Logging a disabled cache without logbook...

[+k6_est]

I require advice.

 

1) Can a disabled cache be logged?

2) Can a disabled cache be logged when the logbook is missing and the seeker inserts a new logbook into the cache?

 

Description of situation:

I am an owner of a cache. A seeker reported that my cache has been partially destroyed - container is open and logbook missing. I immediately disabled the cache, but did not manage to physically perform any maintenance yet, but was planning to go visit the site within two weeks. Next geocacher was seeking that disabled cache and brought his own logbook and inserted it into the container and logged the find. All this without coordinating with me, although by my disable-entry it had to be clear that the cache is being actively maintained.

 

My opinion:

1) No.

2) Definitely no.

 

I find that this would create a world full of confusion when people would do this more often. Disabled cache and no logbook in the container? No problem, I bring my own logbook and log, problem solved. No need to coordinate with the owner. I don't think it is supposed to work like this.

[+barefootjeff]

Technically they can, as the website doesn't prevent it nor do the guidelines forbid it. Remember also that the finder may have downloaded the cache's GPX file to their GPSr (perhaps even as part of a PQ) prior to it being disabled and so wouldn't have realised it was disabled until they'd returned home to log it online. Not everyone uses a phone for caching. To me it's a bit disrespectful, though, and I won't knowingly log or even attempt a disabled cache unless it's with the foreknowledge of the CO, but I think you'd be on shaky ground deleting their log as HQ encourage finders to replace full, wet (or presumably missing) logbooks.

[+Goldenwattle]

As a CO, I would accept a log for a disabled cache if the log was still there.After all, the person might have loaded the cache into their GPS before the cache was disabled and not know it had been disabled since. It would be unfair to refuse their log.

 

(Although not the case here, I also think it's fair to log archived caches if the log is still present. If the CO doesn't want it logged, they should have gone and picked up their (now) rubbish.)

 

As for them replacing the log, I would need to think about it. Where the cache is and so on.

[+k6_est]

Additional information: the second seeker got information about the cache and its condition from the first seeker (the one who reported about the condition of the cache), and he was fully aware that the cache has been disabled, yet decided to perform such uncoordinated procedure with the logbook.

 

One other thing that bothers me - if the cache was in such condition, I cannot be certain that the container was found even in the right spot, and I would say that the second seeker kind of restored the cache - without actually having information whether he was doing it correctly. So basically we have a disabled cache, container provided by me (as it was not missing), logbook provided by the seeker and hiding spot is where the seeker thinks it should be hiding. Hmm...

 

I'm sorry, I don't feel like this is a "find" by the seeker - disabled cache, no original logbook by owner, cache correct spot not confirmed by owner.

Edited February 28, 2019 by k6_est

[+K13]

Ultimately, it is your cache.  You within your cache owner's responsibility to delete the finder's log if you feel that the person didn't find the cache.   I'm not sure how that would stand in your local community court of public opinion or if the finder took it to Appeals.

[+k6_est]

I already deleted the log entry. According to my understanding the seeker found nothing more than a plastic box with geocaching markings on it from an unconfirmed spot, this is not a geocaching find.

[+IceColdUK]

38 minutes ago, k6_est said:

1) Can a disabled cache be logged?

2) Can a disabled cache be logged when the logbook is missing and the seeker inserts a new logbook into the cache?

 

1) Yes.

2) Yes.

 

Would seem harsh to delete the log of someone trying to do you a favour.  You’re planning a maintenance trip anyway, so go ahead and do a proper check of the cache before re-enabling.

[+IceColdUK]

3 minutes ago, k6_est said:

I already deleted the log entry. According to my understanding the seeker found nothing more than a plastic box with geocaching markings on it from an unconfirmed spot, this is not a geocaching find.

 

Do you honestly doubt they found your cache?  Surely it would have been better to get out to GZ to verify before deleting their log.

[+dprovan]

14 minutes ago, k6_est said:

I find that this would create a world full of confusion when people would do this more often. Disabled cache and no logbook in the container? No problem, I bring my own logbook and log, problem solved. No need to coordinate with the owner. I don't think it is supposed to work like this.

Well, no, actually I claim it is supposed to work exactly like this: a cache is missing its log, the next seeker happens to be a nice guy and supplies one. Frankly, I'm not even sure why you're worried about it. It was a good idea to disable the cache to discourage people from seeking your broken cache, but I don't see any reason for you to be worried about someone, nevertheless, enjoying your cache anyway. They even tried to solve your problem for you so, if you wanted, you didn't have to do a maintenance run afterwards. If you don't like their logbook, then go replace it, but I don't understand why you're mad about their friendly gesture.

 

And there's no confusion. The cache is still disabled.

 

Just now, k6_est said:

I already deleted the log entry. According to my understanding the seeker found nothing more than a plastic box with geocaching markings on it from an unconfirmed spot, this is not a geocaching find.

That sounds like a geocaching find to me. They found your cache despite its problems. Didn't you hide the cache so people can enjoy finding it?

 

Did you also delete the previous finder's log? They found the exactly same cache in the exact same condition.

