Logging a disabled cache without logbook...

[+on4bam]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

This is one part I can't understand at all. The container is the cache. The log book is not.

 

I'll have to remember this next time I "find" a container up in a tree that I can't reach.

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

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.

That's not the scenario we're discussing. We're talking about the case where it's been stipulated both that The Cache was found and that the person claiming the find added a log book because the original log book was missing. Then he signed that log book. The CO deleted the find because it wasn't the CO's log book. He's not contesting that the cache found wasn't the right cache or even that there wasn't a log book. The CO just didn't like where the log book came from.

 

1 hour ago, on4bam said:

I'll have to remember this next time I "find" a container up in a tree that I can't reach.

Why? If you can't retrieve that cache, you can't replace the missing log book, so that's entirely different.

 

Why are you guys splitting so many hairs over this? This seeker did nothing wrong. Why are you so determined to prevent him from claiming the find? You logic calls for rejecting a find by someone that found the log full and replaced it with a new one. Is that really your intention? That happens all the time in my area, and no one thinks twice about it.

[+IceColdUK]

 

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

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?

 

You could say the same even if you do find a logbook - e.g. how do you know for sure that you haven’t found a throwdown?  The CO always has the option of visiting GZ to verify your find - whether you’ve signed the original logbook or a replacement.

 

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

Some caches have extra containers and sometimes there is more than one cache to find.

 

As I understand it, there was no such complexity in this case.

 

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

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.

 

Reading this as “If you can find only the cache container...”, is that right?

 

If the CO were to discover (on visiting GZ) that the new logbook had been added to something other than their own cache (container), then of course, they should delete the online log.

 

Otherwise, regardless of the guideline, I still think that ‘replacing a missing logbook’ is poor justification for deletion.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

3 hours 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. 

 

This has been discussed frequently in the past.  From the guidelines:

 

Geocache contents

Must include logbook

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook for geocachers to record their visit.

 

According to the guidelines a cache is a container *and* a log.  

[+barefootjeff]

9 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

This has been discussed frequently in the past.  From the guidelines:

 

Geocache contents

Must include logbook

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook for geocachers to record their visit.

 

According to the guidelines a cache is a container *and* a log.  

 

So if the log scroll in a nano becomes too full for the next finder to properly record their visit on it, does that make it a non-cache until the CO replaces it? There'll be a awful lot of invalid finds logged if that's the case.

[+Goldenwattle]

12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So if the log scroll in a nano becomes too full for the next finder to properly record their visit on it, does that make it a non-cache until the CO replaces it? There'll be a awful lot of invalid finds logged if that's the case.

Maybe just delete everyone who couldn't sign, but didn't mention the log was full. Leave the person's log who did finally write, 'Log is full, needs replacement'. No, I wouldn't do this, one because I'm not that nasty (I don't think ) and two because I hate nanos enough not I have one myself.

[+L0ne.R]

13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So if the log scroll in a nano becomes too full for the next finder to properly record their visit on it, does that make it a non-cache until the CO replaces it? There'll be a awful lot of invalid finds logged if that's the case.

 

There are an awful lot of invalid logs. 

 

Years ago, the practice was to give owners a heads up when the log was almost full so s/he would have enough time to go out to put in a new one. We would leave a log saying something like "only 4 pages left in the logbook, will need a new one soon".  But that's before someone discovered the blinkie (nano) and it went viral--back when containers were larger, and logbooks were used. Most of finders used a half page to a page to leave a note, and owners returned to the containers they left behind. 

 

 

Now, everything is blurred. It's hard to know if the geocache matters anymore. Or what a geocache actually is anymore. Or what a find is anymore. Perhaps no find is an invalid find. 

Edited March 1, 2019 by L0ne.R
sentence structure

[+barefootjeff]

4 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

There are an awful lot of invalid logs. 

 

Years ago, the practice was to give owners a heads up when the log was almost full so s/he would have enough time to go out to put in a new one. We would leave a log saying something like "only 4 pages left in the logbook, will need a new one soon".  But that's before someone discovered the blinkie and it went viral. Back when containers were larger, and logbooks were used. Most of finders used a half page to a page to leave a note, and owners returned to the containers they left behind. 

