Signing log with ultraviolet marker

[+dubidubno]

Is it OK to sign the log with an ultraviolet marker?
What do you do if the CO deletes your log when you have done so?

Edited August 24, 2018 by dubidubno

[+MartyBartfast]

First I'm wondering why would you want to do that?
 

If the CO deletes your log because they couldn't find your sig, then you appeal to Groundspeak.

 

I don't think it's reasonable of you to expect COs to have a UV light just to check your logs and I can see this causing lots of grief if/when you start doing it and you start getting deleted logs.

 

[+IceColdUK]

1 hour ago, dubidubno said:

Is it OK to sign the log with an ultraviolet marker?
What do you do if the CO deletes your log when you have done so?

 

Is this something you do - or plan to do - regularly?  (If so, why?)

 

If you’ve signed a log with a UV marker because that’s all you happened to have with you, then I’d mention it in your found log or message the CO to explain.  (And I’d try not to make a habit of it.)

[+Isonzo Karst]

54 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

then you appeal to Groundspeak.

 

Yes, and use ultraviolet html when you compose that email, see if they figure it out...

 

 

 

[+grimpil]

And presumably the next finder of the cache, unable to see where you have signed, will simply write on the blank space it appears to be.

 

What is the point of doing this for yourself, for the CO & for other cachers?

[+dubidubno]

I got this log on one of my caches:

 

Quote

Det ble en rask tur ut for å hente inn cachen, og så signere den. For cacher skal jo signeres. Men det står vel ingen ting i reglene om at det skal synes? Så derfor signerte vi med UV-penn til ære for CO Og vi replasserte den også, uten at mannen i nærmeste buss løftet et øyebryn en gang...

 

It's in Norwegian. Here's my attempt at translating it:

 

Quote

It was a quick trip out [of the car] to collect the cache, and then sign it. Because caches must be signed. But there is nothing in the rules about it having to be visible? So therefore we signed with a UV pen in honor of the CO And we also replaced it without the man in the nearest bus even lifting an eyebrow.

I'm going to delete the log, but I wonder what will happen in response.

 

https://coord.info/GLWPXAB9

Edited August 24, 2018 by dubidubno

[+MartyBartfast]

19 minutes ago, dubidubno said:

got this log on one of my caches:

 

Do you think it's something they've done regularly? Do you think they really did sing your cache log in UV or are they making it up?

[+baer2006]

21 minutes ago, dubidubno said:

I'm going to delete the log, but I wonder what will happen in response.

Even though the log could well be a very creative attempt to get a smiley without actually signing the physical log, I would not outright delete it. Instead, I'd be curious if they really used a UV pen. So, at the next opportunity I'd go to my cache with a UV flashlight and see for myself. It's a win-win situation - if there is really a UV log, then you have a cool story to tell , and if there is none, you can legitimately delete the online log.

[+Goldenwattle]

25 minutes ago, dubidubno said:

Quote

It was a quick trip out [of the car] to collect the cache, and then sign it. Because caches must be signed. But there is nothing in the rules about it having to be visible? So therefore we signed with a UV pen in honor of the CO And we also replaced it without the man in the nearest bus even lifting an eyebrow.

 

I think they are making it up. I would delete. Or you can challenge them for a detailed description of the hide and cache.

[+dubidubno]

3 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

 

Do you think it's something they've done regularly? Do you think they really did sing your cache log in UV or are they making it up?

 I think he' did it deliberately on this cache for some reason. He's links to a blog post about his trip, where he says (google translate):
 

Quote

And after that, we found a small detour (planned) to take the bus to the cache at Samkom. We did not take a bus, but we would still pick this cache. Just put it in the right place, then pick the cache away to the car to sign it. Because this would simply be signed with a little different pen than the others I had decided for. Then it was signed with a UV pen. Because there is no place in the policy that it must be visible to everyone ??? ?

 

http://www.korsgat.com/blogg/arkiv/2957

[+dubidubno]

I have never accepted a log without a corresponding signature when I'm aware of the missing signature. If a log mentions they did not bring a pen, for example, I delete. The logger may be aware of this.

 

(I do not check every log, but I do check some logbooks from time to time.)

Edited August 24, 2018 by dubidubno

[+MartyBartfast]

5 minutes ago, dubidubno said:

The logger may be aware of this.

Perhaps you've previously deleted one of their logs, and this is their response?

 

In any case the only way to find out what will happen is to do it, they may just ignore the fact and get on with finding caches, or they may appeal and it might get interesting (if it does please let us all know .

 

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by MartyBartfast

[+dubidubno]

I once deleted a log where the description of the container was very different to what I had hidden. The cacher sent me angry messages saying I had ruiend his 'streak'. Several of my containers dissapeared after that. It could be a coincidence, of course.

Edited August 24, 2018 by dubidubno

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, dubidubno said:

Is it OK to sign the log with an ultraviolet marker?
What do you do if the CO deletes your log when you have done so?

 

It's okay, but why?  Looks (to me)  almost like someone's looking to start an issue.  As grimpil said, if next I'd sign my name over theirs.

Rather than call bs right away and delete, I'd look with my light.  No log, I'd add a note "That's odd ... my uv headlamp doesn't pick up your brand of ink" or similar. 

 - They might delete the find themselves (publicly busted for faking), then you remove your note.  No response, then zap it.   

It'd be interesting (if it ever happens) to see HQs response to, "I sign my logs with ultraviolet ink and COs are deleting my finds".   

Sheesh... 

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, MartyBartfast said:

Perhaps you've previously deleted one of their logs, and this is their response?

 

I was wondering about the "in honor of the CO" part, that could explain it. So the person in the story is passive-aggressive and had logs deleted previously.  Now he 's making a point to punish the CO for infractions.  I hold out no hope that TPTB care at all.  But you could contact Geocaching.com.  Hope for the best, prepare for a letdown.

[+NanCycle]

I don't own a UV light.   Would the CO be expected to buy one to be able to read the log? 

[+kunarion]

9 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

I don't own a UV light.   Would the CO be expected to buy one to be able to read the log? 

 

Another question, is a cache log then required to have the type of paper that doesn't glow in UV light, so such a signature could show up?

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by kunarion

[+Mudfrog]

12 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

I don't own a UV light.   Would the CO be expected to buy one to be able to read the log? 

 

I'd consider this a reverse ALR because COs would now be required to do something extra to verify finds.  

 

Seriously, I hope this silliness doesn't become more common. It would be irritating to have to go back on my owned caches and add a line to their descriptions stating something like,,,  "Make sure to use a standard writing utensil, mud, blood, whatever, for signing the physical logbook. Your log may be deleted if a signature is not readily detected in the logbook."

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Mudfrog

[+J Grouchy]

Meh.  I'd just delete it and put the onus back on the finder to confirm they found it.  I wouldn't fall into the trap of being forced to go out and obtain a special tool to verify...put it back on them to at the very least describe the cache and/or hiding spot.

[+kunarion]

Just now, Mudfrog said:

Your log may be deleted if a signature is not readily detected in the logbook.

 

That situation is similar to the way some people sign the back page of a log book or whatever, so that the CO has a hard time finding a signature to verify.  "I signed it, see, here next to the spine".  Hilarious.

[+kunarion]

Just now, J Grouchy said:

Meh.  I'd just delete it and put the onus back on the finder to confirm they found it.  I wouldn't fall into the trap of being forced to go out and obtain a special tool to verify...put it back on them to at the very least describe the cache and/or hiding spot.

 

Yeah.  Then, and CO needs to prepare.  Next, several of his containers will disappear. 

[+J Grouchy]

1 minute ago, kunarion said:

 

Yeah.  Then, and CO needs to prepare.  Next, several of his containers will disappear. 

 

You really think people would be that petty?  Maybe it happens some places, but I haven't witnessed it yet.

[+MartyBartfast]

2 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

You really think people would be that petty?  Maybe it happens some places, but I haven't witnessed it yet.

 

So you haven't bothered reading the whole thread then.

 

[+kunarion]

3 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 

You really think people would be that petty?  Maybe it happens some places, but I haven't witnessed it yet.

 

The story is that the finder made a special "UV-penn signature in honor of the Cache Owner".  I see nothing about the cache or the CO that calls for UV pen.  So it seriously looks like the "honor" is more of a "challenging this Cache Owner to do anything about it".  By an unbalanced finder who has issues with this CO?

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by kunarion

[+arisoft]

Similar case happened in Finland some years ago. For some reason a geocacher used UV-marker to log finds or at least claimed to have done so.

Edited August 24, 2018 by arisoft

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Even though the log could well be a very creative attempt to get a smiley without actually signing the physical log, I would not outright delete it. Instead, I'd be curious if they really used a UV pen. So, at the next opportunity I'd go to my cache with a UV flashlight and see for myself. It's a win-win situation - if there is really a UV log, then you have a cool story to tell , and if there is none, you can legitimately delete the online log.

