Rules Re: Signing Logs + Railroad Placement

[+LestISmiteThee]

Hi, everyone!

 

I can't find 100% definitive info on this, so here are a couple questions regarding official Geocaching rules ~

 

1) Does a cacher have to sign the log for it to be logged as found?

 

2) Does a cache have to be placed 150 feet or more away from a train tracks?

 

Why I'm asking these questions ~

 

1) I've seen instances like this left up to the CO. I've heard of instances when a cacher couldn't sign the log because it was full. There have been times when I or other cachers couldn't physically open the cache because it was jammed due to cold weather, a damaged container, other cachers closing it too tight, etc. I've also had instances when I've been too short to reach a cache that shouldn't have required climbing, like a micro "screw" cache (the kind sold in the Groundspeak store site) that someone had put into a stop sign near a busy intersection that was too high for me to reach. In the couple cases this has happened to me, I've taken a photo of the cache and sent it to the CO as proof of the find, not just saying I found it. In every case, the CO has allowed me to log the find, but is this technically against the rules? The Geocacher currently reviewing a cache I'm trying to publish said that I can't put something like this in my cache summary, which I've been doing for years in other locations: "Email us a photo of the log or the cache in its hiding spot if you can't sign it, otherwise your find will be deleted." He says the log MUST be signed to be marked as found, but I always thought it was up to the CO if there are other circumstances involved.

 

2) The same cache I'm currently trying to publish is across the street from train tracks. He says a cache cannot be within 150 feet, but I can't find official rules on this, and it seems silly to me if graves and driveways can be within 150 feet but a cache can't.

 

I'm not trying to contest the reviewer or anything, I just want to know that I'm playing the game fairly.

Edited April 17, 2014 by LestISmiteThee

[+niraD]

1. While the guidelines state that physical caches (other than Challenge Caches) can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed, they do not state that physical caches (other than Challenge Caches) can be logged online as "Found" only if the physical log has been signed.

 

In other words, cache owners are responsible for deleting any online logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate, and they are free to consider online logs with no corresponding physical signature to be bogus, and to delete them. However, they are not required to do so. They can, if they so choose, accept other evidence that the log is genuine (as long as they don't try to convert a physical cache into a pseudo-virtual cache, which would be against the guidelines).

 

2. The guideline affecting railroads has to do with trespassing on "property belonging to a railroad". The 150ft (46m) distance is just the typical width of a railroad right of way in the US. But if you have permission from the property owner, and can demonstrate that you have permission and that the cache is not on the railroad right of way, then you should be able to get your cache published. You may need to go through the appeals process though, if your local reviewer insists on the 150ft (46m) distance as a hard-and-fast rule.

[+T.D.M.22]

1) No. There are non physical caches, and even with physical caches some owners don't require it. However, if you're names not on the logbook, you can't log it. Or rather, you can log it, but the cache owner can delete it.

 

2)Since it is not Groundspeaks rule, the answer is no. Most us Railways own the property to 150 feet from the tracks. They don't want cachers on their property finding, or going to a cache. For that reason a cache may be published closer in certain circumstances.

 

30-I know you don't have three things, but I do. Guidelines state that there is no precedent for allowing caches, meaning because it has been allowed doesn't mean it will be again. They also say things like Such as, and Including. That means reviewers are allowed to refuse caches for things not explicitly stated.

[+baloo&bd]

Nevermind. NiraD explained it better.

Edited April 17, 2014 by baloo&bd

[GPS-Hermit]

if you don't find a pen in the cache and didn't bring one - go ahead and log online and just say so - if cheaters want to log online without finding the cache noone really cares about them - the numbers are not nearly as important as the fun you have playing the game so - if you have a story to tell just assume everyone wants to hear it - but tell the story don't blab!

[+ByronForestPreserve]

If I have my hands on the log but for some reason can't sign it (rare) I'd claim it as a find, but otherwise not. The number of photo logs (took a picture but couldn't get the cache) seems to be increasing lately, which isn't in the spirit of the game to me.

[+farrtom]

The railroad issue has been discussed a few times in the forum, but in my experience if you can show that the cache is not on railroad property and that there is access to the cache location without having to crossing the tracks (except at official crossings) then it should be published.

