Definition of a "find."

[+denjoa]

We're not newbies but we seem to be "fuzzy" on what constitutes a "find" and cannot seem to find it elsewhere although we have the distinct feeling that we've seen it somewhere at sometime. Over the years, we have discovered cache sites and even spotted the cache itself but been unable to access it to sign it because it was frozen in place or because it was too high for us to reach on that occasion or because of high water between us and the cache. We have always retired gracefully and returned when the conditions were better and only when we have signed the in-cache log have we considered that we have "found" the cache and proceeded to log a "find" on-line. However, we are coming across on-line logs of finds where the cacher has been unable to sign the in-cache log but, because he/she has spotted the container - in ice, way up there or way over there - he/she feels entitled to log a "find" on-line. What is the official word, please, on what constitutes a "find?"

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

We're not newbies but we seem to be "fuzzy" on what constitutes a "find" and cannot seem to find it elsewhere although we have the distinct feeling that we've seen it somewhere at sometime. Over the years, we have discovered cache sites and even spotted the cache itself but been unable to access it to sign it because it was frozen in place or because it was too high for us to reach on that occasion or because of high water between us and the cache. We have always retired gracefully and returned when the conditions were better and only when we have signed the in-cache log have we considered that we have "found" the cache and proceeded to log a "find" on-line. However, we are coming across on-line logs of finds where the cacher has been unable to sign the in-cache log but, because he/she has spotted the container - in ice, way up there or way over there - he/she feels entitled to log a "find" on-line. What is the official word, please, on what constitutes a "find?"

 

The "official" word, taken directly from the guidelines: http://www.geocachin...es.aspx#logging

 

1. Logging of All Physical Geocaches

 

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed

[+Mudfrog]

We're not newbies but we seem to be "fuzzy" on what constitutes a "find" and cannot seem to find it elsewhere although we have the distinct feeling that we've seen it somewhere at sometime. Over the years, we have discovered cache sites and even spotted the cache itself but been unable to access it to sign it because it was frozen in place or because it was too high for us to reach on that occasion or because of high water between us and the cache. We have always retired gracefully and returned when the conditions were better and only when we have signed the in-cache log have we considered that we have "found" the cache and proceeded to log a "find" on-line. However, we are coming across on-line logs of finds where the cacher has been unable to sign the in-cache log but, because he/she has spotted the container - in ice, way up there or way over there - he/she feels entitled to log a "find" on-line. What is the official word, please, on what constitutes a "find?"

There used to be simple guidelines for caching, one, that the log should be signed. I don't think there is an official word. You'll find that people come up with all kinds of ways to justify their found log on a cache. Some good examples of the silliness can be found here:

 

Found it - Didn't Find It

 

The way you have been geocaching is the way i geocache. For the most part, the log, if there is one, needs to be signed by me before i claim a find. There are some situations where a log isn't signable. At those times, i'll have to make a decision whether it's going to be a find or DNF. Adding a temporary logsheet with my signature is fine in most of these cases. If i can't access the cache, can't reach it for some reason, then it's a DNF. In my online log, i'll make sure to add info for why i logged the way i did.

 

No matter how you do it, keep in mind that you can't control, and should try not to worry about how others do it. The exception is on your own caches where you may delete false logs that might come in.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Mudfrog

[+hzoi]

spotted the cache itself but been unable to access it to sign it because it was frozen in place

 

I might log that as a find. If I had hands on the cache container but was afraid I'd damage it by trying to open it, I would consider that close enough if I was not going to return to that area. If it was in an area to which I'd be able to return, I might DNF it (or leave a note) and return to sign the log another time.

 

I don't live in an area that is apt to freeze over, and I don't plan on living in such an area any time soon, so it's more a thought experiment for me at this point. The few times I've gone out winter caching in areas with snow and ice, I've been able to open the caches I've found and sign the log.

 

it (the cache) was too high for us to reach on that occasion

 

I would never log this as a find.

 

high water between us and the cache

 

I would never log this as a find.

[+dprovan]

I'm not sure why some people try to claim a find for a cache they didn't find. My guess is that, through some twisted logic, they see the find count as somehow more important than the number of actual cache logs they've signed. To me, the count is worth nothing on its own.

 

Sometimes the CO will offer an exception, allowing you to claim the find even though you couldn't sign the log because there was some failure in the hide, like it was missing or frozen. I never ask for an exception. And I almost never accept the offer when it comes out unrequested, but I think that's reasonable if you want to.

 

For local caches, at least, if I enjoyed the walk once when I failed to find the cache, I know I'll enjoy it again when I go back after the problem's been rectified. So in those cases, claiming the unwarranted find just means I don't have an excuse to go back later.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

The only non-logged 'find' I've taken (and the decision was a struggle) was one where the two halves of a fake hollow bolt were absolutely rusted together, and I wasn't planning on being back there in the foreseeable future.

 

The CO OK'd it, but I still don't really feel right about it. Someone else was there the same day, and he chose to NOT accept the smiley.

[+on4bam]

The only non-logged 'find' I've taken (and the decision was a struggle) was one where the two halves of a fake hollow bolt were absolutely rusted together, and I wasn't planning on being back there in the foreseeable future.

 

The CO OK'd it, but I still don't really feel right about it. Someone else was there the same day, and he chose to NOT accept the smiley.

 

Neither would I. I would never claim a find unless my name in in the paper log. Too high, too low, rusted, gone... = DNF.

[+denjoa]

Thanks to everyone who has responded so far. I guess I have three thoughts! The first is that if the requirement is that one sign the in-cache log to record a "Found it" log - and one response was the quote to that effect from somewhere in the regulations - then that's the way we want to play it - and that's what we have always done; even when a CO has said to claim a find, we have waited and gone back. The second is that I am pleased to hear that so many - well, everyone who has answered so far! - agrees with that point of view. The third is that one response said something to the effect of not worrying about what others do because it's not our problem and I believe that's wise advice - just hard for this member of this team to swallow! So, given the responses we've had so far, we're satisfied and really need no more but thanks again!

[+L0ne.R]

One problem I see with strick adherence to 'you must sign the physical log' is frozen caches. I'd rather someone claim the find then chop out one of our frozen caches (some of our caches get frozen in - but we put a not-winter-friendly attribute on those and mention it in the description). I've broken my own cache trying to chop it out of ice.

 

The other problem - propping up caches by putting a dry sheet into a moldy soaked mess that should be archived, not given a new log so the finder can feel they have legitimately claimed the find. I think it would be better to claim the find and then post an NM, instead of adding a bit of paper. I expect Groundspeak would reinstate your find if the CO removed it, since the log was not sign-able.

Edited February 25, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+thebruce0]

I'll echo Mudfrog and hzoi's comments.

I have claimed finds on caches that don't have my name in the logsheet - but in those cases only:

1) if I did locate the cache and would have been able to sign the logsheet save for an unintended impediment (such as being frozen in place),

2) if the CO provides permission (or does not deny the log),

3) I know there isn't some extra step I don't know I could pass (such as a field puzzle that's inside the frozen container).

 

Other grey areas are situations like: If a cache is in a tree I can't climb (and I love treeclimbs) but I spot it, then I won't log it found. But if someone is with me who does do the treeclimb (daring fools!) then I most likely will consider it a find unless I want to come back and do the climb myself another time.

 

Essentially, I live somewhere between the definition of literally having found a geocache and strict adherence to me signing my own name in the logsheet.

I will not log it found if the latter is not true (that would be against the rules), with some exceptions (as above).

I will not log it found if I want to sign my own name in the logsheet.

I will not log it found if the CO doesn't give permission to log it found.

I will not log it found if I have not located the geocache container (if access to the logsheet would be guaranteed).

I will not log it found if I don't know that I could have signed the logsheet (eg, if someone else does a climb I can easily do, I will log it found; I won't if someone does something I know I couldn't/wouldn't do*).

 

Throwdown with a group? If we can't find a cache, and I'm not certain that the cache is missing, but a partner puts a replacement, I won't log it found unless the CO confirms that it's missing and allows the replacement and find.

 

* Consideration: scuba caches - not being a swimmer, I may never be able to do a scuba cache. However if I were part of a team doing one and I aided in the process waiting above water (ideally at the immediate vicinity on the water craft, eg), then I may log it found. Otherwise, nope. But I'd likely make that judgement call after the experience. Like if it requires a dive and search for a couple of hours through crevices, I probably wouldn't unless I were diving.

 

I've not logged finds that do have my name in the logsheet precisely because I was not there to locate the cache (some group caching is notorious for this practice).

 

** For all the above, "my name" constitutes my caching name or the group name representing the people I'm with (who if asked would confirm my presence).

 

Easiest thing to keep in mind, is that the objective common denominator for all geocachers is that the name by which you are caching when you find any particular cache is written in the logsheet. That allows you to log the find online without it being deleted by the CO. Beyond that, it is entirely up to your own ethic -- don't be griefed by others who promote themselves as 'better' by praising their own logging practices and ethics or criticizing yours (especially those who call it "cheating" even if GS's one rule is not broken).

 

But, I recommend you adopt a practice that is generally acceptable by the community so that you don't open the door to potential ongoing criticism and gossip from your fellow community cachers

Edited February 25, 2016 by thebruce0

[cezanne]

I think it would be better to claim the find then post an NM, instead of adding a bit of paper. I expect Groundspeak would reinstate your find if the CO removed it, since the log was not sign-able.

 

I do not agree. If a cache is not fixable (a wet log could happen also by careless treatment and not be a sign of an inactive owner who does not care), then I would not log a find either if I cannot sign the log sheet.

 

If a cache is frozen in, I would leave with a DNF log or a note- as this reflects the reality.

 

I would do that also for caches far from where I typically will not come again.

 

A find log is not a reward for the trip for me and I do not agree with "no find=waste of time".

Edited February 25, 2016 by cezanne

[cezanne]

 

Other grey areas are situations like: If a cache is in a tree I can't climb (and I love treeclimbs) but I spot it, then I won't log it found. But if someone is with me who does do the treeclimb (daring fools!) then I most likely will consider it a find unless I want to come back and do the climb myself another time.

 

I will never understand this sort of approach. If I cannot cope with a task, then a find log is absolutely meaningless to me.

Having others climb (or whatever other outdoor activity) is equally lame in my eyes than let other solve puzzles for caches that are beyond one's abilities.

 

Of course in all cases the rules for when a find log has to stand are fulfilled - but's the only aspect that backs up that approach to logging finds.

[+L0ne.R]

I think it would be better to claim the find then post an NM, instead of adding a bit of paper. I expect Groundspeak would reinstate your find if the CO removed it, since the log was not sign-able.

 

If a cache is frozen in, I would leave with a DNF log or a note- as this reflects the reality.

 

 

Yes, but some might not. They may not be able to return. They may really want that find, so they'll chop or kick out the cache to get at the log. I would rather have them claim a find then break my cache container.

[+dprovan]

Thanks to everyone who has responded so far. I guess I have three thoughts! The first is that if the requirement is that one sign the in-cache log to record a "Found it" log - and one response was the quote to that effect from somewhere in the regulations - then that's the way we want to play it - and that's what we have always done; even when a CO has said to claim a find, we have waited and gone back. The second is that I am pleased to hear that so many - well, everyone who has answered so far! - agrees with that point of view. The third is that one response said something to the effect of not worrying about what others do because it's not our problem and I believe that's wise advice - just hard for this member of this team to swallow! So, given the responses we've had so far, we're satisfied and really need no more but thanks again!

1. The effect of the rule is that the CO must accept your find as valid if you have signed the log. Hence, it's a lower bound: if you signed the log, CO has to let the find stand, but if you didn't sign the log, the CO is still free to let you log a find, anyway. (There are limits, but they aren't important in this context.)

 

2. Numbers cachers don't tend to post much. I assume it's because they're too busy racking up the numbers.

 

3. It's not a competition. Their bogus finds don't change the value of your legitimate finds. So that's why I accept what they've done without worrying about it. But it is true that in specific cases those bogus finds obscure the true condition of the cache, and that's bad, but not because their find counts are inflated.

[+thebruce0]

If a cache is frozen in, I would leave with a DNF log or a note- as this reflects the reality.

Yes, but some might not. They may not be able to return. They may really want that find, so they'll chop or kick out the cache to get at the log. I would rather have them claim a find then break my cache container.

Agreed, though cezanne admittedly doesn't understand why one would "want that find". So there is the communication breakdown. It's not worth arguing arguing over, imo. Some want it, some don't. If the name is in the logbook, or the CO allows the find, then one can choose to log it online if one wishes. That's the absolute barest of objective standards. Everything else is personal ethic, bound to blow up into arguments about who's right or wrong or better or worse or "cheating"

 

Other grey areas are situations like: If a cache is in a tree I can't climb (and I love treeclimbs) but I spot it, then I won't log it found. But if someone is with me who does do the treeclimb (daring fools!) then I most likely will consider it a find unless I want to come back and do the climb myself another time.

I will never understand this sort of approach. If I cannot cope with a task, then a find log is absolutely meaningless to me.

Having others climb (or whatever other outdoor activity) is equally lame in my eyes than let other solve puzzles for caches that are beyond one's abilities.

 

Of course in all cases the rules for when a find log has to stand are fulfilled - but's the only aspect that backs up that approach to logging finds.

Exactly. And just like if you and I were caching at that tree, I might claim a find and you might not, I've also not claimed finds on caches that other cachers with me have just because the CO has allowed it, but I didn't feel right because I didn't actually "find" the cache.

So to each his own. As long as you cache and you're happy the way you're caching, then great.

And ideally, also as long as the way you're caching doesn't knowingly and intentionally make others' caching directly less enjoyable.

[+J Grouchy]

I was at an event last summer and there was a nearby D4 cache that I was unable to find. During the event, one person went over and ended up finding it. This person brought the cache log over and a bunch of us signed it and several logged it found. I ended up opting not to log the find since I never technically "found" it. My name is on the log sheet...but I never saw the cache in place (and to this day do not know how it is actually hidden).

[+thebruce0]

Yeah I wouldn't log that found either. I'd feel I didn't discover it in its intended hiding manner, how it was actually hidden.

 

Another situation... there seems to be a growing trend in my greater region of group hiding. Upwards of 3 or 4 people all set out to hide one person's cache, it gets published, then found, and then they all log it found as part of the beta team.

Now of course one could get upset over that, claiming they're only doing it to "earn" the D and T (they probably are), but they also may not be, just being a group of friends all enjoying placing caches together... but there's no way to know (without asking at least), and that practice isn't hurting anyone anyway. Sure, it can be annoying, but whatev.

