Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
timjm25

If you dont have a pen

Recommended Posts

Why having a pen? Those people go playing tennis without a racket...

You can go to a golf course without clubs. But it's not wise to try scuba diving without air. :laughing:

 

or skydiving without a parachute.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I've lost pens along the way.

I've pulled a pen out to sign a log, only to find it's out of ink.

...

 

I found a pen while searching for a cache. I took it with me and when I got home I discovered that the pen *was* the geocache.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I've lost pens along the way.

I've pulled a pen out to sign a log, only to find it's out of ink.

...

 

I found a pen while searching for a cache. I took it with me and when I got home I discovered that the pen *was* the geocache.

+1

Twice. :yikes:

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/6/2016 at 6:16 PM, Zop said:

This depends entirely on the placer. Some will not mind at all, others will actually audit their logs and delete any that aren't physically verifiable.

 

As for mine, if you're geocaching and finding one of my caches, odds are good that you are already pretty well scraped up so just find a twig and sign in blood! That's what we usually do :lol:

That is why I love your caches!

 

b6014d8d-bba1-4dbf-b1de-1f61e7c9d827.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

A couple of weeks ago we found a cache out in the country and Mrs C always has the signing pen in her pocket (because I keep losing them). This time for some reason she had left it in the car which was about 200m away. The easy way would be to go back to the car and get it but, to get to the cache we had to walk through long dry grass, and it is summer here, and it is snake season. (Google Australian Eastern Brown Snake). So, not wanting to tempt fate I went through the swag in the cache to see what was among the accumulated junk. Aha! Someone had left a novelty telescopic pen - but it didn't work. The CO (presumably)  had placed a pencil in the log book baggie but it was broken but, there was a pencil sharpener but it was too rusty. Our legs weren't bleeding and there were no mozzies about today, just the usual swarm of bush flies trying to crawl into our ears and nostrils, therefore signing in blood was out of the question. Solution was to chew the wood away from the lead in the pencil. Gee, the wood was hard but I chewed it off little by little until enough lead was exposed to sign the log. Job done. Where there's a will.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/16/2016 at 10:41 AM, wmpastor said:

There's *always* a way to sign. A key and a leaf work very well. Be imaginative.

 

db9ec3ed-d804-4625-9a38-8b2ed69ce34e.jpg

I recently found a cache that was wet (I live in Seattle) and the lid had been screwed on too tightly. It was definitely the cache as the outside was labeled as such. Since I couldn't physically open the lid to sign the log, how should I properly "count" this find? I did message the CO who reported he changed out the cache soon after as he/she couldn't open it either. Am I really supposed to count that as a DNF since it was in hand, but I couldn't sign the log? I did take a photo of the cache in my hand. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/7/2017 at 1:29 PM, Gulliver_Snip said:

I recently found a cache that was wet (I live in Seattle) and the lid had been screwed on too tightly. It was definitely the cache as the outside was labeled as such. Since I couldn't physically open the lid to sign the log, how should I properly "count" this find? I did message the CO who reported he changed out the cache soon after as he/she couldn't open it either. Am I really supposed to count that as a DNF since it was in hand, but I couldn't sign the log? I did take a photo of the cache in my hand. Thanks!

I see the definition of signature includes "or other mark."  In the case above I might tape a leaf to the cache and take a photo.  Who will challenge that...Grinch?!

:D

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, wmpastor said:

I see the definition of signature includes "or other mark."  In the case above I might tape a leaf to the cache and take a photo.  Who will challenge that...Grinch?!

:D

 

"Finders" of my caches don't even have tape.  They "had no pen", and, allegedly "took a picture for proof" (and also failed to post the picture).

It's encouraging to know they had so little appreciation of my cache, they exerted no effort.  Yeah, that's just how good my cache is. B)

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/16/2016 at 7:40 AM, timjm25 said:

Dear Community,

 

If you dont happen to have a pen, which I do 90% of the time, is an emailed photo of the cache to the cache owner also an acceptable form of proof of finding it.

