The Definition Of “found It”

December 29, 2004

DRAFT COPY

First, a cache for this context is a container and a logbook (or sheet).

Found It! Ideally, a cache should only be logged as “found” if the hunter has located and physically handled both the cache container and the log book (or sheet). The log should be signed if at all possible.

Option One During contingencies, apply the 50% rule. Logging under this rule assumes that the definition above is impossible due to vandalism, theft, or other damage, including conditions that prevent the cache from being opened. The hunter can log a find as long as either the container or logbook is physically handled. The 50% rule does not apply if the cache is intact and contains a logbook, and a person of reasonable intelligence and dexterity can open it. A finder cannot log a find under this provision if they, due to personal physical limitations, cannot comply with the primary definition above.

Your re-writes are welcome!

2.5k · December 29, 2004

To me, the way the second part of that is worded is just very confusing..

I don't think there is much grey area in this anyway.. You either sign the log book or you don't.

20.7k · December 29, 2004

I kind of like the 'handled the log book' definition.

Yesterday, I found a mini cache with an extremely wet log. I could not sign the log. I handled the items and log and I replaced the cache.

20.7k · December 29, 2004

Option One During contingencies, apply the 50% rule. Logging under this rule assumes that the definition above is impossible due to vandalism, theft, or other damage. The hunter can log a find as long as either the container or logbook is physically handled. The 50% rule does not apply if the cache is intact and contains a logbook. A finder cannot log a find under this provision if they, due to personal physical limitations, cannot comply with the primary definition above.

The hunter must open the cache. If the cache is locked or is in someway made difficult to open, certainly opening the cache to obtain the log must be a requirement.

Of course, this entire thread is moot. The cache owner must make any 'found it' determination if the log could not be signed. If the log was signed, there is no question. It's a find.

December 29, 2004

Well, I'm still brand new here [snow has prevented me from heading out after my first cache] but it seems to me if a logbook can't for some reason be signed, the 'finder' should be required to list at least partially the objects inside, in order to verify they had handled/opened the cache. Would that work?

Rat

December 30, 2004

Finding a cache should be defined as physically handling the cache AND signing the logbook. Period.

If no logbook is available, then leaving a slip of paper with one's geocaching name should be sufficient.

December 30, 2004

I think that it should all be up to the owner of the cache. I am currently working on a puzzle cache where the puzzle will be to find out how to open the cache container. In this case, I think that signing the log will be required to post a find.

Ray

December 30, 2004

I have made up business cards that state that , "I Found Your Cache." I leave one in every cache whether there is a log or not. I also take pictures of the cache and it's location (I cannot log these on the web site) and put them into my personal log book. Being a pilot, log books are important to log all of my flight hours so, I keep one for all my cache finds too.

The cards are easy to design and print. All you need is a version of The Print Shop or something similar and printer business cards that you can get at any Walmart. This will make the find a fact with no room for speculation.

2.3k · December 30, 2004

You do realize that this is an utterly futile effort that is doomed from the start, right?

December 30, 2004

If I pull the log out and sign it, I found it

If I just read the log and not sign, I found it

If I just open the cache and peer inside, I found it

If I just pick the cache up and kiss it, I found it

If I spot it ten feet away in a bush and then go home, I found it

Whether or not I get to keep the "find" that this site keeps track of is at the sole discretion of the cache owner.

7

3.3k · December 30, 2004

This topic has been beat to death here http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=66648

1.8k · December 30, 2004

How about...

That's for the finder and the cache owner to decide? 'Nuff said.

1.1k · December 30, 2004

Mr. Clinton, "Is" that you?

December 30, 2004

well, here is one for those who like to debate legit finds or not: this cache

Basically this guy hides this micro in a very busy area and it gets trashed in short order.

The container was a baby food jar with the lid nailed to a piece of wood inbetween some rocks along the lake shore.

The jar was gone as was any contents such as logbook. Just the nailed lid remained.