Edited February 25, 2016 by thebruce0

[cezanne]

If a cache is frozen in, I would leave with a DNF log or a note- as this reflects the reality.

Yes, but some might not. They may not be able to return. They may really want that find, so they'll chop or kick out the cache to get at the log. I would rather have them claim a find then break my cache container.

Agreed, though cezanne admittedly doesn't understand why one would "want that find". So there is the communication breakdown. It's not worth arguing arguing over, imo. Some want it, some don't. If the name is in the logbook, or the CO allows the find, then one can choose to log it online if one wishes. That's the absolute barest of objective standards. Everything else is personal ethic, bound to blow up into arguments about who's right or wrong or better or worse or "cheating"

 

Of course I also prefer if someone logs a find over breaking the container. However if I follow your line of argument logically, I end up with troubles: I know you do not like throwdowns, but

like cachers do everything for a find than they cannot reach the log, they do the same when they cannot find the container or already know that no container is there: They hide a new container (I'm not talking about cases when the cache owner gave his prior consent).

 

So I think that this sort of entitlement that a cache visit should be rewarded with a find log, causes a lot of issues. In some areas it has become so worse that there are caches which are missing for a long time and 95% of the cachers do not mind to log "finds". Those few who think differently, are looked at strangely.

 

It has become so bad that most cachers except log permissions and get angry if a cache owner says no.

 

Exactly. And just like if you and I were caching at that tree, I might claim a find and you might not, I've also not claimed finds on caches that other cachers with me have just because the CO has allowed it, but I didn't feel right because I didn't actually "find" the cache.

 

Is caching for you mainly about finding the container? For lots of hard terrain caches the finding aspect is trivial and it's all about getting to the container.

 

For example, when it comes to streaks, the larger group of streakers in my country cheats and includes finds which are questionable finds (no container found, no log sheet, wrong dates, etc). I do not mind but think that it's quite strange what adults end up with when getting slaves of ranking lists, badges, challenge caches etc

Edited February 25, 2016 by cezanne

[+thebruce0]

if I follow your line of argument logically, I end up with troubles: I know you do not like throwdowns, but like cachers do everything for a find than they cannot reach the log, they do the same when they cannot find the container or already know that no container is there: They hide a new container (I'm not talking about cases when the cache owner gave his prior consent).

If the CO does not give their consent for the throwdown, they can delete the find log. I don't see a problem here. At that point the CO can decide to visit their gz and remove the throwdown, or inform people by the listing that the throwdown is not the real cache and invalid logs will be deleted. Here at worst the throwers-down have made a huge inconvenience for the (responsible) CO. An irresponsible CO may not do anything about the entire situation, leaving potentially two containers at gz for followup finders to find, and the CO doesn't care. That can get messy. Again, not a problem with a logical extension - it's a problem of a CO not taking responsible care of their listing (even if due to irresponsible actions by annoying cachers).

 

In some areas it has become so worse that there are caches which are missing for a long time and 95% of the cachers do not mind to log "finds".

Again, this is ultimately a problem with the CO not policing their listing. Effectively, the CO is approving the behaviour that many find unethical. But we again move into debating ethics beyond the minimal objective rules.

 

It has become so bad that most cachers except log permissions and get angry if a cache owner says no.

Too bad for them.

 

Exactly. And just like if you and I were caching at that tree, I might claim a find and you might not, I've also not claimed finds on caches that other cachers with me have just because the CO has allowed it, but I didn't feel right because I didn't actually "find" the cache.

Is caching for you mainly about finding the container? For lots of hard terrain caches the finding aspect is trivial and it's all about getting to the container.

If I'm geocaching to find geocaches, then yes, I'm there to find geocaches -- and enjoy the experience. If I just wanted the experience, I wouldn't be geocaching. I'd be hiking, camping, canoeing, biking...

Edited February 25, 2016 by thebruce0

[cezanne]

If the CO does not give their consent for the throwdown, they can delete the find log.

 

They can. The point is just that meanwhile the majority of the cachers in some areas think that it is a normal thing to ask for log permissions if there is nothing to be found or they could not log and that it is normal and even kind to leave a throwdown.

 

Again, this is ultimately a problem with the CO not policing their listing. Effectively, the CO is approving the behaviour that many find unethical. But we again move into debating ethics beyond the minimal objective rules.

 

The trouble is just that cache owners are cache finders too and they just do what they see others doing.

 

I know a cacher who does not want to log finds for caches where there is currently no container but when she/he writes the involved cache owners they reply with the offer of a log permission. Of course one could log a NA log (that would not help however when one has solved a complicated puzzle and wants to finish off the cache) and would be very much frowned upon by the community and it's not worth to create lots of enemies for nothing.

 

The minimal objective rule is so simple that there is no need to discuss it anyhow. So only what is beyond that rule is something one could discuss about.

 

If I'm geocaching to find geocaches, then yes, I'm there to find geocaches -- and enjoy the experience. If I just wanted the experience, I wouldn't be geocaching. I'd be hiking, camping, canoeing, biking...

 

My stress was on the the literal meaning of find. Lots of tree climbing caches are like that: There is a single tree and the container is well visible from below and the only task is to get there.

So the process of actual finding is not worth mentioning - the experience will in such cases also come from climbing the tree and not watching someone climbinig it up, right?

Edited February 25, 2016 by cezanne

[+thebruce0]

If the CO does not give their consent for the throwdown, they can delete the find log.

They can. The point is just that meanwhile the majority of the cachers in some areas think that it is a normal thing to ask for log permissions if there is nothing to be found or they could not log and that it is normal and even kind to leave a throwdown.

Yes. And the point is, that is ok by the official rules. We may not like it, but again as I said earlier, that opens a door for debating ethics around situations that don't directly involve us. We can see that there may be a problem with that cache, but the CO has implicitly approved the activities either by specifically approving the finders' logs, or by doing nothing and allowing such activities to persist. In which case, if we don't like it, we don't have to find that cache. What other people do? Irrelevant.

Alternatively, a reviewer may decide to intervene if they deem it to be a problem worth addressing.

 

Again, this is ultimately a problem with the CO not policing their listing. Effectively, the CO is approving the behaviour that many find unethical. But we again move into debating ethics beyond the minimal objective rules.

The trouble is just that cache owners are cache finders too and they just do what they see others doing.

Yep, indeed. But ultimately that doesn't matter. If it affects our experience directly, then there may be a discussion to be had. Which then means it comes back down to how the CO responds to finder activity on their own cache, and whether they're perpetuating a problem.

 

I know a cacher who does not want to log finds for caches where there is currently no container but when she/he writes the involved cache owners they reply with the offer of a log permission. Of course one could log a NA log (that would not help however when one has solved a complicated puzzle and wants to finish off the cache) and would be very much frowned upon by the community and it's not worth to create lots of enemies for nothing.

Then you have an odd community that's perpetuating the problem. A cache with no container where the CO continually allows finds and does not replace the container should have a NA log on it -- It's not a geocache. A reviewer, if they found out, may even take action proactively.

 

The minimal objective rule is so simple that there is no need to discuss it anyhow. So only what is beyond that rule is something one could discuss about.

Which was my point. Beyond that rule it's just various caching ethics. If the objective rule isn't broken, then either we have respectable discussions where people learn what the general community finds acceptable and then changes their ways, or it degrades into arguments about "right" and "wrong" and "cheating" that go nowhere and just build angst.

 

Thus my prior comments: "don't be griefed by others who promote themselves as 'better' by praising their own logging practices and ethics or criticizing yours (especially those who call it "cheating" even if GS's one rule is not broken). But, I do recommend you adopt a practice that is generally acceptable by the community so that you don't open the door to potential ongoing criticism and gossip from your fellow community cachers"

 

My stress was on the the literal meaning of find. Lots of tree climbing caches are like that: There is a single tree and the container is well visible from below and the only task is to get there. So the process of actual finding is not worth mentioning - the experience will in such cases also come from climbing the tree and not watching someone climbinig it up, right?

Depends who you ask. I provided my personal guideline for what I would qualify as a "find" in situations like treeclimbs, prompting me to log it online. Not everyone thinks the same way. According to Groundspeak, we are only allowed to claim the Find online if the name we cached under is in the log sheet. Beyond that, to each his own. Hopefullly, however, also to the peace and betterment of the community.

Edited February 25, 2016 by thebruce0

[+IOError]

My rule of thumb is if I have the container in one hand and the log in the other hand I found it. If I can't sign the log (too wet, full, etc.) and I can't rectify the situation (e.g. Wait for it to dry out a bit, Add another piece of paper with my name*, etc.). I'll take a picture of the log and the container in it's location, then I'll log the find and mail the picture to the CO (I won't post it with the log) and add that detail in my log so they can check their email.

 

By extension if I see the cache and can't get it (too high, too deep, too anything), find a container I can't open, or whatever, that's a DNF.

 

*I've only run into two so far where I absolutely couldn't sign the log and along with my Found It log, I sent my picture to the CO AND a NM log was added in each occasion.

Edited February 25, 2016 by IOError

[cezanne]

community that's perpetuating the problem.

 

Yes, but that does help to change anything.

 

A cache with no container where the CO continually allows finds and does not replace the container should have a NA log on it -- It's not a geocache. A reviewer, if they found out, may even take action proactively.

 

They may and they also may not care so that they will not find out and when contacted answer with log a NA log which is a vicious cycle .....

 

My stress was on the the literal meaning of find. Lots of tree climbing caches are like that: There is a single tree and the container is well visible from below and the only task is to get there. So the process of actual finding is not worth mentioning - the experience will in such cases also come from climbing the tree and not watching someone climbinig it up, right?

Depends who you ask. I provided my personal guideline for what I would qualify as a "find" in situations like treeclimbs, prompting me to log it online.

 

I asked you not someone else. But my question was not about when you log a find. Neither wanted I to question the ethics behind logging such a find. My question was about your explanation why you personally log a find for a tree climbing cache if you can see the cache and someone else climbed up while at the same time stressing the importance of the literal meaning of finding for you.

If the hideout is obvious, there is no real finding process involved.

Edited February 25, 2016 by cezanne

[+J Grouchy]

My rule of thumb is if I have the container in one hand and the log in the other hand I found it. If I can't sign the log (too wet, full, etc.) and I can't rectify the situation (e.g. Wait for it to dry out a bit, Add another piece of paper with my name*, etc.). I'll take a picture of the log and the container in it's location, then I'll log the find and mail the picture to the CO (I won't post it with the log) and add that detail in my log so they can check their email.

 

By extension if I see the cache and can't get it (too high, too deep, too anything), find a container I can't open, or whatever, that's a DNF.

 

*I've only run into two so far where I absolutely couldn't sign the log and along with my Found It log, I sent my picture to the CO AND a NM log was added in each occasion.

 

The cache I found today was just such an example. Too wet and muddy to sign. Photo, found it log, NM log, done.

[+thebruce0]

community that's perpetuating the problem.

Yes, but that does help to change anything.

Does? Or doesn't?

The problem here, again, is a CO that's not taking their CO responsibility seriously, and a community that's taking advantage of it. A physical geocache listing requires a container and logsheet to be signed. If the CO is not providing that, it is a problem that needs addressing. Even if the community becomes a mob against someone who attempts to fix it. * It's not a geocache. It needs fixing or archiving. That's not ethics, that's a fundamental definition of geocaching, and iirc, also an explicit rule the CO agrees to when placing a geocache.

 

A cache with no container where the CO continually allows finds and does not replace the container should have a NA log on it -- It's not a geocache. A reviewer, if they found out, may even take action proactively.

They may and they also may not care so that they will not find out and when contacted answer with log a NA log which is a vicious cycle .....

So log the NA. Simple. If the CO changes their attitude, they'll fix it and it won't be archived. If not, it'll be archived. Both ways - geocaching wins.

 

Depends who you ask. I provided my personal guideline for what I would qualify as a "find" in situations like treeclimbs, prompting me to log it online.

I asked you not someone else. But my question was not about when you log a find. Neither wanted I to question the ethics behind logging such a find. My question was about your explanation why you personally log a find for a tree climbing cache if you can see the cache and someone else climbed up while at the same time stressing the importance of the literal meaning of finding for you.

If the hideout is obvious, there is no real finding process involved.

Yes you asked me, and I provided my answer. But what does my personal ethic for what I consitute a find matter to you? How does that affect you in any way? This is why arguments begin. I'm not out to say my way is right or your way is wrong, if neither break GS's one rule. Both of us enjoy the hunt for treeclimb caches in our own way, with just a minor difference that determines how we log it online. So... what are you asking now that hasn't been answered?

[cezanne]

So log the NA. Simple. If the CO changes their attitude, they'll fix it and it won't be archived. If not, it'll be archived. Both ways - geocaching wins.

 

I will not do it in cases where I'm not interested into the cache anyway. It#s not worth to end up with the majority of cachers as enemies.

 

Yes you asked me, and I provided my answer.

 

But not to what I wanted to know which I guess is my own fault as apparently my question was not clear.

 

But what does my personal ethic for what I consitute a find matter to you?

 

I did not ask about your ethics. I wanted to understand your explanation and I still don't.

 

Lots of why questions I ask in private life (not in the job) have no affect on me except that I want to understand something.

 

I did not want to know why you log a find for a tree climb cache when you not have been up there but how it fits with your reasoning that stresses the find aspect (in the literal sense) as in my opinion one can only find something when one needs to search for it - the obvious things are there but we do not find them. Note that the meaning of find here is not at all the term find used in geocaching when it comes when you log a find. You told me that you go for caches due to the find aspect and the experience (the experience alone would not suffice). So I wondered what then makes you happy with a tree climbing cache which is in plain sight as there is nothing to find.

Edited February 25, 2016 by cezanne

[+L0ne.R]

My rule of thumb is if I have the container in one hand and the log in the other hand I found it. If I can't sign the log (too wet, full, etc.) and I can't rectify the situation (e.g. Wait for it to dry out a bit, Add another piece of paper with my name*, etc.). I'll take a picture of the log and the container in it's location, then I'll log the find and mail the picture to the CO (I won't post it with the log) and add that detail in my log so they can check their email.

 

By extension if I see the cache and can't get it (too high, too deep, too anything), find a container I can't open, or whatever, that's a DNF.

 

*I've only run into two so far where I absolutely couldn't sign the log and along with my Found It log, I sent my picture to the CO AND a NM log was added in each occasion.

