Log a missing cache as a find?

1.1k · January 30, 2003

I went to a cache and the container was definately missing. Should I still log it as a find? The owners seem to be MIA. I don't feel to right as logging it as a find even though I found EXACTLY where it was.

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

5.3k · January 30, 2003

I've "found" several missing caches that the owners have confirmed were gone. Even though the owners invited me to log them as finds, I haven't. If I didn't find it, I didn't find it. Period.

38.2k · January 30, 2003

You didn't find it did you? Well then why would you log it as a find?

"Paternalism is the greatist despotism" - Emmanual Kant

3k · January 30, 2003

The next thing you know, someone will create a "Missing Cache" locationless cache, so that you folk who can't stomach the "frowny face" can still have your find.

5k · January 30, 2003

Not a find. Pretty clear to me.

Jamie

6.4k · January 30, 2003

I was just reading the logs from a cache yesterday (no really, I was!). There were some DNFs, so the cache hider checked on it, and it was indeed missing. The cache was archived. AFTER it was archived, there are 3 found it logs! Basically all three said they didnt know the cache had been archived, and they looked for it, so they are claiming it as a find! Whats up with THAT? BTW, all 3 had finds in the triple digits, so we aren't talking newbies here.

If it's a physical cache, and you don't find it, it's a DID NOT FIND. You didn't find the cache. Seems pretty simple to me. When we get a icon for the logs thats for "I'm pretty sure I found the right spot but I didn't find the cache" then maybe you can can change your DNFs to that.

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

January 30, 2003

No Way! Not a find in my book.

January 30, 2003

Can I start logging ones I look at on-line? !

(Just kidding )

1.4k · January 30, 2003

I had a cache hidden in a hollow tree, with a tree-stump covering the hole. The Mighty Rio Grande Cache. It was eventually stolen. The last "FINDER" who reported the cache missing sent me a digital photo The Hiding Spot with the main stump pulled away to expose the hole. They made the hike, they found the exact spot within inches. Had this been any other type of cache, it would have been a find. So I told them to log it as a find. What would have been the difference if the logbook had been full and they wrote TNLN TNX on the web? They took nothing, they left nothing, and they didn't sign the log book.

So let me get this straight. If I find a cache, for some reason I cannot sign the log book, and I TNLN, it is not a find? In that case, I need to delete two of MY finds. The log books were soaking wet, and I TNLN. But I did get to the spots, and found the remains of the caches... after a flash flood destroyed them both.

Sorry.. under those circumstances, I call that a find. They (I) made the hike. They (I) found the EXACT spot and sent a photo as verification. They (I) TNLN, and the log book was not signable. No different than a virtual or micro in my book.

Mike. Desert_Warrior (aka KD9KC).

El Paso, Texas.

Citizens of this land may own guns. Not to threaten their neighbors, but to ensure themselves of liberty and freedom.

They are not assault weapons anymore... they are HOMELAND DEFENSE WEAPONS!

6.4k · January 30, 2003

Well, your cache, Mike, your rules. But by that logic, then we should just do away with the frownie face. Really, with that line of thinking, they should ALL be finds. I made the hike. I looked around. The GPS said its RIGHT THERE. I looked there. I dont see a cache. Since I don't see the cache, I guess I TNLN and didnt sign the book. Log a find.

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

7.4k · January 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Desert_Warrior:

Sorry.. under those circumstances, I call that a find. They (I) made the hike. They (I) found the EXACT spot and sent a photo as verification. They (I) TNLN, and the log book was not signable. No different than a virtual or micro in my book.

That's strange reasoning in my book. Whether you TNLN or trade has no bearing on the issue whatsoever, and this is not a virtual cache so different logging requirements apply (there is no logbook at a virtual by definition). However, making the hike in and seeing where the cache used to be cannot be declared a "find" in any sense of the word. How can you find something that's not there?

The smiley is not a mark of "I made the hike" or "I gave it a good effort". It is a mark of "I successfully made the hike, gave it a good effort and was rewarded by locating the cache," even if the log was in a condition that prevented it from being signed.

8.9k · January 30, 2003

But in those two cases, if you post them as a "found it" log, and there's somebody using Clayjar's Watcher program or some other GPX analysis, all they see is the face. So then, they assume that all is right with the cache and head off to find it, oblivious to the fact that there's something wrong.

The grey area, I would think, would be if the cache were still there, intact, but soaking wet and therefore you're unable to sign the log. If THAT'S the case (and not a case of the cache missing), then I'd log it as a find. My personal guideline in that case would be that I TOUCHED the log book and could have signed it, if it did not destroy the log book in the process.

All this is moot, since I usually carry a notepad with me. In those cases, I'd rip off my own sheet of paper and stick it with the log book.

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

January 30, 2003

I have actually been close enough to a cache to take a similar picture and still not find it to my embarrassment!

If you found it and the log was wet, you still found it! If you found the caches remains, you still found it!

If a cacher who locates the “spot” of a cache and logs it as a find...??? Picture or not...Nope! To say I looked and its gone now so I’m going to call it a find…No way!

To go back to the original question...How do you know you found the "spot", especially with the owner MIA? The cache could still be there and you missed it but found a really good spot?!

20.7k · January 30, 2003

I say, if you didn't find the cache, you can't log it as a find. In those rare instances when you see the cache but you can't get to it, its not a find.

If you go after a virt but can't find the answer to the verification question, its not a find.

If you find a plundered cache, fix it as best as you can and the cache owner will make the determination of whether it should be a 'find'.

Weird. Twice in the same day, I agree with Mopar. Maybe I'm starting to look at things the 'right' way.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

4.5k · January 30, 2003

Ive allways stated that if you didnt find the cache, then you shouldnt post it as a find. Kinda made me think though when i read Desert Warrior's post above. The Cacher sent him a pic of the hiding spot, so its very easy to tell that the Cacher found the specific place.

Nevermind, reading my own words here i have to stay with my initial thoughts and say it was a "no find". The actual cache itself wasnt found!

January 30, 2003

I thought I had a cache stolen ..I could not find it. so I disabled it and redid itin a different spot. If people were logging it as found. I'd actually think it was there... After redoing it a cacher found the old one in a different location...Now I have to go find it...I will fill up the new one with the old caches goods>>

See you in the woods!

Natureboy1376

1.5k · January 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Desert_Warrior:
So let me get this straight. If I find a cache, for some reason I cannot sign the log book, and I TNLN, it is not a find? In that case, I need to delete two of MY finds. The log books were soaking wet, and I TNLN. But I did get to the spots, and found the remains of the caches... after a flash flood destroyed them both.

Its questionable as to whether TNLN qualifies as a find. This has been the subject of a lot of bickering. Here are the "simple rules" as stated on geocaching.com:

quote:
What are the rules in Geocaching?
Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

It is also implied elsewhere that TNLN is ok, but not signing the logbook isn't:

quote:
Step 4 – The Find

Huzzah! You found the cache! Congratulations! Now what?

Usually you take an item and leave an item, and enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book. It’s an accomplishment enough to locate the cache.

"some people prefer to just enter their name into the logbook" seems to me to imply that writing your name is a requirement, with trade being optional, however the next sentence seems to nullify all three of the so-called "rules" ("It's an accomplishment enough to locate the cache").

I don't think that there are any clear rules as to what qualifies as a find. Its all opinion, which is rather annoying.

Some people complain that this sport is accumulating too many rules. Maybe somebody can provide us with a list of actual, verified, clear and non-contradicting rules?

In any case, its implied that you're looking for the cache, not the cache location.

January 30, 2003

If the cacher wants to log it as a find, thats fine with me. It's been discussed here at length, but a locationless or virtual find still counts the same as a physical 5-5 cache. I think that a cacher that finds the exact location of a plundered cache could take credit for a find if they want to.

January 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Skully & Mulder et al.:
I think that a cacher that finds the exact location of a plundered cache could take credit for a find if they want to.

And I got up this morning and meant to go geocaching, but stayed at home in bed instead. I had every intention of finding that cache, though, so I should get credit for a find if I want to!

Look, it's really simple: if you find the cache, you log a find. If you don't find the cache, you log a no find. All of the attempts to justify bending and outright breaking this simple basis of the game amaze me.

As for "it's not a competition", that is correct, but that doesn't mean that the integrity of the game is open for compromising at the whims of every participant. An inappropriate "found" log on a plundered cache gives the wrong impression of the state of the cache to others, whether it is those perusing the nearest caches list, or those using Watcher and other GPX viewers to assess the condition of the cache.

January 30, 2003

Find, or do not find. There is no try.

King Pellinore

January 30, 2003

I really don’t understand why you feel that you have the right to dictate the criteria to log a find. If it is not specifically addressed in the geocaching rules, it is open for interpretation. I am just saying that the decision should be up to the cacher and the cache owner. I’m against someone having an influence in something that is really none of their business. To compare the scenario you describe in your post, to the scenarios described earlier, is asinine.

38.2k · January 30, 2003

I'm sorry Mulder (and others), I have to agree with Kaniksu on this one. As a cache owner, logs are important to me. If I see "not founds", it raises an alarm that may send me out to check on my cache. By the same token, if I see a Found It!, I assume the cache is OK, unless told otherwise.

As a cache hunter, I often scan the logs before seeking a cache. If I see a recent , I'm much more likely to take the time to look for the cache. I'd be a tad miffed if I found out the cache has been long gone and the previous "finder" made it all up. No, it's not a contest, but it's a community, complete with the mores and taboos of any other community. And logging false finds is a taboo in my book.

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. -Barry Goldwater

January 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Skully & Mulder et al.:
If it is not specifically addressed in the geocaching rules, it is open for interpretation.

So in your dictionary, "found" actually has definitions that mean exactly the opposite?

quote:
Originally posted by Skully & Mulder et al.:
I am just saying that the decision should be up to the cacher and the cache owner. I’m against someone having an influence in something that is really none of their business.

Ah, but it is my business, as I and others have said in previous logs. A false find on a plundered cache sends the wrong message about the cache condition, and erodes the integrity of the game. It makes all of the finds everyone else worked hard to attain worth a little less.

quote:
Originally posted by Skully & Mulder et al.:
To compare the scenario you describe in your post, to the scenarios described earlier, is asinine.

Really? In both cases, a find was logged when the cache had not actually been found. Both dishonest, in my eyes.

January 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Kaniksu:

quote:
Originally posted by Skully & Mulder et al.:
If it is not specifically addressed in the geocaching rules, it is open for interpretation.

So in your dictionary, "found" actually has definitions that mean exactly the opposite?

I really have no dictionary ... but if I did (in the geocaching world) the defination of "found" would be left up to the parties involved.

quote:
Originally posted by Skully & Mulder et al.:
I am just saying that the decision should be up to the cacher and the cache owner. I’m against someone having an influence in something that is really none of their business.

Ah, but it is my business, as I and others have said in previous logs. A false find on a plundered cache sends the wrong message about the cache condition, and erodes the integrity of the game. It makes all of the finds everyone else worked hard to attain worth a little less.

Who cares?

quote:
Originally posted by Skully & Mulder et al.:
To compare the scenario you describe in your post, to the scenarios described earlier, is asinine.

Really? In both cases, a find was logged when the cache had not actually been found. Both dishonest, in my eyes.

Who cares?

5.9k · January 30, 2003

You log a "Found it!" when you find the cache, not the place the cache is supposed to be. The cache is the physical container that contains the logbook. It's not the real estate around the container.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

January 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Skully & Mulder et al.:
I really have no dictionary ... but if I did (in the geocaching world) the defination of "found" would be left up to the parties involved.

As I've explained, the parties involved are everyone concerned about geocaching.

quote:
Originally posted by Skully & Mulder et al.:
Who cares?

Yes, a fine example you set for others.

January 30, 2003

Originally posted by BrianSnat:
I'm sorry Mulder (and others), I have to agree with Kaniksu on this one.

Brian,

Sorry you pick Kaniksu to agree with, he seems to be a troll.

I'm all for the integrity of caching. I see your side of the argument ... a find is not a find unless you find it. For me, a search for a plundered cache, where I clearly found the exact location of the missing cache, is more rewarding then most of the virtual or locationless caches that are out there.

I logged DNF for about 10 caches. Out of those, I went back and found 4 of them, 3 were determined to be missing and archived, 2 were determined to still be out there but have since been archived, and one falls into the subject category. For that one, I printed the cache page before going on vacation – went to find the cache and it was gone. The cheater was a dead giveaway so I knew I was at the right spot. I contacted the cache owner and he said to go ahead and log it as a find, so I did. Why does anyone care?

We have done about 15-20 virtual/event caches and looking back on those, they are not even worth the time it takes me to log my visit. I will never log another virtual cache but I’m not going to condemn other cachers for doing them.

24.7k · January 30, 2003

If you found the remnants of the log, or the marked cache container remains, it's a find.

If you found nothing. It's a skunk. I've got one of those under my belt. I found the nothing there was to find. Later Logscaler confirmed the cache had been plundered and set a new one on behalf of the owner. It's still a skunk until I go back and find it.

Wherever you go there you are.

January 30, 2003

Hey, I don't think Kaniksu is being a troll. It seems like quite a stretch to me that coulda, shoulda, woulda qualifies for a find. I might give ya a gold star on your report card, but if the cache is gone, you are TOO LATE to log a find.

7.2k · January 30, 2003

Kind of funny, but I am watching an archived cache right now. It is a locationless cache that deviated from several of the guidelines and was archived. Several people have logged that cache after it was archived as FOUND! One cacher logged it THREE TIMES. I think that is amazing and tells me a lot about those cachers. Looking back on one of those cachers lists of "found" caches, I see that they have logged caches that are gone as "found" just as is being discussed in this topic. I guess it should not surprise me that people that log an archived locationless cache would log a cache that is not there as a cache that they have found. I reject their cache finds now as bogus, and they have a lot of "founds". People like that are playing a different game than the rest of us, and at least they are a tiny minority of Geocachers.

If that is a group that you want to be a part of, well then you are playing a different game than the rest of us. I think there is a lot to say about this post...

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
I'm sorry Mulder (and others), I have to agree with Kaniksu on this one. As a cache owner, logs are important to me. If I see "not founds", it raises an alarm that may send me out to check on my cache. By the same token, if I see a Found It!, I assume the cache is OK, unless told otherwise.

As a cache hunter, I often scan the logs before seeking a cache. If I see a recent , I'm much more likely to take the time to look for the cache. I'd be a tad miffed if I found out the cache has been long gone and the previous "finder" made it all up. No, it's not a contest, but it's a community, complete with the mores and taboos of any other community. And logging false finds is a taboo in my book.

Words to cache by!

January 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Desert_Warrior:
I had a cache hidden in a hollow tree, with a tree-stump covering the hole.... ...It was eventually stolen. The last "FINDER" who reported the cache missing sent me a digital photo ...They made the hike, they found the exact spot within inches. Had this been any other type of cache, it would have been a find. So I told them to log it as a find....

I think it should be up to the person that places the cache. If someone provided me with clear proof that they had found the location where my cache had been, I'd verify the missing cache, invite them to log the find, and archive the cache. I'd also clearly post that I had invited them to log the find.

January 30, 2003

This reminds me of a story told years ago. A fellow worker said his brother was in the Navy during World War II and would walk on the ship deck picking up pieces of paper. He would hold up each piece and say, "No, that's not it". Upon receiving his medical discharge paper(section 8?), he held it up and said, "That's it!".

Would this be considered a 'find'?

1.4k · January 31, 2003

As the saying goes, "Second place is the first loser." The first person to find that a cache is gone is the first person that should log a no find. It's a regular cache, not a virtual.

---Real men cache in shorts.

January 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Skully & Mulder et al.:
For me, a search for a plundered cache, where I clearly found the exact location of the missing cache, is more rewarding then most of the virtual or locationless caches that are out there.

And somehow justifies your making up a new definition for "found". I wouldn't call that caring for the integrity of the game.

quote:
Originally posted by Skully & Mulder et al.:
Why does anyone care?

Please re-read the posts above. You are cheapening the finds that everyone else honestly achieved.

quote:
Originally posted by Skully & Mulder et al.:
I will never log another virtual cache but I’m not going to condemn other cachers for doing them.

And you shouldn't, as long as these cachers honestly found them.

9.1k · January 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
Kind of funny, but I am watching an archived cache right now. It is a locationless cache that deviated from several of the guidelines and was archived. Several people have logged that cache after it was archived as _FOUND!_ One cacher logged it THREE TIMES.

Gee, mtn-man, it sure sounds like they're getting a lot of mileage out of that archived cache!

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

If there's no accounting for stupidity, then why do I need to file a tax return?

January 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by st_richardson:
If someone provided me with clear proof that they had found the location where my cache had been, I'd verify the missing cache, invite them to log the find, and archive the cache.

Why? They didn't find the cache! They shouldn't log a find! Why is this so hard for people to understand?

The "found" log is not a mark for good behavior. Rather, it indicates that you successfully located the cache, which in most cases is verified by signing the logbook. No find, no "found" log. That's as simple as it gets, people!

4.5k · January 31, 2003

quote:
Why? They didn't find the cache! They shouldn't log a find! Why is this so hard for people to understand?

The "found" log is not a mark for good behavior. Rather, it indicates that you successfully located the cache, which in most cases is verified by signing the logbook. No find, no "found" log. That's as simple as it gets, people!

DITTO! Had to think for a second on this but it only makes sense to me this way. If its designated a physical cache then we should find the physical cache, not the location where it was. Now if i found parts of the cache, ie: plundered by man or beast, then i would put it back together as best as i could, email the owner and log a find with info on the condition of the cache on the website. In the unfortunate circumstances of finding the correct location but with the CACHE is missing, its not a find cause you didnt find the CACHE!

January 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by st_richardson:

quote:
Originally posted by Desert_Warrior:
I had a cache hidden in a hollow tree, with a tree-stump covering the hole.... ...It was eventually stolen. The last "FINDER" who reported the cache missing sent me a digital photo ...They made the hike, they found the exact spot within inches. Had this been any other type of cache, it would have been a find. So I told them to log it as a find....

I think it should be up to the person that places the cache. If someone provided me with clear proof that they had found the location where my cache had been, I'd verify the missing cache, invite them to log the find, and archive the cache. I'd also clearly post that I had invited them to log the find.

Here's your loophole:

Convince the owner to change it to a virtual with the cache description reading:

"Go to the coordinates, take a photo of the hole in the tree, e-mail it to me to log a find."

Of course this cache wouldn't be approved as a virtual under the current rules.

Mickey

Max Entropy

More than just a name, a lifestyle.

Log a missing cache as a find?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation