Did I "Find It?"

[BFG99]

I'm looking for opinions on this one. Yesterday, after 7 or 8 miles entirely on foot, I came across the last cache for the day. Unexpectedly, it was 10-15 feett off the ground, in the branches of a large willow tree. The easiest way to access it was via the trunk of a second willow tree that had fallen over some time ago, with the top of the trunk in the crown (around 10-12 feet up) of the target tree.

 

I started to climb the dead tree's trunk, but in the process fell and nearly twisted my ankle. I'm also a big guy - 250 lbs and 6'5" - and wasn't sure the dead tree would support my weight. It certainly protested during the climb. I decided that, since I had spotted the cache, had gotten within 5 feet of it, had tried to reach it, and there was a decent chance of injury, I'd count it as "found". But the owner just deleted my status since I hadn't actually signed the log, as the rules do say "you can mark it found once you sign the log" - at least when there is one.

 

What say the community? Did I find it or not? I will abide by whatever is decided here.

 

I will mention that the owner is significantly more experienced than I, and had I not spotted it, tried to reach it and nearly injured myself in the process, I would agree it was "not found".

Edited April 17, 2016 by BFG99

[+ChileHead]

Did you sign it? If not, I'd say no. That is a basic rule of geocaching, that your name has to be in the logbook. I have spotted caches from the ground that are high up that I don't claim because my name isn't in the book. However, I have claimed finds on caches where a monkey friend retrieves the logbook and I sign in before the logbook is returned (which is lame I admit.)

[BFG99]

Nope, I didn't. But as mentioned, what do you do for caches that lack logs? A strict reading of the rules would say no one can ever mark those "found". And we're certainly not supposed to injure ourselves doing this!

 

Edit: the other cacher raised a very good point that I hadn't considered. We don't want to encourage other cachers to say "found it" just because they saw it from the ground. That's certainly not my intention, especially since I did make an honest effort, but it could go that way

 

Anyway, I'm not trying to make excuses here and will respect what others decide. Frankly, due to the greater experience of the other cacher I'm thinking he's probably right. I'm inquiring just because I could see this happening again, and need to know what to call it.

Edited April 17, 2016 by BFG99

[+Brooklyn51]

Mostly, it's at the CO's discretion how strictly to enforce the guidelines. The general rule is that the log has to be signed in order to claim a find. In cases where the log itself is missing or unsignable, I think that it is generally accepted that there was at least a good faith effort made there (getting to within 5 feet after a treacherous climb notwithstanding)

[+on4bam]

I started to climb the dead tree's trunk, but in the process fell and nearly twisted my ankle. I'm also a big guy - 250 lbs and 6'5" - and wasn't sure the dead tree would support my weight. It certainly protested during the climb. I decided that, since I had spotted the cache, had gotten within 5 feet of it, had tried to reach it, and there was a decent chance of injury, I'd count it as "found". But the owner just deleted my status since I hadn't actually signed the log, which he asserts is a requirement (at least when the cache has a log!)

 

What say the community? Did I find it or not? I will abide by whatever is decided here.

 

Is your name in the log? If not >> DNF

If you really want to log a found on this one, go back, take a tool and sign the log.

 

I will mention that the owner is significantly more experienced than I, and the rules do say "you can mark it found once you've signed the log". But that cannot be an absolute, as many caches do not have logs.

 

Where do you get the impression "many caches do not have logs"?

ALL caches (should) have logs except Earthcaches and virtuals.

 

The physical caches we've found that didn't seem to have a log at first glance all had logs in hidden compartments so they all had logs.

[+Wacka]

Could also as the cache owner if because of your size, the possibility of breaking the limb and your almost injured ankle if you could log it as a find.

 

There were about 100 caches along both sides of a 10 mile long creek near where I used to live and and I found all of them but didn't log 2. They were pre-forms about 10 feet up in trees. When I later saw the cache owner at an event and said I didn't log those even though I spotted them, he said to log them next time I went to the area. He didn't want anyone to get hurt for a cache. Never did get back to that area before I moved.

[BFG99]

Three of the 125 I've found so far lacked logs. I cannot say why but I checked for hidden compartments and they definitely were not there. I also notified the owners in each case.

 

Anyway, sounds like the consensus is that it'a up to the owner's discretion, and if the owner says it was a DNF, it was a DNF. Frankly I'd be inclined to agree even if I don't like it . And the owner just offered to meet me there and retrieve it so I could sign it. I appreciated the offer but declined as I didn't want to waste his time.

 

Thanks for weighing in.

Edited April 17, 2016 by BFG99

[+cerberus1]

Nope, I didn't. But as mentioned, what do you do for caches that lack logs? A strict reading of the rules would say no one can ever mark those "found". And we're certainly not supposed to injure ourselves doing this.

The few Virtuals and webcams left are grandfathered in.

Earthcaches require some task that needs to be done to claim it as "found".

 

If you didn't sign the log on a traditional-type cache, it's up to the CO whether you're gonna get that smiley.

Few rules in this hobby. One's to sign the log.

 

I was at one just a few days ago. 30' up a skinny pine.

Said in my only DNF log that day, that it was an easy climb, but wasn't gonna kill the tree for a smiley.

- Someone who might have thought it difficult enough to injure themself (though the D/T rating should be a clue...), could've written a write note, or a DNF as well.

Why can't you?

[BFG99]

Heh, I definitely wouldn't want to kill the tree that's still alive

 

Anyway, I appreciate the community decision on this one. I honestly could see good arguments both ways so just wasn't sure.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Sign log. Log on-line. Get smiley.

I was ten feet up a tree (and I'm afraid of heights.) I wasn't climbing any higher - didn't trust those branches. I had my hand on the bottom of the container, but I couldn't unscrew it. DNF. I didn't sign the log. I'm 6'1', 200#. On the other fin, there was a cache on top of a water tower. Someone noted that they were bring a ladder to get to the top. Los of people showed up for that one! We all climbed the ladder and signed the log.

A missing log is an owner maintenance issue. Add a log and sign it. (But not if it's an intermediary in a multi, or a dummy cache. I found a cache that had 27 film canisters inside - one with the log. Some cachers added a log to one of the dummy caches.)

[+SageTracey]

Heh, I definitely wouldn't want to kill the tree that's still alive

 

Anyway, I appreciate the community decision on this one. I honestly could see good arguments both ways so just wasn't sure.

 

Great attitude. Keep on learning and enjoying. There are plenty of caches out there and we don't have to get them all.

[+T.D.M.22]

How do you know if it's the cache if you didn't actually get it? It's like flying over Las Vegas and telling people you visited the city. Some caches are harder to get to, just the way it is.

 

And there is a difference between not singing the long because it's full, damaged, or missing and not signing the log because you didn't actually get to the log.

[+TriciaG]

I agree with the majority: it's not a find.

 

And I agree with SageTracey: you don't have to find them all. There's a scuba cache not far from me. I'm never going to find it. There are tree climbing (and mountain climbing!) caches I'm physically incapable of finding, and that's OK.

 

If you determine this one is out of your reach (pun intended), you can "ignore" the cache so it won't show up on your map and taunt you.

[BFG99]

To answer the question on how I knew it was the cache: it was right at the indicated coordinates and obviously was an artificial container hanging from a branch, so wasn't tough to see that had to be it

[+Michaelcycle]

To answer the question on how I knew it was the cache: it was right at the indicated coordinates and obviously was an artificial container hanging from a branch, so wasn't tough to see that had to be it

 

Less then three hours ago we were on our way to a paddle-to. Passed a climbing cache on the way so we decided to scope it out for a future attempt. S noted a camo'd tube attached to a limb about ten feet up. We pulled the limb down far enough to unscrew the cap and found a note that said "Keep trying" The real cache is way higher up.

 

Sometimes you just have to come back with better tools or give it up. A couple years ago we found a bison tube that we could not open with any amount of effort. I knew there was a big box home improvement store a couple of miles away so I stuck the tube in my pocket and we visited the store. I cruised to the tool aisle and surreptitiously used two vicegrips to open the cache. Signed and replaced. Ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

 

And what ya gotta do is sign the log!

[BFG99]

I could understand that being the case for a multi cache or high difficulty cache, but this was neither. Plus I've spoken with the owner on it.

 

Still, you raise a good point: at least on the trickier ones, till you open it up you don't know for sure.