 

The cache I found today was just such an example. Too wet and muddy to sign. Photo, found it log, NM log, done.

 

That's what I would do. I think it's better for the game in general to do it this way. You prove you found the cache, you document it. You don't throw in a logsheet to prop it up. You inform the cache owner and future finders by posting an NM. If the cache is abandoned this sets the clock for eventual archival and removes a defunct cache from the database.

[+thebruce0]

That's what I would do. I think it's better for the game in general to do it this way. You prove you found the cache, you document it. You don't throw in a logsheet to prop it up. You inform the cache owner and future finders by posting an NM. If the cache is abandoned this sets the clock for eventual archival and removes a defunct cache from the database.

Exactly, this would be the proper way to do it, even if it upsets some people. It's a move towards ensuring caches are available, looked after, and available info (including log history) is relevant.

 

So log the NA. Simple. If the CO changes their attitude, they'll fix it and it won't be archived. If not, it'll be archived. Both ways - geocaching wins.

I will not do it in cases where I'm not interested into the cache anyway. It#s not worth to end up with the majority of cachers as enemies.

So, you're perpetuating a problem we're discussing by doing that. If you know there is a problem with a cache but you don't report it, you essentially approve it and allow others to be misinformed and have potentially bad experiences, merely because you don't want people (who would themselves be doing the same) to not like you. You're not doing what's good for the game (posting NM or NA when it's appropriate), for your own sake.

Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make them go away.

 

But what does my personal ethic for what I consitute a find matter to you?

I did not ask about your ethics. I wanted to understand your explanation and I still don't.

Lots of why questions I ask in private life (not in the job) have no affect on me except that I want to understand something.

I understand that, I'm exactly the same way. But I don't get what you're asking or why. I explained my reasoning for posting or not posting a find, including the situation of various types of treeclimbs.

 

I did not want to know why you log a find for a tree climb cache when you not have been up there but how it fits with your reasoning that stresses the find aspect (in the literal sense) as in my opinion one can only find something when one needs to search for it - the obvious things are there but we do not find them.

Sure, so as I said, when it comes to a treeclimb, if I'm with a couple of other people and someone else climbs the tree to sign us in, then

1) if I feel I can climb the tree, I'll log it found

2) if I really want to climb the tree even though someone else did, I'll do it anyway, just for the fun of it; and still log it found

3) if we're a group caching and I had a role in the find but didn't climb the tree, I'll log it found

4) if I want to come back and climb the tree myself if I don't this time, I won't log it found until then

5) if I don't think I'd ever be able to do the climb and I feel that my experience really not sufficient, then I won't log it found

In each of those cases, the cache was found, that is I've seen it and know how it is hidden, and my name may be in the logbook, so it is my choice and my choice alone as to whether I feel I 'deserve' the smiley on the website.

I don't personally see any value in discovering how a cache is hidden (that is to say, had an experience that lives up to the expectation I have for thel isting), then for all intents and purposes having found the cache, decide not to log it found just to return another day. If I consider it found by my own standard (and by GS rules), I'll log it found.

 

There are some people who will not log a cache found unless they have personally, physically held the log sheet and signed their own name. That's their choice. And that's just fine.

 

 

You told me that you go for caches due to the find aspect and the experience (the experience alone would not suffice). So I wondered what then makes you happy with a tree climbing cache which is in plain sight as there is nothing to find.

Yep. What makes me happy is doing a treeclimb. It's not often I won't do a treeclimb. I typically try to be the first there so I can be the one to do the treeclimb. But, if someone else in my group does it, then I decide whether I feel I want to do the climb anyway, just for the experience, because chances are I'll be logging it found if the climber finds the cache.

 

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether you or I understand why we each feel a find is a find. If we both value accurate logs (for example, not claiming a find if the cache was not actually found during that visit which could potentially mislead later visitors if the cache is missing), then anything beyond that is fluff. Just do what you do and have fun.

Edited February 26, 2016 by thebruce0

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Coming from someone who does his level best to sign the log of every cache I find, I find the physical log the most arbitrary part of geocaching. It's just proof of my visit and a "guarantee" that the CO can't delete my log unjustly. If I find a cache that is frozen or rusted shut, a picture of the cache in my hand is just as much proof of a find as my name on a slip of paper. Better proof, even, since pictures won't get wet and rot away, go missing or get torn to tatters, in which case, there is no way to prove/disprove my name was ever on that slip anyway.

 

If it's a cache that is hard to reach or that finding the actual log is part of the find, then that's a different scenario and I wouldn't log a find until I signed the physical log for those caches. Anything else, a picture is good enough.

[cezanne]

Exactly, this would be the proper way to do it, even if it upsets some people. It's a move towards ensuring caches are available, looked after, and available info (including log history) is relevant.

 

I still would not do it that way because I'm against photo logs.

 

So, you're perpetuating a problem we're discussing by doing that. If you know there is a problem with a cache but you don't report it, you essentially approve it and allow others to be misinformed and have potentially bad experiences, merely because you don't want people (who would themselves be doing the same) to not like you.

 

First, all those who visit the disabled cache are informed about the issue - they go there nevertheless and those who do not regard it as bad experience - it's anyway just ending up with what they want, "a find"

I'm definitely not someone who wants to be liked by everyone, but there is a difference betweeen being liked and having almost every one as an enemy.

It just does not pay off in my opinion and I'm not sure if what you would think if you knew the background.

Moreover, I have mentioned too the scenario that often occurs namely typically those cachers who are interested into a cache but are not satisfied with a log permission want it to return and not to be sent to archive - removing a cache from a database does nothing for this sort of people.

 

Even if a cache got really rotten, removing it from the data base is not what really clears the issue that the cache is out there physically. If I just want to filter out certain caches from a data base, there are much simpler ways (just have a flag).

 

Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make them go away.

 

They will not turn away anyway - as long as the majority thinks that proving one's visit suffices and it's all what it's about.

You will never be able to change their mind and pointing to the rules of geocaching will not help either as there are so many others they do not care about.

 

5) if I don't think I'd ever be able to do the climb and I feel that my experience really not sufficient, then I won't log it found

 

Alright but higher up you said that you would log a find if a courageous person with you does the climb who would not dare to go for.

And my question was this: In such a setting for a tree cache where the container is visible at first sight from below what kind of experience remains for you. I did not want to question that you log a find here - I just wanted to understand the reason for what seemed an unlogical outlier to me. In the case where such a cache container really needs to be found and you found it, I could make sense of your reasoning due to the literal meaning of finding. In the case of an obvious hideout (and no group effort to climb the tree), I can't.

 

In each of those cases, the cache was found, that is I've seen it and know how it is hidden, and my name may be in the logbook, so it is my choice and my choice alone as to whether I feel I 'deserve' the smiley on the website.

 

Yes, of course. I do not have the slightest issue with you logging a find.

[+thebruce0]

I still would not do it that way because I'm against photo logs.

Ok. And as a CO you'd have the right to not allow the Find log on your cache if the finder only sent "photographic evidence" and didn't sign the logbook.

