Jump to content

Found It = Didn't Find It

Jamie Z

By Jamie Z
in General geocaching topics

Followers 56

Recommended Posts

ByronForestPreserve

+ByronForestPreserve

Posted
Posted

This is all the same cache (including the NM log that was posted before all of them by a different cacher):

 

Needs Maintenance 06/14/2014

Found what was left of the container. No contents.

 

:) Found it 07/09/2014

Found it but it was shattered all over the rocks

 

:) Found it 07/27/2014

Its torn apart and log sheet is gone...don't bother looking :(

 

:) Found it 08/17/2014

I believe I found the top 1/2 of a very damaged container.

Too bad - nice spot.

 

:) Found it 08/27/2014

I just found a destroyed container. Wish I could have found it when it was in good shape :/

Link to comment
tallglenn

+tallglenn

Posted
Posted

After nine DNFs, a cacher with over 90,000 "finds" logs two on an absent cache:

 

Visiting from X. Enjoyed the hunt. Looks like this one might be MIA so I left a temporaary replacement until the CO can check up on it. SL. Thanks for the fun!

 

and

 

Visiting from X. Enjoyed the hunt. SL. Thanks for the fun!

Link to comment
blackdog7

+blackdog7

Posted
Posted (edited)

A 4-stage multi-cache:

 

:)Found it

 

Found the first [stage] but the coordinates inside were way off the trail from what I can tell... so we moved on to other caches.

 

I delete these types of logs, after checking the final container and log to make sure there is no signature. I also email the cacher ahead of time to explain what I'm doing and why.

Edited by blackdog7
Link to comment
tallglenn

+tallglenn

Posted
Posted

After nine DNFs, a cacher with over 90,000 "finds" logs two on an absent cache:

 

Visiting from X. Enjoyed the hunt. Looks like this one might be MIA so I left a temporaary replacement until the CO can check up on it. SL. Thanks for the fun!

 

and

 

Visiting from X. Enjoyed the hunt. SL. Thanks for the fun!

 

Randomly ran across another "mistake" by the same "big numbers" cacher. Is this how we rack them up??? This time it was a DNF and a "Found" on a cache that was archived the same day.

 

Found it 3/22/2015 By 90K+ "finds"

Visiting from X. Enjoyed the hunt. SL. Thanks!

 

Follow my adventures on Facebook!

 

Didn't find it 3/22/2015 By 90K+ "finds"

Visiting from X. No joy here.

Link to comment
Spenny!

+Spenny!

Posted
Posted

After nine DNFs, a cacher with over 90,000 "finds" logs two on an absent cache:

 

Visiting from X. Enjoyed the hunt. Looks like this one might be MIA so I left a temporaary replacement until the CO can check up on it. SL. Thanks for the fun!

 

and

 

Visiting from X. Enjoyed the hunt. SL. Thanks for the fun!

 

Randomly ran across another "mistake" by the same "big numbers" cacher. Is this how we rack them up??? This time it was a DNF and a "Found" on a cache that was archived the same day.

 

Found it 3/22/2015 By 90K+ "finds"

Visiting from X. Enjoyed the hunt. SL. Thanks!

 

Follow my adventures on Facebook!

 

Didn't find it 3/22/2015 By 90K+ "finds"

Visiting from X. No joy here.

I just happen to know who you are talking about, and he has no finds logged on the dates you have listed, could have been a mistake.

Link to comment
NanCycle

+NanCycle

Posted
Posted

I was wondering why a cache I DNF'd a couple years ago suddenly got a bunch of Found It logs over the last few days. Then this one appeared today, yes as a Found It:

 

Couldn't locate this one and since the C/O is obviously inactive, I decided to replace it for them. TFTC

 

So why didn't this one get the reviewer's axe? 3 DNF logs over 2 1/2 years and an "inactive" owner.

