Jump to content

If you dont have a pen


timjm25

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

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.

No, it’s available every day. Only one team a day, start at 5 pm, if you haven’t finished by midnight, you gotta try again. And even when it’s available every day - I wouldn’t drive 400 km to sign the logbook when I was part of the indoor team when the cache was found. Like Mausebiber said - it’s the intention of the CO, that the indoor team claims a find even when it was not on GZ.

 

And yes, There’s quite a big difference between capturing a pic from a webcam and a real-time geocache. One takes 1 min and one click, the other 7 hours and a lot of research. And that’s not the only difference. Too bad I only have german caches as examples. 

 

So, what you‘re saying is that everything but going for traditional  caches is not geocaching? No searching for coordinates for multi caches, no using computers for mysteries? No earthcaches as there is no container? Same with virtuals and events? Well, I don’t agree with that point of view, but I don’t have to - I wouldn’t dare telling other people how to play their game. 

 

 So, does it affect you in any way, when people are playing the game in a different way than you do? Or why do you say you’re glad that this type of cache is not in North America? I would be glad if something that people love doing is in my area, even if I don’t like doing it. I don’t do T5, I would never go for a Biltema cache as I think it’s stupid, and most of the D5-caches in my area went on my ignore-list as I don’t have the slightest clue. But I know there’s people out there loving these caches, so they have a right to be there.

Edited by Henne1312
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Henne1312 said:

So, what you‘re saying is that everything but going for traditional  caches is not geocaching? No searching for coordinates for multi caches, no using computers for mysteries? No earthcaches as there is no container? Same with virtuals and events? Well, I don’t agree with that point of view, but I don’t have to - I wouldn’t dare telling other people how to play their game. 

That's not at all what I said.

 

33 minutes ago, Henne1312 said:

So, does it affect you in any way, when people are playing the game in a different way than you do?

In this specific instance, no, it doesn't affect me. (Other ways people play the game differently DO affect other geocachers, but that's a different subject.) I simply gave my opinion of people logging a cache when they're just sitting in their bedrooms with their eyes glued to a computer screen. Your opinion may vary. :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I just got a log on one of my caches and I thought of this thread.

"Found it. Left pen in car." 

 

I will be checking the physical log for others just like this that recently logged a Found It. There is parking within a 1 minute walk from the cache, on easy terrain.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Signature.jpg.a4f078e90513e96216695ec5e6990311.jpg

 

Actually trying to sign it is good. That sure beats not knowing whether you even found the cache, or the correct container or anything. But bring a pen. Bring more than one pen. There's a pretty nice quote about bringing pens, in the posts above.

 

I haven't deleted a Find log due to “didn't have pen couldn't sign” (or worse). But when I get one of those logs, I do hit my head pretty hard on my computer desk. *Bang* *Bang* *Bang*. I have the option of irritating an unbalanced alleged Geocacher who next returns to ensure I never bother him again about “logs”. So I risk the cache needing to be archived due to too much proving a point to me about messing with the wrong Geocacher about a stoopid pen. That's one option. Or I can let the log stand, and TPTB come along and see that it was admittedly not signed, and I risk the cache getting archived due to “fake logs”. That's another option. Cool choices, huh? All because it is excusable and expected that people cannot be bothered to bring a pen and sign the log. 'Scuse me a second...

*Bang* *Bang* *Bang*

 

I've deleted logs when there were identical copies of Find logs, after messages or PMs about the situation. Upon deletion, it created mass confusion for the cacher who logged them. Um, yeah. I explained it to the guy already. Who needs a hug? There, there.  I have to walk him through it all again.

 

 

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment
9 hours ago, TriciaG said:

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.

 

The difference is, that the CO has designed the cache in exactly this way, one team at home, one team outdoor. This is not the case for webcam cache.

And yes, I agree when you are saying that geocaching is an outdoor adventure. This is why I vote to stop publishing more mystery cache where you sit for hrs at a computer solving puzzles. 

By the way, why are you glad to miss something really exciting, a great variation to guardrail cache.

 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

And yes, I agree when you are saying that geocaching is an outdoor adventure. This is why I vote to stop publishing more mystery cache where you sit for hrs at a computer solving puzzles.