 

First, all those who visit the disabled cache are informed about the issue

Ok now you have a specific situation (this was not mentioned before). If the cache is disabled, the CO has at some point noticed that there's a problem. 'Disabled' does not explicitly mean "unfindable" (if so, the CO would typically state in the log that the cache is not available to be found), it means that the CO believes there is a problem with the cache and is effectively recommending people not search for it because there is no guarantee it's available to be found. If someone searches for a disabled cache, they should do so knowing that they may not find the cache, and if they don't find it (or if any incident occurs) it is not the immediate fault of the CO. If they do find it, great.

 

they go there nevertheless and those who do not regard it as bad experience - it's anyway just ending up with what they want, "a find"

Sure, because they're geocaching, and the geocache may still be findable. Who cares whether they think the experience for themselves will be enjoyable or not, or whether they feel it's "worth" the effort? If it turns out it's an invalid find, the CO can (and should) delete the log.

 

I'm definitely not someone who wants to be liked by everyone, but there is a difference betweeen being liked and having almost every one as an enemy.

Like I said, if your community (especially "almost everyone") becomes your enemy because you report a legitimate problem with a cache, your community has a much bigger problem to deal with.

 

Moreover, I have mentioned too the scenario that often occurs namely typically those cachers who are interested into a cache but are not satisfied with a log permission want it to return and not to be sent to archive - removing a cache from a database does nothing for this sort of people.

If there is a problem with the cache that warrants a Needs Archived, then they won't ever get the experience they're hoping for anyway. If there is no problem with the cache, then posting a NA is uncalled for and may indeed legitimately lead to you making enemies.

If the CO continually grants permission to log a cache as found when the cache is not legitimately available, and yet people still want the listing to exist saying they want to have the experience (but really it seems it's just to log the find), then your community has issues; precisely the one you don't personally like - they're in it for the find, not the experience, and are perpetuating the existing of a geocache that is not a geocache.

 

Even if a cache got really rotten, removing it from the data base is not what really clears the issue that the cache is out there physically. If I just want to filter out certain caches from a data base, there are much simpler ways (just have a flag).

I agree, if a cache is rotten, that itself doesn't warrant archival - it warrants a Needs Maintenance. If the CO doesn't care to maintain their own cache (which they agree to when publishing) then it may eventually get archived, either from someone posting a NA or a reviewer taking notice.

 

They will not turn away anyway - as long as the majority thinks that proving one's visit suffices and it's all what it's about.

You will never be able to change their mind and pointing to the rules of geocaching will not help either as there are so many others they do not care about.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to get at.

* If the cache is not there, it needs to be archived. It's not a geocache. People who want the listing to remain are perpetuating a problem. A CO who does not archive such a cache is perpetutating a problem.

* If the CO allows a find on a cache that is available and for whatever reason the finder hasn't signed the logsheet, that is perfectly legitimate.

* If the CO denies a find on a cache that is available but for whatever reason the finder hasn't signed the logsheet, that is perfectly legitimate.

* If the CO denies a find on a cache where the finder's name is not in the logsheet, even if the finder says they found it (perhaps they even took a photo of the outer container), they are still within their right to delete the Find log (name is not in the logbook).

 

I don't want to debate subjective value of the experience - everyone values different experiences. However when we're geocaching, we are looking for geocaches. A geocache that does not exist is not a geocache. A "Found It" log online is intended to mean that the cache has been found, verified, and was available to be found on the date of that log. The CO is given the responsibility of maintaining the cache and the log history.

 

Irresponsible COs propagate listings that can become misleading by allowing non-finds (that is, logs merely implying that the cache can be found as intended, when it's not)

Irresponsible finders propagate such problems by continually attempting to claim finds on caches they did not find (see above).

A community can propagate bad (non-) geocaches by not reporting problems with caches to COs.

A community can propagate bad (non-) geocaches by taking advantage of irresponsible COs.

 

All of this is merely based on the minimum requirement and expectations in geocaching, both on finders and owners - that active geocaches exist and are findable (not that they provide arbitrarily "good" experiences).

 

5) if I don't think I'd ever be able to do the climb and I feel that my experience really not sufficient, then I won't log it found

Alright but higher up you said that you would log a find if a courageous person with you does the climb who would not dare to go for.

And my question was this: In such a setting for a tree cache where the container is visible at first sight from below what kind of experience remains for you. I did not want to question that you log a find here - I just wanted to understand the reason for what seemed an unlogical outlier to me. In the case where such a cache container really needs to be found and you found it, I could make sense of your reasoning due to the literal meaning of finding. In the case of an obvious hideout (and no group effort to climb the tree), I can't.

If I were alone, I would not log a treeclimb cache as found that I did not climb and find.

If I were caching in a group and (as I also said earlier) I had a role in the find - for example I spotted it from below, or I drove, or I helped with the climb, or I brought some gear, or I cheered them on - I may claim it as a find.

And as I also said, "may" means I'll decide whether I think I had enough of an experience on my part to claim it as found.

 

Every treeclimb cache I've visited that I can recall at this moment has been one that

A] I've climbed myself

B] someone else climbed but I could easily climb

C] someone else climbed but I climbed anyway after they descended because I wanted to climb it too

D] someone else used their own gear (I would do the cache as intended as well had I the gear)

E] rarely: someone else climbed a tree I wasn't confident to climb myself at that time

F] was not found (having either climbed or not climbed)

 

In all cases (except F of course), the cache was found -- verified -- and the logsheet signed.

In the case of E, I reserve the right on a case by case basis to decide whether I want to log it found or not, given that my caching name is in the sheet. But what importance is that to you? That's the point - that level of judgment is purely subjective and unnecessary, because the find is both physically legitimate (cache is verified), and technically legitimate (name in the logbook). Whether I, or anyone, decides to claim the find online should be irrelevant to you if you just want to enjoy geocaching

 

Yes, of course. I do not have the slightest issue with you logging a find.

Excellent!

Edited February 26, 2016 by thebruce0

[+L0ne.R]

I still would not do it that way because I'm against photo logs.

Ok. And as a CO you'd have the right to not allow the Find log on your cache if the finder only sent "photographic evidence" and didn't sign the logbook.

 

If a CO of a delinquent cache deletes a cache despite photographic evidence that the cache was unsignable, it would be unfair behaviour to have a set of unsparingly strick rules for a find, yet a set of lax rules for maintenance.

Edited February 26, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+thebruce0]

If a CO of a delinquent cache deletes a cache despite photographic evidence that the cache was unsignable, it would be unfair behaviour to have a set of unsparingly strick rules for a find, yet a set of lax rules for maintenance.

(presuming you meant "deletes a log") I do agree - it would be sort of a prick move for the CO to not allow the Find if the finder was unable to sign the logsheet and provided said evidence in support. The rules would allow the CO to delete the log, but I wouldn't be surprised if it went to appeals.

 

- If *I* were the CO, I wouldn't delete the log if there was nothing else between the camera and the logsheet but a frozen container. If I knew there was something else to be done before signing the logsheet, then I may personally head out and attempt to free the container and recommend the finder return to do that extra missing step, and then log the find.

- If I were the finder, I'd log the find explaining the situation (mainly for followup visitors), and if the CO wants to deny the find I'd send the photo, and if the CO still wants to deny the find then I'd ask why - and as above, if there's a step I was unable to get to, I wouldn't argue and I'd return later to complete the find and sign the log, otherwise if the CO still denies the find then *shrug*. I don't know if I'd take it to appeals or just ignore it. But that decision is entirely my own depending on the cache

Drama drama.

 

My own caching decisions are based on following the minimal ruleset, and attempting to ensure that whatever log I post as a finder helps to describe the current state of the cache as of when I visited - whether it's a Find (ie, verified available with my name/group in the sheet; or CO-approved with an explanation), a DNF, a NM, a Note, or a NA. That's just how I roll, as that's what I like to see in a log history; can't speak for anyone else.

[+L0ne.R]

...whatever log I post as a finder helps to describe the current state of the cache as of when I visited - whether it's a Find, a DNF, a NM, a Note, or a NA. That's just how I roll, as that's what I like to see in a log history

 

+1

[cezanne]

I still would not do it that way because I'm against photo logs.

Ok. And as a CO you'd have the right to not allow the Find log on your cache if the finder only sent "photographic evidence" and didn't sign the logbook.

 

If a CO of a delinquent cache deletes a cache despite photographic evidence that the cache was unsignable, it would be unfair behaviour to have a set of unsparingly strick rules for a find, yet a set of lax rules for maintenance.

 

While I would not delete a log in this case, I still would wonder quite a lot about how strongly some cachers apparently need find logs.

If a cache that is not shown as winter friendly, I would accept that it can happen that it cannot be reached - taking a photo of the hideout seems quite strange to me. This is not an issue of maintenance.

 

I do not feel happy with the quite frequent approach of taking a photo of a cache container in a very muggled area and then writing that one could not wait longer. While it's certainly better than risking the cache, I still think that the best way is to leave without a find.

[+thebruce0]

While I would not delete a log in this case, I still would wonder quite a lot about how strongly some cachers apparently need find logs. If a cache that is not shown as winter friendly, I would accept that it can happen that it cannot be reached - taking a photo of the hideout seems quite strange to me.

Sure, but then then you're again projecting the idea that your 'find' ethic is somehow better than theirs. Doesn't matter. If their ethic doesn't affect you, why make a deal about it?

[+briansnat]

Not a getting started issue, moving to a more appropriate forum.

[+mockkkk]

Going along with what most people here have said, I will not log a "Found It" unless I have signed the log...with a few exceptions:

 

-If I held the log in my hand but it was not signable due to being wet, full, reduced to shreds, covered in mold, etc. In these cases I always take a picture of the log and upload the photo to prove that I did indeed make the find.

 

-If I held the log in my hand but was unable to sign because of writing utensil issues; i.e. pen got lost, ran out of ink, exploded (Once I signed a log by dipping my finger in ink from my pocket, where the pen exploded and writing my fingers...lol).

 

-If I was able to touch the container, but could not open it because of unintended conditions- i.e. rusted shut, frozen shut, etc. In these situations I would always upload a photo of the container (without spoilers) and would post details of why I could not sign the log. I would post a maintenance log if necessary.

 

-If I was able to open the container but the log was missing, or I could not get it out of the container because it was stuck. In this case I would upload a photo and inform the CO of the issue, unless I was able to replace a new log myself.

 

I will not log it as found if the container is not present. A trip to the GZ does not = a find.

 

I will not log it as found if I saw the container but it was out of reach as part of the hiding process (i.e. up a tree I could not climb) or if I was lacking the tools to retrieve it as required by the design of the hide.

 

I think the basic guideline should be:

 

1. The cache is actually there.

2. You completed all aspects of finding as intended by the CO.

3. You held the log or container, but did not sign the log because of barriers not intended by the CO.

 

If a find meets these criteria, you should be able to log the cache as found.

 

These are the guidelines I try to live by. Though I will be the first to admit, there have been nanos I have found that I *could* have retrieved the log from and signed, but I instead opted to photo log because it was too cold or because I didn't want to attract too much attention to the area by taking 10 minutes to get the log out, sign it and then properly roll it back up.

 

If I am logging a find, I will ALWAYS have either signed the log, or have included a spoiler-less photo of the cache and/or log sheet and a reason why I did not sign.

 

Finally, if I was unable to find a geocache, or if I suspect anything about the hide was off, I always log a DNF, maintenance needed, or needs archived. I have no issues with requesting that a cache be archived.

 

Geocaches are not permanent fixtures, and their level of quality will naturally degrade with time (some quickly, some very slowly). Accurate logs of experiences are the only way we can gauge this quality. I look at it as the duty of each cacher to relay this information. It's sort of an implied contract you sign as a member of the community, to me. It's part of the fun of the activity, that the geocaches are not only created by us, but perpetuated by us. The more feedback there is (good or bad) the higher the quality of the geocaches will be.

 

Now, does everyone feel that way? Certainly not. But if they did, we'd all have a lot more fun and enjoyment when partaking in this great hobby.

 

Log your DNFs, NM's, and NA's where appropriate please. Don't worry about the CO's feelings or your own pride. As a CO of a number of caches I take no offense at being asked to archive a cache. I either repair it, replace it, or I get to tell the person who requested archived in error to try a little harder.

Edited February 29, 2016 by mockkkk

[+DanOCan]

Coming from someone who does his level best to sign the log of every cache I find, I find the physical log the most arbitrary part of geocaching. It's just proof of my visit and a "guarantee" that the CO can't delete my log unjustly. If I find a cache that is frozen or rusted shut, a picture of the cache in my hand is just as much proof of a find as my name on a slip of paper. Better proof, even, since pictures won't get wet and rot away, go missing or get torn to tatters, in which case, there is no way to prove/disprove my name was ever on that slip anyway.

 

If it's a cache that is hard to reach or that finding the actual log is part of the find, then that's a different scenario and I wouldn't log a find until I signed the physical log for those caches. Anything else, a picture is good enough.

This is a perfect summation of how I feel. Really, the name in the log is pretty useless. CO comes along and doesn't see my name so he/she deleted my online log. I appeal to Groundspeak saying "I signed in so I want my Find reinstated." At that point, it's a "he said, she said" situation where I'm saying I signed it, the CO says I didn't. Meh. Unless I take a photo of my name in the log, there's really no proof one way or the other. In the end, it's a game -- not a notarized document.

 

I'd much rather someone not sign the log in my cache than see them compromise the container, or writing in the log with mud/blood/whatever.

 

As long as the finding of the log isn't an integral part of the cache (climb a tree, solve a field puzzle, etc) then I don't care.

[+L0ne.R]

Going along with what most people here have said, I will not log a "Found It" unless I have signed the log...with a few exceptions:

 

-If I held the log in my hand but it was not signable due to being wet, full, reduced to shreds, covered in mold, etc. In these cases I always take a picture of the log and upload the photo to prove that I did indeed make the find.

 

-If I held the log in my hand but was unable to sign because of writing utensil issues; i.e. pen got lost, ran out of ink, exploded (Once I signed a log by dipping my finger in ink from my pocket, where the pen exploded and writing my fingers...lol).

 

-If I was able to touch the container, but could not open it because of unintended conditions- i.e. rusted shut, frozen shut, etc. In these situations I would always upload a photo of the container (without spoilers) and would post details of why I could not sign the log. I would post a maintenance log if necessary.

 

-If I was able to open the container but the log was missing, or I could not get it out of the container because it was stuck. In this case I would upload a photo and inform the CO of the issue, unless I was able to replace a new log myself.

 

I will not log it as found if the container is not present. A trip to the GZ does not = a find.

 

I will not log it as found if I saw the container but it was out of reach as part of the hiding process (i.e. up a tree I could not climb) or if I was lacking the tools to retrieve it as required by the design of the hide.

 

I think the basic guideline should be:

 

1. The cache is actually there.

2. You completed all aspects of finding as intended by the CO.

3. You held the log or container, but did not sign the log because of barriers not intended by the CO.

 

If a find meets these criteria, you should be able to log the cache as found.

 

^^^^^This.

 

It works, does no harm, and benefits the community.

[+bflentje]

Going along with what most people here have said, I will not log a "Found It" unless I have signed the log...with a few exceptions:

 

-If I held the log in my hand but it was not signable due to being wet, full, reduced to shreds, covered in mold, etc. In these cases I always take a picture of the log and upload the photo to prove that I did indeed make the find.

 

-If I held the log in my hand but was unable to sign because of writing utensil issues; i.e. pen got lost, ran out of ink, exploded (Once I signed a log by dipping my finger in ink from my pocket, where the pen exploded and writing my fingers...lol).

 

-If I was able to touch the container, but could not open it because of unintended conditions- i.e. rusted shut, frozen shut, etc. In these situations I would always upload a photo of the container (without spoilers) and would post details of why I could not sign the log. I would post a maintenance log if necessary.

 

-If I was able to open the container but the log was missing, or I could not get it out of the container because it was stuck. In this case I would upload a photo and inform the CO of the issue, unless I was able to replace a new log myself.

 

I will not log it as found if the container is not present. A trip to the GZ does not = a find.

 

I will not log it as found if I saw the container but it was out of reach as part of the hiding process (i.e. up a tree I could not climb) or if I was lacking the tools to retrieve it as required by the design of the hide.

 

I think the basic guideline should be:

 

1. The cache is actually there.

2. You completed all aspects of finding as intended by the CO.

3. You held the log or container, but did not sign the log because of barriers not intended by the CO.

 

If a find meets these criteria, you should be able to log the cache as found.

 

^^^^^This.

 

It works, does no harm, and benefits the community.

 

Yes. Now if we could just get people to stop lying about #'s 2 and 3.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

This Log.

 

It's about throwdowns, but it's the right idea.

Edited February 29, 2016 by TeamRabbitRun

[+J Grouchy]

This Log.

 

It's about throwdowns, but it's the right idea.

 

Nice. Some of the worst "throwdown" offenders are the high number types who seem more intent on numbers than actually finding caches. Not all, mind you. Probably not even MOST. But generally, whenever I can pinpoint someone who left a throwdown, I can safely bet that the number by their name will upwards of 10- to 20-thousand.

[+thebruce0]

I think the basic guideline should be:

 

1. The cache is actually there.

2. You completed all aspects of finding as intended by the CO.

3. You held the log or container, but did not sign the log because of barriers not intended by the CO.

 

If a find meets these criteria, you should be able to log the cache as found.

 

I agree that this is most hobby/community-friendly ethic for finding and owning geocaches.

However #2 and 3 aren't objectively verifiable, so this final statement "if a find meets these criteria" fundamentally isn't feasible. It's an ethic that can stand only on the honour system. That's why the only thing Groundspeak can enforce as the "rule" is that which is verifiable, and gives the final say to the owner (not including moving on to appeals).

 

A CO can't verify you "held the log". They can verify a name in the logbook. Beyond that, disagreements have to go to appeals. Relative to the amount of activity over the grand geocaching community, this rarely happens. Geocaching moves on and the vast majority enjoy it the way it's intended to be enjoyed. But I think it's safe to say the rule is in place because it got there over time due to appeals and trying to make the system easier/better for both finders and owners. Too much drama . Have an enforceable rule, and it settles most of the disagreements at the get-go.

 

It would be nice if either A] everyone shared the same reasonable geocaching ethic, or B] everyone followed the basic rules and respected everyone else's various opinions of subjective practices that aren't themselves against the rules.

Edited February 29, 2016 by thebruce0

[+L0ne.R]

This Log.

 

It's about throwdowns, but it's the right idea.

 

Nice. Some of the worst "throwdown" offenders are the high number types who seem more intent on numbers than actually finding caches. Not all, mind you. Probably not even MOST. But generally, whenever I can pinpoint someone who left a throwdown, I can safely bet that the number by their name will upwards of 10- to 20-thousand.

 

And this part that tends to be the mantra of the power cacher throwdowner "I put a temporary cache in place until the CO can make a permanent replacement". As if their intent is to altruistically help the cache owner and community, not to add another smiley to their score. I would love to see them be honest. "I threw down a cache so I could claim this smiley."

 

The CO has been ignoring DNFs for 7 months. He has over 150 hides. His list of hides has many ignored NMs. Kudos to TRR for their NM log.

[+dprovan]

"I threw down a cache so I could claim this smiley."

Which is particularly amusing since they're admitting beyond question that they didn't find the cache.

[+The A-Team]

I recently found a cache where the most recent log mentioned running into "No trespassing" signs at each of the accesses they attempted, so they didn't get to the cache. Can you guess what log type they used?

 

A DNF reflecting the fact that they tried and failed to find the cache?

No.

 

A Needs Maintenance/Needs Archive log highlighting the apparent property issue?

No.

 

You guessed it, they logged it as a find.

 

I think most of us can agree that if you don't even get to GZ (the above cacher wouldn't have been within a few hundred metres of GZ), it isn't a find.

[+4wheeler]

Actually the only rules for Geocaching, other than the limited rules made by GS and the individual cache owner, are the rules that you make for yourself and only you have to abide by them. If someone else logs a find on a cache that they didn't find by your rules and the CO doesn't care, leave it be.

[+ecanderson]

As for the 'sog log' condition which occurs frequently enough to warrant action ...

 

For caches where the physical dimensions permit, I'll take a sog log (one that simply cannot be dried out on site and cannot be signed), I place the pulp into one EzDose baggie, and install a fresh log in its own EZDose baggie side by side. I am then careful to write not only a "Found" log, but a "NM" log to advise the owner that his log has returned to the paper pulp state in which it started on the line at the manufacturer.

 

As for 'frozen' caches ... or any other cache that cannot be retrieved -- just because you can see it doesn't mean that you have 'found' it. No different than a cache 20 feet up in a tree that you're not dressed to retrieve. In the former case, a DNF might help the CO, and will certainly help the next finder if things haven't thawed recently. In the latter case, I may just not bother with a log at all until I'm prepared to give it a proper attempt... unless it's a 1.5 terrain, in which case I'll always throw in my 2 cents about the Clayjar scale for rating terrain.

[+niraD]

A CO can't verify you "held the log". They can verify a name in the logbook.

Yep.

 

I don't put much stock in completing "all aspects of finding as intended by the CO". For example, consider an elevated cache. One person uses a reaching tool, another climbs the tree, another brings an extension ladder, another uses a remote-control drone, another finds some other way to access the cache. Which find technique(s) were "as intended by the CO"? Does it matter? I don't think so. If your name is on the log, then it's a find.

 

I don't even put much stock in holding the log or container. I've logged finds where I never touched either one, and for some of those, I was the first person to spot it. But once everyone in the group spotted the cache, someone retrieved it and signed everyone's names. Or maybe they signed only an informal team name to save room on a small log sheet. Meanwhile, I was doing something else (e.g., logging trackables, entering a field note, and/or bringing up the next cache on my device).