[Luckless]

I found a cache that was at the top of a stack of logs. You had to climb up the stack and then reach way up a branch on the top log to get the cache. I didn't know if I wanted to climb the stack because if the logs in the stack decided to move I could maybe get a foot trapped under them or worse, but I decided that they looked stable enough. I climbed the logs and reached up to get the cache on top. I wasn't tall enough. Here I had put myself in danger and I couldn't even get the cache. No wait, I could reach the container if I stretched. I could just barely get a hold of the bottom of the container. If I pulled hard enough the bottom half of the container would come off in my hand and I'd have the log so I could sign it. But how in the world would I ever get it back where it was. I couldn't reach high enough to push the container back onto the container's top that was fastened to the branch. I would meet the requirements of signing the log, but it wouldn't be right. I left the container where it was. The owner was nice and said I could log a find, but I didn't do that because I hadn't signed the log. If I were to meet the requirements to get the container and sign the log I'd have to find someone tall to help me. I tried, it didn't work, on to the next cache.

[+barefootjeff]

There've been a few hides where I've been able to see the cache but, with my wonky sense of balance, was unwilling to risk the climb to get to them, so they were proudly logged as DNF. Having recently bought a telescopic ladder, I plan to go back during the cooler months and see if I can reach them that way.

 

Jeff

[Pup Patrol]

I'm looking for opinions on this one. Yesterday, after 7 or 8 miles entirely on foot, I came across the last cache for the day. Unexpectedly, it was 10-15 feett off the ground, in the branches of a large willow tree. The easiest way to access it was via the trunk of a second willow tree that had fallen over some time ago, with the top of the trunk in the crown (around 10-12 feet up) of the target tree.

 

I started to climb the dead tree's trunk, but in the process fell and nearly twisted my ankle. I'm also a big guy - 250 lbs and 6'5" - and wasn't sure the dead tree would support my weight. It certainly protested during the climb. I decided that, since I had spotted the cache, had gotten within 5 feet of it, had tried to reach it, and there was a decent chance of injury, I'd count it as "found". But the owner just deleted my status since I hadn't actually signed the log, as the rules do say "you can mark it found once you sign the log" - at least when there is one.

 

What say the community? Did I find it or not? I will abide by whatever is decided here.

 

I will mention that the owner is significantly more experienced than I, and had I not spotted it, tried to reach it and nearly injured myself in the process, I would agree it was "not found".

 

Is the cache meant to be in the tree? Is the difficulty rating at least a 3?

 

Did you read the cache description? Was the "unexpected" bit on your part because you didn't realize it was a "climb a tree" cache?

 

I wouldn't let your online log stand either, if I fully expected you to climb to get the cache and sign the log.

 

I could claim thousands of caches as "found" because I was near them or drove past them, etc, etc.

 

Always read the description before setting out, so you can be properly prepared to do whatever it takes and you are capable of doing. Pay attention to the D/T ratings, too.

 

B.

[BFG99]

Being near them or driving past them is a pretty far cry from spotting them, attempting to reach them and injuring yourself (or nearly so) when reaching for them. I don't count caches just for being near them either, and I don't cheat - myself or anyone else. What would be the point? Plus I abhor dishonesty.

 

It's clear from the responses that different people do different things in this situation. Ultimately it makes sense that it's up to the owner's jurisprudence.

 

The difficulty was 2.5 and the terrain 3.5. Yes, that should have been a clue. And the cache's name includes a reference to a tree. That should have been a clue. But right before that one I'd found a 4 star difficulty that was at eye level, so it's at least somewhat subjective even if it's not supposed to be. And the description didn't indicate to me it would be 15 feet up.

 

And yes, I do always read the descriptions first, though the fact my GPS isn't Internet enabled and has little room for notes means I don't remember every detail on the dozen or so I search for on each excursion. Guess I'll need to start carrying a notepad for this and when the log is missing.

 

Anyway, I changed the log to a DNF as that seemed the consensus here.

Edited April 18, 2016 by BFG99

[+noncentric]

I agree with most of the other posts. Not being able to reach the cache equates to a DNF. Having a cache and its log in-hand, but not being able to sign it due to issues with the cache/log can be a Find. In the latter case, I'd take a photo and offer to send it to the CO when I submit my online log. I would not attach the photo to my online log, since it would be a 'spoiler'.