 

Thank you.

 

-Tim

Hi Tim.

You sure opened up a can of worms, huh?   :-)
Well don't let all the "you should know better" comments get under your skin. 

simply:  no sign, no log.   If you sign with mud or blood, then cool.  Log it.  But if you don't have a pen or like me lose it on the way?  Then you don't log.  Simple as that.

Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/2/2018 at 3:25 AM, VegasScotty said:

 

simply:  no sign, no log.   If you sign with mud or blood, then cool.  Log it.  But if you don't have a pen or like me lose it on the way?  Then you don't log.  Simple as that.

 

Sorry...it's really NOT that simple. I'd bet money that the "no sign, no log" crowd is the extreme minority...as in a fraction of a percent of the cache-owning community.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/2/2018 at 7:25 PM, VegasScotty said:

simply:  no sign, no log.   If you sign with mud or blood, then cool.  Log it.  But if you don't have a pen or like me lose it on the way?  Then you don't log.  Simple as that.

Going back to get a pen, or coming again another day, isn't always simple. Last year I hiked some 5km through hilly terrain with a 10kg telescopic ladder strapped to my backback, deployed and secured the ladder so I could safely reach the cache, only to find that, since the backpack I'd used to carry the ladder wasn't my usual caching one, it didn't have a pen in it. Luckily I found a twig that I was able to leave a reasonably legible mark in the log with, and photographed it in case it later faded, but that was one case where I wasn't coming back again for the sake of a forgotten pen.

LadderPack.jpg

Signature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

I'd bet money that the "no sign, no log" crowd is the extreme minority.

Does this mean, that the "I don't care" crowd is correct?

Quite honestly, I don't think that the guideline can be much easier to understand:

1.4. Log a geocache

Find a cache and sign the logbook

3.3. Additional logging requirements (ALR)

A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook. All other logging requirements are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional

MB

Edited by Mausebiber

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Does this mean, that the "I don't care" crowd is correct?

It doesn't matter. The hard-liners in here certainly like to make declarations that leave the CO's judgment out of the equation...but ultimately, it's up to the CO to decide if they're okay with it.  

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

but ultimately, it's up to the CO to decide if they're okay with it.  

This a a private agreement between the CO and the finder, not covered by the guidelines.  Maybe it's time that the guidelines reflect "common practice" and Groundspeak is changing those paragraphs.  

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook.

I'm sure we went through all this before, but it says "if they have signed the logbook", not "only if they have signed the logbook". Logically, there's a world of difference. Signing the log entitles you to claim the find, but if the CO accepts the extenuating circumstances that prevented you from doing so and allows you to claim it, that's fine too.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm sure we went through all this before, but it says "if they have signed the logbook", not "only if they have signed the logbook"

It says:

A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook. All other logging requirements are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional

All other logging requirements..  In other words we have other logging requirements besides A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook, but this makes it quite clear, that signing the logbook is a requirement.

Just read the above again and you will find out, that A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook is a requirement

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

but if the CO accepts the extenuating circumstances that prevented you from doing so and allows you to claim it, that's fine too.

Can you please point me to the section of the guidelines where this is covered.  I have not find one word that says that the CO may give log permission for whatever reason.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm sure we went through all this before, but it says "if they have signed the logbook", not "only if they have signed the logbook". Logically, there's a world of difference. Signing the log entitles you to claim the find, but if the CO accepts the extenuating circumstances that prevented you from doing so and allows you to claim it, that's fine too.

 

51 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

It says:

A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook. All other logging requirements are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional

All other logging requirements..  In other words we have other logging requirements besides A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook, but this makes it quite clear, that signing the logbook is a requirement.

