Found It = Didn't Find It

[+ZackJones]

The Village Dam

 

Scroll down to Oct 23 log and start reading there back to the most recent logs

[+OzGuff]

Here is the "Find" that made me re-evaluate my "cache police" policy:

 

I am calling this a find even though I never found it, read on to see why.. I went to this one while on vacation. I had no pictures or clues, just the waypoint. I found parking and bushwacked to the falls and proceeded to search for about an hour with little to no signal on the GPS. When I did get a signal It would say I was 90 feet off from the last reading from the same place! So the GPS was about useless. So I was doing a wide search patern in the woods to the left of the falls. While searching I heard a loud thud/splash. I didn't know what caused the loud noise but I kept searching since it would have been very hard to get back to the falls from where I was. After finishing the area I was at I went back to the falls to get a signal again. That is when I found the source of the noise I had heard, A young deer (1 to 2 years old) Had comited suicide by sliping or jumping over the falls. He can be found at the top of the lower section of the falls in the stream with his head bent unnaturally backwards under it's body. After this I just didn't have the heart to go on. So I am loging this as a find. The next person to visit should be aware that the deer will most likely still be there if there is not a heavy rain. TFTC all the same though. it "was" a wonderful falls while it lasted.

 

I had done cache maintenance a week before so am pretty sure it was there.

[+OzGuff]

I have a cache where the easiest way to retrieve the cache may involve getting your shoes wet. If it has been raining recently you may have to get your shoes really wet, and if it has been pouring the cache may be irretrievable.

 

First the bogus find, then a previous real find where folks went above and beyond to find it. (The real find was by Sissy-N-CR; I am reasonably sure they won't mind eing quoted on this cool find story!)

 

Went back for a second try at this one and guess what, WE FOUND IT!! Now if only we could get to it. Sorry, we did not have our insulated waterproof boots with us so all we could do is look at the cache container. Good hide, but apparently very difficult to reach a fair amount of the time lately.

 

Ozguff, if I had realized that this was your cache when we met on the 15th, I may have had quite a bit more to tell you (but you would have had to cover your kids' ears! )

 

We had finished the 3 caches at Whiteside Mountain, but I had not had enough for the day. I talked CR into doing 'just a few more easy ones right in town'. Finding this cache was very easy. Getting to it was a different story!

 

The water is up I guess, because it went from one side to the other with hardly any dry spots. And it was moving FAST! We started on the wrong side, thinking that a certain man-made object might support my weight and I could just shinny across. I was about to attempt it when the thought of the item breaking, spilling me into the froth to be swept away, as CR gets arrested for interrupting the town's water (or worse, sewer) lines, went through my mind.

 

We regrouped at the top and came up with a better plan. CR tied one of our ropes around a tree, and I rapelled down the slick slope and held on to the rope as I made my way to the understructure. I was holding on to the cache for all I was worth, because I knew it would be irretrievable if I were to have dropped it! I tied the cache to the rope, and CR pulled it up. Then I came up and traded. (TN,left a Bookcrossing book and a package of water balloons.) Then back to the rope to repeat the fun!

 

Once we figured out a (kinda) safe way to do this, it was a blast! But our first thoughts upon finding it would not be suitable for any but mature audiences!

 

Thanks for the fun!

[+Jamie Z]

Another:

 

  November 26 by CACHER (2 found)

Very nice walk. Did not find the cache but did find one red pencil stuck in a log. The wire brush needs replacing and I won't be in that area for another year. The stones were great to read. The day was dry and cool. Thanks for the nice walk.

 

Well, only two, er one find. They'll learn.

 

Jamie

[+Ed Rad]

You gotta love this from a group of high number cachers..

 

.... "Called my friend -------- who was the last one to make a find. Found out he had taken the cache. Verified the location and snapped the attached pictures (see post-sorry for the blurr - or is that just my eyes from the long day of cachign?). This cache should be archived until replaced."....

 

..."We hunted this cache, couldn't find it and then read -----'s log...so we took pictures to prove we were there."...

 

They all logged it as a find and then requested that it be archived since it wasn't there.

 

Kinda makes you laugh, huh??

 

The owner's response:

 

..."I find it interesting that someone can go to a cache, not find it, log it as a find, then request it to be archived. In -----, when we go out to find a cache and it is not there we call them "No Finds"....

 

I'll never have anothother no find again. Hey I was there so I can log it.

Edited December 24, 2004 by Special Ed

[+GEO.JOE]

I found this interesting after I posted SBA note on the 16th.

 

November 7 by xxxxxxxxx (983 found)

This cache is "no more". The lightpost has no collar. I found half of a collar down in the planter island toward the highway. Found no cache remains in the area at all. Before this cache is gone forever I am changing my log to a find.