[+k6_est]

1 minute ago, IceColdUK said:

 

Do you honestly doubt they found your cache?

I don't consider what was found as a cache. A findable cache in my opinion should be enabled and have the compulsory elements inside, the most important being the logbook. If it doesn't meet these parameters, it cannot be found. The seeker just found an empty box. Inserting a new logbook into an empty box doesn't make it a cache, at least not without the owner's approval and re-enabling, by doing so confirming that everything is all right.

[+Mermaid.Man]

I think that like you I would feel somewhat resentful of somebody performing maintenance on one of my caches without my approval.

 

However I think that you are misreading the situation somewhat.  The visitor who left a new logbook was just trying to help a fellow cacher out I think - I've done the same thing myself a couple of times over the years when a logsheet was either missing or saturated.  He may have seen that you'd been unable to visit to do it yourself for almost two weeks since disabling the cache.

 

This situation is certainly different from a throwdown which is always unforgivable.

[+IceColdUK]

10 minutes ago, k6_est said:

I don't consider what was found as a cache. A findable cache in my opinion should be enabled and have the compulsory elements inside, the most important being the logbook. If it doesn't meet these parameters, it cannot be found. The seeker just found an empty box. Inserting a new logbook into an empty box doesn't make it a cache, at least not without the owner's approval and re-enabling, by doing so confirming that everything is all right.

 

I just think you’ve been a bit hasty.  Why did you ask for opinions when it seems clear you’d already made up your mind to delete the log?

 

20 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Did you also delete the previous finder's log? They found the exactly same cache in the exact same condition.

 

Good question.  And presumably they didn’t sign anything.

[+Goldenwattle]

I have a similar situation happening now. A cache which I replaced the cache and log for on 31st January has supposedly gone missing AGAIN. Someone has nicely left a new temporary log, until I can get to it. (Moan, because of building work nearby, the muggle factor at present is high and it's a horrible cache to get to, but I will need to.) I have disabled the cache...again. At present I don't intend to delete the logs, because they were doing a nice thing leaving a new log. If I find the old log is still there I will need to reconsider this. Must organise some company for this check, as it looks weird for a single person to visit that grotty urban cache. It's not dangerous to do so...at least in daylight hours...but it looks weird.

[+Mermaid.Man]

15 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have a similar situation happening now. A cache which I replaced the cache and log for on 31st January has supposedly gone missing AGAIN. Someone has nicely left a new temporary log, until I can get to it. (Moan, because of building work nearby, the muggle factor at present is high and it's a horrible cache to get to, but I will need to.) I have disabled the cache...again. At present I don't intend to delete the logs, because they were doing a nice thing leaving a new log. If I find the old log is still there I will need to reconsider this. Must organise some company for this check, as it looks weird for a single person to visit that grotty urban cache. It's not dangerous to do so...at least in daylight hours...but it looks weird.

Well this case is different I feel. It sounds as if there was nothing to find at all and so what you have here is a throwdown. I would delete the log without a second thought. 

Of course I can see how some would think that this is a strange differention to make between the two cases but I feel that they are quite different. In the OP's case the visitor found the cache and helpfully did some simple maintenance, while in your case (if I understand correctly) the visitor found nothing. A classic "found it = didn't find it" in fact. 

[+Goldenwattle]

3 minutes ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Well this case is different I feel. It sounds as if there was nothing to find at all and so what you have here is a throwdown. I would delete the log without a second thought. 

Of course I can see how some would think that this is a strange differention to make between the two cases but I feel that they are quite different. In the OP's case the visitor found the cache and helpfully did some simple maintenance, while in your case (if I understand correctly) the visitor found nothing. A classic "found it = didn't find it" in fact. 

I suspect there are cultural differences there. I know the people ; it's a community of cachers here, and they would expect it to be helpful to a friend. People tend to help each other here, especially when we know and sometimes cache together.

[+Mermaid.Man]

21 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I suspect there are cultural differences there. I know the people ; it's a community of cachers here, and they would expect it to be helpful to a friend. People tend to help each other here, especially when we know and sometimes cache together.

Well of course you know the local situation much better than I.  And of course it's your cache to do with whatever you wish.  (Your original post didn't really include this context.)

[+K13]

2 hours ago, k6_est said:

I already deleted the log entry. According to my understanding the seeker found nothing more than a plastic box with geocaching markings on it from an unconfirmed spot, this is not a geocaching find.

 

Do  you intend to delete the log of the finder from 2/15/2019, as they admitted to emptying the water from the cache box and replacing the missing logbook? Did you delete a log after that one for doing the same thing?

[+k6_est]

So as I can see from this discussion:

 

1. Locating and finding an empty geocaching container is still "finding the cache".

2. Any geocacher may insert a new logbook into the cache when the container is missing one.

3. A geocacher who has not found and logged the cache previously can take the empty container, provide a new logbook, place the container somewhere where he thinks it should be and effectively perform the cache restore. All these actions without informing and coordinating with the cache owner.

4. By performing steps 1 to 3 the geocacher can log a positive find and totally ignore the fact that the cache is disabled by the owner.