 

Yes, my mystery caches involve some head-scratching and maybe a little bit of research, but the reward is a nice hike in the bush to an interesting and/or scenic location with a themed container. Many of the ones I most enjoy finding are similar, providing a good combination of mental and physical challenge. For example, this is where one of the more recent mysteries I solved led me to - it took a little internet research and several days of head-scratching to solve the puzzle (which had a sandstone theme) then the best part of a day getting out there and back to find the cache...

 

DSC_0333_small.jpg.6d4584cd0995ad287eea8108e5248334.jpg

 

Why should they be banned?

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Max and 99 said:

Jeff,

Do you even own a pair of shoes? Haha. All your pics I've seen show you barefoot. I love it! I really do. Your pictures are great! Always geocaching outdoors and having fun. 

 

I think there's a pair in my cupboard somewhere for weddings and funerals...

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
12 hours ago, TriciaG said:

 

In this specific instance, no, it doesn't affect me. (Other ways people play the game differently DO affect other geocachers, but that's a different subject.) I simply gave my opinion of people logging a cache when they're just sitting in their bedrooms with their eyes glued to a computer screen. Your opinion may vary. :)

My opinion is your opinion when it comes to "normal" caches. But in my opinion, real-time caches are different, so they have to be treated differently. The indoor-team is allowed to log as well, as they are teamwork-caches and can only be found with two (or three) teams working together. That's what the CO intended, and the reviewers i.e. Groundspeak i.e. "The Maker of Rules" accept it. Someone saying "Henne1312 cannot claim a find, he was in the indoor-team and never visited GZ" would get the answer "He never did, but he can log a find as he was part of the team". I didn't sign the logbook myself, so strictly according to the rules, I could not claim a find. But in this case, GS is bending and stretching their own rules, so that's OK for me ;)  Plus I think, the indoor-team DESERVES a find for the work they have done, "their eyes glued to the screen" is a bit derogative.

 

I made clear my standpoint, you made clear your standpoint. But we've come way too far from the topic "if you don't have a pen" and might be annoying others. For sure, at least ONE member of the outdoor-team(s) carries a pen, so they don't have to use body-fluids ;)

Link to comment
19 hours ago, arisoft said:

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.

 

In the case of a cache in a tree, while standing at the base of the tree may be a visit to the coordinates, it does not mean one has reached "ground zero".  A geocache placed at the base of a tree or spot in the reachable while standing on the ground might only have a terrain rating of 1.5 (depending on how far one must hike to get to the tree).  A cache 25 feet up in that same tree would likely get a 4 T rating or higher.  Although coordinates are the same,  the location of the cache hasn't been reached until one would at least touch the container.  If I could claim a find for every cache where I've visited the coordinates I could log a lot of finds on caches on the ground while I was 37K feet above in an airplane.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

it does not mean one has reached "ground zero"

 

I think that you are trying to twist the meaning of "coordinates" and "ground zero". Historically  the term "ground zero" (also known as "surface zero") describes the point on the Earth's surface closest to a detonation. The word "ground" relates here to the surface of the earth.

 

We could discuss whether there is some better ways to describe a find but I think that it is intentionally left as a grey area. It would be easy to request a self-signed signature but this practically do not solve known problems because you can not verify who signed the logbook. But I ithink that could be easier to understand by anyone who is willing to follow guidelines.

 

Edited by arisoft
Link to comment
52 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

I think that you are trying to twist the meaning of "coordinates" and "ground zero". Historically  the term "ground zero" (also known as "surface zero") describes the point on the Earth's surface closest to a detonation. The word "ground" relates here to the surface of the earth.

 

We could discuss whether there is some better ways to describe a find but I think that it is intentionally left as a grey area. It would be easy to request a self-signed signature but this practically do not solve known problems because you can not verify who signed the logbook. But I ithink that could be easier to understand by anyone who is willing to follow guidelines.

 

 

I am not trying to twist the meaning and would gladly use some other term to describe the location of the container other than "ground zero".  However, in the context of geocaching, ground zero has traditionally meant the spot where the cache is hidden.

 

Coordinates are only a two dimensional reference point that can be used to bring someone to the general area where the cache is hidden.  In the three dimensional world, a vertical component is the difference between a spot at the base of a tree and a different spot 25 feet up in the tree, or a spot in a parking lot and a spot in an underground culvert under the parking lot.  My point was the fact that a different terrain rating is commonly use to differentiate two different locations (with the same lat/long coordinates) suggests that simply visiting the coordinates isn't enough to claim a find.  