 

Being near them or driving past them is a pretty far cry from spotting them, attempting to reach them and injuring yourself (or nearly so) when reaching for them.

Would your opinion of how to log the cache be different if you spotted it and wasn't able to reach it, and you didn't sustain any injuries?

[BFG99]

Being near them or driving past them is a pretty far cry from spotting them, attempting to reach them and injuring yourself (or nearly so) when reaching for them.

Would your opinion of how to log the cache be different if you spotted it and wasn't able to reach it, and you didn't sustain any injuries?

 

Yes, that's a clear DNF to me. No effort was made to get it and the person attempting wasn't adequately equipped. It only gets muddled for me when there's a safety issue involved, no clear indication additional equipment or preparation would be needed, and a serious attempt was made after visually locating it.

Edited April 18, 2016 by BFG99

[+noncentric]

Being near them or driving past them is a pretty far cry from spotting them, attempting to reach them and injuring yourself (or nearly so) when reaching for them.

Would your opinion of how to log the cache be different if you spotted it and wasn't able to reach it, and you didn't sustain any injuries?

 

Yes, that's a clear DNF to me. No effort was made to get it and the person attempting wasn't adequately equipped. It only gets muddled for me when there's a safety issue involved, no clear indication additional equipment or preparation would be needed, and a serious attempt was made after visually locating it.

With all due respect, what may be a safety issue to some may not be a problem for others. I found a cache that required crossing a tree trunk that was horizontal and at least 15 feet above the ground. I could see the cache from the ground, but had to think about whether or not to 'find it'. Some cachers would be perfectly comfortable walking along the tree trunk, some might need to lay down onto the tree trunk and move very slowly, while others might make it a couple feet along the tree trunk before turning around and abandoning the attempt. This last group didn't reach the cache and therefore shouldn't, based on the guideline of 'sign the log', submit a 'Found It' log online.

 

My point being, not all cachers have the same abilities and so each cacher needs to judge for themselves whether to assume the risk involved in attempting a cache. If a cache seems too dangerous or risky, then a cacher can simply skip it and not log a find. The level of risk doesn't change the guideline of 'sign the log'.

[BFG99]

It's true that safety is subjective and based on a person's abilities, but in this particular case, when a near-miss injury occurred in the attempt, I think it's reasonable to ask the question.

 

Anyway I don't think we need to continue the discussion as I'm already convinced, as mentioned above, that it's up to the owner to make the call here. He decided it was a DNF and I changed the log accordingly, after confirming with this discussion. Furthermore I'll know when this occurs in the future it's also a DNF unless the owner says otherwise.

 

I will note though that some owners would have told me to log it as a find as is clear from the responses above. So it's clear there's at least some subjectivity here. It's certainly been a good and eye opening discussion!

[+Manville Possum]

Yes, if you did not sign the log you should not log it as found.

[+niraD]

More than once I have observed an elevated cache, but not logged a Find until later, when I returned with the appropriate equipment to retrieve, sign, and replace it. More than once I have physically touched a cache container, yet have been unable to access the log for some reason, and thus have not logged a Find until later, when I returned and was able to access the log.

[+dprovan]

It's true that safety is subjective and based on a person's abilities, but in this particular case, when a near-miss injury occurred in the attempt, I think it's reasonable to ask the question.

Safety can be relative, of course, but when you can't get to the cache, you haven't found it. It makes no difference whatsoever that you were stopped by a safety issue.

 

Anyway I don't think we need to continue the discussion as I'm already convinced, as mentioned above, that it's up to the owner to make the call here. He decided it was a DNF and I changed the log accordingly, after confirming with this discussion. Furthermore I'll know when this occurs in the future it's also a DNF unless the owner says otherwise.

 

I will note though that some owners would have told me to log it as a find as is clear from the responses above. So it's clear there's at least some subjectivity here. It's certainly been a good and eye opening discussion!

It's true that the CO can give you lots of leeway if he wants. But the fact that he won't delete your find, and even encouraged you to log it, does not make it a real find, so it's still up to you to decide to ask for lenience and take advantage of it if granted. I never do. I go geocaching for the fun of it. What happens happens, and I log what happened. The experience was no different just because I can't log the find, the DNF log is no less interesting that a Found log, and the Found log is no less a lie because the CO is complicit. If you stretch it to a find, you're only doing it because the number is more important to you than the actual events.

