Declined

January 30, 2004

My cache got declined because it was too close to someone elses and they said that it was unclear as to the cache.

it is a multi cach ment for one to see the sites but at the end is a lost treasure, The cache for me was to either find the log and write in it and take picture or just take a pic of the place you think it might be to get awarded credit.

So I don't see how that is unclear and if we follow the no 500ft or so rule what about all these events and cache's that end up together in one place.

Also I looked at the other cache's in the area (didn't go find them the day I was there duh!) but I figured out about where they were and it is more than 500ft away I will get out my messuring tape to prove it to.

Well what do you think SHould I post it here and get warned or should I forget and let everyone know that while they did not approve it I will maintain it over the years anyways.

9.4k · January 30, 2004

Do the finders need to sign the logbook or take a picture?

The first choice describes a traditional multicache. The second describes a virtual.

The approvers won't bend over backwards to approve a virtual for you, especially where a traditional cache would work. Since you've placed a container, obviously a virtual isn't going to get approved there.

Try moving your cache another 50 feet or so away from the other nearby cache. The separation between caches should be at least 528 feet.

January 30, 2004

Seems to me like you decided.

Best of luck to you old friend.

3.9k · January 30, 2004

wow. ok. Let me try. First of all work with your local approver. The rule is 528 feet away. Is it at all possible to move the cache that is in question so it is at least 528 feet away. Also it seems as if you are placing a traditional/virtual cache. Is that correct? In other words you can either find the container or take a certain photo to verify you were there? It does seem a little unclear as to what type of cache it is. Like I said work with your approver first. If the cache is only 510 feet away from another cache but you have a good reason for that they might be flexible.

24.7k · January 30, 2004

If they want they can have them take a photo of themselves standing on the cache with a jesters cap on to log your find. The log book as much as everyone likes it is just a courtesy.

2.3k · January 30, 2004

To quote from the Geocaching guidelines:

Traditional Caches

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook. The cache may be filled with objects for trade. Normally you'll find a Tupperware-style container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("microcache") too small to contain items except for a logbook. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache. A container with just an object or codeword for verification may NOT be approved if the cache does not also include a logbook.

you are never wrong following the guidelines for cache approval. Makes the approvers job so easy. We really would rather approve caches.

Edited January 30, 2004 by CO Admin

21.9k · January 30, 2004

While I am not the volunteer reviewer who archived Megamog's cache, I did look at his submission because I share review duties for Ohio. I concurred in the decision to archive the cache, and to ask Megamog to move his cache and clarify his description.

Here is the text of the cache description:

This is a tour cache the reward is to see the winter sites. I gave this ahigh difficulty rating because the snow is atleast a foot and is very slippery and there is climbimg of slight hills that are coverd in snow and ice.

Ok this is my first cache and I named it lost treasure because that is what it is. You see when I was younger I put a time capsule into the ground and it remans ther until atleast last summer now the ground is frozen and I am unable to check to see if it is still there.

Your mission is to follow the waypoints around and visit this wounderful place (wich has been listed in other hunts)

While there you might see some clues I left that lead to a new timecapsule I left. since it is not a cache there is nothing marking it as a geocasche, it's just there and you may vist Please log yourself if you like and bring small things to trade.

The waypoint above is your starting point. You may park there between sunup and sundown

The published coordinates are 364 feet from another cache.

I am not sure whether this is a cache, a time capsule, a virtual or something else.

7.2k · January 30, 2004

JMBella, as the person that reviewed the cache, it was unclear to me too. That is exactly what I said in my note when I archived the cache. Megamog, I won't warn you by any stretch for bringing the discussion here. It would have probably been easier to email me directly though. The first reason the cache was archived was for proximity.

Excerpt from the cache page:
it is a multi cach ment for one to see the sites but at the end is a lost treasure, The cache for me was to either find the log and write in it and take picture or just take a pic of the place you think it might be to get awarded credit.

The clues and coordinates were written into the hint and it did not seem to really be a multi-cache. A multi-cache uses clues to lead you to the cache. Your different locations just seemed to be a tour of the park. That is not really a multi-cache. All you had to do was read the last clue location and you could skip the rest. That makes it a traditional cache hide, not a multi-cache. Your coordinates for a multi-cache should be in the description and not in the hint. The hint is there in case you get stuck and want a nudge or spoiler information to find the cache.