Just read the above again and you will find out, that A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook is a requirement

 

Ummm...no.  What barefootjeff said is pretty clear.  YOUR interpretation is that they can log it found "ONLY IF" they sign the logbook, when in fact that's not at all what it says.  You even quoted it.  ALRs are not a factor in this discussion.  ALRs are stuff like photologs or codewords being input into a checker being a requirement by the CO to log a find.  The guidelines just make it a limitation on the CO, that the only thing they can require for a find to be logged is a signature in the log.  It's completely at the CO's discretion whether they allow a find to be logged without a signature.  Honestly...this is very simple and clear.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Mausebiber said:

Just read the above again and you will find out, that A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook is a requirement

No, it's not a requirement, it's a sufficient condition for logging a find. If it was a necessary condition, it'd say "only if". Google "necessary and sufficient conditions" if you don't understand.

A mother could tell her son "you can have your dinner if you first mow the lawn", but just as he pushes the lawnmower out, the heavens open with torrential rain and he can't cut the grass. That doesn't mean he has to starve, but it would if she'd said "only if you first mow the lawn."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

It's completely at the CO's discretion whether they allow a find to be logged without a signature.  Honestly...this is very simple and clear.

I'm asking the question again:

Can you please point me to the section of the guidelines where this is covered.  I have not find one word that says that the CO may give log permission for whatever reason.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

"you can have your dinner if you first mow the lawn"

If mom says "you get a candy bar if you have done your homework", I bet that a 6 year will understand what needs to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

If mom says "you get a candy bar if you have done your homework", I bet that a 6 year will understand what needs to be done.

You're missing the point. There could be other conditions under which the kid could get a candy bar, it isn't an exclusive condition, just as signing the logbook isn't an exclusive condition for claiming a find.

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

I'm asking the question again:

Can you please point me to the section of the guidelines where this is covered.  I have not find one word that says that the CO may give log permission for whatever reason.

You really don't understand what barefootjeff is explaining?

Your expectation seems to be that Groundspeak is actively policing 'found it' logs, when in actuality they are only providing the minimum condition that must be met for the CO to be able to judge whether a log is valid.  

Let's ask the opposite:  Can you show me where in the guidelines it says that the CO is required to delete a 'found' log if the sheet in the cache is not signed?

Share this post


Link to post

Oh man, this discussion has already been hashed out recently. *too lazy to go searching for the thread*

No, it's ridiculous the associated tasks that would be required if a find log could ONLY be posted online if the logbook was signed. Imagine requiring every CO to go and audit every logbook of every cache they owned to pair a signature with a log. And the rising disputes if someone claimed a group name and the CO didn't believe them. WAY too many conflict, even if it were feasible.

No, signing the logbook allows you to post your find online legitimately and permanently, disallowing a CO to delete it (else having HQ reinstate it). It is not a requirement FOR logging the find online.

Sign the sheet and post the log online -> Safe from CO deletion.

Don't sign the sheet and post the log online -> Log can be deleted by the CO.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Can you show me where in the guidelines it says that the CO is required to delete a 'found' log if the sheet in the cache is not signed?

Quite obviously, you don't understand that logging is part of the finder NOT the CO.  I never said anywhere that the CO is required to delete a log.

Now, that we are talking about the CO responsibility, how would you react if you read a log like "I have not found the cache but I'm logging anyway".

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Quite obviously, you don't understand that logging is part of the finder NOT the CO.  I never said anywhere that the CO is required to delete a log.

Now, that we are talking about the CO responsibility, how would you react if you read a log like "I have not found the cache but I'm logging anyway".

What does that even have to do with the question at hand?  We aren't talking about whether it was found or not.  We are talking about if a person finds the cache but, for one reason or another, cannot sign the log.  Maybe they forgot the pen.  Maybe they dropped it along the way.  Maybe it is out of ink.  All three of these have happened to me.  Assuming the person posting an online log says this in their log, it is completely up to the CO whether they want to be a stickler and delete the log or if they will let it slide (as the VAST majority of COs do).  End of story.  All the guidelines do is offer a minimum standard that the CO can use to justify deletion of a log.  