[+J Grouchy]

Hey...at least you came clean. Many folks would have just conveniently left out the part of the story about not signing the log and the CO never would have known differently unless he or she checked the log (which, honestly, is pretty rare). Not that it's appropriate to do it that way...but it'd be a lie if I said it wasn't common.

[+DerDiedler]

I´ts too simple: If you didn´t found it, you didn´t found it.

 

And in My oppinion it have to be a DNF in any Case you don´t sign the Log.

According to the rules it´s not a owners decission to make, since the rule is as easy as mentioned before. No "real-world-log" = no virtual log!

Even the examption of logfotos postet in substitution since you´ve lost yout Pen, showing the Logsheet in your hands, would according to the rules not be a found.... and not unless the owner says otherwise

Edited April 18, 2016 by DerDiedler

[+bflentje]

I'm looking for opinions on this one. Yesterday, after 7 or 8 miles entirely on foot, I came across the last cache for the day. Unexpectedly, it was 10-15 feett off the ground, in the branches of a large willow tree. The easiest way to access it was via the trunk of a second willow tree that had fallen over some time ago, with the top of the trunk in the crown (around 10-12 feet up) of the target tree.

 

I started to climb the dead tree's trunk, but in the process fell and nearly twisted my ankle. I'm also a big guy - 250 lbs and 6'5" - and wasn't sure the dead tree would support my weight. It certainly protested during the climb. I decided that, since I had spotted the cache, had gotten within 5 feet of it, had tried to reach it, and there was a decent chance of injury, I'd count it as "found". But the owner just deleted my status since I hadn't actually signed the log, as the rules do say "you can mark it found once you sign the log" - at least when there is one.

 

What say the community? Did I find it or not? I will abide by whatever is decided here.

 

I will mention that the owner is significantly more experienced than I, and had I not spotted it, tried to reach it and nearly injured myself in the process, I would agree it was "not found".

 

Didn't sign the log? Then not a find. Sorry, not all caches are for all people. Using a mask, I can see that cache 40' under water. But since I don't qualify for scuba and don't have the gear, I'll never reach it. I can see it... but not a find.

[+bflentje]

Nope, I didn't. But as mentioned, what do you do for caches that lack logs? A strict reading of the rules would say no one can ever mark those "found". And we're certainly not supposed to injure ourselves doing this!

 

If you have to go to this degree to try and justify it then you already know your answer. Sorry.

[+bflentje]

Anyway, sounds like the consensus is that it'a up to the owner's discretion,

 

Actually, the guidelines state your name must be on the paper log. It's the owner's discretion to allow you to violate that guideline.

 

Why would you want credit for something you didn't get your hands on? I guess I should set the terrain and difficulty rating on my caches to all be 1/1. :blink:

[BFG99]

It's interesting how many different opinions there are on this. The majority clearly call it a DNF and I do too after discussing here and with the owner. But the fact a minority of owners would call it a find justifies having the discussion to start with.

 

Glad I asked as I have no intention of ever cheating or lying on this (what would be the point?)

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Anyway, sounds like the consensus is that it'a up to the owner's discretion,

 

Actually, the guidelines state your name must be on the paper log. It's the owner's discretion to allow you to violate that guideline.

 

Why would you want credit for something you didn't get your hands on? I guess I should set the terrain and difficulty rating on my caches to all be 1/1. :blink:

 

On the other hand, because the guideline just states that your name must be on the log (and not how it got there) this guideline is frequently used to post an online log when one did not actually "find" the cache if one interprets "finding" such that putting your hands on the cache is not required.

 

You can get your name on a log sheet by watching someone else climb a tree where the cache is hidden and signs your name on the log sheet.

 

You can get your name on a log by sitting in a car while someone else retrieves the cache and signs your name on the log sheet.

 

You can get your name on the log by riding in another car, while someone else in another car that is "on the same team" stamps the team name on a cache.

 

You can get your name on the log when playing "three cache monte" (swapping the container with another container with a pre-signed log).

