Jump to content

FTF but could not find logbook


Recommended Posts

There's a cache around here where part of the challenge is to find (and sign) the real log book. The CO makes it very clear that to log a Find, you need to find and sign the yellow log. That helps make it clear that there is more going on, and helps to limit the appearance of "replacement" log sheets. And even if someone were to leave a "replacement" log sheet, the odds are that it would use white paper rather than yellow paper, so future finders could figure out that something was wrong while still on site.

 

But in the situation described by the OP, I would have posted a Find log similar to the "FTF and sign the actual logbook" log, but wouldn't have written anything on the "replacement" log. I would have sent the CO email privately, and let the CO deal with it.

 

Thanks for the response. Like that idea of different colored paper - may use that on one of our caches with clues hidden in the cache and a real log book.

To be clear, we did not write anything on the replacement log book, we simply placed it with the original logbook. We left a small chit of paper on the upper layer of the tin just to say that they need to look a little deeper (I think was the word we used) for the logbook. The CO was more than happy with this note (and is probably going to replace it with a permanent version when she checks the cache).

Link to comment

  • How does one tell the difference between a logbook and the logbook?
  • So if the logbook (assuming it can be confirmed it is the logbook) is an unsignable ball of wet pulp, adding a replacement log is not allowed?
  • If you find a clearly marked ordinary container marked with the GC code which is the geocache you are looking for, but the log is missing, do you log a DNF?

 

  • I meant in THIS case. The series had homemade logbooks except the last one. Especially on a brand new series I would expect a uniform "feel" to caches and logs.
  • Irrelevant, the reaction was to the situation of the OP
  • Depends. In the specific case of the OP I might log a DNF and send a mail to the CO to check if he/she had not forgotten to put the logbook in.

 

BTW, I always log a DNF when a cache is missing even when bolts or screws are still present but the container isn't.

 

As for doing maintenace on someone's cache, I would only do this after consulting the CO as I did for this one.

Edited by on4bam
Link to comment

Been there ...done that. I found a cache, but didn't see any log book so I put a piece of paper in the container with my name on it. I later wrote in my log online that I wasn't sure about doing that. Turns out the log was in the pen in the container. So the next time I was out that way I removed my piece of paper (which had several other peoples names on there as well) and put them in the pen. I guess you should expect it to be confusing to try to do something tricky like this and that some people will do it wrong. Guilty as charged.

 

I will usually do maintenance on a cache when I find it. That usually consists of cleaning the dirt out of the container, removing junk and rotted swag and putting more swag in container- which will probably also become rotted with time. I never know what to do with the mushy log book. Used to put them back in cache with new one, but now just get rid of them because they soil the newly cleaned cache. I have replaced some completely ruined, soggy or busted up caches. People are happy to find a nice container with things inside all neat- just doing the best I can to keep things enjoyable.

Link to comment

[

[*]I meant in THIS case. The series had homemade logbooks except the last one. Especially on a brand new series I would expect a uniform "feel" to caches and logs.

 

 

Ok, I see. I meant in general (was referring to several posts talking about general "regulations" for finds).

 

I agree if I was the first finder, I would probably think it was odd and would search for (and hopefully find) the hidden log. But I can only assume the FTF genuinely thought the log was missing. Their log was clear: "There was unfortunately no log book in the cache, just the slip of paper identifying it as a cache. So we added a single sheet with our name on to claim the find".

 

So they knew they found the cache (there was identifying paper). But, they thought, no log. My opinion is that in that situation, adding a log was a reasonable thing to do. Their log was looking for confirmation from the owner that they had indeed found it.

 

In this case, you say

 

"There's no discussion an what is a find and what is not."

 

Well, I think it is find as the FTF found the container in good faith and believed the log was missing. So there can be discussion.

 

As for the subsequent finders - well I'm not so sure I'd be so clever to think "this log isn't handmade like the others". If I see a log with signatures on it, I'll assume that is the log.

Link to comment

Many thanks to everyone who has taken the time to reply to this query. It is always interesting to hear the views of some very experienced cachers with a range caching experiences in a range of local environments that create the background to the views expressed. Having cached in 23 countries now, we know the game can be played very differently with local norms in different parts of the world - and there are more experiences yet to be sought through caching!