 

Copy that, I am much wiser now how things work.

[+Mermaid.Man]

Well I would say yes to points 1 to 4. Disabling a cache doesn't make it "out of bounds" as far as logging a find (even archiving it doesn't). 

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, k6_est said:

1. Locating and finding an empty geocaching container is still "finding the cache".

You've stated this so crisply, I'm not sure how you can argue against it. He did, in fact, find the cache that you hid. The fact that that cache had so many problems that you disabled it doesn't make it any less The Cache, and it doesn't make what he did any less finding The Cache.

 

1 hour ago, k6_est said:

2. Any geocacher may insert a new logbook into the cache when the container is missing one.

Any cacher can add any swag to any cache. Forgiving you for having a cache that's missing a log book and properly proving they found your cache by adding a log and signing it makes perfect sense.

 

1 hour ago, k6_est said:

3. A geocacher who has not found and logged the cache previously can take the empty container, provide a new logbook, place the container somewhere where he thinks it should be and effectively perform the cache restore. All these actions without informing and coordinating with the cache owner.

I have no idea how you got this from this discussion. I think everyone's that's mentioned it has spoken against this. That other container is not your cache, so it would be completely reasonable to deny that find. (You may have been confused by Goldenwattle's example, but that differs from yours because the finders are friends of Goldenwattle's, so "coordinating" with the cache owner is implicit.)

 

1 hour ago, k6_est said:

4. By performing steps 1 to 3 the geocacher can log a positive find and totally ignore the fact that the cache is disabled by the owner.

If they find the cache the CO hid and sign the log, even if they have to provide the log themselves, they can log the find. I'm not sure what the point would be of denying them that. The owner disabling the cache doesn't change the state of the cache: if it can be found, they can log it. You disable a cache for seekers to warn them away from looking for a problem cache, you don't do it to block seekers from looking for it.

 

I still don't understand why you care. They found your cache! How can that not be a good thing? Isn't that why you hid the cache?

[+IceColdUK]

11 minutes ago, dprovan said:

You disable a cache for seekers to warn them away from looking for a problem cache, you don't do it to block seekers from looking for it.

 

Good point, well made.

 

11 minutes ago, dprovan said:

They found your cache! How can that not be a good thing? Isn't that why you hid the cache?

 

Ditto.

[+on4bam]

In an ideal world the scenario would be:

1. cacher finds destroyed cache, logs DNF and NM.

2. CO disables cache

3 no found it logs until OM and enabling cache.

 

Finding a cache is "find the container, sign the log, log online". Bringing your own logbook just to claim a find is the same as bringing your own container+log (throwdown).

 

Strange that cacher2 contacts cacher1 and decide to do "maintenance" but fails to contact the only person who decides what to do with the cache, the CO. Deleting the logs seems logical to me, log was not signed (BTO is not signing the log) so no "found it".

 

[+hzoi]

I've seen plenty of disable notes telling folks not to seek a cache and that their logs will be deleted if they try.  So it's not unheard of.

 

The help center article on disabling caches is entirely directed at cache ownership, not at finders.  There is no guideline on allowing or deleting logs when a cache is disabled.  The only part that really discusses the impact on people seeking you cache is this one:

 

Quote

Published geocaches that are temporarily disabled do not show up in the Geocaching® mobile app. They do show up on Geocaching.com.

 

Since it wouldn't have been on the app, it's entirely possible that a person who logged it after it was disabled had it in their GPSr and did not know it was disabled. 

 

Though in this case, their log referred to stopping by a store for supplies, so they knew what they were finding.

 

Ultimately it's your cache.  You have grounds to delete, or grounds to keep it.  The official answer on whether it was OK for them to log it in this situation or not depends on what appeals does, if the would-be finder appeals the log deletion.

 

Meanwhile, if the weather there has been as nice as it has been here in Germany, it might be a good opportunity to go fix your cache and re-enable it.

[+Rikitan]

9 hours ago, k6_est said:

I require advice.

 

1) Can a disabled cache be logged?

2) Can a disabled cache be logged when the logbook is missing and the seeker inserts a new logbook into the cache?

 

Description of situation:

I am an owner of a cache. A seeker reported that my cache has been partially destroyed - container is open and logbook missing. I immediately disabled the cache, but did not manage to physically perform any maintenance yet, but was planning to go visit the site within two weeks. Next geocacher was seeking that disabled cache and brought his own logbook and inserted it into the container and logged the find. All this without coordinating with me, although by my disable-entry it had to be clear that the cache is being actively maintained.

 

It is your cache, you are free to decide to accept or not to accept such FI log.

What I would do? It depends on situation - why my cache is disabled, how long, other circumstances etc.

[+MartyBartfast]

9 hours ago, k6_est said:

I cannot be certain that the container was found even in the right spot

 

Small point, but once you've hidden the cache and walked away from it, you can't even be sure that the first finder will find it "in the right spot" as it could be moved by critters/muggles/the weather, and each subsequent find could move the cache so you can never be sure; therefore I don't think that should be part of your justification.

