Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Ma & Pa

Do you actually have to sign the log sheet or log book placed by the cache owner

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

A cacher has informed us that you have to sign the log sheet provided by the cache owner.  If I find a soggy log sheet and add one of our own, the CO can delete our log and insist the we sign his sheet.  Apparently this is an official procedure.  He also claims that reviewers agree /  What are the rules?

 

Here are part of  items posted by two cachers on a geocaching FB page

Actually, there are no other approved ways of proving a find on a physical cache other than your signature in the logbook. Period. Granted, most CO's give some allowance - but they don't have to. Photos, even ones of you holding the cache, are not defensible if a CO decides to delete your find. Ask me how I know... Some COs will demand that you sign THEIR logbook, no matter how gross it is - or how nice the replacement logbook you left is. Ask me how I know...
But all that is moot as long as you are OK with having your find log deleted if it doesn't satisfy the CO.

Go ahead, ask me how I know..

*******************************

adding your own logbook into a container that already has a perfectly fine logbook is definitely frowned upon. I would love to see you openly offer cachers finds on your caches without them signing the logbook. The reviewers are cracking down hard on it. I delete any logs where the person says they took a pic of the container.

Edited by Ma & Pa

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Ma & Pa said:

A cacher has informed us that you have to sign the log sheet provided by the cache owner.  If I find a soggy log sheet and add one of our own, the CO can delete our log and insist the we sign his sheet. 

Sounds technically correct although all cache owners whose caches I've found will still let the online log stand if there's a problem with the log in the cache. 

Edit: correction. 

Edited by Max and 99

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I've seen some caches where there's an extra trick to access the logbook inside the container, maybe a hidden compartment, combination lock or something that requires the correct sequence of twists and turns. Just sticking your own piece of paper in the outer container would likely be frowned upon in those.

 

Also remember that any dry bit of paper you add to a cache with a wet and soggy log will probably become just as wet and soggy as the original log the next time it rains.

 

Adding more paper because the original log is full, though, is generally okay.

 

Common sense is usually the best answer.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ma & Pa said:

adding your own logbook into a container that already has a perfectly fine logbook is definitely frowned upon.

I carry weatherproof log sheets in my geocaching kit. I've added extra log sheets when the existing logs were full or nearly full. I've added dry log sheets when the existing logs were unusable soggy mush (and also logged NM because the container clearly wasn't doing its job).

 

But I've never been tempted to add a log sheet when the existing log was perfectly fine. Why would anyone do that? I don't get it.

 

 

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

I've seen some caches where there's an extra trick to access the logbook inside the container, maybe a hidden compartment, combination lock or something that requires the correct sequence of twists and turns. Just sticking your own piece of paper in the outer container would likely be frowned upon in those.

Yeah, that happens. I've found caches with a physical puzzle protected by an outer weatherproof container, where you had to solve the physical puzzle to access the log. And I've found puzzle caches with various types of decoy containers that were not the cache, that had laminated notes stating they were not the cache. And sometimes these containers acquire "replacement" log sheets left by "helpful" geocachers.

 

That's a situation where the CO would be perfectly justified deleting the Find log because the original log wasn't signed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

If the log's unsignable it's unsignable. If it were me I would add a small sheet (in a little baggy) with my sig on it to tide it over until the CO can do maintenance by replacing the soggy item.

I see no valid reason for a CO to delete your log. In your situation I would slap a NM on it after re logging the find (if you haven't already).

Also, take photos.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Reviewers are not the "log police."  If a cache finder and a cache owner are in a dispute about whether a find can be deleted over a signature issue, do not contact your reviewer.

 

Reviewers are responsible for ensuring that caches meet the Geocache Hiding Guidelines.  This includes confirming that a physical cache has a logbook (and disabling or not publishing the cache if it doesn't), and enforcing the "Cache Maintenance" section of the Guidelines.

  • Helpful 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I've seen some caches where there's an extra trick to access the logbook inside the container, maybe a hidden compartment, combination lock or something that requires the correct sequence of twists and turns. Just sticking your own piece of paper in the outer container would likely be frowned upon in those.

