Didn't have a pen.

[+MartyBartfast]

1 minute ago, wmpastor said:

Of course, an unusual technique like these may be overlooked or disrgarded.  The wise thing to do is to attach a photo of your improvised signature to the online log, or if that isn't possible, then at least mention in the online log what you did in the physical log.

I've used such techniques many times, and like you suggest  I always mention in the log and usually take a picture of the "signature",  as such scrawls can be prone to fading, or subsequent finders may just see them as a smudge and write over them. I've never had one knocked back by a CO yet.

 

So far I've used burnt matches, mud, squished berries & lichen. I've never used the blade of grass trick but will bear it in mind in future - thanks 

[+wmpastor]

11 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

I've used such techniques many times, and like you suggest  I always mention in the log and usually take a picture of the "signature",  as such scrawls can be prone to fading, or subsequent finders may just see them as a smudge and write over them. I've never had one knocked back by a CO yet.

 

So far I've used burnt matches, mud, squished berries & lichen. I've never used the blade of grass trick but will bear it in mind in future - thanks 

 

Those are good techniques as well!

Since the rest of my post was orphaned on the previous page, I'll add it here, since the "think outside the box" or "think beyond the pen" advice could be useful. 

 

 

Quote

The odd/odd situation here is that cachers without a pen continue to be perplexed about their "inability" to sign logs.  This is due either to lack of imagination or to an overly-restrictive view of what constitutes "signing," or both.

A physical mark intended as a signature *is* a signature.  Use of a pen is not necessary.  In past threads I've included photos of a couple of my signatures where I used a blade of grass and a key. Other inventive ideas have also been suggested before.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2019 by wmpastor

[+Ambrosia]

The few times I've ended up finding a cache without having a pencil, I've tried using mud/grass/etc. to sign my name, and I can't get it to work. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. 

[+bflentje]

On 4/7/2019 at 1:14 AM, barefootjeff said:

Yesterday I received this log on a cache I adopted last year, located in one of northern Sydney's tourist hotspots:

 

 

What was puzzling was that all my caches have pencils in them, so I thought I'd better go and check this morning. Sure enough, not only was there a pencil tucked in alongside the logbook in its baggie, there was also a second pencil and a sharpener. It even says in the description that there's a pencil in the container. Not sure whether it's a brazenly optimistic armchair logger or an extraordinarily unobservant (and forgetful) finder.

 

 

 

Well, he did say pen. And you're showing a pencil. ?

 

[+Fugads]

A technique handy in the dry Southwest US is to use a cactus spine. Very carefully poke tiny holes in the logsheet to spell out your name. Not immediately visible unless you hold it up to the sky, but I like the result. I've used this a few times in a pinch. These desert hides almost always have cactus nearby and I tend to lose pens all the time.

[+DerDiedler]

21 minutes ago, Fugads said:

A technique handy in the dry Southwest US is to use a cactus spine. Very carefully poke tiny holes in the logsheet to spell out your name. Not immediately visible unless you hold it up to the sky, but I like the result. I've used this a few times in a pinch. These desert hides almost always have cactus nearby and I tend to lose pens all the time.

Legit log!

If you place the logsheet on your uncovered femoral to log, it would even be visible without holding it up to the sky ?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

On 4/8/2019 at 11:04 AM, MartyBartfast said:

I've used such techniques many times, and like you suggest  I always mention in the log and usually take a picture of the "signature",  as such scrawls can be prone to fading, or subsequent finders may just see them as a smudge and write over them. I've never had one knocked back by a CO yet.

 

So far I've used burnt matches, mud, squished berries & lichen. I've never used the blade of grass trick but will bear it in mind in future - thanks 

 

I've used a stick in the mud.  The next person to find the cache traced over my muddy signature with a pen.   Only the most anal of a CO would reject a legitimate attempt to "sign the log".  I've also encountered logs that were in such bad shape that any attempt to sign the log with a pen would be illegible no matter what one did.  In that case, I've just poked at it with a pen and called it a signature.  A CO that lets a log get to that bad of shape isn't one that is going to care if the log is signed anyway.  

