When can "could not log" be a find?

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
Bunya
Posts: 418
Joined: 10 May 05 5:51 pm
Location: South Australia

When can "could not log" be a find?

Post by Bunya » 26 May 07 5:40 pm

This question has probably been covered before and it could be done as a poll, but . .
The cachers reading this forum change as do their opinions.
And I'm more interested in the reasons for the answers than in running a poll.

So which of these "could not log" situations do you think is loggable as a find?

1. Found remains of muggled cache.
2. Found cache with container and/or contents wrecked by elements (fire, water etc)
3. Found cache with no writing implement in residence and forgot your own.
4. Found cache but couldn't open it.
5. Could see cache but couldn't reach/retrieve it.

I have seen all of these logged as finds - you may have seen others.

(Another one I've seen logged as a find is when the finder says there isn't room in the log book, but I think that's a bit silly - there is always some room.)

User avatar
Udderchaos
400 or more spectacular views seen
400 or more spectacular views seen
Posts: 728
Joined: 30 January 05 11:16 pm
Location: mount gambier SA

Post by Udderchaos » 26 May 07 7:07 pm

my 2c

1. Yes they found it, but should follow up with a need maint log
2. yes, as #1
3.I have done this, but have scratched my name in with a stick or whatever. but i make sure my presence at the cache was noticed. always left a note explaining what i did so the next finder can go over it with pen
4.nup, not a find unless its corroded shut and not a puzzle to open
5.nope. shouldnt claim that

Rabbitto
4000 or more? I'm officially obsessed.
4000 or more? I'm officially obsessed.
Posts: 793
Joined: 01 April 04 2:01 pm
Location: Rowville, Victoria

Post by Rabbitto » 26 May 07 7:30 pm

1. Log but at least try and do something about getting at least a temporary cache in it's place. The owner usually appreciates this as it gives them a little leeway on rushing out there to fix it. (I know I do)
2. Log as above.
3. Log and leave your mark somehow. From the other side, if you found my cache and you were in that situation I reckon I would be a bit petty to complain. (Arrrr, ye forgot your pen you land lubber so I'm going to make you drive that 50km back to my cache just so you can leave your ink on my paper. I shall punish ye with thy petrol at $1.50 a litre. That'll teach ye.)
4. Log unless it's one that you are instructed to open ie puzzle box. Owner onus here shouldn't punish finder.
5. Log only if the cache has been pushed or dropped into a place that has made it so and you have actually found it but can't retrieve it. There's a cache up a huge pine tree in Melbourne that I can see but can't retrieve. I'd like to log that one but the retrieval of this cache from it's hide is a condition of its find.

User avatar
Shifter Brains
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 123
Joined: 04 September 05 5:57 pm
Location: Gosford

Post by Shifter Brains » 26 May 07 7:46 pm

1. and 2. claim a find but do what is possible to replace - we usually carry at least a film cannister with log sheet to be able to replace.</p>
3. Leave mark somehow</p>
4. Try to open (without breaking)- leave a note in log stating that maintenance may be needed.</p>
5. Nope - unless dropped etc to an inaccessable place and leave a note in the log.</p>

We have had a couple of caches logged and have said did not have a pen so couldn't sign (latest one would have been at most 10m from the cacher's car)- we have on our cache pages BYO pen if we were unable to leave one.</p>

We believe if you want to claim a find you need to sign the log book.

User avatar
CraigRat
850 or more found!!!
850 or more found!!!
Posts: 6952
Joined: 23 August 04 3:17 pm
Twitter: CraigRat
Facebook: http://facebook.com/CraigRat
Location: Launceston, TAS
Contact:

Post by CraigRat » 26 May 07 9:55 pm

My feelings for when I log a cache are that if I don't physically sign the log, its a DNF

I used to ask ppl to change logs on my caches in the past that may have fitted some of the criteria mentioned in the posts above, but nowdays I leave it up to their conscience.

User avatar
tronador
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 1542
Joined: 04 November 05 10:18 pm
Location: Lidcombe,Sydney, NSW

Post by tronador » 26 May 07 10:03 pm

I agree with udderchaos. Feel particularly strong about No.5. If you see it but can't retrieve it, then how can you claim a find? It's been put in that position to make it more challenging and it's part of finding the cache.
One cache in particular comes to mind.
The Troll- I have noticed cachers logging finds because they could see it but couldn't retrieve it and then put it back. The retrieval is the whole point of this cache.

User avatar
zactyl
Posts: 1171
Joined: 28 July 04 6:40 pm
Location: Mullumbimby, NSW

Post by zactyl » 26 May 07 11:17 pm

You left out "Found where the cache should have been" ;)
I don't think someone should have to make a return trip just to sign a log book.
1-4 sure, why not, who is it hurting, and indeed who cares.
5, within reason, unless it's an integral part of the cache (eg abseil down a cliff or climb a tree), why does it matter if someone logs a "Find" (that's a "Find", not a "Signed the Log Book") if they can see where it's slipped out of reach down its hiding hole.

User avatar
homedg
1550 or more caches found
1550 or more caches found
Posts: 798
Joined: 24 February 06 3:15 pm
Location: South West Sydney

Post by homedg » 27 May 07 12:19 am

I agree with Udderchaos, and others.
:o I am just surprised that UC has never posted a note on this thread....
http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopi ... 9&start=30

User avatar
Udderchaos
400 or more spectacular views seen
400 or more spectacular views seen
Posts: 728
Joined: 30 January 05 11:16 pm
Location: mount gambier SA

Post by Udderchaos » 27 May 07 12:40 am

prob because i never saw that thread before :) glad someone likes it :)

User avatar
homedg
1550 or more caches found
1550 or more caches found
Posts: 798
Joined: 24 February 06 3:15 pm
Location: South West Sydney

Post by homedg » 27 May 07 12:50 am

Hey, you still haven't posted there yet.
I think that's an AWESOME avatar.
How did you do it?

User avatar
Udderchaos
400 or more spectacular views seen
400 or more spectacular views seen
Posts: 728
Joined: 30 January 05 11:16 pm
Location: mount gambier SA

Post by Udderchaos » 27 May 07 9:45 am

went to an avatar download site, found one i liked, dowloaded it. :lol:

Bunya
Posts: 418
Joined: 10 May 05 5:51 pm
Location: South Australia

Post by Bunya » 27 May 07 11:02 am

OK girls and boys, can I please get my Topic back "On Topic"? :?
Thank you to all who have replied - the spread of views is what I expected. :)

A special thanks to zactyl for the following (which I've taken somewhat out of context):
zactyl wrote: <snip>if someone logs a "Find" (that's a "Find", not a "Signed the Log Book")<snip>
I had a feeling when I was writing the OP that the terminology might confuse things.
I should have asked "When do think it is OK to log a find on geocaching.com if you could not sign the log book".
I think most repliers assumed that meaning, but zactyl's point is well made!

For the record, I think if you can't sign the log book in cases 1,2,3 it's OK to record a find.
The only situation where I think it wouldn't be OK when you can't open the cache, is if it's a puzzle cache where opening the cache is part of the puzzle.
The situation of not being able to reach the cache is a trickier one. Being vertically and athletically challenged gives me an extra interest in this case though! :wink:

I intended this thread to be covering these questions from the point of view of the finder.
A separate issue is what should you do as the placer of someone logs a find (e.g. in caes 4 or 5) where you don't think it's justified?

User avatar
Bronze
Posts: 2372
Joined: 15 July 03 11:48 pm
Location: Toronto, NSW

Post by Bronze » 27 May 07 11:27 am

Bunya wrote:OK girls and boys, can I please get my Topic back "On Topic"? :?
Um, no. :D

I like it too. Freaky awesome.

Please proceed with the topic at hand.

Thank you.

belken
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 January 05 12:31 am
Location: Melville

Post by belken » 27 May 07 11:28 am

Personally.

Number 3 we would log a find I think although we have never not had an instrument to note our visit.

All the rest are DNF's.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16148
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 27 May 07 12:53 pm

1. Found remains of muggled cache.
DNF

2. Found cache with container and/or contents wrecked by elements (fire, water etc)
DNF

3. Found cache with no writing implement in residence and forgot your own.
DNF

4. Found cache but couldn't open it.
DNF

5. Could see cache but couldn't reach/retrieve it.
DNF

I reserve the right to change my opinion in the field.

Post Reply