One of my caches is right at some railroad tracks BUT they are not owned by the railroad AND they are no longer in service.

I also put a way point for the parking area so that people would not cross the nearby active railroad tracks to get to the site.

[+tozainamboku]

The Geocacher currently reviewing a cache I'm trying to publish said that I can't put something like this in my cache summary, which I've been doing for years in other locations: "Email us a photo of the log or the cache in its hiding spot if you can't sign it, otherwise your find will be deleted." He says the log MUST be signed to be marked as found, but I always thought it was up to the CO if there are other circumstances involved.

The reviewers are becoming more puritanical everyday. IMO, this reviewer is just plain wrong if he or she said "the log MUST be signed to be marked as found".

 

What some reviewers do, however, is to not allow a comment on the cache page like "Email us a photo of the log or the cache in its hiding spot if you can't sign it", because they see this as creating a virtual cache or a potential virtual cache. The guidelines say "For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit." When you tell someone they have the option of sending a photo of the cache, you are telling the reviewer that you may not do maintenace on the cache if the log is missing, full, too wet to write in, etc.

 

I personally feel that if you can explain to the reviewer that you plan to maintain your cache and ensure that there is a log where geocachers can record their visits, that they shouldn't make a big deal if you indicate you are not going to be a puritan about the log being signed. However, I also feel that you shouldn't need to explain that you are not going to be a puritan, and allow online Found logs if someone unable to sign the log can provide some other proof they found the cache. In fact, I believe that Groundspeak should indicate that this is not only acceptable, but is the expected behavior from cache owners. Instead they bend over backwards to please the tiny minority of geocachers whose knickers get in a twist if someone logs a find online without signing the logbook.

[+KC2WI]

If I find the cache I claim the find whether or not I can sign the log.

 

I would not do this if the cache included some kind of required puzzle that had to be solved to actually open the cache. I have not come across anything like that yet.

 

If the log is full or is a wet soggy mess or the container is frozen solid that's not my fault.

 

For my caches I don't check whether everyone who claimed a find on line signed the log. Really, it's just a game and if you want to cheat then that's your problem.

Edited April 18, 2014 by KC2WI

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

1) Does a cacher have to sign the log for it to be logged as found?

There certainly is enough ambiguity oh this site:

 

From the Guidelines

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

 

From the suggested Welcome Note on this site

The only rules are: if you take something from the cache, you must leave something for the cache, and you must write about your visit in the logbook.

 

Either way, I think Groundspeak will only reinstate your deleted found log if you sign the physical log.

 

Edit: I should have said that although I do not see ambiguity in the two statements above, many do and leave it to interpretation.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Sharks-N-Beans

[+dprovan]

What some reviewers do, however, is to not allow a comment on the cache page like "Email us a photo of the log or the cache in its hiding spot if you can't sign it", because they see this as creating a virtual cache or a potential virtual cache.

I think you've nailed it. It's one thing for a CO to be flexible, but it's another thing for the description to announce that signing the log isn't required.

 

Personally, I like the reviewer's reaction. I suggest the OP remove the offending passage and move on. If I saw something like that in a cache description, I'd have two thoughts, neither of them useful:

 

1. Well, duh, of course I can always ask if I want an exception.
   
2. Why would I want to ask for an exception?
   

[+ByronForestPreserve]

[snip]...allow online Found logs if someone unable to sign the log can provide some other proof they found the cache. In fact, I believe that Groundspeak should indicate that this is not only acceptable, but is the expected behavior from cache owners. Instead they bend over backwards to please the tiny minority of geocachers whose knickers get in a twist if someone logs a find online without signing the logbook.

 

Minority? Really? If I stood at the base of a tree and took a photo instead of climbing to get the cache, I should expect the CO to let me log a find and for Groundspeak to back me on it?

[+Roman!]

[snip]...allow online Found logs if someone unable to sign the log can provide some other proof they found the cache. In fact, I believe that Groundspeak should indicate that this is not only acceptable, but is the expected behavior from cache owners. Instead they bend over backwards to please the tiny minority of geocachers whose knickers get in a twist if someone logs a find online without signing the logbook.

 

Minority? Really? If I stood at the base of a tree and took a photo instead of climbing to get the cache, I should expect the CO to let me log a find and for Groundspeak to back me on it?

 

Agree. Signing the logbook is a rule and expectation, if a cacher can't find a way to make their mark on the log they should not expect to log a found it.

 

In fact there basically is only one rule to geocaching: sign the log, if we can't abide by that what do we have?

[4wheelin_fool]

You can't put that on the page, as it makes it a virtual cache and implies that you won't be doing maintenance. Of course you can allow finds without signing the logbook, but putting it on the page at publication is pushing it a bit too far.

 

As for the RR, if there is a barrier between the tracks and the cache such as a fence then it should be fine. A road, I would think is OK, but perhaps that's a grey area.

[Keystone]

The Geocacher currently reviewing a cache I'm trying to publish said that I can't put something like this in my cache summary, which I've been doing for years in other locations: "Email us a photo of the log or the cache in its hiding spot if you can't sign it, otherwise your find will be deleted." He says the log MUST be signed to be marked as found, but I always thought it was up to the CO if there are other circumstances involved.

The reviewers are becoming more puritanical everyday. IMO, this reviewer is just plain wrong if he or she said "the log MUST be signed to be marked as found".

 

What some reviewers do, however, is to not allow a comment on the cache page like "Email us a photo of the log or the cache in its hiding spot if you can't sign it", because they see this as creating a virtual cache or a potential virtual cache. The guidelines say "For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit." When you tell someone they have the option of sending a photo of the cache, you are telling the reviewer that you may not do maintenace on the cache if the log is missing, full, too wet to write in, etc.

You cannot read the reviewer's note, but I can. You should be very, very cautious before tossing the "p" word at a reviewer. I am treating it as an insult, since the reviewer's note essentially asked what you said in your second paragraph. Conduct yourself accordingly in any future posts.

 

In fact, the reviewer cut the cache owner a huge break. No comment at all was made about the ALR on the cache listing:

 

As with any travel bug hotel, please put at least one trackable in for every trackable you take out. There should always be several trackables inside, and we've placed tons of free goodies for kids and adults alike. It's okay to dip or drop off trackables without taking any from inside. It's also okay to revisit the cache multiple times to swap/dip/drop off more trackables, just make sure you write a note for each revisit.

 

Please only take as many trackables you think you can move quickly. It helps to check the trackable inventory on the left side of this page to see the goals of each trackable so you know which you want to take before you find the cache.

Many reviewers, including myself, would not allow "travel bug prison" language on a cache listing. This is not how "any travel bug hotel" works. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

 

That said, many reviewers are dogs, including the reviewer for Mississippi.

[+The_Incredibles_]

1. You can log a find even if you don't sign the logbook (I've done it). However if you do that, the cache owner will be within their rights to delete your log if they are so inclined.

 

2. I ran into the train track rule. If there is an impenetrable barrier between the cache and the tracks, the distance can be lower. For instance, a wall or thick brush.

 

A word to the wise: arguing with your reviewer is usually a waste of time...at least I've never been successful at it...they always win...

Edited April 18, 2014 by The_Incredibles_

[+LestISmiteThee]

In fact, the reviewer cut the cache owner a huge break. No comment at all was made about the ALR on the cache listing:

 

As with any travel bug hotel, please put at least one trackable in for every trackable you take out. There should always be several trackables inside, and we've placed tons of free goodies for kids and adults alike. It's okay to dip or drop off trackables without taking any from inside. It's also okay to revisit the cache multiple times to swap/dip/drop off more trackables, just make sure you write a note for each revisit.

 

Please only take as many trackables you think you can move quickly. It helps to check the trackable inventory on the left side of this page to see the goals of each trackable so you know which you want to take before you find the cache.

Many reviewers, including myself, would not allow "travel bug prison" language on a cache listing. This is not how "any travel bug hotel" works. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

 

That said, many reviewers are dogs, including the reviewer for Mississippi.

 

Wow, I wasn't expecting so many comments in this thread already! Thanks fort the feedback, everyone :]

 

Just to clarify, I'm not arguing with the MS reviewer -- in fact, I've complied with everything he told me to change and am waiting for my listing to be reviewed again. I only posted here in an attempt to understand what are and are not official Geocaching rules because this is the first time I've ever heard of or personally experienced a roadblock in trying to publish a cache.

