Cache owner log checks

[+bayoumiss]

Are there any rules regarding this, or is it up to each CO?

[+WarNinjas]

I'm sure it says somewhere that the CO is responsible for checking the log against the online log.  But it is really up to the CO.  When we first started I might have checked a few.  Now if I replace a log it would be rare for me to take it home and check it.  The only time I would look is if I thought someone didn't find it and was logging it as found.  Then I might take a look but other then that I don't.

[+Mudfrog]

Part of cache maintenance is the checking for and deleting of false logs. However, most cache owners don't worry about that too much. Myself, i rarely check unless there's something that doesn't quite look right. In those cases, i may check the logbook and/or email the finder to see what they have to say. It usually amounts to the finder making a mistake and logging the wrong cache or something innocent like that. Getting it straightened out helps both, the cache owner and the finder to keep their stats correct.

Of course there are times when a person intentionally tries to cheat. If you call them on it and they don't delete the false log themselves, then you can delete it for them. In the 16 years i've been caching, i think i've only had to do that one time.

It's really up to you how you want to handle it.

[+cerberus1]

The guidelines on Cache Owner Responsibilities it does say,  " Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate"..  

 - But our lesser (low D/T hides) we rarely checked unless it was one of those "hundreds of 3/3 finds in six states" things, a group known to tear up an area, or get an email from another of a faker working through the area.

Our 5T hides state on the cache page that we won't accept fakers (others worked hard to find them), and when I do maintenance to check, I'll delete those.  Some odd reason, the most fakers have been on those 5T hides.  Weird...

[+Crow-T-Robot]

6 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Some odd reason, the most fakers have been on those 5T hides.  Weird...

I think I found the reason...

 

Personally, I don't check. I don't put out difficult caches (to solve, to find or to get to-at least in my opinion). I aim for fun. If I put out a puzzle, I try to make it an interactive puzzle that has some humor sprinkled in here and there but the hides tend to be pretty straightforward.

If I put out a traditional/multi, I try to incorporate something fun in the hide itself. If someone wants to just claim a find without finding the container and inflate a meaningless find count, they are welcome to play that game all they want but I can't imagine how uninteresting the game must be to them. There is a whole world of fun and creative caches out there (plenty of ho-hum as well). Finding either kind is worthwhile of my time. I'd have given up long ago if my find count was the driving factor to being a "geocacher".

[+themagician]

I would get  someone that lives far away and claiming a find. I always checked them , no log I deleted them.  Now, if you think you need to log it but not find  it, well ok, your the one missing out on the fun.

[+bayoumiss]

Thank u all, esp Cerberus1 for the link.  

[+jellis]

I do as much as I can. I really like it when someone posts pictures of my logsheets. One recently the cacher had to go bushwack into a ravine and she searched and dug up the container under a long time of leaves. She photographed the logsheet and mentioned the previous finder didn't sign the logsheet. She also mentioned because it was under leaves it was not disturbed and the previous finder was not long before her. I tried to contact the cacher to ask if they really found my cache or got mine mixed up with another. I got no answer for over a week. So I deleted the log. Long after I got a message that they didn't have anything to write with and will go back up to sign it. He didn't respond about how the area was undisturbed. This cache is in an area not easy to get to, and his log said he was just walking his dog.

So when I do go check my caches for DNFs or log full and the cache is in good shape I will compare the logs to online and will post pictures so there is no doubt if someone complains I deleted their log when they didn't sign it or offer any proof they tried to sign logsheet or photograph the logsheet.

[+barefootjeff]

Most of my hides are higher terrain ones (the lowest is a T2 and the majority are T3 or higher) and often multis or puzzles, so it's usually fairly easy to tell from the logs whether someone actually made the find. There were some a few months back that consisted only of a single clenched-fist emoji character (not even a TFTC!) that I was suspicious of, but all the caches had their signature in the logbook along with a hand-drawn picture of that emoji. I still don't know whether it means they liked the cache or hated it, but they've put the same thing in every cache they've found. To each their own I suppose.

The only log I've had to delete was on my earthcache where the logger refused to answer any of the questions.