[+ReedKyCacheFinders]

The Ms & myself have been playing this game since 2008. First thing we learned was (Bring a Pen/s). It's the first thing we have in hand before we leave the house. Not to mention the countless pens/pencils we have in our auto's. We'll forget our GPSr or geo backpack before we forget Pen/s. Now if we find a cache & the log is so wet it's unsignable or the log is full, We'll replace it with a new log that we have signed. We'll leave the wet or full log in the cache if there is room. If there is no room we'll contact the CO to see if they would like to have the log back and if so, We'll either meet them someplace or offer to mail it to them. Just hard to believe so many cachers would forget the number 1 tool in Geocaching.

 

Just our 2 cents.

[+DerDiedler]

I have pens everywhere, in ecery jacket, backpack, in almost every tray in the car. On my shoe shelf there is a busket for keys, it´s full of pens of course

 

But even with this pen wise over equipment it happens, that I come across a cache without a pen.

[Ageleni]

On 2/7/2019 at 1:16 PM, cerberus1 said:

Curious, what's the incentive for you, as you seem to suggest that the incentive is simply a smiley. 

For me, the incentive would be to visit that (hopefully...) awesome area, unique location, or  task needing to be accomplished (a high climb, or long paddle-to for example).

For me the incentive is the find.  To locate this hidden treasure that only a couple hundred people AT MOST in the entire world know about.  That A-HA! moment when your fingers touch it.  The gloating when your hunch was correct.  Or simply the high of hopping out of the car, lifting the light skirt, and seeing the little amber pill bottle.  Signing it makes the task complete, and logging it online helps me keep track of it.  But the main beauty is in the find.

[+cerberus1]

10 hours ago, Ageleni said:

For me the incentive is the find.  To locate this hidden treasure that only a couple hundred people AT MOST in the entire world know about.  That A-HA! moment when your fingers touch it.  The gloating when your hunch was correct.  Or simply the high of hopping out of the car, lifting the light skirt, and seeing the little amber pill bottle.  Signing it makes the task complete, and logging it online helps me keep track of it.  But the main beauty is in the find.

 

I got conned into one once (was for a souvenir...), or I'd still be lpc -free. Have one guard rail now too.          

The fun thing about how each plays the hobby.

[+dprovan]

On 4/13/2019 at 8:41 PM, Ageleni said:

For me the incentive is the find.  To locate this hidden treasure that only a couple hundred people AT MOST in the entire world know about.  That A-HA! moment when your fingers touch it.  The gloating when your hunch was correct.  Or simply the high of hopping out of the car, lifting the light skirt, and seeing the little amber pill bottle.  Signing it makes the task complete, and logging it online helps me keep track of it.  But the main beauty is in the find.

The only problem with the find being the incentive is that when you can't find the cache, it makes the effort worthless to you. I like finding caches, but finding them is just one more bonus. The entire process is my incentive no matter how it turns out.

[+GPSFrodo]

On 1/18/2019 at 12:11 AM, K13 said:

And the game has rules.  Find the cache. Sign the log. Replace the cache, Log it online.

So .... today I went cache hunting.  Its a weekday morning, but I'm on leave.  SIX of SEVEN of the caches had people around them:

 

1. Workers at a monument busy with grounds work.

2. A DNF

3. Right across the road from a girls school.  You can imagine how great it feels as a 50 yo long haired male to be inspecting the fence of that girls school to get the magnetic microcache.

4. Municipal park with park workers. You try getting the micro cache from the tree without them becoming interested in it.

5. Cemetary .... guy mowing the lawn while you search a tree instead of looking at a grave?

 

etc etc etc.

 

So would you prefer people do the proper thing and your cache gets muggled?  I'm honestly of the opinion that if ONE person complains about me not signing a log I will start caching in broad daylight, sign the cache and leave it up to the CO to rethink where they place their caches.

Edited April 30, 2019 by GPSFrodo

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, GPSFrodo said:

So .... today I went cache hunting.  Its a weekday morning, but I'm on leave.  SIX of SEVEN of the caches had people around them:

 

1. Workers at a monument busy with grounds work.

2. A DNF

3. Right across the road from a girls school.  You can imagine how great it feels as a 50 yo long haired male to be inspecting the fence of that girls school to get the magnetic microcache.

