Turtle_Sask, on 04 April 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:
northernpenguin, on 04 April 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:
CanadianRockies, on 04 April 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:
northernpenguin, on 04 April 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:
CanadianRockies, on 04 April 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:
danoshimano, on 01 April 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:
There was a cache last week that for certain reasons I did not bother to open. I still logged it as found because, well, I found it. Not sure what possible problem there could be with that.
We have hidden over a dozen caches where the main point is to figure out how to open the container to access the log book. We also have a couple caches that have nearby decoy containers (i.e., containers without log books).
While I'm sure they're creative fun hides, putting up antics that make finding the cache easy but finding the log difficult comes up real close to the line drawn by the banning of additional logging requirements, IMHO.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. The Groundspeak guidelines
, however, state that requiring people to both find the cache and sign the log is not considered Additional Logging Requirements:
For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the geocache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional.
None of our caches require people to take a picture of themselves wearing a silly hat while they sign the log. They merely require people to sign the log.
That is 100% technically correct. Still seems very similar when the cacher is expected to perform some action in addition to finding the cache. That's just my opinion but I don't see much difference between "you must all climb the tree" and "you must now find the logbook". Same spirit if technically within the "rules".
Having said that I have ENJOYED several caches of the "puzzle to get the logbook" type. I also enjoyed the silly hat cache I found in Michigan.
The problem scenario with the "now get to the log" cache type in my eyes is the cache that's frozen in place. Some cachers will take your philosophy to heart and break the cache trying to get at the precious log rather than take a photo, or come back later.
Thats just it, come back when the cache is not frozen in the ground so your able to sign the logbook, as a cache owner I have never checked on my logbooks to see if the online logs match the actual logbook, I might now out of curiosity. But If anything I would expect to see signatures on the actual logbook and not online because im sure a few people forget to sign it online. In that case I would message the cacher to remind them that they found my cache.
Well, I have a different play style I guess. I will happily accept alternate logging methods on my caches for various reasons. I'm not "hard and immutable" about the "player must sign the physical log book" rule. Mainly because I'm playing to have fun, both as a finder and as a CO. I don't want people taking desperate measures to free a lock-n-lock from an icy tomb so they don't have to come back later. Tupperware/Lock'n'Lock get very brittle in winter and those containers more often break when the attempt is made to force them out of icy tombs. That means I get a "needs maintenance" / wet mouldy cache with water to attend to when spring arrives. I still ask for proof of find, but I'll accept a photo of my (say, frozen in place) cache container in most cases.
I've also gone out in a group caching, and rather than fill up the log book on the spot with 50 names, we've signed in as a group. Thus you don't see my name in the logbook directly. In the spirit of the "player must sign the physical log book" rule, I should probably delete about half my finds as I normally go caching in a group.
Remind me what the prize is for having the most finds is again?