Jump to content

Would you log this?


Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I recently came across a multi-cache that starts and finishes in a particular country, but has one or more intermediate stages in another country. The idea is to enlist help from a cacher in that other country and get them to find the intermediate stage(s) so that one can find the final. The cache encourages the helper from the other country to also log the find, even though they never went anywhere near the final.

 

No particular need to go looking for the particular cache I came across - there are multiple around the world, and sometimes they have less encouragement for the helper to log the find.

 

Just thought I'd throw that topic out there and see what people think. If you were the helper from the other country, would you log it as found once the person you were helping found it? Would you log a note? Would you help for the fun of it with no reward? Would you perhaps even refuse to help at all?

Link to comment

I recently came across a multi-cache that starts and finishes in a particular country, but has one or more intermediate stages in another country. The idea is to enlist help from a cacher in that other country and get them to find the intermediate stage(s) so that one can find the final. The cache encourages the helper from the other country to also log the find, even though they never went anywhere near the final.

 

No particular need to go looking for the particular cache I came across - there are multiple around the world, and sometimes they have less encouragement for the helper to log the find.

 

Just thought I'd throw that topic out there and see what people think. If you were the helper from the other country, would you log it as found once the person you were helping found it? Would you log a note? Would you help for the fun of it with no reward? Would you perhaps even refuse to help at all?

 

I probably wouldn't help, and there's no way would I log it as a find myself!

I've logged some mult-caches where I might not have actually found all the stages, but figured out where the final was, but at least I found the final and signed the log.

Link to comment

If you were the helper from the other country, would you log it as found once the person you were helping found it?

 

Yes, and I have, that particular cache is designed to be played that way, Groundspeak endorse it, why not?

 

I'm not sure if you're assuming I think it would be wrong to log it as found, but I'll play devil's advocate. Don't you need to sign the log in order to log a physical cache as found?

 

Edit to add: I am genuinely curious to understand this type of caching situation - would you be able to link me to somewhere that shows Groundspeak's endorsement?

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Link to comment

If you were the helper from the other country, would you log it as found once the person you were helping found it?

 

Yes, and I have, that particular cache is designed to be played that way, Groundspeak endorse it, why not?

 

I'm not sure if you're assuming I think it would be wrong to log it as found, but I'll play devil's advocate. Don't you need to sign the log in order to log a physical cache as found?

No I wasn't assuming your point of view, the "why not" was to invite further discussion, so....

 

As for the signing the log question I would just point out again that Groundspeak endorse it so they're happy with not signing the log for these caches, and it's their rules. The ones I did were years ago and I must admit I thought they were no-longer allowed so had assumed GS had changed their view on them, but I've seen a few published recently like this so I guess not.

Link to comment

There are a few of these long-distance-cooperation caches in my area, and none of them mention logging the counterpart cache. As with many things, it must be a regional thing.

 

Personally, if presented with the OP's scenario, I would never consider logging the counterpart cache as a find just because I had helped someone else with it. I've neither been anywhere near GZ nor signed the log, so it would not fit my definition of a find.

 

Other people can feel free to accept the offer to log the counterpart cache. I wouldn't.

 

...that particular cache is designed to be played that way, Groundspeak endorse it, why not?

I find it hard to believe that Groundspeak has an opinion either way, let alone an official endorsement.

Link to comment

I'm not sure if you're assuming I think it would be wrong to log it as found, but I'll play devil's advocate. Don't you need to sign the log in order to log a physical cache as found?

No I wasn't assuming your point of view, the "why not" was to invite further discussion, so....

 

As for the signing the log question I would just point out again that Groundspeak endorse it so they're happy with not signing the log for these caches, and it's their rules. The ones I did were years ago and I must admit I thought they were no-longer allowed so had assumed GS had changed their view on them, but I've seen a few published recently like this so I guess not.

 

That's cool. Would you be able to link me to somewhere I can see Groundspeak's endorsement of logging finds on such caches. I've only ever been able to find the whole general "sign the log, then log online" guidelines.

Link to comment

There are a few of these long-distance-cooperation caches in my area, and none of them mention logging the counterpart cache. As with many things, it must be a regional thing.

 

Personally, if presented with the OP's scenario, I would never consider logging the counterpart cache as a find just because I had helped someone else with it. I've neither been anywhere near GZ nor signed the log, so it would not fit my definition of a find.

 

Other people can feel free to accept the offer to log the counterpart cache. I wouldn't.

 

...that particular cache is designed to be played that way, Groundspeak endorse it, why not?

