If you dont have a pen

[+thebruce0]

7 hours ago, Sam Hobbs said:

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.

Well just keep in mind that without signing there isn't really tangible evidence you found the cache; but more importantly without a signature, a CO can delete your find log. In most cases they won't, but some are stringent about ensuring cachers follow the logging requirements to deter 'cheating' (and it's entirely within their rights and responsibilities as a CO). That's about the only risk though with finding but not signing - possible find log deletion.

If you don't log those online anyway, then no worries

[+Nytshaed]

I only take pictures of cache logs when they are too wet, or destroyed by poor containers to sign. I have also sent the CO a picture of their cache with the log missing, and I had no spares to insert. This happened just yesterday.  I have also used blood to sign a cache. Just a thumbprint thanks to an injury incurred while finding said cache.  Liquid eyeliner works too.

[+Korichnovui]

On 2/2/2017 at 9:30 AM, BogWalker said:

 

It seems to me a selfie with you holding the log is a whole lot more proof than some squiggles in charcoal or leaf juice or even pencil on a wet log. A selfie would also eliminate the possibility of people signing in for others too.

 

Since there is no monetary reward or great recognition for finding a geocache, geocaching has always been largely on the honor system. I don't see any reason to get bent out of shape on this. Especially since, as noted, most cache owners don't compare the log to the find claims and even more unlikely to remove somebody's entry because of it. Personally I'd be more interested in an interesting and humorous entry about how you found it but were unable to sign it than a boring one-line "TFTC" entry by somebody who actually did sign it. Geocaching is more about the stories than about the rules.

 

On the flip side, I've seen logs that have been signed by people that didn't get around to claiming their find online. I'm pretty sure I've done that too. Gone out geocaching with relatives while on a trip, no internet service at the campsite (my brother in particular comes prepared with a list of potential targets). Forget about it by the time I get home, or forget the cache names and don't want to search around to figure out which one it was.

I agree with this sentiment - with a couple of exceptions.

I’m planning on a complex puzzle cache and I would be irked if someone tried to claim it without actually physically solving it. For run-of-the-mill caches I’d agree it’s no big deal but some caches clearly had a lot of extra love, blood, sweat, and tears put into them, and “cheating” would feel more insulting (to me anyway).

Similarly, I’ve seen people get kinda worked up about certain spots. Just check out this cache (and the log activity):

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC60BX6

It appears to be the northernmost cache in the world and no one has claimed it yet. Except when someone did log it online. But it appears that they were cheating. Unless they really are a world traveler and got on the internet at a later time to log their finds. I guess the only way to know is to check the log....

[+arisoft]

On 12.2.2018 at 1:12 AM, TeamRabbitRun said:

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.

Usually I ask a picture from the ground zero to verify the existence of the cache so I can disable it immediatelly if it is really missing. In that case the cache is really missing, I have offered to write the name of the "finder" in the new logbook so everything goes by the guidelines.

[monkohunter]

I can't imagine someone being angry you didn't sign the log because you didn't have a pen but you took a picture as proof. Some logs are so wet even trying to write on them isn't possible.

[+arisoft]

5 hours ago, monkohunter said:

I can't imagine someone being angry you didn't sign the log because you didn't have a pen but you took a picture as proof. Some logs are so wet even trying to write on them isn't possible.

Picture is not always a proper proof that the nickname who posted the picture has ever been there. At least you should write your name to a piece of paper and include this proof in the same picture but even this is too easy to fake.

[monkohunter]

20 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Picture is not always a proper proof that the nickname who posted the picture has ever been there. At least you should write your name to a piece of paper and include this proof in the same picture but even this is too easy to fake

If someone feels you faked it even with a photo I don't think there is much they can do. If someone actually went there and found it I doubt anyone will complain that they didn't sign the log sheet. Maybe I'll give it a try just to see if anyone cares if I don't sign the log sheet.

[+arisoft]

30 minutes ago, monkohunter said:

If someone feels you faked it even with a photo I don't think there is much they can do. If someone actually went there and found it I doubt anyone will complain that they didn't sign the log sheet. Maybe I'll give it a try just to see if anyone cares if I don't sign the log sheet.

If you do not sign the logbook there is possibility that your find will be deleted with a good reason. I know that some COs will care - for example I do.