 

People of come up with various methods of "finding" a cache by taking advantage of guideline which merely states that "if the physical log sheet is signed, you may post an Found It log online" without ever putting your hands on the cache. Meanwhile, the geocacher that climbs a tree, can't quite reach the container, or discovers that their pen is out of ink, or that the logs sheet is a pulpy mess isn't supposed to post a Found It because "you name isn't on the log".

 

 

 

[+dprovan]

It's interesting how many different opinions there are on this. The majority clearly call it a DNF and I do too after discussing here and with the owner. But the fact a minority of owners would call it a find justifies having the discussion to start with.

I didn't notice many people here saying it's a find, actually. And it's nice that many owners are willing to give us breaks, but I don't consider that relevant to the question of whether it's a find if you didn't sign the log.

 

Glad I asked as I have no intention of ever cheating or lying on this (what would be the point?)

I suppose people consider themselves cheating and lying in these cases, but I don't really care about their ethical decision: I only argue against it because it makes the record inaccurate for no purpose.

[TahoeJoe]

I would do what feels right to you. I certainly wouldn’t try to retrieve a cache where I might injure myself. I don’t understand why someone would place a cache high in a tree to begin with. It’s only a game and logging it isn’t going to hurt anybody. I’ve logged a few caches on the spur of the moment while out on my bike or hiking where upon opening the cache, there is no pencil inside. In the end, it’s up to the CO whether it’s a find or not. Personally under the circumstances you described, I wouldn’t have a problem logging it. It certainly seems way more more ethical than the way many numbers cachers log power trail caches.

Edited April 18, 2016 by TahoeJoe

[+fuzziebear3]

For me, I write a note and tell of my adventure. I like the stories and the adventures. I saw the cache, but I didn't 'find' it. And yet, I also didn't 'not find it'. So I make a note.

[+Telfer Treasures]

I don't have many logs, and I don't think that I am any benchmark of how it should be done, but this is what I do:

 

When I get to GZ and find a cache which has obviously been destroyed, because the pages of the logbook are lying around, I take a photo, post it as found (and NM), because I could actually sign the logbook (which may or may not be in the original location, but well, I could sign it).

 

When I get to GZ and find the cache, and the logbook is totally wet, like a piece of pulp in a tube, I take a photo of the destroyed logbook, place a sheet of paper with my log there, and post it as found (the cache is obviously in place, and I could log it - I just had to place a piece of paper there).

 

When I get to GZ and find the cache, and I cannot reach it (for whatever reason), I log it as "leave a note" (I did use DNF once, because I did not realize just leaving a note was possible), because I did find the cache, but could not sign it, which means it is not a "found it".

 

When I get to GZ and find parts of an obviously destroyed cache, but not the logbook - well I had this only once. I only found the cap of the can, with the GC number, which was obviously muggled. I posted NM, but not anything else. As this cache is quite close to my home, I'll wait for the owner to replace it, and then I'll be back to sign the log. But honestly, depending on the circumstances I might have signed it as "found it". Not if the cache was a T5 where it is obvious you should have to climb a tree for it, but in the case of a D2 with T3 or T4 (because of a long, alpine hike, for example), I would definitely contact the owner and ask him for the permission to log a "found".

[+msrubble]

Did Not Find.

 

Sign the log, get a smiley. There's not an exception for Saw It, Got Within Five Feet of It, Had a Scare, and Narrowly Escaped Injury.

 

Great story, but not a find. Or, the other way around, not a find, but a great story. You can regale other geocachers you meet with the dramatic story of your adventures trying to get this cache.

[+Michaelcycle]

Anyway, sounds like the consensus is that it'a up to the owner's discretion,

 

Actually, the guidelines state your name must be on the paper log. It's the owner's discretion to allow you to violate that guideline.

 

Why would you want credit for something you didn't get your hands on? I guess I should set the terrain and difficulty rating on my caches to all be 1/1. :blink:

 

On the other hand, because the guideline just states that your name must be on the log (and not how it got there) this guideline is frequently used to post an online log when one did not actually "find" the cache if one interprets "finding" such that putting your hands on the cache is not required.

 

You can get your name on a log sheet by watching someone else climb a tree where the cache is hidden and signs your name on the log sheet.

 

You can get your name on a log by sitting in a car while someone else retrieves the cache and signs your name on the log sheet.