I find it hard to believe that Groundspeak has an opinion either way, let alone an official endorsement.

 

Well the ones I did years ago had several caches round the world and I believe when the originator came up with the idea the revewers he approached bumped the question "upstairs" for clarification and they were given the go-ahead. Given GS' penchant for banning certain wording from cache pages I'm sure they would clamp down on the relevant terms in the cache pages if they disapproved.

Link to comment

There are a few of these long-distance-cooperation caches in my area, and none of them mention logging the counterpart cache. As with many things, it must be a regional thing.

 

Personally, if presented with the OP's scenario, I would never consider logging the counterpart cache as a find just because I had helped someone else with it. I've neither been anywhere near GZ nor signed the log, so it would not fit my definition of a find.

 

Other people can feel free to accept the offer to log the counterpart cache. I wouldn't.

 

...that particular cache is designed to be played that way, Groundspeak endorse it, why not?

I find it hard to believe that Groundspeak has an opinion either way, let alone an official endorsement.

 

Well the ones I did years ago had several caches round the world and I believe when the originator came up with the idea the revewers he approached bumped the question "upstairs" for clarification and they were given the go-ahead. Given GS' penchant for banning certain wording from cache pages I'm sure they would clamp down on the relevant terms in the cache pages if they disapproved.

 

I did one a couple of years ago that involved 4 people in 4 different countries, I logged the one in Canada that I actually found, it never even occurred to me to even consider logging the other 3 caches.

Link to comment

If I helped someone find it, then I wouldn't log it myself because I wasn't anywhere near the cache when it was found. I have my own standards for what I claim as finds, which might go beyond the standards that a cache owner or Groundspeak sets. For example, I won't claim a find for caches I hide or help hide, even though Groundspeak allows this. Nor will I claim multiple "attends" for an event where I might find several temporary caches, even though Groundspeak allows this. I wouldn't log a find on a webcam cache if I was at home and simply captured a screen shot of a friend in front of the camera, even though some cache owners allow this.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

That's cool. Would you be able to link me to somewhere I can see Groundspeak's endorsement of logging finds on such caches.

 

I would suggest the fact that they publish them knowing what's involved, and they know people log them as such is an implicit endorsement. Contrast that with the fact that webcam caches which are being logged by people taking selfies on their phones get archived, because GS disapprove of that practice.

Link to comment

Ok - to clarify, what I am talking about is simply one single multi-cache, not a series of them, and not even two complimentary multi's where there is one beginning and ending in country A and the other in country B.

 

Simple, Did you sign the log?

Link to comment

I find it hard to believe that Groundspeak has an opinion either way, let alone an official endorsement.

Well the ones I did years ago had several caches round the world and I believe when the originator came up with the idea the revewers he approached bumped the question "upstairs" for clarification and they were given the go-ahead. Given GS' penchant for banning certain wording from cache pages I'm sure they would clamp down on the relevant terms in the cache pages if they disapproved.

I could see TPTB having an issue with cachers being invited to log a whole series of caches they haven't actually visited, so it makes sense that higher approval was needed. However, I'm not sure they'd really care one way or the other for single (ie. non-series) cooperation caches, which I believe (though I could be wrong) is what funkymunkyzone was referring to.

 

Edit: I see funkymunkyzone clarified what he meant.

Edited by The A-Team
Link to comment

That's cool. Would you be able to link me to somewhere I can see Groundspeak's endorsement of logging finds on such caches.

 

I would suggest the fact that they publish them knowing what's involved, and they know people log them as such is an implicit endorsement. Contrast that with the fact that webcam caches which are being logged by people taking selfies on their phones get archived, because GS disapprove of that practice.

 

GS does not approve of this, they archive webcams that are not functioning when it comes to their attention.

 

I would not log a selfie on a webcam either.

Link to comment

That's cool. Would you be able to link me to somewhere I can see Groundspeak's endorsement of logging finds on such caches.

 

I would suggest the fact that they publish them knowing what's involved, and they know people log them as such is an implicit endorsement. Contrast that with the fact that webcam caches which are being logged by people taking selfies on their phones get archived, because GS disapprove of that practice.

 

Well, in my experience, they publish a lot of things. Where is keystone when a "most reviewers are dogs" reference is needed?

 

Groundspeak indeed do clamp down on bogus logging of virtuals, that's true.

Link to comment
If you were the helper from the other country, would you log it as found once the person you were helping found it?

No, as I physically haven't visited the country. I'd feel as if I was cheating my stats.

 

Would you log a note?

Possibly. Definitely if I had a law enforcement encounter.

 

Would you help for the fun of it with no reward? Would you perhaps even refuse to help at all?

If I knew the person already then yes, I would help. If it was someone out of the blue, I'd be unlikely to.

Link to comment

The ones I did were years ago and I must admit I thought they were no-longer allowed so had assumed GS had changed their view on them, but I've seen a few published recently like this so I guess not.

 

Having just had a closer look at one of the ones recently published the wording on the page doesn't suggest "remote logging" as the old ones did, so maybe I was right and it's nolonger "endorsed" by GS, and the CO didn't design it that way, so that changes things a bit and I wouldn't log the one I just looked at.

 

Oddly enough I think the cache which raised this question is one of a pair, one in NZ with a waypoint near me, and one near me (~20 miles away) with a waypoint in NZ :lol:

Link to comment

The ones I did were years ago and I must admit I thought they were no-longer allowed so had assumed GS had changed their view on them, but I've seen a few published recently like this so I guess not.

 

Having just had a closer look at one of the ones recently published the wording on the page doesn't suggest "remote logging" as the old ones did, so maybe I was right and it's nolonger "endorsed" by GS, and the CO didn't design it that way, so that changes things a bit and I wouldn't log the one I just looked at.

 

Oddly enough I think the cache which raised this question is one of a pair, one in NZ with a waypoint near me, and one near me (~20 miles away) with a waypoint in NZ :lol:

 

Hehe, nah, you're looking at the wrong one :)

Link to comment

Once again people read far more into the guideline for logging physical cache than was intended. The guideline does not mean that you can only log a cache online if you have signed the physical log. It simply says "Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

 

The guideline was added to explain that, with the exception of challenge caches, a cache owner could not have additional requirements, beyond signing the physical log, for logging a cache online.

 

There is nothing in the Groundspeak guidelines that bars a cache owner from having a multi-cache that encourages cachers in different parts of the world to cooperate by finding various stages and allowing all those who found a stage to log a find online.

 

If you wish to have a personal rule that you only log caches where you have signed the physical log in the final stage that is your personal choice. Other people can do what they feel is appropriate.

 

(Keystone should note that I exercised great restraint in avoiding certain words, acronyms, and phrases in my response).

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Once again people read far more into the guideline for logging physical cache than was intended. The guideline does not mean that you can only log a cache online if you have signed the physical log. It simply says "Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

 

The guideline was added to explain that, with the exception of challenge caches, a cache owner could not have additional requirements, beyond signing the physical log, for logging a cache online.

 

Objection, your honor. Hearsay and opinion.

Link to comment

Once again people read far more into the guideline for logging physical cache than was intended. The guideline does not mean that you can only log a cache online if you have signed the physical log. It simply says "Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

 

The guideline was added to explain that, with the exception of challenge caches, a cache owner could not have additional requirements, beyond signing the physical log, for logging a cache online.

Objection, your honor. Hearsay and opinion.

Overruled. :laughing:

 

Seriously, though, what toz is saying is correct. That guideline is often misinterpreted as saying that you must sign the log to log it online. That isn't what it says at all.

Link to comment

Well, I did do one cache where the starting point had hints that I had to trade with cachers on other locations. That gave me the final for my local cache, and gave them the final coords for their local caches. I logged my local cache. They logged their local caches. No of us logged any of the other caches. We did not find them.

On the other fin, I did do a Locationless cache (about ten years ago), where I translated my geocaching name into northern coords, and had to find another cacher to find that location (East/west coords were up to the other cacher.) With a photo of his GPS readings we both logged the cache. That was definitely permitted (and encouraged) on the Locationless Cache page. But that is no longer permitted, and Locationless Caches no longer exist. But it was fun! And, no. You do not get souvenirs for Locationless Caches.

Link to comment

Once again people read far more into the guideline for logging physical cache than was intended.

 

I may have misread, but I didn't see anyone saying it wasn't allowed and therefore reading more into any guideline. I can only see people offering their personal opinion of how they cache.

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Link to comment

Once again people read far more into the guideline for logging physical cache than was intended.

 

I may have misread, but I didn't see anyone saying it wasn't allowed and therefore reading more into any guideline. I can only see people offering their personal opinion of how they cache.

 

However, again out of curiosity... a little bit of digging reveals:

 

1.5. Are there rules?

 

We like to keep things fun for everyone, so we have a few rules we encourage everyone to follow:

  1. Sign both the logbook and log your find online to get your smiley. Geocache owners love reading about your experience.

