Signing the Log Book

[ChrisBennett]

First post from a newbie 

 

I've started Geocaching as a means of getting my 15 year old daughter out of the house when she comes to stay with me over the weekend.

We went out last Sunday on a local loop consisting of 15 caches and found all but one, so a successful start.

However, a number of caches had two different log books hidden in different compartments (Well, rolled up pieces of paper stuffed inside various holes).

My question is, should we have signed both pieces of paper to prove we found both hiding places or just the one ?

 

Cheers

[+Team DEMP]

Signing one piece of paper is enough. Often a cache owner (aka CO) puts in a couple sheets to allow many finders to sign the log without having to return and put in a new log sheet.

I started with my wife and daughters when they were just 10 and 8 years old and we still do it today, 15 years later. Welcome to the hobby/obsession and have fun!!  

[+cerberus1]

The CO did Owner Maintenance on the ones I looked at, just over a week before you got there. 

You mention "both hiding places", which kinda tells me that you may have signed the original cache or a throwdown  (cache placed by a "finder" because they couldn't find the original).

Since most were seen-before plastic containers (some just a LNL),  then as Team DEMP says, it might be "extra" paper.

But on one,  I saw one of those "which one is it?" caches, with multiple "containers" together, with only one as THE log (ammo cans filled with film cans are similar).

Either way, you signed a log.    

Edited February 19, 2019 by cerberus1
add/correctification :D

[+NYPaddleCacher]

On 2/18/2019 at 9:28 PM, cerberus1 said:

The CO did Owner Maintenance on the ones I looked at, just over a week before you got there. 

 

That kind of suggests that an original log sheet in the cache got full, so someone added a piece of paper to the cache, then the CO removed the full log and added a new, clean log sheet.

 

I'm not sure what "different compartments" or "inside various holes" but if there were separate unique containers then it's likely that one of them was a "throwdown" cache placed by someone when the could not find the "real" cache.  That would not be too surprising for a series or loop of 15 caches when there was someone that felt they needed to "find them all" rather than post a dnf on any they didn't find.