 

It seems clear to me that the second finder found your cache, they most probably thought they were doing you a favour by replacing the log book for you and saving you making a special trip - which by the sound of it isn't terribly convenient because you can't make it for a couple of weeks.

 

While contacting you personally about the action may have been nice, I'm guessing that they did effectively inform you what they had done via their log and mentioned they had placed a new log.

 

I think it's harsh to deny the find, but it's your cache and your decision.

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

6 minutes ago, Rikitan said:

What I would do? It depends on situation - why my cache is disabled, how long, other circumstances etc.

 

Back a few years ago, the reserve in which I have a cache was fenced off due to the electricity company (Ausgrid) replacing the towers for the power feeder that crosses it, so I disabled it for the three months or so that it took them to complete their work. In that time the cache had four finds - one by a cacher who was working with Ausgrid, two by a couple who snuck past the barrier, and one right at the end who noticed that the fencing had gone and got in to find it literally as I was making my way over to do a check before re-enabling it. The first and last I have no qualms with at all - one was inside the barrier on legitimate business and the other went after the barrier had been removed, but I'm less happy with the other two as that sort of thing can give caching a bad name. I wouldn't go as far as deleting their logs, though, in any case their signatures were in the logbook so technically I couldn't even if I wanted to.

 

[+IceColdUK]

1 hour ago, on4bam said:

In an ideal world the scenario would be:

1. cacher finds destroyed cache, logs DNF and NM.

2. CO disables cache

3 no found it logs until OM and enabling cache.

 

Here’s another scenario:

1. A CO disables a cache saying something like “Cache temporarily disabled due to probable muggle damage to cache”.

2. A cacher, having discussed the situation at GZ with the previous finder, decides to look for it anyway, and having found it, in true community spirit, replaces the logbook for the CO.

3. The CO deletes the found log.

4. The cacher appeals (and in all likelihood gets their log reinstated), and/or immediately puts all of the COs caches on their ignore list and tells all of their friends.

 

Why would anybody want to see this scenario?  Deleting logs to prevent armchair logging: no problem.  Deleting logs on a throwdown: no problem.  Deleting logs because your logbook has gone missing and someone has been nice enough to replace: just don’t get it.

[+IceColdUK]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Back a few years ago, the reserve in which I have a cache was fenced off due to the electricity company (Ausgrid) replacing the towers for the power feeder that crosses it, so I disabled it for the three months or so that it took them to complete their work. In that time the cache had four finds - one by a cacher who was working with Ausgrid, two by a couple who snuck past the barrier, and one right at the end who noticed that the fencing had gone and got in to find it literally as I was making my way over to do a check before re-enabling it. The first and last I have no qualms with at all - one was inside the barrier on legitimate business and the other went after the barrier had been removed, but I'm less happy with the other two as that sort of thing can give caching a bad name. I wouldn't go as far as deleting their logs, though, in any case their signatures were in the logbook so technically I couldn't even if I wanted to.

 

 

This makes a good point.  There are any number of reasons for temporarily disabling cache - the context should be clear from the log, and how I treat it would depend on that context.  There may be others, but a few examples:

 

1. ‘Out of bounds’, as in Jeff’s case: I’d definitely avoid.  And he’s right, the people that go ahead regardless, could give caching a bad name. (*)

 

2. ‘Local difficulties’, such as nesting birds: again, I’d avoid. (*)

 

3. ‘Cache might be missing’: I’d check through the cache details and previous logs to see what led the CO to that conclusion.  If I feel there’s a chance it might still be there, I’m not going to make a special trip, but I’d certainly look if I was passing.

 

4. ‘Cache might be damaged’: thanks for the warning, and good to see the CO is on top of the situation, but why would it stop me from looking for the cache?  And if I can help out with a new log, I would.

 

(*)  In these situations, it might be good if the listing could be locked against finds until re-enabled.

Edited February 28, 2019 by IceColdUK
Added (*) to #2.

[+on4bam]

28 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

 Deleting logs on a throwdown: no problem.  Deleting logs because your logbook has gone missing and someone has been nice enough to replace: just don’t get it.

 

I see no difference in throwing down a logbook or throwing down a container with a logbook.

Cacher2 tought is was OK to contact cacher1 but not the CO? Why not contacting the CO and saying "I plan on going to your disabled cache, is it OK to put a new log in it?"

The cache was disabled, cacher2 knew this, there was no log so there was no reason to log a "found it". The only reason cacher2 went anyway is that all important +1.

 

It would be a good idea if a TA log could also have the option to TL (temporary lock) a cache from being logged.

 

[+Goldenwattle]

50 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

2. ‘Local difficulties’, such as nesting birds: again, I’d avoid.

Like this.

[+IceColdUK]

25 minutes ago, on4bam said:

I see no difference in throwing down a logbook or throwing down a container with a logbook.

 

I do.

 

Incidentally...  Google translate might be leading me astray here, but it suggests that the previous finder “improvised a new logbook” - I’m guessing, a scrap of paper.

 

So, they left a ‘throwdown log’ yet their online log is allowed to stand.

 

The second finder then replaced this ‘improvised logbook’ with a better one, and their log is deleted.