 

I've especially never heard of anything against travel bug hotels. As far as I can tell, they're not even officially recognized by Geocaching in the glossary, its a user-invented thing. My only experience with them has been through several others I've visited around the world, and I've created mine to replicate what's already out there and has worked extremely well for getting trackables where they're trying to go. So I don't understand why someone wouldn't allow a travel bug hotel to be published?

 

Which brings me to a greater point -- the way things are set up now, everything seems to be up to the CO and/or reviewer since they have the power to deny listings and logs. If I've found certain types of caches elsewhere and want to make a similar type, but the reviewer in my area won't allow it, shouldn't I be able to find specific rules for or against something? Otherwise it's just users arbitrarily deciding what's there and what's not? It's confusing.

 

Anyway, hopefully the reviewer and I can work out something so that we can have another nice cache in the area :]

[Keystone]

You are welcome to have a Travel Bug Hotel. They're published all the time, worldwide.

 

What you can't have is a Travel Bug Prison, which is what happens when the owner enforces a "leave as many trackables as you take" rule.

 

If I am visiting Mississippi, find your cache and see six travel bugs that all want to move to the northeast USA towards their goals, I can take all six of them back home with me to Pennsylvania without leaving anything but my name in the log.

[+Ambrosia]

In fact, the reviewer cut the cache owner a huge break. No comment at all was made about the ALR on the cache listing:

 

As with any travel bug hotel, please put at least one trackable in for every trackable you take out. There should always be several trackables inside, and we've placed tons of free goodies for kids and adults alike. It's okay to dip or drop off trackables without taking any from inside. It's also okay to revisit the cache multiple times to swap/dip/drop off more trackables, just make sure you write a note for each revisit.

 

Please only take as many trackables you think you can move quickly. It helps to check the trackable inventory on the left side of this page to see the goals of each trackable so you know which you want to take before you find the cache.

Many reviewers, including myself, would not allow "travel bug prison" language on a cache listing. This is not how "any travel bug hotel" works. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

 

That said, many reviewers are dogs, including the reviewer for Mississippi.

 

Wow, I wasn't expecting so many comments in this thread already! Thanks fort the feedback, everyone :]

 

Just to clarify, I'm not arguing with the MS reviewer -- in fact, I've complied with everything he told me to change and am waiting for my listing to be reviewed again. I only posted here in an attempt to understand what are and are not official Geocaching rules because this is the first time I've ever heard of or personally experienced a roadblock in trying to publish a cache.

 

I've especially never heard of anything against travel bug hotels. As far as I can tell, they're not even officially recognized by Geocaching in the glossary, its a user-invented thing. My only experience with them has been through several others I've visited around the world, and I've created mine to replicate what's already out there and has worked extremely well for getting trackables where they're trying to go. So I don't understand why someone wouldn't allow a travel bug hotel to be published?

 

Which brings me to a greater point -- the way things are set up now, everything seems to be up to the CO and/or reviewer since they have the power to deny listings and logs. If I've found certain types of caches elsewhere and want to make a similar type, but the reviewer in my area won't allow it, shouldn't I be able to find specific rules for or against something? Otherwise it's just users arbitrarily deciding what's there and what's not? It's confusing.

 

Anyway, hopefully the reviewer and I can work out something so that we can have another nice cache in the area :]

 

You can have a travel bug hotel. You just can't make rules about how people put in or take out trackables. Trackables aren't trade items, and they aren't owned by the cache owner. The goal for trackables is to move, so if someone wants to come along and take out all the trackables in a travel bug hotel and not leave a trackable in return, they can.

 

Once you start telling people to take a trackable and leave a trackable, it becomes what people call a "Travel bug prison", because sometimes trackables will fester in the container because people don't move them along if they don't have anything to trade for it.

[+Ambrosia]

We're like twins, or something.

[+LestISmiteThee]

Keystone and Ambrosia ~

 

Thanks so much for the info! I've never heard of a travel bug prison before and didn't realize that rules like that make the difference. I'll edit my listing now :]

[+Ambrosia]

Keystone and Ambrosia ~

 

Thanks so much for the info! I've never heard of a travel bug prison before and didn't realize that rules like that make the difference. I'll edit my listing now :]

Good on ya! Glad to be of service.

[+LestISmiteThee]

Keystone and Ambrosia ~

 

Okay, I do have one question.

 

In the Geocaching 101 page with all the basic rules, it says:

 

What are the rules of geocaching?

If you take something from the geocache (or "cache"), leave something of equal or greater value.

Write about your find in the cache logbook.

Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

 

Technically, isn't it against official rules for someone "to come along and take out all the trackables in a travel bug hotel and not leave a trackable in return?"

 

This page is also where I ran into the problem of whether or not signing the log is mandatory b/c it doesn't say that.

 

Edit: Ah, I misread the second rule the first couple times. I guess that's where you'd have to sign the logbook, but I've never seen anyone actually write about their experience in the logbook, only leave their name and maybe the date. All the descriptive stuff I've only seen in online logs, so that's what I've been doing too so it doesn't take up too much room on the physical log.

Edited April 18, 2014 by LestISmiteThee

[Keystone]

That simple guidance is talking about swag, or trade items.

 

Trackables are someone else's property. You don't "take" them; you "move" them. They are not trade items.

 

THANK YOU for listening to the advice!

[+LestISmiteThee]

That simple guidance is talking about swag, or trade items.

 

Trackables are someone else's property. You don't "take" them; you "move" them. They are not trade items.

 

THANK YOU for listening to the advice!

 

I get it now! Thanks for clarifying that I have updated the listing, btw. I hope it's okay now, but I might not find out till tomorrow since I'm going to bed soon.

[+niraD]

If I've found certain types of caches elsewhere and want to make a similar type, but the reviewer in my area won't allow it, shouldn't I be able to find specific rules for or against something? Otherwise it's just users arbitrarily deciding what's there and what's not? It's confusing.

There may be a specific rule for or against it. Or there may be a more general rule, and that general rule is applied in various ways in various situations.

 

For example, Groundspeak doesn't have specific guidelines for hiding caches in Santa Clara County Parks, and more guidelines for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, and more guidelines for the East Bay Regional Park District, and on and on and on. Instead, they have a general guideline about obtaining adequate permission. To get adequate permission, you'll need to comply with the appropriate agency's geocaching policy.

 

And Groundspeak doesn't have specific guidelines about cache owners using nails and screws to secure caches to trees. Instead, they have a general guideline against damaging, defacing, or destroying either public or private property.

 

Practically speaking, there can't be specific guidelines for absolutely everything. The guidelines would be hundreds of pages long, and no one (not even the volunteer reviewers who are supposed to check for compliance) would want to read them.

[+colleda]

[snip]...allow online Found logs if someone unable to sign the log can provide some other proof they found the cache. In fact, I believe that Groundspeak should indicate that this is not only acceptable, but is the expected behavior from cache owners. Instead they bend over backwards to please the tiny minority of geocachers whose knickers get in a twist if someone logs a find online without signing the logbook.

 

Minority? Really? If I stood at the base of a tree and took a photo instead of climbing to get the cache, I should expect the CO to let me log a find and for Groundspeak to back me on it?

In my opinion if a degree of difficulty requires that you climb that tree to get to the cache then the log must be signed to comply with what the CO intended. Can't climb, tough, go find another, there's plenty more out there.

[+redsox_mark]

[snip]...allow online Found logs if someone unable to sign the log can provide some other proof they found the cache. In fact, I believe that Groundspeak should indicate that this is not only acceptable, but is the expected behavior from cache owners. Instead they bend over backwards to please the tiny minority of geocachers whose knickers get in a twist if someone logs a find online without signing the logbook.

 

Minority? Really? If I stood at the base of a tree and took a photo instead of climbing to get the cache, I should expect the CO to let me log a find and for Groundspeak to back me on it?

In my opinion if a degree of difficulty requires that you climb that tree to get to the cache then the log must be signed to comply with what the CO intended. Can't climb, tough, go find another, there's plenty more out there.

 

This is an oft debated topic. Some cachers believe there always must be a signature on the log to log a find online for a physical cache, absolutely no exceptions.