Link to comment
TriciaG

+TriciaG

Posted
Posted

I was wondering why a cache I DNF'd a couple years ago suddenly got a bunch of Found It logs over the last few days. Then this one appeared today, yes as a Found It:

 

Couldn't locate this one and since the C/O is obviously inactive, I decided to replace it for them. TFTC

 

So why didn't this one get the reviewer's axe? 3 DNF logs over 2 1/2 years and an "inactive" owner.

Probably (my guess) no one logged an NA?

Link to comment
ThePetrifiedWood

+ThePetrifiedWood

Posted
Posted

I logged a find like this a couple of days ago. This was on a 52 cache "power trail" series. After finding 17 of these caches, all in almost identical placements with only 2 exceptions, I came across a placement like half of the others in the series. Basically a handful of rocks at the base of a tiny sagebrush with a film canister sized gap in between them. I logged it as a find and took a picture of the placement (not the location, only a closely zoomed in picture of the actual placement, not a spoiler if you know the area). If the CO wants to delete the find, I am Ok with that. I'll be back out to finish the trail sooner or later and can pick it up again when I go. I also found one of the caches with 2 containers and logs. My guess is a cacher in a hurry forgot to replace it, and dropped it off 3/10 of a mile down the road next to another cache when they realized they still had it with them.

 

If this wasn't part of a power trail and all of the hides up to this point weren't almost identical, being either sagebrush bushes or the base of mile markers with a rock or 2, I wouldn't have logged a find because there would be no basis for assumption that a cache had actually been there.

Link to comment
Ben0w

+Ben0w

Posted
Posted

If this wasn't part of a power trail and all of the hides up to this point weren't almost identical, being either sagebrush bushes or the base of mile markers with a rock or 2, I wouldn't have logged a find because there would be no basis for assumption that a cache had actually been there.

OK, so you definitely didn't find the cache container nor the logbook, just the place it might/should have been, and still count this as find? That sounds more like geospotting, not geocaching...(note the mentioning of "cache" inside geocaching). What for? Another point in your find statistics and/or an uninterrupted line of smilies on the map?

 

But anyway, feel free to do so, it's your personal interpretation of the game. Just don't wonder, why I only take my own statistics serious. :D

Link to comment
tallglenn

+tallglenn

Posted
Posted

After nine DNFs, a cacher with over 90,000 "finds" logs two on an absent cache:

 

Visiting from X. Enjoyed the hunt. Looks like this one might be MIA so I left a temporaary replacement until the CO can check up on it. SL. Thanks for the fun!

 

and

 

Visiting from X. Enjoyed the hunt. SL. Thanks for the fun!

 

Randomly ran across another "mistake" by the same "big numbers" cacher. Is this how we rack them up??? This time it was a DNF and a "Found" on a cache that was archived the same day.

 

Found it 3/22/2015 By 90K+ "finds"

Visiting from X. Enjoyed the hunt. SL. Thanks!

 

Follow my adventures on Facebook!

 

Didn't find it 3/22/2015 By 90K+ "finds"

Visiting from X. No joy here.

I just happen to know who you are talking about, and he has no finds logged on the dates you have listed, could have been a mistake.

 

We must be thinking of two different people...

Link to comment
Nathanderthal

+Nathanderthal

Posted
Posted

I haven't read through all the posts on this thread yet, so my question may have already been answered. What do you do with the person who "finds" solely by logging online, but never actually goes out and looks for them? We've got a few of those here in my area, but one in particular who likes to log "Found It!" for caches that have gone missing, but that the owner has not yet disabled. The false find often leads the CO to hold off on disabling or even checking on the cache.

Link to comment
tallglenn

+tallglenn

Posted
Posted

I logged a find like this a couple of days ago. This was on a 52 cache "power trail" series. After finding 17 of these caches, all in almost identical placements with only 2 exceptions, I came across a placement like half of the others in the series. Basically a handful of rocks at the base of a tiny sagebrush with a film canister sized gap in between them. I logged it as a find and took a picture of the placement (not the location, only a closely zoomed in picture of the actual placement, not a spoiler if you know the area). If the CO wants to delete the find, I am Ok with that. I'll be back out to finish the trail sooner or later and can pick it up again when I go. I also found one of the caches with 2 containers and logs. My guess is a cacher in a hurry forgot to replace it, and dropped it off 3/10 of a mile down the road next to another cache when they realized they still had it with them.