 

 

Now, everything is blurred. It's hard to know if the geocache matters anymore. Or what a geocache actually is anymore. Or what a find is anymore. Perhaps no find is an invalid find. 

 

The FTF on my newest cache that was published yesterday:

 

 

Proper hard-cover logbook, labelled regular-sized steel container, full page log by finder, and room in the book for the next 159 finders to do the same (though I doubt the cache's find count will ever get into double figures).

[+coachstahly]

4 hours ago, arisoft said:

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.

 

Considering that caches aren't allowed to be closer than 528 feet, I'm guessing that in most situations, you can be rather certain that you've found the cache you're looking for without needing the logbook to verify that this is the proper cache.  Most cachers are under the assumption that there's something there, hidden at GZ to find.  Once you find something, most cachers can make a determination, based on the D/T rating of the cache, whether or not what you found is the cache you were looking for.  The description also can contain a description of what you're looking for (ammo can, bison tube) or how it's hidden so most cachers can usually determine if what they found is the cache or not.  I can think of only about 15 times (amid over 7000 finds and maybe 700 DNFs) when I've found something I thought was the cache but turned out not to be the cache.  One was someone's personal stash (yes, that type of stash), a couple were archived caches , and the majority of the others were containers that I've seen cachers use but weren't actually the one used to hold the logbook.  I can say that I've also probably managed to find roughly 50-100 caches that were throwdowns, based on what the CO describes as their cache as well as some "intuition" about some of the first names on the logs and their reputations.  

 

The extra container/more than one cache to find is a hypothetical and has nothing to do with the situation presented by the OP.  That doesn't mean it doesn't happen; it only means it's irrelevant to this particular situation.

 

I found what was obviously a geocache with only the large gallon ziplock bag with the swag and the log.  Turns out someone had stolen the ammo can between the last find and when I found it.  I notified the CO and he let me log it as found.  I filed the NM anyway to alert others to the issue but I'm not sure I understand why you don't think it's a find.  It wasn't hidden that way when it was placed and it was obvious that someone had found it and taken the ammo can but left the rest behind.  If that had happened to one of my caches, I'd allow the find.

 

3 hours ago, on4bam said:

I'll have to remember this next time I "find" a container up in a tree that I can't reach.

 

Not even in the same ballpark as the OP's situation.  Completely different scenario.  The finders had their hands on the correct container, verified by the OP.

 

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Geocache contents

Must include logbook

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook for geocachers to record their visit.

 

According to the guidelines a cache is a container *and* a log.  

 

And this one was missing a logbook, which a finder provided in the interim until the CO could get out there and replace it.  I don't see this as an overt attempt to claim the find, but rather as an attempt to provide some help to a CO to get the cache presentable for other seekers, until such time as the CO could get out there to fix it.  If you're going to argue that this is a "throwdown logbook" and isn't a find, then any other cacher who has replaced or added a logbook that was unsignable because it was wet or burnt or.... whatever, is incorrect in logging a find.  This seems a bit excessive to me, insisting that a replaced logbook is equivalent to a throwdown and therefore not a valid find.

 

43 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Now, everything is blurred. It's hard to know if the geocache matters anymore. Or what a geocache actually is anymore. Or what a find is anymore. Perhaps no find is an invalid find. 

 

Everything is NOT blurred.  it's as sharp and focused as you want it to be, when YOU are the one who establishes YOUR personal methods as it pertains to caching.  While there are certainly some cachers who absolutely cross lines I would never cross, it still doesn't affect how I cache.  What other people choose to do when it comes to logging a find doesn't apply to how I choose to determine whether or not I can log a find, based on a certain situation.  A geocache matters if you want it to.  It might not matter to a numbers type of cacher (other than the +1) but that shouldn't be a factor in your determination about the same cache.  That's worrying about something that's completely out of your control.  

 

If you don't think the finder of the OP's cache is warranted to a find, then you're free to feel that way and state that you'd not log it as found either.  Instead, you choose to let the decisions of what other people do affect how you perceive the activity when all that should matter is whatever YOU think about your individual experiences when it comes to geocaching.  Worrying about what others do, when you perceive them to be against the spirit of what you think geocaching is about, is worrying about the wrong thing.  You can't control their actions.  While the validity of their find is great for discussion (this thread is just such an example), in the larger scheme of things, it doesn't really affect you, nor should you let it.  Be concerned about your caching, not the caching of others.  Let that be the focus of what you do, rather than the negative aspects you find disturbing about this activity.  That doesn't mean that you can't offer up ways that might make things better.  You can still do that.  You're just not going to get those cachers who opt to cache in a manner that you find "wrong" to change their ways and letting their actions affect your enjoyment isn't the way to go.  Devote that energy to your personal enjoyment instead.

 

You've also taken a very specific situation and once again applied a generality to the overall malaise you find overtaking geocaching.  Not everyone that caches thinks that things are blurry, that caches don't matter, that a geocache might not actually be a geocache, that a find is nebulous, or that no find is an invalid find.   There are many on here who have very crystal clear ideas of what geocaching is to them and how it should be done.  There are plenty of us on here that realize that caches DO matter and understand what a cache is.  There are varying degrees of acceptance as to what some cachers think a find is (this thread is just such an example) and there are plenty of us that believe that there are invalid finds.  You may not agree with them but they care about what they're doing.  They're not just going through the motions and it's not all about the numbers.  But again, what others think and do should have very little bearing on what you choose to do.  

[+thebruce0]

5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Now, everything is blurred. It's hard to know if the geocache matters anymore. Or what a geocache actually is anymore. Or what a find is anymore. Perhaps no find is an invalid find. 

 

Yep, which is why the spirit of geocaching has to be pretty clear, even though it varies from person to person, and the rules that are actually enforcible by TPTB at geocaching.com can't be nearly as detailed or precise. And why when something happens you don't like so much, you have to decide whether it's worth fretting over.

Like this debate about the OP.

The best points have already been made.

 

Ultimately, it's their cache. They can decide whether it's worth allowing or deleting find the log posted by the finder on the disabled cache having just placed a new logsheet, knowing how the community may respond.  Is it worth the potential hassle of dealing with appeals if it's taken there? Is it worth the reputation the deletion may earn?  If so, that's their choice. If not, that's fine too.  That's the grey area we have to deal with in this realm of the 'spirit of geocaching'.

[+IceColdUK]

10 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

This has been discussed frequently in the past.  From the guidelines:

 

Geocache contents

Must include logbook

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook for geocachers to record their visit.

 

According to the guidelines a cache is a container *and* a log.  

 

So far as I can see, these past discussions have been started by people thinking of creating new caches without a physical logbook.  Here are the first few examples I found:

 

https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/347942-must-a-cache-have-a-logbook/

https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/341773-do-all-geocaches-have-to-contain-a-physical-log-to-sign/

https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/349547-virtual-logbook/

 

So, yes, a physical cache must have a logbook.  But a physical cache with a missing logbook doesn't become a 'non-cache'.  Now, it's a cache in need of maintenance.  No different to one with a full log, a wet log, or a missing lid.

 

I can appreciate that some COs would rather finders didn't perform unsanctioned maintenance on their caches - let us know on the cache page! - but I still can't see how this is justification for deleting a found log, even if the cache has been disabled.

[+rapotek]

8 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Considering that caches aren't allowed to be closer than 528 feet, I'm guessing that in most situations, you can be rather certain that you've found the cache you're looking for without needing the logbook to verify that this is the proper cache.

 

What if there are two concurrent geocaching services in the same area, two caches are placed few meters from each other and you can tell which one is the one you seek only by logbook reading? It is not uncommon where I live, I have encountered the situation myself not once.

 

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So if the log scroll in a nano becomes too full for the next finder to properly record their visit on it, does that make it a non-cache until the CO replaces it? There'll be a awful lot of invalid finds logged if that's the case.