[This entry was edited by xxxxxxx on Thursday, December 16, 2004 at 5:14:06 PM.]

[view this log on a separate page]

 

November 5 by xxxxxxx (438 found)

Looters got here 1st!! It is GONE! Just as xxxxxx did, I too am claiming this as a "found" since I know that I was at the cache site. I am not a "numbers" cacher however I do like to count the ones that I locate(even though this one was gone).

[This entry was edited by xxxxxxx on Thursday, December 16, 2004 at 5:32:16 PM.]

 

I have a new moto: I like to count the ones that I locate(even though it's gone)!!!

[+Ed & Julie]

November 26 by XXXX XXXXX (137 found)

Couldn't find this one anywhere. Looked for a good 30 min if not longer, but getting dark and cold. Was with XXX XX today, she emailed XXXXXXX and was okay to log as found. Thanks for the treat of being able to log it.

 

 

November 26 by XXX XX (145 found)

Thanks to the cache owner, we are able to log this as a find. It wasn't there but we did look in the right place. Thanks again!!

[+Criminal]

A big "SHEESH" from me:

 

January 1 by Criminal (203 found)

WOW! Finding velcro is the same as finding the cache? I think I (and a number of others) have been playing this game all wrong.

[view/edit logs/images on a separate page]

[upload an image for this log]

 

  December 23, 2004 by xxxxx (1004 found)

I had a pocket query that was a few days old, and didn't realize that this was missing. After a harrowing experience with parking and dodging a very scary muggle on the way to the cache, I did find the velcro but no cache. I punched a small hole nearby the velcro since there was no logbook to sign.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

  December 21, 2004 xxxx (47 found)

Team xxxx is claiming this one as a find. However, the container was NO longer there.

Found the stapled velcro mentioned in previous logs.

This cache needs to be maintained or archived.

Great location and a nice hide. Thanks!

[view this log on a separate page]

 

December 21, 2004 by xxxx (83 found)

OK, I'm claiming this as a find, judging from the previous logs. We didn't find the actual cache, or sign the log, but we did find velcro stapled in place, in the most likely location.

If this was merely a clever decoy, then let me know, and we'll return to re-investigate.

[view this log on a separate page]

Edited January 2, 2005 by Criminal

[+Ed & Julie]

December 5, 2004 by XXX XXXXXX (400 found)

13 of 23 on the day with XXX XXXXXX. Claiming a find on this even though the cache container is missing. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX but someone must have decided that they wanted the cache container. Owner, please visit cache and replace container or archive this cache. TFTC

[+Isonzo Karst]

Found string, but tree fell on cache

 

tree fell on cache

[+Jamie Z]

Found these gems while playing the Memphis version of the lonely cache challenge. The smileys say the cache hasn't been found since August of 2004, but the logs make it clear that it's been a lot longer than that.

 

First

 

  June 21, 2004 by CACHER (1139 found)

(edit: the owner said I could get credit for the find for doing my part to help trash out the area.)

I had no luck locating the cache box, but it may be because this one hasn't been found since October and could just be hidden under a good layer of leaves. There was still plenty of trash around for me to take care of, though. I picked up the picnic area and some of the field and parking lot, but didn't get around to the woods (which some partiers have apparently visited recently) before I was chased off by the approaching storm. I was in town visiting relatives and left the camera at home in Maryville, otherwise I would have a few pictures to share.

 

[This entry was edited by CACHER on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 8:56:19 PM.]

 

Then

 

  August 6, 2004 by CACHER (358 found)

Well i found the sign and I found trash, but I could not find a cache with bags to put trash in. So I used my own bag and as you can see from the picture I found some trash. Thanks for the cache area. I just moved to the area and find this area my favorite.

 

And then my log from today:

 

January 3 by Jamie Z (276 found)

I've been trying to find the local caches which have gone the longest without a find. This one came up with a last find five months ago, but as it turns out, it's been a lot longer than that.

In my opinion, this cache is no longer here, and has been missing since sometime around Halloween of 2003, despite the two logged finds from last year.

 

Best I can figure, the last people who found this cache were Nonnipoppy and Golfnutz, back on October 20, 2003.

 

CACHER and CACHER both logged finds, yet clearly stated in their logs that they didn't find the cache. That's really weird.

 

I kinda wish I'd read that before I headed out to this one, since I figured there was no reason this one wasn't still here. I mean, there weren't any DNFs posted.

 

I poked around for about 30 minutes with a stick, checking around the bases of trees and under and next to logs. I didn't find the cache. There were lots of leaves, so there is a small chance that I just overlooked it, but given the previous two no-finders plus mine, I'd have to wager it's gone.

