Jump to content

Logbook Requirement


JetSkier
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

quote:
Originally posted by Erwast:

Signing the hardware logbook confirms that you actually was there.


 

Yes, I agree with Erwast! Signing the logbook proves that you were there! If not that, taking a pic of the contents of the cache would be acceptable. We have a cacher in Memphis that says he goes to all these caches sometimes 20+ in one day, but never signs the logbook. Its kinda hard to think that someone can hit that many in one day. Sure he might of found all of them but why not sign the log while your there? It only takes a min. icon_rolleyes.gif

Link to comment

I think most cachers acknowledge that a logbook is a really good idea. That's why most caches have them. I love to see the physical evidence that someone has visited my cache and I enjoy reading the logs when I find a cache. However, I see no reason why a logbook should be "required" (as in THIS CACHE DOES NOT HAVE A LOGBOOK - ARCHIVE IT!).

 

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

geol4.JPG

Link to comment

Not everyone logs online, so that arguement has little merit. There are plenty of times we read the physical log and there are more logs than online.

 

There is absolutely no reason that a cache can't have a logbook, if it's small then put a small log. You can't make a log that small, make a larger cache. You don't want to maintain the logbook and thus the cache, don't place it.

 

Making a smaller cache gives you plenty of opportunities to get creative while requiring a logbook. In fact, I've been planning smaller and smaller full-blown caches, that not only have a logbook, but trades and a letterboxing stamp, as well! Just how small can I go?!

 

Bottom line, logbooks should be required in order to be qualified as a cache.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

I like logbooks, I really do. I always sign them, read them cover-to-cover, and I always write detailed online logs.

 

But I'll abstain from voting until someone can convince me that logbooks do anything more than provide amusement to those who later visit the cache. (I admit I was disappointed to learn in a thread some months back that few cache visitors read through the logbook.)

 

There have been a high number of caches I've visited (dozens) where the logbook had been reported full months earlier and never replaced by the owner (or a new logbook/sheet(s) of paper had been added by subsequent visitors.)

 

So, if most visitors don't read through the logbook and most cache owners don't maintain their caches/replace the logbooks/verify the finds, what purpose does the logbook serve besides being a traditional component of the cache?

Link to comment

Personally, I cross-reference the paper and online logs of my caches. On my most popular cache site, out of say 50 online logs, there are five or six paper-only logs.

 

I enjoy buying those little notebooks, and I think all other traditional cache placers should be forced by rules to experience the awe and mystery of locating the best deal on a well-bound mini-notebook.

 

I can't think of a single reason for paper logs which couldn't be effectively (although moronically) argued against.

 

Examples of reasons and possible counters:

 

1. People like to read stories written in paper logs. Counter: people can read the stories on the website.

 

2. Cache owners like to have a paper record of who visited their caches. Counter: cache owners can print the logs from the website.

 

3. Not everyone logs online. Counter: Well, they darn well should!

 

4. Not everyone has a computer. Counter: So?

 

5. Logbooks add a sense of connection with other cachers, moreso than can be had through cold, sterile electronic communication. Counter: You're wrong! Stop lying!

 

6. Logbooks separate cache from trash. Counter: You only say that because it rhymes.

Link to comment

quote:

I enjoy buying those little notebooks, and I think all other traditional cache placers should be forced by rules to experience the awe and mystery of locating the best deal on a well-bound mini-notebook.


 

Is Mr. Snazz anyways sarcastic?

 

I only ask because I like it!

 

Pan

 

Cachito ergo sum. I Geocache, therefore I am.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:

Personally, I cross-reference the paper and online logs of my caches. On my most popular cache site, out of say 50 online logs, there are five or six paper-only logs.

 

I enjoy buying those little notebooks, and I think all other traditional cache placers should be forced by rules to experience the awe and mystery of locating the best deal on a well-bound mini-notebook.

 

I can't think of a single reason for paper logs which couldn't be effectively (although moronically) argued against.

