I Didn't Have A Pen!!??!!

[+Mausebiber]

Unbelivable that this is still ongoing 

Quote

Found It log online MUST have a signature else the find is invalid, which is not what the guidelines say

The guidelines *used* to say that "If you have signed the logbook, you may log the find online." (paraphrasing).  That is *not* the same as you can only log a find online if you have signed the log

Once again - "a signature is not a requirement for logging the find online"

Lets see, what a reviewer has to say about the statements above:

Volunteer Reviewer Geocaching.com Deutschland

Let me translate the first sentence for you:

"Hello
It is a pity that I have to bring this to your attention once again: Only those who have signed the on-site located logbook may log on-line. This is a fixed rules and not negotiable."

Maybe a US reviewer can say a couple of words to make this clear.

 

[+MartyBartfast]

 

23 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Lets see, what a reviewer has to say about the statements above

It doesn't matter, the reviewers' job is to review and police cache listings,  not to arbitrate over find logs.

 

I think you ought to read this:

https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/279441-challenges/&page=2#comment-4802504

and then move on...

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 10/16/2017 at 10:32 AM, hzoi said:

I also don't mean to leave my GPSr at a cache, but that's happened, too.  Last time I had to backtrack a mile...ugh.

I left my hiking stick at a cache and didn't realize it until a day later. Fortunately, it was in a park not up a mountain and I had stayed overnight in a hotel in the same county. Found the pole leaning against a bush about 18 hours after I had left it there.

On 10/16/2017 at 10:32 AM, Manville Possum said:

The part of "I didn't have a pen" that I don't understand is why post it in your log that you did not have a pen so you didn't sign the log. As a cache owner, I delete those logs that state they did not sign the log.

I don't mention in my online logs whether I signed the paper log. I don't want grief from COs.

I will mention when the log is all wet though.

On 10/16/2017 at 11:35 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

In one case the cache was near a small pond so I was able to dip a stick in the mud and scrawl my geocaching initials onto the log book.

On my caches I would never want the log signed in mud, blood, charcoal, sap, or any other unconventional writing method.

[+barefootjeff]

30 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Unbelivable that this is still ongoing 

Lets see, what a reviewer has to say about the statements above:

Volunteer Reviewer Geocaching.com Deutschland

Let me translate the first sentence for you:

"Hello
It is a pity that I have to bring this to your attention once again: Only those who have signed the on-site located logbook may log on-line. This is a fixed rules and not negotiable."

 

So what you and your reviewer are saying is that, if someone logs a find on a cache but the container is full of water and the logbook is just soggy pulp that can't be marked with pen or pencil, so instead they attach a photo of the container and what remains of the logbook, the CO must delete that log. Not can delete it, but must delete it. To me that seems harsh.

[+Mausebiber]

Quote

So what you and your reviewer are saying ...

Excuse me, but where do you see that I have said anything?

I posted a link to a reviewer statement and did provide a courtesy translation, that's it.

Quote

the CO must delete that log. Not can delete it, but must delete it.

Where do you see this statement, the reviewer is not saying one word about deleting an online log.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Mausebiber

[+Mausebiber]

Quote

I think you ought to read this:

https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/279441-challenges/&page=2#comment-4802504

So, what are you trying to say?  This is an ongoing problem for at least the last 6 years?  I cant understand, why there is not a clear rule / statement on the logging requirement.

[+barefootjeff]

19 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Excuse me, but where do you see that I have said anything?

I posted a link to a reviewer statement and did provide a courtesy translation, that's it.

Where do you see this statement, the reviewer is not saying one word about deleting an online log.

So what is the point you're trying to make? The CO is the only person who can delete an invalid log, well apart from the person who logged it and Groundspeak appeals I suppose, and if the CO allows a log to stand in circumstances where the finder found the cache but was unable to sign the log for whatever reason, be it water inundation, a forgotten pen or whatever, where is the problem?

[+niraD]

8 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

I cant understand, why there is not a clear rule / statement on the logging requirement.

There is a clear rule where it is needed.

"Caches can be logged online as 'Found' after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook."

Groundspeak will restore deleted logs in situations where the CO has deleted a log, but the finder had signed the physical log.

Where else is a clear rule/statement needed?

[+Mausebiber]

Quote

So what is the point you're trying to make?

I'm not making a point.  Here is a discussion about logging with or without signing the logbook and I provided a piece of additional information.  At least one reviewer made it clear, that signing the logbook is a requirement for an online found log.

Quote

The CO is the only person who can delete an invalid log, well apart from the person who logged it and Groundspeak appeals

Not here.  If an owner is allowing photo logs, the reviewer will disable the listing and will ask the owner to take care of his cache.  If nothing happens the listing will be archived by the reviewer.

 

[+Mausebiber]

14 minutes ago, niraD said:

There is a clear rule where it is needed.

"Caches can be logged online as 'Found' after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook."