 

Although the guidelines state that a found it log can be posted if the physical log has been found, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that it implies that one has gone to the location where the cache is hidden, and to me that includes the vertical component.  While people certainly do post found it logs on cache when they haven't gone to the cache location, and as you suggest there isn't anything that a CO can do to confirm where the geocacher was when the log sheet was signed, that just indicates that people will post a found it log because they know that they can get away with it even though they didn't do what the cache owner intended to "find the cache".  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
21 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

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.

 

Agree with this too. The outside team wouldn't be able to sign it without inside team. It's a team effort cache. It's not like half a group doing nothing standing 100m away from the other half of the group signing everyone in.

 

 

18 hours ago, TriciaG said:

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?

 

Technically, it's possible for it all to be done by one person. Plus it's a different cache type with its own rules. The example above is a cache designed to be done as a team with one half doing part of the task and one half doing another. Half the team can't find the cache. At all. Someone at a webcam might individually not have the ability to do it all themselves, but technically it is possible (and it's a different cache type with its own rules anyway, so teamwork isn't allowed as justification :))

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

In the case of a cache in a tree, while standing at the base of the tree may be a visit to the coordinates, it does not mean one has reached "ground zero".  A geocache placed at the base of a tree or spot in the reachable while standing on the ground might only have a terrain rating of 1.5 (depending on how far one must hike to get to the tree).  A cache 25 feet up in that same tree would likely get a 4 T rating or higher.  Although coordinates are the same,  the location of the cache hasn't been reached until one would at least touch the container.  If I could claim a find for every cache where I've visited the coordinates I could log a lot of finds on caches on the ground while I was 37K feet above in an airplane.

 

Yeah, so this comes into play depending on what's signed on the sheet, and what the group (or signer) claims about those who "found" the cache with them. If the whole group claims the team caching name, the CO can't delete any log. If the signer only claims 3 of the 10 people "helped", the 7 others could have their logs deleted. If the signer only signs himself, everyone else's logs can be deleted. (all assuming the CO has verified the signed name on the sheet, obv).  That though is the letter-of-the-law application.

 

 

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

While people certainly do post found it logs on cache when they haven't gone to the cache location, and as you suggest there isn't anything that a CO can do to confirm where the geocacher was when the log sheet was signed, that just indicates that people will post a found it log because they know that they can get away with it even though they didn't do what the cache owner intended to "find the cache".  

 

This

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

However, in the context of geocaching, ground zero has traditionally meant the spot where the cache is hidden.

 

I have thought that "ground zero" in geocaching means the position where GPS distance meter says zero meters/feet to the cache. Not the actual position of the cache because the cache is usually somewhere else than the GZ.

 

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

suggests that simply visiting the coordinates isn't enough to claim a find.  

 

"You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook."

 

I have no idea why on the earth I should visit coordinates if I have already signed the logbook. Anyway, it says that you have to sign the logbook. There is no option to sign it for someone else if I interpret as it is written. Or else it does not matter who visited coordinates and signed the logbook. Should we start to interpert this guideline strictly as it is written?

Edited by arisoft
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, arisoft said:
2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

However, in the context of geocaching, ground zero has traditionally meant the spot where the cache is hidden.

 

I have thought that "ground zero" in geocaching means the position where GPS distance meter says zero meters/feet to the cache. Not the actual position of the cache because the cache is usually somewhere else than the GZ.

 

It's also used as english slang for "cache location". The meaning can get conflated sometimes.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I have thought that "ground zero" in geocaching means the position where GPS distance meter says zero meters/feet to the cache. Not the actual position of the cache because the cache is usually somewhere else than the GZ.

That's how I have always interpreted the term "ground zero". It's where I start my search, which is where I think the coordinates have led me. I expand my search radius from "ground zero" until I find the cache. Sometimes the cache is right at "ground zero", but often not.

 

6 minutes ago, arisoft said:

"You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook."

 

I have no idea why on the earth I should visit coordinates if I have already signed the logbook. Anyway, it says that you have to sign the logbook. There is no option to sign it for someone else if I interpret as it is written. Or else it does not matter who visited coordinates and signed the logbook. Should we start to interpert this guideline strictly as it is written?