 

Seems a little inconsistent ... and pointless.

 

25 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Cacher2 tought is was OK to contact cacher1 but not the CO? Why not contacting the CO and saying "I plan on going to your disabled cache, is it OK to put a new log in it?"

 

You make the contact between the two cachers sound nefarious without having any background.  I talk to other cachers all the time...

 

“I see you found cache XXX last week.  I was planning on heading that way at the weekend, but I see the CO has disabled it.”

 

“Yeh, it was in a bit of a state, but I tucked in a scrappy log, and put it back according to the hint.  Shouldn’t be a problem.”

 

“Thanks.  No need to change my plans then?”

 

“No, but maybe you could take along a proper logbook to help out the CO?”

 

“Sure.”

 

All pure speculation of course!  It might have been nice to have contacted the CO first, but I don’t see that it would have been completely necessary.

 

Had it been me, I’d have been genuinely shocked to see my log deleted.

 

37 minutes ago, on4bam said:

The cache was disabled, cacher2 knew this, there was no log so there was no reason to log a "found it". The only reason cacher2 went anyway is that all important +1.

 

They went looking for a cache.  They found it.  Why wouldn’t they log it?  I really don’t see this as an argument about caching for numbers.

 

36 minutes ago, on4bam said:

It would be a good idea if a TA log could also have the option to TL (temporary lock) a cache from being logged.

 

Agreed, but I’d only want it used for those situations where you want to keep Geocachers away from the area, such as for those ‘out of bounds’ and ‘local difficulties’ examples, I described above.

[+Rikitan]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The first and last I have no qualms with at all - one was inside the barrier on legitimate business and the other went after the barrier had been removed, but I'm less happy with the other two as that sort of thing can give caching a bad name. I wouldn't go as far as deleting their logs, though, in any case their signatures were in the logbook so technically I couldn't even if I wanted to.

 

That's exactly my thoughts. Thank you for good example.

 

Another one - I own couple of caches, seasonally disabled in order to preserve wildlife (like nesting birds here, or storks here).

If anyone logs the cache in that period, it gets deleted (which is mentioned in my disable listing log too), no pardons.

 

(EDIT) Oups, I see similar examples already mentioned above.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Rikitan
errata

[+NYPaddleCacher]

4 hours ago, on4bam said:

In an ideal world the scenario would be:

1. cacher finds destroyed cache, logs DNF and NM.

2. CO disables cache

3 no found it logs until OM and enabling cache.

 

Finding a cache is "find the container, sign the log, log online". Bringing your own logbook just to claim a find is the same as bringing your own container+log (throwdown).

 

Strange that cacher2 contacts cacher1 and decide to do "maintenance" but fails to contact the only person who decides what to do with the cache, the CO. Deleting the logs seems logical to me, log was not signed (BTO is not signing the log) so no "found it".

 

I have contacted a  CO on a disabled cache, letting them know that I was going to be in the area and offer to replace the log book.  I wouldn't do it "just to claim a find" but to be helpful to a CO and save them a OM visit.  If the CO replied that they'd prefer to do their own OM I wouldn't even attempt to find the cache.  

 

Replacing a logbook without the permission of a CO is the same as a throwdown, but could be a courtesy to the CO and other cachers when permission is obtained.

[+TriciaG]

5 hours ago, dprovan said:

 

6 hours ago, k6_est said:

3. A geocacher who has not found and logged the cache previously can take the empty container, provide a new logbook, place the container somewhere where he thinks it should be and effectively perform the cache restore. All these actions without informing and coordinating with the cache owner.

I have no idea how you got this from this discussion. I think everyone's that's mentioned it has spoken against this. That other container is not your cache, so it would be completely reasonable to deny that find. (You may have been confused by Goldenwattle's example, but that differs from yours because the finders are friends of Goldenwattle's, so "coordinating" with the cache owner is implicit.)

 

This wording caught me, too. K6 said, "A geocacher who has not found and logged the cache previously can take the empty container" - meaning the one that's still there. K6 is not referring to a throwdown container.

For the sake of clarity...

[+JL_HSTRE]

12 hours ago, k6_est said:

I already deleted the log entry. According to my understanding the seeker found nothing more than a plastic box with geocaching markings on it from an unconfirmed spot, this is not a geocaching find.

 

It doesn't matter if a geocache is in an "unconfirmed" spot.

 

If a cache is supposed to be in a tree and I find it on the ground because it fell out of the tree do you think I should be prohibited from logging it?

 

12 hours ago, k6_est said:

I don't consider what was found as a cache. A findable cache in my opinion should be enabled and have the compulsory elements inside, the most important being the logbook. If it doesn't meet these parameters, it cannot be found. The seeker just found an empty box. Inserting a new logbook into an empty box doesn't make it a cache, at least not without the owner's approval and re-enabling, by doing so confirming that everything is all right.

 

An empty box that was clearly marked as a geocache.

 

Lets say they found the cache with a logbook, but the logbook was totally ruined (soaked, burned, torn up). The finder can't sign your logbook so they leave a replacement that they do sign. Should that be prohibited too in your mind?

