Un-signable Log/No log = DNF?

[+Danielphunt]

Im still a bit noob-ish and Im wondering if i committed a faux pas yesterday when I did my logging online.

I did a multi cache. And when I got to the final stage (the actual cache) it was a plastic container with a GEOCACHE printed label on the side hidden in a dead tree. It had a screw on cover that seemed to be on pretty tight but inside was soaked. The log book was like a sponge. There was not a dry spot on it.

I logged this as FOUND IT along with a separate Needs Maintenance log for the owner.

 

Did I make a mistake calling this a find because I never actually signed the log?

 

I carry spare little notebooks with me to help replace logs but I gave my last one to a wet cache I found earlier yesterday.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Always worth carrying 'some' paper to add your name, and place in the cache.

Could always photograph the cache/log in case the CO questions your find...

 

Sometimes there's not a lot to be done... You should be OK.

[+wmpastor]

Leaving notebooks in these caches is generous - a piece of paper is sufficient to hold things over until the CO does maintenance.

 

Sign however possible. Sign a leaf if you need to. Move your pen across the mushy pulp. You honestly found it, and a CO who can't keep his cache dry isn't going to make an effort to challenge you.

[+KC2WI]

You found it. Not your fault you couldn't sign. Log the find. Totally legit.

 

Sometimes it is easy enough to dry out the container and dry out or replace the log. If you can do so conveniently that's a nice gesture but it's not your responsibility to fix the cache.

 

If it's clear that the container is damaged and won't remain waterproof don't bother.

 

Leaving a Needs Maintenance alerts the CO.

[Pup Patrol]

Im still a bit noob-ish and Im wondering if i committed a faux pas yesterday when I did my logging online.

I did a multi cache. And when I got to the final stage (the actual cache) it was a plastic container with a GEOCACHE printed label on the side hidden in a dead tree. It had a screw on cover that seemed to be on pretty tight but inside was soaked. The log book was like a sponge. There was not a dry spot on it.

I logged this as FOUND IT along with a separate Needs Maintenance log for the owner.

 

Did I make a mistake calling this a find because I never actually signed the log?

 

I carry spare little notebooks with me to help replace logs but I gave my last one to a wet cache I found earlier yesterday.

 

I'm a stickler for signing the log, but in this case, I don't think it's a problem.

 

Posting the "needs maintenance" was a good call.

 

Sounds like the container needs maintenance, and the wet log is an indicator of that.

 

The "needs maintenance" log also alerts other folks to potential problems.

 

B.

[+dprovan]

Yep, I always log that a find. Other people might be more strict about whether they allow themselves to log it, and that's fine with me, although I don't think I've seen anyone log a DNF while describing that kind of situation. (In cases where a container's been destroyed and there's little left to call it a cache, but it can still be clearly identified, once in a while I see a DNF logged, but I'd say most people would call even that a find. I would, anyway.)

 

On the other hand, I recognize that technically I didn't sign the log, so the CO is within his rights to contest my find, and if he did, I wouldn't complain. But that's never happened to me, and I don't really expect it to.

[+Danielphunt]

Thanks everyone for your feedback.

As someone said earlier, even if if just sign a piece of paper and put it in the cache it counts. Where I'm already carrying around full notebooks I could at least save a few loose pages for when this happens. It would make me feel better that I signed SOMEWHERE and covers by butt

[+dprovan]

As someone said earlier, even if if just sign a piece of paper and put it in the cache it counts. Where I'm already carrying around full notebooks I could at least save a few loose pages for when this happens. It would make me feel better that I signed SOMEWHERE and covers by butt

That's reasonable, but I almost never bother to put in more paper since whatever I put in there would most likely soon turn into nothing but more unreadable mush.

[+L0ne.R]

As someone said earlier, even if if just sign a piece of paper and put it in the cache it counts. Where I'm already carrying around full notebooks I could at least save a few loose pages for when this happens. It would make me feel better that I signed SOMEWHERE and covers by butt

That's reasonable, but I almost never bother to put in more paper since whatever I put in there would most likely soon turn into nothing but more unreadable mush.

 

+1.

Log the find but most importantly log the NM.

Log an NA if there's been multiple NMs and no response from the cache owner.

[+Harry Dolphin]

As someone said earlier, even if if just sign a piece of paper and put it in the cache it counts. Where I'm already carrying around full notebooks I could at least save a few loose pages for when this happens. It would make me feel better that I signed SOMEWHERE and covers by butt

That's reasonable, but I almost never bother to put in more paper since whatever I put in there would most likely soon turn into nothing but more unreadable mush.

 

Entitlement. At least your signature would be there: Find cache. Sign log. Log find on-line. Fairly simple.

Reminds me of people who log: Cache out of my reach, so I'm logging a find anyway.

