Logging a cache

March 6, 2016

Recently I was at a T5 cache were someone else offered to climb and stamped the log book for me, I did log it to which the CO deleted it.

It is not deleting I am concerned about but more about when does a log count as a find.

Over time I have attended caches day and night in a group and someone has offered to scribe for the group to make it easier for everyone, and had someone climb or crawl to retrieve a log book for everyone to sign, according to answer 2 these would be only a find for the person who wrote in the log book as the others have not technically signed.

I raised this issue with Groundspeak and subsequently received 2 opposite replies, which i have written below, both appear very vague on a definitive answer, and have not seen a reply on Facebook.

Can someone shed some light on this issue and explain what are the rules and regulations, do I have to physically sign, can someone sign for me at the cache GZ, if my stamp or signature is in the log book is that all that is required?.

Answer 1

Technically, the guidelines don't specify that you must mark the log book yourself.The guideline states: "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. " It doesn't specify if the user has to log it themselves.

Thus yes, if a group of cachers find a cache and a user signs the names for all, this is allowed.This is more on the honor system. Some cachers may be ethically ok with claiming the find if they see the cache and someone else logs their name while in a group caching. Others aren't.

We aren't the logging police so we don't govern behavior to this extent. It takes some of the fun out of geocaching if the cache owner is deleting logs over this miniscule issue and may not be as much fun for cache owners either.Happy caching,

, Groundspeak

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer 2

Unfortunately, in order to claim a find on a geocache, one needs to have logged the cache themselves. Of course if a Cache Owner decides it's fine for you to have claimed the find on the cache, we wouldn't interfere. But unfortunately we do side with the Cache Owner

, Groundspeak

13.7k · March 6, 2016

Maybe it's about who does the signing?

When climbing or rappelling, I've often passed the log to others, who maintain my rope, take pics, or something as simple as rewinding the throwline.

All things that are needed (some for safety), or help me manage time.

- We're all (at that time) part of a team.

21.9k · March 6, 2016

Could you please post the exact text of the questions you wrote, which resulted in the two answers you received from Geocaching HQ? Thanks.

4.8k · March 6, 2016

I would say that Answer 2 is more within the spirit of the game. The problem with Answer 1 (no disrespect intended), are as follows:

Scenario 1:

Lets say I have a T5 cache which requires climbing equipment. If one person goes up, and signs the log for everyone in the group, I'm generally OK with that. I don't expect everyone to make the climb up, although technically, not everyone signed the logbook personally.

Scenario 2:

Let's say I have a remote/lonely cache that requires 30 miles of hiking to access. Someone runs shuttle service for the other member of the team. One person does the hike, the other drives the car around to do the pick up. Should the person driving around get the Find? That doesn't seem quite fair to subsequent folks that make the long trek in.

The other question is this: is the CO being unreasonable in this situation? Just a tad in my book. You didn't describe the cache hide, but let's just use the ubiquitous "cache up a tree" example, that are quite popular. One person goes up, because it's obviously not feasible for everyone to climb the tree at the same time (nor safe). If everyone has to climb the tree, while others wait at the base, eventually (and I'm pretty confident in saying this), the cache is going to get untethered from the tree and end up at the base of the tree for convenience sake. As a cache owner, I realize this is going to happen on occasion, but if every group that comes along does this, it sort of becomes a maintenance nightmare. I think some reasonable accommodation is called for with hides of this sort, or the CO is going to be making a number of trips to the cache location to relocate it where it was intended.

BTW, I actually have caches that fall into both scenarios above. I allow a bit of flexibility on the first, but not so much on the second.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Touchstone

3.1k · March 6, 2016

If I owned a tree-climbing cache, then I would hope cachers would individually climb the tree and experience the cache as I intended it to be found. But I would allow anyone whose signature is on the logbook to claim an online smiley. I'm certainly not going to guard the tree to ensure only climbers get credit for the find, and I think it's unfair to punish only those cachers who honestly admit in their log comments that they did not climb.

As a cacher, I have always climbed trees when that is part of the intended experience. When I go in a group and the cache is on or near the ground, then I will allow another member of the group to sign my name to the log, since I can't imagine the cache owner intends for that to be part of the geocaching experience.

15.3k · March 6, 2016

I've logged a number of caches where someone else signed on my behalf, or where they signed an informal team name that represented everyone in the group (to save space in the log, to save the CO some cache maintenance). In some cases, I never actually touched the cache container, even though I was the first person in the group to spot the cache container, and some of those were T5 caches (e.g., where I was steadying the person who retrieved the cache and signed on everyone's behalf).

I see no problem with this.

There are a few people around who insist on signing the log themselves. That's okay too. Whoever has the log can pass it to them, they can sign and pass it back, and the person who retrieved it can replace it.

I think the criteria is whether you were at the cache site and involved in the search. Someone belaying a climber who accesses a cliff-side cache is involved. Someone who drove others to the trailhead isn't.

7.5k · March 6, 2016

There are two ways to look at this issue. One is as a point of "law", by which I mean under what conditions GS would back you in an argument with the CO. There's nothing wrong with that view, and it makes sense to discuss it whether for theoretical or practical purposes.

Me, I'm not that worried about that view. The way I look at it, the answer to this question is simple: the CO rejected it, so I'd shrug my shoulders and move on. (I assume you think he has an accurate picture of your participation. If not, you could clarify, but with an attitude that a better understanding might make a difference to him, not arguing that it should make a difference to him.) If my experience warranted it, I'd post a note that explains my experience, most likely pretty much the same content as my rejected find log, perhaps mentioning the rejection in a way that shows I understand and accept the CO's decision.

Now there's yet another issue here, which is what I'd do assuming the CO will let my log stand either way. If there's no physical issue, then I don't pay attention to who sees, grabs, opens, signs, or returns the container: we all found it. If there's a physical challenge involved, then my personal rule is that I have to sign the log, but I don't need to accomplish the physical task myself, I just have to get the cache in my hand. My thinking is that if someone else in the team climbs the tree, I'm just using them as a tool to get the container. I sometimes cache with much more physically fit youngsters who aren't official geocachers, and I've been known to send them up a tree to get a cache for me in the same way someone else might use a grabber to get the container. But, again, I wouldn't argue with the CO if he didn't consider that good enough.

4.5k · March 6, 2016

Maybe it's about who does the signing?

When climbing or rappelling, I've often passed the log to others, who maintain my rope, take pics, or something as simple as rewinding the throwline.

All things that are needed (some for safety), or help me manage time.

- We're all (at that time) part of a team.

Sounds like in this case, the CO placed a difficult cache and wants everyone who logs a find on it to actually make it to the cache container. In a tree, he wants every person to make the climb and reach the cache. I doubt the CO cares who signs the logsheet, just so long as the person logging the find made it to the cache.

This is the way i cache. I have to make it to the cache. If i don't do this myself, then i don't claim it found. On this note, and this may sound hypocritical,,, i don't really care when other people log a cache when i'm the only one who actually reaches the cache. That's between them, the cache owner, and their conscience.

On the OP, the owner does have the right to delete the find.

2.7k · March 7, 2016

To the OP, you didn't sign the log, in fact, YOU didn't go to the place of the cache (the climb) so why would you expect the CO to allow your log to stand?

2.4k · March 7, 2016

This doesn't sound like your typical tree climbing cache, if it's a T5. It is either one that you need ropes for, or a rock climbing cache, or something like that.

If I had a T5 cache like that, I'd be unhappy if someone signed for a cacher who kept their feet on the ground. I'd also be unhappy if the climber brought the cache down for the non-climbers to sign. The point of the cache would be to climb up to sign it.

But cachers seem to do this a lot, and many COs don't seem to mind. You happened to find one that DID mind.

5.7k · March 7, 2016

Recently I was at a T5 cache were someone else offered to climb and stamped the log book for me, I did log it to which the CO deleted it.

Good for the CO, cause you cheated their T5.

7.8k · March 7, 2016

It is not deleting I am concerned about...

There really isn't much to discuss about the deletion anyway. Assuming that your name is indeed in the physical log, the CO was out of line in deleting your log and it would be restored and locked if you contact Appeals. The Answer 2 you received stating that you have to log it yourself is flat-out wrong, because there's no such requirement in the guidelines.

...but more about when does a log count as a find.

In what context?

Ethically? There's no right answer for this; it varies from finder to finder. The 12-year-old, 61-page, 3000-post Found It = Didn't Find It discussion is a testament to the variety of cachers' ethics.

