Jump to content

Finding only a log sheet = DNF?


DENelson83
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

Today, I was on my biggest cache hunt yet, finding over 20 caches in a single day. One of my hunts brought me to a site where all I found was a log sheet out in the open—just the log sheet, no container—and all other search efforts at the site coming up empty. Since it had the geocaching.com logo on it, I signed it, but I could not find a suitable spot to hide the log sheet, because had I simply hidden the log sheet without it being in a container, it would have been practically impossible for anybody else to find. So I left it on a tree branch next to an object mentioned in the cache's hint and moved on, hoping that the CO would very quickly come to the site, replace the container, and rehide it. When I logged the find online, the CO deleted the log very quickly, implicitly claiming that that was not actually the cache, which soured my impression of that cache and presented me with a conundrum: If all you find at a cache site is an out-in-the-open log sheet, can you actually claim a find on the cache? I've done it before with a different cache, and the claim of a find was accepted.

Edited by DENelson83
Link to comment

And besides, you can't have another cache within 160 metres, so if you find a log sheet at the site of any particular cache, that's the cache the log sheet should belong to.

 

Wrong. There can be a cache that has been archived, or a cache that was place and not published due to it being too close to the other cache, where it was not removed.

 

You didn't find the cache did you? So why log it? Just let it be and wait until someone else finds t so you know gz there and go back and find it yourself.

Link to comment

Well, I've found caches that were only a log in a baggy, and that WAS the cache..as per CO. I didn't know at the time, wondered about it, signed log and put back EXACTLY how/where found. Another thing....what if someone 'muggled' actual cache container, but left the log... now I go to find it,I know that some CO's use this type (don't split hairs here and say that 'he only found the log', we don't know all the details) so I sign log...but note very detailed info on how/where/etc. of this fact...then the next thing I know, the CO deletes my log. I don't always look at ALL the details (size,type,etc.)(just have coord's) to make it more challenging SOMETIMES, or if I'm in a hurry, so might just sign log and move on. I've seen to many variables (Crappy hide to begin with, CO stuffed baggy/log into a hole, etc.) to stress out over this issue....I SIGNED a log at GZ, explained in my log EXACTLY what/how/etc. to the CO and let CO decide whats going on. This is how I play this...the intension was to get me to GZ and SIGN a log (now if I can't sign a log...that's a different story) I can imagine the reponces I will be getting...How do I know if it was the right one,etc.... But again...This is how I play the game. I can't fix the world/geocaching over this issue...only just how I play this game.

Link to comment

Really, it's entirely up to the CO. All you know is that you found a sheet of paper with the geocaching logo on it. There's no reason to presume that it is, without a doubt, the proper cache log sheet, let alone anywhere near what the CO's hide was intended to be.

 

If the CO accepts your log, great. If not, perhaps there is a very good, sound reason (not necessarily that the CO is a jerk).

 

Personally I'd go with 3 scenarios from the CO perspective:

* if I had an easy find, but the container was gone and someone logged a find after finding the sheet, I'd likely accept the find and maintain the cache.

* if I had a cache in a neat location and the person found the log but no container, I'd likely accept it if they provided a photo (especially if, say, a previous log mentioned it was missing and I hadn't yet fixed it up - some people may take advantage of that limbo state to log an unverifiable find)

* if I had a cool or neat hide that I'd truly want the cacher to see or experience the way it was intended, then I'd likely ask them to delete the log (or delete it after a while if they insist on keeping it), and encourage them to go for it again once I fix it - saying that I think it's worth the re-visit when it's fixed up.

 

But that's just me.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Sort of a tough call but i have to say that i'd have logged a DNF in this case.

 

At the same time, i would not hastily delete another person's log if i was the CO of the cache. I'd want to check and see if the cache was actually missing. If it did happen to be in place, then i'd let you know so that you could come try again if you wanted. I'd delete your log later if you didn't respond. If the cache was missing, then i'd verify, if possible, that it was the correct log that you signed in the first place. I would probably let it slide if it was.

Link to comment

And besides, you can't have another cache within 160 metres, so if you find a log sheet at the site of any particular cache, that's the cache the log sheet should belong to.

 

Could be that the log sheet was left by a previous cacher who couldn't find the container and used the sheet as a throwdown. If the CO says you didn't find the cache, then you didn't find the cache. The only Found log I ever deleted on any of my caches was a similar situation, though in that case I deleted the throwdown log but left the next finder's who was misled by the previous action.

Link to comment

If I found an actual log sheet that had signatures on it from the cache, I would log it as a find. It was the log sheet. Cache containers change all the time too, ultimately the goal is to sign the paper log. If the CO has a conniption, well, that makes it less fun, but to me I would have logged the find and let the CO know about the situation. I had one of those happen recently and the CO was fine with the find, but got upset with me that I did not replace the container for him! Um, that one I did not want to do, but my find stands.

Link to comment

On the weekend I found the lid to a cache, but the log was missing, as was the bottom of the tin (metal Altoids-like tin).

 

I logged it as a find, posted a photo of what was left of the cache, and also logged a NM on it.

 

The log has been full for several months with no action from the CO, so I couldn't have signed the log even if the whole container was there.

Link to comment

And besides, you can't have another cache within 160 metres, so if you find a log sheet at the site of any particular cache, that's the cache the log sheet should belong to.

 

Could be that the log sheet was left by a previous cacher who couldn't find the container and used the sheet as a throwdown. If the CO says you didn't find the cache, then you didn't find the cache. The only Found log I ever deleted on any of my caches was a similar situation, though in that case I deleted the throwdown log but left the next finder's who was misled by the previous action.

 

That is the way Groundspeak says Throwdowns should be handled.

Link to comment

If I found an actual log sheet that had signatures on it from the cache, I would log it as a find. It was the log sheet. Cache containers change all the time too, ultimately the goal is to sign the paper log. If the CO has a conniption, well, that makes it less fun, but to me I would have logged the find and let the CO know about the situation. I had one of those happen recently and the CO was fine with the find, but got upset with me that I did not replace the container for him! Um, that one I did not want to do, but my find stands.

 

The goal is to sign the log for the cache. That means, if you can't tell without a doubt what cache the log belongs to, you can't log a find. Or should I say you can't accurately log a find. Now I can understand if someone found a logbook, labeled as GC123 at GZ for GC123 I would understand, but if it was found at GZ of GC456, or if the logbook doesn't have the GC number, you can't be sure. Sure you could look at the signatures-but lots of people cache together, and not everyone backdates their online logs. I have two caches with almost the exact same names in the same order in the logbook. If one where to find the log, one would not be able to tell which cache it belongs to.

Link to comment

If I found an actual log sheet that had signatures on it from the cache, I would log it as a find. It was the log sheet. Cache containers change all the time too, ultimately the goal is to sign the paper log. If the CO has a conniption, well, that makes it less fun, but to me I would have logged the find and let the CO know about the situation. I had one of those happen recently and the CO was fine with the find, but got upset with me that I did not replace the container for him! Um, that one I did not want to do, but my find stands.

 

The goal is to sign the log for the cache. That means, if you can't tell without a doubt what cache the log belongs to, you can't log a find. Or should I say you can't accurately log a find. Now I can understand if someone found a logbook, labeled as GC123 at GZ for GC123 I would understand, but if it was found at GZ of GC456, or if the logbook doesn't have the GC number, you can't be sure. Sure you could look at the signatures-but lots of people cache together, and not everyone backdates their online logs. I have two caches with almost the exact same names in the same order in the logbook. If one where to find the log, one would not be able to tell which cache it belongs to.

 

If it was a blank log or solitary piece of paper, I would not sign it and assume it was from the cache, but if there was a record of past signatures which matched the online log meaning the container had just been taken but someone left the log, sure, I'd sign it and log it and report it to the CO.

Link to comment

No container. No find. Sounds like a DNF to me.

 

Please do not take this the wrong way, and I'm saying this with a lot of respect..seeing that you have found over 16800 caches...again, I'm just asking...with that many finds, were they always perfect... every cache was a CONTAINER in totally perfect condition with a DRY log to sign??

Did you ever find any of the 'magnetic' sign caches where you sign the back, or a cache where The CO simply put a log in a baggy and stuffed it in a crack/hole.

When you would get to a cache, how would you know everytime if,yes, this is the correct cache container?

One of the intensions of geocaching is to take you different places, If I look up a cache that I get while on vacation...One where I spend the extra time,money,gas,effort,thought to get to this cache that the CO wanted me to go,AND do DUE DILIGENCE to find, and only find a log...I'll sign that log,and keep with the spirit of intension to get me to come here. Again, if DUE DILIGENCE was performed to find the cache, and I signed a log I FOUND at GZ (NOT one I left). Like I said in my other post...I would explain in my log EXACTLY what/where/how I found the cache.

My hat is off to you if you were able to find all your caches in perfect order, and DNF'd any that wasn't.

This is all coming with a huge respect for the amount of caches you have found, and just wanted to open up a little discussion on this.

Thank you.

Link to comment

If I found an actual log sheet that had signatures on it from the cache, I would log it as a find. It was the log sheet. Cache containers change all the time too, ultimately the goal is to sign the paper log. If the CO has a conniption, well, that makes it less fun, but to me I would have logged the find and let the CO know about the situation. I had one of those happen recently and the CO was fine with the find, but got upset with me that I did not replace the container for him! Um, that one I did not want to do, but my find stands.

 

The goal is to sign the log for the cache. That means, if you can't tell without a doubt what cache the log belongs to, you can't log a find. Or should I say you can't accurately log a find. Now I can understand if someone found a logbook, labeled as GC123 at GZ for GC123 I would understand, but if it was found at GZ of GC456, or if the logbook doesn't have the GC number, you can't be sure. Sure you could look at the signatures-but lots of people cache together, and not everyone backdates their online logs. I have two caches with almost the exact same names in the same order in the logbook. If one where to find the log, one would not be able to tell which cache it belongs to.

 

Exactly.

And while the 'valid find' is defined by signing the log sheet of the cache, the cache owner still reserves the right to delete find logs if they believe the log to be false (or the cache not found). And that judgement is primarily up to that CO. Sure, it can get hazy and interpretive at times, but that's what Appeals is for. The CO has final say between the cacher and the owner. If the cacher thinks the owner is wrong, send an email to appeals.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...