 

I'd like if one of the previous finders (you know, someone who found the cache) could check it out so we know whether the cache is really here, or whether it ought to be archived. [OWNER] hasn't been around in a while, and I'm fairly sure he no longer lives in Memphis.

 

Jamie

 

So anyway, cache has probably been missing for more than a year, yet nobody knows because folks want a smiley. I don't get it.

 

Jamie

Edited January 3, 2005 by Jamie Z

[+WeightMan]

This one has an interesting history as well.

 

I quote here the last eight logs. The last one on the list is likely the only one of the bunch that really found it.

 

January 1 by Cacher (175 found)

I found the right spot but no cache to be seen.

 

November 21, 2004 by Cacher (92 found)

Do I log this as a find or a DNF?? I found the site easily enough, but no cache. Shouldn't this cache be archived?? It's been missing, according to the logs, for at least a couple of months, and had very wet logs prior to that for nearly a year. This is a beautiful spot and near so much Astoria history.....please fix this or archive it. Thanks!

 

  November 13, 2004 by Cacher (55 found)

lots of aliens around. looked where gps and hint told me to go. looked all over but no cache. could have been off but i don't think it was there.

 

  October 1, 2004 by Cacher (961 found)

No luck. People just sitting in cars nearby, probably holding the cache and laughing at me.

 

  September 22, 2004 by Cacher (26 found)

Found the specific site, but the cache wasn't to be found.

Enjoyed the city and the history, thanks for the find.

 

  September 18, 2004 by Cacher (86 found)

This cache is missing. I am sure I looked in the right place as well as all over (in pouring rain, no less) but I could not find it anywhere. Bummer.

 

  September 6, 2004 by Cacher (84 found)

We put forth good effort and we're pretty sure where it should have been... there was a stub of a pencil on the ground. Maybe it's gone missing?

 

  August 25, 2004 by Cacher (510 found)

Grabbed this one after exploring the nearby maritime museum. Thanks

 

It would appear that August 25, 2004 is the last legit find. Interesting how some cachers count it and some don't. The cache itself is a 35 mm film cannister that has had a varied history with waterlogged cache pages being the norm.

 

Edit: forgot to change a couple of names

Edited January 3, 2005 by WeightMan

[+Monkeybrad]

OK, how about this one.

 

We searched for a cache at a rest area, could not find it. One of the attendants saw us hunting and asked what we had lost, we told them we were taking part in a scavenger hunt and were looking for a clue, that may or may not be here. They ask if it could be a little box, we say yes. They wander off and return in a minute with the cache. They had found it while cleaning and removed it. We inspect the cache open it and sign the log. The attendant wilkl not let us put it back where the hint said it was located so we hand it back to them and they put it back in the office. Their superior does not approve of having the cache there and does not want it replaced. We signed the log, and we "found it" after a manner of speaking. Is it a find? and further should a SBA be logged?

[YouKnowMe]

Is it a find? and further should a SBA be logged?

Yes, it's a find, and yes, you should log SBA.

[+briansnat]

Found a cache last week that was about 20 feet up a lamp post. The logs detail some of the efforts people went through to log it including one person who went back for a ladder that was still too short, then got a friend with a pickup and put the ladder in the bed of a pickup in order to reach it. I got it by duct taping a few ski poles together and hooking it.

 

The page says "You must sign the log to count this cache as a find", meaning that simply spotting the cache doesn't count, yet the 3rd person to log it wrote:

 

    March 20, 2004 by CacherB (285 found)

Found it! Only had enough imagination to stretch about 12 feet. So I could not sign log.

[+Jamie Z]

Here's a few from a non-North American cache:

 

April 10, 2002 by CACHER (2 found)

Well, I went there, found the proper tree, found the location where I think the cache SHOULD have been, but no cache to be seen...

 

May 30, 2002 by CACHER (52 found)

On our vacation, stopped by the two caches near the [landmark]. The tree and hole are there but no container.

 

June 8, 2002 by CACHER (56 found)

Boy did my GPS start doing some wierd things under the [landmark]. I had set the goto function to find this cache and suddenly from 30 m it jumped to 2875 km! I looked back at the position on the GPS at suddenly I was at 72 degrees north!! I had to walk quite far away from the [landmark] to get the GPS to give correct readings again. Found the site, but no cache...

 

June 27, 2002 by CACHER(103 found)

Found where we think the cahce is or was. This is definitely a popular people area. We were not sure if the cache has become virtual or not since we had a hard time locating it. We were right where it should be but the way those gardens are maintained I wouldn't be surprised if the cache was gone. Great spot.

 

July 21, 2002 by CACHER (25 found)

The coordinates were right on. It was easy to find the hole in the small tree where the cache used to be.

 

September 8, 2002 by CAHER (452 found)

Found the tree. A bit rainy today but that didn't seem to slow down the crowds. Sent a picture of my GPS.

 

October 26, 2002 by CACHER (73 found)

What a nice little area. Found the tree with no problem and will be e-mailing the item that is 52 ft from the site. Thanks for the hunt!

 

March 30, 2003 by CACHER (19 found)

Nice place. Seems to be lots of public traffic there during the day, no wonder the cache is gone.

[city] is always worth a trip!

 

Guess it's not just a US phenomenon.

 

Jamie

[Trinity's Crew]

 

If I can HOLD the cache but cannot open it for some reason I think that is a find, but you need to contact the owner to let them know why your name isn't in the log book, or send them a pic if you have a camera.

 

  Joe Smith

I found a micro near my house once. I was (and still am, really) a newbie and it was a plastic magnetic keybox hidden under a bench. I tried valiantly to open it, but after a couple of minutes in FRIGID weather, I figured (incorrectly) that it was glued shut. I thought that finding it was "the game" and I logged it as a find.

I have since been back to the micro (in the spring) and it opened right up! Go figure. Of course, that time I forgot to bring a pen! D'oh!

Maybe I'll log a second find once I actually sign the log!

Edited January 17, 2005 by Trinity's Crew

[+Yerocrg]

May 19, 2004 by <name removed to protect the guilty> (85 found?)

The owner of this cache is really not very nice. He deleted my log saying I found this cache when actually I was present when he placed it.

Soooo... I know where it is, I can find it at anytime, don't delete me again, jerk.

 

- <name removed>

This is apparently another log by the same person re-claiming a "find" for GCJBNZ. Check out the owner's two "accidental" finds at the bottom of the page. Amazing what some people will do for a smiley.

 

Yerocrg

[+Jamie Z]

On an archived cache:

 

January 15 by [CACHER] (31 found)

[OWNER], thanks for allowing us to log this as a find! We knew we had the right spot and were glad to confirm that we were in the right place even if we were late!

As newbies we're still learning things....like check the status of the cache before we go . We had downloaded the information right after the first of the year, but hadn't made it to the park until today. We searched and were very confused as to why we had absolutely no luck finding it. After visiting today we remember why we quit playing golf at [PARK]. We feel better than we didn't just totally miss it but it is sad that in a great park like [PARK] one doesn't feel safe on a Saturday afternoon .

Too bad, as newbies, owners ok false finds. Oh well.

 

Jamie

[+Spencersb]

On an archived cache:

 

[snipped to save unnecessary duplication]

Jamie

I allowed this find for a couple of reasons; one, I thought it would illustrate to newbies that they should NOT simply log a "find" when they didn't find it, but should ASK the owner first, and let the OWNER decide. Second, I felt that being a nice guy to a newbie was worth something.

[+Ed & Julie]

January 17 by XXXXXX (1455 found)

  We are logging this as a find..... and a note that it needs to be archived!! Was doing some "clean up" around Chico with XXXXX XXXX today, and came across this one, atleast where it had been! XXXXXXX had found this before and knew where it HAD been, and verified the position. In place of the cache, just under it's former cubby hole, was an old sachel buried in the leaves with two waterlogged porno mags in it. The homeless people that were there obviously have moved on, but left some of their trash behind. Please archive or maintain this cache so others don't waste their time. To bad it's a nice area... maybe another micro nearby?! Thanks, XXXXXX

 

Sorry buddy..had to bust ya on this one

Ed

Edited February 2, 2005 by The Badge & the Butterfly

[+Sparky-Watts]

On an archived cache:

 

[snipped to save unnecessary duplication]

Jamie

I allowed this find for a couple of reasons; one, I thought it would illustrate to newbies that they should NOT simply log a "find" when they didn't find it, but should ASK the owner first, and let the OWNER decide. Second, I felt that being a nice guy to a newbie was worth something.

Noob or not, they didn't find it. Does that mean I can go back to all my first several DNF's and log them as "Found" because I was a noob? Heck, relatively speaking, I'm still a noob, so I'll just start logging all my DNF's as finds. Heck....why waste time and gas getting there, I'll just log every cache in the system as "Found"!! WOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm #1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[+briansnat]

Second, I felt that being a nice guy to a newbie was worth something.

 

I don't think you did them any favors. They may think that's a generally accepted practice and continue doing it and unknowingly wind up with a bad rep among the locals.

[+Spencersb]

I don't think you did them any favors. They may think that's a generally accepted practice and continue doing it and unknowingly wind up with a bad rep among the locals.

