What The @#$%&!??

[Mushtang]

I had a find once that was in the front outdoor area of a coffee shop. Very much a commercial cache. The shop was closed on Sundays and a gate around the cache was locked. Nowhere on the cache page did it say anything about store hours or suggested times to search.

 

This made me very mad, especially since I could see the tupperware cache container 10 feet from me stuck in a hole in the rock wall. I logged it as a find and posted in my log what happened and also requested the owner update the page with the store hours.

 

They, of course, did not. Months later I was in the area again and went ahead and signed the log, but I felt I was okay to log it as a find the first time if they weren't going to be up front with important information like that. When I got home I edited my find to say that I'd signed the log, just in case anyone wanted to be nit-picky.

[+Team Flashncache]

***Personal Opinion Alert***

 

If I look for a cache and find it = Found it!

If I look for a cache and don't find it = Didn't find it

 

I log it either way, just so the cache owner has some feedback and can check up on the cache if he/she feels it is deteriorating or has gone missing.

I don't log caches as "found" if I didn't really, physically have it in my hands. (And signed the logbook, of course.)

Cachers who log finds without actually finding them are hurting themselves AND the cache owners by not following these simple guidelines.

 

***End Personal Opinion Alert***

[Phoenix2001]

Too many problems with traveling caches....that's why they aren't allowed. I can see where they would run into all kinds of problems...someone not being able to get back to log the newest coords in time, someone posting wrong coords, someone forgetting to place the cache in another spot, etc.

Maybe I missed the correct sentence but what I did see under the permanence guidelines was that traveling caches may not be approved but are not strictly prohibited.

 

There is a traveling cache near me. It has a set of rules about how and where it's to be moved and you are supposed to leave a 35 mm film container at its previous location with coordinates of its new location to help with the time problem of getting back to post the new coordinates.

[+Imajika]

A show of hands: Would this be counted as a find?

 

Part of finding a cache is getting to it and opening it. Just seeing it from a distance doesn't count. OK maybe if you touched it and the lid was frozen shut, I may give that to someone, but this? Nah, I wouldn't count it.

 

I think one good guideline is that if you have to ask if it could be counted, it probably shouldn't be.

Just my opinion:

 

A find:

 

Finding the cache container, holding it in your hot little hands, opening the container and signing the log book.

 

Finding the cache container destroyed, mangled, etc. Logbook or not. If you held the cache, tried to put it back together and alerted the owner, under this circumstance, I would accept it as a find if you emailed the owner and gave them identifying info about the location, cache, etc.

 

Finding a cache that has been destroyed by rain or is frozen shut, In this case, you held the cache and signing the log book could not be done because of a wet logbook or a frozen container. I would accept this as a find if you emailed the owner with identifying info about the location, cache, etc.

 

Did not find:

 

Seeing it from across the way, driving by the area, finding where you think it should have been, walking around the area but muggles prevented you from a thorough search, finding the right 'area' but it was buried in snow or leaves, driving around the area but not getting OUT OF THE CAR and looking, the list goes on and on.

 

BUT, this is just my opinion. Others may think differently but that's okay by me!

[+briansnat]

Maybe I missed the correct sentence but what I did see under the permanence guidelines was that traveling caches may not be approved but are not strictly prohibited.

 

New traveling caches are not allowed. The ones out there were listed before the no traveling cache rule was implemented and are grandfathered.

 

A find:

 

Finding the cache container, holding it in your hot little hands, opening the container and signing the log book.

 

Finding the cache container destroyed, mangled, etc. Logbook or not. If you held the cache, tried to put it back together and alerted the owner, under this circumstance, I would accept it as a find if you emailed the owner and gave them identifying info about the location, cache, etc.

 

Finding a cache that has been destroyed by rain or is frozen shut, In this case, you held the cache and signing the log book could not be done because of a wet logbook or a frozen container. I would accept this as a find if you emailed the owner with identifying info about the location, cache, etc.

 

Did not find:

 

Seeing it from across the way, driving by the area, finding where you think it should have been, walking around the area but muggles prevented you from a thorough search, finding the right 'area' but it was buried in snow or leaves, driving around the area but not getting OUT OF THE CAR and looking, the list goes on and on

 

I can go with this. I do have one find where the logbook was so soggy I couldn't write in it. I snapped a photo of the cache and counted it and haven't lost a minute of sleep over it.

Edited June 22, 2004 by briansnat

[jdoe]

A show of hands: Would this be counted as a find?

 

Part of finding a cache is getting to it and opening it. Just seeing it from a distance doesn't count. OK maybe if you touched it and the lid was frozen shut, I may give that to someone, but this? Nah, I wouldn't count it.

 

I think one good guideline is that if you have to ask if it could be counted, it probably shouldn't be.

I totally agree with briansat. Unless you can physically get to the cache, I would not count it as a find.