 

The cache in question was the last one in 14 cache 3 mile walking trail placed at the base of a tree surrounded by short grass only by the roadside and was very visible, so first to find the "cache container" was simply the first person to get in the car and drive there - more a case of you could not miss it, so that's why the seeking of the log made it more of a challenging gamepiece. There are rather a lot of fun caches in this area as we have fabulous walks and views but not much scope for different places to hide caches, so the variety is provided by the novelty containers and the caches with decoy logs or containers, and secret slots or multiple choices to open before finding the real log. I am not sure how widespread this phenomenom is, but sounds like there are some other fun caches around.

 

We live and learn in caching and life, and lessons were learnt about cache expectations and clarity a slightly embarrassed CO who we think has acted with dignity and fairness here after a shaky start. I perhaps should have made it clear that the CO has awarded a double FTF - to the original finder who left the replacement log and to ourselves for finding the real log book in the "secret" compartment. It was not the fault of the other 11 that on finding the replacement log that others had signed, that they did not feel the need to seek further, so all finds have been allowed (and rightly so).

 

We were just a bit shocked by the (playground) name calling and as a couple who hold fair play in high regard, hated to be called a cheat. So as someone pointed out, our lesson here is not to jest on FTF's (with or without the emoticons) and to carry on caching while respecting the efforts of our CO's. Thank you all

Link to comment

I am under the impression, having read these forums and the GS Guidelines, that a cache is a container with a log. A decoy container, while not marked as such, is not the cache.

 

Except that this was not a decoy container, and it did have a log.

 

The top half was clearly and obviously a decoy container. It was supposed to be difficult to find the actual log. It was meant to confuse, and it worked perfectly. In fact, it is still working.

 

Austin

Link to comment

Personally, I don't take the game serious enough to care if I'm not adhering to someones strict rules, but this thread is yet another example of the potential drama associated with the FTF game.

The real issue here isn't whether the person that added the log was FTF but rather whether they found the cache at all. It's just a minor side point that the answer to that question determines whether they're FTF.

 

I think it's fun to discuss the issue, but I agree it's silly to think the answer matters, or that we all have to agree that there's The One True Answer.

 

Lessons to be learned:

 

1. Don't joke about FTF. Some take it way to seriously.

Actually, I think the lesson is to always joke about FTF precisely to demonstrate that it shouldn't be taken seriously. And the most important time to joke about it is when someone's getting all upset about it.

 

The top half was clearly and obviously a decoy container.

Was this explained already and I missed it? I'm having a hard time imagining what could make a container that could hold a log clearly and obviously not the container that's supposed to hold the log.

Link to comment

The top half was clearly and obviously a decoy container.

Was this explained already and I missed it? I'm having a hard time imagining what could make a container that could hold a log clearly and obviously not the container that's supposed to hold the log.

 

You have an odd definition of decoy. Where I'm from, a decoy is supposed to have the look, feel, smell, or whatever of the real thing, but not actually be the real thing. So expecting a decoy cache to be "clearly and obviously not the container that's supposed to hold the log" does not in any way fit any definition I know of for the word "decoy."

 

However, since the top section did not have a log, and the bottom hidden section did have a log, it then becomes clear and obvious that to the CO, the top was a decoy and the bottom was the real cache.

 

Austin

Link to comment

However, since the top section did not have a log, and the bottom hidden section did have a log, it then becomes clear and obvious that to the CO, the top was a decoy and the bottom was the real cache.

 

But this might only be true for the first finder. Once a temp. log is put in the container the intention is no longer clear.

 

So expecting a decoy cache to be "clearly and obviously not the container that's supposed to hold the log" does not in any way fit any definition I know of for the word "decoy."

 

How would one know that it is a decoy if there is no indication on the cache page or in the container? And how long would it take before someone puts a signed slip of paper in that decoy?

 

I believe that all the decoy containers I have found had an indicator that they were not the true container. Usually a slip of paper that says something like, "Nope", "Keep Looking", "Strike Two", etc. Or a piece of paper someone else put in and empty container, just like the OP did and I have done on some occasions, "This is not the container, keep looking".

Link to comment

However, since the top section did not have a log, and the bottom hidden section did have a log, it then becomes clear and obvious that to the CO, the top was a decoy and the bottom was the real cache.

 

But this might only be true for the first finder. Once a temp. log is put in the container the intention is no longer clear.

 

So expecting a decoy cache to be "clearly and obviously not the container that's supposed to hold the log" does not in any way fit any definition I know of for the word "decoy."

 

How would one know that it is a decoy if there is no indication on the cache page or in the container? And how long would it take before someone puts a signed slip of paper in that decoy?

 

I believe that all the decoy containers I have found had an indicator that they were not the true container. Usually a slip of paper that says something like, "Nope", "Keep Looking", "Strike Two", etc. Or a piece of paper someone else put in and empty container, just like the OP did and I have done on some occasions, "This is not the container, keep looking".

 

I think the real problem here is that some people know they would have been tricked. I probably would have been tricked myself. I don't have a problem admitting it. Aparently, some people do.

 

Austin

Edited by AustinMN
Link to comment

You have an odd definition of decoy. Where I'm from, a decoy is supposed to have the look, feel, smell, or whatever of the real thing, but not actually be the real thing. So expecting a decoy cache to be "clearly and obviously not the container that's supposed to hold the log" does not in any way fit any definition I know of for the word "decoy."

I think you forgot that you were the one that said it was clearly and obviously a decoy, so I asked why. You're responding as if I am claiming a decoy must be clearly and obviously different by definition, and I didn't.

 

I think the real problem here is that some people know they would have been tricked. I probably would have been tricked myself. I don't have a problem admitting it. Aparently, some people do.

I have no problem admitting when I've been tricked, but I will object if there was no reasonable way for me to avoid getting tricked. In this case, for example, I do not see why it would be reasonable for me to continue my search after I found a container that doesn't have a log in it since missing logs are known to happen.

Link to comment

I don't care how impressive the container was that the OP referred too, a person really couldn't be 100% positive that they found the cache if there was no logbook inside it. That first person who came along shouldn't have autmatically assumed they found the cache and they certainly shouldn't have put in the slip of paper.

 

But it doesn't really matter whether we think we found the container or not. The question is whether it physically is the container and in this case it is.

 

I don't know how we have made such a simple matter so complicated here. It is all one container and 12 of 13 people have left their signatures in it.

 

It turns out that this was the right container but there was a chance that it could have been something else. Doesn't matter, that first person shouldn't have thrown a piece of paper into the cache without consent from the cache owner. It's not their fault of course, but the next 12 people who came along signed that piece of paper and totally missed out on the challenge and fun that the CO originally intended.

Link to comment

Doesn't matter, that first person shouldn't have thrown a piece of paper into the cache without consent from the cache owner.

 

I think this whole topic is being way over-thought and I don't just mean your comments specifically (I have always liked the MudCacher's participation in the forums).

 

On to my rant in general:

 

It is just not a big deal that a slip of paper got put in a container and people signed it. Sure, it is a fun cache and they missed the best part but they were out on a nice trail and found a real cache, probably one of the several along that trail and they were having a good time. How could that possibly be wrong?

 

What harm has been caused to our game by the actions of the people who visited this cache? And I don't mean the made-up harm that has been voiced here, I mean real harm. How has the "prime directive" (find a cash-sign a log) actually been violated at the cache site?

 

To say that 1/2 of the inside of the cache container is not the cache is really splitting hairs. I never know for sure whether these kinds of comments are made up on the fly because someone just didn't like what someone else said as opposed to someone really thinking about the actual game of geocaching.

 

That comment does not hold up in real geocaching - the kind done out on the trail where fun is the point rather than trying to prove an obscure concept.

 

The person who put the slip of paper in the cache let everyone know they did it including the cache owner who could then reevaluate the hide and make adjustments if they see fit. This is good neighborness even if they were a bit unsure why a new container that was obviously the cache (as described by the OP) didn't have a log in it.

 

That a person who is trying to help the game should have comments made about their find not being ligitmate or their actions being wrong tells me that we are too much in our heads in this incubator referred to as a forum.

Link to comment

The point is to me, is the one who was first find the cache with no logbook should have somehow contacted the CO and asked them what to do. It has happened to me a few times. Rushing to get a cache out and forgetting to double check I had the logsheet in the cache. The ones that had happened to me the FTFers sent me a message or called because most FTFers in my area know me, and asked if I have forgotten the logsheet. Ooops yes go ahead and add one. But if it were the case of evil log hide, then I would have said, keep looking.

Link to comment

The point is to me, is the one who was first find the cache with no logbook should have somehow contacted the CO and asked them what to do. It has happened to me a few times. Rushing to get a cache out and forgetting to double check I had the logsheet in the cache. The ones that had happened to me the FTFers sent me a message or called because most FTFers in my area know me, and asked if I have forgotten the logsheet. Ooops yes go ahead and add one. But if it were the case of evil log hide, then I would have said, keep looking.

 

That pretty much sums it up.

