Log book requirement

November 4, 2003

I'm very much a newbie, but the log books for half of the caches I've found have been so wet they often couldn't be written on. Yet including a log book in any physical cache seems to be such an important requirement that a new cache won't be approved unless you include one.

Why is it so crucial - doesn't everyone log their visits and swaps here on the web site anyway? And even if they don't bother, what difference would it make?

November 4, 2003

There has to be some minimum standard, and that's it: a container and a log. That's become the definition of geocache. Without the log, there's no objective proof that you were there. Not a whole lot of people actually get their logbooks and compare them to the online logs, but in some cases there are what seem to be bogus online logs and it's nice to have the possibility of confirming or denying that they're legit. I didn't mind alternate forms of verification when they were allowed (code words and such), but I guess there were some really crappy log-less caches and eventually a line was drawn. I like logbooks, myself -- it's fun to read through them -- and it's not asking a whole lot of the finder to at least sign their name.

Wet logbooks are another issue, but if the containers are watertight and the logs are put in baggies that shouldn't happen often. I usually have some extra pieces of paper, or at the very least the cache info sheet. If the logbook is unusuable, I'll sign the back of the printout and leave that in the cache.

November 4, 2003

quote:
Wet logbooks are another issue, but if the containers are watertight and the logs are put in baggies that shouldn't happen often.

I bought one of the Geocaching.com RITR (Rite in the Rain) logbooks for the cache I'm prepping, just in case. I'd hate to see that as a *reqirement* though...

OhNoMrBill (Bill Hudson, Gilroy CA)

1.3k · November 4, 2003

After my last experience of writing on the back cover of a logbook, a pen, a really small logbook, and a small ziplock go with me along with whatever swag I'm willing to deposit.

I'm planning to add a second logbook to that stash this weekend. Daylight savings time has really put a bite in an after-work visit.

November 4, 2003

Hello,

I think the logbook is an excellent idea! It's a great way for people to see who has been there, when, and such.

However, the idea that you need "proof" is silly to me. Are you out there to "prove" to someone else that you were there, or are you out there for YOU!!!

The majesty of the scenery, a brook, the sunrise, seeing your breath, a good hike, a day with friends - that's what it's about to me. Suit yourself...

Josh Campbell

24.7k · November 4, 2003

It's crucial because GC.com thinks it's crucial. Enough so that this guideline is actually a Rule with very few exceptions.

That's completely different from the fact that they are a good idea. Some people do better written logs than online logs. I'd hate to miss out on their story.

2.4k · November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Serial Cacher:
However, the idea that you need "proof" is silly to me. Are you out there to "prove" to someone else that you were there, or are you out there for YOU!!!

Josh Campbell

Well, the "proof" is more for the cache owner. It enables him to have a way to maintain the 'integrity' of his cache. I know as a cache owner I don't want someone who hasn't found my cache logging it as a find and giving me and others a false sense that the cache is there and everything is OK with it, when perhaps there is a problem that I need to go out and correct.

Not holding back

November 4, 2003

Integrity?

First of all, my whole point (which you missed) presented the idea that the find is self fulfilling. It is not always a contest to "find the most caches". Besides, if someone is "cheating" their only hurting themselves in the long run anyway. It takes a content individual to realize that.

Second - suppose the chache has been eaten by a... Bear! "So it goes". That's like saying, you get to a gorge on K2 where you expect a bridge, and it's gone! You've just got to make the most of it at all times. The idea to me of a "well maintained cache" is not so interesting. I don't want to find a "well maintained cache". I want to find a hard to get to, filthy, torn, mauled, pile of mud - open it, and sign the log! I have no more to say at this point...

Josh Campbell

9.2k · November 4, 2003

I've found that the book logs and on-line logs from the same people often tell quite different aspects of the caching story. The book is very much "in the moment", while the on-line logs (which are posted hour or days later) take an overview of the whole cache, with more emphasis on putting that cache into the context of the entire day's caching trip.

Also, the book is also needed for accidental finders. I know of two caches, one in Tulsa, and a now-archived one in the DFW mid-cities, that had great numbers of accidental finder logs. They were quite interesting to read.

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

November 6, 2003

I like to read the log books when I go out caching. Sometimes when I have extra time I will read them from cover to cover. It is fun to read about other's experiences and the history of the cache.

Kirk out

2.5k · November 6, 2003

There are also a number of people who do not log online. The only log they sign is the one in the cache. I'm not sure why they don't, they just don't. In some cases the only way to track done a TB would be the log in the cache. Those people tend not to log the TB online either.

This post is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.

Weight Man

1.4k · November 6, 2003

Myabe it's just luck but in almost 100 caches I have yet to find a wet logbook. On the other hand, there are very few tupperware boxes around here....they don't survive the winters I spose.

"Me transmitte sursum, Caledoni!"