This was my first thought too.

 

And I have signed a log sheet with a UV pen, but it was a pen provided by the CO in the final of a night cache that required a UV light to find.

[+kunarion]

5 hours ago, dubidubno said:

Is it OK to sign the log with an ultraviolet marker?
What do you do if the CO deletes your log when you have done so?

 

What I have done in a lot of cases where the log is not signed, is I post a photo of the log sheet.  Since they may sign on the back at the bottom (haha, what a joker, right!) or claim to have done so, that's extra work for a CO or whoever is trying to figure out if the cache was indeed found or not.

 

I'm leaning towards using a UV light (you may find one for a dollar).  Illuminate the sheet, post a photo of the results, on the cache page.  Let the log stand, don't make a big deal about the lack of a signature.  He's hoping to get a rise out of you, don't participate.  But keep a close eye on your caches and that guy.

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by kunarion

[+dubidubno]

8 minutes ago, kunarion said:

I'm leaning towards using a UV light (you may find one for a dollar). 

In Norway?

[+kunarion]

1 minute ago, dubidubno said:

In Norway?

 

Yes, UV light functions in many parts of Norway.

[+GeoTrekker26]

57 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

Yes, UV light functions in many parts of Norway.

 

Do dollars? 

[+kunarion]

42 minutes ago, GeoTrekker26 said:

 

Do dollars? 

 

I guess so.  I'd expect that the OP would exchange dollars upon entry into Norway.  I probably would.  Or buy the UV light online or something.  Boy this topic sure has deviated from the OP. I think it was originally about a strange log.  I don't even know why currency or even lights are the issue.  Is there really no way to procure a light in Norway?  This situation gets more and more weird.  Like layers of an onion. I'm beginning to see that the situation is much greater than a UV pen log problem: For Owners and Finders alike, Geocaching in Norway is free-flowing insanity.

 

But since we've solved the problem except for how to convert currency for the purchase of a UV light, here's a currency calculator: 

https://www.google.com/search?q=dollars+to+norway+krone&gws_rd=ssl 

 

I hope people can convert currency and then find a store in Norway that sells UV lights and permits or whatever the sticking point is.  Or that the OP can borrow a light from some other country.

 

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by kunarion

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I was FTF on that cache.  I signed the log with invisible ink.

 

The more I play this game the more I wonder if many seem to forget that it's based on a community of people hiding and finding geocaches and not some sort of contest to see how far one can stretch the guidelines.

[+dprovan]

10 hours ago, dubidubno said:

Is it OK to sign the log with an ultraviolet marker?

If you want the grief.

 

10 hours ago, dubidubno said:

What do you do if the CO deletes your log when you have done so?

Apologize?

 

8 hours ago, dubidubno said:

I'm going to delete the log, but I wonder what will happen in response.

I don't know why you'd want the grief, either. Why not trust them?

[+kunarion]

I did some testing just now with my UV ink pens.  The first thing I notice is these are fat felt-tip pens, they write rather wide lines like a dull Sharpie.  They have solvent, so that dissolves and smears the inkjet print on my Micro log, so although I don't see the writing, I can see that something was brushed around on the sheet.

 

One pen is the brightest I could find when I bought these, it glows bright red in a UV light.  The other is a "security pen" for identifying fake US paper money, and it was too faint for Geocaching purposes.  Turns out, after five years, these pens don't glow in UV light now (or my cheapie LED UV penlight has failed).  I intended to write "mysterious things" on my Signature Items to be placed into caches.  But never got around to it.

 

Both pens, being by definition, "paint pens", leave a residue.  The security marker leaves a super-thin yellowish layer of stuff that will show up in UV light.  Soak the paper in water, and you begin to see the "paint".  A little.  The red pen produces no "red ink" anymore.  It left only its acetone.  Soak the paper in water, and the text is very legible for a second or two.  Then it's completely washed away.

 

I also tried heating the paper with fire, which causes some "invisible ink" to darken.  Nothing.

 

 

The security pen ink ("glows" blue in UV light)

dissolves and smears the black inkjet print.

You can almost read it.

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by kunarion

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, kunarion said:

I also tried heating the paper with fire, which causes some "invisible ink" to darken.  Nothing.

 

"Didn't want to write over somebody's sig, placed my zippo under the lemon juice, baking soda, whatever ink, and caught the log on fire.

In the woods, so threw the flaming fireball into the ammo can, closing the lid for safety.  Thanks for placing and maintaining these caches".

