wet etc log books mark two.

[+bones1]

After my recent nice posting about wet logs i have found this one,GC354Y5 i know there might be issues with the cache owner but my observation of the cache was only that there has been at least 26 visits by other cachers all mentioning wet/full/soggy logs,all except the kind Rumager, so how is it that so many cachers have visited and not replaced the log,this was the point of my earlier posting that perhaps this year we could all have paper and possibly a small clear waterproof bag with us to add to caches with similar problems, i have found quite alot of caches now and make the time to read the page before i go out searching,that way i already know there is a problem and go prepared,as im not a techie i think it might be something to do with smart phones as i now see more of those than dedicated gps devices as i guess smart phones make caching more instant whereever you are so no preparation or paper required,also that means more times i see the log that says forgot my pen, lets hope for the second time we dont get a paste and cut log,"its up to the co to maintain there caches etc " i wish you all a good caching happy new year,jeff=bones1.

[+Mallah]

Given this example, which is not uncommon after the weather of 2012! Perhaps we need to 'rethink' the need for log books alltogether?. After all, I suspect it's a small percentage of owners who actually go through them and double check against those logged on GC, and in this example there will be 24 who will not have signed due to the wet log. Perhaps an alternative method of 'logging' is required - but what?

[+MartyBartfast]

Speaking for myself:

 

I don't usually read cache pages in advance so I don't know whether there will be a problem with a log until I get to the GZ, so I'm unlikely to go prepared.

 

If the log is wet then is the CO going to want to keep it? If so then adding another bit of paper to a box containing a wet log is only going to end up with 2 wet logs very quickly. (doesn't apply if the log is mush in which case it might as well be destroyed).

 

There's no point replacing the wet log unless you also have the wherewithall to dry out the container (and swaps) too.

 

I've been on 'rings' where there are so many wet logs that it would take a sheaf of paper to replace them all.

 

I don't routinely carry replacement logs or a towel (although I have on occasion), however I will make more of an effort to do so from now on

[+Mallah]

I too don't routinely read logs before setting off for a walk, given that is why I tend to be out rather than specifically going out to find caches. Consequently I don't tend to take a 'repair' kit of spare logs and plastic bags either.

 

Perhaps Garmin's 'verification' system or something similar is the way forward. No more wet logs!

[+bazzer1975]

I have a small rucksack I call my cache bag in it you will find a torch spare GPS and torch battorys a drink a clip box of swaps a clip box for trackables and a clip box with most size logs (keysafe,nano&filmpot) also small clear bags and some small silica pouches and normaly a few caches just in case,

 

This works well although pens always disappear so as well as in the bag I keep one in my wallet just in case.

[+Amberel]

Given this example, which is not uncommon after the weather of 2012! Perhaps we need to 'rethink' the need for log books alltogether?.

It's only common if an unsuitable container is used. Logs sometimes get damp due to being signed in the rain, but it's far more often the case that the container leaks.

 

I've got about 60 hides across various different sites, and to the best of my knowledge only one of them got a wet log last year. And it's no coincidence that it is one of only three 35mm film can hides. Rather than complaining about other cachers not replacing the wet log, I intend to replace it very shortly with a more waterproof container.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+Mustards]

I agree with what has been said about wet logs and the weather for 2012 could the log be replace with a code that is kept in the cache maybe, I know that this would be difficult for the nano but I have found it is them that have the wet logs. What do you think?

Steve

[+dartymoor]

With all this talk of wet logs, I can't believe nobody's mentioned waterproof paper yet.

 

It's not expensive, it doesn't turn to mush.

 

I'm trialling two types at the moment (replaced all logs in an 8-cache series this morning, as it happens - only one wet log in the past 8 months of nonstop rain; a combination of good containers, careful geocachers and some luck.)

 

Matt brown, which is great and used by the army. And shiny white. Cheaper and if you wipe too hard with your thumb, it goes clean. Not so sure about this one but time will tell.

[+Just Roger]

With all this talk of wet logs, I can't believe nobody's mentioned waterproof paper yet.

 

It's not expensive, it doesn't turn to mush.

 

I'm trialling two types at the moment (replaced all logs in an 8-cache series this morning, as it happens - only one wet log in the past 8 months of nonstop rain; a combination of good containers, careful geocachers and some luck.)

 

Matt brown, which is great and used by the army. And shiny white. Cheaper and if you wipe too hard with your thumb, it goes clean. Not so sure about this one but time will tell.