Link to comment

The point is to me, is the one who was first find the cache with no logbook should have somehow contacted the CO and asked them what to do. It has happened to me a few times. Rushing to get a cache out and forgetting to double check I had the logsheet in the cache. The ones that had happened to me the FTFers sent me a message or called because most FTFers in my area know me, and asked if I have forgotten the logsheet. Ooops yes go ahead and add one. But if it were the case of evil log hide, then I would have said, keep looking.

 

They did. They logged the cache saying

 

"Having walked this series yesterday, we found it slightly frustrating to see two new caches published later, after we were home. So, this morning we decided to drive back out. This was a nice easy find, and made us smile! There was unfortunately no log book in the cache, just the slip of paper identifying it as a cache. So we added a single sheet with our name on to claim the find. Are we indeed first to find? I think we probably are, FTF at 08:10 - TFTC"

 

One can argue they could/should have sent an email, or posted a note rather than a found it. But this log clearly tells the cache owner what they did.

Link to comment

 

It turns out that this was the right container but there was a chance that it could have been something else. Doesn't matter, that first person shouldn't have thrown a piece of paper into the cache without consent from the cache owner.

 

That is your opinion and that's fine.. but it conflicts with the advice from Groundspeak I quoted in post #50, where they encourage cachers to help out including replacing logs in the field. The article talks about carrying spares just in case, so does not state or imply that one should only replace a log if they have permission.

Link to comment

 

It turns out that this was the right container but there was a chance that it could have been something else. Doesn't matter, that first person shouldn't have thrown a piece of paper into the cache without consent from the cache owner.

 

That is your opinion and that's fine.. but it conflicts with the advice from Groundspeak I quoted in post #50, where they encourage cachers to help out including replacing logs in the field. The article talks about carrying spares just in case, so does not state or imply that one should only replace a log if they have permission.

 

You are choosing that article as policy. It's a suggestion nothing more. Further more it assumes that you as a finder know that you have found the geocache. It does not specify in detail what criteria you have to satisfy to correctly assume that you have found the cache. Which is why it is an article/suggestion and not a policy update.

Link to comment

That is your opinion and that's fine.. but it conflicts with the advice from Groundspeak I quoted in post #50, where they encourage cachers to help out including replacing logs in the field. The article talks about carrying spares just in case, so does not state or imply that one should only replace a log if they have permission.

 

You can hardly call this "helping out replacing logs" as it was a brand new cache. The FTF is probably the least likely person to have to do maintenance on a cache B)

Link to comment

 

You are choosing that article as policy. It's a suggestion nothing more. Further more it assumes that you as a finder know that you have found the geocache. It does not specify in detail what criteria you have to satisfy to correctly assume that you have found the cache. Which is why it is an article/suggestion and not a policy update.

 

I don't believe I am. I am referring to that as advice. Others are making the opposite statement that the finder should not have replaced the log "without permission of the owner".

Link to comment

 

You can hardly call this "helping out replacing logs" as it was a brand new cache. The FTF is probably the least likely person to have to do maintenance on a cache B)

 

I can. I have found an ordinary, clearly labeled and marked cache, where believed I was first to find and it did not have a log. (I say "believed", as it is possible someone else found it first and accidently removed the log). The CO forgot to add the log. Adding the log is helping.

 

I understand that others would have logged a DNF and alerted the owner, waited for them to come out and add the log, then return and find it. But I'm sure I'm not the only one who has replaced a log if the cache was missing one.

Link to comment

In my opinion the lower, hidden compartment is the cache. FTF granted! B)

 

Seems to be the most logical for me as well.

Right, and the brouhaha shows the CO's error here. If you're going to have a decoy, people need to know it's a decoy when they open it. I've seen a couple decoys with humorous messages inside letting you *know* it's a decoy. Otherwise, there will be issues about FTF and *also* other finds.

 

You cannot sign a scrap paper, put it inside a *decoy*, and claim a find.

 

But again, the CO has to let you know that what appears to be the cache is only a decoy.

Link to comment

 

You are choosing that article as policy. It's a suggestion nothing more. Further more it assumes that you as a finder know that you have found the geocache. It does not specify in detail what criteria you have to satisfy to correctly assume that you have found the cache. Which is why it is an article/suggestion and not a policy update.

 

I don't believe I am. I am referring to that as advice. Others are making the opposite statement that the finder should not have replaced the log "without permission of the owner".

 

Well advice, suggestion, its semantics. It isn't a requirement nor is it stated in the rules. Yes I see others have stated that and I think it stems from the throwdown comparison. Which isn't the same. That is regulated against. This situation isn't. what is?