I don't think they will, and in any event, the rep for this situation is mine, not theirs. I discussed this with the cacher in question, and the emphasis was that you should NOT simply log a find, but contact the cache owner, who has every right to allow or not allow any find. If you contact the owner, describe your attempts to find the cache, and if they say you can log it, then that's their right as cache owner, if they say no, that's their right, too. I allowed ONE cacher ONE find based on the specific circumstances of their hunt, I didn't say "Hey, everybody, you can log all my caches without finding them, y'all come on!" It all depends on the circumstances. In general, if you didn't sign a log, you didn't find a cache (virtuals aside). I didn't set a precedent of logging DNFs as finds, in fact, I hope to have set just the opposite precedent, but the bottom line is that if an owner wants to delete a log, they can. If the cache is archived, it's easy to tell, but anyone can log an active cache without visiting it, and I don't have time to audit the paper logs. If someone wants to pad their numbers by logging active caches they didn't even attempt, oh well.

 

Here's a copy of what I posted in our local forums:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"File this under "In my humble opinion (which I highly regard)"

 

Some of you will notice that a local cacher logged one of my recently

archived caches after it was archived and removed. This means that,

strictly speaking, they didn't find the cache and sign the book,

since it had been removed shortly before they hunted it. They asked

me, as the cache owner, if they had been looking in the right spot,

and I could tell from their description that, yes, they WOULD have

found it IF it had been there, and allowed them to log the find.

 

Two things, I think, worked like they should here. One, they did not

assume they had found the right spot and log a smiley, but rather

asked the cache owner first. EXCELLENT! :^)

Second, the cache owner is the one who should make decisions like

this. The cache owner has every right to decide what is a find and

what isn't. If the owner had felt that "If you didn't sign the log,

you didn't FIND the cache, and shouldn't log it as a find", the owner

had the right to say, "Gee, I'm sorry, but it's really not a find."

Frankly, this is the way I normally feel when I'm logging my own

finds/dnfs. At the same time, I'm not that hung up on my stats, or

anyone else's, and I felt the gracious thing to do was allow the find.

 

So I think we BOTH did the right thing: They ASKED first, and I

(being the nice guy I am) said "Sure go ahead and log it, since you

were CLEARLY at the right spot." "

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[+Jamie Z]

I'm not sure what to make of this one:

 

January 30 by [CACHER] (7 found)

This one is a good hide. I personaly did not find it. I was only standing close. Thanks for the hunt

The wording makes it sound like another person in a group located it, but nobody else logged a find for that date. I've found this cache, and it is in a very muggle-rich area. Part of me wonders if perhaps he just saw the cache but didn't retrieve it.

 

Jamie

Edited February 8, 2005 by Jamie Z

[Mushtang]

Here are two recent logs for a cache that had been confirmed as missing by the owner after some finders posted DNFs. The owner suggested to the cachers that since they found the spot, that they could change their DNFs to Found It's if they wanted to.

 

I can't believe they did. However, it explains their high find numbers. One of the cachers told me later "I'm not interested in going back to log finds, I just want to get them off my list and move on". This particular cacher has a goal to find 1,000 caches in their first year of geocaching and is on track to do that with well over 900 finds. After I learned how this person caches, I'm no longer impressed.

 

*sigh* this cache has been bamboozeled. hornswaggeled. kidnapped. its a shame that people do things like this. however, thanks to cache owner, he is allowing us to log this before he temporarily disables cache to fix it. thanks for the fun hunt! - XXXX

 

This would have been find #16 on the day for me, but the muggles made sure it was not meant to be. XXXXX pretty much sums it up in his log below. Cache is definitely MIA. XXXX has a photo to email to the cache owner. Would like to be able to log it as a find since we surely would have found it if it wasn't gone. Would appreciate a note from the cache owner regarding this. Thanks, ~XXXX

 

Edited to change to a find per cache owner's note. Thanks!

 

However, if the cache owner doesn't care, I'm not suggesting that their finds be removed. It's just an example for this thread of how people place different values on their finds and their numbers.

 

For some people it's all about the numbers and they'll log finds without signing a log book and it won't bother them at all.

[+Jamie Z]

Wow! I came across this one elsewhere in the forums posted by the person himself.

 

December 17, 2004 by [CACHER] (127 found)

Although I was unable to find the cache as it had been removed, the owner kindly confirmed that my co-ordinates were absolutely correct and that I had been looking in the right place so far as the given co-ords were concerned.

 

He has accordingly and graciously consented to me claiming this one as a find. I wish all cache creators in this part of town were as courteous to cache claimers as [OWNER] is.

 

I look forward to signing the new logbook at the new location next time I'm passing.

 

Cheers

 

Jamie

[+Tharagleb]

Here is my favorite:

 

  This is a visual cache for an unusual site.

 

The site is "unusual", the cache is not a "visual" cache, nor is it a "virtual" cache, it is a micro that can be either very hard, or easy to find. The poster of the above "find" did not sign the log...

[+Tharagleb]

Here's a new one I just found, albiet on a tough climb on a mountain in winter:

 

  This was a tough find, and when we finally found it, the ammo box was fozen in place and we couldn't get it open. We had no tools or anything with us, so we just covered it back up and left it there.

 

Edit: remove extra smiley.

Edited February 16, 2005 by Tharagleb

[+Sparky-Watts]

Here's a new one I just found, albiet on a tough climb on a mountain in winter:

 

  This was a tough find, and when we finally found it, the ammo box was fozen in place and we couldn't get it open. We had no tools or anything with us, so we just covered it back up and left it there.

 

Edit: remove extra smiley.

As far as I'm concerned, they found this one. Hard to prove they did without a sig in the log book, but if they can successfully describe the location and container, I don't think the owner should reject the claim for a smiley.

 

Yesterday, Sunshine and I went caching for the first time together. Our first hunt was for a micro in a small park. After about 20 minutes, I found the sliding lid of a Hide-A-Key in the grass about 10 feet from the object we figured the cache to be hidden on. I logged a DNF (after all, I didn't find the whole cache or sign the log) and emailed the owner with a description of the lid. I had a pretty good idea it was part of the cache container, because it just seems odd to find a Hide-A-Key lid in the middle of a park. Sure enough, the cache container was a Hide-A-Key, according to the owner. We never discussed me logging it as a find, and I won't. Like I said, I didn't find the hiding spot, I didn't find the cache (or at least all of it), and I didn't sign the log. Now, had I found the cache in the hiding spot and wasn't able to sign the log for one reason or another but could describe it to the owner, I would expect him to allow me a smiley on the cache page. Now I get to go back and hunt this one again once it is replaced. And from the logs on the page, I'm expecting a pretty tough hunt for it. That's what it's about for me, hunting, not smilies.

[+mortaine]

"Now, had I found the cache in the hiding spot and wasn't able to sign the log for one reason or another but could describe it to the owner, I would expect him to allow me a smiley on the cache page."

 

Maybe. Unless half of the challenge was getting to the box, as with the cache that was 20 feet up, for instance.

[+Tharagleb]

Here's a new one I just found, albiet on a tough climb on a mountain in winter:

 

  This was a tough find, and when we finally found it, the ammo box was fozen in place and we couldn't get it open. We had no tools or anything with us, so we just covered it back up and left it there.

 

Edit: remove extra smiley.

As far as I'm concerned, they found this one. Hard to prove they did without a sig in the log book, but if they can successfully describe the location and container, I don't think the owner should reject the claim for a smiley.

 

Yesterday, Sunshine and I went caching for the first time together. Our first hunt was for a micro in a small park. After about 20 minutes, I found the sliding lid of a Hide-A-Key in the grass about 10 feet from the object we figured the cache to be hidden on. I logged a DNF (after all, I didn't find the whole cache or sign the log) and emailed the owner with a description of the lid. I had a pretty good idea it was part of the cache container, because it just seems odd to find a Hide-A-Key lid in the middle of a park. Sure enough, the cache container was a Hide-A-Key, according to the owner. We never discussed me logging it as a find, and I won't. Like I said, I didn't find the hiding spot, I didn't find the cache (or at least all of it), and I didn't sign the log. Now, had I found the cache in the hiding spot and wasn't able to sign the log for one reason or another but could describe it to the owner, I would expect him to allow me a smiley on the cache page. Now I get to go back and hunt this one again once it is replaced. And from the logs on the page, I'm expecting a pretty tough hunt for it. That's what it's about for me, hunting, not smilies.

This is just a difference of opinion, but I think a lot of cachers go by the rule you must sign the log book to get a find.

 

I have only logged one that I didn't sign, because the log book was all wet. (But I did find and open the cache.) Now I know better, so the next time I will sign a piece of paper and cram it in the cache and call it a new log book.

[+newbee]

I went on vacation to Catalina island CA, In the loges on the web page. Some one could not find it so they (not the owner) repaced it. so there were two caches in one location with about 3 feet between the two . so then the owner had to came and removed the cache that should not be there.

 

I once found a cache that was arcived, I went hunting a cache that I loaded in to my gps and forgot about. Once I got to the cache location I looked and looked I was about to return to my car and thought that I should check the dumpster. 50 feet away. and yep there it was. with the log book and every thing. I loged my find in the book. rehide the cache (in the right spot) got home and found that it was arcived. the owner arcived the past weak to move it farther up the trail. He didn't know that it was in the dumpster.

Edited February 17, 2005 by newbee

[+WeightMan]

There is a cache near me that is a hard find. Somebody had rehidden it in a slightly changed position. When someone else who had found it before came along after several DNFs and noted that it was not in place, the owner replaced the cache. I was there with a group. Another cacher and I had already found it so we were standing around laughing at the others. At one point I even went in and checked to make sure it was there without the group seeing me. Some time later it was found. The policy of the group was that each person had to find it before it was removed. When the last person (sept1c tank) found it, he announced that he had found it. Since nobody was at the site of the cache, I went down and picked out the cache. Sept1c tank told us that he had not found it there, and he got the one he had found. Long story short the owner had replaced the original with a new on that was about 4 inches away on the other side of an I-beam. The one that everybody had found that night was the original and was in a much easier location. You could actually see it in the new location.

[+Sparky-Watts]

"Now, had I found the cache in the hiding spot and wasn't able to sign the log for one reason or another but could describe it to the owner, I would expect him to allow me a smiley on the cache page."

 

Maybe. Unless half of the challenge was getting to the box, as with the cache that was 20 feet up, for instance.

Yeah, I suppose there would be instances like that. However, if it were frozen to the mountain, or too soggy, as thergleb said, it should still count. No, I wouldn't think that not being able (read "not wanting to go to the hassle) to reach it would be an acceptible thing. Sure, we all know each cache is different and each owner is different, and each of us plays by slightly different rules. No, I'm not a stickler for absolutely no questions asked give your firstborn if you don't sign the log type of rules. If you have the cache in hand (or in ice at your feet) and can't sign the log, you still found it and still get your smilie. If it's hanging 50 feet up the side of the cliff and you're too much of a Nancy-boy to go get it....no smilie for you!!

[+briansnat]

Here's a new one I just found, albiet on a tough climb on a mountain in winter:

 

  This was a tough find, and when we finally found it, the ammo box was fozen in place and we couldn't get it open. We had no tools or anything with us, so we just covered it back up and left it there.

 

Edit: remove extra smiley.

I'd have to give them this one too. At least they found the cache.

[+Tharagleb]

Here's a new one I just found, albiet on a tough climb on a mountain in winter:

 

  This was a tough find, and when we finally found it, the ammo box was fozen in place and we couldn't get it open. We had no tools or anything with us, so we just covered it back up and left it there.

 

Edit: remove extra smiley.

I'd have to give them this one too. At least they found the cache.

Yeah, will I just did a cache where we found the ammo box frozen into the surrondings. We worked very hard to get it open. 'Course, there was a $100 bill in it.

[n0wae]

This cacher has over 600 finds. I wonder how many are like this one:

 

Spent 2 nights up there, and a lot of time out on the viewpoint. Think I know exactly where it was. Even went down on the saddle and climbed around in the rocks and boulders looking for any remnants that a human or animal might have thrown down there. Nothing. I'm going to log it anyway, and then recommend that it be archived

[+Jamie Z]

This is unfortunate.

January 16 by CACHER A (313 found)

Looked and looked!! Maybe it has disappeared? Sent details to owner to check on it.

....after communication with cache owner I realize we found it, so I hereby claim it. After all, we did go through all of the effort and it wasn't our fault that it was gone. We found the place (hole in grass) where it had been. CACHER B will always count this as her first cache - and it made the following hunts seem like child's play.

 

[This entry was edited by CACHER A on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 at 8:08:51 AM.]

and

February 23 by CACHER B (1 found)

This was my first Cache. I tagged along after CACHER A. What a time we had. We struggled through briars, jumped creeks in a single bound, and tried to figure out which pine tree it was under. We never found the actual cache, but we found a hole in the ground that was the right side. So we decided that this was it and we took the credit. When we checked on the internet it had been removed for repair.

After all this, I still decided I loved it and it was onto another cache.

CACHER A's log used to be a frownie, looked like this before the edit:

January 16 by CACHER A (313 found)

 

Looked and looked!! Maybe it has disappeared?  Sent details to owner to check on it.

(CACHER B put the incorrect date on her log)

 

I'm very tempted to send off a short email to point CACHER B in the right direction, to start her geocaching career of right, rather than a false find.

 

Jamie

[+briansnat]

I'm very tempted to send off a short email to point CACHER B in the right direction, to start her geocaching career of right, rather than a false find

 

I think you'd be doing her a favor.

[+Spencersb]

I'm very tempted to send off a short email to point CACHER B in the right direction, to start her geocaching career of right, rather than a false find.

 

Jamie

"'Soft, Gunslinger--Soft!' Cort's voice, not quite laughing, spoke up in his head"

The Dark Tower III-The Wastelands Part 5, ch2

[+caderoux]

Never thought of myself as a cheater (I've got a good shared of DNFs), but I've done this once myself - I considered it found - it was the third trip to a cache (I logged all the DNFs and a spoiler from the hider only confirmed my fears) - a well-placed grey painted film can about two inches from my finger tips - I finally spotted it on the third visit to the site but was unable to reach it. I considered jumping for it, but felt the risk of being unable to replace the cache properly (or damaging the structure) a greater risk.

