Deleting photo logs

[+justintim1999]

5 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

It's fine to be strict and require that finders sign the logbook of your caches, but please don't mislead people by quoting things as rules when they aren't. It is not a general rule that the logbook must be signed. I wish people would stop trying to say this is the case.

 

It also might be a good idea to state in your description that you require a signature in the logbook and will delete finds if there isn't. Most COs are more lenient and the default assumption of most finders is that the CO will accept some other form of proof in a pinch, so those COs who take a strict view should say so up-front. I don't see anything like this in your Letterbox Challenge description.

So what set of rules are we suppose to follow?   I go by the ones in the help center which say "  You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook".   It obviously holds some weight with GS as you can get a found log deleted if you can prove it's bogus. 

 

Is there another set of rules I don't know about? 

 

To the OP.  Instead of stating on your cache page that the log has to be signed, which is common knowledge already,  why not add that you'll accept photo logs as well.   That's something they may not already know.     

[+arisoft]

1 minute ago, justintim1999 said:

Is there another set of rules I don't know about?

 

Yes there is. You can negotiate with the CO about an alternative method to prove your visit. Without this kind of special agreement with the CO, you must sign the logbook as stated in the guideline.

 

6 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

To the OP.  Instead of stating on your cache page that the log has to be signed, which is common knowledge already,  why not add that you'll accept photo logs as well.   That's something they may not already know. 

 

I tried this but the reviewer didn't accept it for some reason.

[+frostengel]

1 hour ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

Another one

 

Let my clarify that if I understand it correctly:  The 8 year old child of a cacher found the box - found in the sense of taking it into the hands - and the father (or mother) took a photograph, but the picture wasn't uploaded because that could be spoiler. (Of course uploading the photo wouldn't have changed that the holy rules were not fulfilled!)

 

So there is even proof of the find but the log is not accepted as the 8 year old child didn't write a name in the logbook?

 

Deleting the log in first place is absolutely okay. Your first answer is okay, too. But the last one after the story has been told is an impertinence, nothing more! :-(

 

That is just a subjective opinion, of course.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by frostengel
sorry, I forgot to quote

[+The A-Team]

55 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

 

I already read that, and I still don't see anything in there about a strict requirement for a signature in the log. It says everything except that.

[+The A-Team]

33 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

So what set of rules are we suppose to follow?   I go by the ones in the help center which say "  You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook".   It obviously holds some weight with GS as you can get a found log deleted if you can prove it's bogus.

It doesn't say you can log online only if you signed the logbook. It simply says that signing the log entitles you to log it online (with the exception of challenge caches). If a CO is happy with accepting alternate proof in lieu of a signature, they can do so (within reason).

[+frostengel]

7 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

It doesn't say you can log online only if you signed the logbook. It simply says that signing the log entitles you to log it online

 

Are there any mathematicans here? Implication versus equivalence. :-)

I always thought the same as "The A-Team" but no one ever wanted to listen - it is simple logic. :-)

 

And yes, after some discussions I believe that it was meant as equivalence by GS but it doesn't say so...

[+The A-Team]

7 minutes ago, frostengel said:

And yes, after some discussions I believe that it was meant as equivalence by GS but it doesn't say so...

Based on the context and the original cases that led to its creation, the clause exists primarily for the following reasons:

• In the context of the Additional Logging Requirements (ALR) guideline, it states that signing the log can be the only requirement a CO can impose (except with challenge caches).
• In the case of a dispute between a logger and a CO, HQ will side with the logger if they signed the log, and with the CO if the log wasn't signed.

Anyone reading it as a rule that a finder can log online only if they signed the physical log is reading too much into it.

 

I miss toz. He understood.

[+MartyBartfast]

14 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

 

 

Explain to me, which part of that paragraph means that you will deleted the find if the log is not signed? - which was what The A-Team was discussing.

 

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

16 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

The rule is there for the benefit of the cache owner.  It allows them to delete finds, they believe to be bogus,  in which the log was not signed.   Other than that it's completely up to the cache owner to decide what's an acceptable find.

 

Mostly true.  A cache owner can't "turn a traditional into a virtual" by allowing everyone to log it with just a photo.    GS, nor a reviewer is going to blink if a CO allows the occasional online log when the physical logbook hasn't been signed, but might step in if the CO makes a habit of it.  At the end of the day, the CO *does* have the power to delete a bogus log, but isn't obligated to do so.  You know, who *doesn't* have the power to decide whether to delete an online log?   Other geocachers, yet some of them are very vocal about it.