 

One find had a container perched up high on the piling of a bridge. I could see the cache. It was unmistakable because it was an industrial sized plastic mustard jar. It looked like the cache owner had tried to paint over the jar with a big black felt tip marker.

 

No... finding a cache is more than just seeing it and reporting the cache. You have to get your hands on the container, open it and leave your mark in the log book.

[+Allen_L]

For me to consider it a find, I have to get it, open it and hopefully sign it. Note I do carry spare log books in ziplock bags just in case the logbook is full or wet and have replaced logs as long as the container looks to be in reasonable shape.

 

As a hunter I don’t really care how the other hunters log geocaches. I know that any cache I go after may or may not be there no matter how the last hunter logs it. In fact I have gone after several geocaches with a string of DNF logs just to see if I could find it. In several cases I did find it.

 

The only “rule” geocaching.com provides for found it logs is that both the hider and hunter agree it is a find. If the hider doesn’t consider the log is a valid find they can delete the log. If the hunter doesn’t consider it a find, they can log a note a DNF, or nothing.

[jdoe]

Soggy logbooks are nasty especially if mold is growing on it. You gotta leave something to prove that you were there. A clean piece of paper with your signature would be enough... heck even the cach listing you bring with you will have your geocache name. One cacher I read SCRATCHED his name in the logbook with his car key!

 

It doesn't take much, but something with your name is proof enough.

[+Team CoyChev]

The cache I refered to earlier about having to read the logs has been approved. For your perusal here is the link to Make or Model.

 

John

It sure sounds like this cache is in an automotive junkyard! I'm not sure I'd like to be poking around there; never know what you'll find in an abandoned vehicle.

 

Donna/Chev

Team CoyChev

Roseville, MI

[+The Jester]

I do have one find where the logbook was so soggy I couldn't write in it.

I've never found a logbook too soggy to sign (and I live in the Seattle WA area - with a mild reputation for liquid sunshine). But then I carry one of those 'space' pens that write anywhere on anything. The one time I found a cache with the lid missing, full to the brim with water, a logbook that would tear without very careful handling - I signed with a short message. So you can work around anything.

[+CordedTires]

I do have one find where the logbook was so soggy I couldn't write in it.

I've never found a logbook too soggy to sign (and I live in the Seattle WA area - with a mild reputation for liquid sunshine). But then I carry one of those 'space' pens that write anywhere on anything. The one time I found a cache with the lid missing, full to the brim with water, a logbook that would tear without very careful handling - I signed with a short message. So you can work around anything.

For those of you who live where it doesn't snow, melt and re-freeze, you should realize that well hidden cache containers occasionally freeze solid into their hiding places. This would be difficult to work around unless you bring some kind of safe heat generating equipment (all sorts of unfortunate images spring to mind).

 

If you try to dislodge a cache like that (and it's plastic) you risk breaking the container, which I've already seen a couple of.

 

I like Imajika's list.

[+The Jester]

For those of you who live where it doesn't snow, melt and re-freeze, you should realize that well hidden cache containers occasionally freeze solid into their hiding places. This would be difficult to work around unless you bring some kind of safe heat generating equipment (all sorts of unfortunate images spring to mind).

You prove my point. You even listed the work around - heat source.

 

I never said it would be easy, light-weight, convienent, trouble free, or successful - just do-able. And anyone who hides a light plastic container in an area where it might get iced in, deserves what happens to the cache, IMO.

[uperdooper]

try hiding one where the snow is waist high in feburary. this is after it has packed down so much the bottom 6 inches are ice. stuff happens. no heat source is going to work in a reasonable amount of time. imajika has it right IMO.

[+Kealia]

Glad to see I'm not alone in this.

 

Still trying to figure out WHY they do this?

I've seen numerous mentions of the word "cheating" (cheating themselves, cheating on the numbers, etc.) but is that really it?

 

Maybe they just can't admit defeat?

 

Maybe I should go have a beer and forget about it.

[+Marky]

It's not about the numbers, so who cares how they log, right? If they want to cheat on their stats, it's none of my business.

Maybe that's because you haven't spent a big chunk of your time looking for a missing cache, because the PQ you did made it clear that the cache had just been "found" yesterday--and you didn't have the time to comb the logs for happy faces that read: "found where it should have been!" So you went out and wasted your afternoon.

 

Compound this a few times, and you'll understand why not logging DNF's is so wrong. Not to mention, it makes it more difficult for the cache owner to realize that something has gone amiss with the cache.

Excuse me?.....yes I have spent quite a bit of time hunting for a cache that wasn't there.

 

And I leave notes for those types of hunts unless I am positive that it was there and I did not find it. I don't do FOUNDS and DNF's on account of people that use PQ's either. Read the logs like the rest of us before you go. I don't logs finds unless I've signed a log book, plain and simple.

Pandybat, prettynwitty wasn't implying that you didn't log DNF's or log fake finds, they were just responding to your "who cares how they log, right?" question. As a cache hunter and cache owner, I care. Fake logs give potentially incorrect information about a cache, and this is a bad thing.