[monkohunter]

Deleting it would be kind of rude. I guess I don't have to worry about your Finland caches. People where I live are helpful and respectful. So there's no need to worry about it for me. I'd probably just relog it if I had such an issue.

[+K13]

The "rules of the game" are simple: Find it, SIGN it & log it online. The guidelines state that a cache owner may delete your online log if there is no signature in the physical logbook. 

There is nothing rude about a cache owner following the guidelines.

[+arisoft]

3 hours ago, monkohunter said:

Deleting it would be kind of rude.

Not at all. Playing against the only logging rule we have is rude. The goal in this game is getting your nickname in the log. If you miss the only goal in this game what is your achievement?

Edited May 4, 2018 by arisoft

[+NYPaddleCacher]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

Not at all. Playing against the only logging rule we have is rude. The goal in this game is getting your nickname in the log. If you miss the only goal in this game what is your achievement?

When I've hidden caches my goal wasn't to see how many names I can collect in a log book.  it's to provide a geocache that others will enjoy finding.   The "rule" does not say that a cache owner can not allow someone to log a find if they haven't signed the log.  It says that a CO may delete a log for someone that hasn't signed the log.  Not the same thing.  

Whether a CO allows someone to log a find with just a photo posted is entirely up to the CO and I'm not going to dictate to other cache owners how they should manage their caches.  From the response so far in this thread it sounds like nearly everyone would be lenient regarding the guidelines.  To me, that's far better for the game than a strict no sign, no found it log, no exceptions policy.  

On the other hand, when geocachers habitually play loose and free with the guideline and expect that a CO *should* allow a found it log when they haven't actually found the container that doesn't help the game either.  

[+arisoft]

16 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

When I've hidden caches my goal wasn't to see how many names I can collect in a log book. 

Neither do I as a cache owner. But when you switch to the finder mode, your only goal is to get your nickname into the logbook. As a cache owner I would like to add many ALR:s but as you know - not allowed. For example some CO would allow logs only if you personally can reach and sign the cache etc. endless variations. Your possibilities as a cache owner are limited only to checking that the log is signed. It is up to you will you ever check the logbook. Guideline: "To keep the online cache page up-to-date, the cache owner must Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate." No signature at all may sometimes appear false or inappropriate.

Edited May 4, 2018 by arisoft

[+thebruce0]

16 minutes ago, arisoft said:

"To keep the online cache page up-to-date, the cache owner must Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate."

Right, and if the CO judges that the log which is posted, having no associated physical signature, is not false or inappropriate, then the CO can let the log stand.  It's not a legalistic concept, it's about ensuring the log history implies an accurate geocache state for anyone who may wish to go find it. No signature in the logbook only means that find can't be verified, so the CO is justified in deleting the online log if they're not convinced it's actually been found. That's all it's there for.  As a finder, the spirit of the game is to find the cache and sign the logsheet, supported by the rule a CO can enforce (so if you want to ensure your online logs remain, you'd better!).

[monkohunter]

Like I stated before, the people CO's around where I am are easy-going so I don't need to worry about any of that.

[Jpn8]

I've signed a log for someone who wasn't even with me cause they asked me to. So a signature isn't really any more solid that a photo. I usually take a picture of the cache in it's hidden spot. Can't really dispute that as proof.

35 minutes ago, monkohunter said:

Like I stated before, the people CO's around where I am are easy-going so I don't need to worry about any of that.

 

[+TriciaG]

51 minutes ago, Jpn8 said:

I've signed a log for someone who wasn't even with me cause they asked me to.

 

I wouldn't admit to that in public.

[Jpn8]

7 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

I wouldn't admit to that in public.

The owner already knows. I told them I was going to do it and the reason why. They said they understand and had no problem with it. The point is just having a name on the log isn't always 100% proof. Hard to fake an original photo especially if the cache is in the picture.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

17 hours ago, arisoft said:

Neither do I as a cache owner. But when you switch to the finder mode, your only goal is to get your nickname into the logbook

 

That's not my only goal.  My only goal is to enjoy the experience, which I can do even if, for whatever reason I don't sign a piece of paper.  