 

This was my log (on Arbor Day - GCJ099):

 

<< [You'll forgive me for not signing the log.] I'm too short for this one - I finally saw it today, however. >>

 

So you guys tell me - do I have to go back to this fairly high muggle area with a tall person or a small ladder? Would you do it for a film can you've seen and visited three times already? It would be different if there were some trick to getting the cache or traversing water or something (I'm waiting on a few of those myself), but there was no intended need for special equipment or climbing.

[+caderoux]

And I did it on a termite-infested cache (GCJ57C - Southern Comfort) which has since been archived:

 

April 16, 2004 by caderoux (258 found)

4 of 5 this evening. Logged as a find, but didn't sign log, because the maggots put me off (see photo)

[view/edit logs/images on a separate page]

[upload an image for this log]Raw and wriggling, my preciousss

[+briansnat]

And I did it on a termite-infested cache (GCJ57C - Southern Comfort) which has since been archived:

 

April 16, 2004 by caderoux (258 found)

4 of 5 this evening. Logged as a find, but didn't sign log, because the maggots put me off (see photo)

[view/edit logs/images on a separate page]

[upload an image for this log]Raw and wriggling, my preciousss

I personally would count this one as a find. You found the cache and opened it, but the log was in no condition to sign. The other one where you saw the cache and couldn't reach it, definitely not.

[+Wadcutter]

<< [You'll forgive me for not signing the log.] I'm too short for this one - I finally saw it today, however. >>

 

So you guys tell me - do I have to go back to this fairly high muggle area with a tall person or a small ladder?

There are a few around me that are located way out of reach in trees. The trick in getting the container is finding how to get it down. A couple use very fine fishing line. I won't give the clues to get a couple of others. Once you figure out the puzzle they're easy to get. Otherwise, they're just containers hanging way up in trees.

[+The red-haired witch]

I think this is different.

 

If the cache is way up in a tree, every cacher who wants to log it has to find a way to retrieve it (and replace it). If there is a trick, then they have to find it. It`s fair for everyone I think. It is part of the cache and you shouldn't log it without getting the container.

 

On the other hand, is the cache was placed by a 6 feet tall cacher in such a way that only people as tall can catch it, I don`t think it is fair. In this case, there is no trick to it and there might be nothing handy to climb on. Basically, I think it only means that the hider didn't think about shorter people. There is in fact a cache in my area where the description says to bring a stepping stool if you`re under 6 feet tall. Nice to warn me, so I wont try this cache. How exactly are you supposed to walk around with a stepping stool without getting noticed? I`d rather not try this cache than get it muggled.

 

If there was no warning on the cache page and I had done the trip just to see that the container was out of reach, I`d be really tempted to log it.

[+caderoux]

I've climbed trees (meant to be climbed - the only one we have suspended like that is one I made with rope - but it's just gone MIA) and reached in holes where I didn't know if there was a snake or brown recluse.

 

The one out of reach for me is just unfortunate - it is a great hiding spot which is almost perfectly invisible and easy not to be muggled - unfortunately I had no confidence that although I could probably jump up and knock it off the ledge and sign the log, I might not be able to get it back up there safely.

 

As far as the termite cache, the termites had largely covered the cache with pieces of the tree and themselves and I just didn't have the courage to reach through all the wriggling larvae. I did take a photo which shows the cache.

 

None of the other local cachers gave me any grief over these, so I assume they either condone it, don't want to say anything or have done similar themselves.

 

I'm not looking for absolution, just showing how there's probably not hard and fast rules, some of us have probably done some of these things, and although I think logging a find when you just find where the cache was is totally wrong, you gradually run into a bunch of other scenarios...

[+caderoux]

And I think I'm going to go back for that high one - I can probably reach it if I bring some coffee cans or something.

[+Sparky-Watts]

And I think I'm going to go back for that high one - I can probably reach it if I bring some coffee cans or something.

Forget the coffee cans. Just drink lots of coffee. Coffee always makes me jump higher.....

[+briansnat]

On the other hand, is the cache was placed by a 6 feet tall cacher in such a way that only people as tall can catch it, I don`t think it is fair. In this case, there is no trick to it and there might be nothing handy to climb on. Basically, I think it only means that the hider didn't think about shorter people.

 

I disagree. When I encountered a cache like this, I tried building a step from rocks and debris found in that area. When that failed, I walked the half mile back to the car to see what I could come up with. I noticed a beach chair and brought that along and used it to bag the cache. If there was nothing in the car I would have come back another day with the appropriate tools.