps you should have read our full post before quoting a selected part of it?

 

I did...several times. Most of the log is OK. It's the part I quoted I have issue with. You don't want to take the risk to get the cache to sign the log. OK. Accept the fact and move on. No need to call something "stupid".

[+MartyBartfast]

... If you did, you would understand the reason for the "Write note" post; it is not a "found it" post! What we have said is that we can see the cache, have photographed it (for our reference), and will be removing it from the "unfound caches" in our list.

 

I may be mistaken (and if so then I apologise in advance) but when I first looked at the cache page I'm sure you (and a couple of others) had posted a "found it log", stating that you had not signed the log and you went on to denigrate the cache for being irresponsible and dangerous. When the cache owner deleted your log only then did you re-log it with a "write note" and then you got all shouty and POSTED IN CAPITALS DEMANDING THAT YOUR LOG SHOULDN'T BE DELETED AGAIN and once again denigrating the cache as being "a stupid, and unsafe, place to put a cache". It seems that you're setting yourself up as the some sort of arbiter of what is acceptable in a cache - pretty arrogant for someone who hasn't even found 100 caches yet!

 

If you don't want to do it, that's fine but don't get abusive about the cache as there are many more adventurous cachers out there who will enjoy just this sort of cache, and if every cache was dragged down to the level which you find sensible and safe then the world would be very boring indeed.

[+SwineFlew]

For all those self-opinionated responders out there:

 

Frankly, judging by the responses it has nothing at all to do with the majority of you if we consider this a find or not.

 

What you do not know is the location of the cache, or the area surrounding it. If you did, you would understand the reason for the "Write note" post; it is not a "found it" post! What we have said is that we can see the cache, have photographed it (for our reference), and will be removing it from the "unfound caches" in our list.

 

The cache is not marked as accesible only with "special equipment"; unlike those marked (quite correctly) as requiring kayaks, climbing, or scuba equipment. Those are appropriately marked, and trying to access them is up to the individual, their abilities, and their equipment. This one is simply marked as difficult terrain, with some climbing required; frankly whilst that is correct, there are a lot more safety issues that should be disclosed in order to ensure safe access to it.

 

Indeed, whilst we have kayaks we have not posted on any cache that we have not physically signed the logbook, and would have no intention to do so.

 

So, before jumping onto a wobbly bandwagon, you may wish to be certain of your facts first.

 

Indeed, as far as the abusive emails from across the pond are concerned you have simply been reported for your abuse.

 

Remember, each person has their own safety limits, this cache exceeds ours, and hence it has not been posted as a find on geocaching.com, but has been posted as an "ignore"; therefore it has nothing to do with anyone else!

Just put the cache on ignore and move on.

[4wheelin_fool]

So someone photographed a decoy container? Or was it the actual cache? Perhaps they should check the logsheet.

Edited September 30, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Jungle_Tribe]

I started this thread as a way to gain advice and perspective as to what I thought where harsh posts, claiming finds when the log clearly (and was stated) had not been signed. I wanted other opinions as I thought i may have been over reacting because it was a friend that placed the cache. I looked to people that have been caching for a much longer time then myself, and have a greater experience of the different types of hiding places. Guernsey has a large amount of tupperware hidden in relatively easy places, it's good to see something different from time to time! But to see someone else's idea berated as being stupid I found to be upsetting (Again, I likely took that harder then I should due to the friendship.)

 

I have no issue that Valeites and others did not feel it was safe to try to receive the cache, I myself will not attempt this until I have the help of others/climbers. I believe the issue has come from the rudeness of the original posts (which have now been archived) and that several finds had been wrongly claimed.

 

Hopefully we've all learned something!

[Mr.Yuck]

... If you did, you would understand the reason for the "Write note" post; it is not a "found it" post! What we have said is that we can see the cache, have photographed it (for our reference), and will be removing it from the "unfound caches" in our list.

 

I may be mistaken (and if so then I apologise in advance) but when I first looked at the cache page I'm sure you (and a couple of others) had posted a "found it log", stating that you had not signed the log and you went on to denigrate the cache for being irresponsible and dangerous. When the cache owner deleted your log only then did you re-log it with a "write note" and then you got all shouty and POSTED IN CAPITALS DEMANDING THAT YOUR LOG SHOULDN'T BE DELETED AGAIN and once again denigrating the cache as being "a stupid, and unsafe, place to put a cache". It seems that you're setting yourself up as the some sort of arbiter of what is acceptable in a cache - pretty arrogant for someone who hasn't even found 100 caches yet!

 

If you don't want to do it, that's fine but don't get abusive about the cache as there are many more adventurous cachers out there who will enjoy just this sort of cache, and if every cache was dragged down to the level which you find sensible and safe then the world would be very boring indeed.

 

I will have to +1 this, as they say. I do realize this is a small Island, population 66,000 (um, thanks, Wikipedia) and new caches and new cachers don't come along too often. It's not like this is Columbus, Ohio or something. I just randomly pulled a major American City out of my backside. But if a cache is not for you, just ignore it. Again, I realize the small scale of things here, and it's something totally new to the area. But just forget about it. If you didn't climb up and sign the log, you didn't find it. No Geo-drama required.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I started this thread as a way to gain advice and perspective as to what I thought where harsh posts, claiming finds when the log clearly (and was stated) had not been signed. I wanted other opinions as I thought i may have been over reacting because it was a friend that placed the cache. I looked to people that have been caching for a much longer time then myself, and have a greater experience of the different types of hiding places. Guernsey has a large amount of tupperware hidden in relatively easy places, it's good to see something different from time to time!

 

WOW! That's an awesome looking spot. Please let your friend know that there are many of us that really enjoy these types of caches. Knowing who completed it, who is still trying and who has accepted defeat helps us understand each other's abilties. Those with exceptional skills are always willing to come back and help others (especially with safety tips).

[+mountainman38]

I would delete all the logs. And since they are being rude I personally wouldn't even send them an email explaining why, but that's just me. your friends can do it my way, but since he is new he should probably do it the nice polite way and email all those who logged it asking they change their logs or he will delete them.

 

I agree with this. If it was me, I would delete the rude notes, as well as the fake "found it" logs.

 

A cache page is not a forum thread, and it's inappropriate to use it as such.

 

Mind you, the cache owner should remove that bit that basically said it was okay to write notes:

 

ALSO, If you are not prepared to sign the logbook then don't log it as FOUND By all means write a note saying you found it but do not log it as found!

 

That is a bad, bad thing to put on a cache page...as witnessed by people bashing the cache hide.

 

And, yes, the cache owner can edit the cache page, as well as delete logs.

 

B.

 

Those people bashing the hide should stop their entitled whinging and accept that they're not gonna have all caches plopped in their laps to sign with zero effort.

 

Just got to post a note on a similar hide in Idaho today -- seems like new cachers need to do some more reading of the rules.