Not finding the log is an entirely separate matter, which also falls under the jurisdiction of the CO.  They can allow it to stand, but the cacher wouldn't have a proverbial leg to stand on if they chose to post that sort of log since it is a complete admission of neither finding the cache nor signing the log sheet.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Imagine requiring every CO to go and audit every logbook of every cache they owned to pair a signature with a log

Again, logging is the finder's part.  Why would a CO have to go out and audit the log? You as a finder are required to sign, if you don't sign and log online anyway, you are just not following the guidelines.  Yes yes, I know, you will never see it my way, therefore you are playing the game your way.  As long as you are happy with it, it's find with me also.

Greetings, MB

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Quite obviously, you don't understand that logging is part of the finder NOT the CO.

Then why do you keep quoting the Geocache hiding guidelines, which specify guidelines for cache owners, not for seekers/finders?

15 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Now, that we are talking about the CO responsibility, how would you react if you read a log like "I have not found the cache but I'm logging anyway".

I would delete a log that appears to be false or inappropriate.

That doesn't mean that all logs without a corresponding mark on the physical log are false or inappropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

 You as a finder are required to sign

 

The point is that no, you are not "required to sign".  I think it's been pretty thoroughly explained, so I'm not quite sure why you aren't understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

I think it's been pretty thoroughly explained, so I'm not quite sure why you aren't understanding.

Very easy, it's just not true.  You are making your own rules not covers by the guidelines, and I'm not quite sure why you aren't understanding.

But we will never see it the same way, and therefore I quit right now.  But anyway, I thank you for a quite interesting discussion and wish you happy caching

MB

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

You as a finder are required to sign, if you don't sign and log online anyway, you are just not following the guidelines.

And so the CO can decide whether to delete the log or not.  A signature is not required to log online. The intent is that every cacher find the cache and sign the log. That allows you to log it online. The intent is this: "A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook." The CO can judge if a find log where a signature is not in the logbook may stand - this may be for any number of reasons.

 

20 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Why would a CO have to go out and audit the log?

If a signature is required for an online log, then the CO is the one with the responsibility to make sure that the online logs match explicitly with existing logsheet signatures. That is the practical application of requiring.  If you agree that a signature is not required for the online log, and that finds can and do exist leigtimately by CO judgement, then you are not arguing that a geocacher is required to sign the logsheet to find it online.  Words mean things.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Words mean things.

Agree, so please read the words:

1.6. Geocaching etiquette

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

Sign both the logbook and log your find online to get your smiley

 

So we have a few rules we encourage everyone to followSign the logbook to get your smiley, for my quite clear.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.  I want to quit now, because we are not getting anywhere.

MB

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Oh man, this discussion has already been hashed out recently. *too lazy to go searching for the thread*

HERE it is. The same arguments in a thread about the same topic (no pen).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honestly, I think the argument that the lack of the word "only" in the guidelines is a lame argument. GS didn't include "only" in their event attendance guideline about physically attending, but they clearly intended that physical attendance is required. See HERE.  Making arguments that CO's can allow finds without a signature is one thing, but to say that the guidelines leave it open because "only" is not included seems like excessive nitpicking.

Share this post


Link to post

Excessive nitpicking indeed.  Arguing about hypotheticals until your fingers fall off, but here in the real world, people don't sign logs all the time, COs accept it, the world still turns and your arguments completely go out the window because none of it actually matters.

 

Seriously...what does talking about the guidelines in this scenario matter?  How does it matter...AT  ALL ...?  Are you worried about people forgetting their pens, finding a cache yet STILL (GASP!!!!) logging online?

Sorry to tell you all, it happens every...single...day.  Groundspeak is not swamped with calls and emails and COs shrug and move on.  This alone makes your entire argument virtually useless, an academic exercise that will forever be relegated to the forums.

Edited by J Grouchy

Share this post


Link to post

My policy as a finder is that if I don't have a pen (which happens from time to time), I take a picture of the cache. When I log the find, I mention that I didn't have a pen and have a picture of the cache in hand as proof. If the CO wants it, I'll send it to them. I also don't bother even opening nano caches. I just take a picture and replace the cache. To date, out of roughly 50 or so finds that this has happened on, I've not had one instance of a CO asking for that picture.

My guess is that a CO that would ask me for the picture is probably the one that would delete my find because I didn't sign the log. I'm just not that concerned with losing a find. There is no cache in the world that I consider so sacred that having my find deleted would make me upset. I only log caches I have found and whether geocaching.com reflects that find or not doesn't negate me the memory of finding it. 

If having my name on a piece of paper in your geocache is the only thing you'll accept as proof of my visit, then delete away.

My policy as a CO is: have fun! When you log your find, I trust that you've found the cache and (hopefully) enjoyed it. If the log seems suspicious, I'm not going to go tearing out to the cache and verify that you signed the log. Again, I'll just trust you're being honest. If you get a fake find over on me, well...good for you! Glad you enjoyed sitting at home in your underwear logging caches you didn't find.

If I ever start to think that geocaching is so important in my life that I have to get involved in that sort of drama, I just practice this simple exercise: I just ask myself if this is REALLY that important? If I answer yes, I add another REALLY to the question. For every yes, another REALLY. Eventually, you get to the point that no, nothing is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY that important. I tend to find that the original question "Is this REALLY that important?" gives me my answer about 99% of the time.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

Again, logging is the finder's part.  Why would a CO have to go out and audit the log? You as a finder are required to sign, if you don't sign and log online anyway, you are just not following the guidelines.  Yes yes, I know, you will never see it my way, therefore you are playing the game your way.  As long as you are happy with it, it's find with me also.

It can be easy to confuse the act of finding the cache with the act of logging the find on-line. You are focusing on the finder's side, hence are focusing on what the finder should do. That's fine, but you have to keep in mind that GS has absolutely nothing to do with that. Claim you found it, don't claim you found it, no one cares on little bit what you think about what you've accomplished.

What matters to GS is when you can announce on the website that you'e found the cache. That's what the guidelines cover. GS gives plenty of guidance and suggests a particular attitude that you're pointing to, but they can't make you do those things. All they can control concretely is the on-line log, and they do that by telling the CO what he can and can't, should and should't, do. So in practice, the guidelines controlling finds is all about the CO, not the finder. That's not because the finder isn't the main player in the find, it's because the CO's the only player involved that GS exerts any control over.

I hope that helps. Like most people posting in this thread, I take this for granted so it was hard for me to understand where you were coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Crow-T-Robot said:

My policy as a CO is: have fun! When you log your find, I trust that you've found the cache and (hopefully) enjoyed it. If the log seems suspicious, I'm not going to go tearing out to the cache and verify that you signed the log. Again, I'll just trust you're being honest. If you get a fake find over on me, well...good for you! Glad you enjoyed sitting at home in your underwear logging caches you didn't find.

I agree with your other sentiments, but for me there's another factor that plays in to whether I decide to let a log stand. If I'm convinced a cache wasn't found, I'm not going to shrug it off - to me that log could be inaccurate in that there could be a chance it needs maintenance or for some reason isn't findable.  So yeah that argument can apply to any find unless I audit the physical log. So I personally draw my line at suspicion that the cache wasn't found yet the log was posted. That so rarely happens that if/when it does, a log deletion isn't contested, and at least the previous log I allowed, to my mind, is trustworthy. If the next log that pops up is NM or a DNF, then the flag goes up that there could be a problem, and either revisit or keep a closer eye on it.

Accuracy of log history is a factor that influences my decision of whether logs should stand or not, because that log history does affect other cachers.

If you don't have a pen, and mention it in your find log, I may ask for a description of the hide (by text or photo, typically) just to be sure, and depending on the cache; that helps address stat hunters' fake logs and the listing's log accuracy.  If I'm convinced you found the cache, I'll let the log stand (since signatures aren't required to log a find online =P)

 

Another difficult situation however which I've run into before - cachers go to find a cache which takes time/effort.  They can't find the cache, and before logging explain to me their search, and I'm convinced they would or should have found it if it were there (so I disable until I can maintain it). They want to log the find, resting on my good will not to have to force them to go through all that effort again just physically sign the book once it's replaced. What would you do as a CO?