[+noncentric]

I check online logs against the physical log sheet, but I don't have a lot of finders on my caches, so it's an easy task for me. I do intend to place more caches, and I do intend to continue checking - especially if a particular local cacher logs a find on one of them. 

[+justintim1999]

I try to keep my cache pages accurate.   This would include deleting false finds, posting owners maintenance logs and attempting to keep the travel bug inventory as current as possible.   I do keep the signed logs when I replace them but I usually only compare the two if I suspect somethings amiss.   

[+The A-Team]

I don't normally compare the logs unless I see something that leads me to believe that something might not be right. When I have compared in the past, I usually find that there are often more signatures in the physical log than online, rather than the other way around. Some people just never log their find online.

However, I do have one cache that has a trick to it, and I periodically compare the logs for that one and delete any who didn't sign the log. It has 78 finds and I think I've had to delete 3 in the past.

There's also a couple of local cachers who are gaining a reputation for questionable logging tactics in order to qualify for challenge caches, so I might start confirming their logs on any of my caches.

[+L0ne.R]

22 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

There's also a couple of local cachers who are gaining a reputation for questionable logging tactics in order to qualify for challenge caches, so I might start confirming their logs on any of my caches.

 

Since challenge caches (my area probably has the most CCs in North America, at least before the new cc guidelines), there are a lot of questionable online logs on our non-trads. Non-traditionals are generally prized for cc qualifying. 25-50 finds are claimed under one team-of-the-day name. It is known that many team members don't visit each cache they log as find (a conquer-and-divide style of play). But as long as that team-of-the-day name is in the paper log, those online logs are considered legit.

I'd rather someone actually visit my cache. If they forget a pen/pencil (I always include one in the cache but they can go missing) and didn't sign the log, I'd be very happy to get a thoughtful meaningful online log that showed they visited and enjoyed the experience. One that didn't say "Out with team-of-the-day. We found 60 non-trads today and qualify for barnie's 20-20-20 challenge."

[+thebruce0]

54 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Since challenge caches (my area probably has the most CCs in North America, at least before the new cc guidelines), there are a lot of questionable online logs on our non-trads. Non-traditionals are generally prized for cc qualifying. 25-50 finds are claimed under one team-of-the-day name. It is known that many team members don't visit each cache they log as find (a conquer-and-divide style of play). But as long as that team-of-the-day name is in the paper log, those online logs are considered legit.

I'd rather someone actually visit my cache. If they forget a pen/pencil (I always include one in the cache but they can go missing) and didn't sign the log, I'd be very happy to get a thoughtful meaningful online log that showed they visited and enjoyed the experience. One that didn't say "Out with team-of-the-day. We found 60 non-trads today and qualify for barnie's 20-20-20 challenge."

Yes. So very yes.

This is an example of legitimate 'gaming the system'. Challenges I think are the biggest element of geocaching that people use as encouragement to 'bend the rules', as it were. To complete some high difficulty challenges, typically that require high D or T caches or high find counts in a short period of time, people will team up.  Puzzles might get solved by 1 person out of 20.  Special equipment may be used by 1 out of 20. Of the group each person may visit 1 in 3 caches but claim them all under the group name. All of these are technically allowable practices, if only because there's no way to objectively enforce dispute resolutions [in favour of the CO].  It comes to a point where you just shrug your shoulders. Personally, I only care now if the log is accurate. If I can do anything to dissuade such practices, as part of the cache finding experience, then I'll use it.

Yep, for some puzzles where you're intended to solve the puzzle to get the cache, I've had some upset comments when the puzzle changes in a way that you'd only know if you solved it, and someone who got the [old] coordinates from a friend couldn't find it *snicker*.  The way I see it, if it's ok for a cacher to hand out coordinates instead of solving a puzzle, then it's ok for a CO to create a puzzle that can be adjusted transparently (and the final container moved within allowable limits) to thwart circumventing the intent.

I'm not sure there's anything a CO can do about high T caches though. I mean, if a cache is on an island 5km off shore and someone stays back while their partner kayaks over, but both claim the find under a group name, it's still considered valid.

