To Log Or Not To Log, That Is Teh Question.

[+hcook1]

I am sure that this is not a new topic, but when I looked through the forum, I could not find anything that resembled this topic, so here it goes….

 

Just to refresh everyone’s memory of the Geocaching guidelines relating to this topic:

 

According to the guidelines at: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#traditional

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.

 

Also, from the geocaching FAQ: http://www.geocaching.com/faq.asp A cache can come in many forms but the first item should always be the logbook. In its simplest form a cache can be just a logbook and nothing else. The logbook contains information from the founder of the cache and notes from the cache's visitors. The logbook can contain much valuable, rewarding, and entertaining information. A logbook might contain information about nearby attractions, coordinates to other unpublished caches, and even jokes written by visitors. If you get some information from a logbook you should give some back. At the very least you can leave the date and time you visited the cache.

 

I found a micro sized microcache container. It was the smallest one that I had seen at the time. Come to find out, there are a few caches around based on the same container. This thing is so small, that you have to really work to get a piece of paper 3/8” tall and 4” long into it – rolled up of course.

 

So rather than making the finders try to write small enough to get their name on the log, I thought it would be more fun to have finders send a message to an e-mail account that I setup for the purpose, and have them include a codeword for verification. If it was of a size that would accommodate a log, of course I would have included a log. I like logs. I try to have a much fun with them as the next person. Further, I fully appreciate and personally endorse the comments in the geocaching FAQ: “The logbook can contain much valuable, rewarding, and entertaining information. Etc. etc. etc.”. However, this cache is so small that the only thing that the log can contain is a list of a few of the recent finders - no valuable, rewarding, or entertaining information. I would expect the log entry for the cache on the geocaching website to serve this purpose.

 

My final point is that the guidelines indicate “MAY not be approved”. To me this indicates that it could be approved given acceptable justification and reasonable accommodations for verifying the find.

 

Am I all wet here? What do other people think?

[+bons]

I wouldn't bet money on it being approved. Finding a way to roll up that strip of paper may be a better solution.

[+Andy and Robin]

We have been to two member only caches in recent weeks that are just as you described, no log at all but a code on the bottom of a small magnetic button that you had to email to the cache owner for permission to log. These apparantly were approved. These were in the San Francisco Bay area.

[martmann]

We have been to two member only caches in recent weeks that are just as you described, no log at all but a code on the bottom of a small magnetic button that you had to email to the cache owner for permission to log. These apparantly were approved. These were in the San Francisco Bay area.

they were most likely grandfathered in before code word caches were banned.

Edited March 11, 2004 by martmann

[+leatherman]

I, personally, refuse to ask permission to log a find.

 

Even grandfathered caches. I will post a note of my refusal to ask permission to log. Maybe even a this should be archived log.

 

I can't believe that these caches were allowed from the beginning.

[+Kite and Hawkeye]

The sentiment against logless caches has been very strong over the last several months, and your chances of getting a log-free cache approved are very low. "It's too small" is not sufficient; someone will inevitably post the picture of the little bitty Bison capsule with its logbook. Yes, the log is too small for anything FUN, but it does fit, and it can even be somewhat interesting (there are more people than you'd think who find caches but don't log them online). We don't use our logs to check up on the veracity of the online logs, but if certain names showed up online I might be tempted to look. Hasn't happened yet and I'm not picky enough to reconcile them monthly with my checkbook. Also, the log can be interesting to finders -- sometimes you're following another team around the same day and it's interesting to see that someone was just there. None of these things is vital to the survival of the universe, but they're enough to make me think it's worth the bother of fitting teeny little logsheets into teeny little caches.

[+Markwell]

The other reason code-word micros were disallowed was the start of a trend. Take a tennis ball (or an old sneaker), throw it into the woods, mark the coordinates, tell me the brand.

[+woodsters]

My final point is that the guidelines indicate “MAY not be approved”. To me this indicates that it could be approved given acceptable justification and reasonable accommodations for verifying the find.

 

Am I all wet here? What do other people think?

Wetter than Sparky Watts.

 

Don't read those words "May not" in a positive note. Read it as "won't be" or "should not be". One persons justification is no better than anothers. Things start to appear and become biased when you will allow for one and not another. Personally I have no problem with codeword caches. They have their place. If codeword caches are being banned, then so should virtuals from that standpoint. But they are still being allowed. I have no problem with any variation of a cache. Seperate them in the findings as they are now. No problem. People don't have to do them if they don't want to.

 

Grandfather clauses are rediculous as well. If a persons cache does not meet the current standard, then they should be afforded the opportunity to upgrade or update it to follow the current. Consider it cache maintenance. Then you do not have to worry about when such and such was made a rule and will eliminate these debates and frustrations.

[+bigredmed]

The problem with code word caches illustrates a problem with geocaching.com in general.

 

Rather than not approving a tennis ball garbage cache, they banned all these. People use tiny scraps of paper for "logs" and thus get their cache approved.

 

Code word caches work for me. I agree with Leatherman, I don't ask permission to log a find. I just log the find.

 

I would like to see these back.

[+mtn-man]

Don't read those words "May not" in a positive note. Read it as "won't be" or "should not be". One persons justification is no better than anothers. <snip>

Yes, and to take that further, the guidelines as quoted read:

 

A container with just an object or codeword for verification may NOT be approved if the cache does not also include a logbook.

 

The word "NOT" is emphasised, not the word "MAY". As I have said recently elsewhere, when my mom told me that I may NOT go outside to play, I knew what she meant. It meant I was staying in the house and there was no maybe about it.

[+hcook1]

Thanks for the feedback. Taking into account all of the input I received, including more than one personal message, code word caches appear to be 50-50.

 

As far as my interpretation of "may not", I guess I'be been hanging out with too many lawyers in the recent past...

 

Oh well, so much for a new idea. Logs it is.