Define found a geocache?

[+KevHatcher]

Hi there! 

I have just started Geocaching in Iceland (almost at 100!) and love it! 

I have a question that may have already been asked and if so I apologize but I could not find anything about it. 

The question is this: 

When do you log the geocache as found? 

I ask because I only define it found when I can write my name in the logbook and have the container in my hand, but it seems that people log them found even if there is no container and they have just made it to the coordinates. I also like to take a picture of the container and logbook for proof of finding it, and it also gives others and the owner info that it can still be found. 

I have come across a few that have lots of found logs, but no images of the container, in fact the images that are logged are a few years old which would indicate a lost container. So when I get to the coordinates and search for a container and it is not there and I check the logs and people do say they found it and then I check the images and there is no new images it is strange.  I know that sometimes there are well hidden and maybe I just can't find them, but if people do not log them as "not found" or "missing" the owners do not know there is anything wrong with the site. 

So I ask what is a found geocache? Just getting to the location? Finding and logging your name in the logbook? 

Thanks

kev 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

1 minute ago, KevHatcher said:

Hi there! 

I have just started Geocaching in Iceland (almost at 100!) and love it! 

I have a question that may have already been asked and if so I apologize but I could not find anything about it. 

The question is this: 

When do you log the geocache as found? 

I ask because I only define it found when I can write my name in the logbook and have the container in my hand, but it seems that people log them found even if there is no container and they have just made it to the coordinates. I also like to take a picture of the container and logbook for proof of finding it, and it also gives others and the owner info that it can still be found. 

I have come across a few that have lots of found logs, but no images of the container, in fact the images that are logged are a few years old which would indicate a lost container. So when I get to the coordinates and search for a container and it is not there and I check the logs and people do say they found it and then I check the images and there is no new images it is strange.  I know that sometimes there are well hidden and maybe I just can't find them, but if people do not log them as "not found" or "missing" the owners do not know there is anything wrong with the site. 

So I ask what is a found geocache? Just getting to the location? Finding and logging your name in the logbook? 

Thanks

kev 

In the context of geoaching, for me, it's:

1.  Locate the container

2.  Retrieve the container

3. Sign the log book/sheet

4. Replace the container

Some will log a find for merely locating the container and some  log a find if they're at/near the location where the container is hidden.  Some will even log a find if someone on their "team" (which may only exist up to the point it comes time to log finds) "finds" the container.  

[+pingurus]

According to the help center:

Use a “Found It” log after you visit the cache and sign the logbook. You can also add a photo or a Favorite point to your online log.

So if the Geocacher didn't write their name into the logbook, it is no find and the cache owner should delete the log. Exceptions are commonly made if the logbook is to wet to write in, then a photo of the logbook is enough.

Also,  Caches with no physical container (virtuals, Earthcaches and webcam caches) are different.

[+Team Microdot]

36 minutes ago, KevHatcher said:

I ask because I only define it found when I can write my name in the logbook and have the container in my hand, but it seems that people log them found even if there is no container and they have just made it to the coordinates. I also like to take a picture of the container and logbook for proof of finding it, and it also gives others and the owner info that it can still be found.

There is no requirement to upload a photograph of the cache container and in fact a cache owner may well consider such a photograph a spoiler and delete the photograph from the log.

 

[+redsox_mark]

For physical caches (e.g. not Earth caches, virtuals, etc), as has been said, the normal case is

1.  Locate the container

2.  Retrieve the container

3. Sign the log book/sheet

4. Replace the container

 

Photos are optional.

Depending on the situation and the CO, there can be variations.   E.g. many COs will accept a photograph of the cache with logbook if the finder forgot their pen.   There can be other grey areas, e.g. you find the cache, you know it is the correct cache as the GC code is written on the box.   But the logbook is missing.   It is OK for you to add a logbook/sheet and sign that?

The strictest view is that unless not only the container is there, but the logbook as supplied by the CO, you can't log a find.   

 

[+MartyBartfast]

For me the main criteria is to find the cache and have the container in my hand.

I always sign the log if it's possible to do so, but on the odd  occasions where that hasn't been possible (log too wet, etc.) then I don't  take a picture, if the CO isn't prepared to take my word for it and chooses to delete the log (which hasn't happened yet), then I won't lose any sleep over it.

 

 

[+Mudfrog]

1 hour ago, MartyBartfast said:

For me the main criteria is to find the cache and have the container in my hand.

I always sign the log if it's possible to do so, but on the odd  occasions where that hasn't been possible (log too wet, etc.) then I don't  take a picture, if the CO isn't prepared to take my word for it and chooses to delete the log (which hasn't happened yet), then I won't lose any sleep over it.

 

 

This is the way i see it as well. Of course, i need to be sure the container that i found is the cache. Normally easy to do because there may be identification on it, may fit the cache description, or will have swag in it. I have found containers at cache sites that didn't fit any of the criteria so logged a DNF because i wasn't sure. For me, i want to be able to sign the log and will do so if at all possible.