November 7, 2003

Sometimes the written logs can be difficult to write. Just today I had a really tough time writing the log because it was so blasted cold that I could barely hold the pen straight.

[ I'm not trying to disagree with the written logs. Just pointing out one minor drawback of them. ]

21.9k · November 7, 2003

Another reason for the logbook rule resulted from complaints about caches that weren't really caches at all. Real life examples include "find the golf ball at these coordinates and e-mail me the number on the ball to get credit for the find" and "there is an old sneaker at these coordinates, e-mail the brand name". The logbook rule guards against this kind of "caches." As with most of the rules for cache placements, it resulted from ideas that weren't well thought-out, and community feedback to those ideas.

|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|

Keystone Approver, Geocaching.com Admin

"Eschewing Entropy and Ensuring Enthalpy in the Groundspeak Forums"

3k · November 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Keystone Approver:
Another reason for the logbook rule resulted from complaints about caches that weren't really caches at all. Real life examples include "find the golf ball at these coordinates and e-mail me the number on the ball to get credit for the find" and "there is an old sneaker at these coordinates, e-mail the brand name". The logbook rule guards against this kind of "caches."

No, it doesn't. The new rule does NOT "guard against" the kinds of caches listed in the quote; rather, it simply requires the inclusion of some sort of log. Several micro "caches" have been approved since the adoption of the new rule that consist of a logsheet that also require the finder to e-mail a verification number on the logsheet (or some other information found on or within the cache) to the owner in order to claim a find.

There is no rule that stipulates the type or quality of any cache "container" utilized, so the golf ball or sneaker you mentioned could very well have been utilized as the "cache container," as long as a scrap of paper was wedged inside as a "log." In my opinion the inclusion of a log does not in any way improve the quality of such a cache.

In my area, we are experiencing a trend of these generic micro "log-only" caches hidden just anywhere. Ho-hum.

24.7k · November 7, 2003

A log book requirement pretty much requires a log book.

That may sound simple, but there is no requirement or guideline that says a cache has to be anything more than the logbook itself.

Thus a dirty golfball with a logbook stapled to it is perfectly valid as a cache.

Desirable as a cache is a different argument.

November 20, 2003

One of the things i enjoy about geocaching is sitting down for a few minutes and reading the logbook.

1.6k · November 20, 2003

The logbook is for people who want bragging rights that they've been there. It's not for people who don't care that they've been there.

You don't want to sign the log, fine, but you dadgum well better have a logbook in your cache when I find it!

CR

November 20, 2003

One of the things i enjoy about geocaching is sitting down for a few minutes and reading the logbook.

You're missing the entire point of the game - which is the enjoyment derived from debates in these forums.

I couldn't resist.

Yes, after struggling long and hard to find a cache it is very satisfying to finally sit down and not only record your thoughts in a log book, but read those of the folks who preceeded you. I've been pleasantly surprised to find in an out of state log book that someone from my area also found it while on vacation or business.

It's a much different experience from reading logs on a computer monitor. In the case of the harder and/or puzzle caches that I relish the online log is purposely vague or misleading, so it's great to read the actual written record made right after discovery.

~erik~

November 25, 2003

If the logbook is too wet to write in I will usually take a digital photo of the cache to post with my login as a record of my find. Then I will email the owner of the cache and let them know about their logbook. If I live close to the vicinity of the cache, I will replace it for them. Personally, I love looking through the logbooks to see what people say. Some people will sign the log and not post on the site. -BK

November 25, 2003

A Geocaching logbook is a requirement for each and every Geocache. Most Geocachers do not purchase the "Rite in the Rain" All-Weather Writing Paper Official Logbook provided on the links by Geocaching.com.

However, a logbook is required in each Geocache. Depending upon size of the Geocache container, you as a Geocache hider, are responsible for placing an appropriate logbook in the container you hide. All Traditional Geocaches must have a logbook of some sorts.

So, now you have to decide, what is appropriate for the Geocache container you are hiding.

Happy Geocaching!

NCFLYERS - The Double J's of Fortuna, CA

November 29, 2003

Integrity?<BR><BR>First of all, my whole point (which you missed) presented the idea that the find is self fulfilling. It is not always a contest to "find the most caches".

It should be, but there have been people willing to pad their stats by logging online when they never got the cache. Not everyone is into self-fulfillment, they are into feeding their desires - in this case, the desire for higher cache stats. Being able to compare online logs against the logbook allows the cache owner a way to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were.

December 1, 2003

I like to read the logs at the caches. Hikers sometimes leave logbooks at mountain summits, I have signed these and read all the different places they were from, it was neat. Also on my first cache find tonight I found out a guy I grew up with and was my neighbor 18 years later before I moved again is a cacher too!!! I wouldn't have known this if I hadn't read the log book!

Log book requirement

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

Join the conversation