 

Currently when I find a container with completely full, wet or frozen logbook or without any logbook, any case when I am not able to write down my nickname, I do not log the 'find' online, only 'needs maintenance'. Simply rule: there is no my nickname written in logbook, there is no find. Maybe I return to the cache when it will be maintained, maybe not. If the journey itself has been pleasant and exciting there is no regret.

[+IceColdUK]

28 minutes ago, rapotek said:

Currently when I find a container with completely full, wet or frozen logbook or without any logbook, any case when I am not able to write down my nickname, I do not log the 'find' online, only 'needs maintenance'. Simply rule: there is no my nickname written in logbook, there is no find. Maybe I return to the cache when it will be maintained, maybe not. If the journey itself has been pleasant and exciting there is no regret.

I do find this approach admirable, but I'll be honest... if I find a cache (hands on it, etc., etc.) I do like to see the smiley - even more so, if the journey has been pleasant or exciting.  In my experience, where clear maintenance issues exist (wet logs, etc.), most COs are happy to accept e.g. photographic evidence for verification, and I'm happy to provide it.

 

A little off topic, sorry.  (The forum is full of discussions like this!)

Edited March 1, 2019 by IceColdUK
Off topic!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So if the log scroll in a nano becomes too full for the next finder to properly record their visit on it, does that make it a non-cache until the CO replaces it? There'll be a awful lot of invalid finds logged if that's the case.

 

I am not suggesting that a cache stops being a cache when the log book is full or log becomes missing.  Initially, however, a cache is not just a container.   I would imagine that if a reviewer discovered that if a CO allowed finds if finders just signed the container in lieu of doing maintenance on the cache to provide a useable logbook/sheet they'd get a "please maintain your cache" message.  There are, of course, going to be temporary situations when a cache doesn't have a signable log,  but they're just that, temporary events that are the exception when a cache is a container and a log.

[+on4bam]

45 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

I do find this approach admirable, but I'll be honest... if I find a cache (hands on it, etc., etc.) I do like to see the smiley

 

I like to see the smiley too but not signing the log = not found in my book.. It's about the standards you set for yourself

 

[+coachstahly]

2 hours ago, rapotek said:

What if there are two concurrent geocaching services in the same area, two caches are placed few meters from each other and you can tell which one is the one you seek only by logbook reading? It is not uncommon where I live, I have encountered the situation myself not once.

 

Not a common occurrence in my area and certainly NOT the issue at hand here.  I've actually had that happen more frequently with letterbox caches than any other type of cache, but it's still been infrequent.  I knew what I found wasn't what I was looking for because it didn't fit the description of what I was looking for.  I found the cache I was looking for about 10 feet away.  It could happen but it's pretty simple if you look at the online logs and compare them against the signatures  on the logbook.  If they don't match, you know you haven't found the correct thing and need to keep looking.  It's really not that difficult.

 

58 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

There are, of course, going to be temporary situations when a cache doesn't have a signable log,  but they're just that, temporary events that are the exception when a cache is a container and a log.

 

So what is your suggested remedy?  Are you saying that no one can claim a find in these temporary situations until the CO comes out to put in a signable log?  That a CO can and should delete finds if someone puts in a temporary log?

 

58 minutes ago, on4bam said:

but not signing the log = not found in my book.

 

No one here has said that they should get the find if they don't sign the logbook.  In this specific example, there was no logbook and someone rectified that by signing a replacement log, which they then put in the cache.  I'll ask you as well.  What is your suggested remedy?  Are you saying that no one can claim a find in this situation until the CO comes out to put in a signable log?  That a CO can and should delete finds if someone puts in a temporary log?

Edited March 1, 2019 by coachstahly

[+IceColdUK]

59 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I am not suggesting that a cache stops being a cache when the log book is full or log becomes missing.

 

But the OP is...

 

On 2/28/2019 at 1:10 AM, 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.

[+rapotek]

53 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Not a common occurrence in my area and certainly NOT the issue at hand here.

My remark was related to one opinion only, not the whole issue.

 

55 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

It could happen but it's pretty simple if you look at the online logs and compare them against the signatures  on the logbook.  If they don't match, you know you haven't found the correct thing and need to keep looking.  It's really not that difficult.