 

and

 

4.1. How do I log my first geocache find?

 

To get your smiley, it is as important to log your find physically by signing the log book as it is to create your digital log.

...

If you digitally log a geocache without meeting these requirements (also known as couch logging), your log can be deleted by either the geocache owner or Geocaching HQ without notice.

Link to comment

Once again people read far more into the guideline for logging physical cache than was intended.

 

I may have misread, but I didn't see anyone saying it wasn't allowed and therefore reading more into any guideline. I can only see people offering their personal opinion of how they cache.

 

However, again out of curiosity... a little bit of digging reveals:

 

1.5. Are there rules?

 

We like to keep things fun for everyone, so we have a few rules we encourage everyone to follow:

  1. Sign both the logbook and log your find online to get your smiley. Geocache owners love reading about your experience.

 

and

 

4.1. How do I log my first geocache find?

 

To get your smiley, it is as important to log your find physically by signing the log book as it is to create your digital log.

...

If you digitally log a geocache without meeting these requirements (also known as couch logging), your log can be deleted by either the geocache owner or Geocaching HQ without notice.

Grounspeak has long provided guidance/instructions for newbiew that has been somewhat similar. I've never interpreted these as official rules but rather a simplified set of instructions so that people can start caching right away and feel comfortable that they are logging in "accordance" with common practice.

 

Someone at Groundspeak seems to have feel that it is now necessary to state in these instructions that the reason to sign the physical log and to log online is to get your smiley. In addition for the first time, there is a statement that Grounspeak HQ is going to police physical logs. :laughing:

 

As this is counter to the way I enjoy the game, I will no longer be logging my finds online. Be sure to thank the lackey who came up with this.

Link to comment

For me, I wouldn't feel right logging a cache that I did not personally find and sign. But I would appreciate a little tip of the hat from the finder in their log, something simple like, "Found with the help of MMaru." I would also hope that, if I ever did a cache like this, they would return the favor.

 

On the other hand, this is a long-distance version of team finds, where a group goes out together, they all hunt but only one person finds and signs the cache log - not every individual in those instances has been the one to actually 'find' the cache, but it's commonly accepted that they all get the credit and the smiley for the find. I don't group cache but I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

Ultimately, it's no skin off my nose whether someone else logs a find that they helped with, but didn't make the find themselves. :)

Link to comment

In addition for the first time, there is a statement that Grounspeak HQ is going to police physical logs. :laughing:

 

Given your Log-o-cide comment below I am suspicious of the laughing emoticon here. It is not clear that this comment truly is in jest.

 

The section referenced:

 

"If you digitally log a geocache without meeting these requirements (also known as couch logging), your log can be deleted by either the geocache owner or Geocaching HQ without notice."

 

It says nothing of GS policing physical logs but it does clearly say that virtual logs might be deleted by HQ if it comes to their attention.

 

I bring this up because I was surprised by your interpretation of another rule a few posts earlier...

 

The guideline does not mean that you can only log a cache online if you have signed the physical log. It simply says "Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

 

You've got me curious. It seems that you have read into this that physical caches can be logged online without signing the physical log. If that was ever the case then I think descriptions of the instances where you could log online without signing a physical log would have followed that statement. I don't recall reading anything like that.

 

As this is counter to the way I enjoy the game, I will no longer be logging my finds online.

 

You don't sign physical logs? So much so that you feel you can no longer log online?

 

I think there are many instances where a log cannot be signed but a Found It should be posted but I would anticipate this would typically makeup less than 1% of any account's find total. Maybe a tad more for low-find accounts.

 

Edit: typos.

Edited by Team Sagefox
Link to comment

We've found several of those cooperation caches, in different countries. We only log the cache we've found and signed ourselves. And we note the final coordinates of the one in the other country and hope we can find it as well one day.

But sometimes the CO states on the cache page that the person who cooperated from a distance can log it as well and with those caches you see people are writing logs on both caches (so in 2 different countries) online, although they have been to only one of them. We don't do it, but I can't blame these cachers either, since the cache page tells them to and they feel like it is a team effort, so a team find.

Link to comment

I have once logged a cache find in similar circumstances - and it still doesn't sit well with me :(

 

It was the culmination of a 50 cache series which involved several puzzles and multiple multi-caches.

 

The final stage was a pair of antipodean caches - each of which could only be located by teaming up with and exchanging information with an antipodean cacher. The CO's intention was that each finder could log a find on their local cache and the antipodean cache and after much consideration I did post the log as despite breaking my own rule of only logging caches I've physically found it also seemed slightly churlish to not complete the series in the manner intended by the CO.

Link to comment

The rule is simple, you need to sign the logbook.

 

There are many tiny exceptions, such as placing a new sheet of paper when the original logbook is missing or is damaged.

 

But logging the caches if you weren't there is no-go. It's my opinion. And logging caches in countries you've never visited is an absolute no-go. We had in Poland a geocacher that has made a 'creative' event registered in Belarus, near the border, and the intend was to meet on the Polish side and not cross the border. The reaction of the community was so strong that he have archived the event.

Link to comment
If you were the helper from the other country, would you log it as found once the person you were helping found it?

 

No. I didn't find the cache so I wouldn't log a "Found It" log. The fact that I could get away with it (because the CO wouldn't delete my log) doesn't change anything.

 

Would you log a note?

 

Probably not. If the person chose to mention that I helped in their log I would appreciate, but not expect it.

 

Would you help for the fun of it with no reward? Would you perhaps even refuse to help at all?

 

If I had the opportunity to help I would do so without the expectation of any kind of reward.

 

 

Link to comment

I recently came across a multi-cache that starts and finishes in a particular country, but has one or more intermediate stages in another country. The idea is to enlist help from a cacher in that other country and get them to find the intermediate stage(s) so that one can find the final. The cache encourages the helper from the other country to also log the find, even though they never went anywhere near the final.

 

No particular need to go looking for the particular cache I came across - there are multiple around the world, and sometimes they have less encouragement for the helper to log the find.

 

Just thought I'd throw that topic out there and see what people think. If you were the helper from the other country, would you log it as found once the person you were helping found it? Would you log a note? Would you help for the fun of it with no reward? Would you perhaps even refuse to help at all?

 

These require teamwork and can be alot of fun. Imo, contacting, teaming up with, and maybe getting to know someone from another area is the reward. Claiming found on a cache i never visited is something that would never enter my mind though. I know that for some, it affords an easy way for their stats to indicate they found a cache in another state or country but in the end, it's just a lie. :(

Link to comment

Here's a cache (listed as unknown) that is similar in nature. Note that it has TWO containers to sign, one for the other state and one for the state in which it starts, making sure to include the point to sign for the other cacher that helped for both parts that require a signature. I remember when this was published and the things the CO had to do in order to get it approved. I've seen one or two others, but can't recall them offhand.

 

It's this cache.

Edited by coachstahly
Link to comment

We've found several of those cooperation caches, in different countries. We only log the cache we've found and signed ourselves. And we note the final coordinates of the one in the other country and hope we can find it as well one day.

But sometimes the CO states on the cache page that the person who cooperated from a distance can log it as well and with those caches you see people are writing logs on both caches (so in 2 different countries) online, although they have been to only one of them. We don't do it, but I can't blame these cachers either, since the cache page tells them to and they feel like it is a team effort, so a team find.

 

This is how I feel. If the cache is explicitly designed encouraging both members of the team to log both, I think it is OK. Though I also accept that having a find show up in a country you haven't visited would be odd, and a reason why I might not do it.

Link to comment

I think those kind of caches are really cool, although I've never hooked up with anyone to solve one. Whether I logged the remote cache would depend on many factors, many of which I wouldn't be able to describe until it came down to brass tacks on an actual cache.

Link to comment
We've found several of those cooperation caches, in different countries. We only log the cache we've found and signed ourselves. And we note the final coordinates of the one in the other country and hope we can find it as well one day.

But sometimes the CO states on the cache page that the person who cooperated from a distance can log it as well and with those caches you see people are writing logs on both caches (so in 2 different countries) online, although they have been to only one of them. We don't do it, but I can't blame these cachers either, since the cache page tells them to and they feel like it is a team effort, so a team find.

This is how I feel. If the cache is explicitly designed encouraging both members of the team to log both, I think it is OK. Though I also accept that having a find show up in a country you haven't visited would be odd, and a reason why I might not do it.
I logged a Note for the old armchair virtual Four Windows, even though the CO encouraged virtual Find logs. For a cooperation cache, I'd log a Find only on the local cache that I actually found, even if the CO encouraged logging the remote cache as well.
Link to comment
If you were the helper from the other country, would you log it as found once the person you were helping found it?

No. I didn't find the cache so I wouldn't log a "Found It" log. The fact that I could get away with it (because the CO wouldn't delete my log) doesn't change anything.