 

Also remember that any dry bit of paper you add to a cache with a wet and soggy log will probably become just as wet and soggy as the original log the next time it rains.

 

Adding more paper because the original log is full, though, is generally okay.

 

Common sense is usually the best answer.

 

If the cache is otherwise dry and the original log is full, there tend to be a lot of little shreds of added paper to sign.  Plus faded old signatures on the original log sheet, lots of places to sign.  It would be better if the community could agree that a Cache Owner is to be attentive enough to place a new log sheet once it's full.  A Find log with the words "Log sheet is full" is a really good clue. B) 

 

I have a couple of puzzle container caches with combination locks.  The idea is you solve the combination, work the lock, open the box, and sign the log book that's inside.  But people who can't figure out how to open a combination lock are cramming a signed slip of paper into the box in any way they can.  Lately I've changed the cache description to be clear that the slip of paper is not enough, the cache is a challenge that is OK to avoid, but you must sign that log book or it doesn't count.  So finders have upped the ante.  "The lock doesn't work, placed a signed slip of paper into the box door".  I keep my locks working great with special trips, and special lock lube.  The lock in fact works.  If you don't sign the log book, don't log it as a Find.  That's my simple consistent plan for most any cache.

 

A "stat" seems much more important to people than actually signing the log.  My "rule" when I find a cache is, if I can't dry the log enough to sign it, or if I can't access the log book, I put it all back and leave, and make a suitable log online (I didn't complete the Find task).  Sure, until pretty recently, I'd add another slip of paper in a ziplock bag to all the other soaking wet pieces of paper in ziplock bags.  I went there, I like the place, I'll return once the cache is fixed.  Then I'll sign it and log a Find.  Everybody else wants that instant stat and won't return.  Even the Cache Owner won't return.  And the cache remains soaking wet and full of wet bags and paper.

 

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

If the cache is otherwise dry and the original log is full, there tend to be a lot of little shreds of added paper to sign.  Plus faded old signatures on the original log sheet, lots of places to sign.  It would be better if the community could agree that a Cache Owner is to be attentive enough to place a new log sheet once it's full.  A Find log with the words "Log sheet is full" is a really good clue. B) 

 

I have a couple of puzzle container caches with combination locks.  The idea is you solve the combination, work the lock, open the box, and sign the log book that's inside.  But people who can't figure out how to open a combination lock are cramming a signed slip of paper into the box in any way they can.  Lately I've changed the cache description to be clear that the slip of paper is not enough, the cache is a challenge that is OK to avoid, but you must sign that log book or it doesn't count.  So finders have upped the ante.  "The lock doesn't work, placed a signed slip of paper into the box door".  I keep my locks working great with special trips, and special lock lube.  The lock in fact works.

 

A "stat" seems much more important to people than actually signing the log.  My "rule" when I find a cache is, if I can't dry the log enough to sign it, or if I can't access the log book, I put it all back and leave, and make a suitable log online (I didn't complete the Find task).  Sure, until pretty recently, I'd add another slip of paper in a ziplock bag to all the other soaking wet pieces of paper in ziplock bags.  I went there, I like the place, I'll return once the cache is fixed.  Then I'll sign it and log a Find.  Everybody else wants that instant stat and won't return.  Even the Cache Owner won't return.  And the cache remains soaking wet and full of wet bags and paper.

 

Do you delete the logs of people who can't get the lock open?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Do you delete the logs of people who can't get the lock open?

 

I haven't deleted a log except for the multiple logs when the System or the App used to create a bunch of logs in a row.

 

I have a warning on all my combination lock caches that it's a super difficult skill that you haven't used since high school.  Opening a combination lock.  If you're bypassing the lock, you have not opened the lock.  Really, that's the whole challenge, and in at least one case, the actual combination is spelled out.  If you can't open a lock, you must skip the cache.  The challenge is to open the lock.   Can't you go find one of the many park-n-go caches instead?  What's the deal with messing with people who make a puzzle?  That's super frustrating.  Makes me want to archive it and then you have NO place for your piece of paper.  If it's soaking wet, I'll go fix that, don't add more pieces of paper, return once it's fixed.  If you won't Go Geocaching again, you should reconsider your hobbies.  Anyway, it's rare to see even "a piece of paper in a ziplock bag".  Today it's Gimme My Stat I Looked At It.

 

I have archived caches when people refused to participate with the caches' intent.  If you simply need that all-important Find Stat, the cache doesn't need to be creative.

 

Edited by kunarion
Typo, my fingers are required by edict to be 6 feet apart from each other.
  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I’ve never found a log - no matter how wet or how full - that I couldn’t put my mark on.  (Prove me wrong.) 🙂  I will, of course, let the CO know about the log’s condition and log a NM when necessary.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, kunarion said:

I have archived caches when people refused to participate with the caches' intent.  If you simply need that all-important Find Stat, the cache doesn't need to be creative.

 

I can completely relate to your sentiment. I have archived for those reasons. Not playing by the caches intent has an effect on many COs, especially those who hide in order to engage with finders and provide a fun experience.   

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Ma & Pa said:

A cacher has informed us that you have to sign the log sheet provided by the cache owner.  If I find a soggy log sheet and add one of our own, the CO can delete our log and insist the we sign his sheet.  Apparently this is an official procedure.  He also claims that reviewers agree /  What are the rules?

Here are part of  items posted by two cachers on a geocaching FB page

Actually, there are no other approved ways of proving a find on a physical cache other than your signature in the logbook. Period. Granted, most CO's give some allowance - but they don't have to. Photos, even ones of you holding the cache, are not defensible if a CO decides to delete your find. Ask me how I know... Some COs will demand that you sign THEIR logbook, no matter how gross it is - or how nice the replacement logbook you left is. Ask me how I know...
But all that is moot as long as you are OK with having your find log deleted if it doesn't satisfy the CO.
Go ahead, ask me how I know..

*******************************

adding your own logbook into a container that already has a perfectly fine logbook is definitely frowned upon. I would love to see you openly offer cachers finds on your caches without them signing the logbook. The reviewers are cracking down hard on it. I delete any logs where the person says they took a pic of the container.

 

Wow.  Fortunately our Reviewers aren't micro managers.   AFAIK  they don't get involved in things not having to do with them.  

 See a Reviewer already said so.   If anything, it's an HQ thing.  

 

I have a few writing instruments with me.   

If a CO says on the cache page, that I can only sign their log, when it's wet n moldy, I'll figure a way to get it there, and place a NM.

If they're that anal, they probably already deleted my NM when they got the notification too...

Adding a log for one not needed though doesn't make sense to me, and not what your issue seems to be.  Why would someone do that ?

If you know you have a difficult CO, take a log pic each time you do their cache and post it.  Now they know you're not gonna be a victim.

Remember,  things added/deleted on cache pages can be seen by Reviewers and HQ.  CO bluffing, I'd call him on it.

We've added Rite in Rain strips as a temp hold for many caches, until the CO can get there to fix, and have never had an issue.

If a CO wants to cut off his nose to spite his face, that' s fine by me.  :)   

 - We already keep a list of TOs  who don't want helpful Discover logs for Trackables they're missing too. 

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Ma & Pa said:

A cacher has informed us that you have to sign the log sheet provided by the cache owner. 

 

This  (to me) is along the same lines as people unwittingly signing throw downs.  How would anyone know that log is the CO's ?

Seems like a silly thing for that "cacher" to say.

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

I’ve never found a log - no matter how wet or how full - that I couldn’t put my mark on.  (Prove me wrong.) 🙂

 

I found logbooks (or rests of it) which were so wet that you couldn't get it out of the film canister without completely destroying it. I couldn't have signed this piece of "puree". But in this case the owner can't prove the opposite either. ;-)

 

I am with "Max and 99". The statement is "technically correct" by the rules but luckily enough rules aren't everything for most cachers. Most of them have enough common sense and I never had a problem (after more than 10 years of geocaching) when I told in the log that we could not sign the logbook for a good reason, adding needs maintenance, of course. (I couldn't find the cache/reach the cache up in the tree/open the trick lock.... aren't good reasons by the way.)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I’ve never found a log - no matter how wet or how full - that I couldn’t put my mark on.  (Prove me wrong.) 🙂  I will, of course, let the CO know about the log’s condition and log a NM when necessary.

 

There was one I came across where the logbook was essentially a ball of water with a bit of paper dissolved in it. This is what I wrote in my log:

 

Quote

Sadly the container is far from waterproof and the logs are just pulp. I tried making a mark with a pencil but didn't really succeed - the pencil just sank into the mess without really doing anything - so I'm attaching a photo of what I found.

 

I also tried the assorted ballpoint and felt-tip pens I had with me but none of those would do anything but poke another hole in the blob. I logged an NM and it eventually ended up with five of those, all saying the same thing and all unanswered by the CO, and was eventually archived by a reviewer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I’ve never found a log - no matter how wet or how full - that I couldn’t put my mark on.  (Prove me wrong.) 🙂  I will, of course, let the CO know about the log’s condition and log a NM when necessary.

I have! You touch it and it falls apart. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I’ve never found a log - no matter how wet or how full - that I couldn’t put my mark on.  (Prove me wrong.) 🙂  I will, of course, let the CO know about the log’s condition and log a NM when necessary.

I have found hundreds and hundreds of wet/iced logbooks (yeah we have lot of rain in my area). I find it hard to believe you found none that you weren't able to sign.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

I have found hundreds and hundreds of wet/iced logbooks (yeah we have lot of rain in my area). I find it hard to believe you found none that you weren't able to sign.


I didn’t say sign, I said ‘put my mark on’ it.

 

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

I also tried the assorted ballpoint and felt-tip pens I had with me but none of those would do anything but poke another hole in the blob.


And yes, that could be by poking a hole in it.

 

4 hours ago, frostengel said:

But in this case the owner can't prove the opposite either. ;-)


And that’s the point.  I make my ‘mark’, photograph the log (or what’s left of it), and would appeal to HQ if my log was deleted.

Share this post


Link to post

Just reread my original post...

 

5 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I’ve never found a log - no matter how wet or how full - that I couldn’t put my mark on.  (Prove me wrong.) 🙂  I will, of course, let the CO know about the log’s condition and log a NM when necessary.

 

Maybe it didn’t read quite as I intended.  The “Prove me wrong” was a challenge to any CO that wants to question whether I’d signed their soggy log.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, kunarion said:

I have archived caches when people refused to participate with the caches' intent.  If you simply need that all-important Find Stat, the cache doesn't need to be creative.

I would delete those people who didn't sign the log, rather than archive it. Archiving seems an over reaction to me.

I once informed a CO people were signing the back of the instruction paper, rather than finding her log. (I made the effort and found the real log.) "Oh dear, "she said. "Looks like a visit and then lots of deletes."

I know a cache where, I'm informed, the CO deleted 120 finds for not signing the correct log, although I thought that was rough on those who didn't know it was a throw down. Sure, delete the log of the person who made the throwdown, but the others, I'm not so sure. Maybe though, if the hint had a good description of the real cache and the comment that the log must be signed, and then the throwdown didn't match the cache description*. Complicated! I made sure the log I found matched the description of the correct log fully. And added a photograph of my signature.

 

* An example of not matching the description. A cache's hint said it was a bison tube hidden on the top of a stump and it was marked as a micro. Unfortunately, there was also a regular sized cache hidden at the bottom of the stump that belonged to another game. Person after person signed the wrong log. To me, as a finder, it was 'screaming' obvious that was the wrong cache and log. Micro as against (larger) regular, and top of stump as against bottom. I think the CO allowed the logs to stay. I wouldn't have.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I know a cache where, I'm informed, the CO deleted 120 finds for not signing the correct log, although I thought that was rough on those who didn't know it was a throw down. Sure, delete the log of the person who made the throwdown, but the others, I'm not so sure. Maybe though, if the hint had a good description of the real cache and the comment that the log must be signed, and then the throwdown didn't match the cache description*. Complicated! I made sure the log I found matched the description of the correct log fully. And added a photograph of my signature.

 

This situation is covered in the Help Centre:

 

Quote

Cache owners are responsible for maintenance. When you are aware of throwdowns, check if your cache is still there and remove the throwdown cache. Consider disabling the cache until you can remove the throwdown or replace the original cache. If you do not disable the cache, you may want to honor Found It logs for the throwdown. However, the geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the cache as found.

 

The app tells people to only look at the description if they get stuck, let alone the hint, so if someone arrives at GZ and immediately finds a container with a log inside, expecting them to then check whether it exactly matches what's on the cache page might be over the top. And if it doesn't match, how are they supposed to know whether the CO changed it and just didn't update the page, or it's a throwdown?

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

The app tells people to only look at the description if they get stuck, let alone the hint,

I nearly always check the hint; plus the size, and D/T ratings. (Not any attributes, because they don't appear on my GPS.) The description only if I can't find the cache, so rarely. Hints are usually short and helpful; the description can be long and rambling. Later when I am logging I might read the description if I find it interesting to read, but rarely in the field. The hint is also usually much more helpful than the description, which mostly says nothing about the actual cache, but more likely about the area being visited.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I nearly always check the hint; plus the size, and D/T ratings. (Not any attributes, because they don't appear on my GPS.) The description only if I can't find the cache, so rarely. Hints are usually short and helpful; the description can be long and rambling. Later when I am logging I might read the description if I find it interesting to read, but rarely in the field. The hint is also usually much more helpful than the description, which mostly says nothing about the actual cache, but more likely about the area being visited.

 

I always read the description before I head out. I figure if the CO bothered to write it, the least I can do is read it. Woe betide anyone who attempts my caches without reading the description as they're likely to find themselves in a spot of bother. For example, on GC7YP51 there's a point on the main track where your GPSr will point directly right with what looks like a convenient side-track heading that way, but, to quote from the description, "those who succeed in their quest for power don't take shortcuts, as doing so will lead to an impasse; rather they follow the one true path even if it means going the long way around." Taking that side-track will bring you to GZ, but you'll be on top of the cliff with the cache in a cave at the bottom. Likewise the requirement on that cache to bring a torch as there are aspects of it that are light-activated.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I always read the description before I head out. I figure if the CO bothered to write it, the least I can do is read it. Woe betide anyone who attempts my caches without reading the description as they're likely to find themselves in a spot of bother. For example, on GC7YP51 there's a point on the main track where your GPSr will point directly right with what looks like a convenient side-track heading that way, but, to quote from the description, "those who succeed in their quest for power don't take shortcuts, as doing so will lead to an impasse; rather they follow the one true path even if it means going the long way around." Taking that side-track will bring you to GZ, but you'll be on top of the cliff with the cache in a cave at the bottom. Likewise the requirement on that cache to bring a torch as there are aspects of it that are light-activated.

If I do more difficult, remote caches I do read the description before going out and even take notes, but not the average cache's description.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I nearly always check the hint; plus the size, and D/T ratings. (Not any attributes, because they don't appear on my GPS.)

Loading caches with GSAK and the Garminexport macro will get you attributes in the top log on most if not all recent Garmins.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, on4bam said:

Loading caches with GSAK and the Garminexport macro will get you attributes in the top log on most if not all recent Garmins.

 

I don't know how to use GSAK. My GPS is a Garmin etrex30, bought in the last year or so, as that does what I need and it's very simple and uncomplicated to use.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I don't know how to use GSAK. My GPS is a Garmin etrex30, bought in the last year or so, as that does what I need and it's very simple and uncomplicated to use.

No problem, just giving a hint how to show attributes on a Garmin. We're 99.99% paperless so the more info we can read on the GPS the better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, on4bam said:

No problem, just giving a hint how to show attributes on a Garmin. We're 99.99% paperless so the more info we can read on the GPS the better.