 

If this wasn't part of a power trail and all of the hides up to this point weren't almost identical, being either sagebrush bushes or the base of mile markers with a rock or 2, I wouldn't have logged a find because there would be no basis for assumption that a cache had actually been there.

Link to comment
tallglenn

+tallglenn

Posted
Posted

I logged a find like this a couple of days ago. This was on a 52 cache "power trail" series. After finding 17 of these caches, all in almost identical placements with only 2 exceptions, I came across a placement like half of the others in the series. Basically a handful of rocks at the base of a tiny sagebrush with a film canister sized gap in between them. I logged it as a find and took a picture of the placement (not the location, only a closely zoomed in picture of the actual placement, not a spoiler if you know the area). If the CO wants to delete the find, I am Ok with that. I'll be back out to finish the trail sooner or later and can pick it up again when I go. I also found one of the caches with 2 containers and logs. My guess is a cacher in a hurry forgot to replace it, and dropped it off 3/10 of a mile down the road next to another cache when they realized they still had it with them.

 

If this wasn't part of a power trail and all of the hides up to this point weren't almost identical, being either sagebrush bushes or the base of mile markers with a rock or 2, I wouldn't have logged a find because there would be no basis for assumption that a cache had actually been there.

 

Oops, double post.

 

There are lots of threads discussing these issues ad nauseum. Basically we all play our own game. If it seems like the right thing to do, do it. Consider each "throwdown" on a case-by-case basis. Do you know the owner? In the quite obvious case you mentioned, I would've replaced the film can.

Link to comment
Ben0w

+Ben0w

Posted
Posted

I haven't read through all the posts on this thread yet, so my question may have already been answered. What do you do with the person who "finds" solely by logging online, but never actually goes out and looks for them? We've got a few of those here in my area, but one in particular who likes to log "Found It!" for caches that have gone missing, but that the owner has not yet disabled. The false find often leads the CO to hold off on disabling or even checking on the cache.

1. Don't do it (for the reason you give in your last sentence).

2. The cache owner is encouraged to delete the log by Groundspeaks rules.

3. You could explain the behaviour to the cacher in question, please be friendly.

4. You may choose to ignore this behaviour.

5. Never be impressed by high find counts unless you know how they were collected in reality.

 

There are several reasons for this behaviour. Maybe someone just trying things, really wanting to raise find counts for some reason (there could be a market for high profile accounts!), or some lazy cacher logs his sufficient finds a long time after he really found them, maybe even a case of team split. It's a disturbance but nothing really crashing the game. Have my answer #5 in mind.

Link to comment
Ben0w

+Ben0w

Posted
Posted
In the quite obvious case you mentioned, I would've replaced the film can.

Please don't do throwdowns. Never. Despite some suggestions it's really not helping the game and BTW is against Groundspeaks rules (there is a section about throwdowns).

 

A cache replacement in accordance with the owner is OK (that's not considered a throwdown).

Link to comment
Seaglass Pirates

+Seaglass Pirates

Posted
Posted

This is from one cache:

 

Found it

We didn't find this one! Definately in the right place. Don't think it's there.

 

Needs Maintenance Needs Maintenance

Not there

 

DNF

Pretty sure I was in thr right location think this one is not there anymore

 

Found it

Have put that I did find this one even though the cache is not there anymore! I see others have said this as well. I'm a local girl so knew I was in the right place and the plaque is badly defaced.

 

DNF

Pretty sure this one is AWOL

 

DNF

The coordinates had us between two possible hiding places.

 

DNF

We didn't manage to find it but we'll probably try again another day.

 

Found it

Cache missing no longer here, definitely in the right place

 

And I've also seen at least two high count cachers logging finds on missing caches the day after it was archived for being missing. They may have done it on far more but we only get notifications of finds on puzzle caches in a certain area. So they may be logging finds on archived traditionals and multys as well. "Spent a good long while on this one and It was missing all along. No wonder I couldn't find it. So I'm claiming this as a find" ... from the same CO ... "This one is missing do not claim a find on this cache or your log will be DELETED!!!"

Link to comment
ThePetrifiedWood

+ThePetrifiedWood

Posted
Posted (edited)

If this wasn't part of a power trail and all of the hides up to this point weren't almost identical, being either sagebrush bushes or the base of mile markers with a rock or 2, I wouldn't have logged a find because there would be no basis for assumption that a cache had actually been there.

OK, so you definitely didn't find the cache container nor the logbook, just the place it might/should have been, and still count this as find? That sounds more like geospotting, not geocaching...(note the mentioning of "cache" inside geocaching). What for? Another point in your find statistics and/or an uninterrupted line of smilies on the map?

 

But anyway, feel free to do so, it's your personal interpretation of the game. Just don't wonder, why I only take my own statistics serious. :D

 

Note that I did log 2 DNFs out of the 26 sites I visited along this power trail, because I did not see any containers, or even the slightest indication that there were any where I was searching. I have no trouble admitting I was stumped and logging a DNF when I can't find the hiding spot. I logged 2 DNF's in this series, in fact. And I also logged a DNF on another cache I attempted in a different area the same week. And it is also likely that the nearby cache that had 2 containers and logbooks explains why this one was missing.

 

I think its silly to assume that most people can't tell when a cache is missing. Are there dishonest people out there who log finds even when they don't even think they found the right spot? Sure there are.

 

But I don't see a problem with a person logging a find when they drive 30 miles only to find an ammo can shaped imprint in the dirt under a log at the coordinates. And if the cache itself is a remarkably well hidden container that the owner went to the trouble to make fake hiding spots to throw people off, then they can delete the finds. No problem. But such elaborate hides are not the norm, and particularly not the norm on a "power trail".

 

Consider the case of a hint that says " Under a flat rock" and there is only one flat rock for 300 yards in every direction and the one rock is right at the coordinates, but there is no container, only an impression in the dirt. That's a find because the searcher did everything required to find that cache. They navigated to the coordinates and accessed the hiding spot. Now if there WAS a container just out of reach, and they took a picture instead of climbing a tree to reach the cache, then they didn't do their part and I wouldn't consider that a find.

 

An active cache means a searcher has a reasonable expectation that if they go to the coordinates, there will be a container and logbook waiting for them. If there is no container, but the cache is not disabled or archived, then I don't have a problem with allowing a find if they can reasonably demonstrate that they did indeed do everything required to access the container.

 

Though I will admit that before doing this series of caches, I thought a "power trail" was some kind of 4x4 or ATV designation. :D

Edited by ThePetrifiedWood
Link to comment
on4bam

+on4bam

Posted
Posted

Interesting thread <_<

 

No problem finding examples of "not found founds". Just yesterday we did a 10 Km tour, 21 caches + 1 bonus. One of the caches was gone, we found the hidingspot empty (as did 3 cachers before us). We saw the same two names in the logs having yesterday's date so we knew these people were there earlier and yet both of them clearly logged "cache is gone" in their FOUND logs.

 

When we started caching the found number stated something about a cacher's experience but these days it seems it only says something about the ability to log online instead of the ability to find containers. The thing is that when talking to other cachers these fake loggers are well known to the community.

Link to comment
Seaglass Pirates

+Seaglass Pirates

Posted
Posted

... and another from a year or so ago which has since been edited away ...

 

Found It.

 

Searched high and low for this one but all we found was some broken plastic which was clearly the remains of the tupperware so i'm claiming this as a find. TFTC

 

-----------------------

 

Needs Maintenance

 

This cache needs replacing A.S.A.P.! Please see my main log.

 

-----------------------

 

C.O.

 

I am not sure that finding some bits of broken plastic constitutes a find but ok.

 

-----------------------

 

Cache still there waiting to be found (it was a fake bolt but a home made one so didnt look out of place at all)

Link to comment
colleda

+colleda

Posted
Posted

Cache containers not needed in Mexico

 

Found it Found it

13/04/2015

 

It's really a pity that it isn't possible to find a hidden cache at this beautiful site any more. So I have to post a photolog of this great location that I wure wouldn't have found without going geocaching. At least in my first holiday in Mexiko in 2010 (when I hadn't yet discovered geocaching as a hobby) I did not visit this great archaeological site. Although the cache is gone, I leave a favourite point because of the beautiful scenery Many thanks to xxxxxxx for hiding this cache! - (#213, 2015-04-13 09:45)

 

Found it Found it

09/04/2015

 

DNF but photolog is Fine. TFTC

 

Found it Found it

09/04/2015

 

DNF but photolog is Fine. TFTC

 

Found it Found it

26/03/2015

 

Edit: I'm changing this to a find because I noticed the cache update. I have been to see these ruins two times now and hope to be back again one day.

 

Found it

24/03/2015

 

Didn't found the Cache but take a picture.

Thanks for showing this place.

Link to comment
jwmoe1973

+jwmoe1973

Posted
Posted

Honest Cacher 4

Member

Caches Found15

Didn't find it 04/15/2015

Looks all around for 20 minutes and didn't see anything :(

 

Clueless Cacher 3

Member

Caches Found93

Found it 04/14/2015

Found the container idol Cacher 2 wrote about. Not sure it is right one. It is a sandwich size camo wrapped container. Inside lid it said letterbox. So not sure if this is right as I am new to cacheing. It did have a log and it is soaked. I guess we can find this. Cacher 2 gave good clues.

 

Not Cacher 2's cache to give false clues on... And NO, you didn't find a cache. You found a Letterbox.

 

Cacher 2

Member

Caches Found4

Found it 04/13/2015

Not where it is logged on GPS. New hint : your legally an adult on this hole. Its at the base of what once had great life but now has none. . . The log is soaked and is no longer legible but you can check it off your list if found. Good luck hunters. Bring a new log if you can think to. If i return i will replace the box. (^.-)

 

It's not where you and your 4 finds say it is. How 'bout you get some experience, THEN give hints on your OWN cache!?

 

Cacher 1

Member

Caches Found3

Needs Maintenance 04/04/2015

In a pond

 

Umm, no it's not. How would you know if you didn't find it?

 

Cacher 1

Member

Caches Found3

Didn't find it 04/04/2015

Not there

 

Cacher 1

Member

Caches Found3

Didn't find it 04/04/2015

Wasn't there

 

SMH

Link to comment
Ambrosia

+Ambrosia

Posted
Posted

Well, just had it happen on one of my own.

 

Two DNF's within a couple days:

 

Cacher 1:

 

"Looks like this one's been muggled. No cache at this specifically spelled out location."

 

Cacher 2:

 

"Looked around every single tree. I think it has been tampered with."

 

A few days later a find is made by Cacher 1:

 

"They had cleaned out the area in preparation for landscaping, and removed the previous cache. Helped the CO, by doing some maintenance and replacing cache with small lock and lock container . TFTC"

 

I don't personally know Cacher 1. But he had time to dnf, go home, and then almost a week later return and put a new cache down. But didn't bother to email and ask if I wanted him to. Makes me think that he was more into getting a find sooner, not actually helping. I'll have to go and replace it in about a week. A free container for me, I guess?

Link to comment
K13

+K13

Posted
Posted

Well, just had it happen on one of my own.

 

Two DNF's within a couple days:

 

Cacher 1:

 

"Looks like this one's been muggled. No cache at this specifically spelled out location."

 

Cacher 2:

 

"Looked around every single tree. I think it has been tampered with."

 

A few days later a find is made by Cacher 1:

 

"They had cleaned out the area in preparation for landscaping, and removed the previous cache. Helped the CO, by doing some maintenance and replacing cache with small lock and lock container . TFTC"

 

I don't personally know Cacher 1. But he had time to dnf, go home, and then almost a week later return and put a new cache down. But didn't bother to email and ask if I wanted him to. Makes me think that he was more into getting a find sooner, not actually helping. I'll have to go and replace it in about a week. A free container for me, I guess?

 

As a responsible cache owner, you did delete the false found it log, right?

Link to comment
Ambrosia

+Ambrosia

Posted
Posted

Well, just had it happen on one of my own.

 

Two DNF's within a couple days:

 

Cacher 1:

 

"Looks like this one's been muggled. No cache at this specifically spelled out location."

 

Cacher 2:

 

"Looked around every single tree. I think it has been tampered with."

 

A few days later a find is made by Cacher 1:

 

"They had cleaned out the area in preparation for landscaping, and removed the previous cache. Helped the CO, by doing some maintenance and replacing cache with small lock and lock container . TFTC"

 

I don't personally know Cacher 1. But he had time to dnf, go home, and then almost a week later return and put a new cache down. But didn't bother to email and ask if I wanted him to. Makes me think that he was more into getting a find sooner, not actually helping. I'll have to go and replace it in about a week. A free container for me, I guess?

 

As a responsible cache owner, you did delete the false found it log, right?

 

I figured someone would ask that. I haven't decided yet. I have mixed opinions in my head about the subject.

Link to comment
Seaglass Pirates

+Seaglass Pirates

Posted
Posted (edited)

This is all kinds of wrong ... I would contact them first before you act. Ask if they could describe the specifics. Tell them where the hide was or try to assertain if it was gone. And if they reply with ... blast sorry I didn't check there I'll go back. You've potentially made a friend and will save yourself a journey. Instead of causing yourself stress. And maybe it has been removed. Unless you know it's there because it's been found since? Maybe?

 

EDIT: Oh that nude cacher photo is very ALL KINDS OF WRONG LOL. They don't seem to make a habit of it. Looked at 20 finds by them. They seem to find caches that others have dnfd previously. Without throwing down. The ones I looked at anyway.

Edited by Seaglass Pirates
Link to comment
fbingha

+fbingha

Posted
Posted

 

But I don't see a problem with a person logging a find when they drive 30 miles only to find an ammo can shaped imprint in the dirt under a log at the coordinates. And if the cache itself is a remarkably well hidden container that the owner went to the trouble to make fake hiding spots to throw people off, then they can delete the finds. No problem. But such elaborate hides are not the norm, and particularly not the norm on a "power trail".

 

That is the crux of this whole debate. We play by different standards. You log it, I don't. Marking it as found isn't why I look for it. Finding it is why I look for it.

 

 

Link to comment
on4bam

+on4bam

Posted
Posted

But I don't see a problem with a person logging a find when they drive 30 miles only to find an ammo can shaped imprint in the dirt under a log at the coordinates.

 

You perfectly described what a DNF is. :ph34r:

Distance to the cache is of no importance here. We tried a special traditional twice 2200 Km from home (and 25km from the cabin we stayed in). It has the "not available in winter" attribute but we went for it anyway two times (2013 and 2015). Both times we logged a DNF. Talking to local cachers, the second time we must have been at the exact spot/tree but found nothing after digging through knee deep snow. Didn't find the box, didn't sign log so DNF. Simple as that.

It's this one. Nice coordinates and a new "northernmost find" if actually found.

Link to comment
Wadcutter

+Wadcutter

Posted
Posted

The throwdown crew from St Louis/St Charles MO was in the area yesterday and logged 33 "finds". Over 25% of their 'finds' were throwdowns which is typical of their caching ventures.

They even thank the cache owner for placing the cache and replacing it until the cache owner can replace. Except the cache owner has been around for 2 years.