Some purists would put the foot down and still require the revisit and signature to log the find.  Others would say that's mean-spirited and extreme. I'm torn in the middle =P  I know that if part of the experience intended was in the cache itself, I'd request that they revisit. But if the experience of cache was the journey, not the container, then I might leave it up to them (they might not mind the journey again) but allow them to log it if they want since the signature now is more like a 'technicality', and denying the find might cause undue angst and strain some friendships.  Ideally, everyone would understand rules and intents and respect cachers' and owners' decisions. But it ain't an ideal world =/

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Another difficult situation however which I've run into before - cachers go to find a cache which takes time/effort.  They can't find the cache, and before logging explain to me their search, and I'm convinced they would or should have found it if it were there (so I disable until I can maintain it). They want to log the find, resting on my good will not to have to force them to go through all that effort again just physically sign the book once it's replaced. What would you do as a CO?

Assuming the cache shouldn't be a difficult find, I would encourage them to log it as found. I would feel reasonably sure they would have found the cache and the only thing that stopped that fact was that the cache wasn't there. Even though it happens, I would consider that my failure as a CO, not a failure of the finder to locate the cache. If it's a tough find, then I'd give them some hints on where or how to look the next time they go out.

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Oh man, this discussion has already been hashed out recently. *too lazy to go searching for the thread*

 

Recently?  This discussion has been going on for pretty much as long as I've been reading the forums (11 years).  That suggests to me that the language that GS has chosen to use in the guidelines is intentional and unlikely to change.   As J Grouchy suggests I would bet that those interpret the guideline as "you can only post a found it log if, and only if, you have signed the physical log" are a minority.   Considering how long this has been discussed, and the fact that GS has not changed the language to "you can only post a found it log if, and only if, you have signed the log sheet" suggests to me that, while not explicitly written, a cache owner has the option of allowing a found it log when the the physical log has not been signed.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Recently?  This discussion has been going on for pretty much as long as I've been reading the forums (11 years).

<_<I didn't say only recently. The recent thread I was referencing.

21 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

That suggests to me that the language that GS has chosen to use in the guidelines is intentional and unlikely to change.

Agreed. It's also clear, imo, and I think most of the disagree stems from cross understandings in use of language. I don't think anyone, in their right mind, actually believes that a log can ONLY be posted online (in that the CO must delete invalid finds) if the logsheet has been signed. I think it's more an interpretation that since that's the intent of finding the cache, then the ethic is not to log the find online if the logsheet isn't signed, and COs who don't delete such non-finds are merely breaking that guideline yet everyone shrugs it off. I think it's the application of the spirit of the guideline that's different in most disagreements about this.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Another difficult situation however which I've run into before - cachers go to find a cache which takes time/effort.  They can't find the cache, and before logging explain to me their search, and I'm convinced they would or should have found it if it were there (so I disable until I can maintain it). They want to log the find, resting on my good will not to have to force them to go through all that effort again just physically sign the book once it's replaced. What would you do as a CO?

I don't own a cache that takes much effort, but my attitude is normally that anyone that didn't find my cache would want to go back and look again in order to claim the find. The alternative is to think they only want to log the find because of the +1, so I wouldn't want them to be insulted. On the other hand, if they asked, I might grant permission.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Another difficult situation however which I've run into before - cachers go to find a cache which takes time/effort.  They can't find the cache, and before logging explain to me their search, and I'm convinced they would or should have found it if it were there (so I disable until I can maintain it). They want to log the find, resting on my good will not to have to force them to go through all that effort again just physically sign the book once it's replaced. What would you do as a CO?

If the cache was indeed missing, then sure, I'd be willing to let them log a find if that's what they want. If the cache was still there but they just couldn't find it, then no, although I'm happy to provide extra hints or spoiler photos of the hiding place if anyone asks. On occasions when I've logged a DNF and the CO has confirmed the cache is missing, they've offered to let me log a find but I've always declined, as I reckon a cache location that's worth visiting is worth visiting twice :).