 

--Marky

[+Renegade Knight]

Shovels break ice. If you didn't bring a shovel your odds of finding the cache to recognize it's in ice are slim. If it's under snow odds are it's not encased in ice. If it's under 3' of snow and in a cubby or under a log, ice won't be much of an issue at all.

 

It's all relative. Pouring rain is the only reason I've never opened a cache to log it. I didn't want to get the insides wet. Looking back I probably could of figurd out how to open it and keep it dry. They do cache in Portland and Seatlle right?

[+The Jester]

It's all relative. Pouring rain is the only reason I've never opened a cache to log it. I didn't want to get the insides wet. Looking back I probably could of figurd out how to open it and keep it dry. They do cache in Portland and Seatlle right?

Yep, we do! Rain is one of the biggest reasons you find lots of baggies inside those "waterproof" ammo cans around here. Also why Rite-In-The-Rain paper/logbooks are made around here!

 

One way to write in logbooks with out getting them wet: carry a 1.5 or 2 gal ziplock bag - enough room for most logbooks, pen and hand!

 

I'm a proud member of "The We Love Rain Society" - 'To rain wash the world, and keep wonderful Washington's image wet to discourage crowds'.

[+Kealia]

'To rain wash the world, and keep wonderful Washington's image wet to discourage crowds'.

I knew it was a conspiracy. Nobody gets that much rain on accident

[+LeatherKnight]

Mudfrog wrote:

We tried for a cache a couple of months ago and even took pictures of the tree it was hidden next to (confirmed by the cache owner). The cache itself was missing, so DUH, what else can it be but a NO find! Plain and simple, we didnt find the cache!!! 

 

If we find the cache its a find. Heck, if we find the container and/or contents scattered on the ground, then we'll claim it as a find but of course explain in our log and email the cache owner that it needs help. If we dont find the cache or even if we see where the cache is but dont/cant make it to it, then its a NO find! Too easy folks!!!

 

I found a film container right in front of a likely hiding spot in a small area where the hider left no hints, since they considered the Central Park microcache find would be a snap. I logged a DNF and sent an E-mail to the owner, who responded that, "It doesn't sound good. The cache was a film container." I have yet to hear whether it was gone or not though. Hehe, ironically, I found this log, marked as a find, as I perused the gallery.

 

Jayhawker wrote:

Our second cache stop of the day and our only miss of 8 sites for the day.. Central Park crawling with muggles.

Couldn't be inconspicuous. Will come back later. Onward

to other Dub-a-You sites. Jayhawker Plus One

 

Makes you wonder just how many "finds" like this are logged, huh?

 

However, I support the practice of handing out finds to the "First to Find Cache Missing" finders, such as in the case of this Tenino multicache

 

In my opinion, perhaps a find should be awarded for those more difficult hunts that end fruitlessly, due to a missing cache. Then again, my finding an empty film container in the middle of a small park in the center of town doesn't deserve a find. People who take snapshots of the general area in which the cache was supposed to be hidden and claim it as a find should have nipple clips applied to them, with snapshots taken of that little amusement and posted as a warning on the homepage of geocaching.com

 

I don't care who's cheating who in some of these preposterous excuses for "finds." It's bastardization of the sport, publicly declared. It is the same as a televised sport where suddenly the players start making up their own rules and applying them:

 

"I pinned him for two seconds the first time, and two the second. That counts as a pin!"

 

"Sure, it hit the wall, but I think it is a homerun."

 

"Yeah, it hit the goalpost, but so what? Goal!"

 

Maybe players of these sports would only be cheating themselves too, but it'd still irk me to be faced with such absurd logic, and have to watch undeserved points being awarded to the undeserving. And I would have to watch, whether I cared or not, and that's the problem with these "finds." We all have to watch them. Fake finds and "almost" finds should be kept as private, and as far from the public eye as the insertion of suppositories, as they are both similarly unpleasant, and both give the viewer an irrestistable urge to turn their head and vomit into their ammo can (which the fake finder took a picture of, or at least took a picture of the "Welcome to" sign in the same town as the cache).

[+AuntieWeasel]

My very first find was frozen solid inside a hollow log not far off the trail in an urban park. I worried at it for ages but couldn't get it loose. Ultimately, I gave up for fear I was going to damage the container. I logged it as a find (I had no idea such a thing might be controversial, but I probably would've logged it a find in any case. My first, and I worked dadgum hard for it).

 

Thing is, the cache did turn up broken not long afterwards. Zo!

 

And, yes, I went back and signed the log proper after spring thaw.

[+Mudfrog]

Pandybat states:

Excuse me?.....yes I have spent quite a bit of time hunting for a cache that wasn't there.

 

And I leave notes for those types of hunts unless I am positive that it was there and I did not find it.

 

Am i reading this right? Sure sounds like you are saying that you post notes when you should be posting DNFs!