You also said as the last part of the hint, "If you can not find the treasure, post picture of the area of where you think it might be, and tell me what the writing on the large stone wall said." That is basically a virtual cache. This would not qualify under the guidelines for a virtual cache. People should not have to just take a guess to log a find for the cache. They should sign the logbook to claim a physical cache as found.

I think that this cache could be made workable and I had hoped that you might email me. As I said in my note to archive the cache, "it is hard to tell if there is a container with a logbook or what. The description is unclear." If you would like to work on getting the cache approved, feel free to click on my name on this post and email me through the GC.com email system. I have expressed most of my concerns about the cache here and maybe we can get this one approved for you. You do not have to enter a new cache. Just modify the description and the coordinates on the existing page.

24.7k · January 30, 2004

I know of a cache that is a 5 for rock climbing and a puzzle cache to boot. You can log the find if you solve the puzzle find the cache and send a photo of the cache. After all the work the figured you deserved the find even if you weren't a rock climber.

To me that is perfectly valid. In this case it's a little different in that he's given you an out if you can't find the box and it's not quite as difficult as the one I'm aware of.

While you have to have a log book in any cache that can accomodate them there is no rule that says that log is your key to the find. That's up to the owner.

A cache that is both traditional and virtual has precidence and there is no specific prohibition for them. This seems approvable if he moves whatever stage needs move or explains exactly why it needs to be where it's at.

3.9k · January 30, 2004

I knew this sounded familiar. Check this out. Funny how I said it wouldn't fly. Guess I was right. Can I be an admin?

24.7k · January 30, 2004

... Can I be an admin?

Careful what you wish for...

3.9k · January 30, 2004

Just for reference. Here is a Traditional/Virtual Hybrid.

Captain's Cache I don't know if this same cache would be approved today. However description seems much more clear and it is not within the 528 feet of another cache.

7.2k · January 30, 2004

While you have to have a log book in any cache that can accomodate them there is no rule that says that log is your key to the find. That's up to the owner.

Actually, there is such a guideline.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

Traditional Caches

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook. The cache may be filled with objects for trade. Normally you'll find a Tupperware-style container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("microcache") too small to contain items except for a logbook. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache. A container with just an object or codeword for verification may NOT be approved if the cache does not also include a logbook.

Virtual Cache Posting Guidelines

4. An original photo posted to the cache log can be an acceptable way to verify a find, or an email to the owner with valid answers for the question or questions. In NO cases should answers be posted in the logs, even if encrypted.

A photo of the area is not a valid find for a traditional cache. That would be a virtual cache.

24.7k · January 30, 2004

I found all kinds of references to logbooks being placed in a cache to get it listed on this site, but nothing that said you had to sign them or that you had to require that your finders sign them.

Logging rules are set by the owner. What exactly is wrong with an alternate form of logging so long as all the rules that do exist are covered by having a log book in the cache?

3.9k · January 30, 2004

RK is right. As the cache owner it is my responsibility to have a log book in the cache. But if I want to accept a photo of the person with their GPS and cache in the photo instead of them signing the logbook, that's up to me. This was also talked about here. The general consensus by most, including some admins was that it was up to the cache owner.

January 30, 2004

I think there should be some sort of limit to the number of spelling errors, grammer errors and just plain confusing text that can be in a cache description. My problem with the initial post (and the submission) is that the hider is flat out incoherent. Who needs that?

3.9k · January 30, 2004

I think there should be some sort of limit to the number of spelling errors, grammer errors and just plain confusing text that can be in a cache description. My problem with the initial post (and the submission) is that the hider is flat out incoherent. Who needs that?

I'm guessing he is from another country. That would be his accent in writing.

And by the way. You spelled grammar wrong.

January 30, 2004

Ok, I get it.

First as for my spelling, I am a programer and often the words I normally spell are incoherent and has made me a terrible speller.

However in my updated try at a cache I will remember to use the spell check.

You are all right, I did just placed some waypoints to lead you on a tour and it just so happens by following the waypoints one would find the cache. Yes, there is a time capsule and yes there is a cache.

The time capsule was left by me 7 or 8 years ago and is frozen behind a rock in the dirt and will not be accessible till spring, I chose to place the waypoints and the rock was marked several years ago (unfortunately I have noticed that it gets messed with by some people who know it's there) The time capsule is the secret find if you find it good if not you where not meant to.

The cache was place in a spot that I thought was dangerous and in the winter snow extremely dangerous, so I gave a way for people to find it without having to put their life at risk.