  NM

 

[+The Jester]

7 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

"Didn't want to write over somebody's sig, placed my zippo under the lemon juice, baking soda, whatever ink, and caught the log on fire.

In the woods, so threw the flaming fireball into the ammo can, closing the lid for safety.  Thanks for placing and maintaining these caches".

  NM

 

Maybe because I'm tired, but this really cracked me up!  Thanks for the laugh.

[+Mudfrog]

17 hours ago, dprovan said:

I don't know why you'd want the grief, either. Why not trust them?

 

Call me old fashioned but I still go along with the premise that if I place a cache, I maintain the cache. Part of my maintenance is to delete false logs. Before you say i'm taking this too serious, i'll say right up front that it's very rare that I've had to do this. I do check to see what's going on if I happen to be doing maintenance on my cache and notice or get a note from another finder stating a signature wasn't in the logbook.  If I can't see your signature using normal means (my eyeballs) then your log gets deleted. 

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

21 hours ago, dprovan said:

I don't know why you'd want the grief, either. Why not trust them?

 

Call me old fashioned but I still go along with the premise that if I place a cache, I maintain the cache. Part of my maintenance is to delete false logs. Before you say i'm taking this too serious, i'll say right up front that it's very rare that I've had to do this. I do check to see what's going on if I happen to be doing maintenance on my cache and notice or get a note from another finder stating a signature wasn't in the logbook.  If I can't see your signature using normal means (my eyeballs) then your log gets deleted. 

I'm not suggesting that you or the OP do anything less. As far as I can tell, the OP is considered deleting the log for no reason other than the log said they signed with a UV pen. In other words, he assumes that they must be lying. I was just suggesting a better attitude is they must be telling the truth.

 

If you go out and check your log, and you can find no evidence of the claimed UV signature, then, fine, delete their log if you want. Like kunarion, I'm suspecting if you actually did that, you'd see evidence that the UV signature is really there. If it were me, and I saw no such evidence, I'd still take responsibility for finding a UV light and proving they were lying before I'd delete the log. The OP seems inclined to go the complete opposite way, assuming they're lying because they haven't proved otherwise. For this one find, who cares? But in the bigger picture, I'm kinda sick of the attitude that assumes everyone's lying just because a few people can't help themselves from falsifying finds. Please, feel free to be strict. But don't be a jerk about it.

[+noncentric]

41 minutes ago, dprovan said:

But in the bigger picture, I'm kinda sick of the attitude that assumes everyone's lying just because a few people can't help themselves from falsifying finds.

Agreed.

There's no need to assume the worst when it comes to finders signing logs.  If walking down a dark alley at night and seeing a group of people loitering in the alley, then maybe assume the worst and turn around, because if it turns out to be the worst then the consequences are bad.  But log signatures?  Log signatures are much more benign and so there isn't much harm is assuming the best.

[+Mudfrog]

10 hours ago, noncentric said:

Agreed.

There's no need to assume the worst when it comes to finders signing logs.  If walking down a dark alley at night and seeing a group of people loitering in the alley, then maybe assume the worst and turn around, because if it turns out to be the worst then the consequences are bad.  But log signatures?  Log signatures are much more benign and so there isn't much harm is assuming the best.

 

My reason for deletion wouldn't be because I thought a person was necessarily lying. My beef would be that someone came along and did something this goofy in the first place. A person should not have to buy and then carry a UV light with them to see signatures in a logbook. 

[+kunarion]

8 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

 

My reason for deletion wouldn't be because I thought a person was necessarily lying. My beef would be that someone came along and did something this goofy in the first place. A person should not have to buy and then carry a UV light with them to see signatures in a logbook. 

 

I'm guessing that if someone were to actually check the log sheet in the past three months , he would discover a signature plain as day, written in ordinary pen ink. The finder is messing with the Cache Owner. At least one party in the story is unbalanced. Just a guess.  Why else would someone make a point to “sign in invisible ink” unless he's trying to create extra work for the Cache Owner... to challenge him to do anything about it?

 

In this story, it looks like the cacher is in a protracted tit-for-tat battle with the OP. Signing his name in “UV-Penn in honor of the Cache Owner”? What's with that? In this age of “forgetting pens”, who carries an invisible ink pen while caching anyway? It all seems fishy to me.  There's a missing back-story here.