 

Other cachers believe there can be exceptions. In this case what an individual cacher thinks is acceptable will vary. And some cachers will have a different standard as an owner than as a finder.

 

For me, I think there are exceptions, and the key for me is it what the owner intended, or what I call a "technicality". An example would be a container which I found (and verified with the owner that I found the correct container) but was unable to open (rusted shut etc). And the container was meant to be easy to open, i.e. it wasn't meant to be a puzzle to open.

 

The cache up the tree is different. It is meant to be there, and a physical challenge to get to it. I would not log that unless I could climb and get to it to sign.

[+briansnat]

 

2. I ran into the train track rule. If there is an impenetrable barrier between the cache and the tracks, the distance can be lower. For instance, a wall or thick brush.

 

 

It's not a matter of a barrier, it's a matter of whose land it is. The RR guideline is meant to address trespassing. If you can demonstrate that 1. you've received permission from the railroad (highly unlikely), or 2. It's a park or other public land where the general public is invited, then you should be able to get your cache published LT 150 feet from tracks.

 

Most reviewers use 150 feet because that is the general RR right of way. Sometimes it's less - sometimes much less, but if a cache owner wants to place a cache closer to the RR the burden is on the CO to prove that it is not RR property. Even then, if it's real close to the tracks the reviewer may refuse to publish out of concern that cachers may wander onto RR property while searching.

[+niraD]

Even then, if it's real close to the tracks the reviewer may refuse to publish out of concern that cachers may wander onto RR property while searching.

FWIW, a lot of the caches I've found that have been within 150ft of railroad tracks (but still not on the railroad right of way) have included prominent disclaimers that the cache is not on the tracks, is not on the railroad right of way, is located somewhere else where the public is welcome, etc.

[+Flatiron & Mrs. Wrangler]

I talked with a railroad employee a few years back,( After he threatened to arrest us for being within 150' of RR tracks out in the middle of nowhere) and he said it wasn't RR Co. policy, but Homeland Security policy. We agreed to leave and left it at that.

[+SwineFlew]

I know a cache right on the RR cross arm. LOL... I dont want to be a cache cop all the time so I let it passed. Even the reviewer himself found it and never did anything about it.

[team tisri]

If I find the cache I claim the find whether or not I can sign the log.

 

I would not do this if the cache included some kind of required puzzle that had to be solved to actually open the cache. I have not come across anything like that yet.

 

If the log is full or is a wet soggy mess or the container is frozen solid that's not my fault.

 

For my caches I don't check whether everyone who claimed a find on line signed the log. Really, it's just a game and if you want to cheat then that's your problem.

 

That's my approach as well. A modest dose of common sense determines whether I did what was necessary to get to the cache.

 

If I sight a cache 50 feet up a tree and it's got a terrain rating of 1 I'll claim it. If it's got a terrain rating consistent with a tree climb I'll write a note to say I sighted it but didn't retrieve it. I don't log a DNF because the cache was clearly there and I did notionally "find" it, but I don't log a Find because I didn't retrieve it.

 

If a cache is waterlogged, frozen or rusted shut, or I just didn't have a pen with me, then I'll try and do something to prove I was there (which might be marking the cache with a stick, cutting a small shape out of the log book, leaving something in the cache etc) and claim the find. If the cache is a field puzzle that you have to figure out how to open then a Find is only appropriate if you manage to open it.

 

I agree that an explicit statement that a photo is acceptable does suggest that the cache could easily become a virtual, where you tell people the cache is on the stop sign and if they can't find it just send a photo of the stop sign and claim the cache.

[+mtn-man]

Since the topic was bumped, I wanted to thank those in the topic that helped the cache owner with their questions. The cache owner was nice to work with and it was a pleasure to publish their cache after it was refined. The great advise given helped it move quickly along. Cheers and thanks to you all with a wink from the puppymonster.

[+Ambrosia]

Since the topic was bumped, I wanted to thank those in the topic that helped the cache owner with their questions. The cache owner was nice to work with and it was a pleasure to publish their cache after it was refined. The great advise given helped it move quickly along. Cheers and thanks to you all with a wink from the puppymonster.

A wink from the puppymonster! An honor, indeed.