[+J Grouchy]

16 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

So what set of rules are we suppose to follow?   I go by the ones in the help center which say "  You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook".   It obviously holds some weight with GS as you can get a found log deleted if you can prove it's bogus. 

 

Is there another set of rules I don't know about? 

 

To the OP.  Instead of stating on your cache page that the log has to be signed, which is common knowledge already,  why not add that you'll accept photo logs as well.   That's something they may not already know.     

 

Here we go again.

 

It is 100% up to the CO.  If someone writes a log that says they couldn't or didn't sign the log sheet, GS will not step in and delete the log, precisely because of what I just said...it is 100% up to the CO whether they want to let it stand.  

 

To CR:

If you want to be a complete stickler for rules and regulations, dashing the joy of an 8 year old kid and making his family decide they'd rather not geocache because of the rude people who delete their finds....well, that's 100% up to you as well.  You and only you are making the choice to delete the log and don't try to claim that your hands are tied and you are "just following the rules".  You totally could have written that you hope they enjoyed themselves and would prefer it if they sign the log sheet in the future.  No, instead you pulled out your rule book and robot voice and potentially gave them reason to wonder if all folks in this game are joyless.

Edited September 20, 2018 by J Grouchy

[+frostengel]

3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

A cache owner can't "turn a traditional into a virtual" by allowing everyone to log it with just a photo.

 

The question is what the photograph shows. If it has to show the cache box in the hands of the cachers (which would be a good proof of the found, e. g. if the lid is frozen in winter time and the owner can't do anything to change it at that time but wait for spring) than this should be sufficient. But those examples where photo logs are permanently allowed usually have photos of the cachers just being at - or even near - GZ; usually the container has gone or you can't reach it (construction site) and of course then it is not sufficient to be near the location were the cache was hidden.

 

If I were a reviewer I would allow the first one (as long as it is not forever winter ;-)) but would not allow the second one even if the construction site isn't there forever, too. But first one is a find (or a Find?!) and second one isn't!

 

Jochen

[+NYPaddleCacher]

12 minutes ago, frostengel said:

3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

A cache owner can't "turn a traditional into a virtual" by allowing everyone to log it with just a photo.

 

The question is what the photograph shows. If it has to show the cache box in the hands of the cachers (which would be a good proof of the found, e. g. if the lid is frozen in winter time and the owner can't do anything to change it at that time but wait for spring) than this should be sufficient. But those examples where photo logs are permanently allowed usually have photos of the cachers just being at - or even near - GZ; usually the container has gone or you can't reach it (construction site) and of course then it is not sufficient to be near the location were the cache was hidden.

 

If I were a reviewer I would allow the first one (as long as it is not forever winter ;-)) but would not allow the second one even if the construction site isn't there forever, too. But first one is a find (or a Find?!) and second one isn't!

 

The use of a photo is just an example.  The question is more about whether or not a CO allows an online found it log when someone hasn't signed the physical log.   They can, but if they make a habit of it, a reviewer might question if there is really an maintenance issue that isn't being resolved.

 

Reviewers don't allow or disallow logs.  Groundspeak, however,  might make a decision on whether a CO is justified in deleting a log (and reinstate it if it's brought to appeals) but that's not something that reviewers do.    In the case of a cache in a construction zone, a reviewer might request an update about the state of the location if the CO has disabled it for an extended period of time, and could potentially archive the listing if the CO is unresponsive.   Permanently allowing photo logs, or even allowing them for an extended period of time might get a reviewer involved because it effectively would make a cache which is *supposed to* have a physical log book available for signing a virtual cache.  

[+LFC4eva]

 

On 9/19/2018 at 8:46 PM, CHEZRASCALS said:

Another one

 

It's not often I am speechless.. but on this occasion I am on two counts..

1.  That a *private* message is shared on a public forum

2. That a CO, who is usually so critical of anyone who in his opinion is cache police, could be so pedantic over something so trivial despite knowing that the guilty party is a child..

I'm also slightly bemused by the fact that such a stickler for the rules would allow several of their caches to be logged virtually because they were missing..