I logged it as a find since it wasn't archived. I did email the owner and inform him it was missing. He had no issue with my logging it as a find and said he would replace it, but never did. A few people after this also logged it even though the logs make it appear even the lid eventually got removed and just green spots where the nail colored the wood remained. LOL.

Hey, it's all good. Folks made the effort and found the location. It isn't the fault of the cacher the cache was damaged/missing. That they found evidence the cache had been in the spot seems good enough to me and seemed good enough to the owner.

22k · December 30, 2004

First, a cache for this context is a container and a logbook (or sheet).

How did you do on your first cache find?

2.3k · December 30, 2004

DRAFT COPY

For what???? you planning on starting your own site?

1.8k · December 30, 2004

DRAFT COPY

For what???? you planning on starting your own site?

Or is Jeremy creating sock-puppet accounts now?

2.7k · December 30, 2004

A finder cannot log a find under this provision if they, due to personal physical limitations, cannot comply with the primary definition above.

I take issue with this line. It seems to be about 180 degrees out of phase with the gist of the exception, which is how to handle legitimate finds wherein the log cannot be signed through no fault of the finder.

This line seems to discriminate against persons with disabilities. If one is able to get to the cache but due to some physical disability is not able to open it or sign the log they should be able to log the find. In other words, cut the handicapped cachers a break.

The only exception to this would be if the cache was specifically designed to require some ability beyond the "norm" such as climbing, diving, or puzzle solving and such was clearly stated in the cache description.

The log might look like this:

"Handicapped Cacher (125 finds) found The Grand And Glorious Cache on 1-1-01. Nice easy find but I was unable to reach the cache (which anyone who is not in a wheelchair could have reached easily) and therefore I could not sign the log."

Could anyone in good conscience delete this log because "Handicapped Cacher" did not sign the log?

December 30, 2004

IKNOWYOU? WHOBEYOU?

...why is this always soooooo wishywashy, find cache sign log, log find. What if, what if, what if, what if. What if I what iffed every cache on the planet, then i could log em all right from this keyboard.

5.8k · December 30, 2004

I've logged a find for a cache when I only found a tiny bit of the container thet was run over by a tractor, and the parkworker described the contents he had picked up from the area

4.7k · December 30, 2004

once i logged a find for a container that i chose not to open. oh, i COULD have opened it; the owner had not created it as a challenge. it was a simple plastic container stuck under a rock. it was frozen solid, though. opening it would have meant desroying it.

conversely, once i was able to get a logbook out of the container and sign it even though i couldn't solve the puzzle. i have not claimed it as found, even though i signed the log. my entry reads "couldn't solve the puzzle so we gave up and went home". it's kind of a head-scratcher.

<liberal snipping>

"Handicapped Cacher (125 finds) found The Grand And Glorious Cache on 1-1-01. Nice easy find but I was unable to reach the cache (which anyone who is not in a wheelchair could have reached easily) and therefore I could not sign the log."

Could anyone in good conscience delete this log because "Handicapped Cacher" did not sign the log?

where do you draw the line?

-i could see it from here but couldn't reach it.

-i could see where it might be.

-i could guess and had somebody check.

-i got somebody to walk a half mile to get it for me.

-i logged it from the parking lot.

-i knew about it and called it found.

call me harsh, but it's a valid question. bet you might delete some of those logs in good conscience. where do you draw the dividing line?

December 30, 2004

Guys... forgive a newbies nerve, but... what difference does it make? If YOU log a find according to your own definition of "A find", and allow others to do the same, what does it matter if the two definitions aren't exactly the same? If A Find is acceptable to both the Cache owner and the Finder --or settled in any way between them -- why should it matter to anyone else? Is the Find Count of such importance, even when it isn't your own?

As I understand it, it's required to sign the log for The Find to count, and any "I Found It's" that aren't backed up by a signed log need explaination and a decision by the Cache owner before the find can be counted.

Am I missing something? Must everyone find a cache in exactly the same way?

Perhaps it's merely my newness at this, maybe I haven't gotten into it enough to feel the emotional attachment more experienced Cachers probably feel, but right now it looks pretty clear and simple. Maybe... 'to each their own, as long as the basic rules are followed'??

Rat

1.1k · December 30, 2004

Guys... forgive a newbies nerve, but... what difference does it make? If YOU log a find according to your own definition of "A find", and allow others to do the same, what does it matter if the two definitions aren't exactly the same? If A Find is acceptable to both the Cache owner and the Finder --or settled in any way between them -- why should it matter to anyone else?

I think what some are saying the issue becomes when someone logs a find such as "My GPS took me to the location, I looked around but couldn't find the container so it must be missing. I'm claiming this as a find." A lot of these aren't missing, just the cacher was unable to locate the hidden container. Any cacher who has been at it a while knows there are some very well concealed and cammoflagued containers. The trick isn't following the GPS to the location. That's usually not hard at all, altho there are some that getting there can be the challenge. Anyone with a barely functioning IQ can follow an arrow. For a lot of caches the hunt involves finding the container once you get to the location. I've found quite a few caches where a previous cacher has claimed a find but then noted the container was missing. Nope, wasn't missing, they just couldn't find it. We had one around here where the hider took a lot of work splitting a log so precisely that you couldn't see the cut line, hollowing it out to hold a container, the put it back together in such a way that it appeared to be just another log. What gave the location away tho was realizing the log was a different kind of tree than any of the standing trees in the location. So it helped if one had to have some basic knowledge of trees but most of all an acute eye to realize what was out of place. Getting to the location was easy and handicap accessible. There's another cache around here that is an electrical outlet box. Looks like a regular outlet box until you realize there are no power lines going to the location, none to the box, nor would there be any reason for a power box to be at that location.

Like Ozarkray I'm in the formulation stages of developing a multi where one has to get the initial legs in the right sequence in order to put the clues together which will allow them to open the container at the final location. If they don't go in the correct sequence they'll still be able to get to the final locaiton but they won't have the clues in the right sequence which will allow them to open the container. So, if I can get the time and it all together, that cache won't be finding the final location, a cacher will have to physically get the container open. And my thoughts are to make all the legs handicap accessible.

And I agree with your last line, it's a decision left to the cache hider. If they want to approve the find, then why should it matter to anyone else.

2k · December 30, 2004

I DIDN'T log a find when I found the container but couldn't open it because it was encased in ice. (I returned in the summer, found the container in the same spot, opened it, and signed the log and claimed a find.)

It was a 35mm film canister. Without opening it and finding the log, how do I really know it's the cache?

4.7k · December 30, 2004

i could get the container out. i had it in my hand. it was a clear plastic jobber just holding on for it's dear life and my opening it would have been the end of its tenous water-resistantness.

i've never met a cache that was so frozen in that i couldn't extract it and hold it in my hot little hands. i have kicked them, pried them, chipped around them with an ice axe, and in one case, built a fire under it.

22k · December 30, 2004

DRAFT COPY

First, a cache for this context is a container and a logbook (or sheet).

Found It! Ideally, a cache should only be logged as “found” if the hunter has located and physically handled both the cache container and the log book (or sheet). The log should be signed if at all possible.

Option One During contingencies, apply the 50% rule. Logging under this rule assumes that the definition above is impossible due to vandalism, theft, or other damage, including conditions that prevent the cache from being opened. The hunter can log a find as long as either the container or logbook is physically handled. The 50% rule does not apply if the cache is intact and contains a logbook, and a person of reasonable intelligence and dexterity can open it. A finder cannot log a find under this provision if they, due to personal physical limitations, cannot comply with the primary definition above.

Your re-writes are welcome!

"All which, sir, though I most powerfully and potently believe, yet I hold it not honesty to have it thus set down;"

Edited December 30, 2004 by BlueDeuce

December 30, 2004

Does it really matter at all?

I have a number of caches placed. If someone were to sit at his or her computer, and enter logs saying they found them (without having done any of the standard things, like actually finding the cache), I could care less.

This is a game, hobby, pasttime, or whatever you might call it. As far as I am concerned, everyone can do what they want. Why should I care?

Marc

3.9k · December 30, 2004

I thought sock puppet accounts weren't allowed. The profile for the OP states that he's really someone else that we know.

Why has this thread which has been started by a troll been allowed to remain open?

7.2k · December 30, 2004

As far as I am concerned, everyone can do what they want. Why should I care?

I guess you wouldn't mind if your caches simply vanished then right?

What if they simply posted SBAs? Don't care?

Found the cache. It looked like it had gone through a shredder. I couldn't find the logbook anywhere. I gathered up as much of the cache as I could and threw it away. The only thing tha was salvagable I put in the next cache I found. Thanks anyway.

What if a reviewer archived it based on that SBA? Don't care?

What if the log was completely bogus and now you have an archived listing and the cache is actually still there? Don't care?

December 30, 2004

Troll?

Let's hope so. But no matter even after 12 hours I've got to reply. (you can giggle while I remove the hook. Snap! I feel better)

Sock puppet acount jumps on the forum and declares in their first post that we "need" to define a rule that will clear up once and for all wheather or not someone has "found a cache".

Cool!

Who is to enforce this? Who is going to make sure they follow it? That's what I thought.

If you really think about it, it is all up to the cache owner and the cacher. The cache owner posts his cache on this site and when doing so they can request how it is to be logged, what type of trade items they would "like" to be in the cache, all kinds of things. But! that is all between the cache owner and the cacher. Not some busibody that thinks all could be better if things are done a certain way and to be able to participate in this "hobby" it must be done their way.

Well, that's enough for now. I'm bored already.

4.1k · December 30, 2004

DRAFT COPY

First, a cache for this context is a container and a logbook (or sheet).

Found It! Ideally, a cache should only be logged as “found” if the hunter has located and physically handled both the cache container and the log book (or sheet). The log should be signed if at all possible.

Option One During contingencies, apply the 50% rule. Logging under this rule assumes that the definition above is impossible due to vandalism, theft, or other damage, including conditions that prevent the cache from being opened. The hunter can log a find as long as either the container or logbook is physically handled. The 50% rule does not apply if the cache is intact and contains a logbook, and a person of reasonable intelligence and dexterity can open it. A finder cannot log a find under this provision if they, due to personal physical limitations, cannot comply with the primary definition above.

Your re-writes are welcome!

So, where does this Cache fall in your definition of found?

The description gives 2 options on how to log it.

John

December 30, 2004

One of the first caches we found was in Vancouver, B.C. -- some 3,000 miles away from home and not one we could easily return to, unless Jeremy offers airfare. Anyway, it was a micro and we neglected to bring a pen or pencil. So we took a closeup photo of the cache (too close to be a spoiler, but sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that we had in fact found the cache) and posted the image with the log. So we did not sign the log, but we are very comfortable claiming it as a "find." (And now, when we head out on a geocaching quest, we make sure we have a writing implement of some kind. Lesson learned.)

Edited December 30, 2004 by The Old Bet Brigade

December 30, 2004

As far as I am concerned, everyone can do what they want. Why should I care?

I guess you wouldn't mind if your caches simply vanished then right?

Funny thing is that they do disappear every now and then. There is really nothing that prevent that short of guarding it 24/365. That is something a cache owner has to accept.

Found the cache. It looked like it had gone through a shredder. I couldn't find the logbook anywhere. I gathered up as much of the cache as I could and threw it away. The only thing tha was salvagable I put in the next cache I found. Thanks anyway.

What if a reviewer archived it based on that SBA? Don't care?

What if the log was completely bogus and now you have an archived listing and the cache is actually still there? Don't care?

They also get archived. That's why TPTB attempt to contact you to let you fix the situation. A cache can be unarchived.

Maybe I really don't understand because I just accept that Geocaching is just something to do. It's not my job, life or anything like that. It is just something that allows me to get out, it provides me with a challenge, it's just fun......

7.2k · December 30, 2004

Maybe I really don't understand...

Yep.

2k · December 30, 2004

If anyone wants to -- you're all welcome to go and mark the caches I've placed as finds. I placed them there for people to physically find and sign, but it really doesn't offend me one way or another how you choose to play. Marking them as a find doesn't even change them or the perception of them (marking them SBA would and I'd have to go and confirm they are still there or hunt you grrrrrr)

Of course, it would be pretty boring to mark finds you have not found (seen, touched, etc). One day I'm sure we'll have someone sign-up here and mark all the caches in the world as found under their account .. oh well, small things amuse small minds.

As a cache owner, one thing I plan to do when the logbooks are full in a cache is to compare the physical logs against the online logs and then will have a better idea of a "confirmed" find versus a online find. Photos would also "confirm" a find in my opinion -- where the container was frozen etc. If someone prefers not to sign the physical log I cannot confirm or deny whether they were at the cache site. I also suppose I don't care that much - those that have visited my caches had fun.

From what I have read in the forums, there are some folks that just can't accept the fact that they are unable to physically locate a cache - they log as SBA's or found -- the truth will come out when the cache is checked and the logbook reviewed. (or look at their photo of the cache). I've never had this problem though.

I don't think we need a rule or new type of "find" though.

2k · December 30, 2004

Maybe I really don't understand...

Yep.

This quotation and response does nothing to promote the conversation here. It is out of context and, in my opinion both rude and uncalled for.

Of course, so is my reaction to it -- but it has happened to me and I think should be discouraged.

December 30, 2004

CR, I think what Marc_54140 was saying wasn't that he didn't care about caching or his own caches [or caching in general], but that it wasn't a big thing to him if someone claimed finds he didn't actually find. Granted, that isn't how the game is supposed to be played, but if the 'finder' enjoys playing it that way, what's the harm? There's always going to be a player or two who wants to operate outside the general rules... it doesn't usually take long before the rest of the players know who they are and how they play.

Anyway... your enthusiam for the game is obvious, and it's that kind of appreciation for caching that drew me into a deeper look at it. Thanks!

Rat

December 30, 2004

OH..just read LFD's post, and it reminded me of a question I've been wanting to ask. Since it was mentioned in this thread I'll take the chance it isn't TOOO far OT. Is it OK to take pics of a find in addition to signing the log, as proof of the find? I realize the pic would have to be carefully framed so as not to give away info about the site. If pics are acceptable, where would they be posted? Or would they just be emailed to the cache owner?

Thanks!

Rat

2k · December 30, 2004

I'm okay with pictures as a confirmation. If it was something that would compromise the cache (such as a unique container in plain site), then I would place the info in the cache description asking that photos are not posted, but rather e-mailed.

Of course, it has been brought to my attention earlier that not everyone reads the cache descriptions......so there be dragons.

December 30, 2004

Coyote Red has read me right - I woiuld not care if my cache vanished, or SBA, or was archived, etc. I read what is posted, and judge accordingly on whether or not to do cache maintenance. I thought that was implied, and what all cache owners are supposed to be doind!

Marc

December 30, 2004

Premium Member

Posts: 7

Joined: 25-January 02

Coyote Red has read me right - I woiuld not care if my cache vanished, or SBA, or was archived, etc.

OK...I was wrong. But why would you even hide caches if you didn't care if they vanished? Just curious...

Rat

December 30, 2004

Sheesh

The Definition Of “found It”

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

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