I have geocached with people who insist on signing the log themselves, but I've never played that way. When I'm in a group, sometimes we pass around the log and let everyone sign. Other times, one person signs everyone's names. Other times, one person signs a team name that represents everyone, to avoid using up too much space on the log sheet. And if there's someone who insists on signing the log themselves, then whoever signs for everyone else passes them the log so they can do it their way.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, niraD said:

I have geocached with people who insist on signing the log themselves, but I've never played that way. When I'm in a group, sometimes we pass around the log and let everyone sign. Other times, one person signs everyone's names. Other times, one person signs a team name that represents everyone, to avoid using up too much space on the log sheet. And if there's someone who insists on signing the log themselves, then whoever signs for everyone else passes them the log so they can do it their way

 

Yep, likewise. This is most accommodating and each method is allowable with the guidelines. So let'em be :)

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

My name signed on the sheet = Find log online can't be deleted.

Group name I cached with signed on the sheet = Find log online can't be deleted.

 

That's it, really.  Everything else is just variants of those two instances. No way to prove who physically signed the sheet, no way to prove who didn't have a hand in the find. This is why a CO has to let a log stand if the cacher can claim the signature as the name under which they found the cache.

Exceptions could be appealed: "I cached with that group but they're saying I didn't!"  "I missed a letter in my signature / My signature is faded and the CO is saying that I didn't sign it!" yadda yadda.

 

Hm, I might even bet that if 4 people from a group of 10 went to find a cache, signed the group name that everyone's caching under, but then tell the CO that the other 6 weren't there for that one, the CO might delete the 6 logs, but then if those 6 appeal, citing that they claimed other finds as the group of 10 and should be able to this one too, ... I wonder what the call would be... :)

 

ETA: as for explicit instructions in the guideliens?  meh, those have been hashed over throughout the thread; mentions are all back there somewhere.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Could you please explain how the other methods are allowed in guidelines. I found only the one which says that you have to sign the logbook.

I couldn't find anything in the guidelines or in the Help Center, but I did find a reference to email from a lackey:

And for background context, there's this:

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, arisoft said:

"You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook."

 

I have no idea why on the earth I should visit coordinates if I have already signed the logbook. Anyway, it says that you have to sign the logbook. There is no option to sign it for someone else if I interpret as it is written. Or else it does not matter who visited coordinates and signed the logbook. Should we start to interpert this guideline strictly as it is written?

 

Oh no, I'm in deep trouble now! On Saturday a group of us went kayaking to an island cache, but we had to squelch through knee-deep mud to get to GZ, resulting in yours truly falling over in it (of course). So, when the cache was found and the logbook was being handed around to sign, I got the person standing next to me to sign it for me as my hands were covered in thick oozy mud. Is that the cacher police knocking on my door?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Maybe this was true in 2011, today there is a leaderboard:  Rankings for Geocachers

top number cachers will be invited as guest speakers with free accommodation and food and have many other advantages.

 

Today, quite a lot is all about numbers  (unfortunately)

 

Did someone mention free food? Yikes, I'd better get out there and find armchair-log a lot more caches.

 

Seriously, though, at the events and gatherings I've been to, the cachers that get talked about the most are those with the amazing hides. "You must do Fred's new cache, you'll love it!" The guest speaker at the recent mega here was someone who makes amazing gadget caches. Maybe we're just a backwater here, but the only time I can recall numbers ever being discussed is when people are working on streaks. As for me, eight hundred and something finds after five years, longest streak six days, most caches in a day 22. Yep, I'm just in it for the numbers/food.

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

 

Maybe this was true in 2011, today there is a leaderboard:  Rankings for Geocachers

top number cachers will be invited as guest speakers with free accommodation and food and have many other advantages.

 

Today, quite a lot is all about numbers  (unfortunately)

 

Yep.  Whenever we go to an event, if meeting folks for the first time, the first thing most do is ask what my find count is ((at megas was terrible !).  

- Some before they bothered to look at my name tag... 

We have a couple "guest speakers" too, and since we've personally seen how some came by those numbers, you'd think they'd wise up and step back a bit  (just in case some of us are feeling very honest that day).  :D

Link to comment
1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

Did someone mention free food? Yikes, I'd better get out there and find a lot more caches.