Anyway, point being - regarding the puzzle example, if someone claims the find after I know it's been moved, I may either ask them to describe the hide or go check the logsheet.

Log auditing I only really even consider an option for high D or T caches, or caches I know are targeted for popular challenges (rare qualifiers, basically).  It's rare I ever find an online log without an accompanying signature when that does happen.

[+The A-Team]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Since challenge caches (my area probably has the most CCs in North America, at least before the new cc guidelines), there are a lot of questionable online logs on our non-trads. Non-traditionals are generally prized for cc qualifying.

Yep, it wasn't long ago that I saw some outright bogus logging from the aforementioned cachers on some puzzle caches. The two cachers were out caching together on a trail with some puzzle finals on it. At one point, one of the cachers turned around and headed back to the car, and stated this in their online log. The other cacher continued on, and subsequently wrote the first cacher's name in the remaining physical logs. Both cachers logged all of them as finds. When I found these caches myself and put together the evidence, it was the last straw that triggered me to archive my own challenge cache before one of those cachers got the chance to log it.

[+L0ne.R]

4 hours ago, The A-Team said:

Yep, it wasn't long ago that I saw some outright bogus logging from the aforementioned cachers on some puzzle caches. The two cachers were out caching together on a trail with some puzzle finals on it. At one point, one of the cachers turned around and headed back to the car, and stated this in their online log. The other cacher continued on, and subsequently wrote the first cacher's name in the remaining physical logs. Both cachers logged all of them as finds. When I found these caches myself and put together the evidence, it was the last straw that triggered me to archive my own challenge cache before one of those cachers got the chance to log it.

 

Same here. I average about 15 monitored and maintained, active hides a year--at least for about 10 years. It's down to 6 hides now. If I hide another cache it will be a 1.5/1.5 traditional to make it less attractive to the grid fillers. 

[+noncentric]

6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Since challenge caches (my area probably has the most CCs in North America, at least before the new cc guidelines), there are a lot of questionable online logs on our non-trads.

Yes, you hate challenge caches and think they have ruined geocaching. But to the point of the OP, do you audit physical logs on your caches?

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by noncentric

[+L0ne.R]

14 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Yes, you hate challenge caches and think they have ruined geocaching. But to the point of the OP, do you audit physical logs on your caches?

 

I keep all of my logbooks as souvenirs and read through them. However we don’t audit. Seems unfair that finders can legimately claim a find on a cache they didn’t find, while others who genuinely find the cache but dropped their pencil somewhere on the path, should have their find deleted. 

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Same here. I average about 15 monitored and maintained, active hides a year--at least for about 10 years. It's down to 6 hides now. If I hide another cache it will be a 1.5/1.5 traditional to make it less attractive to the grid fillers. 

Gosh. Here, the most common lament amongst high D/T COs is the sparsity of finders, and a few grid fillers or challenge seekers would be great to have. Last year I created a challenge cache requiring 20 finds with the "takes more than 1 hour" attribute, hoping it'd encourage a few more people to attempt the more time-consuming caches, but the challenge has largely gone unchallenged with only four finds since it was published in August and all of those had already qualified before it was published. About the only thing now breathing a bit of life into the tougher caches is a few pre-moratorium unloved-cache challenges, so when our caches start accumulating enough unloved months to make attempting them worthwhile we might get another find or two, but of course the clock then resets back to zero.

On Wednesday I did a post-school-holidays check on my caches in Patonga, and it wasn't until after I'd posted the OM on one of them (a 3/3.5 multi) that I realised the immediately preceding log was my OM from after the last lot of school holidays. That one was last found in December 2016.

I've also yet to have a cache with a full logbook. My most prolifically found cache is one I hid just over four years ago close to a motorway interchange, which has had 227 finds. When I last checked a few months ago, the logbook was still only half full.

Edited February 9, 2018 by barefootjeff
Date correction

[+noncentric]

7 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Since challenge caches (my area probably has the most CCs in North America, at least before the new cc guidelines), there are a lot of questionable online logs on our non-trads.

FYI - The single state of California in the US has 50% more CC's and 50% less land mass than the province of Ontario.

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Gosh. Here, the most common lament amongst high D/T COs is the sparsity of finders

Is it? I really don't know what "the most common lament" is, but the lament that I notice, and the one that has led to cache owners giving up and archiving high D/T caches, is that their challenging geocaches are not respected as geocaches. The only value they seem to have to others is the way the high D/T rating checks a box for some challenge cache or other badge.

[+noncentric]

15 minutes ago, niraD said:

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Gosh. Here, the most common lament amongst high D/T COs is the sparsity of finders

Is it? I really don't know what "the most common lament" is, but the lament that I notice, and the one that has led to cache owners giving up and archiving high D/T caches, is that their challenging geocaches are not respected as geocaches. The only value they seem to have to others is the way the high D/T rating checks a box for some challenge cache or other badge.

I don't know what the "most common lament" is here either, but I have seen caches archived with a note from the CO saying that they're tired of cachers that think they don't need to actually sign the log.

[+barefootjeff]

21 minutes ago, niraD said:

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Gosh. Here, the most common lament amongst high D/T COs is the sparsity of finders

Is it?

In a puzzle cache published here in 2015, the CO lamented in the description that, "This cache, like all caches on the Central Coast with a walk involved, will probably get found 5 times in quick succession and then never again as no-one from anywhere else bothers to come here ". His prediction didn't quite come true, as his cache now has 14 finders, but this seems to be a common theme at events and in the FB group here.

[+barefootjeff]

29 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

42 minutes ago, niraD said:

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Gosh. Here, the most common lament amongst high D/T COs is the sparsity of finders

Is it?

In a puzzle cache published here in 2015, the CO lamented in the description that, "This cache, like all caches on the Central Coast with a walk involved, will probably get found 5 times in quick succession and then never again as no-one from anywhere else bothers to come here ". His prediction didn't quite come true, as his cache now has 14 finders, but this seems to be a common theme at events and in the FB group here.

To reinforce this, here are some find counts of my own recent hiking caches:

• GC6WPG5, a 2/5 multi published November 2016, has 3 finds (2 FPs)
• GC6XHHJ, a 2/3 multi published December 2016, has 2 finds (1 FP)
• GC71QN9, a 1.5/3 traditional published March 2017, has 4 finds (3 FPs)
• GC752YF, a 3/3.5 challenge published August 2017, has 4 finds (2 FPs)

If you want to get into double figures find counts around here now, you're best sticking to 1.5/1.5 P&Gs.

[+colleda]

48 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

In a puzzle cache published here in 2015, the CO lamented in the description that, "This cache, like all caches on the Central Coast with a walk involved, will probably get found 5 times in quick succession and then never again as no-one from anywhere else bothers to come here ". His prediction didn't quite come true, as his cache now has 14 finders, but this seems to be a common theme at events and in the FB group here.

It would be an interesting exercise to see the average find distances of Central Coast (or anywhere else for that matter) cachers as shown in their profiles. I'm not that tech savvy to accomplish this and I am often amazed at some of the stats extracted by posters and shown on these boards.

[+barefootjeff]

13 minutes ago, colleda said:

It would be an interesting exercise to see the average find distances of Central Coast (or anywhere else for that matter) cachers as shown in their profiles. I'm not that tech savvy to accomplish this and I am often amazed at some of the stats extracted by posters and shown on these boards.

I don't know if averages would mean much, as they're going to be blown out of the water by any overseas caching, especially for Australians for whom most overseas locations are a long way away.

[+thebruce0]

I think a thing to remember is that it's only in recent years that the influx of new geocachers has been mainly from urban cities and towns using smartphones who aren't as outdoorsy as many of the original geocachers. I think if we look at at the general geocache population and take the average find count across the board, then hope or expect that level of find counts on lengthier caches or tougher ones, we'll be sorely disappointed. I start in '09, so I'm not sure how often finds were made on the 'real' traditional caches (like long hikes), but I'd suspect not much has changed.  One of the first 5T caches I found in California is found visited once or twice a year in the desert. That's normal.