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 My only goal is to enjoy the experience, which I can do even if, for whatever reason I don't sign a piece of paper.  

Yep, me too.  Hiking years before this hobby, headed to many areas long before some even became the park that brought a CO to it.  

That cache often reminding me of an awesome view or unique area maybe long forgotten, and now I wanna go there again. 

If the cache is there too, cool ... but same as skipping by the "on the way to..." pill bottles along the way, not a goal (for me).

"Numbers" folks, or those late in the hobby sometimes don't understand that for some, the reward for the trip is the view, not a "smiley". 

 

[+Mausebiber]

18 hours ago, Jpn8 said:

Hard to fake an original photo especially if the cache is in the picture

Just send me your photo with the cache and maybe your GPSr in the picture and I can log as well. How hard will this be?

 

19 hours ago, Jpn8 said:

I've signed a log for someone who wasn't even with me cause they asked me to

Is this a new business model?  I really can`t think of a reason why anyone would ask for a fake log.

 

6 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

My only goal is to enjoy the experience, which I can do even if, for whatever reason I don't sign a piece of paper.

Yes, agree, I just like to be outside, walking, hiking, bicycling, and enjoying the beautiful countryside. That's why I don't care finding a wet or frozen logbook, I just post a NM and end of story.

 

[+arisoft]

7 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

That's not my only goal.  My only goal is to enjoy the experience, which I can do even if, for whatever reason I don't sign a piece of paper.  

 

For me the name in the logbook is not an essential goal. I am also pleased to log DNF. But for logging Found It, your primary goal is to get the name in the log. For example - today I logged 7 finds and 4 DNFs. The last DNF was a cache in a tree. I saw the cache and logged DNF without any problems. And here we go to the topic. If you do not have a pen, you should log a DNF and everything is in a good order. You do not need a pen to log a DNF. I am sure that if your primary goal is to earn finds, you definitely have a pen.

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, Mausebiber said:

Is this a new business model?  I really can`t think of a reason why anyone would ask for a fake log.

 

It is not fake log because the real nickname is in the logbook. You can not delete such finds. I can give you an real example.

 

Nick A solved a puzzle which is hundredths of miles away. Nick B have not solved the puzzle but offers to find the cache and then sign only A in the logbook. You may ask why B did not sign A and B at the same time? Because B wants to solve the puzzle before to log a find.

Edited May 5, 2018 by arisoft

[+Mausebiber]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

It is not fake log because the real nickname is in the logbook

If you have not visited the cache then you cannot claim it as a find.

 

The guidelines are clear on this:  You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook

Not: You can log caches online as "found" if just someone signed the logbook for you.

Edited May 5, 2018 by Mausebiber

[+arisoft]

34 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

If you have not visited the cache then you cannot claim it as a find.

 

The guidelines are clear on this:  You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook

Not: You can log caches online as "found" if just someone signed the logbook for you.

 

Despite of the guidelines you can do this because the CO can not verify whether you have visited the cooridnates or not. In many cases a group logging violates this guideline but no one cares. For example when one swims to the cache and sign on behalf of others. More problematic question is the nickname. Many nicknames belongs to a group - not to an individual player. In my previous real example I did not disclose that A was a sock puppet - a special nick name made for this purpose. How can you determine the person who should visit the coordinates if there is no such agreement at all and no one knows who is A or B in this case?

 

Edited May 5, 2018 by arisoft

[+TeamRabbitRun]

18 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Despite of the guidelines you can do this because the CO can not verify whether you have visited the cooridnates or not. In many cases a group logging violates this guideline but no one cares. For example when one swims to the cache and sign on behalf of others. More problematic question is the nickname. Many nicknames belongs to a group - not to an individual player. In my previous real example I did not disclose that A was a sock puppet - a special nick name made for this purpose. How can you determine the person who should visit the coordinates if there is no such agreement at all and no one knows who is A or B in this case?

 

What a load of carp.

 

In your example above, if "A" solves the puzzle, and asks "B" to go there and gives him a precise location, then "Nick A" has no right to the find, and "Nick B" does.

 

Now, you say that this can take place because the "the CO can not verify whether you have visited the cooridnates or not." Under that logic, I can keep any money I steal as long as I cover my tracks sufficiently.