 

No you don't need to.  If we ever meet, I will invite you for the biggest meal on the menu, so please no rush for numbers, for me it looks like you are doing it just right  default_biggrin.png

 

Best greetings, MB

Link to comment

Back to the question of the topic (and the current tangent as well)..... just use a stamp,   and make sure the rest of your group for the day have the same stamp as they are going in a different area and stamping caches for you to log as a part of the group.  You could advance to the top of a leaderboard if you use this method. And you could be the one who gets the free food and accommodations for the next event.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
20 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Yeah, so this comes into play depending on what's signed on the sheet, and what the group (or signer) claims about those who "found" the cache with them. If the whole group claims the team caching name, the CO can't delete any log

 

Using a team caching name is just another loop hole that some will use in order to get as many finds as possible.  Some how the team dissolves when it comes to posting Found It logs when each member of "the team"  posts their log using their individual geoaching name, until it comes time for "the team" to go out again and find more caches.  After discovering that it's easy to get away with posting individual logs because they're part of a team on a few tree hides, it degrades to splitting up into separate vehicles, geocaching as "a team" in different areas then everyone claiming finds on caches in places they never visited.   

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
18 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Hm, I might even bet that if 4 people from a group of 10 went to find a cache, signed the group name that everyone's caching under, but then tell the CO that the other 6 weren't there for that one, the CO might delete the 6 logs, but then if those 6 appeal, citing that they claimed other finds as the group of 10 and should be able to this one too, ... I wonder what the call would be... :)

 

A CO should have the option to ask that any account claiming a find should have their signature in the logbook. Actually, a CO shouldn't have to say it. It should be the norm.

Oh yeah, but the excuse that when a large group comes through, the log would get full. Most spiral note logbooks can accommodate at least 10 signatures per page (one side).  And as COs we agree to maintain our caches and replenish logs when they get full. But then there's the retaliation by group cachers. I have witnessed what they will do if asked to log each account name in a logbook--they write each account's name, one per page, being sure to fill the whole logbook and then post an NM saying the logbook is full. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Using a team caching name is just another loop hole that some will use in order to get as many finds as possible.  Some how the team dissolves when it comes to posting Found It logs when each member of "the team"  posts their log using their individual geoaching name, until it comes time for "the team" to go out again and find more caches.  After discovering that it's easy to get away with posting individual logs because they're part of a team on a few tree hides, it degrades to splitting up into separate vehicles, geocaching as "a team" in different areas then everyone claiming finds on caches in places they never visited.   

 

I hope this is a situation I won't find myself in.  The biggest "group" find was (as is our custom in this area) a group FTF prize after an event - about 15 of us trooped to GZ with the CO to "find" the new, unpublished cache hidden nearby.  That's a rare occurence for me!

 

I'm typically with my husband, and sometimes there is one other cacher friend who joiuns us, and we do have "team" handles we use to sign logs when caching together if the log is a nano with little room to sign.  We are being considerate by only taking one space!  And each of us notes in our online log that the log was signed as "Team name", and who was on that team that day!  If the log is big enough, we'll each sign our own name, and we use the team handle if the log is small.  We haven't ever split up and found separate caches that we then all claim - we find them together!  But then, we aren't about numbers either.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Using a team caching name is just another loop hole that some will use in order to get as many finds as possible.  Some how the team dissolves when it comes to posting Found It logs when each member of "the team"  posts their log using their individual geoaching name, until it comes time for "the team" to go out again and find more caches.  After discovering that it's easy to get away with posting individual logs because they're part of a team on a few tree hides, it degrades to splitting up into separate vehicles, geocaching as "a team" in different areas then everyone claiming finds on caches in places they never visited.

 

Yep.

And it really bugs me too.

Too often I've been cachign with some people from a group along a trail, and at a split, 2 more join the group after having jogged a bit saying "don't worry about going to find those we got them, you can mark them found".   .... grrr. At that point, I either don't log them, or split from the group to go and sign them.

 

The mentality with some of the larger group hunts is not that they're all finding geocaches together (independent accounts), but that they're finding geocaches for 'the team'.  It's a completely different mentality, which most commonly is within the guidelines (until people start couch-logging as part of the 'team', which could be appealed), but totally takes away from the individual fun of, you know, finding the geocaches as a geocacher.  Heck, even saw at least one time someone post on facebook -- after the caching day was over -- that they found a couple of others in the area, signed the group, and everyone who read that post could then claim the smiley under the group.  *headdesk* c'mon... But, that's the kind of dispute that would be taken to appeals by any CO that cared, or any cacher wanting to complain (ideally with evidence to back up whatever their position is)

 

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

A CO should have the option to ask that any account claiming a find should have their signature in the logbook. Actually, a CO shouldn't have to say it. It should be the norm.