I think if we decide to place 1+ hour style caches, keep the expectations low. Think of it like a long term investment. Those are fun to find if you enjoy long cache outings, because you know they're meant to last, so when you find it, the cache is a treat (hopefully as well as the journey to get there).  In contrast to many of the 'simpler' hides we get now because of the community/cultural shift to city-caching, in general.

Heck I just placed a couple of caches in a very remote area, and I'm really hoping they withstand looong stints without activity because I know they may get visited a handful of times a year, tops. I'd have no qualms about going out to maintain them though (again for longer term sustainability) because the areas are gorgeous.

And in those cases, the joy of finding the cache really IS the journey more than the container. That in itself keeps away some of the 'grid hunters' who only want the stats.  (I like to consider myself a grid hunter, challenge/goal oriented, but also totally in it for the journeys and fun the COs intend by their hides)

[+gonzozen55]

I have geocached for years, and I will admit sometimes I write in the cache logs, and sometimes I do not.  I am pretty certain that NO where does it say you MUST write in the logs if you find a cache?  Sometimes there are obstacles in the way, or various other reasons.   I NEVER log a cache online without finding it!   So, if a CO wants to delete one of my finds, go ahead!   I personally never ever check my own cache logs, as I am not that anal as to worry about those things.  I also always report NON finds, because that does happen.

 

People who want to delete logs are taking this WAY to serious!

Edited February 9, 2018 by gonzozen55

[+baer2006]

29 minutes ago, gonzozen55 said:

I have geocached for years, and I will admit sometimes I write in the cache logs, and sometimes I do not.  I am pretty certain that NO where does it say you MUST write in the logs if you find a cache?

Yes, it does: "A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook."
Source: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=107&pgid=823

If you didn't sign the logbook, i.e. you caching nickname is not in it, the owner is entitled to delete your online find log.

29 minutes ago, gonzozen55 said:

Sometimes there are obstacles in the way, or various other reasons.   I NEVER log a cache online without finding it!

Obstacles like what? Some "obstacles" (e.g. cache high up in a tree, or container can only be opened after solving a riddle) are there by design, and just finding the cache is not enough.

Edited February 9, 2018 by baer2006
(removed irrelevant quote)

[+thebruce0]

22 minutes ago, gonzozen55 said:

People who want to delete logs are taking this WAY to serious!

That's a very broad statement
As you seem to recognize, there are many situations where it's not so cut and dry. Log deletion just for the sake of opinion or being overly legalistic - that's be way too serious, Igree. But log deletion for the sake of non-finds, like verified couch logging, or actually desiring that a cacher have the full intended experience when you know they did not (and it's also the CO's right to delete this non-find log), I think is valid in the spirit of keeping an accurate log history (as the CO) to help other cachers, and providing experiences for people to enjoy (as the finder), and is not taking it way too seriously.

 

13 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

If you didn't sign the logbook, i.e. you caching nickname is not in it, the owner is entitled to delete your online find log.

"entitled to delete" - that's a good way of putting it.

[+noncentric]

3 hours ago, gonzozen55 said:

I have geocached for years, and I will admit sometimes I write in the cache logs, and sometimes I do not.  I am pretty certain that NO where does it say you MUST write in the logs if you find a cache?  Sometimes there are obstacles in the way, or various other reasons.   I NEVER log a cache online without finding it!   So, if a CO wants to delete one of my finds, go ahead!   I personally never ever check my own cache logs, as I am not that anal as to worry about those things.  I also always report NON finds, because that does happen.

 

People who want to delete logs are taking this WAY to serious!

This is not the thread to debate, yet again, whether signing the log is required by the "guidelines" or not. If you are interested in the opinions of some of your fellow forum posters about the issue though, then you can peruse these two recent threads:  HERE   and   HERE  There have been plenty of other threads with similar arguments, but these are just two of the more recent ones.

[+gonzozen55]

4 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Yes, it does: "A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook."
Source: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=107&pgid=823

If you didn't sign the logbook, i.e. you caching nickname is not in it, the owner is entitled to delete your online find log.