 

But, yeah, the signature on the log is of course to be readable by ordinary means, in standard light for human eyes, whether CO or future finders' eyes.  Upon verification of the lack of signature, or "invisible signature" as the case may be, the online log is as deletable as one where “I forgot my pen” or any other oddball practice where “I know we 'Find The Cache, Sign The Log' and guess what, I'm a rebel. Make me”.  Childish.  Which brings us back around to the start... the CO takes action and the situation escalates.

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by kunarion

[+Mudfrog]

4 hours ago, kunarion said:

 

I'm guessing that if someone were to actually check the log sheet in the past three months , he would discover a signature plain as day, written in ordinary pen ink. The finder is messing with the Cache Owner. At least one party in the story is unbalanced. Just a guess.  Why else would someone make a point to “sign in invisible ink” unless he's trying to create extra work for the Cache Owner... to challenge him to do anything about it?

 

In this story, it looks like the cacher is in a protracted tit-for-tat battle with the OP. Signing his name in “UV-Penn in honor of the Cache Owner”? What's with that? In this age of “forgetting pens”, who carries an invisible ink pen while caching anyway? It all seems fishy to me.  There's a missing back-story here.

 

But, yeah, the signature on the log is of course to be readable by ordinary means, in standard light for human eyes, whether CO or future finders' eyes.  Upon verification of the lack of signature, or "invisible signature" as the case may be, the online log is as deletable as one where “I forgot my pen” or any other oddball practice where “I know we 'Find The Cache, Sign The Log' and guess what, I'm a rebel. Make me”.  Childish.  Which brings us back around to the start... the CO takes action and the situation escalates.

 

 

I agree, there may be more to the story here.

 

On the other hand, it could be one sided as well. It wouldn't surprise me if the bolded is what's going on instead. Geocaching guidelines state simply that a person should sign the logbook. There's nothing in them stating that the signature has to be visible to the naked eye. I can see someone doing this to challenge a CO.

[+kunarion]

18 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

Geocaching guidelines state simply that a person should sign the logbook. There's nothing in them stating that the signature has to be visible to the naked eye. I can see someone doing this to challenge a CO.

 

That's exactly how the log reads, "No rules state that I need to make it legible!".  "No Rules" means "Make Up You Own Rules And Punishments For Violations of Your Rules!"  Make a note of that.

 

It was such a spontaneous thing, and not what the finder seems to be doing to any other caches, it almost seems like an inside joke that both parties must understand and have a laugh about (when in fact the log was signed with ordinary pen).  "Oh, you're not the guy I had to contact a bunch of times about all your evil UV-Penn hides?  I thought you were that guy!  Sorry!"

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by kunarion

[+noncentric]

1 hour ago, kunarion said:

1 hour ago, Mudfrog said:

Geocaching guidelines state simply that a person should sign the logbook. There's nothing in them stating that the signature has to be visible to the naked eye. I can see someone doing this to challenge a CO.

That's exactly how the log reads, "No rules state that I need to make it legible!".  "No Rules" means "Make Up You Own Rules And Punishments For Violations of Your Rules!"  Make a note of that.

I often wonder why people have to push the limits of things. I mean, do the guidelines need to be written by a lawyer to ensure that every variation of "sign the logbook" needs to be footnoted?  It's like the debates in other threads about how to interpret guidelines because the word "only" is not included.

I'm sure the same people that push the limits, like the UV ink signer, would also complain if the guidelines were more verbose. They'd then complain that "the guidelines are too complicated/complex/wordy/etc".  Some people just don't believe in "rules" or "guidelines" unless those rules/guidelines align with what they believe.

[+BCandMsKitty]

The signer of the log sheet could have accomplished the same thing just by scrawling something illegible. No need for invisible ink!

I think it's all a scam to get at the OP for some reason.

[+niraD]

 Owner Maintenance
What a great idea! I love [username]'s idea of logging with invisible ink! But for some reason, [username] used invisible ink only for the physical log, and not for the online log. I corrected that, converting [username]'s online log to invisible online ink as well.

[+Max and 99]

2 minutes ago, niraD said:

 Owner Maintenance
What a great idea! I love [username]'s idea of logging with invisible ink! But for some reason, [username] used invisible ink only for the physical log, and not for the online log. I corrected that, converting [username]'s online log to invisible online ink as well.

Too funny!!!

[+Team Christiansen]

Didn't you read my forum post that I typed with a UV font?

[+Mudfrog]

Call me a hypocrite but I think invisible online logs are the bomb!

[+Team Christiansen]

46 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

Call me a hypocrite but I think invisible online logs are the bomb!

I see what you did there.