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 8:55 PM, barefootjeff said:

If the cache was indeed missing, then sure, I'd be willing to let them log a find if that's what they want. If the cache was still there but they just couldn't find it, then no, although I'm happy to provide extra hints or spoiler photos of the hiding place if anyone asks. On occasions when I've logged a DNF and the CO has confirmed the cache is missing, they've offered to let me log a find but I've always declined, as I reckon a cache location that's worth visiting is worth visiting twice :).

Sorry I still don't get it. I'm basically with Jeff here.

"Missing containers" is a factor in the game. When I hunt for a cache, it's one of the things that I'm up against, along with well-hidden containers, weather, muggles, time limitations, sun in my eyes, incompetence (my own) and luck.

It would never occur to me to ask for a pass on finding a cache due to ANY of those factors.

Even if I hike two miles uphill and it turns out not to be there, I might be upset; mad, even, but I would never expect to be able to claim a find on it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Sorry I still don't get it. I'm basically with Jeff here.

"Missing containers" is a factor in the game. When I hunt for a cache, it's one of the things that I'm up against, along with well-hidden containers, weather, muggles, time limitations, sun in my eyes, incompetence (my own) and luck.

It would never occur to me to ask for a pass on finding a cache due to ANY of those factors.

Even if I hike two miles uphill and it turns out not to be there, I might be upset; mad, even, but I would never expect to be able to claim a find on it.

Yes, but the issue is that not everyone thinks like that (or vice versa). So, as a cache owner, how would you respond in that situation I described above?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Yes, but the issue is that not everyone thinks like that (or vice versa). So, as a cache owner, how would you respond in that situation I described above?

Exactly. I follow the robustness principle: "Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others."

As a cache seeker, I've been offered a pass from other cache owners, but I've never taken one.

As a cache owner, while I haven't offered a pass to anyone, I have accepted Find logs when someone found only the empty camouflage, or when the situation was otherwise short of the ideal "pen to paper" standard.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Yes, but the issue is that not everyone thinks like that (or vice versa). So, as a cache owner, how would you respond in that situation I described above?

Fair question. If someone asked me for permission to claim a cache of mine because they thought it was gone, I would ask them to wait until I checked.

Then, if it turned out to BE there, I'd say "No."

But, if it was indeed missing, I would tell them how I felt about this issue so they know this CO's preference, but, not being a schmuck wanting to p--- in someone's cornflakes I'd tell them I wouldn't delete their log.

That would be my attitude because I'm serious about the "play your own way within the guidelines" thing, even when I don't agree with the practice at hand, and I wouldn't do it myself. But,I'll give up a little to help someone have fun playing.

Of course, my hope would be that they would abide by my wishes. (Please notice I didn't say "respect"  my wishes; I wouldn't consider this that.) They did ask, after all.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, niraD said:

As a cache seeker, I've been offered a pass from other cache owners, but I've never taken one.

As a cache owner, while I haven't offered a pass to anyone, I have accepted Find logs when someone found only the empty camouflage, or when the situation was otherwise short of the ideal "pen to paper" standard.

It rather miffed me when a family of cachers would take walks to find my Geoart.  And never carry a pen with them!  Fifteen or twenty times?!?  But, oh well.  I would never do that.  (I did sign one in blood once...)  And, no, I do not log when the cache is missing, but the CO offers me a Find.  (He was impressed that I declined.)  I went back and found most of them after the cache was replaced.  

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 8:57 PM, Mockingbird559 said:

I always carry a pen, I always eat my vegetables. I got into caching to get more exercise.

It is the opposite for me. I Geocache when I am out for exercise. I don't go out for the purpose of Geocaching. Signing the cache would require something like a clipboard and reading glasses because the caches near me are so small. Sorry, but I am more likely to carry a pruner than a pen.

Thank you for making it clear that I should make an effort to sign the cache. I will try to do that from now on.

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×