 

You're an interesting guy, AriSoft - You always advocate for strict interpretation of rules; I look forward to reading more of how you feel about any rule's spirit vs. its wording.

[+Max and 99]

1 hour ago, Mausebiber said:

If you have not visited the cache then you cannot claim it as a find.

 

The guidelines are clear on this:  You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook

Not: You can log caches online as "found" if just someone signed the logbook for you.

This is done where I live and I find it despicable that anyone would log a find on a cache they've never been to. And yes, I know for a fact of some because I was with the person who signed the name of someone who wasn't there (I didn't realize till later this was happening) ."I know so and so and he found the cache so I'm logging a Found It."  NOT OK. 

[+Mausebiber]

9 hours ago, arisoft said:

Despite of the guidelines you can do this because the CO can not verify whether you have visited the cooridnates or not.

I'm afraid I can't make my point clear.  Of course you can log anything you want. Groundspeak makes it quite easy to cheat if you want.  I know cases where some users actually hiring other cacher to sign there name in just any logbook.

 

What I want to say is:  Geocaching is an activity where you go outside enjoying the nature or some interesting places, where other cachers showing visitors the beauty of there home town or region, kind of tourist guide, showing locations beyond printed guides.  You will be pointed in the right direction to find those places using an electronic device, GPS enabled. Only if you have been there, you can enjoy the interesting / beautiful location.

 

So, what's the point of logging such a cache if you have not been there?  Is it just the statistic point?  Is it the aaaah and ooooh someone is getting by showing there numbers?  I think, those people have a problem with there personality if they define there worth by fake numbers.

 

(sorry, this is off topic and not to compare with someone who has visited the side and just forgot a pen to sign)

 

[+Mausebiber]

11 hours ago, arisoft said:

The last DNF was a cache in a tree. I saw the cache and logged DNF without any problems.

 

Even more off topics, maybe worth to open another thread, but I would NOT log a DNF.  You have found the container, you have seen it,  even when you were not able to open it. Same situation if you found the container but you cannot open it because there is a lockpicking lock you can't open.  I think a "Note" would be the correct online log entry.

[+arisoft]

48 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

I think a "Note" would be the correct online log entry.

 

Note is not showing on the map. I want my DNSs to be visible on the map. So I do not fake my DNF by logging a note instead.

[+arisoft]

10 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

In your example above, if "A" solves the puzzle, and asks "B" to go there and gives him a precise location, then "Nick A" has no right to the find, and "Nick B" does.

 

Correct, but in this case A can not visit the coordinates and B is not willing to log a find. The actual solution, which I did not disclose originally, was to use C as a nickname. C is a team containing A and B. Now everybody are happy again

Edited May 6, 2018 by arisoft

[+badlands]

On 5/4/2018 at 2:44 PM, arisoft said:

"To keep the online cache page up-to-date, the cache owner must Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate."

 

I was unable to find "MUST" in the guidelines, please enlighten me.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

6 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Correct, but in this case A can not visit the coordinates and B is not willing to log a find. The actual solution, which I did not disclose originally, was to use C as a nickname. C is a team containing A and B. Now everybody are happy again

No!

 

You said - "A can not visit the coordinates" - end of story, in my opinion and as I choose to play.

 

There's a difference between using a 'team' name so you didn't fill up a small logstrip with the names of everyone who was physically there, and using a 'team' name to get around the unfortunate sticking point that a name must be in the logbook.

 

If Nick A was in California while Nick B was standing at the cache in Sweden, then Nick A has no business claiming the find. Period. I can't think of a single exception.

 

How far would I take that? If I was standing at the base of a tree climb that I wasn't going to attempt, and my buddy was up there with the cache in hand, I would NOT have him sign my name. I DID NOT DO WHAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO TO CLAIM THE FIND.

 

On the other hand, if I was standing with a group and there was nothing stopping me from putting my hand on the hide in situ, then I have no problem with claiming a group find, although I don't like to cache that way. I'm not so compulsive that I have to "clear my map" as others talk about.

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, badlands said:

 

I was unable to find "MUST" in the guidelines, please enlighten me.

Cache owner responsibilities

Maintain cache page online

To keep the online cache page up-to-date, the cache owner must ...