 

Well THE log must be signed to claim a find. This is encompassed by the throwdown regulations. If a finder signs a throwdown log sheet their log should be permitted. The co can delete it but under appeal Groundspeak will generally allow the find. The person who threw down and logs a find will not generally be upheld. Throwdown are to be discouraged etc (from memory)

 

So we have the regulation detailing who can claim a find on a cache. Who can legitimately claim a find in this situation. Anyone. Who are groundoeak likely to uphold - I would imagine common sense would prevail and a similar ruling applied as the log signing process is part of statute. The cache finding process is part of statute. So therefore if logs were deleted - groundoeak are likely to hold to precedents already in place. For fairness and ease of explanation.

 

This results in - correct log finder FTF, person who inserted the log (claim deleted and deletion upheld by groundoeak) subsequent finders found logs deleted - permitted under appeal.

 

However as this has not been tested its a moot point. Under no circumstance can the person who signed the FTF position on the correct logbook be held to account. They did as they were regulated to do.

 

The persons who found the slip of paper signed the log in good faith and therefore as regulated.

 

The person who inserted the log did so perhaps on good faith but as a consequence created confusion and incorrect logs.

 

Now when we two about your suggestion or advice as you state, should the people concerned have had their logs deleted and the appeal process invoked - and the defence was - I read it in an article that I could - Groundspeak would defer to the rules and make their ruling. In the absence of specific case by case scenarios to hold up for scrutiny and a specific rule for this scenario - they will probably elect for the next best case. If the CO refuses to be swayed - rules will be defered to.

Link to comment

I think I'm gonna put out a cache with three logs in it, but only one will the THE logbook (only I will know which one is IT). :lol:

 

Sometimes finding "the" log can be problematic. I once stopped after work and found a new cache with a "geocache log" sheet inside a bison that was inside a container. I signed it. By the time I had gotten home, my log had been deleted and there was a note on the cache page stating that a claimed finder had not signed the log. I had not claimed a FTF, because I never use those initials, but I felt my honor was at stake.

 

I emailed the CO. He stated that it was clear from the cache name that there was a decoy involved. I stated that as far as I knew, the name was a decoy and that when I find an unsigned log marked "geocache" in a new cache, I should not have to guess about whether that was the actual log or another log. After a few emails, the CO went back and realized that he had left a bison as a trade item, and had not opened it to remove the included log sheet. He was very apologetic and offered a couple of options. I decided to go back the next day and do the cache as intended - it was a cache somewhat like the one described in the thread, where the log was not immediately obvious and you had to find the log after finding the container. Not exactly a decoy, but one where you had to keep looking after finding the original container.

 

I signed a blank log, but again did not use any initials in describing the find. It makes things simpler not to worry about claiming this or that, and anybody who is curious can figure it out without my comment.

 

If I had been the CO in the cache described by the OP, I would have deleted the first log because it was clear that the intended log had not been found, but I would have gone to my cache to make sure things were in order and to remove the paper that had been left - and at least added a note that you had to continue looking. I also would not have gotten involved in any competing FTF claims that later developed.

 

As an initial finder, on a new cache, I would not have assumed the container had no log sheet - but if I had made a mistake I would have expected the CO to let me know when I described the situation and gone back to correct it myself if need be. Given that the online log stood, however, the FTFs can take care of themselves. If the first "finder" whose log was not deleted wants to claim it, it is just that. If the second person who signed what looked like a legitimate log wants to claim it, that counts as much. If the person who ultimately found the correct log wants to claim it, it is valid. If someone comes across the cache they can figure it out if they choose,

 

The only real thing that raised my eyebrows is why would one or two of the "in between" finders care enough to call the OP a cheat?

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

Well THE log must be signed to claim a find. This is encompassed by the throwdown regulations. If a finder signs a throwdown log sheet their log should be permitted. The co can delete it but under appeal Groundspeak will generally allow the find. The person who threw down and logs a find will not generally be upheld. Throwdown are to be discouraged etc (from memory)

 

 

I previously posted my general take on "the" log vs "a" log. I don't see this stated in "throwdown regulations". 3.9. Throwdowns - How to handle them

Those talk about leaving a container, not adding or replacing a logsheet.

 

The discussion has run its course so I will bow out. My only point was to those who say the FTF who added the logsheet violated the rules and their log should be deleted - that this is not clear cut in the "rules" or other guidance. Many cachers treat adding a logbook if one is missing or damaged as being different from throwing down a container. I am one of them. You can take the view that they are the same. That is a valid view; I just don't see the clear rule which says it is the only right answer.

 

I accept that in this case the "original FTF" was fooled. I also accept that a lack of logbook in a new cache is unusual. And indeed, the original FTF asked in their log for confirmation that the log was missing. In hindsight one can say they didn't look hard enough, it is their fault. It doesn't really matter. The CO here is happy that the original FTF found it in good faith. They have updated their cache page to state that the log is there and you must find it and sign it. If a future finder doesn't find the hidden log and adds a logsheet, the CO can delete the find if they wish.

Link to comment

You have an odd definition of decoy. Where I'm from, a decoy is supposed to have the look, feel, smell, or whatever of the real thing, but not actually be the real thing. So expecting a decoy cache to be "clearly and obviously not the container that's supposed to hold the log" does not in any way fit any definition I know of for the word "decoy."

I think you forgot that you were the one that said it was clearly and obviously a decoy, so I asked why. You're responding as if I am claiming a decoy must be clearly and obviously different by definition, and I didn't.

 

I think the real problem here is that some people know they would have been tricked. I probably would have been tricked myself. I don't have a problem admitting it. Aparently, some people do.

I have no problem admitting when I've been tricked, but I will object if there was no reasonable way for me to avoid getting tricked. In this case, for example, I do not see why it would be reasonable for me to continue my search after I found a container that doesn't have a log in it since missing logs are known to happen.

 

Go back and read the first post. There was enough information for the OP to figure it out. That is sufficient for me. Also, with a hide that is supposed to be difficult or tricky, "reasonable" is not a valid expectation.

 

Austin

Link to comment

In my opinion the lower, hidden compartment is the cache. FTF granted! B)

 

Seems to be the most logical for me as well.

Right, and the brouhaha shows the CO's error here. If you're going to have a decoy, people need to know it's a decoy when they open it.

 

Why? Because it would have fooled you? If the point of the cache is to be tricky, then it should...ready for this...trick peiople! It sounds to me like it worked perfectly, and then the OP was the first one to figure it out. He had enough to figure it out despite a string of failures before him.

 

I've seen a couple decoys with humorous messages inside letting you *know* it's a decoy. Otherwise, there will be issues about FTF and *also* other finds.

 

You cannot sign a scrap paper, put it inside a *decoy*, and claim a find.

 

But again, the CO has to let you know that what appears to be the cache is only a decoy.

 

The existence of cachers being tricked is not a reason a tricky hide should not be tricky.

 

Austin

Link to comment

I previously posted my general take on "the" log vs "a" log. I don't see this stated in "throwdown regulations". 3.9. Throwdowns - How to handle them

Those talk about leaving a container, not adding or replacing a logsheet.

 

 

Oh yes sorry Mark when refered to that I knew it meant throwdowns specifically but the throwdown incorporates a cache container and a new log sheet. The person throwing down will obviously sign this to permit them to claim a find. Without the log sheet it is just litter and log without a container is litter so the two must be combined to create a cache.

 

So this understanding is laid down in the rules. The implication being that not knowing that the item was the container for certain - "FTF ???" - the person adding the log sheet was just adding litter to some more potential litter. It was not a combination of the two to creat a cache. I mean obviously we know it was. But he was not sure and couldn't be sure until varified by the co. Therefore:

 

He shouldn't have done it until he was sure. No one should complain to the OP about finding and logging correctly the geocache.

 

Agree with you the thread has run a useful but complete course. Which didn't spiral into chaos. Trouble is of late the slightest whiff and off it goes like magic. Every time you post you run the risk of sparking fury or at least contributing to a moratorium. Which is a shame. The mobile version requires you to remember what all the emoticons are or leave them out. Leaving them out removes context and tone and inevitably when you do not agree with someone it is often interpreted as confrontational without a giggling frog to act as a balm. Bizarre.

 

Anyway while its drifting into nit picking and rules could we have some rules about TB Hotels please. I'm getting bored of being told off and being told a post from a reviewer doesn't mean anything. It might save me a few quid which I could spend on more TB's. Or even spare log sheets to shove in litter *insert ninja face smiley*

Link to comment

 

So this understanding is laid down in the rules. The implication being that not knowing that the item was the container for certain - "FTF ???" - the person adding the log sheet was just adding litter to some more potential litter.

 

Ok.. one more nit pick :)

 

The first log says there was a note (a stash note I assume) which identified it as the cache. So they knew they had the container. They just didn't know the container had a hidden compartment. Of course one can debate if the cache is actually only the hidden compartment (as that is where the log lives) or if it is the entire container. But too many nits in that for my liking.

 

If one believes that you should never add a log to a cache if the log is missing from the container, then clearly the FTF was wrong.

 

If one believes it is OK to add a log to a cache if the log (appears to be) missing, then it is harder to find the FTF guilty of any offence.

 

I also accept that a log (especially if it has the GC number on it) helps you be sure you really have the correct cache. But a container marked with the GC code or a stash note helps just as much.

 

So I would pronounce the FTF not guilty, but suggest they try harder the next time to make sure there isn't already a log there, if the container is unusual. I would also suggest they revisit the cache and sign the intended log.

 

Judge Judy may decide otherwise.

 

I agree the debate has been civil and I appreciate that.

Link to comment

 

It turns out that this was the right container but there was a chance that it could have been something else. Doesn't matter, that first person shouldn't have thrown a piece of paper into the cache without consent from the cache owner.

 

That is your opinion and that's fine.. but it conflicts with the advice from Groundspeak I quoted in post #50, where they encourage cachers to help out including replacing logs in the field. The article talks about carrying spares just in case, so does not state or imply that one should only replace a log if they have permission.

 

You are choosing that article as policy. It's a suggestion nothing more. Further more it assumes that you as a finder know that you have found the geocache. It does not specify in detail what criteria you have to satisfy to correctly assume that you have found the cache. Which is why it is an article/suggestion and not a policy update.

 

Helping out a fellow cacher is a great thing to do. I've replaced logsheets and books when i came across one that was filled or wet but i would not do that on a cache where there was no logsheet/book at all. I just couldn't be sure that i found the real cache or everything the CO intended me to find.

 

This in fact, happened on a cache that i found a couple of years ago. Someone took it upon themselves to drop a piece of paper into the 2nd stage of a multicache that a group of us were trying for. We signed it, along with others before us, in good faith. Well,,,, it turns out that this stage had coordinates to the last and final stage. We missed it completely because someone dropped that piece of paper into the cache months before we tried for it. After several months, the CO of that multi decided to check on the cache and deleted everyone's name that was on that piece of paper. Needless to say, that caused quite a stir. We got it all sorted out later but yes, it was a pain, all because someone dropped that piece of paper into the cache in the first place.

Link to comment

Judge Judy would tell us all to grow up of that I have no doubt. Get over it ... put a period and move on ... get a job, you have a job? then get two jobs the first one is not keeping us busy enough :D

Yes :D

 

However as defense for the FTF, new evidence has come to light. The original FTF did email the owner. The owner thought maybe they had forgot to leave the log thanked the FTF and confirmed their find was OK.

 

Evidence

 

Still guilty?

Link to comment

Go back and read the first post. There was enough information for the OP to figure it out. That is sufficient for me.

The "information" was external to the cache or description, involving a personal knowledge of the habits of the CO. That isn't sufficient for me, and my evidence is that 12 people that didn't pick up on it.

 

Also, with a hide that is supposed to be difficult or tricky, "reasonable" is not a valid expectation.

Nonsense. This thinking is what spawns practical jokes involving pretending to be seriously hurt and then laughing at the person that takes you seriously and tries to help.

 

Judge Judy would tell us all to grow up of that I have no doubt. Get over it ... put a period and move on ... get a job, you have a job? then get two jobs the first one is not keeping us busy enough :D

I guess I'd like to sum up my thinking on this case:

  • Anyone that's upset about what happened is being silly.
  • Anyone that's upset about what might have happened is also being silly.
  • The OP was clearly the FTF.
  • It's nice that the CO doesn't mind if the other cacher says he's FTF, too.
  • I would be annoyed if I had every reason to think I'd found a cache but was told later that the thing I found, which had all the elements of a cache, wasn't really the cache for no reason other than the CO intended something else to be the cache.
  • The CO was perfectly reasonable and accepted the other finds, even accepted some responsibility for the errors, but if they had denied those finds, while I would think they were making a mistake, I wouldn't particularly care even if I was one of those finders.
  • If I were one of those finders, I'd be inclined to go back to make the find as intended by the CO regardless of whether the CO had accepted or denied my original find.
  • Saying that someone made a mistake is not the same as being upset about the mistake.

Link to comment

Also, with a hide that is supposed to be difficult or tricky, "reasonable" is not a valid expectation.

Nonsense. This thinking is what spawns practical jokes involving pretending to be seriously hurt and then laughing at the person that takes you seriously and tries to help.

 

This is, without a doubt, the most absurd thing I've ever read on this site.

 

There is a cache near me that has a dozen DNFs and a single find. That one time, the finder was able to find it on their third try by feel while the CO had a drop line from a boat on the surface. It isn't reasonable, but it is perfectly OK.

 

In another case, there are only two ways to get to the logbook. One is PAF for all the answers, the other involves multi[ple trips to the cache and to a library to figure out the answers. Each trip to the cache involves climbing 30 feet up a tree. Unreasonable, but nothing wrong with it.

 

By comparison, having a container with a false bottom is trivial.

 

Austin

Edited by AustinMN
Link to comment

Just a thought - does the cache have a field puzzle attribute? If so, then I would expect to have to do something more than find the cache container, i.e. as the OP did, find the hidden log book. But if it doesn't have a field puzzle attribute, then I would be inclined to suspect that the CO had forgotten to include a log book.

 

 

No field puzzle attribute, and a 1.5 D rating.

Link to comment

Hmmmm what would we do ...

 

If we were the OP we would have lauded it over the failures and mocked them in our log. If that were the case our geocaching community wouod have accepted that with some tongue in cheek abusive messages.

 

If we were "one of the middle" finders we would have cursed and given the OP some form of abusive log cursing their nether regions and they would have reciprocated no doubt.

 

We woukdnt have been the person who put the slip of paper in. We are far too good at what we do. And suspicious. And if you believe that ... but we would have Dnfd - its hapoened to us. We are ashamed/guilty etc of being the only ones to dnf a cache in the area ... on several occasions ... a couple of times on the same cache lol.

 

But above all we would have laughed.

Link to comment

Just a thought - does the cache have a field puzzle attribute? If so, then I would expect to have to do something more than find the cache container, i.e. as the OP did, find the hidden log book. But if it doesn't have a field puzzle attribute, then I would be inclined to suspect that the CO had forgotten to include a log book.

 

 

No field puzzle attribute, and a 1.5 D rating.

 

OK, that changes my opinion. D4, D3, maybe, D1.5 should not be tricky.

 

Austin

Link to comment

D 1. Easy. In plain view or can be dound after a few minutes of searching.

 

D 2. Average. The average geocacher would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of searching.

 

Think 1.5 is just right.

 

D.3 Challenging. An experienced geocacher would find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

 

Ill stick with 1.5

Link to comment

D 1. Easy. In plain view or can be dound after a few minutes of searching.

 

D 2. Average. The average geocacher would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of searching.

 

Think 1.5 is just right.

 

D.3 Challenging. An experienced geocacher would find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

 

Ill stick with 1.5

 

But, this was not an average cache. This was a cache that involved more than just opening up the container and signing the log. I agree, the lower 1.5 rating probably didn't help the situation.

Link to comment

This is, without a doubt, the most absurd thing I've ever read on this site.

I'm honored. But when I say "unreasonable", you hear "really hard". I'm not objecting because it was hard to find the right container. I'm objecting because there was no reason to look for the right container.

Link to comment

This is, without a doubt, the most absurd thing I've ever read on this site.

I'm honored. But when I say "unreasonable", you hear "really hard". I'm not objecting because it was hard to find the right container. I'm objecting because there was no reason to look for the right container.

 

I see. That's why the OP did look for the right ontainer.

Link to comment

I see. That's why the OP did look for the right container.

As I've already explained, the OP continued to look after finding the first container because of personal knowledge not available to someone not familiar with that CO. That's what I consider unreasonable.

Link to comment

I see. That's why the OP did look for the right container.

As I've already explained, the OP continued to look after finding the first container because of personal knowledge not available to someone not familiar with that CO. That's what I consider unreasonable.

 

I see that stuff in logs all the time. Get over it. It's not unreasonable. It is not.

Edited by AustinMN
Link to comment

I see that stuff in logs all the time. Get over it. It's not unreasonable. It is not.

Do you? When you tried to give two examples of "that stuff", they were examples of something else entirely, so I'm not sure you really understand why I'm saying it's unreasonable. Me, I've never seen something like this, but I have seen a few cases where the CO forgot to put a log in the cache, so the true FTF found an empty container exactly like the false FTF of this cache did.

 

Anyway, there's nothing for me to get over, since I don't really care. I'm just pointing out that it's not reasonable, and it seems the CO agrees with me, since they acknowledged both FTFs, allowed the other finds to stand, and thanked the OP for leaving a clarifying note in the fake container.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...