Free The Key

[shroomAzoom]

So, last fall I hid a cache for the FCC 2010 called Free the Key. I think a number of you have found it. It involves first finding the cache container, then figuring out how to open the container to sign the log inside. Not terribly original, but something a little different than your everyday lock-n-lock.

So, over the past few weeks, some people have logged the cache as "Found" but have noted in their log that either they could get the key out to open the container, or didn't know what to do with the container when the found it, so they couldn't sign the log.

I deleted those "Found" logs today. I also left a note saying that if you really want to log it as found, go ahead, but I gave my reason for why I deleted the logs.

What do you think? Should I just have left the found logs as is?

[gheiny]

I say it is fine the way you erased the logs.  (See.  Problem solved.  You can now ignore the rest of my rant.) GC says you can only claim a find if you sign the log.

Generally I think it is courtesy to ask to log a cache in the exceptional cases where you can't sign a log. I think there are exceptions where there is no room on the physical log ... or I have done things to show I had been there such as tore a corner off the log and told the cache owner the log was too wet to sign. 

In "Free the Key" the fun is in the challenge.   I know I expect people to sign "accio."  So what if you can see the cache, You are to sign it.  The fun is getting to the log.  Perhaps I am a bit biased because my new cache "Drive You Batty" is a similar style of challenge ... and the rating is higher because of the increased challenge.  Don't succeed at signing?  Don't get the smiley.   

[JosAub]

We found it first in the winter and it was frozen shut, we got the key out and the lock off... but then couldn't get the thing to budge...   so we had to put the key back up the way it came and come back once it warmed up enough to sign it...   I don't see any reason you shouldn't delete the logs if they couldn't figure it out.

[hunter-killer]

The way I see it  the cache owner states it in his post on His nwo site " This cache was designed to be a bit of a puzzle. If you work out the puzzle, you can sign the log. If you don't sign the log you don't get to log the cache ". Why jerk people around ? the cache is listed as a traditional cache, why not edit the listing and list it as what it really is, a puzzle cache. puzzle multis puzzle tradtionals... caching locally is retarded already. People who travel download pocket quires and most filter out multis and puzzle caches, so if it says traditional, then that is what they are expecting.

[JosAub]

I guess that is fair, we've also thought that plenty while caching locally...  infact, there have been two caches published just this last week that we thought ought to have been listed as "unknown" type.

If it needs you to gather info on site and solve an equation, or its a puzzling sort of container it really should be listed as an "unknown".  The big blue question mark really does send up a red flag for folks letting them know-- hey, you might be in for a bit of a time figuring this thing out--  and it would be nice to see it used a little more often where it is warranted.

[Get_Off_The_Paved]

This a good point that H-K have bought up, Thunder Bay being full of creative caches and cachers where do you draw the line weather the cache is traditional or puzzle?  Agree that to find a cache you have to sign the log, so Shroom is in the right for deleting the logs of those that didn't "finish" the find. 

We may just have to start to think a little more about how the cache is going to be listed... looking towards what seems the longest season in the area winter.... cachers tinkering away in there basement for the SCC 2012 might have to think a little more about how there creative new cache might just be listed.

[shroomAzoom]

I can appreciate H+K's comment about travellers filtering out certain types of caches (like puzzles or multis.) We do that when we travel. But at the same time, if I'm caching and I'm not prepared for what I'm getting into because I didn't read the cache description, that's my own fault. I don't expect to be able to find every cache I search for when all I come prepared with is coordinates.

But I'm going to show you that you're wrong if you're telling me that the cache should be listed as a puzzle/mystery.

From geocaching.com, we read that a traditional cache is...

This is the original geocache type consisting of, at minimum, a container and a log book or logsheet. Larger containers generally include items for trade. “Nano” or “micro” caches are tiny containers that only hold a logsheet. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page provide the geocache’s exact location.

According to that, Free the Key fits into the traditional category. What is a Puzzle/Mystery cache?

The "catch-all" of cache types, this form of geocache may involve complicated puzzles that you will first need to solve to determine the coordinates. Mystery/Puzzle Caches often become the staging ground for new and unique geocaches that do not fit in another category.

Does the first sentence apply to Free the Key? No. The coordinates are given, no puzzle to solve to determine them. How about the second part of the description? New and unique, sure, but compared to what? Compared to other cache categories. Does free the key fir in another category? Yes, traditional.

So, is Free the Key a traditional or a puzzle/mystery? It's a traditional. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be something else to let the cachers know that they're in for more than a lock-n-lock behind the hospital though. And that information is in the description. Read it before you hunt for it, if you want to be prepared.

But to bring things back on topic. If you don't sign the log, you didn't find the cache. Isn't that what it comes down to at a minimum? Or are scenarios like gheiny's (I saw the cache, I just couldn't get it lowered from the tree, so I'm going to count it as found) allowed? I think the standard is, sign the log to count the cache as found.

[GlfWid0]

If that is the case I have a bit of back tracking to do due to a few nano/micros that I did not have a writing stick for. I don't always have a pen/pencil...I guess that's my own fault though. I'm not always planning on caching when I leave the house but sometimes they distract me and I end up caching unprepared

[gheiny]

Glfwid0... you probably don't have to worry too much.  It is generally up to the owner to check the log to see if someone actually signed. It is then at their discretion to delete or not.  Lots of people don't actually check ... so you are probably safe for most of your caches.  I think in this case it is more that people had blatantly put in the online log that they didn't sign the cache log.

[GlfWid0]

I always write in my log that I did not sign if that is the case If there is room to leave evidence that I was there...like a dime in a nano or pathtag I will leave a piece of evidence...I have scratched my initials in before...

If I found the container for 'free the key' and it is clearly made to be a challenge to get at...I would not count that as a find though.