 

Examples of reasons and possible counters:

 

1. People like to read stories written in paper logs. _Counter: people can read the stories on the website._

 

2. Cache owners like to have a paper record of who visited their caches. _Counter: cache owners can print the logs from the website._

 

3. Not everyone logs online. _Counter: Well, they darn well should!_

 

4. Not everyone has a computer. _Counter: So?_

 

5. Logbooks add a sense of connection with other cachers, moreso than can be had through cold, sterile electronic communication. _Counter: You're wrong! Stop lying!_

 

6. Logbooks separate cache from trash. _Counter: You only say that because it rhymes._


 

Mr. Snazz, you make my day! With all of the *way too serious* conversations going on as of late, you know how bring us all back to reality. Thanks for your humor and wit! icon_razz.gif

 

Coyote Fan

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by OUTSID4EVR:

Some form of verification MUST be required. The cache hider must be able to determine who visited the cache to keep the online logs "honest". A logbook is not the only way to do this.

 

I doubt many cache owners cross-reference the paper log book with the online logs. e


 

Not stealing someone's cache should be required, so how would you stop it? Some people find and don't log in the book or cache page.

 

Vini Vidi Velcro I came I saw I stuck around Capn Skully

Link to comment

Does that mean The Smallest Cache in the World should be archived, since there's no way to get a logbook in there?

 

I think caches without logbooks should be allowed, but IMHO, there better be a good reason why it dosen't have one. Besides, if it's big enough to have a logbook, a cacher upset over the lack of a logbook could always visit and leave one.

 

I walk the Maze of Moments, but everywhere I turn to, begins a new beginning, but never finds a finish... -Enya, Anywhere Is

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel Nut:

Does that mean http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=28766 should be archived, since there's no way to get a logbook in there?


 

Well, this isn't listed as a traditional caches so it doesn't fit. All traditional caches should contain a log book.

 

Heck, you can fit a log book inside a lyterine gel pack container. Way smaller than a film cannister.

 

george

 

39570_500.jpg

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel Nut:

Does that mean http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=28766 should be archived, since there's no way to get a logbook in there?

 

I think caches without logbooks should be allowed, but IMHO, there better be a good reason why it dosen't have one. Besides, if it's big enough to have a logbook, a cacher upset over the lack of a logbook could always visit and leave one.

 

I walk the Maze of Moments, but everywhere I turn to, begins a new beginning, but never finds a finish... -Enya, Anywhere Is


 

When a rule is created with requirment for this or that the sport is diminished. I currently don't have a need for a "logless" cache, but I don't want that door closed. There may be a technology or idea in the future that would cause me to want one.

 

I say again, I got stomped for suggesting boat only caches while scuba caches are ok. So what is going on? More Elitism?

 

Capn Skully

Vini Vidi Velcro I came I saw I stuck around

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Capn_Skully:

 

When a rule is created with requirment for this or that the sport is diminished. I currently don't have a need for a "logless" cache, but I don't want that door closed. There may be a technology or idea in the future that would cause me to want one.


 

Let me clarify something that has been lost through all of these discussions. The guidelines are dynamic, and change over time as the sport evolves. They are not written-in-stone rules, however. A creative and desireable cache will not be rejected if a good reason can be made for why it doesn't have a logbook. Furthermore, the requirement for a logbook won't remain a requirement if the community doesn't feel that it is acceptable. Guidelines that diminish the sport certainly should be removed, but those that foster high quality while leaving open room for creativity are worthwhile.

 

quote:
I say again, I got stomped for suggesting boat only caches while scuba caches are ok. So what is going on? More Elitism?

 

Could you post a link and description to the cache that was "stomped" for being a boat-only cache? There are no rules against such caches, and we accept many of this type every week.

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Capn_Skully:

 

I say again, I got stomped for suggesting boat only caches while scuba caches are ok. So what is going on? More Elitism?

 

_Capn Skully

Vini Vidi Velcro I came I saw I stuck around_


 

I've been reading the forum for a while and I don't remember anyone getting stomped for a boat only cache. I think it's a good idea.

 

george

 

39570_500.jpg

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

Link to comment

I like logs in larger caches. Micros have problems with trade items let alone rolling up a log cut of of paper and stapled together.

 

Alternate verification means should be ok too. I'd still include a log as lurkers often sign a log abut never online. So really alternate verification is only for online loggers.

 

That's all I have to say about that.

 

Wherever you go there you are.

Link to comment

Log books can be very important investigative tools

In my Lowell cache, I had to replace the 100 page logbook already. There are only 72 internet logs.

Two TBs were taken from the cache without an internet log. The only way I could have tracked them down was with the cache log. The Team that took one of the bugs had not logged any finds for six months. It took another three months to get a response from them. They finally logged the TB out of my cache and apologized.

 

I,ve seen a cachers profile that says he refuses to log finds on the internet. I'm not sure of what disturbed reason, this cacher holds. However without a cache log there would be no evidence of this cachers visits.

 

39197_2100.gif

Do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do.

Mokita!

Link to comment

I have a micro container that won't have space for more than an extremely abbreviated log. (And I'm familiar with the Bison capsules; this is much smaller.) My plan was to include a code as others have done, and use that for verification. I think the folks in my area will appreciate the challenge its size will provide, and I'd hate to miss out on being able to provide that.

 

Ron/yumitori

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

Guidelines that diminish the sport certainly should be removed, but those that foster high quality while leaving open room for creativity are worthwhile.


 

Ah, there's the rub. Who determines those that foster high quality while leaving open room for creativity are worthwhile?

 

The sport (personally, I thought it was a game) is above and beyond GC.com, therefore, who determines what is best for the game needs to be someone/something that represents more than just GC.com.

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:

I have a micro container that won't have space for more than an extremely abbreviated log. (And I'm familiar with the Bison capsules; this is much smaller.) My plan was to include a code as others have done, and use that for verification. I think the folks in my area will appreciate the challenge its size will provide, and I'd hate to miss out on being able to provide that.

 

Ron/yumitori


 

If I'm understanding thing correctly (and I have been wrong before, so it's possible I am now, too) the logbook "requirement" is just for Traditional caches. Don't want a log book, list it as "Unknown" instead of traditional, not that big a deal.

 

I'm lost. I've gone to find myself. If I should happen to get back before I return, please ask me to wait.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Frolickin:

The sport (personally, I thought it was a game) is above and beyond GC.com, therefore, who determines what is best for the game needs to be someone/something that represents more than just GC.com.


 

The concept of geocaching is not exclusive to Ground Speak and Geocaching.com. However their representation of geocaching is. They have the exclusive right to make any rules and regulations they see fit in maintaining the integrity of their representation of geocaching.

The way geocaching is represented some where else and by anyone else is entirely up to them. However if you are going to participate in Geocaching.com there are some simple, although possibly dynamic, rules and regulations to follow. If you do not agree with their representation of geocaching then you are welcome to enjoy geocaching in some other venue.

 

39197_2100.gif

Do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do.

Mokita!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by leatherman:

The concept of geocaching is not exclusive to Ground Speak and Geocaching.com. However their representation of geocaching is. They have the exclusive right to make any rules and regulations they see fit in maintaining the integrity of their representation of geocaching.


 

My reply to this argument is found here:

http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000917383&m=2570915355&r=6520918355#6520918355

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Link to comment

For use, Red and myself, we like reading the logbooks.

 

As for requiring a logbook, that will be decided by the community of geocachers.

 

Period. If we want them as a requirement where possible, it will happen.

 

If not, then it will remain an option of the cache owner.

 

I like leaving them for the "accidental" finder to write in and read about the game.

 

After all, not everyone who finds the cache is playing the game.

 

And on a closing note, Red and I vote required.

 

logscaler.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by leatherman:

_Log books can be very important investigative tools_

In my http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=20336 cache, I had to replace the 100 page logbook already. There are only 72 internet logs.