4. Municipal park with park workers. You try getting the micro cache from the tree without them becoming interested in it.

5. Cemetary .... guy mowing the lawn while you search a tree instead of looking at a grave?

 

etc etc etc.

 

So would you prefer people do the proper thing and your cache gets muggled?  I'm honestly of the opinion that if ONE person complains about me not signing a log I will start caching in broad daylight, sign the cache and leave it up to the CO to rethink where they place their caches.

If I ran into those situations, it's DNFs or maybe a note from me, depending if I actually searched or not. I would walk away and not claim finds. I remember trying to find one cache in a playground with children in it. Tried mid afternoon - children, so left. Evening still children, so left. Finally after returning a third time in the dark I was able to search and found the cache. If there had still been children, even with making the effort to visit three times, it would have been a DNF. I can't see how I could justify a find, when I didn't put my hands on the cache and sign the log. Exceptions, when the log is too wet to sign, when I forget a pen (I can only think of 2 times) but after I have checked with the CO and supplied a photograph as proof and got permission, or when the lid of the cache is 'welded' on by rust or other reason and the lid can't be removed. Again photographic evidence. Photographic evidence shows I did find the cache, and not just visited the area.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, GPSFrodo said:

So would you prefer people do the proper thing and your cache gets muggled?  I'm honestly of the opinion that if ONE person complains about me not signing a log I will start caching in broad daylight, sign the cache and leave it up to the CO to rethink where they place their caches.

 

What were you planning to sign with since you... "Didn't have a pen"?

 

As with Goldenwattle, if I arrive and the cache and situation is sub-par, I log maybe a DNF and leave.  I plan ahead.  If it's a Nano on a fence at a girls' school, I may ignore that cache.   None of this "Didn't sign anything because groundskeepers, DIDN'T FIND IT GIMME SMILEY", for me.  Absolutely none of this "Just for that, I'll get your cache MUGGLED then see how you like it" passive-aggressive baloney for me. Your mileage may vary.  Different strokes.

 

  It is a terrific cache, that's why you went there, so go back when the groundskeepers leave.

 

If there's a mass of people so I can barely move, I tend to skip it.  But if I decide to search that tree, the park workers, plus all the visitors, have zero interest in what I'm doing.  An exception is if it looks like placing the cache back in its spot may create panicked 911 calls, DNF.  One I actually found looked like a quarter stick of dynamite, fuse and all.  Still exists as a cache, and different people may see me placing it under that lamp skirt than the people who saw me grab it.  May be good to avoid that CO's caches, and also avoid cruddy little Micro caches in general.  As for getting a CO to re-think his poorly done Micros, that's also a good plan.  When you make your DNF, mention WHY you cancelled your search.

 

Typically, I SIGN IT, log it.  No problem.  Bring a pen.

 

Edited April 30, 2019 by kunarion

[+GeoElmo6000]

On April Fool's Day I was going to post something about how Groundspeak no longer requires that logs have to be signed (sort of like the rule for events).  But I made the wise choice and refrained.  

 

To be clear, the rule is still that logs have to be signed "#7: Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.".

[+GPSFrodo]

Right, so now I will probably open a can of worms here ... but hey, who really cares.

Quote

To be clear, the rule is still that logs have to be signed "#7: Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.".

True.  So the rule doesn't say "Be circumspect. Don't let the muggles see" . And we must follow the rules. right?

 

I'm not trying to start a fight with anyone, I'm trying to show that following rules blindly have consequences. I should probably start a new thread regarding this since the issue is a bit bigger than "You didn't sign, you can't log". The real problem is (in my opinion, yours may differ), the placement of caches - in my area at least. Anyway, I'm going to leave this here, have a think and then I will start a new thread in the next couple of days.

[+kunarion]

12 minutes ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

On April Fool's Day I was going to post something about how Groundspeak no longer requires that logs have to be signed (sort of like the rule for events).  But I made the wise choice and refrained.  

 

To be clear, the rule is still that logs have to be signed "#7: Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.".