 

Link

[+arisoft]

46 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

How far would I take that? If I was standing at the base of a tree climb that I wasn't going to attempt, and my buddy was up there with the cache in hand, I would NOT have him sign my name. I DID NOT DO WHAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO TO CLAIM THE FIND.

 

You visited the coordinates and that's all you need to do to claim the find. Tree is easy because you can visit coordinates without any climbing. Visiting an island is more difficult because you can not visit the coordinates as required.

 

I appreciate a lot if you log finds only when you do what you are supposed to do. You do not find mystery caches you have not solved and tree caches you have not climbed etc.

[+Henne1312]

1 hour ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

 

If Nick A was in California while Nick B was standing at the cache in Sweden, then Nick A has no business claiming the find. Period. I can't think of a single exception.

 

What about „Live“Geocaches like ,https://coord.info/GC5EG96? (It’s German, sorry for that  ) There you have an inside team and an outside team, the inside team solving puzzles and directing the outside team by phone. Inside team is nothing without the outside team vice versa. Inside team can be everywhere, in our case something like 60 km away from the outside team and the cache. No way for the inside team to also go to the final. Outside team is writing the nicks of the inside team into the log as well, as the inside team was essential for finding the cache. Would that be an exception you could think of where someone who hasn’t been to GZ could claim the find?

Edited May 6, 2018 by Henne1312

[+TriciaG]

7 minutes ago, Henne1312 said:

What about „Live“Geocaches like ,https://coord.info/GC5EG96? (It’s German, sorry for that  ) There you have an inside team and an outside team, the inside team solving puzzles and directing the outside team by phone. Inside team is nothing without the outside team vice versa. Inside team can be everywhere, in our case something like 60 km away from the outside team and the cache. No way for the inside team to also go to the final. Outside team is writing the nicks of the inside team into the log as well, as the inside team was essential for finding the cache. Would that be an exception you could think of where someone who hasn’t been to GZ could claim the find?

From your description, I would say no. The inside and outside teams would have to switch places, so that the outside team could go find the cache themselves.

[+Max and 99]

7 minutes ago, Henne1312 said:

What about „Live“Geocaches like ,https://coord.info/GC5EG96? (It’s German, sorry for that  ) There you have an inside team and an outside team, the inside team solving puzzles and directing the outside team by phone. Inside team is nothing without the outside team vice versa. Inside team can be everywhere, in our case something like 60 km away from the outside team and the cache. No way for the inside team to also go to the final. Outside team is writing the nicks of the inside team into the log as well, as the inside team was essential for finding the cache. Would that be an exception you could think of where someone who hasn’t been to GZ could claim the find?

I have never heard of Life Geocaches, and I'll have to translate to read more (sounds very interesting). But in MY opinion, you shouldn't log a  Found It on a cache you've never been to. Period.

[+Mausebiber]

We have plenty of those:

https://coord.info/GC4YZ2M

Es erwartet Euch hier, mitten im Schwarzwald, eine Trilogie von Echtzeitcaches (GC4YZ2M, GC6CZT4 und GC6GQA7) für die je ein Innen-, und ein Außen-Team benötigt werden:

Translation:

Here in the middle of the Black Forest, you can expect a trilogy of real-time caches (GC4YZ2M, GC6CZT4 and GC6GQA7), each requiring an indoor and an outdoor team:

 

[+Henne1312]

27 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

From your description, I would say no. The inside and outside teams would have to switch places, so that the outside team could go find the cache themselves.

They can’t switch places. Cache is only available until midnight, indoor team wouldn’t make it in time after the outdoor team found it. Plus, indoor team is 8 people, that is two cars with 120 km each - in times of global warming, you just don’t do that   And what would you say, if the indoor team was 200 km away? There’s one real-time cache in Frankfurt that we would like to do as well, and the indoor team in my house would be 200 km away. 

 

I would claim both caches as a find, and I wouldn’t feel guilty about that. 

[+badlands]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

Cache owner responsibilities

Maintain cache page online

To keep the online cache page up-to-date, the cache owner must ...

 

Link

 

Thank you

[+Henne1312]

41 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

I have never heard of Life Geocaches, and I'll have to translate to read more (sounds very interesting). But in MY opinion, you shouldn't log a  Found It on a cache you've never been to. Period.