[+Chief301]

As someone said earlier, even if if just sign a piece of paper and put it in the cache it counts. Where I'm already carrying around full notebooks I could at least save a few loose pages for when this happens. It would make me feel better that I signed SOMEWHERE and covers by butt

That's reasonable, but I almost never bother to put in more paper since whatever I put in there would most likely soon turn into nothing but more unreadable mush.

 

Entitlement. At least your signature would be there: Find cache. Sign log. Log find on-line. Fairly simple.

Reminds me of people who log: Cache out of my reach, so I'm logging a find anyway.

 

I disagree. Cache is out of reach by design (up a tree that I don't feel safe climbing for example), that's not a find....even though I "found" it (as in, I spotted it), I did not meet the hider's challenge to actually retrieve the cache.

 

Can't sign because the log is full/soaked/missing, that's not part of the design of the cache and is beyond the finder's control. Lack of maintenance on the part of the CO does not negate the fact that I did find and retrieve the cache. I don't consider it "entitlement" to expect to find a viable log that I can actually sign. That's the CO's responsibility.

 

To the OP....I think your actions were completely appropriate. Log the find (because you DID find it and had it in hand), add a fresh log IF you have one available and IF you are so inclined, and also log a Needs Maintenance.

 

I honestly can't imagine that any CO would delete a log if you explain the situation. To be so rigid as to insist that you can't claim the find because you didn't sign his un-signable log would be to admit that he does a poor job maintaining his caches.

 

When I run into this situation I usually take a picture of said cache in hand (aren't cell phone cameras great?) and mention in my log why I couldn't sign the log and offer to provide photographic proof if requested. I have yet to have one reply.

[+BCandMsKitty]

As someone said earlier, even if if just sign a piece of paper and put it in the cache it counts. Where I'm already carrying around full notebooks I could at least save a few loose pages for when this happens. It would make me feel better that I signed SOMEWHERE and covers by butt

That's reasonable, but I almost never bother to put in more paper since whatever I put in there would most likely soon turn into nothing but more unreadable mush.

 

Entitlement. At least your signature would be there: Find cache. Sign log. Log find on-line. Fairly simple.

Reminds me of people who log: Cache out of my reach, so I'm logging a find anyway.

 

I disagree. Cache is out of reach by design (up a tree that I don't feel safe climbing for example), that's not a find....even though I "found" it (as in, I spotted it), I did not meet the hider's challenge to actually retrieve the cache.

 

Can't sign because the log is full/soaked/missing, that's not part of the design of the cache and is beyond the finder's control. Lack of maintenance on the part of the CO does not negate the fact that I did find and retrieve the cache. I don't consider it "entitlement" to expect to find a viable log that I can actually sign. That's the CO's responsibility.

 

To the OP....I think your actions were completely appropriate. Log the find (because you DID find it and had it in hand), add a fresh log IF you have one available and IF you are so inclined, and also log a Needs Maintenance.

 

I honestly can't imagine that any CO would delete a log if you explain the situation. To be so rigid as to insist that you can't claim the find because you didn't sign his un-signable log would be to admit that he does a poor job maintaining his caches.

 

When I run into this situation I usually take a picture of said cache in hand (aren't cell phone cameras great?) and mention in my log why I couldn't sign the log and offer to provide photographic proof if requested. I have yet to have one reply.

 

Yep

[+dprovan]

That's reasonable, but I almost never bother to put in more paper since whatever I put in there would most likely soon turn into nothing but more unreadable mush.

Entitlement. At least your signature would be there: Find cache. Sign log. Log find on-line. Fairly simple.

Well, no, I have every reason to believe my signature wouldn't be there after a week or two because the leaking container would continue to leek all over my new sheet of paper.

 

Although, of course, I have even less reason to think the CO will go out there and actually look at the log, since they can't be bothered to fix the leaky container and replace the pulp with a log.

 

But if they do, and they claim that can tell that my signature isn't on the log, so they delete my find, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

[+Blue_Ranger]

Very few CO's take the time to compare the paper log to the online logs anyway. If it's a high difficulty cache, then they're more likely to be more diligent in checking smileys against the log in the cache-- everyone hates armchair logs on really challenging caches. And if there's a needs maintenance log saying it was wet, everyone understands. Well, almost everyone! I'm sure there's cranky CO's out there who would delete anyway, but not many.

[+geocat_]

 

I disagree. Cache is out of reach by design (up a tree that I don't feel safe climbing for example), that's not a find....even though I "found" it (as in, I spotted it), I did not meet the hider's challenge to actually retrieve the cache.

 

Can't sign because the log is full/soaked/missing, that's not part of the design of the cache and is beyond the finder's control. Lack of maintenance on the part of the CO does not negate the fact that I did find and retrieve the cache. I don't consider it "entitlement" to expect to find a viable log that I can actually sign. That's the CO's responsibility.

