What constitutes a find?

NastySteve · Post by **NastySteve** » 28 May 07 3:02 pm

We have always worked on the theory that you need to sign the log to claim a find (not counting virtual caches or caches with specific requirements of course).

If we could not sign the log book in the cache for any reason (no pen, muggles, cache missing or empty etc) we would post a note or a "Needs Maintenance" log and return when it was fixed. 

Are there any official guidelines for claiming a find?
 
What constitutes a find to you?

Aushiker · Post by **Aushiker** » 28 May 07 3:19 pm

G'day

I probably wouldn't go as far as you suggest. I claim a find if I find the cache or the remanents of same. If the logbook or pen is missing but I found the cache then it is still a find to me. So for me if I find the cache then I log it as such.

Regards
Andrew

Bunya · Post by **Bunya** » 28 May 07 4:07 pm

You might be interested in this thread I started: http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopi ... highlight=

Bundyrumandcoke · Post by **Bundyrumandcoke** » 28 May 07 7:08 pm

Well, last weekend, Cooroy Scouts was up here for the weekend. I happened to be out with them, enjoying their efforts finding some of my caches, when they found one of mine. Unfortunately, the cache is soaked, and they were unable to write in the log book. But because I was present, and witnessed their legitement find, I wrote a note for the cache stating they had found it. If I wasnt present, I would have expected a maintenance log.

Cheers
Bundy

Aushiker · Post by **Aushiker** » 28 May 07 8:06 pm

Bundyrumandcoke wrote: If I wasnt present, I would have expected a maintenance log. Cheers Bundy

Would that maintenance log be instead of a found log or concurrently with a found log?

Regards
Andrew

Waterwells · Post by **Waterwells** » 28 May 07 8:37 pm

"Location: Tasmania, Australia
beaglegirl couldn't find Kristy's cunning sheep (Traditional Cache) at 5/27/2007

Log Date: 5/27/2007
Have had the coordinates for this one in my gps for ages,tried once before but too many people around. Figured on a monday morning I'd be safe. Found easily TNLN and couldn't sign the log because couldn't get the pen(s) to work. Now I know why people put a pencil as well with the log book.

Visit this log entry at the below address:
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx ... 3a1c8c6492 "

................................................................

Putting it out there!
Should this have been logged as a DNF, (as it was), by the finder??

Cached · Post by **Cached** » 28 May 07 9:08 pm

Waterwells wrote:"Location: Tasmania, Australia
beaglegirl couldn't find Kristy's cunning sheep (Traditional Cache) at 5/27/2007

Log Date: 5/27/2007
Have had the coordinates for this one in my gps for ages,tried once before but too many people around. Figured on a monday morning I'd be safe. Found easily TNLN and couldn't sign the log because couldn't get the pen(s) to work. Now I know why people put a pencil as well with the log book.

Visit this log entry at the below address:
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx ... 3a1c8c6492 "

................................................................

Putting it out there!
Should this have been logged as a DNF, (as it was), by the finder??

I would have claimed the find!

Bunya · Post by **Bunya** » 28 May 07 9:09 pm

Waterwells wrote:"Location: Tasmania, Australia
Visit this log entry at the below address:
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx ... 3a1c8c6492 "

Putting it out there!
Should this have been logged as a DNF, (as it was), by the finder??

Not sure what you are getting at here.

I just had a look and it has been logged as a FIND - as I think it should be!

Aushiker · Post by **Aushiker** » 28 May 07 9:12 pm

Waterwells wrote:"Location: Tasmania, Australia
beaglegirl couldn't find Kristy's cunning sheep (Traditional Cache) at 5/27/2007

Log Date: 5/27/2007
Have had the coordinates for this one in my gps for ages,tried once before but too many people around. Figured on a monday morning I'd be safe. Found easily TNLN and couldn't sign the log because couldn't get the pen(s) to work. Now I know why people put a pencil as well with the log book.

Visit this log entry at the below address:
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx ... 3a1c8c6492 "

................................................................

Putting it out there!
Should this have been logged as a DNF, (as it was), by the finder??

Well the person found the cache.

The recording of a log is a seperate act, one I would suggest is an act of verification. Signing a log or not signing a log does not mean the object, a cache in this case, is not physically found. Unless of course the definition of "find" in the English language has been changed.

The Geocaching.com FAQ at http://www.geocaching.com/about/finding.aspx clearly distingushes between finding the cache and logging the cache. See Step 4 at the link. Sorry I can't seem to be able to cut and paste here.

Regards
Andrew

sc00t · Post by **sc00t** » 28 May 07 9:42 pm

Its simple, you FIND the cache, you log it as FOUND.

If you DON'T FIND the cache, you log it as DIDN'T FIND

Bunya · Post by **Bunya** » 28 May 07 9:43 pm

Aushiker wrote:The recording of a log is a seperate act, one I would suggest is an act of verification. Signing a log or not signing a log does not mean the object, a cache in this case, is not physically found. Unless of course the definition of "find" in the English language has been changed.

The Geocaching.com FAQ at http://www.geocaching.com/about/finding.aspx clearly distingushes between finding the cache and logging the cache. See Step 4 at the link.

Interesting link.
Note that Step 4 doesn't mention logging the cache, but instead says to email the cache owner!

I do agree though, that to be able to say that you found cache does not logically require you to have signed the log.
So is signing the log a pre-requisite to you being able to log a "find" on gc or gca?
As was pointed out on another thread, you are logging a "find", not a "signed the logbook".

Bunya · Post by **Bunya** » 28 May 07 9:47 pm

sc00t wrote:Its simple, you FIND the cache, you log it as FOUND.

If you DON'T FIND the cache, you log it as DIDN'T FIND

But what if you can see the cache, but can't get to it?
Is it FOUND or NOT FOUND?

I suspect most would say NOT, but you did FIND it . . .

This is the trickiest case.

homedg · Post by **homedg** » 28 May 07 9:52 pm

What if you find the same cache for a second time, however it is hidden in a totally different spot and a totally different manner to the original hide due to Muggling?
Is this two finds?

sc00t · Post by **sc00t** » 28 May 07 9:53 pm

sc00t wrote:Its simple, you FIND the cache, you log it as FOUND.

If you DON'T FIND the cache, you log it as DIDN'T FIND

Ok, in light of Bunya's thoughts ill amend it to be.....

Its simple, you FIND , extract and open the cache, you log it as FOUND.

If you DON'T FIND ,extract and open the cache, you log it as DIDN'T FIND

Better?

Bunya · Post by **Bunya** » 28 May 07 9:57 pm

sc00t wrote:
sc00t wrote:Its simple, you FIND the cache, you log it as FOUND.

If you DON'T FIND the cache, you log it as DIDN'T FIND



Ok, in light of Bunya's thoughts ill amend it to be.....

Its simple, you FIND , extract and open the cache, you log it as FOUND.

If you DON'T FIND ,extract and open the cache, you log it as DIDN'T FIND

Better?

MUCH better.

I mean, if we are going to enjoy this semantic hair-splitting, let's do it PROPERLY.