It IS very interesting, and maybe you change your opinion after you translated the listing

Edited May 6, 2018 by Henne1312

[+kunarion]

"Take a pen, take a spare pen, take a spare spare pen *. Borrow a pen,  buy a pen. Go back to the car and get a pen, go home and get a pen."

-- hal-an-tow (in another thread)

 

+1

 

I bring the equipment required to find a cache, or I go get it.  No excuses.  I never, ever "didn't have a pen".  I hate when alleged Geocachers log "no sign" finds on my caches, so I would not inflict that on a CO.  As far as I know, they logged the "find" from the Lay-Z-Boy in their house.  Of course, they also forgot the cache story, too.  They were just that unimpressed with my cache.  "TFTC.  I don't have a pen, couldn't sign."  Just wow.

 

And no signing with bodily fluids.  I got the cancer just thinking about it.  Pen.  An actual writing instrument with its included ink.

Edited May 6, 2018 by kunarion

[+Mausebiber]

From my point of view, this is one of the very rear situations where the outdoor team which has not visited the cache container may log a found.  The cache owner has designed and published the cache for exactly this purpose, two or more teams working together as one, and only this setup will be successful reaching the final.  You cannot switch teams once the game has started.

Again, the CO wants it this way and the reviewer agrees to this.

 

[+arisoft]

7 minutes ago, kunarion said:

"Take a pen, take a spare pen, take a spare spare pen *. Borrow a pen,  buy a pen. Go back to the car and get a pen, go home and get a pen."

 

Find an other cache and borrow a pen if there is any. I have used this at least once.

[+Mausebiber]

7 minutes ago, kunarion said:

I bring the equipment required to find a cache, or I go get it.

 

Yes, agree.  I always wonder that those finders forgot a pen but always having there cellular phone with them to take pictures. So, how important can geocaching be for them?

[+kunarion]

Just now, arisoft said:

 

Find an other cache and borrow a pen if there is any. I have used this at least once.

 

+1

I accidentally dropped my pen into a cache, and arrived at another without it.  "Oh well, I'll post a Note".  Arrived at the next cache on the trail, and that one had a pen in it!  Yeah!  That saved a hike.

[+Max and 99]

12 minutes ago, kunarion said:

And no signing with bodily fluids.  I got the cancer just thinking about it. 

Someone else finally agrees with me on this. Gross!

[+TriciaG]

3 hours ago, Henne1312 said:

They can’t switch places. Cache is only available until midnight, indoor team wouldn’t make it in time after the outdoor team found it. Plus, indoor team is 8 people, that is two cars with 120 km each - in times of global warming, you just don’t do that   And what would you say, if the indoor team was 200 km away? There’s one real-time cache in Frankfurt that we would like to do as well, and the indoor team in my house would be 200 km away. 

 

I would claim both caches as a find, and I wouldn’t feel guilty about that. 

So... the cache is only available on one day?

 

If there were a webcam cache that someone asked me at home to capture their picture, I wouldn't log the webcam cache. What's the difference?

 

Sounds like a European variation that I'm glad isn't in North America. What is Geocaching? It's going out and finding containers using coordinates. It's not sitting at a computer, guiding someone else to find a container.

Edited May 6, 2018 by TriciaG

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, kunarion said:

"Take a pen, take a spare pen, take a spare spare pen *. Borrow a pen,  buy a pen. Go back to the car and get a pen, go home and get a pen."

-- hal-an-tow (in another thread)

 

+1

 

Hmm. On one of the three occasions when I arrived at GZ to discover to my horror that I didn't have a pen, I'd hiked some 5km through rough terrain with a telescopic ladder on my back (that's why I didn't have a pen, I had to use a different pack to my normal caching one to carry the ladder). Hiking back to the car in the hope there might have been a working pen in the glovebox wasn't an attractive option, nor was driving from there to either somewhere I could buy a pen (at least half an hour's drive away) or back home (about the same distance) if there wasn't. Yes, it was my fault I didn't put a pen in the big pack before leaving home, but I have a knack for doing really dumb things sometimes. In the end I used a twig to make something of a mark in the logbook, and included a photo of that mark with my log in case it faded or was illegible to the CO.