If this is so clear, why do we have this discussion her?  Quite obvious, there are different views about one and the same sentence, see here:

The guidelines *used* to say that "If you have signed the logbook, you may log the find online." (paraphrasing).  That is *not* the same as you can only log a find online if you have signed the log.

[+Rebore]

13 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Not here.  If an owner is allowing photo logs, the reviewer will disable the listing and will ask the owner to take care of his cache.  If nothing happens the listing will be archived by the reviewer.

I don't know your "local laws", but I'm quite sure that is only the case if an owner converts a Traditional to a Virtual by allowing photo logs for an extended period of time. That has nothing to do with "I forgot my pen" logs-

[+barefootjeff]

14 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Not here.  If an owner is allowing photo logs, the reviewer will disable the listing and will ask the owner to take care of his cache.  If nothing happens the listing will be archived by the reviewer.

If a CO is allowing photo logs because of a problem with the cache, then yes, the CO needs to fix the cache, but someone forgetting their pen isn't the cache's fault, or the CO's. It's a totally different situation.

[+Mausebiber]

 

Quote

That has nothing to do with "I forgot my pen" logs

and

but someone forgetting their pen isn't the cache's fault, or the CO's. It's a totally different situation.

Agree, but I have the impression we are far ahead of "I forgot my pen:  From above: Once again - "a signature is not a requirement for logging the find online"

If a signature is not a requirement, a cache owner would have to accept any online log, even without a signature.  Why would a reviewer disable a listing if photo log are posted?  Why would he complain about wet logbooks if a signature is not required anyway.

 

[+niraD]

11 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

If a signature is not a requirement, a cache owner would have to accept any online log, even without a signature.

When people in this thread (and threads like this thread) have said "a signature is not a requirement for logging a find online" (or something similar), it has generally been in response to posts that express a zero-tolerance-for-all attitude that online logs should never be allowed if there aren't physical signatures to back them up.

In that context, those posts are not saying that physical signatures are no longer expected, or that cache owners cannot delete online logs that aren't backed up by physical signatures.

In that context, those posts are saying that exceptions can be made, and that the cache owner is allowed to acknowledge exceptional situations by allowing online logs to stand even when there aren't physical signatures to back them up.

[+barefootjeff]

24 minutes ago, niraD said:

34 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

If a signature is not a requirement, a cache owner would have to accept any online log, even without a signature.

When people in this thread (and threads like this thread) have said "a signature is not a requirement for logging a find online" (or something similar), it has generally been in response to posts that express a zero-tolerance-for-all attitude that online logs should never be allowed if there aren't physical signatures to back them up.

In that context, those posts are not saying that physical signatures are no longer expected, or that cache owners cannot delete online logs that aren't backed up by physical signatures.

In that context, those posts are saying that exceptions can be made, and that the cache owner is allowed to acknowledge exceptional situations by allowing online logs to stand even when there aren't physical signatures to back them up.

Exactly. No-one is saying that the CO must accept finds where there's no signature in the logbook - signing the logbook is the normally accepted way of confirming a find and a CO must accept a find if there's a matching signature in the logbook. The converse isn't true, though, the CO isn't compelled to delete a log if there's no matching signature, rather he or she is allowed to make a judgement call if there were extenuating circumstances that prevented someone who found the cache from signing the logbook. And if that reason was due to a problem with the cache, then the CO is obliged to fix the cache so that future finders can sign the logbook.

Edited November 10, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+Rebore]

26 minutes ago, niraD said:

When people in this thread (and threads like this thread) have said "a signature is not a requirement for logging a find online" (or something similar), it has generally been in response to posts that express a zero-tolerance-for-all attitude that online logs should never be allowed if there aren't physical signatures to back them up.

In that context, those posts are not saying that physical signatures are no longer expected, or that cache owners cannot delete online logs that aren't backed up by physical signatures.

In that context, those posts are saying that exceptions can be made, and that the cache owner is allowed to acknowledge exceptional situations by allowing online logs to stand even when there aren't physical signatures to back them up.

This.

I haven't found the words to put it this way by myself.

[+L0ne.R]

3 hours ago, niraD said:

You're focusing on the "feet on the ground" part, which is indeed the same. Others focus on other aspects of the event, and therefore see it differently, for example:

 

What if the cache owner of the  T5 tree climbing cache sees it differently? What if he sees in the log that 12 people watched Bob climb 30 feet and sign with the group name of the day, then deletes everyone's log but Bob's? 

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

There is a clear rule where it is needed.

"Caches can be logged online as 'Found' after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook."

Groundspeak will restore deleted logs in situations where the CO has deleted a log, but the finder had signed the physical log.

Where else is a clear rule/statement needed?

It seems clear but then people start to muddy it up by saying that the geocacher doesn't actually have to sign or even see the cache, all he needs is a surrogate. Or he may be a member of a clique and record all the finds of anyone in that clique. 

Edited November 10, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+niraD]

39 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

What if the cache owner of the  T5 tree climbing cache sees it differently? What if he sees in the log that 12 people watched Bob climb 30 feet and sign with the group name of the day, then deletes everyone's log but Bob's? 

If there's a signature on the physical log, then the CO has to let the online log stand.

Yeah, sometimes it sucks for the CO if the signature didn't end up on the physical log in the "right" way.

34 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

It seems clear but then people start to muddy it up by saying that the geocacher doesn't actually have to sign or even see the cache, all he needs is a surrogate. Or he may be a member of a clique and record all the finds of anyone in that clique. 

Let me clarify.

When is a clear rule needed?

Generally, it's when a CO has deleted an online log, and the finder complains to Groundspeak. In that case, Groundspeak has a clear rule: If the physical log was signed, then the online log stands, and Groundspeak will restore and lock it. If the physical log was not signed, then the deletion stands.

In other situations, it's up to us to sort it out.

Edited November 10, 2017 by niraD

[+thebruce0]

A couple comments:

4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

It's part of the whole fuzzy logic of what constitutes a find and what an owner can do with respect to removing someone's find from the logger's record of finds. The person who did the same thing as a dozen other people (feet on the ground, staring up at the cache) gets their find removed.  If the name in the logsheet does not allow for a person of that dozen people who all did the same, then unfortunately for that person if the CO deletes their log, Groundspeak may stand by it. It's he-said-she-said if cacher says he was with the group, but there's no defense from the group that he was with them.

Or the lone-cacher who climbs the tree, reaches for his pen and it's not in his pocket, he gets his find removed even though he was actually up the tree with the cache in hand. Unfortunately, again, if the CO doesn't believe the person that they found it but couldn't sign, then to Groundspeak it's once again he-said-she-said.

Maybe the intent of the owner was to have each person who claimed a find, to climb the tree, or visit the island, or repel down the cliff. That owner can't delete the dozen non-finds, but can delete the loan-cacher's find for doing exactly the same thing or for climbing without a pen.

It's all way too fuzzy for me, can be very unfair, and can promote unsportsmanlike behaviour--get someone to put your name in the cache without having to actually look for or perform the actions required to get the cache (swim, wade, boat, climb, repel, see each stage or even visit) the cache.  It can indeed promote unsportsmanlike behaviour. But I think GS is banking on the vast majority of people playing respectably, then the vast majority of COs in remaining situations not caring sufficiently, then the remainder are appeals to make the call if the circumstances are sufficiently clear.

 

56 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

What if the cache owner of the  T5 tree climbing cache sees it differently? What if he sees in the log that 12 people watched Bob climb 30 feet and sign with the group name of the day, then deletes everyone's log but Bob's? 

If the climber signs a group name and all cachers claim the group claim it, the CO can't do anything about their logs.  Yep.  It sucks. But on the flipside, other cachers would say it's not fair (in addition to being uncontrollable) to require every individual's own hand to sign their own name in every paper logsheet in order to secure their log online.  The fairest is to provide a very basic, standard rule that the vast majority of people can understand and abide by, else grasp the spirit of the rule and play in a way that upsets the least people. That is, have your name in the logsheet to secure your log online.

 

Where there's no way to objectively arbitrate a disagreement, GS will rely on a simple rule that both sides of the fence have to adhere to even in cases they may not think is fair; goes both ways.

[+ChillFire12]

I am pretty OCD, so I carry pens in my car. And the space pen from geocaching.com on my lanyard around my neck. Even if I am not caching, I have pens in my car. I just don't see any reason not to. In any case. If I cannot sign a log, I don't take credit for it. I've had ones I couldn't open, and only after a ton of effort, broken nails, scrapes etc., I would send a photo of the cache to the CO and only then ASK if it was OK to log it. Sometimes I still didn't.

I have had some caches that were missing or broken or whatever...logged as DNF to alert the CO...and they write back to go ahead and log it as a find because of my photos of descriptions that showed I was there....but I usually don't log even then. If it is local, I'll wait until they fix it and go back.

I just really feel for me, personally, it has to be logged in real life to be logged in computer life. That's just me. Old, old and old fashioned me.

I own a fairly old cache, and a handful of new ones. I know most of the loggers on the newer ones. But my longtime cache has a whole bunch of transient stuff on it. I don't delete any of it. What does it hurt me? Nothing. Does it affect the integrity of the game? Maybe. Do I feel ok with that? No, but I cannot possibly know every situation why they HAD NO PEN. But I wish everyone was really really really OCD because then we would all have pens lots of pens

 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Tumbleweedeb

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, niraD said:

If there's a signature on the physical log, then the CO has to let the online log stand.

Yeah, sometimes it sucks for the CO if the signature didn't end up on the physical log in the "right" way.

The other 2/3rds reminded me of one (luckily...) out of our area who insisted that all in groups sign individually.   They complained on a couple sites that they were unfairly "talked to" for  ALRs.   I'd bet more than once.    After an event, a buncha folks stopped at a couple of theirs in the park,  and some ended up being able to add a  "NM, log full"  to boot.   

[+CAVinoGal]

2 hours ago, Tumbleweedeb said:

I am pretty OCD ... I have had some caches that were missing or broken or whatever...logged as DNF to alert the CO...and they write back to go ahead and log it as a find because of my photos of descriptions that showed I was there....but I usually don't log even then. If it is local, I'll wait until they fix it and go back.

I just really feel for me, personally, it has to be logged in real life to be logged in computer life. That's just me. Old, old and old fashioned me.

OK--I dont consider myself particularly OCD, but I have had CO's tell me to log a find, but I didn't until they fixed it or I went back and signed the log ... that's just me.

I do go caching with my husband, sometimes joined by another friend, and we will sign individually if there is room.  On nanos we have a team name / shorthand that takes one line on those tiny, easily filled logs, rather than taking 2 or three lines.  But I am careful to note the team name in my online log. (Signed log as ... ). And we often let each of us "find" it (unless we've been looking for awhile and are getting frustrated!!), and we are pretty evenly split on who finds it first.  We share the logging responsibilities too ... I feel confident in claiming every "find" I log.  But how is a CO of a cache I've signed, or my group has signed, going to know my online log is any different than an armchair logger or an "I forgot my pen" logger?  I WANT my signature to be on the log if there will ever be a question.

[+MartyBartfast]

9 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

So, what are you trying to say?  This is an ongoing problem for at least the last 6 years?  I cant understand, why there is not a clear rule / statement on the logging requirement.

What I'm trying to say is "There is no problem, there was no problem 6 years ago and there isn't one now,  so stop banging on about it again and again, let it go and move on."

Why do you need a rule, can't you just use your own judgement & conscience to get on with the game? Why do you need someone to write immutable rules for you to blindly follow?

[+Mausebiber]

1 hour ago, MartyBartfast said:

Why do you need a rule, can't you just use your own judgement & conscience to get on with the game?

Sure I can, no problem, but is my judgment the same as yours?  A friend of mine will not allow any online logs without supporting signature, will not accept photo logs.  I care less and leave it up to the finder to log without supporting signature.  So, people might think he is rude and I'm relaxed, but is this true, or do we just read the guidelines in a different way?  You are asking why I need a rule?  Well, we have a rule already in place, don't we.  Groundspeak has a Guideline which says " A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook. "  Would be quite easy to avoid those discussions if the Guideline wouldn't leave room for different views.

Quote

There is no problem, there was no problem 6 years ago and there isn't one now

Logging "Find"...  ongoing even longer than 6 years.  I fully agree with you to stop banging on it, just read my comment from above " Unbelievable that this is still ongoing  "

But I disagree with your statement, that there is not a problem, otherwise there there wouldn't be the same discussion over and over and over again.

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 10/17/2017 at 1:09 PM, NYPaddleCacher said:

I'm talking about navigation to a location where a cache is hidden, locating and retrieving the container, only to discover that the log can't be signed.  In my 10 years playing the game it's probably only happened less than a handful of times.

In rain-prone areas like Florida or in the aftermath of a major weather event like Irma ruined logs from water are all too common.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

16 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

18 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

19 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

But, this is really the very basics of geocaching, and logging online: Sign the logsheet.

Unless you can get someone else to sign your trailname in the cache for you. Like group caching -- continue walking down the trail chatting with friends while someone goes in for the find and signs for everyone else. Or someone climbs the tree while a dozen people watch, everyone logs the find. Another person comes along and does exactly what the dozen on the ground did, stare up at the cache and they get their find deleted because they, like a dozen other people, didn't sign the log.

Yes, but beside the point - name on logsheet was what I was getting at, whether you sign it yourself or someone else does or it's your own name or a group name, whatever, that's a different 'ethic' debate =P. The basic intent is: Sign the logsheet.

I agree that it's a different debate, but on one side you have people that insist that you must sign the log sheet in order to log the find online or they're delete your log (and the guidelines allow for this).  One the other side there are someone that believe that as long as your name is in the log sheet, and it doesn't matter how it got there, that they can log the find online.  That latter group will employ such practices as watching someone else climb a tree, or dive for a scuba cache,  swap pre-stamped containers, or divide an conquer with multiple vehicles visiting a different set of geocaches.  Personally, I think the geocacher that navigates to a cache location, retrieves the container, but doesn't sign the physical log sheet because the container is frozen shut or the log is a mushy mess, is adhering to the basics of geocaching more than someone that never actually goes to the cache location or replaces that container after finding it.

[+justintim1999]

2 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

Sure I can, no problem, but is my judgment the same as yours?  A friend of mine will not allow any online logs without supporting signature, will not accept photo logs.  I care less and leave it up to the finder to log without supporting signature.  So, people might think he is rude and I'm relaxed, but is this true, or do we just read the guidelines in a different way?  You are asking why I need a rule?  Well, we have a rule already in place, don't we.  Groundspeak has a Guideline which says " A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook. "  Would be quite easy to avoid those discussions if the Guideline wouldn't leave room for different views.

Logging "Find"...  ongoing even longer than 6 years.  I fully agree with you to stop banging on it, just read my comment from above " Unbelievable that this is still ongoing  "

But I disagree with your statement, that there is not a problem, otherwise there there wouldn't be the same discussion over and over and over again.

" A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook. "   That's about as cut and dry as it gets.   I can't see any other way to interpret this other than you must sign the physical log or you can't log the cache online.   You can choose to play the game that way and you'd be well within your rites to do so but I think you'd be missing, in my opinion, the bigger picture.   That being said GS allows cache owners to manage their caches as they see fit.  It's part of the reason why we have guidelines.   If this were a hard and fast rule,  GS would be spending a majority of their time settling disputes. 

To claim a find you should have to sign the physical log but we're all human and make mistakes.   When I see "couldn't sign the log because I didn't have a pen."  I generally take them at their word because 90% of the time it's the truth.  I'm not going to penalize someone because the other 10% choose to play a different game or simply don't understand what caching is all about.      

[+L0ne.R]

8 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

The other 2/3rds reminded me of one (luckily...) out of our area who insisted that all in groups sign individually.   They complained on a couple sites that they were unfairly "talked to" for  ALRs.   I'd bet more than once.    After an event, a buncha folks stopped at a couple of theirs in the park,  and some ended up being able to add a  "NM, log full"  to boot.   

Yep. I've read cachers talk about retaliation to any cache owner that would insist the sign the logbook individually. They would purposefully fill the logbook, then post an NM.  

[+justintim1999]

20 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I agree that it's a different debate, but on one side you have people that insist that you must sign the log sheet in order to log the find online or they're delete your log (and the guidelines allow for this).  One the other side there are someone that believe that as long as your name is in the log sheet, and it doesn't matter how it got there, that they can log the find online.  That latter group will employ such practices as watching someone else climb a tree, or dive for a scuba cache,  swap pre-stamped containers, or divide an conquer with multiple vehicles visiting a different set of geocaches.  Personally, I think the geocacher that navigates to a cache location, retrieves the container, but doesn't sign the physical log sheet because the container is frozen shut or the log is a mushy mess, is adhering to the basics of geocaching more than someone that never actually goes to the cache location or replaces that container after finding it.

I agree with everything above but it begs the question "How far is a cache owner willing to go?"   Other than hand writing analysis or trail cameras how dose one know for sure a particular person didn't actually sign a log?    If a cacher posts that they didn't sign the log for whatever reason I'm pretty sure they at least were out there looking.  Why else even mention it?   If they simply posted,  Loved the cache or TFTC,  99 out of 100 times I'd be none the wiser.  

Unless the log indicates some type of problem how can you identify finds that are in violation of the guidelines without doing a lot of unnecessary work.   I just can't see doing all that extra work hoping to find the one or two people who think they're somehow getting away with something.

This whole game is based on the honor system and if you can allow yourself to believe that most people are honorable than alot of this is a non issue.   

[+thebruce0]

11 hours ago, Tumbleweedeb said:

But I wish everyone was really really really OCD because then we would all have pens lots of pens

Bliss!

 

8 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

OK--I dont consider myself particularly OCD, but I have had CO's tell me to log a find, but I didn't until they fixed it or I went back and signed the log ... that's just me.

That's a good ethic. I've not signed quite a number of caches that the CO has allowed me to find (though I may or may not have logged a DNF in every case). I'm not sure I've ever waited to log a find until after the CO maintained it, but it makes sense. I harp about accuracy of find log history quite a lot - and yeah, if a cache is missing and the CO allows you to log it found, if you do, then the Find (strictly speaking) is misleading. I've done that a few times, but I make sure it's clear in the text of the log what the condition of the cache and the find log was. I may just revise that habit.

 

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I agree that it's a different debate, but on one side you have people that insist that you must sign the log sheet in order to log the find online or they're delete your log (and the guidelines allow for this).  One the other side there are someone that believe that as long as your name is in the log sheet, and it doesn't matter how it got there, that they can log the find online.  That latter group will employ such practices as watching someone else climb a tree, or dive for a scuba cache,  swap pre-stamped containers, or divide an conquer with multiple vehicles visiting a different set of geocaches.  Personally, I think the geocacher that navigates to a cache location, retrieves the container, but doesn't sign the physical log sheet because the container is frozen shut or the log is a mushy mess, is adhering to the basics of geocaching more than someone that never actually goes to the cache location or replaces that container after finding it.

Oh I certainly don't disagree!  But see the bolded... "Personally, I think..." when it comes to a discussion of what can and can't be done, is pretty irrelevant. All of the above is true. I'll try it another way * On one hand, it's right, but can be seen as unfair, when a CO deletes a find because the name isn't explicitly written in the logbook even though they held the cache but didn't have a pen. * On the other hand, it's right, but can be seen as unfair, when 30 cachers log a find on a tree cache when they stood down below and watched 1 climber touch and sign the log and signed the group name.  The "name in logsheet" rule that applies to everyone bites both ways, but GS banks on those bites being a tiny percentage of disputes in the grand scheme, and that the rule will set the pace and the spirit for the basics of 'how' to 'find' which, generally speaking, is reasonable and rational.