 

It would be nice, but a huge headache to deal with, which is what let to 'name you cache under' rather than literally your geocaching account name. Far too many exceptions to the signature requirement to be able to require something so specific. So I'd GS is banking on people abiding by the spirit of the guideline moreso than pushing the letter of it. Even though the latter is very common.  So a CO has to accept a group signature, like a partner account, like short forms, like initials, etc...

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Using a team caching name is just another loop hole that some will use in order to get as many finds as possible. 

Sometimes, perhaps. Every time I've used one, it has been used as a courtesy to the cache owners, to avoid filling up their micro-sized logs with signatures.

 

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Oh yeah, but the excuse that when a large group comes through, the log would get full. Most spiral note logbooks can accommodate at least 10 signatures per page (one side).

I don't recall ever using a team name with a cache that had an actual logbook. When there was a large enough container and an actual logbook, we passed around the logbook and everyone signed. Maybe it was the sheer novelty of it.

 

48 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

but totally takes away from the individual fun of, you know, finding the geocaches as a geocacher.

Yeah, I've been on a few group trips where the others had a difficult time understanding the concept of playing "huckle buckle beanstalk" style, where everyone in the group gets a chance to spot the hide before anyone reveals the hide to anyone else. And even if you do get them to understand the concept and agree to play that way, some folks are just really bad at it. They have no poker face at all.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Using a team caching name is just another loop hole that some will use in order to get as many finds as possible.  Some how the team dissolves when it comes to posting Found It logs when each member of "the team"  posts their log using their individual geoaching name, until it comes time for "the team" to go out again and find more caches.  After discovering that it's easy to get away with posting individual logs because they're part of a team on a few tree hides, it degrades to splitting up into separate vehicles, geocaching as "a team" in different areas then everyone claiming finds on caches in places they never visited.   

 

Fortunately we don't see that "splitting up" thing here (yet), but we have seen a few teams who place caches with all "members" names in the middle of the log somewhere.  Guess they figure no one'll notice.    :)

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Fortunately we don't see that "splitting up" thing here (yet), but we have seen a few teams who place caches with all "members" names in the middle of the log somewhere.  Guess they figure no one'll notice.    :)

That sounds like something I've heard "beta testers" doing. They don't want to "claim" the FTF, so they sign the log (since they did find it) somewhere other than the top of the first page (to leave that for the FTFAP).

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, niraD said:

That sounds like something I've heard "beta testers" doing. They don't want to "claim" the FTF, so they sign the log (since they did find it) somewhere other than the top of the first page (to leave that for the FTFAP).

 

Possible I guess ... if over a dozen people "beta test" every cache, every D/T,  ever placed by one "team" ... and in the same order.      :D

Link to comment

Well one of my teammates made a hide recently and I helped him. I didn't sign the log initially because I wanted the FTF to be faced with a pristine log. I simply checked on the cache a little later to make sure it was doing okay, and signed at that time. IMO that is the way it should be done - you should check on caches anyway to make sure they're okay. But if the hide is really far out of the way, very inconvenient to get to, I guess that's more of a gray area.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

Well one of my teammates made a hide recently and I helped him. I didn't sign the log initially because I wanted the FTF to be faced with a pristine log. I simply checked on the cache a little later to make sure it was doing okay, and signed at that time. IMO that is the way it should be done - you should check on caches anyway to make sure they're okay. But if the hide is really far out of the way, very inconvenient to get to, I guess that's more of a gray area.

I agree this is the way to do it, but I have to admit I've claimed the beta test find a time or two just because I didn't expect to be there again any time soon. The beta test find is standard in my area, so for a few years I automatically claimed it, and I still don't blink at anyone else doing it, but I've come to agree with you that the better approach is to just wait and actually find the cache again the next time I'm in the area. As I just said in another post on an entirely different topic, if I enjoyed the walk once, I'll enjoy it again sometime later. And there will be an unfound cache there to remind me to revisit the area!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ras_oscar said:

So, let me get this straight. You remembered to go caching, you remembered to bring your gps but you forgot your pen. Oh, my !!!

 

Yup.  It happens.

 

I need an ID card to access my work computer -- but I've forgotten it at home before.

 

I need cash to complete transactions with vendors who don't have credit card readers - but I don't always remember to hit an ATM ahead of time.

 

If you've never forgotten a thing in your life, or assumed that you had something and then discovered you'd misplaced it -- bully for you.  I'd ask you what your secret is, but I'd probably forget it.

  • Upvote 4
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
11 hours ago, ras_oscar said:

So, let me get this straight. You remembered to go caching, you remembered to bring your gps but you forgot your pen. Oh, my !!!

 

I've done the opposite, gone with a pen but no GPSr. Or forgot to load the caches I was after onto the GPSr. Or lost the SD card out of the GPSr when changing batteries on the way to GZ. If there's a way for me to mess up a caching expedition, I will.

Link to comment
On 5/8/2018 at 1:21 PM, cerberus1 said:

 

Fortunately we don't see that "splitting up" thing here (yet), but we have seen a few teams who place caches with all "members" names in the middle of the log somewhere.  Guess they figure no one'll notice.    :)

 

I remember some kerfuffle over one of the first large power trails in Nevada.  There was "a team" of four geocachers that hid the caches, then all four individually logged found it on all of them and justified it because they couldn't, individually, get "credit" for all the hides.

Link to comment

Oops well it seems we have not been taking it seriously enough.  Since I often go with my sister "Knight-Trekkers" I often ask her to sign it for me.  I take it that is a big no no? ? I might have to make more of an effort in the future.  Also on recent caches we kept forgetting to take a pen with us so just took a picture.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Tashnlily said:

Oops well it seems we have not been taking it seriously enough.  Since I often go with my sister "Knight-Trekkers" I often ask her to sign it for me.  I take it that is a big no no? ? I might have to make more of an effort in the future.  Also on recent caches we kept forgetting to take a pen with us so just took a picture.

 

It is like paying a bill by sending a picture of a bank note. ?

 

At this week I saw a group of geocachers sitting in a car while one of them searched and signed on behalf of all. Maybe only one of them got a pen with.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, arisoft said:

At this week I saw a group of geocachers sitting in a car while one of them searched and signed on behalf of all. Maybe only one of them got a pen with.

It's fairly normal on power trails along roads, for the driver to stay with the car, often for safeties sake (some parking can be a bit iffy and they might need to move the car), but all the other geocachers should get out and search too; not leave it for one person. For individual, non-power trail types, I would expect all to search.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Tashnlily said:

Oops well it seems we have not been taking it seriously enough.  Since I often go with my sister "Knight-Trekkers" I often ask her to sign it for me.  I take it that is a big no no? ? I might have to make more of an effort in the future.  Also on recent caches we kept forgetting to take a pen with us so just took a picture.

Having one person sign for multiple people is a normal part of group caching. Sometimes one person signs for everyone. Sometimes we pass the log around the group. Sometimes, even when we pass the log around the group, one person might sign for 2 or 3 people.

 

And many cache owners will accept a photo if you happen not to have a pen/pencil with you. But they aren't required to accept a photo, and you shouldn't make a habit of forgetting to bring a pen/pencil.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Tashnlily said:

Oops well it seems we have not been taking it seriously enough.  Since I often go with my sister "Knight-Trekkers" I often ask her to sign it for me.  I take it that is a big no no? ?

 

If you're caching together and you are both at the cache that's fine.

 

What's not fine is when people get people to sign for them, when they haven't even laid eyes on the cache, just so they can inflate their find numbers. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, niraD said:

And many cache owners will accept a photo if you happen not to have a pen/pencil with you. But they aren't required to accept a photo, and you shouldn't make a habit of forgetting to bring a pen/pencil.

 

Even they may accept a photo, as I do, it does not mean that they like this kind of deviation from the standard procedure. For example, checking the logbook will take more time. Another problem is the content of the photo. Sometimes showing only the log itself may give too much hint about the cache itself.

 

Fortunately photologgers seem to be quite rare. I have got no photologs during this summer.

Edited by arisoft
Link to comment
10 hours ago, arisoft said:

Fortunately photologgers seem to be quite rare. I have got no photologs during this summer.

 

All my caches have pencils in them so I don't get photologgers, except, well, one, on a cache I adopted last year on the Sydney side of Broken Bay. I was kind of surprised when I saw the log, so I took the ferry across, hiked up the hill and opened the cache, only to see not just one pencil in with the logbook but another in the bottom of the container.

 

20190407_125233.thumb.jpg.851c2ae17030dcea406e0e47a345df29.jpg

 

After questioning the finder, it seems he hadn't intended doing any caching that day so didn't bring a pen, but saw the cache nearby on his phone and decided to go for it anyway, finding the container but not opening it as it never occurred to him that there might be a pen or pencil inside it. It just goes to show you can't make anything foolproof I suppose.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...