Exactly, it is not that difficult when you can read logbook with previous entries. It can be difficult when you cannot read it.

 

Regarding logbook replacement by cache founder: reading previous opinions if I want to have signatures only in original logbook there seems to be no choice but to go as quickly as possible and remove temporary disabled cache container until I make another logbook. Why do I want to have signatures in logbook provided by myself only? When it takes a few weeks making dedicated logbook for the cache and finders have to sign a scrap of paper instead, I consider it the cache quality drop. And I prefer to give geocachers opportunity to find a cache as close to its best shape as possible rather than to find anything only to have one more smile and forget.

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, on4bam said:

I like to see the smiley too but not signing the log = not found in my book.. It's about the standards you set for yourself

 

That's the key, standards you set for yourself.

The guidelines say you have to sign the logsheet. Since fundamentally it's not something that can be truly enforced to a T, the CO makes the final judgment. So there's a 'spirit of geocaching' in there as well.  More accurately, signature in the logsheet doesn't "let" you log it online, it "protects" your online log from CO deletion. So you can still log it online without a signature, IF the CO lets you.

Likewise, the CO can allow people log finds online without signatures, but since the 'spirit of geocaching' is to sign the logsheet, if it's determined that the CO regularly letting people log without signing for any reason not deemed reasonable, they could face similar repercussions from HQ.

 

So, if everyone were to abide by the 'spirit of geocaching', we'd never have this problem

 

When it comes to lab caches, if no one had misused the web player, we wouldn't likely have the issue to locking them to the app. Alas, the app is able to more effectively enforce location-based execution, so that's how they're going.  Could be thought of like a reviewer living over your shoulder

 

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

No one here has said that they should get the find if they don't sign the logbook.  In this specific example, there was no logbook and someone rectified that by signing a replacement log, which they then put in the cache.  I'll ask you as well.  What is your suggested remedy?  Are you saying that no one can claim a find in this situation until the CO comes out to put in a signable log?  That a CO can and should delete finds if someone puts in a temporary log? 

 

As I mentioned earlier, a successful defense to appeals for deleting the log would depend on whether the CO's intended manner of signing the proper logsheet was fulfilled; per the example of the pen cache. In most cases, it's unlikely to be anything nearly as tricky though, so HQ would probably respond by 'are you sure you want to take that step?'   I don't know how HQ would rule in an appeal by the finder. Too many factors. In this specific case, it would be interesting how HQ would rule; but it feels like it would really depend on how well the CO makes his case - approach angrily and the log may be reinstated; approach thoughtfully and clearly explained with a good reason (especially in the case of my example; or because it was disabled), it'll probably remain deleted.

 

1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I am not suggesting that a cache stops being a cache when the log book is full or log becomes missing.

 

But the OP is...

 

On 2/27/2019 at 8:10 PM, 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.

 

Yeah, k6_est makes two points there. He doesn't consider it as a "cache", but then sayd it's not a "findable cache". The arguments here support that it's a findable cache (thus a cache). I'm adding that it is IF the replacement logsheet provides essentially the same intended experience towards signing as the original logsheet.

 

 

Here's another example:

Big container holding a puzzle box. Log goes missing from the puzzle box so the cacher puts a new one outside the puzzle box inside the big container.  Can the CO delete any find logs on the cache where they signed the mis-placed logsheet, even though the cache was disabled?

I would say yes.

 

But. The OP is not that situation. The OP is just a replacement log in the standard container. But the cache was still disabled. Generally speaking, I'd think appeals would reinstate deleted logs. Unless the CO can make a strong case to why the logs should remain deleted. That's as far as I can take my argument because the specific people are the unknown factors at that point.  But I can say, do I think the CO should delete the logs in this case? Nope

[+Mausebiber]

From the Guidelines:

Geocache contents

Must include logbook

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook for geocachers to record their visit. The logbook must be

• Physical
• Replaceable
• Easy to sign
• Enclosed within a container

Examples: Notebook, paper scroll.

 

The guidelines don't say, that the logbook must be provided by the CO.  From my point of view, if a logbook is missing, wet and so on, anyone may replace or add a pice of paper  to record their visit.

