And everyone probably thought I was sleeping on the job...for shame.

Unless the criteria is being met for a cache with a logbook (virtuals
being an exception, but with their own set of rules), you don't get a
find.  If the cache container was at the center of a beehive and you were
afraid to go for it, but because you saw the honey dripping from the lid
you think you have legitimately 'found' the cache.  By following a
dictionary definition of 'find', perhaps.  But there are supplemental
rules for Geocaching that states you log your find when you log your find
in the logbook.  Finding velcro might be one thing, because it shows that
the cache at one point was there, and can be handled on a case-by-case
basis.  To my recollection, I have never logged a find on a cache like
that, nor would I.

This veni, vidi, sidi, or whatever it is, I disagree with even more now
that I have learned that the caches aren't logged in the logbook, but are
online.  Using  such a 'log' online tells the cache owner nothing, but
then again, neither does a simple 'TFTC' or 'found it'.

Geocaching is an adventure you can make your own, but there are certain
guidelines one should really follow when caching.  When you skydive, do
you go without a parachute?  If you go white water rafting, do you leave
the raft on shore?  While both of these are far different from leaving a
pen in the car and not going back to get it, the point is that common
sense should prevail.  For those who lack this capability, the guidelines
are there to help guide them along the way.

Even with CITO Always, credit comes in the form of a picture for the find.
 The separate ammo can is OPTIONAL ONLY, and is stated as such.  Finds
logged without pictures first get an e-mail requesting the pic to be
posted.  Failure to do so will result in a deletion of the log.  We as
cachers and cache owners don't need to play dictator, but following a
general set of rules widely accepted by a vast majority of cachers must be
the minimum.  The most important of which is simply common sense, which
too often seems to be replaced by general disregard for <insert ridiculous
excuse here>.

Brian
Team A.I.


> Well, I was just lurking here, reading everyones opinions (and generally
> agreeing with them for the most part), when suddenly I see my name go
> by.   While I am honored by the apparent high regard for my puzzle
> solving abilities, I'm not sure I can live up to my reputation here.  I
> haven't even tried to solve a puzzle cache in quite some time and my
> favorite two such caches took me around 120 or so minutes each to solve
> with graphical techniques in one case and analytical techniques in the
> other.  Well, I do love mathematical problem solving, I have to
> admit....  That's one reason I became a scientist, I suppose.
>
> So anyway, I agree that one should not claim a cache unless they were
> able to sign the logbook.  There's one cache in town here that I have
> seen, but not yet logged, so I have not yet claimed it, despite having
> laid eyes on the container from some distance.....  While I'm
> sympathetic to "different strokes for different folks", there are
> certain standards that any cacher should be willing to adhere to, and
> signing a log or sending in the apprpriate proof of find (for a virtual)
> before claiming a cache as found is the minimum in my opinion.  It's
> also important to cache owners (as well as other cachers) to report any
> anomalies found in a cache - be it that it was not seen or that the
> container is damaged and in need of repair or that the logbook is nearly
> full....  If you only see the container from 10 feet and don't open it
> up but claim it anyway, you may be cheating yourself, but you may also
> be impairing the ability of the cache owner to judge the state of the
> cache.  Unlike a few cache owners that I've heard here, I don't go visit
> each of my caches very frequently (I'm in the process of making the
> rounds on most of them, but it's been quite some time since my last
> visits to most of them) and rely on the reports of visitors to gauge the
> state of the cache and the need for maintenance, so DNF reports and
> other notes on the cache by visitors are important to me.
>
> And now this is turning into a thesis and I better get back to work.....
>   :-)
>
> Jim.
>
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Andrew Ayre wrote:
>
>> Mostly I don't mind - people are only cheating themselves. The only
>> time I might be annoyed is if the cache is a puzzle cache. If I have
>> taken the time to construct the cache puzzle and others have struggled
>> for days (or minutes in the case of Jim Scotti :)) to solve it, then I
>> would feel that people who didn't really find it or cannot prove they
>> found it with an entry in the log, are cheating the other finders.
>>
>> Andy
>
> Jim Scotti
> Lunar & Planetary Laboratory
> University of Arizona
> Tucson, AZ 85721 USA
> http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com
> To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
> http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
>
> Arizona's Geocaching Resource
> http://www.azgeocaching.com