How is it OK from some cachers to log a find despite not even finding the cache.. yet others who find the cache and take a photo of it are labeled lazy cheats?
@CHEZRASCALS

Edited September 20, 2018 by LFC4eva

[+arisoft]

37 minutes ago, LFC4eva said:

How is it OK from some cachers to log a find despite not even finding the cache.. yet others who find the cache and take a photo of it are labeled lazy cheats?

 

With permission as you can see from the log. They got permission from the CO.

[+LFC4eva]

9 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

With permission as you can see from the log. They got permission from the CO.

 
Ah.. that's OK then.

Selective permissions depending on what mood the CO is in..

No wonder that family with the 8 year old were confused.  They see that others are allowed to log a find despite finding nowt.. even though *the rules* state that you *must* find the cache AND sign the log to claim a find online.. but when they found the cache but were unable to sign the log for whatever reason, so they took a photo as proof.. but this CO doesn't allow photo logs so their log is deleted.

IMHO you either stick to the rules rigidly, no exceptions, no matter who you are or what the circumstances.. or you allow a little leeway depending on the circumstances.  The should be no wishy-washy middle ground depending on which side of the bed you got out of.

Edited September 20, 2018 by LFC4eva

[+funkymunkyzone]

TLDR. It's only a game.

[+L0ne.R]

2 hours ago, LFC4eva said:

 

It's not often I am speechless.. but on this occasion I am on two counts..

1.  That a *private* message is shared on a public forum

2. That a CO, who is usually so critical of anyone who in his opinion is cache police, could be so pedantic over something so trivial despite knowing that the guilty party is a child..

I'm also slightly bemused by the fact that such a stickler for the rules would allow several of their caches to be logged virtually because they were missing..



How is it OK from some cachers to log a find despite not even finding the cache.. yet others who find the cache and take a photo of it are labeled lazy cheats?
@CHEZRASCALS

 

What!?   
"Found camouflage...logging with permission of the CO" 

Integrity flies out the window. 

[+arisoft]

8 hours ago, LFC4eva said:

Selective permissions depending on what mood the CO is in..

 

This is correct assumption and also the reason why it is so important to sign the logbook to protect yourself from CO's arbitrary decisions.

[+Clongo_Rongo]

We do have fun in my local area, everyone knows the rules and why go out caching with no pen ,  

might be different in other area's, but in my area we place caches to be found and help others, that is why this game is fun I think

 

as a co, if a cacher finds my caches on the same day and signs the logs and then they come to one that is DNF/missing,

and they message me with the details I may allow them to log a find once I have checked the cache.

 

if you find one cache and state 'found but no pen' then its a delete, lazy, cheating 

 

perhaps in other regions the higher the number of finds a person has, the less need to follow the correct process ?

 

also to note - the no pen logs and photo attached is mainly by less than 100 finds on my caches

 

[+funkymunkyzone]

This is some of the funniest stuff I've read on here for a while... you find a cache, literally have proof you've found it, but somehow it's cheating. Oh the lols.

 

Seriously, it's just a game.

[+frostengel]

5 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

This is some of the funniest stuff I've read on here for a while... you find a cache, literally have proof you've found it, but somehow it's cheating. Oh the lols.

 

And it even gets better looking at the picture sent by CHEZRASCALS himself. Do I understand that correctly? The cache was found as FTF but they could not sign and so he writes "just sign me in as the CO gets annoyed at no pen logs"? Really?? I hope I misunderstand anything.

 

My picture so far of the situation:

- the eight year old boy is a cheater; he could prove the find with a picture but didn't sign the log

- if others have DNFs at missing caches they are allowed to log if they have logged anything of the owner at the same day - that way they can prove that they have a pen which makes them log worthy

- if C. has no pen he logs a write note FTF stating that someone else should sign him in and he has about 100 no pen logs himself

- the eight year old boy is a cheater and should never cache again! (just to repeat it after I have stated the rest)

 

Poor guy!

[+L0ne.R]

On 21/09/2018 at 2:52 AM, arisoft said:

 

This is correct assumption and also the reason why it is so important to sign the logbook to protect yourself from CO's arbitrary decisions.

 

How are you going to prove you really did sign the log? It's your word against the CO. Oh....I know... take a photo of your signature in the log. 

Edited September 24, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+arisoft]

5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

How are you going to prove you really did sign the log? It's your word against the CO. Oh....I know... that a photo of your signature in the log. 

 

I have a cache where I instruct finders to take a picture of their signature in the official logbook because, if the logbook disappears, before I have opportunity to verify the signature, I will delete their bogus on-line logs.

Edited September 22, 2018 by arisoft

[+NYPaddleCacher]

5 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I have a cache where I instruct finders to take a picture of their signature in the official logbook because, if the logbook disappears, before I have opportunity to verify the signature, I will delete their bogus on-line logs.

 

That sounds like the very definition of an ALR.  

 

 

[+arisoft]

13 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

This is some of the funniest stuff I've read on here for a while... you find a cache, literally have proof you've found it, but somehow it's cheating. Oh the lols.

 

Seriously, it's just a game.

 

Yes, game of signing the logbook. How about icehockey without a puck? It's just a game

Edited September 22, 2018 by arisoft

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

5 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I have a cache where I instruct finders to take a picture of their signature in the official logbook because, if the logbook disappears, before I have opportunity to verify the signature, I will delete their bogus on-line logs.

 

That sounds like the very definition of an ALR. 

 

I do not require the picture but just recommend to take it. If the logbook goes with a muggler, how on the earth anyone can prove that the logbook was really signed?

Edited September 22, 2018 by arisoft

[+LFC4eva]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 

I do not require the picture but just recommend to take it. If the logbook goes with a muggler, how on the earth anyone can prove that the logbook was really signed?

 

Blimey - and I thought the OP was a pedant.

 

I don't believe there is anywhere in the guidelines / rules which says that one must PROVE they signed the log book.  Asking finders to take a photo of the official logbook showing their signature so they have proof is an ALR and if you are so bothered that someone might be able to take advantage of a muggle stealing the evidence of their *non-signature* then might I suggest that the onus is on YOU to check the logbook after EVERY online log is submitted.

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, LFC4eva said:

I don't believe there is anywhere in the guidelines / rules which says that one must PROVE they signed the log book.  Asking finders to take a photo of the official logbook showing their signature so they have proof is an ALR and if you are so bothered that someone might be able to take advantage of a muggle stealing the evidence of their *non-signature* then might I suggest that the onus is on YOU to check the logbook after EVERY online log is submitted.

 

Please, be logical. I do not require the photo, so there is no additional requirement. There is always some delay between signing the logbook and verifying that it is signed. If, for any reason, I do not see the signature when verifying the logbook, I will delete the bogus on-line log as I have promised. I have no other options or otherwise there is no meaning to verify signatures from the logbook at all if real signatures are as good as imaginary ones.

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I do not require the picture but just recommend to take it. If the logbook goes with a muggler, how on the earth anyone can prove that the logbook was really signed?

I would have said the burden of proof was the other way around: how on earth can you prove the logbook wasn't really signed? Has anyone ever appealed you deleting their log because your cache disappeared with the logbook? I can't imagine GS siding with you.

[+arisoft]

1 minute ago, dprovan said:

I would have said the burden of proof was the other way around: how on earth can you prove the logbook wasn't really signed? Has anyone ever appealed you deleting their log because your cache disappeared with the logbook? I can't imagine GS siding with you.

 

There have been no disputes yet. The cache has been muggled once but mugglers used the logbook to tell about their success of destroying the container. So - actually - they participated to the hobby completely. Last finders also destroyed the container using excessive force and informed me about this so I had opportunity to check their signatures immediatelly and build a new lid to the container. It took only few hours and 50 kilometers driving to complete.

 

I am quite sure that my advice to take the photo of the logbook will prevent any disputes in the future.

 

[+LFC4eva]

35 minutes ago, arisoft said:

2 hours ago, LFC4eva said:

I don't believe there is anywhere in the guidelines / rules which says that one must PROVE they signed the log book.  Asking finders to take a photo of the official logbook showing their signature so they have proof is an ALR and if you are so bothered that someone might be able to take advantage of a muggle stealing the evidence of their *non-signature* then might I suggest that the onus is on YOU to check the logbook after EVERY online log is submitted.

 

Please, be logical. I do not require the photo, so there is no additional requirement. There is always some delay between signing the logbook and verifying that it is signed. If, for any reason, I do not see the signature when verifying the logbook, I will delete the bogus on-line log as I have promised. I have no other options or otherwise there is no meaning to verify signatures from the logbook at all if real signatures are as good as imaginary ones.

I was being perfectly logical.. though in light of the post below I think I may have misunderstood the full scenario.

I can understand you deleting bogus on-line logs where you have verified there is no signature in the logbook - that is your right as a CO - although IMHO if someone has a photo of the logbook showing all the other signatures as a proof they visited and held the logbook, then that should be enough proof of a find.

But in the case of a missing logbook, where a cache has been muggled and the logbook is not available, I think the onus is on you to prove that the online find is bogus - and if you can't do that, you have no right to delete the log.  Groundspeak do not allow ALR's so it is unreasonable of you to request that finders show photographic proof of their signature. IMHO.
 

11 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

There have been no disputes yet. The cache has been muggled once but mugglers used the logbook to tell about their success of destroying the container. So - actually - they participated to the hobby completely. Last finders also destroyed the container using excessive force and informed me about this so I had opportunity to check their signatures immediatelly and build a new lid to the container. It took only few hours and 50 kilometers driving to complete.

 

I am quite sure that my advice to take the photo of the logbook will prevent any disputes in the future.

 

However, that said - I am now thinking this is some kind of puzzle container where the logbook may not be easily accessible.. in which case I can understand why you may request it and as a finder, I would probably oblige - just in case.

 

[+arisoft]

5 minutes ago, LFC4eva said:

But in the case of a missing logbook, where a cache has been muggled and the logbook is not available, I think the onus is on you to prove that the online find is bogus - and if you can't do that, you have no right to delete the log.  Groundspeak do not allow ALR's so it is unreasonable of you to request that finders show photographic proof of their signature. IMHO.

 

I have reserved this right in the description and I do not require anything more that signing the logbook with a verifiable signature. When I have verified the signature, the Found It log is secured. I have also stated that the signature must be in the original logbook, throwdowned logbook is not good and the signature must be the same as the nickname of the on-line log to be verifiable. I have not required self-signed signature, instead, I have adviced to send someone else to sign the logbook.

 

If, for some unforeseen reason, there will be a dispute about signing the logbook after it has been disappeared, I will of course, follow the decision made by HQ after the player has been witnessed they actions to them.

 

5 minutes ago, LFC4eva said:

However, that said - I am now thinking this is some kind of puzzle container where the logbook may not be easily accessible.. in which case I can understand why you may request it and as a finder, I would probably oblige - just in case.

 

I am still not requesting photos!  It is sort of puzzle, it needs just enough force to open. For many players it is common practice to take photos of logbooks to be sure and this is not any different case.

[+LFC4eva]

11 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I have a cache where I instruct finders to take a picture of their signature in the official logbook because, if the logbook disappears, before I have opportunity to verify the signature, I will delete their bogus on-line logs.

 

18 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I am still not requesting photos!  It is sort of puzzle, it needs just enough force to open. For many players it is common practice to take photos of logbooks to be sure and this is not any different case.

Instruct  / Request

Potato / Potahto

If a logbook disappears before you have the opportunity to verify the signature, it is not necessarily a bogus on-line log.. it could be a perfectly legitimate find and just because the finder didn't take a photo of their signature as instructed you have no proof that they didn't and IMHO the onus should be on you to justify deleting their log. 

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

I am quite sure that my advice to take the photo of the logbook will prevent any disputes in the future.

I don't see how your advice alone will prevent disputes, but I suppose if they follow your advice and present you with the additional evidence when you demand it, that will resolve any disputes you initiate. I think it would be easier to just not initiate any disputes to begin with, but that's up to you.

24 minutes ago, arisoft said:

For many players it is common practice to take photos of logbooks to be sure and this is not any different case.

Really? I've never heard of any common practice of taking a photo of a signed logbook as backup proof. I don't think most seekers give much thought to the possibility of the logbook disappearing, let alone the CO then using that as an excuse to delete logs. I'm really sorry you've run into so many unscrupulous geocachers that you can't even begin to trust them when they say they signed the log and you can't prove they didn't.

[+K13]

12 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I have a cache where I instruct finders to take a picture of their signature in the official logbook because, if the logbook disappears, before I have opportunity to verify the signature, I will delete their bogus on-line logs.

If the cache disappears prior to your verification, there is absolutely no reason to delete any log.  You have no evidence to show that a someone didn't find your cache.  You may delete an online log, but the finder need only appeal to GCHQ, describe the cache or log, and their find will be reinstated.

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

I have reserved this right in the description and I do not require anything more that signing the logbook with a verifiable signature. When I have verified the signature, the Found It log is secured. I have also stated that the signature must be in the original logbook, throwdowned logbook is not good and the signature must be the same as the nickname of the on-line log to be verifiable. I have not required self-signed signature, instead, I have adviced to send someone else to sign the logbook

If my caching group uses a stamp to mark the logs of our finds, that is sufficient to have my find stand.  You cannot require each signature be 'verifiable'. Your strict request in your cache listing seems like an ALR. 

I may sign the log in any manner, whether with my geo-nic, my actual name, or my team name and my find will stand.

 

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, LFC4eva said:

If a logbook disappears before you have the opportunity to verify the signature, it is not necessarily a bogus on-line log.. it could be a perfectly legitimate find and just because the finder didn't take a photo of their signature as instructed you have no proof that they didn't and IMHO the onus should be on you to justify deleting their log. 

 

I had to recheck what I wrote into the description.   Actually the wording really instructs to take a photo for the case that the cache is destroyed. But you have to understand that it is inside an instructional part of the description. It does not pose any requirement the finder must do.

[+arisoft]

5 minutes ago, K13 said:

If my caching group uses a stamp to mark the logs of our finds, that is sufficient to have my find stand.  You cannot require each signature be 'verifiable'. Your strict request in your cache listing seems like an ALR. 

 

Your group is better to sign correctly into my caches. It is not possible to sign anything using a stamp.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature

 

A signature (/ˈsɪɡnətʃər/; from Latin: signare, "to sign") is a handwritten (and often stylized) depiction of someone's name, nickname, or even a simple "X" or other mark that a person writes on documents as a proof of identity and intent.

 

I have used X as my signature when there is very limited space left on the logbook but never tried to use a stamp.

[+K13]

6 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Your group is better to sign correctly into my caches. It is not possible to sign anything using a stamp.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature

 

A signature (/ˈsɪɡnətʃər/; from Latin: signare, "to sign") is a handwritten (and often stylized) depiction of someone's name, nickname, or even a simple "X" or other mark that a person writes on documents as a proof of identity and intent.

 

I have used X as my signature when there is very limited space left on the logbook but never tried to use a stamp.

When the use of a stamp on your cache is contested by the finder, let us know how that works out for you.

[+frostengel]

@arisoft:

 

1) Do you own microcaches which are frequently found? Usually log stripes get unreadable after some cachers that put much effort in getting the logbook back in... You can't control those, can you?

2) My handwriting is bad and sometimes it looks like "frostel" - do you delete it, as you can't find my log?

3) If I find your cache on monday, log in on tuesday and it gets muggled the next weekend - then you think that my log is a bogus log because you could not verify it? Have I understood you correct? How would you proceed if I logged the cache online after it got muggled?

4) Whenever I take a picture of a log in a logbook than you know that it is yours? I don't think is perfect proof, only if other logs are readable. But if it is the next side and my log is the only one!?

5) Do you delete spoiler logs showing the logbook? ;-)

 

Especially the answer to question 3 would be interesting.... I cannot agree on this point. If the cache is gone it's not the finders task to prove their find. Not at all! And even if I log it online one week after the found and it between the logbook has been stolen, my log should still be correct without my haven taken a picture...

 

By the way I do not know what one can do against cachers logging caches just after they disappeared. You might ask them to describe the area etc. but they are not forced to and I don't see a way to prove that they have not signed the log... Of course, someone doing so ist a poor guy, too. :-(

 

Jochen

[+niraD]

19 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Your group is better to sign correctly into my caches. It is not possible to sign anything using a stamp.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature

 

A signature (/ˈsɪɡnətʃər/; from Latin: signare, "to sign") is a handwritten (and often stylized) depiction of someone's name, nickname, or even a simple "X" or other mark that a person writes on documents as a proof of identity and intent.

 

I have used X as my signature when there is very limited space left on the logbook but never tried to use a stamp.

I know people who use stamps as their legal signatures.

 

If it's good enough for the government and for banks, then it's good enough for you.

[+Clongo_Rongo]

I will let the community decide

 

the log today just shows how the arm chair loggers enjoy disrespecting a CO

 

to log this cache, you will have to walk past at least 3 or more caches until you get to this one, no matter what direction you take

but none have been logged,

 

it's in a woodland area, the nearest parking is at least half a mile

 

 

[+Viajero Perdido]

Logic gotcha.  I walk right past caches all the time.  (Generally I only PQ for T3+).

[+LFC4eva]

1 hour ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

I will let the community decide

 

the log today just shows how the arm chair loggers enjoy disrespecting a CO

 

to log this cache, you will have to walk past at least 3 or more caches until you get to this one, no matter what direction you take

but none have been logged,

 

it's in a woodland area, the nearest parking is at least half a mile

 

 

Not strictly accurate..

From one direction, the first cache she came to is disabled and presumed missing.. the 2nd cache she logged a DNF.. the 3rd cache is the one you have posted above.  Maybe when she realised she didn't have a pen she called it a day and decided to take her son to look at the deer instead?

Maybe he's a very young child and after walking half a mile he was fed up and wanted to return to the car..

or maybe she hasn't finished logging yet.

Edited to add.. she is quite a new cacher with only a handful of finds.  It looks like a devious hide - maybe you could ask her to describe it to prove she was there and explain that you are usually a stickler for the rules and had she not been a newbie with young child you would have deleted her log.

Edited September 22, 2018 by LFC4eva

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

I will let the community decide

 

the log today just shows how the arm chair loggers enjoy disrespecting a CO

 

to log this cache, you will have to walk past at least 3 or more caches until you get to this one, no matter what direction you take

but none have been logged,

 

it's in a woodland area, the nearest parking is at least half a mile

 

 

 

I don't think you can draw much from someone not finding the intervening caches. I have two hides a few hundred metres apart where you have to walk past the first to get to the second, but there are a few finds logged on the second by people who didn't find the first. Perhaps they looked, didn't see it but didn't log a DNF, or they weren't interested (it has the Wading Required attribute so maybe they didn't want to get their feet wet, although in the present drought that isn't a problem) or were pressed for time, who knows? Could even be they were after a particular D/T or attribute combination for a challenge cache or personal goal. I'd want much stronger evidence of armchair logging than that before I'd even think about deleting a log.

 

Maybe the simplest solution is to provide a pen or pencil with the cache.

Edited September 23, 2018 by barefootjeff
Grammar

[+niraD]

5 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

to log this cache, you will have to walk past at least 3 or more caches until you get to this one, no matter what direction you take

but none have been logged,

I walk past caches on my way to other caches all the time. This isn't Pokemon. You don't gotta catch em all.

[+arisoft]

8 hours ago, LFC4eva said:

Edited to add.. she is quite a new cacher with only a handful of finds.  It looks like a devious hide - maybe you could ask her to describe it to prove she was there and explain that you are usually a stickler for the rules and had she not been a newbie with young child you would have deleted her log.

 

I am using this approach. I ask something about the cache in message center and delete the log if there is no answer. Newcomers will learn quite fast to log properly to avoid extra trouble.

[+arisoft]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Maybe the simplest solution is to provide a pen or pencil with the cache.

 

Pencils disappear quite fast but it is a good service to have one or two. If the pencil is attached to the container it may survive longer.

[+frostengel]

11 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

I will let the community decide

 

I already have: poor guy. And it stands.

Want to discourage some more families from geocaching? Have fun!

 

And do not forget:

 

11 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

to log this cache, you will have to walk past at least 3 or more caches until you get to this one, no matter what direction you take

but none have been logged,

 

Can't you imagine that there are not only cachers who take anything they pass along the way?

In my beginner's years I didn't use pocket query and decided at home (!) which caches I wanted to search. I put these onto my GPS (using exterior software) and only searched these. I think many beginners do so that is perfectly normal what happened here.

[+funkymunkyzone]

22 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Yes, game of signing the logbook. How about icehockey without a puck? It's just a game

 

No, that would be geocaching without any caches.

 

Instead it would be if the electronic goal detection stopped working mid game so all the goals from then on were disallowed.

 

Signing the log is just proof of find. If a photo achieves that - proof of find, not just visiting the location - then that's what it is. Arguing anything else is just plain ridiculous and petty.

 

[+funkymunkyzone]

3 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I am using this approach. I ask something about the cache in message center and delete the log if there is no answer. Newcomers will learn quite fast to log properly to avoid extra trouble.

 

The will learn geocaching is a stupid hobby fully of stupid petty people.