 

To the OP....I think your actions were completely appropriate. Log the find (because you DID find it and had it in hand), add a fresh log IF you have one available and IF you are so inclined, and also log a Needs Maintenance.

 

I honestly can't imagine that any CO would delete a log if you explain the situation. To be so rigid as to insist that you can't claim the find because you didn't sign his un-signable log would be to admit that he does a poor job maintaining his caches.

 

When I run into this situation I usually take a picture of said cache in hand (aren't cell phone cameras great?) and mention in my log why I couldn't sign the log and offer to provide photographic proof if requested. I have yet to have one reply.

 

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[+ecanderson]

I usually keep a small, fresh log in a small Walgreen's EZDose pill ziploc type bag in my pocket for such events. This gives me something to sign, and something for those that come after me to sign until the owner gets around to dealing with the problem, if they do. In such cases, I always leave a NM log as well.

[+Cachefoxxe]

You can also do a photo of the log book in your hand as proof. I have gotten founds before on caches that the CO was one of those who check the log versus the web, and having that picture when the log was unsignable got me the find with no problem. Doing a photolog is almost always a way to "sign in"

[+NYPaddleCacher]

As someone said earlier, even if if just sign a piece of paper and put it in the cache it counts. Where I'm already carrying around full notebooks I could at least save a few loose pages for when this happens. It would make me feel better that I signed SOMEWHERE and covers by butt

That's reasonable, but I almost never bother to put in more paper since whatever I put in there would most likely soon turn into nothing but more unreadable mush.

 

Entitlement. At least your signature would be there: Find cache. Sign log. Log find on-line. Fairly simple.

Reminds me of people who log: Cache out of my reach, so I'm logging a find anyway.

 

I find it odd that when a cacher goes out to find a cache, locates and retrieves the container, but for some reason out of their control, they don't sign the log sheet, but replace the container to it's hiding spot, it shouldn't count as a find. but someone else that goes caching with a group of people, encounters a cache they can't reach (because the CO hid it up in a tree), and watches someone climb the tree to retrieve the container and signs the log sheet for others, logging a find is considered okay because they're name is on the log.

 

As I see it, in the first case, the cacher did everything that the CO intended, and in the tree cache the cacher did not, but will still count it as a find.

 

 

 

[+J Grouchy]

As someone said earlier, even if if just sign a piece of paper and put it in the cache it counts. Where I'm already carrying around full notebooks I could at least save a few loose pages for when this happens. It would make me feel better that I signed SOMEWHERE and covers by butt

That's reasonable, but I almost never bother to put in more paper since whatever I put in there would most likely soon turn into nothing but more unreadable mush.

 

Entitlement. At least your signature would be there: Find cache. Sign log. Log find on-line. Fairly simple.

Reminds me of people who log: Cache out of my reach, so I'm logging a find anyway.

 

I find it odd that when a cacher goes out to find a cache, locates and retrieves the container, but for some reason out of their control, they don't sign the log sheet, but replace the container to it's hiding spot, it shouldn't count as a find. but someone else that goes caching with a group of people, encounters a cache they can't reach (because the CO hid it up in a tree), and watches someone climb the tree to retrieve the container and signs the log sheet for others, logging a find is considered okay because they're name is on the log.

 

As I see it, in the first case, the cacher did everything that the CO intended, and in the tree cache the cacher did not, but will still count it as a find.

 

One reason I don't really have much interest in group caching...doesn't feel like I'm really and truly geocaching.

 

I found one Friday that was a large bolt...completely rusted shut. No amount of effort on my part could open it. I banged it on the ground, almost tore my hands up trying to open it...nothing. Sent a photo to the CO asking if it truly was the cache...got back an affirmative response, then logged the find. Sometimes, through no fault of your own, you just aren't able to sign the paper log.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Im still a bit noob-ish and Im wondering if i committed a faux pas yesterday when I did my logging online.

I did a multi cache. And when I got to the final stage (the actual cache) it was a plastic container with a GEOCACHE printed label on the side hidden in a dead tree. It had a screw on cover that seemed to be on pretty tight but inside was soaked. The log book was like a sponge. There was not a dry spot on it.

I logged this as FOUND IT along with a separate Needs Maintenance log for the owner.

 

Precisely what I would have done. Additionally, if it didn't seem like a spoiler, I would have taken a photo of the cache as proof I found it, possibly including it with my online log if I felt it wasn't a spoiler.

 

Sometimes I have spare logsheets to leave in caches with wet logs, but sometimes the log is wet because the container is damaged or was never waterproof to begin with so leaving a replacement log is somewhere between temporary and futile.

 

Some geocachers are sticklers for signing the physical log to claim an online find without exceptions.