Logbook - Slate sheet? It's possible?

[+Rafael.pt]

Hi to all.

 

Have a question to ask about logbook's:

 

Does the logbook can be made of slate or blackboard sheet?

[+Touchstone]

There's nothing in the Guidelines that prevents it, as long as there's a container:

 

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

[Keystone]

Bear in mind, though, that the log needs to be enclosed within a container. A slate sheet all by itself, or a magnet all by itself, is not a geocache.

 

This is not a Website feature request or bug report, so I am moving this thread to the Geocaching Topics forum.

[+BlackRose67]

Bear in mind, though, that the log needs to be enclosed within a container. A slate sheet all by itself, or a magnet all by itself, is not a geocache.

I've found magnetic caches before where the magnet was the container AND the log sheet.

[Keystone]

Bear in mind, though, that the log needs to be enclosed within a container. A slate sheet all by itself, or a magnet all by itself, is not a geocache.

I've found magnetic caches before where the magnet was the container AND the log sheet.

If I found that cache, I'd need to ask for it to be corrected or archived. It doesn't meet the definition of a geocache. Neither would a slate sheet or blackboard.

 

Just because something was published doesn't mean the reviewer had all the details available to them. I'd much rather find out about the issue during the review process instead of having to deal with it after finding the non-compliant cache in the field. I can think of three recent examples of this, all involving magnets.

[+J Grouchy]

Bear in mind, though, that the log needs to be enclosed within a container. A slate sheet all by itself, or a magnet all by itself, is not a geocache.

I've found magnetic caches before where the magnet was the container AND the log sheet.

If I found that cache, I'd need to ask for it to be corrected or archived. It doesn't meet the definition of a geocache. Neither would a slate sheet or blackboard.

 

Just because something was published doesn't mean the reviewer had all the details available to them. I'd much rather find out about the issue during the review process instead of having to deal with it after finding the non-compliant cache in the field. I can think of three recent examples of this, all involving magnets.

 

Not to get all nitpicky, but there could be a lengthy debate about what constitutes a "container". A book contains pages, a page contains text or images. "Contain" can mean to have something inside, to have or include something, to keep something from spreading, or to keep something within limits. That's pretty open and doesn't necessarily mean that a container has to have a three-dimensional internal volume with a lid. Unless there's a clear definition of "container" in the guidelines, I think there's a fair amount of wiggle room (with the obvious caveat that reviewers apparently have a lot of latitude for ultimately deciding whether a cache is valid).

[team tisri]

Bear in mind, though, that the log needs to be enclosed within a container. A slate sheet all by itself, or a magnet all by itself, is not a geocache.

I've found magnetic caches before where the magnet was the container AND the log sheet.

If I found that cache, I'd need to ask for it to be corrected or archived. It doesn't meet the definition of a geocache. Neither would a slate sheet or blackboard.

 

Just because something was published doesn't mean the reviewer had all the details available to them. I'd much rather find out about the issue during the review process instead of having to deal with it after finding the non-compliant cache in the field. I can think of three recent examples of this, all involving magnets.

 

A few caches I've found have been variations on a sign in an unexpected place where the sign was really a magnet with a log sheet on the back of it. Although such a thing isn't technically a "container" I think it would be nitpicking in the extreme to allow a nano with a log sheet barely able to take initials and then disallow another cache type with enough space for people to at least write their name in full.

[Keystone]

A few caches I've found have been variations on a sign in an unexpected place where the sign was really a magnet with a log sheet on the back of it. Although such a thing isn't technically a "container" I think it would be nitpicking in the extreme to allow a nano with a log sheet barely able to take initials and then disallow another cache type with enough space for people to at least write their name in full.

If the log sheet is a separate piece of paper -- that is, something replaceable when it gets full -- then there is no problem. The magnet is the container which encloses the separate logsheet.

[+redsox_mark]

A few caches I've found have been variations on a sign in an unexpected place where the sign was really a magnet with a log sheet on the back of it. Although such a thing isn't technically a "container" I think it would be nitpicking in the extreme to allow a nano with a log sheet barely able to take initials and then disallow another cache type with enough space for people to at least write their name in full.

If the log sheet is a separate piece of paper -- that is, something replaceable when it gets full -- then there is no problem. The magnet is the container which encloses the separate logsheet.

 

I understand the distinction only from this forum including clarification by Keystone - and I am sure his interpretation is the "correct" one which reviewers follow.

 

But I'm also sure 98% of cachers don't know this or think that deeply about what is technically a container. I've found many caches which don't meet this container guideline, and I see new ones being hidden. Locally I've not yet seen one disabled or archived by a reviewer. That doesn't mean they are allowed I know. Maybe no reviewer has found any of them. Or maybe our reviewers are cats.

 

I've primarily seen 3 types:

 

1. Flat magnets with the log attached to the back of the magnet itself.

2. Something which looks like a "signup sheet" e.g. on a notice board (in a building or outside)

3. A book on a shelf in a library

 

One of the most favorited caches in the UK is an example of type 2 above.

 

I've also seen "legal" variations:

 

- Flat magnet but with the log removable; sometimes between layers of magnet, sometimes a plastic bag attached.

- The book in a container, and the container in the library. (The container might look like a fake book, but inside is a separate log).

[team tisri]

A few caches I've found have been variations on a sign in an unexpected place where the sign was really a magnet with a log sheet on the back of it. Although such a thing isn't technically a "container" I think it would be nitpicking in the extreme to allow a nano with a log sheet barely able to take initials and then disallow another cache type with enough space for people to at least write their name in full.

If the log sheet is a separate piece of paper -- that is, something replaceable when it gets full -- then there is no problem. The magnet is the container which encloses the separate logsheet.

 

What if it's a wipe-clean surface so that when it's full the owner can start over? Or if the owner's maintenance plan is to replace the entire magnetic sheet when the old one is full up?

[+Bear and Ragged]

A few caches I've found have been variations on a sign in an unexpected place where the sign was really a magnet with a log sheet on the back of it. Although such a thing isn't technically a "container" I think it would be nitpicking in the extreme to allow a nano with a log sheet barely able to take initials and then disallow another cache type with enough space for people to at least write their name in full.

If the log sheet is a separate piece of paper -- that is, something replaceable when it gets full -- then there is no problem. The magnet is the container which encloses the separate logsheet.

 

What if it's a wipe-clean surface so that when it's full the owner can start over? Or if the owner's maintenance plan is to replace the entire magnetic sheet when the old one is full up?

 

Or the CO is trying to get out of maintenance, along the lines of "Wipe the slate, sign your name"

[Luckless]

Well for events we don't usually use a container for the log. We've had all kinds of items to write our names on, as long as everyone signs it.

[+K13]

Events, other than megas, don't need a log but Geocaches need a container and a log, per the guidelines.

[Keystone]

A few caches I've found have been variations on a sign in an unexpected place where the sign was really a magnet with a log sheet on the back of it. Although such a thing isn't technically a "container" I think it would be nitpicking in the extreme to allow a nano with a log sheet barely able to take initials and then disallow another cache type with enough space for people to at least write their name in full.

If the log sheet is a separate piece of paper -- that is, something replaceable when it gets full -- then there is no problem. The magnet is the container which encloses the separate logsheet.

 

What if it's a wipe-clean surface so that when it's full the owner can start over? Or if the owner's maintenance plan is to replace the entire magnetic sheet when the old one is full up?

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

[+wmpastor]

A few caches I've found have been variations on a sign in an unexpected place where the sign was really a magnet with a log sheet on the back of it. Although such a thing isn't technically a "container" I think it would be nitpicking in the extreme to allow a nano with a log sheet barely able to take initials and then disallow another cache type with enough space for people to at least write their name in full.

If the log sheet is a separate piece of paper -- that is, something replaceable when it gets full -- then there is no problem. The magnet is the container which encloses the separate logsheet.

 

What if it's a wipe-clean surface so that when it's full the owner can start over? Or if the owner's maintenance plan is to replace the entire magnetic sheet when the old one is full up?

 

Or the CO is trying to get out of maintenance, along the lines of "Wipe the slate, sign your name"

 

What about an Etch-a-Sketch ?!

 

I didn't realize how iconic they are:

In 2003, the Toy Industry Association named Etch A Sketch to its Century of Toys List, a roll call commemorating the 100 most memorable and most creative toys of the 20th century.

Edited October 15, 2014 by wmpastor

[+Chrysalides]

What about an Etch-a-Sketch ?!

 

I didn't realize how iconic they are:

In 2003, the Toy Industry Association named Etch A Sketch to its Century of Toys List, a roll call commemorating the 100 most memorable and most creative toys of the 20th century.

 

The inventor died about a year and a half ago.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/us/etch-a-sketch-creator-death/

 

Back on topic, if there is a hide you want to deploy, why not write it up, then check with the reviewer in your area? Keystone seems disinclined to answer any more hypothetical questions, and I can understand his reluctance.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Back on topic, if there is a hide you want to deploy, why not write it up, then check with the reviewer in your area? Keystone seems disinclined to answer any more hypothetical questions, and I can understand his reluctance.

 

Generally the write up of a cache page won't describe the container or log - which is why the reviewers will have no idea unless they find the cache. And I'm convinced that most who hide a cache which has a debatable "container" have no idea it is an issue.

 

But of course, as this thread has clarified there will may be a guidelines issue unless the log and container are separate, you can send a detailed description of what you are thinking to your reviewer and ask for feedback (or add this detail as a reviewer note in your submission).

[+dprovan]

Generally the write up of a cache page won't describe the container or log - which is why the reviewers will have no idea unless they find the cache.

Our reviewer normally asks for a description of the container before they'll publish. In any case, I'd phrase this as "most COs don't know that it's a good idea to describe the container and the hide in a reviewer note in case there are any issues with it." This not only suggests a good practice, it also promotes the attitude that the goal is work with the reviewer to plant a cache without any issues rather than what seems to be a common attitude that the goal is to plant the cache without revealing any information because reviewers have nothing better to do than thwart COs over picky details.

 

And I'm convinced that most who hide a cache which has a debatable "container" have no idea it is an issue.

I'm sure that's often true, but in this case the OP's obviously concerned about it.

[+redsox_mark]

Our reviewer normally asks for a description of the container before they'll publish. In any case, I'd phrase this as "most COs don't know that it's a good idea to describe the container and the hide in a reviewer note in case there are any issues with it."

 

Interesting. I don't think our reviewers do that (I've not been asked). I agree with your statement; I have never thought about adding details of the hide/container in a reviewer's note until now. And I don't know anyone that does this. It does seem a good idea.