Two TBs were taken from the cache without an internet log. The only way I could have tracked them down was with the cache log. The Team that took one of the bugs had not logged any finds for six months. It took another three months to get a response from them. They finally logged the TB out of my cache and apologized. However without a cache log there would be no evidence of this cachers visits.


 

This is another good reason for the logbook. I have seen TBs go missing here in Memphis when we looked at the logbook it showed that someone found the cache and logged it in the book that they took the TB, but never logged it online. It helps that we can use that to try to contact that person and give him a kick in the head and drop off that TB. icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

I see a lot of good arguments in here for requiring a logbook. Most of these arguments pertain to average size+ caches. My opening opinion was that they should not be required. These arguments have changed my opinion. I now think that they should only be optional on a micro cache. I like the email verification that I see in micros. I also think that billybob2's email verification of a 15 digit code (in the other thread) is a bit much, but if it were near me I'd probably do it anyway. Simple phrases are much better.

 

Thanks,

JetSkier

Link to comment

Sometimes when I've been caching I have come upon caches I couldn't log because of the traffic in the area. In cases like these I think a quick picture of the cache and my GPSr taken with my pen cam would be proof of my visit. In the beginning I would write long log entries but now I find myself just writing the date and signing my name. I save my detailed write ups for the computer logs.

 

Lake Tahoe Geocacher

Link to comment

I tend to just write my name, date, whether I took anything or not, maybe a quick note about the weather.

 

For me, it isn't because of traffic, its because of a condition in my hand which makes it quite painful to write more than a few lines at a time.

 

I personally think logbooks/sheets should be required, however it should be completely up to the cache owner whether or not to accept a find if someone doesn't sign the logbook. We need to allow for cases such as TahoeJoe's, where there is too much traffic to log safely, and mine, where there is a physical disability involved, and all the other reasons that I'm certain exist...

Link to comment

Optional icon_wink.gif. A logbook certainly doesnt make for a better cache. As far as proof of the find, I for one dont need to see the physical log where someone hit one of my caches. They are only cheating themselves if they do log a false find online and its not that big a deal! There are some Cachers that never even sign the logbook anyways. Guess i should go check and if they didnt , delete their find icon_rolleyes.gif

 

It should be left up to the cache hider depending on how he wants to set his cache up. For me personally, i like putting in the logbook most times. There was that one though where i didnt feel it was needed and yes, it stirred up this Thread on the subject last year. Cache has logbook now but i still dont see why it was needed in the first place. icon_confused.gif

Link to comment

In my opinion, this is a severely skewed poll. There is one option for "logbook should be required", yet, two for "logbook should be optional" If "Logbook should be required" were split beteeen micros and and all, I think the votes would even out a lot. Purely this poll was designed by someone with a motive.

 

I think all caches should have some form of VERIFICATION. It does not have to be a logbook by any means, though I would think that would be the most obvious and easiest. Geocaching is fun when there are few rules and a the cache hider can make his cache any way he desires within the confines of legality and safety. If he wants to verify with a photo or email, who cares?

 

We don't need no rule telling us we need a logbook!

 

If carrots are so good for the eyes, how come I see so many dead rabbits on the highway?

Link to comment

I personally like to find a log book. A log book can show you how many muggles found your cache and thought well enough to log in. I like to sit and read the log through when the weather is nice and the bugs aren't attacking without mercy. I like to see who was there just before me when I get there, and maybe see if I just missed meeting someone on the trail. I think a log book would be wanted in a larger cache but in a micro it should be up to the cache owner if one will fit, or if there would be another form of verification. I've only found one micro so far and it had a log book. I think everyone should log on line for the next geocacher to know what to expect.

 

Cache you later,

Planet

 

I feel much more like I do now than when I first got here.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by brdad:

Purely this poll was designed by someone with a motive.


 

I don't see that at all.

 

It clearly shows that the majority of people feel a physical cache needs to have a physical logbook. Half as many feel that only when a cache is too small for a decent sized logbook should it be optional. Even less than that feel that a logbook is completely optional regardless of size.

 

I don't see that as being slanted at all.

 

Besides, from the votes cast, it looks like if you used the question of "should logs be optional in micro caches" is still looks like they should be required.

 

quote:
We don't need no rule telling us we need a logbook!


 

Maybe, not. But by the same token then there should be no rule that the approvers have to approve your cache without one.

 

Personally, I don't want to let the game deteriorate to "anything goes." One person used an example of a wad of gum in a film canister. Is that what you want?

 

The forums are filled with efforts to get geocaching allowed on public parks and land. There is enough restistance as it is. What do you think governement-type muggles think when they see such trash caches? Will it make them more likely to allow caching on the lands under their ward, or no?

 

No. I think there should be standards and rules to enforce them. Clear-cut standards are needed so when we go to ask permission to place a cache in a certain park the land manager can be fairly certain what is going into his backyard.

 

Not all land managers are going to have internet access. The logbook could be their only source of finding out who is finding the cache.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

quote:
Originally posted by brdad:

Purely this poll was designed by someone with a motive.


 

I don't see that at all.

 


 

Thanks CR! No motive on my part. I was simply responding to the thread started by billybob2 which deteriorated into a discussion about logbooks. I was simply curious. At first, I didn't feel they should be required. Because of the many views posted to this thread, I have changed my stand. I think they should be optional on micros only. BUT, you still need a form of verification.

 

Thanks,

JetSkier

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

No. I think there should be standards and rules to enforce them. Clear-cut standards are needed so when we go to ask permission to place a cache in a certain park the land manager can be fairly certain what is going into his backyard.

 

Not all land managers are going to have internet access. The logbook could be their only source of finding out who is finding the cache.

 

CR

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/72057_2000.gif


 

Well then, in this case anyone who enters the park should be required to fill out a form with their name, address, phone number, license plate number, next of kin, phone number of next of kin, and name of first born, social security number, and be photographed, before being allowed to use a park that their taxes have paid for. We wouldn't want the land managers to be left out of who is playing in their backyard, would we?

 

Cache you later,

Planet

 

I feel much more like I do now than when I first got here.

Link to comment

The "Purely this poll was designed by someone with a motive" part was meant to be a crack at typical polls in the liberal media, but I retracted most of the comment and forgot to put the smiley back in.

 

I am sure no ill-intentions were there when the post was made, but it is still skewed. It would have been better to have something like:

 

1. Logbooks should be mandatory in ALL caches (excluding virtuals).

2. Logbooks should be mandatory in TRADITIONAL caches only.

3. Logbooks should be mandatory in MICRO caches only.

4. Logbooks should not be mandatory in ANY CACHE.

 

If carrots are so good for the eyes, how come I see so many dead rabbits on the highway?

Link to comment

Ok this may be a dumb question but what is a log book?

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________________

So far so good, somewhat new owner of a second/new Garmin GPS V 20 plus finds so far with little to no problem. We'll see what happens when there are leaves on the trees again.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

 

Not all land managers are going to have internet access. The logbook could be their only source of finding out who is finding the cache.

 


OK, this part is dumb. What good is it to the land manager to know that "Sissy&CR" were at a cache, especially if they don't have internet access?

 

As for the rest of the subject:

I vote for always having a log in a traditional, and I would prefer one in micros too, but can understand not having one there. I too usually like read the logs cover to cover. Face it, micros aren't very interesting, but at least a signature only log gives a place for the tin hat crowd to log a find. It still offers a way to verify a "questionable" find, even if the hider is no longer active. There lies my only problem with the "email me the password for verification" aspect. Works great if the cacher is active. What happens if the hider looses interest? Yes, I understand the same thing applies to virtuals, which is why I don't have a problem with tightening up on them either. I don't think you should require a logbook on a micro, but it does need to be a fuzzy area, and I can see a red flag going up if a newbie hides one vs someone who has been active for sometime(notice i didn't mention hides/finds. just active).

I've done several virts that were hidden by one of those "gung ho, hide 20 caches and get bored" people. They required a fair amount of hoops to jump through to log a find, but since the person is no longer active, anyone can really log these as a find. After doing several and getting no email response, I logged the last one without emailing the verification. My log stands. Now I know with a virt you have no choice, but with a physical cache, it would be nice to compare logs to see if they match. Yeah, it's a game, and nobodies numbers but mine matter, but I do like to know if there are people in my midst with questionable morals. Maybe if I approached geocaching from a solitary point of view, other peoples morals wouldn't concern me, but since I consider fellow cachers as friends, I like to know what sort of friends I have.

 

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

Link to comment

In the link on 'how to place a cache' off the main geocaching page, it explains: you need a cache container, a logbook and something to write with.

 

The geocaching note is encouraged, and trinkets are welcome, but optional. So that pretty much tells us what the basic idea of a geocache is.

 

We were reading a log book on a southeastern Idaho cache that said ... "crossed the bridge from h*ll!" We laughed out loud, because we had just crossed that bridge, too. But that wasn't in the online log, only on the physical log. Physical logs add an element of enjoyment and expression to the sport.

 

Other times it's too dang cold to write in the logbook, and I've written exactly that: "Too cold -- more online!"

 

So obviously I think log books are a good idea icon_smile.gif

 

However, they are sometimes a struggle to include in microcaches, so, for the record, I voted they be optional for micros.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Planet:

 

Well then, in this case _anyone_ who enters the park should be required to fill out a form with their name, address, phone number, license plate number, next of kin, phone number of next of kin, and name of first born, social security number, and be photographed, before being allowed to use a park that their taxes have paid for. We wouldn't want the land managers to be left out of who is playing in _their_ backyard, would we?


 

icon_rolleyes.gif

 

Geocaching is a really new game/sport/hobby. Most of the decision makers responsible for the land under their care don't know about geocaching or the concept behind it. They will inherently want to know what's going on, what the impact is, if there is enough interest to warrant the time involved, etc. etc.

 

The other activities on their lands, they already have firm grasp of what is involved. I'm sure there have already been many studies and experiences made with hiking, boating, orienteering, and a host of other activities that might happen on their lands. But what about geocaching? How does it affect the other visitors to the park? Will it bring a lot of visitors? Will it have a negative impact on the lands? All of these things need to be monitored until they feel comfortable.

 

We all know of activities that are not allowed in certain places. One prime example is skateboarding. Many places have banned it because of the negative impact it has had. Then again I've noticed more and more places dedicated to skateboarding. It's not that skateboarding is bad in itself, but there are certain places where skateboarding is not desirable. Because of these sometimes skateboarding can have a negative image, especially when skateboarders defy the prohibitions. Then, there are kneejerk reactions in policy making and bans on skateboarding when the area may very well be a good place to allow it.

 

We want to constantly be vigilant that our sport remains a good, clean sport. One way to do that is maintain a set of rules and standards. No one is trying to implement draconian measures, only a clear set of rules and standards so everyone can be on the same page.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

OK, this part is dumb. What good is it to the land manager to know that "Sissy&CR" were at a cache, _especially_ if they don't have internet access?


 

To monitor the activity the cache is getting is really the only reason I was thinking of.

 

See my above post for more.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

OK, this part is dumb. What good is it to the land manager to know that "Sissy&CR" were at a cache, _especially_ if they don't have internet access?


 

To monitor the activity the cache is getting is really the only reason I was thinking of.

 

See my above post for more.

 

CR

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/72057_2000.gif


CR, while I agree in principle with what you say, and I am all for logbooks, I don't see how they show land managers what sort of people caches attract, which is what I got from your previous post. Now, if what you were getting at is the logbook at least gives land managers a way to check how many people are visiting the cache, that I can understand. I still don't think how many people is the issue for a land manager though. I think whe issue is what sort of impact the people are having on the surrounding area, and that can be evaluated without knowing how many people signed the log. Like I said, I still agree that a logbook is a good idea in most cases anyway, I just thought your statement about land managers using the log to see who was visiting the cache was a bit off.

 

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

Link to comment

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...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...