 

You can get your name on the log by riding in another car, while someone else in another car that is "on the same team" stamps the team name on a cache.

 

You can get your name on the log when playing "three cache monte" (swapping the container with another container with a pre-signed log).

 

People of come up with various methods of "finding" a cache by taking advantage of guideline which merely states that "if the physical log sheet is signed, you may post an Found It log online" without ever putting your hands on the cache. Meanwhile, the geocacher that climbs a tree, can't quite reach the container, or discovers that their pen is out of ink, or that the logs sheet is a pulpy mess isn't supposed to post a Found It because "you name isn't on the log".

 

I do not see how you can equate the first two (failure of geocacher) with the last one (failure of cache) If I put some black marks on that pulpy mess with a Sharpie I call it a find (and so does Groundspeak)

[+bflentje]

Anyway, sounds like the consensus is that it'a up to the owner's discretion,

 

Actually, the guidelines state your name must be on the paper log. It's the owner's discretion to allow you to violate that guideline.

 

Why would you want credit for something you didn't get your hands on? I guess I should set the terrain and difficulty rating on my caches to all be 1/1. :blink:

 

On the other hand, because the guideline just states that your name must be on the log (and not how it got there) this guideline is frequently used to post an online log when one did not actually "find" the cache if one interprets "finding" such that putting your hands on the cache is not required.

 

You can get your name on a log sheet by watching someone else climb a tree where the cache is hidden and signs your name on the log sheet.

 

You can get your name on a log by sitting in a car while someone else retrieves the cache and signs your name on the log sheet.

 

You can get your name on the log by riding in another car, while someone else in another car that is "on the same team" stamps the team name on a cache.

 

You can get your name on the log when playing "three cache monte" (swapping the container with another container with a pre-signed log).

 

People of come up with various methods of "finding" a cache by taking advantage of guideline which merely states that "if the physical log sheet is signed, you may post an Found It log online" without ever putting your hands on the cache. Meanwhile, the geocacher that climbs a tree, can't quite reach the container, or discovers that their pen is out of ink, or that the logs sheet is a pulpy mess isn't supposed to post a Found It because "you name isn't on the log".

 

All true enough. But the name on the log is the minimum requirement for me.

[+Dame Deco]

In my opinion, since you ask, it's not a find. DNF

[+Shop99er]

No signature in the log = no find.

 

Pretty straightforward.

 

The only exception is if the Cache Owner says you can claim it. Then, it will depend on your personal ethics.

[+emmakiwi]

This reminds me of a similar situation I had once. I found a cache 2km down the road from me. It was a nano-cache (literally the size of my little fingernail) and after I finally got the log out (it was about 5mm thick) there was barely any room on the log AND my pen died. So, being 5pm - I left it with the aim of bringing a new pen the following day at 7am when I'd drive past to drop my mum at work. I logged a find (along with six or so others) so I wouldn't forget - but got an email from the CO accusing me of cheating. She must have checked it within...2 hours of me logging. After I explained to her the location of the cache and promised to log it the following day, she allowed me to keep the smiley, but this really stumped me. We don't win anything by doing this. There is nothing financial involved in this. For myself - not a serious cacher - it's something my mum and I do for a bit of fun. I've used this particular story many times - people who are leisure cachers or muggles think the CO of that one was a grumpy nutcase.

 

I never intend to cheat on these caches and have never logged a find when I haven't actually held the cache and extracted the log - it would not be any fun if we cheated though - because half the fun is actually finding the box and opening it. It's like christmas 365 days a year (or however many days you like to go searching). BUT...i am not sure how important it is to be strict about it. Maybe I am mistaken - maybe some people take this really really seriously?

[+J Grouchy]

No signature in the log = no find.

 

Pretty straightforward.

 

The only exception is if the Cache Owner says you can claim it. Then, it will depend on your personal ethics.

 

This reminds me of a similar situation I had once. I found a cache 2km down the road from me. It was a nano-cache (literally the size of my little fingernail) and after I finally got the log out (it was about 5mm thick) there was barely any room on the log AND my pen died. So, being 5pm - I left it with the aim of bringing a new pen the following day at 7am when I'd drive past to drop my mum at work. I logged a find (along with six or so others) so I wouldn't forget - but got an email from the CO accusing me of cheating. She must have checked it within...2 hours of me logging. After I explained to her the location of the cache and promised to log it the following day, she allowed me to keep the smiley, but this really stumped me. We don't win anything by doing this. There is nothing financial involved in this. For myself - not a serious cacher - it's something my mum and I do for a bit of fun. I've used this particular story many times - people who are leisure cachers or muggles think the CO of that one was a grumpy nutcase.

 

I never intend to cheat on these caches and have never logged a find when I haven't actually held the cache and extracted the log - it would not be any fun if we cheated though - because half the fun is actually finding the box and opening it. It's like christmas 365 days a year (or however many days you like to go searching). BUT...i am not sure how important it is to be strict about it. Maybe I am mistaken - maybe some people take this really really seriously?

 

Yes, some people do.

 

In the future, might as well not say anything about not signing the paper in your online log. Just asking for trouble from those people who really DO make an issue out of it.

 

Honestly, the only times it makes a difference to me is if it's a tricky puzzle or multi (or a very difficult hide). Even then, as long as they could say how it was hidden or how they solved the puzzle (etc.), I don't care if they signed the paper as long as they found the cache.

[+narcissa]

This reminds me of a similar situation I had once. I found a cache 2km down the road from me. It was a nano-cache (literally the size of my little fingernail) and after I finally got the log out (it was about 5mm thick) there was barely any room on the log AND my pen died. So, being 5pm - I left it with the aim of bringing a new pen the following day at 7am when I'd drive past to drop my mum at work. I logged a find (along with six or so others) so I wouldn't forget - but got an email from the CO accusing me of cheating. She must have checked it within...2 hours of me logging. After I explained to her the location of the cache and promised to log it the following day, she allowed me to keep the smiley, but this really stumped me. We don't win anything by doing this. There is nothing financial involved in this. For myself - not a serious cacher - it's something my mum and I do for a bit of fun. I've used this particular story many times - people who are leisure cachers or muggles think the CO of that one was a grumpy nutcase.

 

I never intend to cheat on these caches and have never logged a find when I haven't actually held the cache and extracted the log - it would not be any fun if we cheated though - because half the fun is actually finding the box and opening it. It's like christmas 365 days a year (or however many days you like to go searching). BUT...i am not sure how important it is to be strict about it. Maybe I am mistaken - maybe some people take this really really seriously?

 

Cache owners do have some responsibility to maintain the integrity of their cache listing but they also have some discretion to allow finds to stand within reason.

 

You may have crossed paths with a cache owner who has had problems with fake logs. While you certainly deserved the benefit of the doubt, it was probably just an unlucky circumstance that this cropped up with a cache owner who is sensitive for some reason.

 

Just as an example, I have an Earthcache that only gets a few visits a year. It isn't difficult, and I didn't have any trouble with it... until it was suddenly very close to one those straight lines of micro caches where people just throw a film can at the GZ while they ride by on their bicycle. My Earthcache was suddenly inundated with logs talking about the logbook and thanks for the power trail etc. With that cache, I'm now a bit more suspicious about logs that aren't immediately accompanied by an email. It's just the situation.

[+dprovan]

In the future, might as well not say anything about not signing the paper in your online log. Just asking for trouble from those people who really DO make an issue out of it.

It's even easier not to log a find until you come back with a working pen.

[+J Grouchy]

In the future, might as well not say anything about not signing the paper in your online log. Just asking for trouble from those people who really DO make an issue out of it.

It's even easier not to log a find until you come back with a working pen.

 

Funny how you make a comment in one thread about how nice cachers usually are...then make snide comments like that in here.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

In the future, might as well not say anything about not signing the paper in your online log. Just asking for trouble from those people who really DO make an issue out of it.

It's even easier not to log a find until you come back with a working pen.

 

Not if the cache is half way around the world.

 

 

[+narcissa]

In the future, might as well not say anything about not signing the paper in your online log. Just asking for trouble from those people who really DO make an issue out of it.

It's even easier not to log a find until you come back with a working pen.

 

Pro tip: Scratch your name into the logbook with a stick, or mix some blood with dirt for a great DIY paint that you can use to smear your name into the logbook. The cache owner will appreciate it!