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

" A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook. "   That's about as cut and dry as it gets.   I can't see any other way to interpret this other than you must sign the physical log or you can't log the cache online.   You can choose to play the game that way and you'd be well within your rites to do so but I think you'd be missing, in my opinion, the bigger picture.   That being said GS allows cache owners to manage their caches as they see fit.  It's part of the reason why we have guidelines.   If this were a hard and fast rule,  GS would be spending a majority of their time settling disputes. 

I know we agree on this, I just wanted to point out that the "must sign" is something you're inferring from that sentence, so that's not really cut and dry. You're saying it means "must sign" then infusing your own exception about 'being human and making mistakes' which isn't actually written. I'm just saying, the actual wording literally allows for the exceptions and alternatives, so no need for gymnastics.  It's like a fairly open-ended statement which makes more effort to point to the spirit of the law than defining the letter of the law. Alternatives are also allowable by that sentence as argument from silence: "If you don't sign the log, you can log it online [inferred from elsewhere: if the CO allows it]" "If you do sign the log, you don't have to log it online [if you don't wish to]."  Groundspeak could put every possible situation in that text, but I think they're right in focusing on the spirit of the law in this case.  The only rule that follows, which can be enforced, is pertaining to the rights of the CO when it comes to find log deletion (if a verifiable name is not in the logsheet) - and that's the rule alongside the spirit that most minimizes the disputes that land in their lap.

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

This whole game is based on the honor system and if you can allow yourself to believe that most people are honorable than alot of this is a non issue.  

This.

It's when there are obvious problem people, and when they start to affect the 'game' for other people, that's when the radars start perking up for intentional violations. Until then, in the grand scheme, it doesn't matter much at all, and most people are rational and reasonable, playing in "their own way" without "their own way" actual being a detriment to others' "their own way"s.

[+justintim1999]

6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Bliss!

 

That's a good ethic. I've not signed quite a number of caches that the CO has allowed me to find (though I may or may not have logged a DNF in every case). I'm not sure I've ever waited to log a find until after the CO maintained it, but it makes sense. I harp about accuracy of find log history quite a lot - and yeah, if a cache is missing and the CO allows you to log it found, if you do, then the Find (strictly speaking) is misleading. I've done that a few times, but I make sure it's clear in the text of the log what the condition of the cache and the find log was. I may just revise that habit.

 

Oh I certainly don't disagree!  But see the bolded... "Personally, I think..." when it comes to a discussion of what can and can't be done, is pretty irrelevant. All of the above is true. I'll try it another way * On one hand, it's right, but can be seen as unfair, when a CO deletes a find because the name isn't explicitly written in the logbook even though they held the cache but didn't have a pen. * On the other hand, it's right, but can be seen as unfair, when 30 cachers log a find on a tree cache when they stood down below and watched 1 climber touch and sign the log and signed the group name.  The "name in logsheet" rule that applies to everyone bites both ways, but GS banks on those bites being a tiny percentage of disputes in the grand scheme, and that the rule will set the pace and the spirit for the basics of 'how' to 'find' which, generally speaking, is reasonable and rational.

 

I know we agree on this, I just wanted to point out that the "must sign" is something you're inferring from that sentence, so that's not really cut and dry. You're saying it means "must sign" then infusing your own exception about 'being human and making mistakes' which isn't actually written. I'm just saying, the actual wording literally allows for the exceptions and alternatives, so no need for gymnastics.  It's like a fairly open-ended statement which makes more effort to point to the spirit of the law than defining the letter of the law. Alternatives are also allowable by that sentence as argument from silence: "If you don't sign the log, you can log it online [inferred from elsewhere: if the CO allows it]" "If you do sign the log, you don't have to log it online [if you don't wish to]."  Groundspeak could put every possible situation in that text, but I think they're right in focusing on the spirit of the law in this case.  The only rule that follows, which can be enforced, is pertaining to the rights of the CO when it comes to find log deletion (if a verifiable name is not in the logsheet) - and that's the rule alongside the spirit that most minimizes the disputes that land in their lap.

In so many words that's exactly what I said.   GS allows for interpretations and exceptions, the guideline dose not.   Again " A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook. "  What am I inferring about this statement?

[+thebruce0]

"must", as quoted. That's inferred.

[+justintim1999]

17 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

"must", as quoted. That's inferred.

Yes,  that's what the guideline indicates.   You can not log your find online unless you have signed the physical log,  their for you MUST sign the physical log first if you intend to log your find online.    Now whether or not cachers adhere to this guideline and cache owners enforce it is another matter,  one I'd guess GS doesn't want to get into.   Regardless,  the guideline is quite clear.      

[+thebruce0]

14 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Yes,  that's what the guideline indicates.   You can not log your find online unless you have signed the physical log,  their for you MUST sign the physical log first if you intend to log your find online.    Now whether or not cachers adhere to this guideline and cache owners enforce it is another matter,  one I'd guess GS doesn't want to get into.   Regardless,  the guideline is quite clear.      

No, that it is an inference. "Can" and "must" are not equal.  Strictly speaking, the sentence only implies (and this is not inference) you "are allowed to" log it online once you've signed it. "A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook."  Alternatively, "must" could more appropriately be inferred if it said "...can only log..." but it doesn't. Otherwise it would conflict with other guidelines.
As it stands, the following sentence can logically coexist with it, as upheld by guidelines:
"A geocacher can log a physical online cache as "found" if the cache owner agrees that the geocacher has found the cache and allows it."  And the guidelines do indeed support this. Additionally, this sentence also logically coexists:
"A geocacher cannot log a physical cache online as "found" if the logbook has not been signed, and the cache owner has not been convinced that the geocacher has found the cache." (ie, a Find Log may be allowably deleted by the CO).

In short, the one sentence as written allows for all the situations often encountered where the guidelines set the rule, but focuses on the spirit of finding physical geocaches - sign the logbook - without relying on the detailed letter.

[+justintim1999]

13 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

No, that it is an inference. "Can" and "must" are not equal.  Strictly speaking, the sentence only implies (and this is not inference) you "are allowed to" log it online once you've signed it. "A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook."  Alternatively, "must" could more appropriately be inferred if it said "...can only log..." but it doesn't. Otherwise it would conflict with other guidelines.
As it stands, the following sentence can logically coexist with it, as upheld by guidelines:
"A geocacher can log a physical online cache as "found" if the cache owner agrees that the geocacher has found the cache and allows it."  And the guidelines do indeed support this. Additionally, this sentence also logically coexists:
"A geocacher cannot log a physical cache online as "found" if the logbook has not been signed, and the cache owner has not been convinced that the geocacher has found the cache." (ie, a Find Log may be allowably deleted by the CO).

In short, the one sentence as written allows for all the situations often encountered where the guidelines set the rule, but focuses on the spirit of finding physical geocaches - sign the logbook - without relying on the detailed letter.

You can interpret the spirit of the guideline all you want but as written a cacher must sign the physical log before they can log the cache online.    I think we all agree it's worded that way to allow cache owners recourse against bogus online logs.   We can spar around "can" and "must" all day but in the end the guideline clearly defines what a legit find is and when an online log is allowed.  

As a cache owner it's prudent not to get too crazy trying to enforce the guidelines to the letter.  Deleting a find because a cacher forgot to bring a pen is just plain silly.                

[+dprovan]

15 hours ago, niraD said:

Yeah, sometimes it sucks for the CO if the signature didn't end up on the physical log in the "right" way.

I'm not very interested in this sign/no-sign discussion anymore, especially since it always seems to me that almost everyone in the conversation would agree on any specific case, so the entire argument seems to be entirely about unnecessary imagined absolutes.

But this comment is the one I wish I could change. It should not "suck" for the CO if someone doesn't climb the tree. It makes me sad to think COs feel that way. One person in the group climbed the tree. That's a win! What difference does it make that the only reason he made it up the tree was that he was egged on by 12 other people that wanted to claim the find but had no intention of climbing the tree? Why take away the success of the find because some of the people involved weren't good enough according to the CO's standards? I can't help but imagine such a CO thinking it sucks when a geocacher in a wheelchair signed a log that his friend had to hand him because it was hanging 6' off the ground.

[+thebruce0]

I'll directly address dprovan's comment by stating 100% agreement. I used to think differently. But as evidence of my change of heart , I recently published a "tree climb trail" (the TCT) wherein I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the vast majority of "finders" of all of those 25 caches in the (current) series would not climb even one tree. Or maybe attempt one or two of the simplest ones. But my goal for the series was not to get people to climb trees, but rather to give people who love climbing trees a great excuse to get out and enjoy a few hours of doing just that. I knew that there would be groups where 2 or 3 or 30 people would watch from the trail as one dare devil did the deed. Those people would never otherwise find the cache "as intended". Honestly, I don't care if those people climb or not. -> I didn't place the caches for them (other than for a nice hike) - I placed the caches for people who would enjoy the climbs. Everyone else? Whatev.  My only request was towards those climbing enthusiasts - don't miss your opportunity for some fun climbs! If you're in a group, go for the climb, for fun, even.  Enjoy them, because they're for you.  And I even made each climb somewhat unique, a different type of climb, from easy one-step-ups to sky-high star-reaching extremes. Something for everyone (so to say).

Edited November 10, 2017 by thebruce0

[+fbingha]

Agreed, if someone logs the cache, I don't care if everyone else with them doesn't personally sign the log. If I believe they were actually there, then they experienced the cache in some manner or other. It isn't my concern that they don't play the game the same as I do as far as only logging caches that I touch.