 

If so probably 1/3 of active caches in Florida at any given time would be unloggable.

 

3 hours ago, hzoi said:

I've seen plenty of disable notes telling folks not to seek a cache and that their logs will be deleted if they try.  So it's not unheard of.

 

Usually that's because the location is inaccessible due to construction or the like. Nobody can log the cache because nobody can legally access GZ.

[+coachstahly]

13 hours ago, k6_est said:

no original logbook by owner, cache correct spot not confirmed by owner.

 

While a cache is disabled, there isn't anything in the guidelines that prohibits seekers from trying to find what is there (if anything).  There are certainly times when I'd avoid trying to get to GZ, even in situations when I had it loaded in my GPS but not updated with regard to its status.  However, if it appears nothing is really preventing me from trying to find a cache and then realizing, after the fact, that it was disabled, I would still expect to be allowed to log my find, assuming I found it.  It's not MY fault I didn't have the most recent status update, nor is it the fault of the CO.

 

If there's not an original logbook by the owner, does that mean that every cache that has had a wet log replaced by another seeker (and the log removed because it would have soaked the replacement log as well) can't be claimed as a find?  That seems to me to be the implication you're making.

 

Does that mean that after every find you go out to verify that it was returned to the correct spot? If you don't, how can you know that subsequent finds of your cache were in the spot you originally intended?  EVERY find would then be questionable and could be deleted.

 

The fact that neither seeker contacted the CO is a bit odd but I wouldn't really be that concerned about it.  

 

12 hours ago, k6_est said:

A findable cache in my opinion should be enabled and have the compulsory elements inside, the most important being the logbook. If it doesn't meet these parameters, it cannot be found.

 

This means that archived caches cannot be found and logged as found, yet GS allows this to happen.  While it doesn't happen frequently, it does happen.  Do you mean for all of those finds to be stricken from a cacher's found record?  What about those people who have loaded up their GPS units with caches that might not have the most recent status updates?  Are you going to delete their finds?  What if you disable a cache due to construction and a seeker comes along and discovers that the construction is done (before you can confirm it and then enable the cache) and logs the find, stating that the reason for the disablement is no longer valid?  Are you going to delete the find?  It doesn't meet your criteria so the implication is that you would.  Is that what you're saying?

 

4 hours ago, on4bam said:

Finding a cache is "find the container, sign the log, log online". Bringing your own logbook just to claim a find is the same as bringing your own container+log (throwdown).

 

In this example, they found the container (even the OP states they found the container, empty, but with geocaching markings on it) but there was no log to sign.  They provided some help that allowed them to be able to sign the log, as well as provide something for future seekers to sign, until such time as the CO could get out there to replace the log.

 

What if you can't sign the log because it's a mushy mass of pulp? Many cachers I know would provide a dry log in that situation, remove the pulp (as it would make the new log just as wet), sign the replacement log, and then claim the find, making sure to notate that in their log.   Even GS has said this is something that can be done as an act of help to a CO.  If the container is the reason the log is mush, then ideally they'd temporarily put in a replacement log for the next seeker, file the find, and then file the NM because the container needs to be replaced to prevent the log from getting wet again.   

 

What if the container is taken but the contents are left at GZ?  The log is there and can be signed but there's no container to find, except perhaps the ziplock bag that holds the contents?  Is that an allowable find?  What if a cache is muggled, cleaned out of everything inside, but the container is left in place but no one knows until the next finder comes along?  Are you going to delete the find of someone who refills the swag and replaces the log for you because that's the implication both you and NYPC (who posted while I was typing this) are making.  ANY attempt to replace a log is automatically grounds for a deleted log, regardless of the status of the cache.  Replacing the container without CO approval is a completely different situation because you are, in essence, replacing the entire cache, not just the logbook and that, for me, is grounds for deletion of a found it log.  You can't just throw down a logbook without a container.  That makes no sense to me and I've never seen that done.

 

While it's certainly a CO's right to delete logs, in this situation, the CO would be better served, IMO, to provide some leniency because it appears the intent was to help, rather than in a "claim a find at all costs" manner.  If the finder had stated that they were doing it only to be able to log the find, then that might sway me to their side but I see nothing provided that confirms that idea.  The black and white interpretation of the guidelines seems to create more angst and issues than what a friendly gesture could provide.  It also doesn't allow for some situational leniency, as many have described, or situational verification of a log that should be deleted.  I can envision both situations but a black and white interpretation doesn't allow for ANY leeway.  That seems to me to be putting a CO at odds with the spirit of what geocaching is about.

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by coachstahly

[+thebruce0]

Another example...

 

A high D cache, where there's a pen in a container, and that's it. The log book is in the pen. That's the difficulty. Someone comes along, logs a find saying they found the container but it was missing a log so they put one in. On a weekly visit (CO knows this has to happen to verify finds) Co determines the real log wasn't found, deletes the find log. This is correct.