Weren't you the fellow who "found" a missing cache by photo-logging the location...because the CO said it was okay?

Link to comment
If you were the helper from the other country, would you log it as found once the person you were helping found it?

No. I didn't find the cache so I wouldn't log a "Found It" log. The fact that I could get away with it (because the CO wouldn't delete my log) doesn't change anything.

Weren't you the fellow who "found" a missing cache by photo-logging the location...because the CO said it was okay?

 

And you're saying that logging a cache that was created to bring someone to a specific location, going to Singapore where the cache was hidden, finding the exact spot where the cache was hidden, and doing everything that the cache owner intended except write on a piece of paper, is the same as posting a found it log for a cache in a country you've never visited? I will gladly delete my found it log on that cache if it makes you feel better but frankly I don't see how it's any of your business.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
Link to comment
If you were the helper from the other country, would you log it as found once the person you were helping found it?

No. I didn't find the cache so I wouldn't log a "Found It" log. The fact that I could get away with it (because the CO wouldn't delete my log) doesn't change anything.

Weren't you the fellow who "found" a missing cache by photo-logging the location...because the CO said it was okay?

And you're saying that logging a cache that was created to bring someone to a specific location, going to Singapore where the cache was hidden, finding the exact spot where the cache was hidden, and doing everything that the cache owner intended except write on a piece of paper, is the same as posting a found it log for a cache in a country you've never visited? I will gladly delete my found it log on that cache if it makes you feel better but frankly I don't see how it's any of your business.

No, I'm not saying they are exactly the same. I'm saying that in neither case was the cache actually found. In neither case would I even think about logging it as being found, even if the CO said it was okay to do so. Just because the CO wouldn't delete my log "doesn't change anything."

Link to comment
If you were the helper from the other country, would you log it as found once the person you were helping found it?

No. I didn't find the cache so I wouldn't log a "Found It" log. The fact that I could get away with it (because the CO wouldn't delete my log) doesn't change anything.

Weren't you the fellow who "found" a missing cache by photo-logging the location...because the CO said it was okay?

And you're saying that logging a cache that was created to bring someone to a specific location, going to Singapore where the cache was hidden, finding the exact spot where the cache was hidden, and doing everything that the cache owner intended except write on a piece of paper, is the same as posting a found it log for a cache in a country you've never visited? I will gladly delete my found it log on that cache if it makes you feel better but frankly I don't see how it's any of your business.

No, I'm not saying they are exactly the same. I'm saying that in neither case was the cache actually found. In neither case would I even think about logging it as being found, even if the CO said it was okay to do so. Just because the CO wouldn't delete my log "doesn't change anything."

 

Okay, so I am not so puritanical about what constitutes a find as you are. Not only are those caches not exactly the same, the only thing that they have in common is that the CO is not draconian about requiring a signature on the log sheet in order to log it as a find.

 

I just deleted my found it log on the cache in Singapore. Happy now? My find count, after over 7 years playing the game, went down from 1215 finds to 1214 finds. You have nearly 10x that many after only 5 years so obviously number are more important to you. As it turned out, at 9415 miles it was also the furthest find from home. Now it's a cache a few blocks away that oddly enough displays as 9408 miles from home. I still have the pictures and memories of doing everything that the cache owner intended: " Take a walk on the bridge and enjoy the breathtaking view of Marina Bay."

 

 

Link to comment

the only thing that they have in common is that the CO is not draconian about requiring a signature on the log sheet in order to log it as a find.

 

I am proud to be a draconian cache owner who actually has an expectation that people will physically log their finds. Just old school I 'spect.

Link to comment

 

Okay, so I am not so puritanical about what constitutes a find as you are. Not only are those caches not exactly the same, the only thing that they have in common is that the CO is not draconian about requiring a signature on the log sheet in order to log it as a find.

 

 

What's so draconian about requiring to signature the log sheet? Except the cases, where the logbook is full/broken/missing (so the owner fault)...

Link to comment

 

Okay, so I am not so puritanical about what constitutes a find as you are. Not only are those caches not exactly the same, the only thing that they have in common is that the CO is not draconian about requiring a signature on the log sheet in order to log it as a find.

 

 

What's so draconian about requiring to signature the log sheet? Except the cases, where the logbook is full/broken/missing (so the owner fault)...

 

The owner's fault?

 

Did the owner fill the logbook? Break it? Lose it?

 

I think a more accurate description of those phenomena would be that they were issues that the CO would be expected to address in due course :)

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 2
×
×
  • Create New...