 

Quote

What if there are two concurrent geocaching services in the same area, two caches are placed few meters from each other and you can tell which one is the one you seek only by logbook reading?

 

Again the guidelines have the answer:

 

To avoid confusion or suspicion if your cache is found by a non-geocacher, follow these tips where possible:

• Label your container as a geocache.
• Choose a transparent container to show that the contents are harmless.
• Include "instructions for finders".
• Do not place containers that could be perceived as bombs or other dangerous items.
• If the container has military markings, permanently cover or remove them.

 

But besides all guidelines, someone has a nice day, looking for some cache, enjoying the beautiful location, is real happy, goes home, logs  his founds, remembers the great time he had today when out of a sudden, "your log was deleted" comes in.  Why, tell me why, for no good reason, why ruin someones day this way?

 

 

[+thebruce0]

4 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

someone has a nice day, looking for some cache, enjoying the beautiful location, is real happy, goes home, logs  his founds, remembers the great time he had today when out of a sudden, "your log was deleted" comes in.  Why, tell me why, for no good reason, why ruin someones day this way?

 

In the case of having a logbook simply replaced by the cacher, absolutely.

If I was the one with the log deleted, my day would be ruined until I heard an explanation of why. At that point, I'd decide whether the CO did the right thing or not. I can't say universally "hey you ruined my day by deleting my find!" (the argument can turned the other way too btw - you had a great day, at a beautiful location, you're really happy, why let a little detail like a digital record deleted from the website ruin that? =P)

 

If the CO didn't explain, I'd poke into it more to find out if I'm missing something.

If I feel like I legitimately found the cache, I might take it to appeals if the CO doesn't change their mind. Might. I'd ask myself just the same "is it worth it?"

If the CO explains why I didn't "find the cache" (despite signing a logsheet) then I might be enlightened by the new info and be excited to return and find the cache properly.

 

The situation is more nuanced than merely "signed a log, log online, good to go"

 

Here this CO is much more strict (too much, imo) about what constitutes a true 'find' on their cache, which was disabled (not unfindable, but the status was because it's missing the logsheet). They're within their rights as a CO to delete finds, I think, but it's so grey I don't know how HQ would rule in an appeal.

[+on4bam]

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

No one here has said that they should get the find if they don't sign the logbook.  In this specific example, there was no logbook and someone rectified that by signing a replacement log, which they then put in the cache.  I'll ask you as well.  What is your suggested remedy?  Are you saying that no one can claim a find in this situation until the CO comes out to put in a signable log?  That a CO can and should delete finds if someone puts in a temporary log?

 

Putting in a logsheet/book yourself is not "signing the log. The CO seems to think that the cache should not be logged either as he TD'ed it That's disabled, as in: not available. And yes (see earlier this thread) the cache should not be logged until maintenance is done by the CO or by some one acting for the CO (so ask before throwing down a paper and claiming a find).

In 13 years I've only done maintenance for a CO once and that was after reading the listing and logs for a cache in Greenland. The CO had posted a note asking if someone visiting the area could replace the broken glass container. I contacted him in advance and made the necessary arrangements to do the maintenance, found the broken container with log and after replacing I logged a "found it". Without the CO's consent  and without a log I'd just as well would have DNF'd that cache.

 

[+thebruce0]

1 minute ago, on4bam said:

Putting in a logsheet/book yourself is not "signing the log. The CO seems to think that the cache should not be logged either as he TD'ed it That's disabled, as in: not available. And yes (see earlier this thread) the cache should not be logged until maintenance is done by the CO or by some one acting for the CO (so ask before throwing down a paper and claiming a find).

In 13 years I've only done maintenance for a CO once and that was after reading the listing and logs for a cache in Greenland. The CO had posted a note asking if someone visiting the area could replace the broken glass container. I contacted him in advance and made the necessary arrangements to do the maintenance, found the broken container with log and after replacing I logged a "found it". Without the CO's consent  and without a log I'd just as well would have DNF'd that cache.

 

This is why it's helpful to better know your community. And why it's a "spirit" of geocaching that may be different for everyone. There's no rule saying you must do what you explain, or that you shouldn't.  Being legalistic to the point that you imply everyone must do what you do, no matter how 'proper' or 'good willed' it may be... that's problematic.

I'll adjust my actions per cache depending on how well I know the CO. And if I'm in a new area, I'll just cache by some general standard and hope not to step on any toes. And if something comes I think is definitely against the highest level of the spirit of geocaching (like, you know, guidelines, or what HQ promotes above and beyond) then I might take something to appeals. But that so rarely happens, if at all.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, rapotek said:

Why do I want to have signatures in logbook provided by myself only? When it takes a few weeks making dedicated logbook for the cache and finders have to sign a scrap of paper instead, I consider it the cache quality drop. And I prefer to give geocachers opportunity to find a cache as close to its best shape as possible rather than to find anything only to have one more smile and forget.

I get that desire for the cache to be in its best condition when someone finds it. But what should happen when someone finds the cache in less than ideal condition?

 

I'm sure we can all come up with a list of reasons why a cache would be in less than ideal condition. And I'm sure most of us would have a very short list of pristine caches that were found in ideal condition.

 

Once someone has found a cache that is in less than ideal condition, what is to be gained by making the person find the cache again before logging the Find online? Does it really make sense to insist that they make a return trip just to see the dedicated logbook that you spent weeks making?

[+dprovan]

18 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

This has been discussed frequently in the past.  From the guidelines:

I actually don't remember anyone bringing up this point before. I'd remember, because the idea that a geocache that loses its logbook is suddenly not a geocache is preposterous and contrary to anything I've ever heard before. Logbooks disappear once in a while. It's a big time shrug.

 

The guideline you quote requires a CO put a  logbook in the cache, it doesn't mean a cache suddenly isn't a cache if the logbook goes missing.

[+rapotek]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

Once someone has found a cache that is in less than ideal condition, what is to be gained by making the person find the cache again before logging the Find online? Does it really make sense to insist that they make a return trip just to see the dedicated logbook that you spent weeks making?

As some pointed out before, the guidelines do not say it is forbidden to log 'find' on temporarily disabled cache and do not say clearly the logbook has to be made or approved by a cache owner. Therefore I cannot insist on making return trip to sign the original log. Only what I can is to make cache truly unavailable by taking container back home until the cache as a whole is in the state acceptable for me.

 

What I do not understand is that some insist on cache being available to find no matter what state it is. It seems it is not important whether the cache in all aspects meets the owner intentions as long as there is a new smile to gain. Why make high quality caches, then? Why do regular maintenance when anyone can adjust the cache essentials and what it will look then is indifferent? Why reviewers demand a maintenance plan for remote caches when any finder can perform the cache service? I know it is a bit harsh, but there were discussions about quality and maintenance and now it looks they are actually not important.

[+arisoft]

8 hours ago, rapotek said:

What if there are two concurrent geocaching services in the same area, two caches are placed few meters from each other and you can tell which one is the one you seek only by logbook reading? It is not uncommon where I live, I have encountered the situation myself not once.

 

I remember a case where FTF was logged into an archived cache. It really doesn't have to be alternative service. Sometimes you just find many containers in the same coordinates. For example, when many hiders have tried to use the same spot.

 

I have myselft hidden a new cache behind an older archived cache. 

Edited March 1, 2019 by arisoft

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Here's another example:

Big container holding a puzzle box. Log goes missing from the puzzle box so the cacher puts a new one outside the puzzle box inside the big container.  Can the CO delete any find logs on the cache where they signed the mis-placed logsheet, even though the cache was disabled?

I would say yes.

Can the CO delete the find logs? Do you mean would the delete be supported on appeal? I have no idea. The question I ask is should the CO delete the logs. And in answering that, I consider that the cache had a problem, no fault of the seekers and not something the seekers would necessarily recognize as a problem, so it makes no sense for the CO to forbid what the seekers have every reason to think were legit finds. If I were the CO, I'd send the seekers that were caught by this anomaly a message explaining that they didn't really find the cache as intended because they didn't solve the field puzzle, but I'd leave it up to them whether they wanted to change their find logs to notes once they learned of the mistake.

[+thebruce0]

39 minutes ago, rapotek said:

Only what I can is to make cache truly unavailable by taking container back home until the cache as a whole is in the state acceptable for me.

 

Yes, exactly.

Unfortunately in the OP's case, all this happened before the cache could even be removed.

 

Basically, if a cache is disabled, it in theory means that there is no guarantee you will be able to find, let alone sign, the cache and logsheet. Which is why I think if a cache is found while disabled but the CO believes the find is false, HQ may well side with the CO.  Most probably won't care, but yes, removal of the container is the surefire way of making it so that no finds can even be disputed as valid.

 

18 minutes ago, dprovan said:

5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Here's another example:

Big container holding a puzzle box. Log goes missing from the puzzle box so the cacher puts a new one outside the puzzle box inside the big container.  Can the CO delete any find logs on the cache where they signed the mis-placed logsheet, even though the cache was disabled?

I would say yes.

Can the CO delete the find logs? Do you mean would the delete be supported on appeal? I have no idea. The question I ask is should the CO delete the logs. And in answering that, I consider that the cache had a problem, no fault of the seekers and not something the seekers would necessarily recognize as a problem, so it makes no sense for the CO to forbid what the seekers have every reason to think were legit finds. If I were the CO, I'd send the seekers that were caught by this anomaly a message explaining that they didn't really find the cache as intended because they didn't solve the field puzzle, but I'd leave it up to them whether they wanted to change their find logs to notes once they learned of the mistake.

 

I'm of the same mindset.   I did say the Co can.    But yes, likewise, though slightly different, in the case of a cool/fun/challenging/rewarding field puzzle, I would send a message to the finders explaining why I would opt to delete their find log and highly recommend they return to do the cache the proper way (especially if I'd already disabled the cache) and hope that they would understand. In return, if they really want their find log to stand, I'd hope for a reasonable explanation as to why so I can make an informed/educated judgment as to whether I really will delete their log.

 

After all, these days, I would also need to be able to defend to HQ why what could be considered "false find" logs are being left on my cache listings; just in case the issue arises with a reviewer.

 

Just as I hate spontaneous changes to fairly standard procedure, like having a log deleted without explanation, I wouldn't just delete a log without first sending a message and/or discussing a compromise with the person.

 

So far though, I've been fairly relaxed about logs on my caches with known outstanding issues; since in those cases (finds of those are rare anyway) the cache and log are typically still there and findable. For example, a cache I know has been moved to a much easier position on a tree climb. IMO, it's not worth it to dispute a log just because it's currently a T1 instead of a T4 - since someone found it before I've been out to fix it.  In my mind, that's on me, and putting myself in their position it would be quite tedious to be required to get out there again, just to climb a tree instead.

In short, as a cacher or as an owner, I try to think of the other person first. Make my case if necessary, but come to a mutual consensus; or at worst, enforce a guideline if there is a line to be drawn. But I would hate to dogmatically enforce a personal preference.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, rapotek said:

What I do not understand is that some insist on cache being available to find no matter what state it is. It seems it is not important whether the cache in all aspects meets the owner intentions as long as there is a new smile to gain. Why make high quality caches, then? Why do regular maintenance when anyone can adjust the cache essentials and what it will look then is indifferent? Why reviewers demand a maintenance plan for remote caches when any finder can perform the cache service? I know it is a bit harsh, but there were discussions about quality and maintenance and now it looks they are actually not important.

 

I try to keep all my caches in good condition so that finders will have the best experience, but sometimes things happen, like severe storms, muggles or even someone simply not replacing the cache correctly. If someone attempts such a cache before I can get to it or perhaps before I'm even aware of the problem, it's not their fault. To me, my cache is my pride and joy, but to them it's just another cache. Yes, I'd like them to have the best experience, but when that's not possible, as long as they're able to satisfy themselves that they found it, I'm happy to go along with that. I put out my caches for people to enjoy as they see fit, so see my role of CO as a joy provider, not a joy controller.