 

I have used waterproof paper for some years. The biggest problem is finders who use water soluble ink which runs as soon as it gets wet. As long as everyone uses pencil it works very well.

[endoheretic]

The idea of a code to be able to log the cache regardless of condition of the log book would need to be raised on the suggestions forum. At the moment it is effectively set in stone that there needs to be a log book and that this needs to be signed.

I may be mistaken but I would suspect that any cache found to be set up to allow people to just note a number to log it would now be deleted by tptb. It's a shame because it does offer a good solution. I personally don't see why a cache couldn't be set up with a log book, a QR code and a code word/number so that finders could select which option they chose.

It would have to get through the voting process and be taken up by Jeremy to be accepted though.

[+Bear and Ragged]

The idea of a code to be able to log the cache regardless of condition of the log book would need to be raised on the suggestions forum. At the moment it is effectively set in stone that there needs to be a log book and that this needs to be signed.

I may be mistaken but I would suspect that any cache found to be set up to allow people to just note a number to log it would now be deleted by tptb. It's a shame because it does offer a good solution. I personally don't see why a cache couldn't be set up with a log book, a QR code and a code word/number so that finders could select which option they chose.

It would have to get through the voting process and be taken up by Jeremy to be accepted though.

 

There are those that would happily swap cache code words/numbers just to increase their numbers...

 

QR codes? Sounds like another game.

[endoheretic]

The idea of a code to be able to log the cache regardless of condition of the log book would need to be raised on the suggestions forum. At the moment it is effectively set in stone that there needs to be a log book and that this needs to be signed.

I may be mistaken but I would suspect that any cache found to be set up to allow people to just note a number to log it would now be deleted by tptb. It's a shame because it does offer a good solution. I personally don't see why a cache couldn't be set up with a log book, a QR code and a code word/number so that finders could select which option they chose.

It would have to get through the voting process and be taken up by Jeremy to be accepted though.

 

There are those that would happily swap cache code words/numbers just to increase their numbers...

 

QR codes? Sounds like another game.

 

There are those that will abuse any system you put in place. QR codes are used by someone else!!! God god we can't possibly use them in this hobby as well then. Good job there aren't other hobbies using GPs's to locate stuff otherwise we'd have to stop that as well ... lol

[team tisri]

The idea of a code to be able to log the cache regardless of condition of the log book would need to be raised on the suggestions forum. At the moment it is effectively set in stone that there needs to be a log book and that this needs to be signed.

I may be mistaken but I would suspect that any cache found to be set up to allow people to just note a number to log it would now be deleted by tptb. It's a shame because it does offer a good solution. I personally don't see why a cache couldn't be set up with a log book, a QR code and a code word/number so that finders could select which option they chose.

It would have to get through the voting process and be taken up by Jeremy to be accepted though.

 

It's hard to see a proposal allowing caches to be found without marking a log book going very far - TPTB are resistant to the reintroduction of virtuals and webcam caches, apparently because of the issues associated with people making bogus claims of finds.

 

A code within the cache might be an interesting alternative - for all people might swap the codes that's no different to how people can go out caching and writing their friends' names on the log now. QR codes would seem like overcomplicating something for the sake of it - unless the QR code contained enough information for a smartphone to write and submit a complete found log it doesn't seem to add anything over and above a unique alphanumeric code while also introducing more points of failure if it gets creased, torn, soaked etc.

 

All that said I'm minded to agree with Amberel about the choice of container. If a container that was never designed to be waterproof is used nobody should be surprised when it leaks during the kind of rain we've had lately.

[endoheretic]

I couldn't agree more. The choice of container is paramount. I've lock lock boxes that have been out for years without problems but have seen plenty of inappropriate containers damp after a short time.

I only suggested the types of code to keep on topic.

Incidentally, wouldn't a QR code used in a similar way to munzees actually reduce fake claims? I might be wrong but don't they only work when scanned in close proximity to the given location?

[+Pharisee]

I couldn't agree more. The choice of container is paramount. I've lock lock boxes that have been out for years without problems but have seen plenty of inappropriate containers damp after a short time.

I only suggested the types of code to keep on topic.

Incidentally, wouldn't a QR code used in a similar way to munzees actually reduce fake claims? I might be wrong but don't they only work when scanned in close proximity to the given location?