Based on the website's rules/guidelines? According to the guidelines, if your signature is in the physical log, your online log is considered valid and can be restored if deleted. The cache owner's personal wishes are irrelevant. A cache owner cannot require that every logger climb the tree, solve the puzzle, etc. As long as your signature is in the log, there's nothing they can do. If they don't like this rule, then they can consider listing their cache on a different site.

As for the described scenario (albeit without knowing exactly how difficult the cache is), I've actually been in a similar situation. There was a T5 tree-climbing cache (note: T5 was too high; it was probably a T4 in reality) beside the site of an event I was holding. One of the attendees brought an extension ladder and used it to gain access to the cache, and the people who hadn't already found it all gathered around. Someone climbed up the ladder and retrieved the container, then brought it back down to the ground where everyone signed in. I signed the log, but I did not climb the ladder since I was trying to keep the event on track. Personally, I feel that climbing the ladder in this scenario was effectively a formality that I was capable of doing, but didn't due to time constraints. Was it really necessary for me to make an easy climb up the ladder just to tick some virtual checkbox? I don't feel so, but some people may feel differently.

March 7, 2016

It is not deleting I am concerned about...

There really isn't much to discuss about the deletion anyway. Assuming that your name is indeed in the physical log, the CO was out of line in deleting your log and it would be restored and locked if you contact Appeals. The Answer 2 you received stating that you have to log it yourself is flat-out wrong, because there's no such requirement in the guidelines.

...but more about when does a log count as a find.

In what context?

Ethically? There's no right answer for this; it varies from finder to finder. The 12-year-old, 61-page, 3000-post Found It = Didn't Find It discussion is a testament to the variety of cachers' ethics.

Based on the website's rules/guidelines? According to the guidelines, if your signature is in the physical log, your online log is considered valid and can be restored if deleted. The cache owner's personal wishes are irrelevant. A cache owner cannot require that every logger climb the tree, solve the puzzle, etc. As long as your signature is in the log, there's nothing they can do. If they don't like this rule, then they can consider listing their cache on a different site.

As for the described scenario (albeit without knowing exactly how difficult the cache is), I've actually been in a similar situation. There was a T5 tree-climbing cache (note: T5 was too high; it was probably a T4 in reality) beside the site of an event I was holding. One of the attendees brought an extension ladder and used it to gain access to the cache, and the people who hadn't already found it all gathered around. Someone climbed up the ladder and retrieved the container, then brought it back down to the ground where everyone signed in. I signed the log, but I did not climb the ladder since I was trying to keep the event on track. Personally, I feel that climbing the ladder in this scenario was effectively a formality that I was capable of doing, but didn't due to time constraints. Was it really necessary for me to make an easy climb up the ladder just to tick some virtual checkbox? I don't feel so, but some people may feel differently.

+1

I was writing up something similar, then saw A-Team's response. His write-up is much better than mine. A CO cannot require that you follow a specific procedure to get to the cache, the only guideline is that the cache is left as originally found.

4.5k · March 7, 2016

It is not deleting I am concerned about...

There really isn't much to discuss about the deletion anyway. Assuming that your name is indeed in the physical log, the CO was out of line in deleting your log and it would be restored and locked if you contact Appeals. The Answer 2 you received stating that you have to log it yourself is flat-out wrong, because there's no such requirement in the guidelines.

...but more about when does a log count as a find.

In what context?

Ethically? There's no right answer for this; it varies from finder to finder. The 12-year-old, 61-page, 3000-post Found It = Didn't Find It discussion is a testament to the variety of cachers' ethics.

Based on the website's rules/guidelines? According to the guidelines, if your signature is in the physical log, your online log is considered valid and can be restored if deleted. The cache owner's personal wishes are irrelevant. A cache owner cannot require that every logger climb the tree, solve the puzzle, etc. As long as your signature is in the log, there's nothing they can do. If they don't like this rule, then they can consider listing their cache on a different site.

As for the described scenario (albeit without knowing exactly how difficult the cache is), I've actually been in a similar situation. There was a T5 tree-climbing cache (note: T5 was too high; it was probably a T4 in reality) beside the site of an event I was holding. One of the attendees brought an extension ladder and used it to gain access to the cache, and the people who hadn't already found it all gathered around. Someone climbed up the ladder and retrieved the container, then brought it back down to the ground where everyone signed in. I signed the log, but I did not climb the ladder since I was trying to keep the event on track. Personally, I feel that climbing the ladder in this scenario was effectively a formality that I was capable of doing, but didn't due to time constraints. Was it really necessary for me to make an easy climb up the ladder just to tick some virtual checkbox? I don't feel so, but some people may feel differently.

Sorry, but i feel differently,, pretty much about everything you said. I know that Groundspeak can be contacted but i'm not so sure they would side with the so called "finder" in a case like this. Actually, and although the two GS responses were different, neither stated anything about reinstating the OP's log. In fact, the 2nd response stated something to the effect that GS sided with the cache owner in this case.

I don't have a cache like this placed but if i did, it would irritate me to no end if someone cry babied to GS who then forced a reinstatement of a "found log" that i had rightfully deleted.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Mudfrog

3.7k · March 7, 2016

It is not deleting I am concerned about...

There really isn't much to discuss about the deletion anyway. Assuming that your name is indeed in the physical log, the CO was out of line in deleting your log and it would be restored and locked if you contact Appeals. The Answer 2 you received stating that you have to log it yourself is flat-out wrong, because there's no such requirement in the guidelines.

...but more about when does a log count as a find.

In what context?

Ethically? There's no right answer for this; it varies from finder to finder. The 12-year-old, 61-page, 3000-post Found It = Didn't Find It discussion is a testament to the variety of cachers' ethics.

Based on the website's rules/guidelines? According to the guidelines, if your signature is in the physical log, your online log is considered valid and can be restored if deleted. The cache owner's personal wishes are irrelevant. A cache owner cannot require that every logger climb the tree, solve the puzzle, etc. As long as your signature is in the log, there's nothing they can do. If they don't like this rule, then they can consider listing their cache on a different site.

As for the described scenario (albeit without knowing exactly how difficult the cache is), I've actually been in a similar situation. There was a T5 tree-climbing cache (note: T5 was too high; it was probably a T4 in reality) beside the site of an event I was holding. One of the attendees brought an extension ladder and used it to gain access to the cache, and the people who hadn't already found it all gathered around. Someone climbed up the ladder and retrieved the container, then brought it back down to the ground where everyone signed in. I signed the log, but I did not climb the ladder since I was trying to keep the event on track. Personally, I feel that climbing the ladder in this scenario was effectively a formality that I was capable of doing, but didn't due to time constraints. Was it really necessary for me to make an easy climb up the ladder just to tick some virtual checkbox? I don't feel so, but some people may feel differently.

Sorry, but i feel differently,, pretty much about everything you said. I know that Groundspeak can be contacted but i'm not so sure they would side with the so called "finder" in a case like this. Actually, and although the two GS responses were different, neither stated anything about reinstating the OP's log. In fact, the 2nd response stated something to the effect that GS sided with the cache owner in this case.

I don't have a cache like this placed but if i did, it would irritate me to no end if someone cry babied to GS who then forced a reinstatement of a "found log" that i had rightfully deleted.

How you "feel" and whether you would be "irritated" are of no concern to anyone. GS has their guidelines and they likely aren't interested in assessing the validity of a claim on a any basis other than "is your name on the log sheet?".

4.5k · March 7, 2016

It is not deleting I am concerned about...

There really isn't much to discuss about the deletion anyway. Assuming that your name is indeed in the physical log, the CO was out of line in deleting your log and it would be restored and locked if you contact Appeals. The Answer 2 you received stating that you have to log it yourself is flat-out wrong, because there's no such requirement in the guidelines.

...but more about when does a log count as a find.

In what context?

Ethically? There's no right answer for this; it varies from finder to finder. The 12-year-old, 61-page, 3000-post Found It = Didn't Find It discussion is a testament to the variety of cachers' ethics.

Based on the website's rules/guidelines? According to the guidelines, if your signature is in the physical log, your online log is considered valid and can be restored if deleted. The cache owner's personal wishes are irrelevant. A cache owner cannot require that every logger climb the tree, solve the puzzle, etc. As long as your signature is in the log, there's nothing they can do. If they don't like this rule, then they can consider listing their cache on a different site.