 

When I started Geocaching, I read "Find the cache, sign the log", so I find the cache, sign the log.  Weird, huh? 

 

But I've extended it further, I guess.  I've found, for example, a PVC tube and could not open it.  DNF.  Photo of it would merely be a photo of it.  Plus, oh so many times, the thing I found was NOT the cache anyway.

 

Sure, I get asked why I'm so high-falutin' that I sign the log, "What if I don't wanna?!  HUH?!  Then what!"  I'm not saying that actually finding and actually signing is what anybody else does.

 

 

[+niraD]

13 minutes ago, GPSFrodo said:

So the rule doesn't say "Be circumspect. Don't let the muggles see" . And we must follow the rules. right?

The rule also doesn't say, "Don't be circumspect. Attract the attention of any muggles."

 

Gosh wiz. What do do? What do do!? The rules don't tell me what to do! How can I follow them.

 

16 minutes ago, GPSFrodo said:

I'm not trying to start a fight with anyone, I'm trying to show that following rules blindly have consequences.

It doesn't come across that way to me. It seems to me that you're trying to excuse the shortcut of not actually signing the log, while still getting your all-important smiley. And you're using the threat of exposing a cache to muggling to bully others into agreeing with you.

[+hzoi]

I don't like explaining myself.  If folks are congregating around a cache and I don't have the opportunity to get the cache unobserved, I use my normal technique of pretending to play around on my phone until people go away.  Failing that, I move on without grabbing the container, or signing the log, or logging a find online.  If it's that public of an area, I probably wouldn't go back to reattempt. 

 

If the spirit moves me, I might log a note saying too many people around.  Before the days of the cache health score, I might have logged my experience as a DNF, but these days I wouldn't do that unless I had the opportunity to no kidding look for the cache and failed to locate it during that search.  

 

As far as my hides, I try to follow the maxim of placing caches I'd like to find.  So normally I try to put them places where muggles would not abound, so that cachers wouldn't have those issues.

 

That's my...

 

[+hzoi]

p.s. @GPSFrodo - welcome back to caching.  I wouldn't expect that we would have a find in common, but we have both apparently hunted the same rusty Irish ammo can.

 

[+Goldenwattle]

2 minutes ago, hzoi said:

Before the days of the cache health score, I might have logged my experience as a DNF, but these days I wouldn't do that

I would for a playground cache . I don't think they should be allowed.

[+kunarion]

1 minute ago, hzoi said:

I don't like explaining myself.  If folks are congregating around a cache and I don't have the opportunity to get the cache unobserved, I use my normal technique of pretending to play around on my phone until people go away.  Failing that, I move on without grabbing the container, or signing the log, or logging a find online.  If it's that public of an area, I probably wouldn't go back to reattempt. 

 

If the spirit moves me, I might log a note saying too many people around.  Before the days of the cache health score, I might have logged my experience as a DNF, but these days I wouldn't do that unless I had the opportunity to no kidding look for the cache and failed to locate it during that search.  

 

As far as my hides, I try to follow the maxim of placing caches I'd like to find.  So normally I try to put them places where muggles would not abound, so that cachers wouldn't have those issues.

 

That's my...

 

 

You could borrow a pen from someone in the passing throng.  (Heh, Me On Topic )

 

I was in downtown Savannah, could barely cross the sidewalk due to the foot traffic, and soon developed my own sneaky plan to find, grab, sign and put it back. With everybody right there.  It worked.

[+Goldenwattle]

15 minutes ago, kunarion said:

foot traffic

Yep muggles. The cache was in full sight, just above head height,  and I had to retrieve it in front of all these people. Fortunately that day I was caching with company, so I leant on the wall and my companion faced me and I pretended to have a conversation. As I slid my hand up the wall, they were saying, left right, higher....

Much more tricky to return, because the cache had been built to fit a shape.

[+cerberus1]

6 hours ago, GPSFrodo said:

So would you prefer people do the proper thing and your cache gets muggled?  I'm honestly of the opinion that if ONE person complains about me not signing a log I will start caching in broad daylight, sign the cache and leave it up to the CO to rethink where they place their caches.

 

By not signing the log, you're without the only proof you've been there.  

You may get by our last 1.5 micro, but you'd be deleted from our remaining 5Ts. 

 - Folks worked hard for that "smiley" and we delete fakers who don't sign the log.

Silly "stealth required" here usually means "I didn't ask for permission, so don't get caught".

I assume the CO had permission to be there, and I'd sign a log with someone standing next to me if need be.

Luckily, now that the other 2/3rds isn't caching, I'm  not bothered anymore by "under the seat at the bus stop"  and similar caches... 

[+GPSFrodo]

3 hours ago, niraD said:

It doesn't come across that way to me. It seems to me that you're trying to excuse the shortcut of not actually signing the log, while still getting your all-important smiley. And you're using the threat of exposing a cache to muggling to bully others into agreeing with you.

No.  I'm trying to excuse not giving the cache location away.  And its not a THREAT ... grow up.

[+GPSFrodo]

38 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Silly "stealth required" here usually means "I didn't ask for permission, so don't get caught".

I assume the CO had permission to be there, and I'd sign a log with someone standing next to me if need be.

 

Finally ... this is the point.  And I think I will have to go visit my caches from today with that in mind.

[+GPSFrodo]

3 hours ago, hzoi said:

p.s. @GPSFrodo - welcome back to caching.  I wouldn't expect that we would have a find in common, but we have both apparently hunted the same rusty Irish ammo can.

 

 

Haaa hahaha yesssss .... the elusive Rusty Can Cache.  It haunts my dreams!! And thanks for the WB

[+noncentric]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

Silly "stealth required" here usually means "I didn't ask for permission, so don't get caught".

I assume the CO had permission to be there, and I'd sign a log with someone standing next to me if need be.

 

This doesn't hold water for me.  A CO can get permission for a hide from a property owner, but that doesn't mean that everybody else in the world is going to respect that placement.  If a muggle sees a cacher looking for something and then pulling out a container, then putting the container back, then do you really believe the muggle cares whether the cache is placed there with permission or not?  They'll probably be curious and go check it out, then maybe remove the container.

 

A CO could get permission from a shopping center to put a cache under a lamppost skirt.  Maybe management and security, and some/all of the store managers/employees, know about it.  But if a muggle sees someone putting a suspicious container under an LPC and walking away, then do you think that muggle is going to seek out the appropriate management person to report the "suspicious package" or will they just call the local LEO and potentially the bomb squad?

 

Just because a cache is "stealth required" doesn't mean it's without permission.

[+Goldenwattle]

11 hours ago, GPSFrodo said:

No.  I'm trying to excuse not giving the cache location away.  And its not a THREAT ... grow up.

Sounded like bulling to me too. That's what I thought when I read your log. A rather childish response from you. I thought when you wrote, " I'm trying to show that following rules blindly have consequences " is that you are threatening that if you have to follow the 'rules' you will not give a dadgum and pull out the cache in front of strangers, sign it it in front of them, return it is front of them, and not give a dadgum after you have left, because you must have that smilie. Instead, as in the example I gave, of going away and returning later when there are less/no people around.

Otherwise, give up on finding that cache and move onto another cache you can find, as adults do.

Edited May 1, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+barefootjeff]

8 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Otherwise, give up on finding that cache and move onto another cache you can find, as adults do.

 

Yes indeed. There's a cache on Sydney's northern beaches at a popular cliff-top lookout that I first DNFed in 2016 as there was a constant stream of muggles coming and going. Over the years I must have tried again and again at least half a dozen times, each time interrupted by muggles, but eventually the caching gods smiled on me and on New Year's Eve last I was finally able to spot it, sign the log, put it back and claim the find, all with only seconds to spare as another carload of muggles arrived.

 

In my book, arriving in the area isn't a find, spotting what might be the cache isn't a find, getting that container in my hand isn't a find, opening the container and extracting the logbook isn't a find, it's only when I've put my mark on the logbook (or tried my best if the logbook is just a sodden lump of pulp), then put it all back the way I found it, that I'll log it as a find. Anything less is a DNF and the chance to come back another time, better preparared if need be, to redeem it.