Here's one of their logs:

 

(St Louis MO Throwdown #1)

Charter Member

18018

:D Found it Found it

05/06/2015

Caching with (St Charles MO Throwdown #2) on a trip toward Jacksonville, IL. After two PAFs we knew what to look for and where it was. The cache was missing so we left a temporary and smaller replacement in an easy to find location. Signed log (Throwdown 1/2/3) for brevity. Good job. Thanks, (cache owner), for placing this cache. – (Throwndown 1 & 3), St. Louis MO

 

(St Louis MO Throwdown #2)

Premium Member

16229

:D Found it Found it

05/06/2015

Geocaching with (Throwdown # 1, 3) still trying to get to Jacksonville, IL, logging caches as "(Throwndown 1/2/3)" to be brief. We agreed with (another cacher who logged DNF) -- this one was missing -- after making a couple of PAF calls to previous finders. We left a temporary replacement in plain sight until the owner can make other arrangements. Thanks, (cache owner), for placing this cache! -- (Throwndown #2), Saint Charles, MO.

Link to comment
EruionWayfarer

EruionWayfarer

Posted
Posted

So I went paddling on a bayou with some friends last weekend that just happened to be a geocache paddle trail. I forgot my pen like an idiot but still logged 10 or so of the caches on the trail that I got close enough to touch - just didn't sign the log book. Would people consider that not worthy of logging a find as I did?

 

I plan to go back and sign them again at some point.

Link to comment
J Grouchy

+J Grouchy

Posted
Posted

I have a six-stage multi-cache, the first stage being a tag hanging from a tree branch giving a distance and bearing to the next stage. The final is hidden in some shrubbery near a retaining wall...no trees anywhere close. Someone with 10 finds (all of them in Colorado) posted a 'found it' log saying "found it in the tree".

 

It was clear to me they only found the first stage. What they thought they were supposed to do with a printed tag I don't know...but it was clear to me they didn't find the cache. Deleted the log and emailed them why, saying they could log it again if they could provide evidence they found the actual cache. No response.

Link to comment
TriciaG

+TriciaG

Posted
Posted

So I went paddling on a bayou with some friends last weekend that just happened to be a geocache paddle trail. I forgot my pen like an idiot but still logged 10 or so of the caches on the trail that I got close enough to touch - just didn't sign the log book. Would people consider that not worthy of logging a find as I did?

 

I plan to go back and sign them again at some point.

If you're going to go back, why not wait and log them as found when you DO sign them?

Link to comment
cerberus1

+cerberus1

Posted
Posted

So I went paddling on a bayou with some friends last weekend that just happened to be a geocache paddle trail. I forgot my pen like an idiot but still logged 10 or so of the caches on the trail that I got close enough to touch - just didn't sign the log book. Would people consider that not worthy of logging a find as I did?

 

I plan to go back and sign them again at some point.

If you're going to go back, why not wait and log them as found when you DO sign them?

I agree.

Living in a tourist area, we get those " I'll be back to properly sign" logs a lot.

- We haven't seen one return yet.

Link to comment
cerberus1

+cerberus1

Posted
Posted

So I went paddling on a bayou with some friends last weekend that just happened to be a geocache paddle trail. I forgot my pen like an idiot but still logged 10 or so of the caches on the trail that I got close enough to touch - just didn't sign the log book. Would people consider that not worthy of logging a find as I did?

 

I plan to go back and sign them again at some point.

If you feel it's fair to be "close enough" and not sign the log, that's fine.

But if an issue ever came up (maybe with another) and it was found your sigs not on that log either, don't get too upset if your find's deleted. :)

Link to comment
TahoeJoe

TahoeJoe

Posted
Posted

So I went paddling on a bayou with some friends last weekend that just happened to be a geocache paddle trail. I forgot my pen like an idiot but still logged 10 or so of the caches on the trail that I got close enough to touch - just didn't sign the log book. Would people consider that not worthy of logging a find as I did?

 

I plan to go back and sign them again at some point.

I know guidlines state you are to sign the log book but it's no big deal to me if someone doesn't sign my logbook. I'll take their word for it unless proven otherwise. Most of my physical caches are located in remote areas in the backcountry so it's not like I can check on them every week to verify logs.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 56
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...