Obstacles like what? Some "obstacles" (e.g. cache high up in a tree, or container can only be opened after solving a riddle) are there by design, and just finding the cache is not enough.

Obstacles like poison ivy!

[+Harry Dolphin]

As stated elsewhere, there are times that I do check cache logs when it is obvious that the cacher lied. I had two cache that were about two miles apart, but the drive between them was at least an hour.  The cacher breezed through the area, and logged a lot of finds.  Three states in one day!  I very much doubted that that cacher actually found both on those caches.  Checked the logs:  No signature logged.  Deleted.

Another drove a truck through the area on a bad snow day.  No trucks permitted there.  That road was closed due to the snow.  Delete.

But, for the most part, I do not check logs.  One pair of cachers obviously logged every cache they were near.  But it wasn't worth checking all the logs.

In many ways, the webcam is easier.  Post a photo of you taken by the webcam.  Easy!  I'm at about a 30% delete ratio on that one.  Nope!  Selfies not permitted.  And it has 864 'Webcam photos taken'!  And 270 Favorite Points.

[+K13]

3 hours ago, gonzozen55 said:

Obstacles like poison ivy!

Poison ivy is not an obstacle to retrieving and signing a cache for most people. If you have allergies or aversions to it, the appropriate log would be DNF, or Write Note.

[+gonzozen55]

8 hours ago, K13 said:

Poison ivy is not an obstacle to retrieving and signing a cache for most people. If you have allergies or aversions to it, the appropriate log would be DNF, or Write Note.

It is an obstacle to me!  Enough said!   Not going to debate this with you!

[+Mudfrog]

15 hours ago, gonzozen55 said:

Obstacles like poison ivy!

So, a container sitting in poison ivy gets a "found it" even if you don't open it? Do you also log other containers that you spot but can't reach,, say up in a tree? How can you be positive that container you spotted is actually the cache? An obstacle is something that adds to the difficulty of finding a cache and you shouldn't fool yourself into thinking you found a cache if you can't overcome that obstacle.

You're right that some people take our hobby too serious. On the other hand, guidelines and etiquette are needed to help to keep our hobby from straying off course. Signing the logbook/sheet is a fundamental guideline that everyone should follow. DNF is the proper log type to use when the physical log inside a cache can't be signed.

[+cerberus1]

53 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

So, a container sitting in poison ivy gets a "found it" even if you don't open it? Do you also log other containers that you spot but can't reach,, say up in a tree? How can you be positive that container you spotted is actually the cache? An obstacle is something that adds to the difficulty of finding a cache and you shouldn't fool yourself into thinking you found a cache if you can't overcome that obstacle.

You're right that some people take our hobby too serious. On the other hand, guidelines and etiquette are needed to help to keep our hobby from straying off course. Signing the logbook/sheet is a fundamental guideline that everyone should follow. DNF is the proper log type to use when the physical log inside a cache can't be signed.

I sorta agree, but I use a Write Note when I can see the cache but can't sign it.  An outdoors hobby, we should expect PI, bees, ticks, etc. to be around when "in the woods".  There are caches placed elsewhere...

I'm so allergic to apples that just touching the bark of the tree brings me to anaphylaxis.  The couple of times that containers were on apple trees, I simply used a Write Note (I can see it...) and explain why I didn't "find" it (sign the log).   But then I've never felt all caches "need" to be found. 

[+baer2006]

5 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I sorta agree, but I use a Write Note when I can see the cache but can't sign it.  An outdoors hobby, we should expect PI, bees, ticks, etc. to be around when "in the woods".  There are caches placed elsewhere...

I'm so allergic to apples that just touching the bark of the tree brings me to anaphylaxis.  The couple of times that containers were on apple trees, I simply used a Write Note (I can see it...) and explain why I didn't "find" it (sign the log).   But then I've never felt all caches "need" to be found. 

You nailed it.