My line is a throwdown. If you admit to leaving a throwdown, then your log will be deleted. If I find a throwdown and can track back to who did it, that log gets deleted.

Edited November 10, 2017 by fbingha

[+thebruce0]

I will say though, that it can depend on the cache experience being provided. Sometimes it is much easier to feel 'gipped' as a CO when someone opts to for-go the entire experience, once you've put together for others' enjoyment, especially if not especially difficult, just so they can get the smiley.  As one example, if you create a very cool, entertaining, interesting multi-cache, and someone just wants the DT so they find someone who's willing to give them the final coordinates. Sure, they found the final and signed the logsheet, but the feeling to the CO is more like getting the finger (even if that's not the intent); like "you put all that effort in for my enjoyment, but I just wanted your smiley instead". That's how many COs feel in cases like that. Of course, the alternative is that, well, they're only missing out and cheating themselves. That would be thealthy response   Anyway, I digress...

[+Rebore]

40 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

But as evidence of my change of heart , I recently published a "tree climb trail" (the TCT) wherein I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the vast majority of "finders" of all of those 25 caches in the (current) series would not climb even one tree.

Well, but surely at least one of the 25 people standing on the ground has a pen, that can be thrown up to the climber in case he has none.

[+niraD]

45 minutes ago, dprovan said:

But this comment is the one I wish I could change. It should not "suck" for the CO if someone doesn't climb the tree. It makes me sad to think COs feel that way. One person in the group climbed the tree. That's a win! What difference does it make that the only reason he made it up the tree was that he was egged on by 12 other people that wanted to claim the find but had no intention of climbing the tree? Why take away the success of the find because some of the people involved weren't good enough according to the CO's standards? I can't help but imagine such a CO thinking it sucks when a geocacher in a wheelchair signed a log that his friend had to hand him because it was hanging 6' off the ground.

Yeah, it would be nice if all COs looked at it that way.

But on the flip side, I can understand the frustration of a CO who creates a multi-stage epic cache, only for someone to grab the final coordinates, drive to the final location, sign the log, and claim the Fizzy square. And in that case, there really was no success to take away.

[+L0ne.R]

https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines

Quote

Caches can be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

Note, it says "The geocacher" not "a geocacher" -- an individual, and not a surrogate.

 

[+cerberus1]

13 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

The other 2/3rds reminded me of one (luckily...) out of our area who insisted that all in groups sign individually.   They complained on a couple sites that they were unfairly "talked to" for  ALRs.   I'd bet more than once.    After an event, a buncha folks stopped at a couple of theirs in the park,  and some ended up being able to add a  "NM, log full"  to boot.   

4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Yep. I've read cachers talk about retaliation to any cache owner that would insist the sign the logbook individually. They would purposefully fill the logbook, then post an NM.  

Already known for issues with others, I don't see it as "retaliation" as much as karma.   

 

[+thebruce0]

10 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines

Quote

Caches can be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

Note, it says "The geocacher" not "a geocacher" -- an individual, and not a surrogate.

There not much point in debating the subject of 'who' - group and team caching has been clarified long ago, specifically regarding the name in the logbook. The context of the guidelines is about the player (not the technicality of the makeup of whoever may be geocaching together), so the wording used is with that in mind. It's not exclusive to group or team caching, or what the name in the logsheet must strictly represent. Again, spirit of the find. In practice, Groundspeak has made it abundantly clear over the years that one name representing a group is allowed, therefore "the" name in "the" logbook isn't exclusively to represent "the" single geocacher.  Additionally, someone could easily say "I was with my wife; we visited the coordinates, and we signed the logbook." Which is just as valid as "I visited...and I signed..."  Groundspeak is not going to arbitrate a dispute about whether "Team AB" is invalid and the cachers should have physically written "Mr.A" and "Mrs.B" separately.  And that team-name argument spans from 2 people to large groups of people. Groundspeak knows this and it's been demonstrated for years.

[+L0ne.R]

9 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Groundspeak has made it abundantly clear over the years that one name representing a group is allowed, therefore "the" name in "the" logbook isn't exclusively to represent "the" single geocacher.

Where is this reflected in the guidelines?

[+niraD]

13 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines

Quote

Caches can be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

Note, it says "The geocacher" not "a geocacher" -- an individual, and not a surrogate.

But again, to paraphrase, the earlier post from thebruce0:

Even if you interpret that phrase strictly, insisting that it applies only to situations where the geocacher in question has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook personally, that sentence can still logically coexist with either of the following:

• Caches can be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates with a group and someone else in the group signed the logbook.
• Caches cannot be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates with a group and someone else in the group signed the logbook.

[+L0ne.R]

3 hours ago, niraD said:

Caches can be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates with a group and someone else in the group signed the logbook.

Sure they can log it as "Found" but can the owner delete all but Bob's find if they see, 'Bob paddled over to the island logged for the 10 of us at the event."

Edited November 10, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+cerberus1]

May be just me, but I feel a thread's shot when it gets to the point of  "define the"...