 

Another day, cacher knows the trick, but finds that the pen has been broken and the log is half out. Cacher signs the correct log, collects the pen and informs the CO, who disables the cache until he can get to it (regardless of whether the CO is happy the cacher collected the pen). CO leaves the cacher's find log (because they did find and sign it; if the log was deleted, appeals would likely side with the cacher).

Next cacher comes along, finds the empty container, posts the find log also claiming the container had no logbook, so placed a new signed one.

 

Now what can the CO do?

 

It's not merely about whether you can delete finds on a disabled cache. It's why as the CO you delete any find log.  In most cases HQ would side with the CO, because likely there is a reason why the cacher didn't complete the 'one rule' - sign the logsheet.

 

In thise case, the CO can delete the find log because they know the logsheet is missing and the intended manner of finding the cache was not completed (and the cacher should have known there was a potential problem that led to the disabling). They didn't find the cache.

 

To the cacher, they found a container that had no logbook, and in good will replaced a new one for the CO. How could they know any better?

To the CO, they found not-the-cache and signed not-the-logbook, and it is verifiable.  So in this case the CO had the right of way.

 

Ultimately, as hzoi said, it's the CO's decision as to whether a 'find' is legitimate and whether the log should stand - whether the cache is enabled or disabled.

 

A CO may feel that the intended manner of signing the logsheet is not in place, and I would think that that knowledge along with the disabled status would be sufficient for a CO to defend deleting Find logs on caches where a person has placed a new logsheet.  Now if it were still enabled, it might be harder to defend, but HQ could possibly still side with the CO.

 

But deleting a find log merely because the cache is disabled - yeah that won't fly.

[+IceColdUK]

I have zero experience of dealing with appeals.  Does anybody know...?

 

If a cacher replaces a missing log book in a straightforward cache - the cache is enabled; there was nothing in previous logs to suggest the log was missing; there’s no dispute about what they’ve found or where they’ve found it; their signature is clearly on their replacement log - who are appeals likely to side with if their online log is subsequently deleted?

 

The guidelines are clear enough on throwdown caches, but I’ve never even considered a ‘throwdown log’ before now.

[+thebruce0]

I think they might ask for more details.

Would they side with the CO? If the CO could convince them the person didn't sign the log as the CO intended (see my example above)

Woudl they side with the cacher? In most cases I'd think probably, because in most cases it's a person just doing a nice deed log replacement.

It probably would depend on how vehement the CO is and reasonable their explanation of why the log was deleted is.

Likely more willing to favour the CO if the cache was disable, otherwise likely more willing to favour the cacher.

Edited February 28, 2019 by thebruce0

[+redsox_mark]

28 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

I have zero experience of dealing with appeals.  Does anybody know...?

 

If a cacher replaces a missing log book in a straightforward cache - the cache is enabled; there was nothing in previous logs to suggest the log was missing; there’s no dispute about what they’ve found or where they’ve found it; their signature is clearly on their replacement log - who are appeals likely to side with if their online log is subsequently deleted?

 

The guidelines are clear enough on throwdown caches, but I’ve never even considered a ‘throwdown log’ before now.

 

I have a single experience of appeals.   My log was deleted (in my view unfairly).    I put a lot of detail in my initial request, but their immediate reply was to send me a template with a list of "standard" questions (some of which I had already answered).  .     I answered them and my log was reinstated a week or so later.   I suspect they may have also asked the CO for information of their side of the story, but I don't know.   

 

My case was different than this one however.   I signed the existing log.   

 

 

[+cerberus1]

 

We use GPSrs and no app.  Most people we know do too, and use pqs to load hundreds or more caches in one clip. 

That pq doesn't "auto update" if the CO TDs it the day after.  No one using a GPSr and pqs would know your cache is TD until they get home.

I enter caches singly and manually,  but after entering them I'd have no idea anything's now different either...    

 

When we find a cache that has issues, we'll try to dry it out a bit, or add a rite in rain log strip just to tide the cache over until the CO can do maintenance himself.

There's no need to "coordinate with the owner" until I get home to place a NM , and the reason why also in my Found It log  

 - No view of the cache page,  all I would know is you have an issue...

My Found It log would mention that I did leave a strip of paper in the cache until the CO can do maintenance .

 

We've seen so many caches that are in poor condition, and for a few years now.  Fortunately it seems  HQ is working on that...  

If a friend of mine said the cache I was headed to needed a log and maybe some clean up, I'd add that log too.

 - It's merely meant  to help until the CO can fix it himself...   

 

A cache now "not in it's correct spot" isn't really an issue.  It was found by both people.  That's just silly...  

 

 

 

[+cerberus1]

If my Found It log is deleted by any CO (none has yet...), I'd simply remember to not do their caches again. 

If I lost my Found it log after helping that CO out (everyone we know does similar with "help") , I'd be sure to let everyone know.

I was kinda surprised that none of the caches are pmo, after calling for "coordination with the owner" when folks are simply giving temp help...

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by cerberus1
a dee

[+hzoi]

3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

7 hours ago, hzoi said:

I've seen plenty of disable notes telling folks not to seek a cache and that their logs will be deleted if they try.  So it's not unheard of.

 

Usually that's because the location is inaccessible due to construction or the like. Nobody can log the cache because nobody can legally access GZ.

 

I meant to put that the OP had not so specified in their log - neglected to revisit that point.  So, yes - I agree that the circumstances here wouldn't necessarily justify deleting finds automatically.

[+ecanderson]

We have logged caches with a number of consecutive DNFs and where the owner has temporarily disabled the cache.  These are often 'findable' caches even though the owner is taking a preemptive precaution with the disable log.  Logging these with clarity is actually a benefit to the owner who can avoid an unnecessary trip to inspect.

 

There are many reasons for disabling a cache, a number of which don't actually impede a find.  Why would anyone delete a log for those?

 

[+niraD]

The Help Center article on deleting logs used to include language asking the cache owner to consider whether or not it was really worth deleting a particular log. The language has since been changed, and I can't find the page in the Wayback Machine, but the gist of it was to consider whether the supposed infraction was worth annoying/alienating the person who logged your cache.

 

As a cache owner, one question I've asked myself is, "What is to be gained by making the person find the cache again before logging the Find online?"

• The person found the empty camouflage (with the cache info on it) and left a signed replacement log? Of course.
• The person found the cache out of place, figured out where it belonged, and replaced it there? Of course.
• The person found the cache after hours? I've asked them to remove references to trespassing from their log, and they've complied. I see no reason to insist that someone return to the cache site when they've already demonstrated a lack of respect for social norms.
• The person found my log to be unsignable and left a replacement log? Of course.
• The person found the container, camouflage, and contents strewn about the cache site, then put everything back together and rehid the cache? Absolutely.
• The person found the cache while it was temporarily disabled? Of course.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

As others have stated, this is your cache and if you feel the finder did not find your cache, you can delete the log. I have no idea if your deletion will hold up against an appeal but even if it does, is this how you want to be known as a CO?

 

I get that this is sort of an unusual situation but at what point, as a CO, do you decide that this really isn't that big of a deal, fix the cache to your liking and move on in life? I think the following expresses my feelings exactly:

18 hours ago, dprovan said:

 Didn't you hide the cache so people can enjoy finding it?

 

 

Or would you rather be known as a CO that will rain down thunder and lightening if the finder makes even the smallest of mis-steps?

 

I appreciate that you take cache ownership seriously but there is a line where it goes from being a responsible owner to being a fuss-budget.

 

Cache ownership should be all about creating the kind of cache you enjoy, placing it in a location you enjoy and then enjoying the fact that other cachers are enjoying it. The theme in that sentence is JOY. If you have such rigid standards for how you want your cache found/logged, you're going to have markedly less joy because by virtue of those standards, there will ALWAYS be issues and drama.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Crow-T-Robot

[+dprovan]

9 hours ago, on4bam said:

I see no difference in throwing down a logbook or throwing down a container with a logbook.

This is one part I can't understand at all. The container is the cache. The log book is not. Finding the container is finding the cache regardless of what has or hasn't been removed from the container. It makes no sense to punish the seeker because the cache has a maintenance issue. It's not the seeker's fault, even if the seeker knew in advance the log was missing.

 

So it makes no sense logically. Although even it did, I still can't imagine why any CO wouldn't want the seeker to find his cache. That's the whole point of having caches!

[+thebruce0]

11 minutes ago, dprovan said:

The container is the cache. The log book is not. Finding the container is finding the cache regardless of what has or hasn't been removed from the container.

 

I'm on board with the sentiment of the post, but, this statement won't work, because the guidelines clearly say that you can only log a cache found if you've signed the logbook. If the above were true, then that wouldn't be the case. People would be logging finds for spotting caches, even. Who needs to open it if there's nothing more to do once you've found the container? Hold it?  No the signed logsheet is what's required in order to qualify it as a find. The question in the air is what happens when there's a problem with the log sheet/book itself, or if it's missing.

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 2/28/2019 at 12:09 PM, ecanderson said:

We have logged caches with a number of consecutive DNFs and where the owner has temporarily disabled the cache.  These are often 'findable' caches even though the owner is taking a preemptive precaution with the disable log.  Logging these with clarity is actually a benefit to the owner who can avoid an unnecessary trip to inspect.

 

There are many reasons for disabling a cache, a number of which don't actually impede a find.  Why would anyone delete a log for those?

 

I tend to Disable any of my caches after 1-2 DNFs (none are meant to be difficult) or if there is a maintenance issue with the container. I don't have a problem with cachers finding either.  The former (assuming the cache was still in place, not a throwdown) saves me a trip.

Edited March 1, 2019 by JL_HSTRE

[+arisoft]

33 minutes ago, dprovan said:

This is one part I can't understand at all. The container is the cache. The log book is not. Finding the container is finding the cache regardless of what has or hasn't been removed from the container.

 

Before you have found the log book and verified that it belongs to the cache you are seeking or the cache container have the same information, you have found something, but how do you know that this is the right cache? Some caches have extra containers and sometimes there is more than one cache to find. If you can find only the log book, I wouldn't call this a find at all. Current guidelines always requires a container and replaceable log book.

Edited February 28, 2019 by arisoft