Sometimes I find a cache (meaning I can see it), but I cannot log it. Maybe the tree climb is too difficult for me (or I don't want to risk it), or I don't have some required piece of equipment with me, or I can't figure out how to open the "trick box". Anyway, in this case I log a note, saying I was there and saw the cache, but couldn't sign the log.

As for "non-friendly" fauna or flora ... well, that's nature , as you said. I'm also allergic to some plants, but fortunately not to the point where it becomes really dangerous. When I search a cache in thuja (quite common in hedges around here), my hands look and itch horrible afterwards, but after 30 minutes or so everything is back to normal. So it's up to me to decide if I really want to find and log this cache, or not.

[+barefootjeff]

52 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

Sometimes I find a cache (meaning I can see it), but I cannot log it. Maybe the tree climb is too difficult for me (or I don't want to risk it), or I don't have some required piece of equipment with me, or I can't figure out how to open the "trick box". Anyway, in this case I log a note, saying I was there and saw the cache, but couldn't sign the log.

I don't see why this should be a WN and not a DNF. You searched for the cache but couldn't sign the log therefore, to me, that's a DNF. Whether you could see the cache or not should be immaterial, if you can't access the log to sign it, it's not a find in the geocaching sense of that word. A DNF isn't a cache-might-be-missing NM, well it shouldn't be, and perhaps if more people logged DNFs in this situation, TPTB might be a bit less keen to treat it as such.

[+baer2006]

12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I don't see why this should be a WN and not a DNF. You searched for the cache but couldn't sign the log therefore, to me, that's a DNF. Whether you could see the cache or not should be immaterial, if you can't access the log to sign it, it's not a find in the geocaching sense of that word. A DNF isn't a cache-might-be-missing NM, well it shouldn't be, and perhaps if more people logged DNFs in this situation, TPTB might be a bit less keen to treat it as such.

I always log a DNF if I couldn't find the cache. I know that DNF doesn't mean "cache might be missing". It means, that I didn't find it - no more, no less.

That said, I used to log DNF a lot more in situations when I found the cache but couldn't sign the log. And to be honest, I can't give any indisputable rationale for usually logging a note nowadays. A bit it's the feeling that saying "didn't find the cache" is incorrect when I actually found it (but didn't sign the log). Also, it's the majority's behavior in the local community to log a note in this case. Call it "peer pressure" if you like, but if it doesn't go totally against my own mindset, I tend to adjust to common practice.

Bottom line is: It's definitely ok to log a DNF in case of "found it but didn't sign". But I also think it's not really wrong to log a note, and since I feel better doing it that way, I'll stay with it .

[+Mudfrog]

21 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I sorta agree, but I use a Write Note when I can see the cache but can't sign it.  An outdoors hobby, we should expect PI, bees, ticks, etc. to be around when "in the woods".  There are caches placed elsewhere...

I'm so allergic to apples that just touching the bark of the tree brings me to anaphylaxis.  The couple of times that containers were on apple trees, I simply used a Write Note (I can see it...) and explain why I didn't "find" it (sign the log).   But then I've never felt all caches "need" to be found. 

And i agree with you too. A DNF is the proper log type when i myself, am not able to sign the log for some reason. That's the way i play it but i don't believe it's the way most people do. A note is fine, even a walk away without saying a word is ok. However, and imo, a "found it" is not the appropriate log type to use in this case.

A cache owner has the right to delete a person's find if that person's name is not in the logbook.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Mudfrog

[+NYPaddleCacher]

15 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Sometimes I find a cache (meaning I can see it), but I cannot log it

I cases like that I would say that I located the container, but didn't find the cache. 

[+bflentje]

On 2/8/2018 at 10:36 PM, noncentric said:

FYI - The single state of California in the US has 50% more CC's and 50% less land mass than the province of Ontario.

Except just about every inch of California is accessible. And half of Ontario is wilderness and not accessible without very special methods. ;-)

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, bflentje said:

Except just about every inch of California is accessible. And half of Ontario is wilderness and not accessible without very special methods. ;-)

Believe it or not, there is still some wilderness left in California. I'm not sure backpacking counts as "very special methods", but there are undeveloped places that are more than a day's hike from the trailhead.

[+bflentje]

On 2/11/2018 at 11:22 AM, niraD said:

Believe it or not, there is still some wilderness left in California. I'm not sure backpacking counts as "very special methods", but there are undeveloped places that are more than a day's hike from the trailhead.

Perhaps. But you know what my point was and debate isn't necessary.

[+lisboa_bruno]

Oh a similar but different note if the CO deletes the log even if the logsheet has been signed, nothing rude or insulting in the log but deleted then messaged to ask for more details how it was solved before being allowed to relog it as a find, whats the rules on this action?

From what I read on the guidelines and from other cachers if the logsheet is signed it counts as a find regardless of how it was solved or even found.

Oh yes and there is photographic evidence it has been signed with all exif removed.

[+thebruce0]

Yes, you can contact a reviewer or appeals to have the log reinstated. A CO can't require solving of a puzzle to log a find. The guidelines state that once your signature is in the logsheet of a physical cache you can log the cache as Found online.

Quote

For physical caches other than challenge caches, any additional logging requirement (ALR) beyond finding the cache and signing the log must be optional. Caches can be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

Quote

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.

Quote

[Owners] Cache owners may delete geocache logs if they conflict with our Terms of Use Agreement or fail to meet the logging guidelines for their cache type. If you delete a log in error, ask your local reviewer to restore the log, or contact us.

There have been many forum discussions about the owner's right to delete find logs. It's not required for the cacher to sign the log to log the find online, but rather that doing so precludes the owner from deleting your log (this grants them the ability to judge whether to let a log stand for whatever reason).  Puzzles, and even multi-caches, cannot require a cacher to do anything else in order to log the find. Did you solve the puzzle? Or a friend? Or did the internet? Did you physically find every stage? Or your dog? Did you see each? Touch each? Did you phone a friend for a hint? There are far too many questions to ask if that subjective door is opened.

So yep -
Physical cache? Logsheet is signed? Log it online. If the CO deletes it, take it to a reviewer to restore (especially if you have photo evidence), they can also lock the log from deletion. But, while interacting with the CO try to be respectful and take the high road, as they may not know the rules regarding puzzles. If they get irate, leave dealing with that up to the reviewer.   If it's really bad you could also just choose to let it go and not force the log; it is only a game after all.

[+lisboa_bruno]

I have solved a few of this CO puzzles up to know and this one seems that is very picky who logs it, I am not planning to take it future but at the same time I have put all his unsolved or found caches on the back burner even the ones I have made progress in solving. Basically removed from my map but adding to the ignore list, I know the CO and met a fair few times but now doesn't even say "hi" clearly telling me that he knows he was wrong. High road, its a game if people can't see that do something else and let us enjoy the game also many more caches tyo find out there

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, lisboa_bruno said:

Oh a similar but different note if the CO deletes the log even if the logsheet has been signed, nothing rude or insulting in the log but deleted then messaged to ask for more details how it was solved before being allowed to relog it as a find, whats the rules on this action?

From what I read on the guidelines and from other cachers if the logsheet is signed it counts as a find regardless of how it was solved or even found.

Oh yes and there is photographic evidence it has been signed with all exif removed.

In addition to the prohibition against Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs) that thebruce0 referred to, this is a violation of the "no contact required" guideline: "Caches cannot require geocachers to contact the cache owner or anyone else."

[+niraD]

16 minutes ago, lisboa_bruno said:

I have solved a few of this CO puzzles up to know and this one seems that is very picky who logs it, I am not planning to take it future but at the same time I have put all his unsolved or found caches on the back burner even the ones I have made progress in solving. Basically removed from my map but adding to the ignore list, I know the CO and met a fair few times but now doesn't even say "hi" clearly telling me that he knows he was wrong. High road, its a game if people can't see that do something else and let us enjoy the game also many more caches tyo find out there

If he's doing it to you, then he's probably doing it to others. I'd report him to Groundspeak and get my log reinstated, and I'd log more of his puzzles to make sure he lets those logs stand. If he quits in a huff, well, no big loss.