 

For 95% of caches (or even more) I find the attributes absolutely unnecessary. Only a few they are of any use for.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/10/2020 at 6:43 AM, colleda said:

If the log's unsignable it's unsignable. If it were me I would add a small sheet (in a little baggy) with my sig on it to tide it over until the CO can do maintenance by replacing the soggy item.

I see no valid reason for a CO to delete your log. In your situation I would slap a NM on it after re logging the find (if you haven't already).

Also, take photos.

 

 

Quite correct why get arsey if they cant be bothered to maintain their caches ,I'd put a NM on it also and after 7 days without being looked at  a needs archiving ,we have around 60 caches and if someone needs to put a new log in that's fine they are only helping out.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

For 95% of caches (or even more) I find the attributes absolutely unnecessary. Only a few they are of any use for.

 

I've learnt from experience not to ignore the Thorns attribute. Lawyer vine is prevalent in some places around here and is rather unpleasant to become entangled in when wearing only shorts. The Difficult Climb or Tree Climb attributes are also ones I check for, prompting me to read through past logs and look at the gallery to see if I might need some rope or my ladder. Likewise if the Boat Required attribute is set I'd better take my kayak, and the same goes for the Flashlight required and UV attributes as I don't normally carry those tools in my backpack.

 

On my own hides, I take care to set the Dogs Allowed/Not Allowed attribute as there are cachers locally who like to take their dogs with them. If there's steep climbing or drop-offs along the way or close to GZ I'll set the No Kids attribute as well as Cliffs/Falling Rocks, conversely if it's something kids might enjoy the Kid Friendly attribute gets set. The hike length attributes and less/more than an hour are also set appropriately as many of my hides involve long hikes or have multiple waypoints to be visited.

 

With the sort of caches I often do, every bit of information is helpful in planning the adventure.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, The Whittles said:

Quite correct why get arsey if they cant be bothered to maintain their caches ,I'd put a NM on it also and after 7 days without being looked at  a needs archiving ,we have around 60 caches and if someone needs to put a new log in that's fine they are only helping out.

 

That's unusual.   Curious, have you done this before ?  Thanks.  :)   Even Reviewers give it at least a month, most we've seen.

Some may not be able to get to their caches in seven days (distance, location, weather...).  We'd put a NM on it and move on.

 

To be clear ...  We don't know about others, but we'd leave a Rite in Rain strip, with enough room to keep the hide going until the CO can go there and fix it themselves.   

The amount of caches one has, has no bearing on the CO performing their own maintenance.   That's what you meant, right ?  :)

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, The Whittles said:

I'd put a NM on it also and after 7 days without being looked at  a needs archiving

I've seen reviewers come in and say that not enough time has passed before a NA should be placed. Reviewers usually give it at least a month between NM and NA. 7 days is far too short a time. Give it a month.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I've seen reviewers come in and say that not enough time has passed before a NA should be placed. Reviewers usually give it at least a month between NM and NA. 7 days is far too short a time. Give it a month.

 

Especially under the current circumstances. Right now, with the restrictions in place here, I can only get to about half my hides, the rest are too far from home, and that's likely to continue for at least another month.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I've seen reviewers come in and say that not enough time has passed before a NA should be placed. Reviewers usually give it at least a month between NM and NA. 7 days is far too short a time. Give it a month.

Agree. After I log a NM I'll wait at least a month to follow up with NA if I think it is merited.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/11/2020 at 2:47 PM, barefootjeff said:

Lawyer vine

 

I object to that name.  :anibad:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

As a cacher and cacheowner, I'm fine with a date and signature in any paper form. 

Whether that's in the original logbook or a piece of paper they added to the logbook.

There is a sense of "paying it forward" when another cacher adds more log strips to a full logbook. 

 

Now if they wrote on the inside of the container with sharpie, I'd delete their log :blink:

 

We fellow cachers need to look out for each other. We're all one big community.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/18/2020 at 2:05 PM, ryan_schunk said:

Now if they wrote on the inside of the container with sharpie, I'd delete their log :blink:

 

 

If your log is mush and unsignable, I am signing the inside of the container with a Sharpie. My photograph will always provide proof to the appeals process.

 

And while a favor to a delinquent cache owner every once in a while might be a nice thing to do, it SHOULD NOT BE THE NORM. Your caches are not my problem. If you can't maintain them then please stop hiding them.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, bflentje said:

 

If your log is mush and unsignable, I am signing the inside of the container with a Sharpie. My photograph will always provide proof to the appeals process.

 

 

 Why would you vandalize something that doesn't belong to you?   When I encounter an unsignable log sheet, I'll give it a poke with my pen/pencil and call it a signature then post a found it and NM log.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 Why would you vandalize something that doesn't belong to you?   When I encounter an unsignable log sheet, I'll give it a poke with my pen/pencil and call it a signature then post a found it and NM log.  

As do I, and sometimes photograph it, as I did to this recent log, which was impossible to unroll without shredding it. It also lets the CO see the condition of the log. The CO replaced the log two days later and added a new 0-ring.

Mushy log.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 Why would you vandalize something that doesn't belong to you?   When I encounter an unsignable log sheet, I'll give it a poke with my pen/pencil and call it a signature then post a found it and NM log.  

 

A broken plastic container with a log so wet that it's unsignable, by a cache owner that 9 times out of 10 has left the game.. if that's vandalism, then I contend you just replied just to hear yourself talk. But with 10,000 more posts than me I should have expected that.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

Well in my area, as in many areas I'm sure, there are a lot of older caches that are no longer maintained by the CO.  I have recently started to attempt to make contact with these CO's, and if no reply, I'll try to provide maintenance to the cache myself, in order to keep the cache in play!  Wish more would pitch in and do the same for the future of the Sport!!

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
Just now, Cherokee Bill said:

Well in my area, as in many areas I'm sure, there are a lot of older caches that are no longer maintained by the CO.  I have recently started to attempt to make contact with these CO's, and if no reply, I'll try to provide maintenance to the cache myself, in order to keep the cache in play!  Wish more would pitch in and do the same for the future of the Sport!!

 

The future of our sport isn't helped by casting aspersions of vandalism by signing a bunk container and it certainly isn't helped with cache maintenance by the village. The best way to protect the game is to only hide something that you're willing and capable of maintaining yourself.

Edited by bflentje
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Cherokee Bill said:

Well in my area, as in many areas I'm sure, there are a lot of older caches that are no longer maintained by the CO.  I have recently started to attempt to make contact with these CO's, and if no reply, I'll try to provide maintenance to the cache myself, in order to keep the cache in play!  Wish more would pitch in and do the same for the future of the Sport!!

By maintenance do you mean a new log, or new container? In my area, someone recently replaced the container for a very old cache that had gone missing. The reviewer called him out, explaining the guidelines. I'm sure this geocacher was trying to help the future of the sport.

  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, bflentje said:

 

A broken plastic container with a log so wet that it's unsignable, by a cache owner that 9 times out of 10 has left the game.. if that's vandalism, then I contend you just replied just to hear yourself talk. But with 10,000 more posts than me I should have expected that.

You only said that the log was mush and unsignable.   You didn't mention that the container was broken, and the the CO may have abandoned it.    Still, I contend that you just wrote that you'd sign the inside of the container out of spite.  I replied because signing the inside of a container because the log was not intact seem like a really silly thing to do.  From what I've seen, while you may not post as frequently as some, the content very rarely adds anything useful to the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, NYPaddleCacher said:

You only said that the log was mush and unsignable.   You didn't mention that the container was broken, and the the CO may have abandoned it.    Still, I contend that you just wrote that you'd sign the inside of the container out of spite.  I replied because signing the inside of a container because the log was not intact seem like a really silly thing to do.  From what I've seen, while you may not post as frequently as some, the content very rarely adds anything useful to the discussion.

 

Oh no, nothing I do is out of spite. I have a problem with the "designated experts" doing things out of spite.. such as deleting a legitimate Found It log or throwing around accusations of unbecoming behavior. And while you may post much more frequently than some, the content very rarely adds anything useful to the discussion.. which is why I rarely participate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...