[+Goldenwattle]

40 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

dadgum

I have no idea where that weird word comes from.  It should be the normal word, dadgum, but every time I try to correct it, it won't correct.

[+Goldenwattle]

Just now, Goldenwattle said:

I have no idea where that weird word comes from.  It should be the normal word, dadgum, but every time I try to correct it, it won't correct.

There, done it again. It's being edited. Good grief it's NOT a swear word in Australia. A normal, every day word in use. Stop it.

[+barefootjeff]

3 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

There, done it again. It's being edited. Good grief it's NOT a swear word in Australia. A normal, every day word in use. Stop it.

 

You're dadgumed if you do and dadgumed if you don't. The story of my life ?.

[+colleda]

4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

There, done it again. It's being edited. Good grief it's NOT a swear word in Australia. A normal, every day word in use. Stop it.

I've had that happen to me when using an Australian vernacular which, I assume, was interpreted as an expletive, by the spell checker or forum checker, then is substituted by something more acceptable. I also repeated it and it got changed each time.

[+Goldenwattle]

29 minutes ago, colleda said:

I've had that happen to me when using an Australian vernacular which, I assume, was interpreted as an expletive, by the spell checker or forum checker, then is substituted by something more acceptable. I also repeated it and it got changed each time.

First site this has ever happened to me. Really, really, weird!!! Good grief, it's only damnn. (Let's see if that so ordinary word spelt wrongly won't be changed by the thought police ?.)

Edited May 1, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+Goldenwattle]

Ha, ha, imperious thought-police foiled ?. A win to regional local vernacular ?.

[+on4bam]

6 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Ha, ha, imperious thought-police foiled ?. A win to regional local vernacular ?.

 

I'm sure they will add a line to their auto-correcting filter soon.

 

[+Goldenwattle]

43 minutes ago, on4bam said:

 

I'm sure they will add a line to their auto-correcting filter soon.

 

LOL, I can keep adding nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...

[+niraD]

47 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

LOL, I can keep adding nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...

Depends on the line they add to their auto-correcting filter.

 

s/\bdamn+\b/dadgum/g

 

That would allow you to add as many n's as you like, and still catch the word.

[Keystone]

The last nine posts have taken the thread on an off topic tangent about an autocorrect feature implemented about 15 years ago by no less than Jeremy Irish himself.  Let's get the thread back on topic, dadgum it!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

22 hours ago, kunarion said:

 

You could borrow a pen from someone in the passing throng.  (Heh, Me On Topic )

 

I was in downtown Savannah, could barely cross the sidewalk due to the foot traffic, and soon developed my own sneaky plan to find, grab, sign and put it back. With everybody right there.  It worked.

 

I did the same for a cache in Barcelona.   There was a tour group with 15-20  people about 20 feet from the hiding spot.  I was able to wait until the tour guide pointed to a bit of interesting architecture in the opposite direction to grab the cache.  Once I had the cache in hand I was able to move away to a bench where I could sign the log, then got back to GZ and wait for another opportunity to replace it.  As long as it's relatively easy to grab and replace the cache I don't mind public locations much unless locating the container would attract a lot of attention (e.g. the cache is under a bench).   I've also encountered caches that were easy to locate but very difficult to extract from the hiding spot.  I was surprised to see it last as long as it did without getting muggled.  

[+Goldenwattle]

Unless the CO wants to take the risk of a geocacher being spotted searching because the cache is hard to find, or in a position which requires the person to get into an strange position to retrieve it, such as under the aforementioned bench, I would advise in high muggle areas to hide the cache in a place that can be grabbed without gymnastics and give lots of hints to make the find quick. This will keep the cache safer.

I have an alleyway cache that because of buildings causing havoc with the GPS, it used to take finders a while to find. There is building work going on there now and muggles. So as I don't want the building worker muggles to spot people hanging around there doing strange things as they search and drawing attention to themselves and the cache, I added extra clues and a spoiler photograph. Quick find now.

Edited May 1, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+TeamRabbitRun]

So, I ALWAYS carry a pen.

 

ALWAYS.

 

Last Saturday, the Team Cap'n told me that I was dropping her off at a place nearby. "Take my car," she said.