As far as the OP's concerns go, unfortunately there are people that want the find so bad that they come up with all kinds of silly ways to justify logging a cache as found. A person should NOT log a find just because they made it to ground zero. Spotting a container, but not reaching/opening it is NOT a find either. A person throwing down a container after not finding the one the CO placed is totally off base. Still, we see a lot of people doing all these things. .

Edited August 21, 2017 by Mudfrog

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, KevHatcher said:

I ask because I only define it found when I can write my name in the logbook and have the container in my hand, but it seems that people log them found even if there is no container and they have just made it to the coordinates.

I was a little worried about your title because "found a geocache" can be used to mean many things, but the question you asked in the text clears up that you're asking when I think one should claim a find, and I agree with your standard and the standards others have mentioned.

People that logs finds when the cache is missing are focused on the number, so they go for the +1 even when they haven't really found anything. The count doesn't mean anything to me, so I don't understand why someone would want to post an inaccurate log, but I don't worry about it too much as long as they're clear about what actually happened so anyone reading their log can see the cache isn't there. I'd rather they didn't log a find when the cache wasn't there, but I don't have much hope that they'll change their ways.

Once in a while, I might bend the standard in order to log a find in a special case, so I'm more sympathetic towards people that don't do it habitually. And since you're in Iceland, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of visitors find themselves wanting to stretch a DNF into a Find just so they can say they found a cache in Iceland. So try to go easy on them, but by all means talk about standards with any locals you see that make you think the cache is in good shape when it's not. That's how trash accumulates in the geocaching environment.

I also like to take a picture of the container and logbook for proof of finding it, and it also gives others and the owner info that it can still be found.

It's not really a good idea to post pictures of the container since that is often a spoiler.

[+KevHatcher]

Thanks all for the great responses and input. 

I thought that would be the general feeling, and I was just curious to see what other did or thought.

I am now wiser in the geocaching world and will keep collecting them.

Thanks again for all you great responses 

[+Manville Possum]

7 minutes ago, KevHatcher said:

 

I am now wiser in the geocaching world and will keep collecting them.

 

 

I hope you mean finding them and not collecting them. 

[+.Flo.]

I had the same thought as dprovan about the tourists that want to log a Cache in Iceland. There probably isn't such a great Cache density up there, and most People won't ever get there again. I've seen a similar Thing here recently after a Mega Event, that non-local People logged Caches that were part of a geo-art set up for the Event but were disabled on the alleged log date. So either they didn't find them or used the wrong log date confusing other cachers that had had DNFs before.

I also agree with the Definition of a Cache find. Any physical log in the cache's logbook is a find. Most owners also give their okay when you post a pic of a full or wet logbook that can't be written on anymore.

[+Team Microdot]

1 hour ago, .Flo. said:

I had the same thought as dprovan about the tourists that want to log a Cache in Iceland. There probably isn't such a great Cache density up there, and most People won't ever get there again. 

I probably won't get there ever so by that logic the CO should feel sorry for me and just allow me to log a find.

[+cerberus1]

8 hours ago, KevHatcher said:

When do you log the geocache as found? 

...I only define it found when I can write my name in the logbook and have the container in my hand...

Yep.  That sure sounds correct to me.  

[+arisoft]

30 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I probably won't get there ever so by that logic the CO should feel sorry for me and just allow me to log a find.

For me the DNF is almost as good as the Found log as a story of my experience. Sometimes I visit a cache, which I already know impossible, just to log a DNF for this experience.

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, .Flo. said:

I had the same thought as dprovan about the tourists that want to log a Cache in Iceland. There probably isn't such a great Cache density up there, and most People won't ever get there again.

So,  there are absolutely no disappointments in their wittle lives?   Can't log a DNF while mentioning their awesome adventure? 

Even if I considered  this hobby a game,   that still  doesn't seem right...

Edited August 21, 2017 by cerberus1

[+The A-Team]

9 hours ago, KevHatcher said:

So I ask what is a found geocache? Just getting to the location? Finding and logging your name in the logbook?

You've already gotten some opinions (most of which closely match mine), but I thought I'd mention this forum discussion that shows that there isn't a single, universally-accepted definition:
Found It = Didn't Find It
If you ever have a few months to kill, you can read through all 13 years/3400 posts of that discussion!

 

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

3 hours ago, .Flo. said:

I had the same thought as dprovan about the tourists that want to log a Cache in Iceland. There probably isn't such a great Cache density up there, and most People won't ever get there again. 

I probably won't get there ever so by that logic the CO should feel sorry for me and just allow me to log a find.

I don't know about .Flo, but I was just saying a third party shouldn't get angry about a desperate visitor hoping for some leeway. Whether the CO grants leeway is entirely up to them.

[+Team Microdot]

25 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

You've already gotten some opinions (most of which closely match mine), but I thought I'd mention this forum discussion that shows that there isn't a single, universally-accepted definition

 

Yes there is - sign the log.

[+Team Microdot]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

For me the DNF is almost as good as the Found log as a story of my experience. Sometimes I visit a cache, which I already know impossible, just to log a DNF for this experience.

I'm happy for you.