 

Good idea..... now tell me how I scan a QR code with my 60CSx

[+Oxford Stone]

I couldn't agree more. The choice of container is paramount. I've lock lock boxes that have been out for years without problems but have seen plenty of inappropriate containers damp after a short time.

I only suggested the types of code to keep on topic.

Incidentally, wouldn't a QR code used in a similar way to munzees actually reduce fake claims? I might be wrong but don't they only work when scanned in close proximity to the given location?

 

Good idea..... now tell me how I scan a QR code with my 60CSx

 

Interesting topical post. Re "do COs even read the filled logs?", there's a disabled magnetic nano near my work (log full), I've emailed the CO offering to replace, no reply. Re waterproof paper - have found it in a cache or 2 - where can you buy it? Re containers - went a whole day yesterday without seeing any 35mm film pots, wey-hey! A good combo I often saw in my Dartmoor letterboxing days was two tablet pots one inside the other - no idea if pharmacies give these away though? Paper inside one of those squeeze-close food bags is a big step forward where size allows. Clip boxes cost less than £2 in th supermarkets, so while they're not all that pretty, they have to b a good practical choice.

[endoheretic]

Pharisee... thanks for the input but i wasn't suggesting at any point that a QR code would be the only way to log the cache. I was offering a selection of suggestions that COULD be used to log a cache. The thread was discussing wet log books etc.

[+weston wanderer]

I went on a cache series last week in the pouring rain. After removing the first log to sign and getting it wet, i then took photos of all the other hides with my phone. Afterwards I emailed the CO and gave a detailed description of my finds together with the offer to email the photos. He was happy to let me log the finds and his logsheets stayed dry.

Edited January 7, 2013 by weston wanderer

[+MartyBartfast]

 

 

Oh dear, I don't think TPTB will like that

Edited January 9, 2013 by castagnari

[Deceangi]

It's hard to see a proposal allowing caches to be found without marking a log book going very far - TPTB are resistant to the reintroduction of virtuals and webcam caches, apparently because of the issues associated with people making bogus claims of finds.

 

I believe you'll find a major part of the reason is that Major Landowners, especially in the US. Were Banning Physical Caches, pointing to Virtual Caches and saying, see you have no need of a Physical Container. This resulted in large areas being put out of bounds, to Geocachers.

 

Code Word Caches have been allowed in the Past, one issue which people seem to miss is, if the CO ignores the email, or deliberately blocks the Person Making the Find. Due to a disagreement between the 2, then it creates a huge mess for Groundspeak, who get dragged into the middle of a personal argument between 2 people. You only have to look at the number of cachers who have major personal issues with other cachers here in the UK for a example of that.

 

Signing a Log Book as Proof of Finding, remove personal conflict between people.

 

Also just like Puzzle caches, there are those who will just pass over the solution, or even worse, post the solution/coordinates on a Personal Website and yes that does happen. Making Proof of Find by Code Word useless, as actual Proof of Finding.

 

Geocaching at it's core is Hide a Container, and post the details, others to go find that container "sign" the log book, and write about your experience On-Line. Anything else is not actually Geocaching, it is a sub game. Groundspeak decided to go back to the Core Principles of the Game, and allow others to play Sub Games.

 

Deci

[+Mallah]

I personally don't see why a cache couldn't be set up with a log book, a QR code and a code word/number so that finders could select which option they chose.

It would have to get through the voting process and be taken up by Jeremy to be accepted though.

Presumably you got this idea from Garmin? who are now doing just this. Their OpenCaching option allows cache owners to include a QR code, and a numerical code that finders can use to 'verify' the find. If using a smartphone they can scan the QR code, if using a GPSr there is now a 'verify find' option in the latest software where you simply enter the code number. That is then dealt with as part of the field notes etc when logging.

 

Good idea..... now tell me how I scan a QR code with my 60CSx

You don't/wouldn't, you would use the number code and the 'verify find' option after pressing 'found'

[endoheretic]

No I used my own brain to think lol

I suppose if garmin are now using qr codes etc you may as well forget the idea.

The powers that be and their minions have far too large a chip on their shoulders to add any functionality that is used by garmin, regardless of how good an idea it might be. Shame. All ideas should be considered.

[BOBBLES WORLD TOUR]

Carry spare logsheets.

If the one found is too wet to log. Replace (within a plastic bag used by jewellers)

Bin the old one as it's worthless.

QR codes? No thanks.

[+dartymoor]

Oxford Stone - I've got my waterproof paper from ebay. Seems the cheapest place. Seen it in Rambler style shops too, but twice the price.

 

And yes, double-potted letterboxes are still very common. And of course the Curry Pots - there's a whole series of them, some still smell of spice!

[+bazzer1975]

 

Oh dear, I don't think TPTB will like that

Nor do I as they deleted my post LOL oh dear

Edited January 9, 2013 by castagnari

[+Amberel]

Presumably you got this idea from Garmin?

And Garmin got the idea from TerraCaching and the original OpenCaching sites.

 

TerraCaching and opencaching.org.uk have had optional logging codes built into the software from the start, normally they are used in addition to signing the log but in certain situations they can be an alternative.

 

On these sites, copying of the codes has never been an issue - they are small sites and pretty much every cacher knows every other one, they wouldn't want to "cheat" their friends. But I can see copying might be a problem if Groundspeak introduced a similar system.

 

Rgds, Andy

[team tisri]

It's hard to see a proposal allowing caches to be found without marking a log book going very far - TPTB are resistant to the reintroduction of virtuals and webcam caches, apparently because of the issues associated with people making bogus claims of finds.

 

I believe you'll find a major part of the reason is that Major Landowners, especially in the US. Were Banning Physical Caches, pointing to Virtual Caches and saying, see you have no need of a Physical Container. This resulted in large areas being put out of bounds, to Geocachers.

 

Perhaps, but look at the situation now.

 

In the US you have huge areas of outstanding beauty (I'm thinking specifically of the Great Smoky Mountains, and I'm sure there are others) with no caches except a few grandfathered virtuals.

 

In the UK we've seen the Royal Parks banning physical caches from their parks, ostensibly (if laughably) over security concerns.

 

So these beautiful areas that might hold a virtual now hold nothing. Needless to say there's no shortage of places to hide a film pot behind a sign. In years gone by (it may still be the case) the guidelines always encouraged people to think about why people would want to visit the location of a geocache, and to take people to a place they'd enjoy rather than taking them to a place that just doesn't happen to have a cache within 528 feet. It's easy to see why people might like to visit Richmond Park, or the Smoky Mountains, or similar. It's harder to see why people might have so much interest in visiting a suburban T-junction where there's a keysafe behind the road sign. But because the latter is a physical container it's "good", while visiting a waterfall in the Smokies would have to be a virtual and is therefore "not good".

 

Code Word Caches have been allowed in the Past, one issue which people seem to miss is, if the CO ignores the email, or deliberately blocks the Person Making the Find. Due to a disagreement between the 2, then it creates a huge mess for Groundspeak, who get dragged into the middle of a personal argument between 2 people. You only have to look at the number of cachers who have major personal issues with other cachers here in the UK for a example of that.

 

I do sometimes wonder whether such issues would best be addressed by merely telling the warring duo to grow up and realise it's just a game. I'd be annoyed if my found log were deleted over some trivial shortcoming in my process but ultimately we are talking about a smiley on a web site. It's not like it's worth any money, it's not like the beautiful walk to the container suddenly became less beautiful, it's not like the pictures I might have taken of the stunning vista cease to exist, because someone decided to insist my log wasn't to be allowed. If I have the same gripe with the same user I can ignore their caches.

 

Signing a Log Book as Proof of Finding, remove personal conflict between people.

 

It's hard to see the kind of CO disputing that the person in the picture from the webcam is really the cacher, accepting that the illegible squiggle on the soaked log is the cacher. Just looking over the comments in recent threads here (this one included) about wet logs and issues with signing them, issues with people replacing them and perhaps destroying the old log, and issues with wet logs disintegrating to the point they cannot possibly be checked, and it's clear that signing a log book only removes personal conflict if the note is both legible and lives long enough for the CO to check it.

 

Also just like Puzzle caches, there are those who will just pass over the solution, or even worse, post the solution/coordinates on a Personal Website and yes that does happen. Making Proof of Find by Code Word useless, as actual Proof of Finding.

 

Signing a log is just as useless as anyone could write "team tisri" on a log when they went caching and then email me to list the caches I found that day.

 

Geocaching at it's core is Hide a Container, and post the details, others to go find that container "sign" the log book, and write about your experience On-Line. Anything else is not actually Geocaching, it is a sub game. Groundspeak decided to go back to the Core Principles of the Game, and allow others to play Sub Games.

 

That certainly seems to be their business plan, even when it means ever-more TwitFace integrations so people can "Like" the latest film pot behind a sign and apparently ever-fewer new hides in the kind of places that we used to be encouraged to take people to see. Still, it's their business so they get to run it their way.

[endoheretic]

Team tisri. Very succinct and spot on.

 

I would also add that I don't recall that being the given reason at the time for the removal of virtuals. Perhaps tptb are now being a bit more open.

 

It all just seems ridiculously political with the two biggest children gathering their minions to call each other names and denounce their way of playing a GAME.

 

At the end of the day it was just an idea of what to do about caches with wet log books. All the potential solutions appear to be banned because of very insubstantial reasons or just because a rival does it that way.

 

Challenges were thought to have been a mistake and were removed. Maybe some thought could be put into virtuals webcams and alternative means of verification. And less thought in oneupmanship of "other ways being a sub game" it's pathetic.

[+bazzer1975]

{content removed by mod}

Edited January 9, 2013 by castagnari

[+MartyBartfast]

I put some ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

You won't get away with it you know! people have been banned for less

 

Edit to add:

 

And I think it's a bad idea. Why? because you might bring players of the other game to your cache who have no idea about Geocaching, while you may not mind it could be a problem if there's a TB or a Geocoin in your cache and they may be inclined to take it, they will have no idea about loggin it and moving it on, and there's another much loved TB/coin gone for good

Edited January 9, 2013 by MartyBartfast

[+geralduscambrensis]

Couldn't agree more with MartyBartFast. I had a TB, White Rabbit's Pocket Watch, which was taken from a geocaching site and deposited in some pseudo National Trust cache the organisation used for training. It went missing, probably because whoever came across it next didn't know what to do with it, despite it having two metal tags explaining its purpose.

[+geralduscambrensis]

Oh and wet logs. Unless they are disintegrating I find that the waterproof pen I always carry manages to write my name clearly and is still in evidence months later when other names have faded or washed away. Other geocachers have noticed this on their travels and approached me at meets to supply them with the pens.

[+Hawardenleaders]

What do you do with wet log sheets if you do replace for CO. I normally leave it there on the outside of the new plastic bag,or take to next meet if I know the CO.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Hawardenleaders

[+Happy Humphrey]

I would also add that I don't recall that being the given reason at the time for the removal of virtuals. Perhaps tptb are now being a bit more open.

I do remember that being A reason given for stopping virtuals, if not the whole reason. I guess that's why Waymarking was made separate; now that virtuals have their own separate website, the US National Parks and State Parks authorities can't say "just make your geocaches virtuals".

Although US National Parks are the most fantastic and suitable areas for geocaching, I have to say that their decision might have been wise in view of the massive expansion of caching. Nowadays they'd have endless disputes about cache permission, with people arguing constantly that "if X's cache was allowed, how come mine isn't?", and "why can't I place 300 caches along a trail?" and various other problems.

And although it's nice to find a cache in beautiful scenery, it's not much better than just admiring the beautiful scenery without the cache. Whereas if you're in some average town it's great if someone placed a cache in a pleasant little corner that few know about.

[+Bear and Ragged]

>snipped<

 

I only suggested the types of code to keep on topic.

Incidentally, wouldn't a QR code used in a similar way to munzees actually reduce fake claims? I might be wrong but don't they only work when scanned in close proximity to the given location?

Guess which site is already having problems with 'armchair logging' of codes that are supposed to be tied to the location of the GPS in order to claim the find?

[endoheretic]

I would also add that I don't recall that being the given reason at the time for the removal of virtuals. Perhaps tptb are now being a bit more open.

I do remember that being A reason given for stopping virtuals, if not the whole reason. I guess that's why Waymarking was made separate; now that virtuals have their own separate website, the US National Parks and State Parks authorities can't say "just make your geocaches virtuals".

Although US National Parks are the most fantastic and suitable areas for geocaching, I have to say that their decision might have been wise in view of the massive expansion of caching. Nowadays they'd have endless disputes about cache permission, with people arguing constantly that "if X's cache was allowed, how come mine isn't?", and "why can't I place 300 caches along a trail?" and various other problems.

And although it's nice to find a cache in beautiful scenery, it's not much better than just admiring the beautiful scenery without the cache. Whereas if you're in some average town it's great if someone placed a cache in a pleasant little corner that few know about.

 

The New Forest has a limited number of caches, showing that it is possible to have caching in areas of outstanding natural beauty without it being swamped. Banning virtuals under the excuse that their existence would make physical caches difficult to obtain permission for is spurious and pointless. Actually having some balls and enforcing the need for permission would've achieved much more, again I'd point to the New Forest all caches placed within a set of rules and with permission...no problems at all.

 

>snipped<

 

I only suggested the types of code to keep on topic.

Incidentally, wouldn't a QR code used in a similar way to munzees actually reduce fake claims? I might be wrong but don't they only work when scanned in close proximity to the given location?

Guess which site is already having problems with 'armchair logging' of codes that are supposed to be tied to the location of the GPS in order to claim the find?

 

The trouble with only quoting small sections of what a person says just allows you to adjust anything to fit your own argument. I had previously pointed out that any system WILL be circumvented by someone. Not doing anything because it will be possible for someone to get round it and armchair cache is just an excuse to do nothing. Certain actions ( like removing the need for a photograph for earth caches ) actually make it easier for armchair logging.

 

But again this is just going round the houses. The thread asked for ideas on how you could deal with caches that had become damp due to the floods and I just added a couple of ideas that might be used....none of which will be taken up regardless of merit because of the large chip on the shoulder of GC.com. Anything used by a competitor is deemed bad and inferior.

 

If only this was a hobby and of no real consequence

[+firestars]

Great, I see this topic is still doing the rounds.

 

Its well known that I find the very idea of having to sign a filthy log book a complete waste of time and so normally dont bother, unless its a 5/5 or a FTF.

 

When will GC move with the times and get rid of this part of the game.

 

Oh and JoLuc, Im STILL waiting for an apology from you for the foul-mouthed comments you left on one of my cache pages.

[team tisri]

And although it's nice to find a cache in beautiful scenery, it's not much better than just admiring the beautiful scenery without the cache. Whereas if you're in some average town it's great if someone placed a cache in a pleasant little corner that few know about.

 

Sure, although when I was in the Smokies it was neat to see the grandfathered virtuals on the map to have a few points of reference of places that might be worth a hike out to see. As it happened a lot of them were waterfalls, and having a particular love of waterfalls that worked out very nicely.

 

Waymarking is all well and good but for me it's just another place to look, and just another place where I'd have to filter endless dross to find the ones I might be interested in.

[+thehoomer]

Great, I see this topic is still doing the rounds.

 

Its well known that I find the very idea of having to sign a filthy log book a complete waste of time and so normally dont bother, unless its a 5/5 or a FTF.

 

When will GC move with the times and get rid of this part of the game.

 

Oh and JoLuc, Im STILL waiting for an apology from you for the foul-mouthed comments you left on one of my cache pages.

If this method of logging caches gives you joy, then that's smashing.

 

Please can you advise of your suggestion for a viable alternative of proof of a find?

 

If you have taken issue with something that another cacher has written on one of your cache pages, this thread or indeed this Forum, is not the place to seek redress.

[team tisri]

Great, I see this topic is still doing the rounds.

 

Its well known that I find the very idea of having to sign a filthy log book a complete waste of time and so normally dont bother, unless its a 5/5 or a FTF.

 

When will GC move with the times and get rid of this part of the game.

 

Oh and JoLuc, Im STILL waiting for an apology from you for the foul-mouthed comments you left on one of my cache pages.

If this method of logging caches gives you joy, then that's smashing.

 

Please can you advise of your suggestion for a viable alternative of proof of a find?

 

If you have taken issue with something that another cacher has written on one of your cache pages, this thread or indeed this Forum, is not the place to seek redress.

 

If I can't sign the log book for some reason there are usually a few ways I might prove I was there.

 

I've been known to use the tiny scissors on my pocket knife to cut a corner off the log book, or cut a T in the edge of it. Failing that sometimes the log book can be marked with a stick, or find something to leave in the cache even if it's a small stone or a leaf, although a low value coin is better. The first time I found a bison tube it was after a wedding so I cut a tiny piece of ribbon from the invitation to leave in the cache. If everything else fails a photo or a detailed description of the cache and its surroundings can work.

 

A little bit of thinking will usually come up with something that's as effective as proof of a find as an illegible mark on a damp log book.

[+maxx borchovski]

On the one occasion I couldn't sign the log book, I took a quick photo of the container and log book in my hand and then emailed the CO for permission to claim the find and tell then why I couldn't sign the log (nb. I take at least 2 pens with me now in case the first one breaks)

[+thehoomer]

I appreciate all that and have done similar myself on occasion .

However, I think that firestars was alluding to the fact that log books should no longer feature in caches and something else should take their place as a permanent fixture. Perhaps I am mistaken but that is how I read it.

[+bazzer1975]

Great, I see this topic is still doing the rounds.

 

Its well known that I find the very idea of having to sign a filthy log book a complete waste of time and so normally dont bother, unless its a 5/5 or a FTF.

 

When will GC move with the times and get rid of this part of the game.

 

Oh and JoLuc, Im STILL waiting for an apology from you for the foul-mouthed comments you left on one of my cache pages.

If this method of logging caches gives you joy, then that's smashing.

 

Please can you advise of your suggestion for a viable alternative of proof of a find?

 

If you have taken issue with something that another cacher has written on one of your cache pages, this thread or indeed this Forum, is not the place to seek redress.

 

I thought this was the GC forums

[+thehoomer]

Great, I see this topic is still doing the rounds.

 

Its well known that I find the very idea of having to sign a filthy log book a complete waste of time and so normally dont bother, unless its a 5/5 or a FTF.

 

When will GC move with the times and get rid of this part of the game.

 

Oh and JoLuc, Im STILL waiting for an apology from you for the foul-mouthed comments you left on one of my cache pages.

If this method of logging caches gives you joy, then that's smashing.

 

Please can you advise of your suggestion for a viable alternative of proof of a find?

 

If you have taken issue with something that another cacher has written on one of your cache pages, this thread or indeed this Forum, is not the place to seek redress.

 

I thought this was the GC forums

 

The first 3 lines of firestars post were relevant to the topic.

However, to then inject unpleasantness and hijack a completely unrelated thread in an attempt to gain resolve of a personal issue with a fellow cacher is not the best way forward.

 

I'm sure its not the first time though and certainly won't be the last.

[donvanvliet]

I always try and dry out wet logs, and carry gaffa tape to repair boxes and a spare log, .

The logs get wet while signing, then when replaced in the box, makes everything damp, it seeps through everything.

 

I see caches round my way that need attention, but the owner lives too far away to maintain them, and they are leaking.

I have replaced one box twice in the last 6 months.

Cachers break the lid by piling big rocks on it despite a notice not to. : /

 

Containers without an "o" ring seal can leak, esp in melting snow.

 

If I cant sign the log, I leave some small swag and log it online.

 

My children like signing the log books, they see it as a visitors book, I see it as quaint and old fashioned,but I like it.

[+bazzer1975]

Great, I see this topic is still doing the rounds.

 

Its well known that I find the very idea of having to sign a filthy log book a complete waste of time and so normally dont bother, unless its a 5/5 or a FTF.

 

When will GC move with the times and get rid of this part of the game.

 

Oh and JoLuc, Im STILL waiting for an apology from you for the foul-mouthed comments you left on one of my cache pages.

If this method of logging caches gives you joy, then that's smashing.

 

Please can you advise of your suggestion for a viable alternative of proof of a find?

 

If you have taken issue with something that another cacher has written on one of your cache pages, this thread or indeed this Forum, is not the place to seek redress.

 

I thought this was the GC forums

 

The first 3 lines of firestars post were relevant to the topic.

However, to then inject unpleasantness and hijack a completely unrelated thread in an attempt to gain resolve of a personal issue with a fellow cacher is not the best way forward.

 

I'm sure its not the first time though and certainly won't be the last.

 

Can't we tell

[+bazzer1975]

I always try and dry out wet logs, and carry gaffa tape to repair boxes and a spare log, .

The logs get wet while signing, then when replaced in the box, makes everything damp, it seeps through everything.

 

I see caches round my way that need attention, but the owner lives too far away to maintain them, and they are leaking.

I have replaced one box twice in the last 6 months.

Cachers break the lid by piling big rocks on it despite a notice not to. : /

 

Containers without an "o" ring seal can leak, esp in melting snow.

 

If I cant sign the log, I leave some small swag and log it online.

 

My children like signing the log books, they see it as a visitors book, I see it as quaint and old fashioned,but I like it.

 

It's good when a hobby involved all the family keep it up