As for being 364ft from another cache and a rule of 528ft

This was my first attempt at getting an accurate waypoint and I estimated between 3 different readings. It was snowing hard that day and I was having trouble with the signal. The sun was blacking out my screen as it some time does. and I have said I would get a tape measure and go and measure this personally.

I am going to find the caches in this area and see if I can get a better distant reading, but this might not solve the problem. I can always re-hide it and take some waypoints away.

As for the defunct in giving away the last waypoint, I was overly concerned about making this to hard.

I also have talked about and will bring back up that I am not very good at following rules, I know tuns of places that people would love to see, but you have to bend the rules to get to them and in some cases completely break a few. So I got excited by remembering the time capsule and wanted to share with the geocachers my wonderful little place but the politics have forbidden it by 528ft.

Fortunately I have come up with a way to do everything I wanted, Thanks to all of you for your suggestions I will be out this weekend fixing my cache and hoping to get it approved and I am setting out to hide another the new cache will have an alternative cache in it to find IF one chooses, but doesn't have to get credit.

One last thing I thought the photos would be a nice way to remember ones visit to this place.

January 30, 2004

Wow! This great. Someone bringing up a discussion about a cache in a constructive manner. You have been very reasonable, and I'm sure once you get the details ironed out you'll get your cache approved.

The 528 foot rule is a good one, but as JMBella pointed out 500 feet and a good explanation will sometimes be fine. Don't get discouraged. People like you who can show others unique places they never would have found are the lifeblood of the sport.

As far as bending or breaking the rules, I think that if you work with your approver you can get people to all the interesting places you know about, AND follow the rules. They aren't that restrictive, and whatever your problem is, chances are it's been encountered and solved before.

Welcome to the sport!

Finally, thank you for exploring your placement issues without flaming the mods, baiting the people who responded to you, threatening to destroy the other caches or sending out emails telling people how the approvers suck.

1.5k · January 30, 2004

It's nice to see a positive thread about caches not being approved and what to do in order to correct it. Sure, there's been some levity thrown in, but all in the name of good fun.

Certainly a far cry from some of the explosive initial first-posts about caches that were rejected from months past.

7.2k · January 30, 2004

WalruZ, most of the time we fix spelling and grammar errors in the description. I use ieSpell, so all I have to do is right click on the page and it does it for me. Pretty cool stuff. The cache was not approved so I did not spend time correcting it.

Megamog, you don't need a tape measure.

You have two excellent tools to work with.

1. One is your GPS. When you are trying to place a cache make sure you have the waypoints for the caches near the location you want to place a new cache in your GPS. If there are multi-caches near the area, find them before placing a cache so you know where the stages are. When you settle in on a location where you would like to place your cache, click "GoTo" and see how close the nearest cache is. Your GPS is extremely accurate. If you see 0.1 or more, you are good to go. If you see less than that, then you need to move the location until you are 0.1 miles from all the surrounding caches.

2. The second tool is the Hide/Seek Geocaching.com page. When you get home go to this page. Scroll down and you will see a place to enter a search by Search by latitude/longitude format. Plug in your coordinates for your prospective cache location. It will tell you exactly how far away your coordinates are from any nearby cache.

January 30, 2004

mtm-man I checked after you posted the last waypoint which is the cache is 0.1miles from another interesting how that was one of the main reasons it failed and now it seems it might be ok? Doesn't matter I will diffinatly be fixing this cache.

In retospect this is going to probably be my only normal cache all the rest I will be hidding will be real adventures sure to get me kiked out sooner or later

going to start with some nice places going to have acouple that have to be solved via clues not waypoints and going to have some funny and interesting stuff.

7.2k · January 30, 2004

I am glad it looks like we will get things going for you. Send me an email through my profile once you get things set up. Like I said, the cache was a bit unclear but this shows that it can be worked out.

Be careful with your cache placements that are "on the edge". You are in a very sensitive area regarding caches. ALWAYS ask for permission to place a cache in your area. Some places do not mind caches if you ask to place them but they will remove them immediately if you place one without permission. There are areas that have banned caches near you as well. Ask for permission to be sure. The problems stem from cachers putting out caches without permission and I know you would not want to damage work that is being done by local cacher to repair relations with local officials.

2.1k · January 30, 2004

While you have to have a log book in any cache that can accomodate them there is no rule that says that log is your key to the find. That's up to the owner.

Actually, there is such a guideline.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

Traditional Caches

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook. The cache may be filled with objects for trade. Normally you'll find a Tupperware-style container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("microcache") too small to contain items except for a logbook. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache. A container with just an object or codeword for verification may NOT be approved if the cache does not also include a logbook.

Virtual Cache Posting Guidelines

4. An original photo posted to the cache log can be an acceptable way to verify a find, or an email to the owner with valid answers for the question or questions. In NO cases should answers be posted in the logs, even if encrypted.

A photo of the area is not a valid find for a traditional cache. That would be a virtual cache.

Again, mtn, we have the problem with the word "may".

A cache *may* not be approved without a logbook. Then, guess what, it *may* be approved as well.

If you want to quote the "guidelines" as rules, then call them rules and state that any traditional cache box large enough for a qualified logbook will not be approved without a qualified logbook inside of it.

Also, quoting the virtual guideline on photo-logging does not in any way have bearing on whether a photo is capable of verifying a find for a traditional cache.

It is the owner's responsibility and right to determine if a finder has found their cache. GC.com has always left this to be the case. I hope this is not going to change any time in the near future.

January 30, 2004

"It was snowing hard that day and I was having trouble with the signal. The sun was blacking out my screen as it some time does".

HUH?

7.2k · January 30, 2004

Again, mtn, ...

Sorry, but once again we are...

2.1k · January 30, 2004

It's good to see that everyone is able to find pictures of upside-down horses on the internet.

If that is the level of responses expected by people unwilling to discuss an issue, then this board's marginal utility for "geocaching topics" outside of opinion polling just went down the drain.

Your ad hominem defense does not address my point.

It would be nice to see people on this board not feel compelled to post to a topic if they don't have anything further to add on the subject(s) within. When someone's post is specifically addressed in that topic, it'd be nice to see them respond intelligently or post a link to where they have given their opinion on the topic previously.

7.2k · January 30, 2004

It is not an upside-down horse, it is a beating a dead horse. That is a reference to an argument that has been argued to death. I stated my point and you have stated yours. Great.

As Brian - Team AI said so well, "It's nice to see a positive thread about caches not being approved and what to do in order to correct it." I would prefer this one topic to remain positive. I am not going to participate in dragging this topic down as you seem to want to do. You may feel free to argue with yourself if you like.

January 30, 2004

Be careful with your cache placements that are "on the edge". You are in a very sensitive area regarding caches. ALWAYS ask for permission to place a cache in your area. Some places do not mind caches if you ask to place them but they will remove them immediately if you place one without permission. There are areas that have banned caches near you as well. Ask for permission to be sure. The problems stem from cachers putting out caches without permission and I know you would not want to damage work that is being done by local cacher to repair relations with local officials.

mtm-man brings up a good point. Geocache permission rules in Megamog's home area vary widely. A number of local cachers have spent a lot of time working on securing good relations with local park managers. Much of this is done behind the scenes and the scope of involvement isn't even known by all the local cachers.

If you aren't 100% positive of the rules in the area where you are placing the cache, be sure to ask. The same goes for ownership boundaries and who is responsible for the land management of a certain area. There are a number of members in NEOGeocachers, including some of the land managers, who are very familiar with the local regs and who would be more than willing to help.

3.9k · January 30, 2004

I have a simple solution. Take out the word may. Add the word will. As in the cache will not be approved without a logbook. Same as your cache will not be approved if it is within 528 feet of another cache. However, working with your local admin and explaining your reason for an exception would probably yield the result you want. So essential the word WILL means the same as the word MAY, except it doesn't give anybody anything to argue about.

Edited January 30, 2004 by JMBella

3.9k · January 30, 2004

My opinion on guidelines vs. rules. Rules seem to imply that there is little or no flexibility. Guidelines imply that there is . From my experience the approvers are very flexible. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try just as hard to follow the guidelines just because they're not "rules".

2.1k · January 30, 2004

This is true, but "may" and "guidelines" and "flexability" all give the feeling of "come on, it was close"...where peoples' definitions of close, flexable, and so on may vary pretty widely and lead to all of the "why did my cache get denied" here.

If a "rule" with "will" and "rigidity" were laid down on paper, but qualified with "work with your approver before submission if you can not fit these rules" all give the feeling of "good thing my cache meets the checklist required...It was 503 feet this time but 9key really helped out get me by the rule"....where there is no fidgeting over how close is close and we can leave the horses out of it.

January 30, 2004

It's good to see that everyone is able to find pictures of upside-down horses on the internet.

If that is the level of responses expected by people unwilling to discuss an issue, then this board's marginal utility for "geocaching topics" outside of opinion polling just went down the drain.

Your ad hominem defense does not address my point.

It would be nice to see people on this board not feel compelled to post to a topic if they don't have anything further to add on the subject(s) within. When someone's post is specifically addressed in that topic, it'd be nice to see them respond intelligently or post a link to where they have given their opinion on the topic previously.

Yeah, that horse thing is really clever and quite classy. Topics so dead that people cannot resist posting to gripe about people posting. I do agree with you about the "may" thing as well. Face it: they are rules and not guidelines.

9.4k · January 30, 2004

I found all kinds of references to logbooks being placed in a cache to get it listed on this site, but nothing that said you had to sign them or that you had to require that your finders sign them.

So the logbook is just there to take up space in the cache?

Please...

January 31, 2004

Would this be the right time to note that Megamog has only found two caches? And one of those is a virtual that he just drove past and has not answered the question as required by the cache owner (me)?

RichardMoore

1.3k · January 31, 2004

Seriously... It seems most of the complainers in the forums are people who have not even given a decent attempt to JUST CACHE. I think these forums should be closed for a little while. Just so people can appreciate the actual fun of caching, and not bitching about every little thing, and calling the Moderators and Approvers Nazi's and Facists...

2.7k · January 31, 2004

Ok, I get it.
First as for my spelling, I am a programer and often the words I normally spell are incoherent and has made me a terrible speller.

Please forgive me, it's just that I think this is funny:

Yesterday I couldn't even SPELL "prograMMer", and today I R 1.

Ok I knew better. Sorry. Sorry. Please to forgive.

*BITES TONGUE*

January 31, 2004

SHould I post it here and get warned

No

24.7k · January 31, 2004

I found all kinds of references to logbooks being placed in a cache to get it listed on this site, but nothing that said you had to sign them or that you had to require that your finders sign them.

So the logbook is just there to take up space in the cache?

Please...

No silly, the log book is there for you to sign. Signing it is optional. No rule says you have to sign, nor do the rules prevent the owner from having you snap that photo to claim the find.

1.6k · January 31, 2004

No rule says you have to sign...

Please don't give others the impression that not signing the log, when a log is available, is acceptible in order to claim the find online.

I'd hate to argue with someone that logged a find but said they didn't sign the log because it's okay to not sign it. In my book and on my caches, you don't sign the log, you can't claim the find.

If I ever come across a situation where someone says they couldn't sign the log because for whatever reason, I'll go out and verify the problem. I'll then correct it, note their visit for them, and allow the find.

As many of you already know, I'm a firm believer in logbook verification.

However, let's not lock ourselves into a paper logbook. I can see audio and photo logs, too. We should leave the on-site logging to whatever we can think up.

CR

24.7k · January 31, 2004

...
Please don't give others the impression that not signing the log, when a log is available, is acceptible in order to claim the find online....

Relax.

Having a log book as a good idea and it being a good idea to sign it is probably the one thing everyone agrees on more than anything else.

The entire point wasn't to knock logbooks it was to point out that it's the owners control what constitutes a logable find. Logable meaning online.

If you as a cache owner absolutly require that someone sign the log book you better say so. People will then take a little more time to say who was with them.

Once I found a cache at a moment of pounding rain. I chose not to open it. Maybe people in Seattle have better rain skills, but I don't and so the cache remained dry. Right after I left the sun was out and things dried up. That would fail your verification test.

January 31, 2004

I have had the same thing happen. I just sigh and try again.

1.6k · February 1, 2004

That would fail your verification test.

Yes, it would. Just like when there are too many muggles around and you can see the cache, but just can't retrieve and replace it without compromising it.

I know what you're talking about. We've traded in the rain with my poncho covering both of us as Sissy signed and traded. It's all about protecting the cache, but you have to show you've been there.

See, my rules are simple.

I will allow a calling card of sorts if they mention it was raining. I had tought of doing that myself. The card would have to mention it is a log entry and is there only because of extenuating circumstances. It would be laminated and if it's raining, we just crack the container and slip it in.

If the cache owner doesn't allow the find because we didn't sign the log, we'd understand.

CR

2.7k · February 1, 2004

<snip>However, let's not lock ourselves into a paper logbook. I can see audio and photo logs, too. We should leave the on-site logging to whatever we can think up.

CR</snip>

That seems like quite a departure for you, judging from your comments to me on other threads.

So, lets not rule out "online only" logging either, eh?

I understand that your "photo and audio" logs differ from an "online only" concept in that they are "independent" of the online medium and therefore make the online log verifiable.

It was always my contention that we could change with the times and log book signing is not written in the ten commandments.

Obviously, I sit in the minority on this point.

I would reckon that I am more willing to accept "online only" logging because I did not come into the sport from a letterboxing background, where it would be impossible and would totally defeat the purposes of the game.

So, I choose to remain a "bad cache owner" because I don't verify logs in open defiance of the written guidelines.

OBTW, I DID go out on a "hang the faker" quest a couple of months ago. It seems that a cacher had logged 35 some odd caches in one day, 2 of which were mine and the times he listed between caches were simply IMPOSSIBLE.

So, I followed his "trail" for about 5 caches including mine.

I found his name and the exact same times he had listed online in EVERY log book I checked.

The log book DOES have its beneifts.

4k · February 1, 2004

It would be nice to see people on this board not feel compelled to post to a topic if they don't have anything further to add on the subject(s) within.

That would be nice. Most of the times I've seen the dead horse pics, it's because people are saying the same thing over and over and over and over again. That's not discussion, that's ignorant arguing. For a lot of the people that "discuss" subjects in these threads, you could eliminate all posts after their first one, and still not miss anything new that they have added to the "discussion". Talk about saving bandwidth!

February 1, 2004

SqtCacher -

It was snowing hard that day and I was having trouble with the signal. The sun was blacking out my screen as it some time does

The harsh weather seems to knock out the ability for my GPS to get a good signal.

And The sun (I meant how bright it was with the snow being so white, this is Cleveland it can blizzard and still be very sunny out) will sometimes make the pixels on my GPS screen turn black making it hard to read.

Mtn-Man Let me start off by saying that you make very good point on everything you post and you also are very funny and make me laugh (not at your points), so thanks for the advice. Your advice seems sound, I hadn't though about placement problems with local areas and there relationship with the geo's. I was unable to get out this weekend due to my sister coming to visit, but hey I got all week to get there.

RichardMoore - I have only successfully found 1 cache and the other I drive by daily, It was an oversight on my part to think because I figured it out I should be able to log the cache, I have written the author of that cache and I will be going there to complete it. Sorry but yes I am new to the game, Thus the reason for this original question that started this topic. I don't a**-U-ME to know a lot about the sport so please don't a**-U-ME to know me by judging only by the fact that I have only found 1 cache. Give me time I will log plenty more I just have to find away to get this sport in with my RL (Regular Life). That is of course if you where judging me

As far as for logging verses picture lat me state again that I was only trying to not get people hurt, with the log it would be up to the cacher to go and decide if it was to dangerous, but this was my first post and I wanted a way for everyone who wanted to do it to have a way thus the picture.

Can't we all Just get along? :mad:

Edited February 1, 2004 by Megamog

7.2k · February 1, 2004

Thanks for the follow up Megamog.

I don't care if you laugh with me or laugh at me as long as you laugh.

Life is too short.

4k · February 1, 2004

I don't care if you laugh with me or laugh at me as long as you laugh.

Life is too short.

Amen! :mad:

1.6k · February 1, 2004

<snip>However, let's not lock ourselves into a paper logbook. I can see audio and photo logs, too. We should leave the on-site logging to whatever we can think up.

CR</snip>

That seems like quite a departure for you, judging from your comments to me on other threads.

So, lets not rule out "online only" logging either, eh?

Opps, poor choice of words on my part.

By "on-site" I meant "on the ground," "in the wild," or basically "at the cache site."

I didn't intend to mean "on-site" as "online."

Sorry for the confusion.

I doubt anyone could change my mind on some kind of verification process that is checked at the cache.

While I'm no accountant, IMHO logging should be "double entry." A cacher says, "I've visited these caches." A cache log will say, "I've been visited by these cachers."

I find it quite impressive when a cacher shows up at a meet and throws down a thick log and can point to every cache they've ever found. Just like when we're on-site and flip through the logbook seeing how many people have found it.

Again, sorry for the confusion. While I can change my mind on some things, I stand firm on verification.

CR

Declined

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

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