 

Never been in that part of town before. After she got out I said, "Gee, I wonder if there's anything near here!"

 

Phone, wow! One very close by!

 

Go there, REALLY good easy puzzle cache. Well done.

 

Pen, pen, pen, PEN! .... I was lucky I grabbed my wallet when I was unceremoniously kicked out to the garage. Lucky I already had my shoes on! (Hi, Jeff)

 

I don't have one. Glove compartment, trays, seats: under, between OR imbedded. Back seat, front seat.

 

Hatchback: full of crap, but NOTHING resembling a writing stick. Old shoes, plenty. (Hi, Jeff) Backpack with spare clothes, sure. Car tool kit, Yup.

 

Just about dusk. PRACTICALLY unloaded her trunk on the side of the road. Looked like a traffic stop gone wrong!

 

<sigh> No sign, no find.

 

Three hours later when I was summoned for the pickup, you're dadgum right I brought a pen and swung by on my way there (and not, um, on my way back home with her in the car).

 

Moral of the story: It happens. Don't tell me I should always carry a pen.

[+on4bam]

If you go swimming, you take your swimsuit (unless... )

Go for a drive, take your car keys

Go on a picnic, take your drink/food

Go camping, take a tent

Go geocaching, take a pen/pencil.

 

How difficult can this one rule (find cache, sign log, put cache back) be?

 

 

[+kunarion]

16 minutes ago, on4bam said:

If you go swimming, you take your swimsuit

 

+1

 

Plus I would appear to be pretty nutty in those situations if I claimed the activity that I in fact didn't perform.

 

Me: “I forgot my swimsuit. Oh, I swam for sure.”

 

They: “Nude beach?”

Me: “No I didn't but said I did. I swim my way. By not swimming. I get to be not equipped for an activity, and rationalize it away.  I'm special like that.”

 

… plus never going back there ever. I won't ever bring my swimsuit and swim. I've already claimed to do so, no need to ever actually go do that.

 

… PLUS reading entire forum-fulls of people who say “Oh yeah, you can have no swimsuits and swim without swimming, happens to me a lot.”

 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by kunarion

[+TeamRabbitRun]

Please don't misunderstand my last post (I just reread it).

I'm affirming that if I don't have a pen and therefore can't sign the log, I can't and don't log it as found. That was baked into my story.  My point was that it's wrong to dismiss people because they don't have a pen. Many posters have essentially said that they just shake-their-head-don't-understand people who find themselves without a pen.

But, it happens!

My attitude is a feeling of knowing commiseration: too bad you don't have a pen; I feel for you. Been there myself. (Just this past Saturday!) Don't claim it. Not coming back this way? Wow, that makes it worse, but it doesn't change it. Don't claim it.

[+Dave_W6DPS]

1. Find the cache

2. Sign the log

3. Replace the cache

4. Log online

 

If you have not done 1, 2, AND 3, then you don't do 4.

 

No pen or pencil, no find. No excuses!

[+Goldenwattle]

13 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

My point was that it's wrong to dismiss people because they don't have a pen. Many posters have essentially said that they just shake-their-head-don't-understand people who find themselves without a pen.

But, it happens!

It does happen, and I am willing to accept a photograph and/or very good description of the cache and log, but the finder needs to contact me BEFORE they log. It is those, who cache after cache, write 'forgot my pen'/'lost my pen', no matter what day they found it (ie more likely didn't) that I delete. I check history. Always forgetting the pen, I don't believe them.

[+dprovan]

8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

It does happen, and I am willing to accept a photograph and/or very good description of the cache and log, but the finder needs to contact me BEFORE they log. It is those, who cache after cache, write 'forgot my pen'/'lost my pen', no matter what day they found it (ie more likely didn't) that I delete. I check history. Always forgetting the pen, I don't believe them.

I don't understand. If they post a photograph but don't ask in advance, you're going to delete the log just because they didn't ask permission? Seems kinda controlling.

 

In my experience, geocachers are sincere, so it would never occur to me to automatically assume they didn't find the cache when they said they didn't have a pen. Are you taking this stance because you don't believe them or because you want to enforce the rules strictly?