As for the described scenario (albeit without knowing exactly how difficult the cache is), I've actually been in a similar situation. There was a T5 tree-climbing cache (note: T5 was too high; it was probably a T4 in reality) beside the site of an event I was holding. One of the attendees brought an extension ladder and used it to gain access to the cache, and the people who hadn't already found it all gathered around. Someone climbed up the ladder and retrieved the container, then brought it back down to the ground where everyone signed in. I signed the log, but I did not climb the ladder since I was trying to keep the event on track. Personally, I feel that climbing the ladder in this scenario was effectively a formality that I was capable of doing, but didn't due to time constraints. Was it really necessary for me to make an easy climb up the ladder just to tick some virtual checkbox? I don't feel so, but some people may feel differently.

Sorry, but i feel differently,, pretty much about everything you said. I know that Groundspeak can be contacted but i'm not so sure they would side with the so called "finder" in a case like this. Actually, and although the two GS responses were different, neither stated anything about reinstating the OP's log. In fact, the 2nd response stated something to the effect that GS sided with the cache owner in this case.

I don't have a cache like this placed but if i did, it would irritate me to no end if someone cry babied to GS who then forced a reinstatement of a "found log" that i had rightfully deleted.

How you "feel" and whether you would be "irritated" are of no concern to anyone. GS has their guidelines and they likely aren't interested in assessing the validity of a claim on a any basis other than "is your name on the log sheet?".

Again, read GS's 2nd response.

Answer 2

Unfortunately, in order to claim a find on a geocache, one needs to have logged the cache themselves. Of course if a Cache Owner decides it's fine for you to have claimed the find on the cache, we wouldn't interfere. But unfortunately we do side with the Cache Owner

, Groundspeak

14k · March 7, 2016

It is not deleting I am concerned about...

There really isn't much to discuss about the deletion anyway. Assuming that your name is indeed in the physical log, the CO was out of line in deleting your log and it would be restored and locked if you contact Appeals. The Answer 2 you received stating that you have to log it yourself is flat-out wrong, because there's no such requirement in the guidelines.

...but more about when does a log count as a find.

In what context?

Ethically? There's no right answer for this; it varies from finder to finder. The 12-year-old, 61-page, 3000-post Found It = Didn't Find It discussion is a testament to the variety of cachers' ethics.

Based on the website's rules/guidelines? According to the guidelines, if your signature is in the physical log, your online log is considered valid and can be restored if deleted. The cache owner's personal wishes are irrelevant. A cache owner cannot require that every logger climb the tree, solve the puzzle, etc. As long as your signature is in the log, there's nothing they can do. If they don't like this rule, then they can consider listing their cache on a different site.

As for the described scenario (albeit without knowing exactly how difficult the cache is), I've actually been in a similar situation. There was a T5 tree-climbing cache (note: T5 was too high; it was probably a T4 in reality) beside the site of an event I was holding. One of the attendees brought an extension ladder and used it to gain access to the cache, and the people who hadn't already found it all gathered around. Someone climbed up the ladder and retrieved the container, then brought it back down to the ground where everyone signed in. I signed the log, but I did not climb the ladder since I was trying to keep the event on track. Personally, I feel that climbing the ladder in this scenario was effectively a formality that I was capable of doing, but didn't due to time constraints. Was it really necessary for me to make an easy climb up the ladder just to tick some virtual checkbox? I don't feel so, but some people may feel differently.

+1

I was writing up something similar, then saw A-Team's response. His write-up is much better than mine. A CO cannot require that you follow a specific procedure to get to the cache, the only guideline is that the cache is left as originally found.

Unless you're doing a power trail, then it's okay to swap containers.

In the Definition of a Find thread I listed several other scenarios where some may feel it's a legitimate find while others may draw that line somewhere and feel that "calling it a find" starts to really stretch the definition of a find. The scenarios were:

1. Is it a find if the cache is in a tree, but is low enough someone standing on your shoulders is able to reach the container to retrieve and replace the cache?

2. Is it a find if I provide a ladder for someone else that uses it to access the cache?

3. Is it a find if someone else brings a ladder but I hold it as they start to climb?

4. Is it a find if I just stand at the base of the tree and offer encouraging words to someone else that climbs the tree?

Let me add a couple more...

5. Is it a find if I just stay in the car while I watch a friend walk 200' to a tree, climb it, then put my name on the log sheet?

6. Is it a find if I just stay at home (or go geocaching somewhere else) while a geobuddy climbs a tree for a cache and writes my name in the log?

Yes, different people may feel different about whether one is justified in logging a find on a cache up in a tree when they didn't actually climb the tree (or use a ladder). In the scenarios above, assume that the reason that the CO placed the cache in the tree was to created a cache which required the finders climb the tree, but in none of the scenarios would a CO be able to delete the log (after all, the name is in the log sheet). According to the guidelines, it may be a find, but personally I think that anyone that would log a find in all of those scenarios has integrity issues. Apparently high find counts and having lots of high Terrain "finds" on ones profile is deemed to be more important to some than having integrity.

3.7k · March 7, 2016

It is not deleting I am concerned about...

There really isn't much to discuss about the deletion anyway. Assuming that your name is indeed in the physical log, the CO was out of line in deleting your log and it would be restored and locked if you contact Appeals. The Answer 2 you received stating that you have to log it yourself is flat-out wrong, because there's no such requirement in the guidelines.

...but more about when does a log count as a find.

In what context?

Ethically? There's no right answer for this; it varies from finder to finder. The 12-year-old, 61-page, 3000-post Found It = Didn't Find It discussion is a testament to the variety of cachers' ethics.

Based on the website's rules/guidelines? According to the guidelines, if your signature is in the physical log, your online log is considered valid and can be restored if deleted. The cache owner's personal wishes are irrelevant. A cache owner cannot require that every logger climb the tree, solve the puzzle, etc. As long as your signature is in the log, there's nothing they can do. If they don't like this rule, then they can consider listing their cache on a different site.

As for the described scenario (albeit without knowing exactly how difficult the cache is), I've actually been in a similar situation. There was a T5 tree-climbing cache (note: T5 was too high; it was probably a T4 in reality) beside the site of an event I was holding. One of the attendees brought an extension ladder and used it to gain access to the cache, and the people who hadn't already found it all gathered around. Someone climbed up the ladder and retrieved the container, then brought it back down to the ground where everyone signed in. I signed the log, but I did not climb the ladder since I was trying to keep the event on track. Personally, I feel that climbing the ladder in this scenario was effectively a formality that I was capable of doing, but didn't due to time constraints. Was it really necessary for me to make an easy climb up the ladder just to tick some virtual checkbox? I don't feel so, but some people may feel differently.

Sorry, but i feel differently,, pretty much about everything you said. I know that Groundspeak can be contacted but i'm not so sure they would side with the so called "finder" in a case like this. Actually, and although the two GS responses were different, neither stated anything about reinstating the OP's log. In fact, the 2nd response stated something to the effect that GS sided with the cache owner in this case.

I don't have a cache like this placed but if i did, it would irritate me to no end if someone cry babied to GS who then forced a reinstatement of a "found log" that i had rightfully deleted.

How you "feel" and whether you would be "irritated" are of no concern to anyone. GS has their guidelines and they likely aren't interested in assessing the validity of a claim on a any basis other than "is your name on the log sheet?".

Again, read GS's 2nd response.

Answer 2

Unfortunately, in order to claim a find on a geocache, one needs to have logged the cache themselves. Of course if a Cache Owner decides it's fine for you to have claimed the find on the cache, we wouldn't interfere. But unfortunately we do side with the Cache Owner

, Groundspeak

I think it's pretty clear from every single other response I've heard on such issues that that particular reply is incorrect. One could actually debate their meaning when they say "one needs to have logged the cache themselves". So throwing down the cache for the person to sign is "logging the cache themselves", regardless of whether that person actually climbed the tree.

4.5k · March 7, 2016

I think it's pretty clear from every single other response I've heard on such issues that that particular reply is incorrect. One could actually debate their meaning when they say "one needs to have logged the cache themselves". So throwing down the cache for the person to sign is "logging the cache themselves", regardless of whether that person actually climbed the tree.

So you're saying that Groundspeak's replies are wrong but the replies here in this thread are correct?

Groundspeak will get involved at times. They will reinstate a find log and even lock a cache page so it can't be deleted. But, I don't think i've ever read a reply or seen an instance where Goundspeak got involved in this particular situation.

Someone signing a log for me while i'm standing next to them is one thing,, someone up a tree signing a log for me while i'm on the ground is another.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Mudfrog

2.7k · March 7, 2016

According to Groundspeak in their blog and other places, the 'rules' of Geocaching have been stated as "Find the cache, Sign the log, Log it online". These 'rules' DO NOT say "Have someone else find the cache & write your name on the log for you, so you can log it online". There should be more weight given to the Cache Owner in situations like the OP stated ..... as reflected in the second quote.

7.8k · March 7, 2016

Sorry, but i feel differently,, pretty much about everything you said. I know that Groundspeak can be contacted but i'm not so sure they would side with the so called "finder" in a case like this. Actually, and although the two GS responses were different, neither stated anything about reinstating the OP's log. In fact, the 2nd response stated something to the effect that GS sided with the cache owner in this case.

It should be noted that the responses the OP got were through Facebook (EDIT: actually, it's unclear what method of communication was used), so it's unclear who exactly was giving the responses. For all we know, the second response could have been from a Lackey in charge of their social media who knows little about the guidelines. Also, we don't know what question they're answering (we need to get the planet Earth working on that!), so there may be a reason why they didn't address the matter of reinstating the log.

Regardless, the guideline (III.-1.) is clear:

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

The only exception is for Challenge caches. It doesn't specify how the log should be signed, and it's been like that for a long time.

I don't have a cache like this placed but if i did, it would irritate me to no end if someone cry babied to GS who then forced a reinstatement of a "found log" that i had rightfully deleted.

To be clear, what I'm posting is purely discussing the way things are handled by this listing site, not my personal feelings. If I were the CO, I'd probably get irritated too. Unfortunately, "them's the rules", and COs need to understand going in that not everybody is going to find the cache using the intended method.

Edited March 7, 2016 by The A-Team

March 8, 2016

The OP stated he/she wasn't objecting to the deletion but wanted clarification going forward for future cache finds. I didn't take that as "whining."

Interesting topic since I frequently see logs where a group was caching together and stated log was being signed with a group name (created for the days caching). No formal team account, just a convenience name so they don't have to wait for (however) many people to sign their names.

So how do those logs count as finds when only one person signs the logs with a non-registered name?

4.5k · March 8, 2016

Sorry, but i feel differently,, pretty much about everything you said. I know that Groundspeak can be contacted but i'm not so sure they would side with the so called "finder" in a case like this. Actually, and although the two GS responses were different, neither stated anything about reinstating the OP's log. In fact, the 2nd response stated something to the effect that GS sided with the cache owner in this case.

It should be noted that the responses the OP got were through Facebook (EDIT: actually, it's unclear what method of communication was used), so it's unclear who exactly was giving the responses. For all we know, the second response could have been from a Lackey in charge of their social media who knows little about the guidelines. Also, we don't know what question they're answering (we need to get the planet Earth working on that!), so there may be a reason why they didn't address the matter of reinstating the log.

Regardless, the guideline (III.-1.) is clear:

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

The only exception is for Challenge caches. It doesn't specify how the log should be signed, and it's been like that for a long time.

I don't have a cache like this placed but if i did, it would irritate me to no end if someone cry babied to GS who then forced a reinstatement of a "found log" that i had rightfully deleted.

To be clear, what I'm posting is purely discussing the way things are handled by this listing site, not my personal feelings. If I were the CO, I'd probably get irritated too. Unfortunately, "them's the rules", and COs need to understand going in that not everybody is going to find the cache using the intended method.

I'm not sure if the OP wrote to Groundspeak with an appeal or just posed his questions somewhere. I guess it's easy to see by my replies, that i was thinking he went to appeals. The 2nd answer is worded in such a way that i kinda had the feeling it was in reference to an appeal. Either way, the replies he got were from Groundspeak Lackeys. I agree that the questions asked should have a common answer.

The guideline you quoted is correct but i don't think it should be taken at face value. It's definitely not as simple as that. My signature on a log is not the only thing required for me to claim found on a cache. Heck, i wouldn't even have to go to ground zero if this was the case. I'd just have my "team member" sign my name and i'd be good to go. How bout if there was a cache at the top of Everest that i could see using a telescope? Would it be ok for me to log found if my team member made the climb and signed my name while i stayed down at the bottom?

As i have said before, i don't care what others do. If you feel ok logging a find that you didn't reach, go for it. Just don't act all surprised and get upset if a cache owner questions you about it.

1.4k · March 8, 2016

As a CO of tree climbs I wouldn't delete someones log because they didn't climb it as long as someone in the group did. That is just me though. I can see a different CO doing that and they should be able to if that is how they feel.

We place caches for other cachers to have fun and hopefully enjoy the game. My hope is they will keep playing and searching for our hides and maybe even decide to come up with fun hides for us to find.

Lets say I have met some local cachers at a event that is a father son team. Both with different accounts and the father has some health issues. They cache together all the time and find our hides and we find there hides. We often go caching together and have became friends in this game. I then place a tree hide and they go out and find it. The son climbs up the tree and takes it down for the father to sign. So now I should delete the fathers find because I know he didn't climb it? To me that would be a jerk move. I would want the father to be able to get the find on our cache as well. So I also wouldn't delete a log from someone I don't know doing the same thing.

Anyways that is how I would handle it as a CO but others could handle it how they feel is right and I wouldn't think anything of it. It is there cache.

4.5k · March 8, 2016

As a CO of tree climbs I wouldn't delete someones log because they didn't climb it as long as someone in the group did. That is just me though. I can see a different CO doing that and they should be able to if that is how they feel.

We place caches for other cachers to have fun and hopefully enjoy the game. My hope is they will keep playing and searching for our hides and maybe even decide to come up with fun hides for us to find.

Lets say I have met some local cachers at a event that is a father son team. Both with different accounts and the father has some health issues. They cache together all the time and find our hides and we find there hides. We often go caching together and have became friends in this game. I then place a tree hide and they go out and find it. The son climbs up the tree and takes it down for the father to sign. So now I should delete the fathers find because I know he didn't climb it? To me that would be a jerk move. I would want the father to be able to get the find on our cache as well. So I also wouldn't delete a log from someone I don't know doing the same thing.

Anyways that is how I would handle it as a CO but others could handle it how they feel is right and I wouldn't think anything of it. It is there cache.

I used to have a tree climb cache that was difficult to get to. I too allowed finds on it from people who didn't make the climb but were with a group where one person did the deed. Like you said, it's up to me how i want to handle it. The CO that deleted the OP's find log is on the other end of the spectrum though. We may not be as strict but i defend his right to be. He placed a difficult cache and wants everyone to make the climb before they log a find on it. It's his cache and as long as he doesn't break GS guidelines, people should respect his wishes.

There are tons of caches that i'm not capable of doing. I love tree climbs but i wouldn't log found if i came across one at a time when i wasn't physically able to make the climb. It's too easy for me to just shrug it off and move on until another time when i felt better. If it turned out that i couldn't get it in my lifetime, then so be it. No biggie!

3.8k · March 8, 2016

It is not deleting I am concerned about...

There really isn't much to discuss about the deletion anyway. Assuming that your name is indeed in the physical log, the CO was out of line in deleting your log and it would be restored and locked if you contact Appeals. The Answer 2 you received stating that you have to log it yourself is flat-out wrong, because there's no such requirement in the guidelines.

...but more about when does a log count as a find.

In what context?

Ethically? There's no right answer for this; it varies from finder to finder. The 12-year-old, 61-page, 3000-post Found It = Didn't Find It discussion is a testament to the variety of cachers' ethics.

Based on the website's rules/guidelines? According to the guidelines, if your signature is in the physical log, your online log is considered valid and can be restored if deleted. The cache owner's personal wishes are irrelevant. A cache owner cannot require that every logger climb the tree, solve the puzzle, etc. As long as your signature is in the log, there's nothing they can do. If they don't like this rule, then they can consider listing their cache on a different site.

As for the described scenario (albeit without knowing exactly how difficult the cache is), I've actually been in a similar situation. There was a T5 tree-climbing cache (note: T5 was too high; it was probably a T4 in reality) beside the site of an event I was holding. One of the attendees brought an extension ladder and used it to gain access to the cache, and the people who hadn't already found it all gathered around. Someone climbed up the ladder and retrieved the container, then brought it back down to the ground where everyone signed in. I signed the log, but I did not climb the ladder since I was trying to keep the event on track. Personally, I feel that climbing the ladder in this scenario was effectively a formality that I was capable of doing, but didn't due to time constraints. Was it really necessary for me to make an easy climb up the ladder just to tick some virtual checkbox? I don't feel so, but some people may feel differently.

+1

I was writing up something similar, then saw A-Team's response. His write-up is much better than mine. A CO cannot require that you follow a specific procedure to get to the cache, the only guideline is that the cache is left as originally found.

Unless you're doing a power trail, then it's okay to swap containers.

In the Definition of a Find thread I listed several other scenarios where some may feel it's a legitimate find while others may draw that line somewhere and feel that "calling it a find" starts to really stretch the definition of a find. The scenarios were:

1. Is it a find if the cache is in a tree, but is low enough someone standing on your shoulders is able to reach the container to retrieve and replace the cache?

2. Is it a find if I provide a ladder for someone else that uses it to access the cache?

3. Is it a find if someone else brings a ladder but I hold it as they start to climb?

4. Is it a find if I just stand at the base of the tree and offer encouraging words to someone else that climbs the tree?

Let me add a couple more...

5. Is it a find if I just stay in the car while I watch a friend walk 200' to a tree, climb it, then put my name on the log sheet?

6. Is it a find if I just stay at home (or go geocaching somewhere else) while a geobuddy climbs a tree for a cache and writes my name in the log?

Yes, different people may feel different about whether one is justified in logging a find on a cache up in a tree when they didn't actually climb the tree (or use a ladder). In the scenarios above, assume that the reason that the CO placed the cache in the tree was to created a cache which required the finders climb the tree, but in none of the scenarios would a CO be able to delete the log (after all, the name is in the log sheet). According to the guidelines, it may be a find, but personally I think that anyone that would log a find in all of those scenarios has integrity issues. Apparently high find counts and having lots of high Terrain "finds" on ones profile is deemed to be more important to some than having integrity.

It's unfortunate that situations like this happen more often than not. But if your name is on the paper log, or, the CO says your find stands, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. But I am sure some will find a way to stretch this out to 200 or more posts.

7.8k · March 8, 2016

The guideline you quoted is correct but i don't think it should be taken at face value. It's definitely not as simple as that. My signature on a log is not the only thing required for me to claim found on a cache. Heck, i wouldn't even have to go to ground zero if this was the case. I'd just have my "team member" sign my name and i'd be good to go. How bout if there was a cache at the top of Everest that i could see using a telescope? Would it be ok for me to log found if my team member made the climb and signed my name while i stayed down at the bottom?

This is why I gave separate answers earlier depending on the context. If we're talking about whether it's ethical to claim a find in your Everest scenario, that's something that can be debated endlessly. However, as far as logging on this site is concerned, the signature is the only requirement for a non-challenge physical cache. In that case, you could log the Everest cache and the owner wouldn't be allowed to delete it.

Sure, that guideline may not mean what you'd like it to mean, but that's the way it is until Groundspeak decides to tweak the wording to require some other criteria (most of which would be unverifiable; how can Groundspeak or a CO know whether I personally signed the log as intended?).

3.1k · March 8, 2016

...

Regardless, the guideline (III.-1.) is clear:

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

The only exception is for Challenge caches. It doesn't specify how the log should be signed, and it's been like that for a long time.

...

The guideline you quoted is correct but i don't think it should be taken at face value. It's definitely not as simple as that. My signature on a log is not the only thing required for me to claim found on a cache. Heck, i wouldn't even have to go to ground zero if this was the case. I'd just have my "team member" sign my name and i'd be good to go. How bout if there was a cache at the top of Everest that i could see using a telescope? Would it be ok for me to log found if my team member made the climb and signed my name while i stayed down at the bottom?

This is why I gave separate answers earlier depending on the context. If we're talking about whether it's ethical to claim a find in your Everest scenario, that's something that can be debated endlessly. However, as far as logging on this site is concerned, the signature is the only requirement for a non-challenge physical cache. In that case, you could log the Everest cache and the owner wouldn't be allowed to delete it.

Sure, that guideline may not mean what you'd like it to mean, but that's the way it is until Groundspeak decides to tweak the wording to require some other criteria (most of which would be unverifiable; how can Groundspeak or a CO know whether I personally signed the log as intended?).

The guidelines might look black-and-white, but Groundspeak's interpretation of them often includes many shades of gray. They can't explicitly spell out every conceivable exception that could occur...at least not without the guidelines being thousands of screen-pages long.

If my brother climbs Everest and signs my name to a cache logbook while up there, then I have little doubt that Groundspeak would back up a cache owner who deletes my online "Found it"...as long as that CO could show I was nowhere near that cache. For example, I might admit in my online log that my brother signed the logbook while I was in Tokyo. Or the CO might show that I had logged finds in California on the day my brother signed the Everest logbook.

Here's another exception. If someone temporarily removes a logbook from one of my caches, brings that logbook to an event, and lets all their friends sign that logbook, then I'm pretty certain Groundspeak would back me up if I deleted all those "pocket cache" finds...as long as I could show that this is what happened.

And another exception. A puzzle cache owner used to sign solvers' names in his puzzle cache's logbook, even if the solvers were an ocean away. When Groundspeak learned of this practice, they put a stop to it.

Edited March 8, 2016 by CanadianRockies

3.7k · March 8, 2016

The guideline you quoted is correct but i don't think it should be taken at face value. It's definitely not as simple as that. My signature on a log is not the only thing required for me to claim found on a cache. Heck, i wouldn't even have to go to ground zero if this was the case. I'd just have my "team member" sign my name and i'd be good to go. How bout if there was a cache at the top of Everest that i could see using a telescope? Would it be ok for me to log found if my team member made the climb and signed my name while i stayed down at the bottom?

This is why I gave separate answers earlier depending on the context. If we're talking about whether it's ethical to claim a find in your Everest scenario, that's something that can be debated endlessly. However, as far as logging on this site is concerned, the signature is the only requirement for a non-challenge physical cache. In that case, you could log the Everest cache and the owner wouldn't be allowed to delete it.

Sure, that guideline may not mean what you'd like it to mean, but that's the way it is until Groundspeak decides to tweak the wording to require some other criteria (most of which would be unverifiable; how can Groundspeak or a CO know whether I personally signed the log as intended?).

My point all along. Groundspeak does not care and will always fall back on the "is their name on the paper log sheet?" argument to resolve any dispute. They aren't (and frankly shouldn't be) concerned with figuring out the exact circumstances of every complaint and deleted log. I think it's important to have a clear line drawn. Yes, there will always be people who game the system, but they wisely stay out of the mix this way and, for the most part, let people resolve these disputes between themselves.

Now, the OP stated he did not actually climb the tree and said so in the found it log. In that case, the CO had every right to delete it and could point to that "confession" in the log when making his case. If that had not been written for all to see, then there is no way for the CO or Groundspeak to argue for deletion as long as the name is written on the paper log. They decided what constitutes "proof" and sticking with that is the only way to go.

4.5k · March 8, 2016

The guideline you quoted is correct but i don't think it should be taken at face value. It's definitely not as simple as that. My signature on a log is not the only thing required for me to claim found on a cache. Heck, i wouldn't even have to go to ground zero if this was the case. I'd just have my "team member" sign my name and i'd be good to go. How bout if there was a cache at the top of Everest that i could see using a telescope? Would it be ok for me to log found if my team member made the climb and signed my name while i stayed down at the bottom?

This is why I gave separate answers earlier depending on the context. If we're talking about whether it's ethical to claim a find in your Everest scenario, that's something that can be debated endlessly. However, as far as logging on this site is concerned, the signature is the only requirement for a non-challenge physical cache. In that case, you could log the Everest cache and the owner wouldn't be allowed to delete it.

Sure, that guideline may not mean what you'd like it to mean, but that's the way it is until Groundspeak decides to tweak the wording to require some other criteria (most of which would be unverifiable; how can Groundspeak or a CO know whether I personally signed the log as intended?).

My point all along. Groundspeak does not care and will always fall back on the "is their name on the paper log sheet?" argument to resolve any dispute. They aren't (and frankly shouldn't be) concerned with figuring out the exact circumstances of every complaint and deleted log. I think it's important to have a clear line drawn. Yes, there will always be people who game the system, but they wisely stay out of the mix this way and, for the most part, let people resolve these disputes between themselves.

Now, the OP stated he did not actually climb the tree and said so in the found it log. In that case, the CO had every right to delete it and could point to that "confession" in the log when making his case. If that had not been written for all to see, then there is no way for the CO or Groundspeak to argue for deletion as long as the name is written on the paper log. They decided what constitutes "proof" and sticking with that is the only way to go.

I think, i'm beginning to understand now. As long as my name is on the logsheet, and, as long as i don't divulge any incriminating evidence, and, as long as no one else says anything,, my claim of finding will stay.,,, whether the cache owner likes it or not. I got it now!

What was coming across to me was that no matter what, if someone's name was on the log, GS would back them up. My argument was that there was more to it than this and that GS wouldn't always back up a person trying to fudge a find just because their name was on the log.

And i certainly agree with you that people should resolve this kind of stuff themselves.

1.4k · March 9, 2016

As a CO of tree climbs I wouldn't delete someones log because they didn't climb it as long as someone in the group did. That is just me though. I can see a different CO doing that and they should be able to if that is how they feel.

We place caches for other cachers to have fun and hopefully enjoy the game. My hope is they will keep playing and searching for our hides and maybe even decide to come up with fun hides for us to find.

Lets say I have met some local cachers at a event that is a father son team. Both with different accounts and the father has some health issues. They cache together all the time and find our hides and we find there hides. We often go caching together and have became friends in this game. I then place a tree hide and they go out and find it. The son climbs up the tree and takes it down for the father to sign. So now I should delete the fathers find because I know he didn't climb it? To me that would be a jerk move. I would want the father to be able to get the find on our cache as well. So I also wouldn't delete a log from someone I don't know doing the same thing.

Anyways that is how I would handle it as a CO but others could handle it how they feel is right and I wouldn't think anything of it. It is there cache.

I used to have a tree climb cache that was difficult to get to. I too allowed finds on it from people who didn't make the climb but were with a group where one person did the deed. Like you said, it's up to me how i want to handle it. The CO that deleted the OP's find log is on the other end of the spectrum though. We may not be as strict but i defend his right to be. He placed a difficult cache and wants everyone to make the climb before they log a find on it. It's his cache and as long as he doesn't break GS guidelines, people should respect his wishes.

There are tons of caches that i'm not capable of doing. I love tree climbs but i wouldn't log found if i came across one at a time when i wasn't physically able to make the climb. It's too easy for me to just shrug it off and move on until another time when i felt better. If it turned out that i couldn't get it in my lifetime, then so be it. No biggie!

Agreed. Like I said it is his cache and if he wants everyone to climb it then he should be able to do so.

2.4k · March 9, 2016

The guideline you quoted is correct but i don't think it should be taken at face value. It's definitely not as simple as that. My signature on a log is not the only thing required for me to claim found on a cache. Heck, i wouldn't even have to go to ground zero if this was the case. I'd just have my "team member" sign my name and i'd be good to go. How bout if there was a cache at the top of Everest that i could see using a telescope? Would it be ok for me to log found if my team member made the climb and signed my name while i stayed down at the bottom?

This is why I gave separate answers earlier depending on the context. If we're talking about whether it's ethical to claim a find in your Everest scenario, that's something that can be debated endlessly. However, as far as logging on this site is concerned, the signature is the only requirement for a non-challenge physical cache. In that case, you could log the Everest cache and the owner wouldn't be allowed to delete it.

Sure, that guideline may not mean what you'd like it to mean, but that's the way it is until Groundspeak decides to tweak the wording to require some other criteria (most of which would be unverifiable; how can Groundspeak or a CO know whether I personally signed the log as intended?).

My point all along. Groundspeak does not care and will always fall back on the "is their name on the paper log sheet?" argument to resolve any dispute. They aren't (and frankly shouldn't be) concerned with figuring out the exact circumstances of every complaint and deleted log. I think it's important to have a clear line drawn. Yes, there will always be people who game the system, but they wisely stay out of the mix this way and, for the most part, let people resolve these disputes between themselves.

Now, the OP stated he did not actually climb the tree and said so in the found it log. In that case, the CO had every right to delete it and could point to that "confession" in the log when making his case. If that had not been written for all to see, then there is no way for the CO or Groundspeak to argue for deletion as long as the name is written on the paper log. They decided what constitutes "proof" and sticking with that is the only way to go.

That sums it up. If you yourself signed the log than it's a find regardless of how the log wound up in your hands. No other way to handle it.

14k · March 9, 2016

It is not deleting I am concerned about...

There really isn't much to discuss about the deletion anyway. Assuming that your name is indeed in the physical log, the CO was out of line in deleting your log and it would be restored and locked if you contact Appeals. The Answer 2 you received stating that you have to log it yourself is flat-out wrong, because there's no such requirement in the guidelines.

...but more about when does a log count as a find.

In what context?

Ethically? There's no right answer for this; it varies from finder to finder. The 12-year-old, 61-page, 3000-post Found It = Didn't Find It discussion is a testament to the variety of cachers' ethics.

Based on the website's rules/guidelines? According to the guidelines, if your signature is in the physical log, your online log is considered valid and can be restored if deleted. The cache owner's personal wishes are irrelevant. A cache owner cannot require that every logger climb the tree, solve the puzzle, etc. As long as your signature is in the log, there's nothing they can do. If they don't like this rule, then they can consider listing their cache on a different site.

As for the described scenario (albeit without knowing exactly how difficult the cache is), I've actually been in a similar situation. There was a T5 tree-climbing cache (note: T5 was too high; it was probably a T4 in reality) beside the site of an event I was holding. One of the attendees brought an extension ladder and used it to gain access to the cache, and the people who hadn't already found it all gathered around. Someone climbed up the ladder and retrieved the container, then brought it back down to the ground where everyone signed in. I signed the log, but I did not climb the ladder since I was trying to keep the event on track. Personally, I feel that climbing the ladder in this scenario was effectively a formality that I was capable of doing, but didn't due to time constraints. Was it really necessary for me to make an easy climb up the ladder just to tick some virtual checkbox? I don't feel so, but some people may feel differently.

+1

I was writing up something similar, then saw A-Team's response. His write-up is much better than mine. A CO cannot require that you follow a specific procedure to get to the cache, the only guideline is that the cache is left as originally found.

Unless you're doing a power trail, then it's okay to swap containers.

In the Definition of a Find thread I listed several other scenarios where some may feel it's a legitimate find while others may draw that line somewhere and feel that "calling it a find" starts to really stretch the definition of a find. The scenarios were:

1. Is it a find if the cache is in a tree, but is low enough someone standing on your shoulders is able to reach the container to retrieve and replace the cache?

2. Is it a find if I provide a ladder for someone else that uses it to access the cache?

3. Is it a find if someone else brings a ladder but I hold it as they start to climb?

4. Is it a find if I just stand at the base of the tree and offer encouraging words to someone else that climbs the tree?

Let me add a couple more...

5. Is it a find if I just stay in the car while I watch a friend walk 200' to a tree, climb it, then put my name on the log sheet?

6. Is it a find if I just stay at home (or go geocaching somewhere else) while a geobuddy climbs a tree for a cache and writes my name in the log?

Yes, different people may feel different about whether one is justified in logging a find on a cache up in a tree when they didn't actually climb the tree (or use a ladder). In the scenarios above, assume that the reason that the CO placed the cache in the tree was to created a cache which required the finders climb the tree, but in none of the scenarios would a CO be able to delete the log (after all, the name is in the log sheet). According to the guidelines, it may be a find, but personally I think that anyone that would log a find in all of those scenarios has integrity issues. Apparently high find counts and having lots of high Terrain "finds" on ones profile is deemed to be more important to some than having integrity.

It's unfortunate that situations like this happen more often than not. But if your name is on the paper log, or, the CO says your find stands, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. But I am sure some will find a way to stretch this out to 200 or more posts.

Integrity, honesty, and respect for other geocachers matters.

4.5k · March 9, 2016

The guideline you quoted is correct but i don't think it should be taken at face value. It's definitely not as simple as that. My signature on a log is not the only thing required for me to claim found on a cache. Heck, i wouldn't even have to go to ground zero if this was the case. I'd just have my "team member" sign my name and i'd be good to go. How bout if there was a cache at the top of Everest that i could see using a telescope? Would it be ok for me to log found if my team member made the climb and signed my name while i stayed down at the bottom?

This is why I gave separate answers earlier depending on the context. If we're talking about whether it's ethical to claim a find in your Everest scenario, that's something that can be debated endlessly. However, as far as logging on this site is concerned, the signature is the only requirement for a non-challenge physical cache. In that case, you could log the Everest cache and the owner wouldn't be allowed to delete it.

Sure, that guideline may not mean what you'd like it to mean, but that's the way it is until Groundspeak decides to tweak the wording to require some other criteria (most of which would be unverifiable; how can Groundspeak or a CO know whether I personally signed the log as intended?).

My point all along. Groundspeak does not care and will always fall back on the "is their name on the paper log sheet?" argument to resolve any dispute. They aren't (and frankly shouldn't be) concerned with figuring out the exact circumstances of every complaint and deleted log. I think it's important to have a clear line drawn. Yes, there will always be people who game the system, but they wisely stay out of the mix this way and, for the most part, let people resolve these disputes between themselves.

Now, the OP stated he did not actually climb the tree and said so in the found it log. In that case, the CO had every right to delete it and could point to that "confession" in the log when making his case. If that had not been written for all to see, then there is no way for the CO or Groundspeak to argue for deletion as long as the name is written on the paper log. They decided what constitutes "proof" and sticking with that is the only way to go.

That sums it up. If you yourself signed the log than it's a find regardless of how the log wound up in your hands. No other way to handle it.

Nope! If i hike a 1/4 mile out to a cache site, bring the logbook back to to my wife who was waiting in the car, she signs, and then i walk it back out to the cache,,, the cache's owner has a right to delete her log. If my wife decided to whine to GS about this, and they knew the facts, i doubt her log would be reinstated.

3.7k · March 9, 2016

The guideline you quoted is correct but i don't think it should be taken at face value. It's definitely not as simple as that. My signature on a log is not the only thing required for me to claim found on a cache. Heck, i wouldn't even have to go to ground zero if this was the case. I'd just have my "team member" sign my name and i'd be good to go. How bout if there was a cache at the top of Everest that i could see using a telescope? Would it be ok for me to log found if my team member made the climb and signed my name while i stayed down at the bottom?

This is why I gave separate answers earlier depending on the context. If we're talking about whether it's ethical to claim a find in your Everest scenario, that's something that can be debated endlessly. However, as far as logging on this site is concerned, the signature is the only requirement for a non-challenge physical cache. In that case, you could log the Everest cache and the owner wouldn't be allowed to delete it.

Sure, that guideline may not mean what you'd like it to mean, but that's the way it is until Groundspeak decides to tweak the wording to require some other criteria (most of which would be unverifiable; how can Groundspeak or a CO know whether I personally signed the log as intended?).

My point all along. Groundspeak does not care and will always fall back on the "is their name on the paper log sheet?" argument to resolve any dispute. They aren't (and frankly shouldn't be) concerned with figuring out the exact circumstances of every complaint and deleted log. I think it's important to have a clear line drawn. Yes, there will always be people who game the system, but they wisely stay out of the mix this way and, for the most part, let people resolve these disputes between themselves.

Now, the OP stated he did not actually climb the tree and said so in the found it log. In that case, the CO had every right to delete it and could point to that "confession" in the log when making his case. If that had not been written for all to see, then there is no way for the CO or Groundspeak to argue for deletion as long as the name is written on the paper log. They decided what constitutes "proof" and sticking with that is the only way to go.

That sums it up. If you yourself signed the log than it's a find regardless of how the log wound up in your hands. No other way to handle it.

Nope! If i hike a 1/4 mile out to a cache site, bring the logbook back to to my wife who was waiting in the car, she signs, and then i walk it back out to the cache,,, the cache's owner has a right to delete her log. If my wife decided to whine to GS about this, and they knew the facts, i doubt her log would be reinstated.

Only if the circumstances of her signing it were described in the log would they even have a case. I would argue that it actually wouldn't even matter - that her name was signed in the log by her own hand, therefore it can legally stand. If a T5 cache was placed on an island and the river around it dried up and people could then walk to the cache, would the CO be able to delete the log of any walkers if the intent was for them to kayak to the cache? Not at all. GS would let it stand...and they should. An earlier post described the varying degrees of involvement, from being brought the cache from 1/4 mile away to helping another reach the cache. GS is not concerned with such distinctions and, again, they shouldn't be. Anyone so stressed out about people logging their cache in a way other than they intended probably should take a long hard look at whether ownership is right for them.

14k · March 9, 2016

The guideline you quoted is correct but i don't think it should be taken at face value. It's definitely not as simple as that. My signature on a log is not the only thing required for me to claim found on a cache. Heck, i wouldn't even have to go to ground zero if this was the case. I'd just have my "team member" sign my name and i'd be good to go. How bout if there was a cache at the top of Everest that i could see using a telescope? Would it be ok for me to log found if my team member made the climb and signed my name while i stayed down at the bottom?

This is why I gave separate answers earlier depending on the context. If we're talking about whether it's ethical to claim a find in your Everest scenario, that's something that can be debated endlessly. However, as far as logging on this site is concerned, the signature is the only requirement for a non-challenge physical cache. In that case, you could log the Everest cache and the owner wouldn't be allowed to delete it.

Sure, that guideline may not mean what you'd like it to mean, but that's the way it is until Groundspeak decides to tweak the wording to require some other criteria (most of which would be unverifiable; how can Groundspeak or a CO know whether I personally signed the log as intended?).

My point all along. Groundspeak does not care and will always fall back on the "is their name on the paper log sheet?" argument to resolve any dispute. They aren't (and frankly shouldn't be) concerned with figuring out the exact circumstances of every complaint and deleted log. I think it's important to have a clear line drawn. Yes, there will always be people who game the system, but they wisely stay out of the mix this way and, for the most part, let people resolve these disputes between themselves.

Now, the OP stated he did not actually climb the tree and said so in the found it log. In that case, the CO had every right to delete it and could point to that "confession" in the log when making his case. If that had not been written for all to see, then there is no way for the CO or Groundspeak to argue for deletion as long as the name is written on the paper log. They decided what constitutes "proof" and sticking with that is the only way to go.

That sums it up. If you yourself signed the log than it's a find regardless of how the log wound up in your hands. No other way to handle it.

Nope! If i hike a 1/4 mile out to a cache site, bring the logbook back to to my wife who was waiting in the car, she signs, and then i walk it back out to the cache,,, the cache's owner has a right to delete her log. If my wife decided to whine to GS about this, and they knew the facts, i doubt her log would be reinstated.

Only if the circumstances of her signing it were described in the log would they even have a case. I would argue that it actually wouldn't even matter - that her name was signed in the log by her own hand, therefore it can legally stand. If a T5 cache was placed on an island and the river around it dried up and people could then walk to the cache, would the CO be able to delete the log of any walkers if the intent was for them to kayak to the cache? Not at all. GS would let it stand...and they should. An earlier post described the varying degrees of involvement, from being brought the cache from 1/4 mile away to helping another reach the cache. GS is not concerned with such distinctions and, again, they shouldn't be. Anyone so stressed out about people logging their cache in a way other than they intended probably should take a long hard look at whether ownership is right for them.

So when someone that expresses an opinion about the legitimacy of a find (when someone didn't actually find the container) they're stressed out and should stop placing geocaches?

Blame the cache owners. They deserve no respect and only exist to increase our precious find count.

3.1k · March 9, 2016

That sums it up. If you yourself signed the log than it's a find regardless of how the log wound up in your hands. No other way to handle it.

Nope! If i hike a 1/4 mile out to a cache site, bring the logbook back to to my wife who was waiting in the car, she signs, and then i walk it back out to the cache,,, the cache's owner has a right to delete her log. If my wife decided to whine to GS about this, and they knew the facts, i doubt her log would be reinstated.

Only if the circumstances of her signing it were described in the log would they even have a case. I would argue that it actually wouldn't even matter - that her name was signed in the log by her own hand, therefore it can legally stand. If a T5 cache was placed on an island and the river around it dried up and people could then walk to the cache, would the CO be able to delete the log of any walkers if the intent was for them to kayak to the cache? Not at all. GS would let it stand...and they should. An earlier post described the varying degrees of involvement, from being brought the cache from 1/4 mile away to helping another reach the cache. GS is not concerned with such distinctions and, again, they shouldn't be. Anyone so stressed out about people logging their cache in a way other than they intended probably should take a long hard look at whether ownership is right for them.

(emphasis added)

Actually, Groundspeak is concerned with such distinctions. If the logbook was brought to an event, then Groundspeak would consider it a "pocket cache" and almost certainly allow the cache owner to delete any logs that occurred at the event.

1.4k · March 10, 2016

When I read the OP, I was a bit surprised to read GS answer #2. Reading the discussion, I admit that I'm happy to see that the majority of the cachers here think along the lines of "If your name is in the log, you can log a find online".

I'm not a T5 climber, but every once in a while I manage to solve a difficult puzzle. There are quite a lot D5/T5 puzzle caches in my area, and it has happened several times that I cooperated with a T5 specialist: I solved the puzzle, and my buddy climbed the tree and put both our names into the log. I admit that I would not be amused at all if the CO deleted my online find. My buddy had no clue about the D5 puzzle, but is an expert in tree climbing -> find. I solved the puzzle, but don't climb -> no find? That wouldn't sound "right" at all to me. Fortunately, so far I haven't had any trouble with COs, when I logged a T5 this way.

March 31, 2016

Thanks, I have walked away from this cache after the CO deleted the log twice. However I will follow the posts to find out what the guidelines actually are

March 31, 2016

It is not deleting I am concerned about...

There really isn't much to discuss about the deletion anyway. Assuming that your name is indeed in the physical log, the CO was out of line in deleting your log and it would be restored and locked if you contact Appeals. The Answer 2 you received stating that you have to log it yourself is flat-out wrong, because there's no such requirement in the guidelines.

...but more about when does a log count as a find.

In what context?

Ethically? There's no right answer for this; it varies from finder to finder. The 12-year-old, 61-page, 3000-post Found It = Didn't Find It discussion is a testament to the variety of cachers' ethics.

Based on the website's rules/guidelines? According to the guidelines, if your signature is in the physical log, your online log is considered valid and can be restored if deleted. The cache owner's personal wishes are irrelevant. A cache owner cannot require that every logger climb the tree, solve the puzzle, etc. As long as your signature is in the log, there's nothing they can do. If they don't like this rule, then they can consider listing their cache on a different site.

As for the described scenario (albeit without knowing exactly how difficult the cache is), I've actually been in a similar situation. There was a T5 tree-climbing cache (note: T5 was too high; it was probably a T4 in reality) beside the site of an event I was holding. One of the attendees brought an extension ladder and used it to gain access to the cache, and the people who hadn't already found it all gathered around. Someone climbed up the ladder and retrieved the container, then brought it back down to the ground where everyone signed in. I signed the log, but I did not climb the ladder since I was trying to keep the event on track. Personally, I feel that climbing the ladder in this scenario was effectively a formality that I was capable of doing, but didn't due to time constraints. Was it really necessary for me to make an easy climb up the ladder just to tick some virtual checkbox? I don't feel so, but some people may feel differently.

Sorry, but i feel differently,, pretty much about everything you said. I know that Groundspeak can be contacted but i'm not so sure they would side with the so called "finder" in a case like this. Actually, and although the two GS responses were different, neither stated anything about reinstating the OP's log. In fact, the 2nd response stated something to the effect that GS sided with the cache owner in this case.

I don't have a cache like this placed but if i did, it would irritate me to no end if someone cry babied to GS who then forced a reinstatement of a "found log" that i had rightfully deleted.

Thanks for the input,

these replies are actually my dilemma. If i go by the guidelines the log in the log book would be grounds for a find. The owner claims I didnt actually visit the cache (up the tree)and is grounds do delete the cache, however if we followed the CO request then thousands of caches would need to be deleted. However if your name is in the log book then it is a find.

I find this to be a round and round argument and this is where I think GC needs to place some specific guidelines to avoid this. I see this from both sides and this wasn't a armchair log as I was at the tree and like so many posts before the log book was signed by another cacher up the tree.

March 31, 2016

Thanks for the input,

these replies are actually my dilemma. If i go by the guidelines the log in the log book would be grounds for a find. The owner claims I didnt actually visit the cache (up the tree)and is grounds do delete the cache, however if we followed the CO request then thousands of caches would need to be deleted. However if your name is in the log book then it is a find.

I find this to be a round and round argument and this is where I think GC needs to place some specific guidelines to avoid this. I see this from both sides and this wasn't a armchair log as I was at the tree and like so many posts before the log book was signed by another cacher up the tree.

This argument could also be based on a D5 puzzle when someone works it out and another caches goes along with the other to find it, does this mean because they haven't worked it out they are not allowed to log it. I also know of cachers who won't log such a situation until they solve it, although they have physically logged it.

7.4k · March 31, 2016

The actual solution to this is to avoid writing anything in the log that gives a cache owner grounds to behave like this. If your name is in the logbook, you can write a nice long log entry without ever discussing the specific technique you used to get it there.

1.9k · March 31, 2016

It really comes down to your personal caching ethic, and also that of the cache owner. Do you feel you 'found' the cache? Do you feel you cheated yourself of part of the experience? Do you feel you participated in the effort, or were really just a spectator?

I have had others climb trees for me, and I have claimed the find because I helped set up the outing, helped locate the cache, helped as a spotter as they climbed, etc. I have also been in a group where I didn't really help, and although my name is on the log book I haven't claimed the find because I didn't really participate. And there are plenty of trees where I have seen the cache, cannot get to it, and just logged a write note.

2.4k · March 31, 2016

The actual solution to this is to avoid writing anything in the log that gives a cache owner grounds to behave like this. If your name is in the logbook, you can write a nice long log entry without ever discussing the specific technique you used to get it there.

This, along with your personal caching ethic. If you believe you should get credit but think the CO might not agree, then don't put something in your cache log that tips off the CO to the questionable circumstances. I mean, how will they know you didn't climb the tree unless you tell them?

5.7k · March 31, 2016

Thanks for the input, these replies are actually my dilemma. If i go by the guidelines the log in the log book would be grounds for a find.

Having your name in the logbook is different from you signing the log, isn't it?

At the risk of being called out for apples versus oranges, if the other cacher signed a check in your name and cashed it, would you expect a bank to honor it?

Edited March 31, 2016 by hzoi

7.4k · March 31, 2016

The actual solution to this is to avoid writing anything in the log that gives a cache owner grounds to behave like this. If your name is in the logbook, you can write a nice long log entry without ever discussing the specific technique you used to get it there.

This, along with your personal caching ethic. If you believe you should get credit but think the CO might not agree, then don't put something in your cache log that tips off the CO to the questionable circumstances. I mean, how will they know you didn't climb the tree unless you tell them?

Yeah, I'm not going to nitpick someone else's caching ethic. It just seems that when it comes to these extra persnickety cache owners, it's easiest to omit details rather than having to appeal a log deletion.

There was a cache owner around here who would delete logs if you didn't make a trade and describe it in your log. The deletion wouldn't stand on appeal, but who wants to bother with that? "Took penny, left magic stick."

7.5k · March 31, 2016

The actual solution to this is to avoid writing anything in the log that gives a cache owner grounds to behave like this. If your name is in the logbook, you can write a nice long log entry without ever discussing the specific technique you used to get it there.

This, along with your personal caching ethic. If you believe you should get credit but think the CO might not agree, then don't put something in your cache log that tips off the CO to the questionable circumstances. I mean, how will they know you didn't climb the tree unless you tell them?

Yeah, I'm not going to nitpick someone else's caching ethic. It just seems that when it comes to these extra persnickety cache owners, it's easiest to omit details rather than having to appeal a log deletion.

There was a cache owner around here who would delete logs if you didn't make a trade and describe it in your log. The deletion wouldn't stand on appeal, but who wants to bother with that? "Took penny, left magic stick."

I do this when I forget/lose a pen/pencil.

I don't say that I didn't sign the log, although sometimes I sign it with a twig and dirt, or squished plant. And I take a photo holding the cache (I never forget/lose my smartphone).

I've started not bothering to open up nanos (which I rarely hunt except if it's a cemetery cache). What CO actually checks the blobs and initials in those tiny logs. But I've learned from the forums it's best not to say you forgot/lost your pen, some COs will delete those finds (even if they never check the physical log).

Edited March 31, 2016 by L0ne.R

4.5k · April 1, 2016

The actual solution to this is to avoid writing anything in the log that gives a cache owner grounds to behave like this. If your name is in the logbook, you can write a nice long log entry without ever discussing the specific technique you used to get it there.

This, along with your personal caching ethic. If you believe you should get credit but think the CO might not agree, then don't put something in your cache log that tips off the CO to the questionable circumstances. I mean, how will they know you didn't climb the tree unless you tell them?

Sure, i could somehow get my name on the logbook and then submit my TFTC online log without fear of having it deleted. I'd say that a person who purposely left out facts because they knew a CO might delete their find because of them, probably already know in their heart that they didn't really find the cache.

15.3k · April 1, 2016

if the other cacher signed a check in your name and cashed it, would you expect a bank to honor it?

I wouldn't expect my bank to honor a check signed "niraD", regardless of whether I signed it or someone else signed it.

Logging a cache

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

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment