excuse my newby-ness but don't logbooks regularly get replaced (e.g. when full)?lemmykc wrote:I don't know how the CO would take to this considering his name wouldn't be in the logbook anymore (they replaced the logbook).....jonnosan+2 wrote:I mean log it online.
I don't read the description, so I would have ignored the request. Also sounds like an ALR to me.quiet1_au wrote:Perhaps these specific "log-after-XX/YY/ZZZZ" caches should include this vital information in the cache description text. It may not stop accidental publication and/or finds but at least its there in black and white if there's some sort of problem like this?
I saw this cache published but was too far away & busy to go after it. Its quick disabling caught my eye, and I did think it a little harsh on the early finders - I can understand there's some significance to the date and so on by the CO. I'm guessing there'll now be a camp-out queue of these early-finders at GZ at the correct time of publishing - which will make for an easier find the rest of us!
I have to admit, that comment really stuck in my head and made me do some thinking. Maybe (perhaps obviously) the way we play the game is different, but I don't see how the CO's decision needs to change that for you. You made the trip, you made the find, hopefully you had a good experience in doing that. What the rest of the world sees/thinks is relatively insignificant to what the 2hours/60kms meant to you, isn't it? You got the FTF, so mark it down in GSAK and don't worry about it (We all know the FTF game is a bit of an arbitrary shenanigans anyway). You got the find, so if the CO won't let you log it online just log it in GSAK as found and ignore it on GC.com.... Sure, it'll be nice and respectful if the CO recognises your effort and the find, but in the end it's about your experience, not what everyone else thinks or recognises.covert wrote:
So where does that leave me with my 2 hours of time 60k+ km of travel ?
), and I know you play the game a lot more seriously than I do (and I'm not trying to judge you for that) but to feel like you'd wasted 2 hours and 60kms of travel just because of this seems a bit unfortunate.
Well the rules are with covert: He signed the log so he can log it online. If he wants to keep his statistic on GC.com clean it's his bragging right. From a social point of view it would be easiest if covert just walks away without insisting on it but I do see a problem if people start to make up their own rules which conflict with the established ones.Happy Chappies wrote:You got the find, so if the CO won't let you log it online just log it in GSAK as found and ignore it on GC.com.
Was this one: http://geocaching.com.au/cache/gc3b3gt but it has been retracted. It's the reincarnation of http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... x?wp=gcc81jonnosan+2 wrote:What exactly is the cache?
If you found it you can log it as found. (once it is republished) If your log is deleted, follow the instructions here. http://support.groundspeak.com//index.p ... age&id=204Big Matt and Shell wrote:Did you sign the log? If so you can log it online.
We know that sometimes this issue can be contentious. If the other party is being stubborn, ask yourself, "Is this dispute really worth my time?" Try being the bigger person and conceding the point. You may discover that you feel better for doing so. At the very least, it will put the matter quickly behind you.
Now there's a sensible solution.Marcus Vitruvius wrote:You could award joint FTF's? Allow covert his find, and whoever finds the cache once it's republished as joint FTF's! No one loses out.
+1FarmerFrentzen wrote:Now there's a sensible solution.Marcus Vitruvius wrote:You could award joint FTF's? Allow covert his find, and whoever finds the cache once it's republished as joint FTF's! No one loses out.
I think someone who is a master of technology and knows a cache is published seconds after it happens, and obviously has the technology and capability to do so, should log a quick FTF log immediately it's found. A more elaborate log can be done later on if required. This would save a lot of people the effort to get there first, only to find the trip was in vain.covert wrote:You mean to log it online when it is officially published or go sign the logbook again after it is officially published ?jonnosan+2 wrote:Unless I'm missing something (which is probable given the only information I have about the scenario is what's on this page) isn't the "win-win" outcome here for the finder to wait till the cache is officially published, and then re-log it?
I have yet to log the find online.
I have no problem with joint FTF's. I think this is a great idea.Marcus Vitruvius wrote:You could award joint FTF's? Allow covert his find, and whoever finds the cache once it's republished as joint FTF's! No one loses out.
Reply hidden in spoiler to highlight it is off topic.gmj3191 wrote:I think someone who is a master of technology and knows a cache is published seconds after it happens, and obviously has the technology and capability to do so, should log a quick FTF log immediately it's found. A more elaborate log can be done later on if required. This would save a lot of people the effort to get there first, only to find the trip was in vain.
Nope. I wanted a non bias opinion from the community and is also the reason I have not named the cache. I also feel the owner has said there position on the matter in the note. See first post.PrincessDiala wrote:Have you had communications with the cache owner themselves?
Thanks for that. I have been through that process twice before, both times with success.Big Matt and Shell wrote: If you found it you can log it as found. (once it is republished) If your log is deleted, follow the instructions here. http://support.groundspeak.com//index.p ... age&id=204
