sbell111

Nobody is doing that. What I actually said was: "most geocachers prefer to turn the head to the problem instead of solving it". For me solving it is trying to stop people from placing throwdowns that most of us agree that are bad for the game. So, if you REALLY want to make people less prone to place a throwdown tell me another way to do it that I am all into it! until then I feel that the best solution is to delete all logs on the throwdown logbook! One way would be the way recommended by tptb and discussed throughout this thread. Delete the log of the person who dropped the throwdown.

I really think that it would show others that throwdowns are bad. Even tho most geocachers would feel bad with the CO that deleted the logs, actually they should feel bad with the "fellow geocacher" that placed the throwdown. If that wouldn´t be the case they would probably had found the correct container and log a correct found it log. So... I do really think that if more people deleted all logs that where not done in the actual geocache but in the throwdown the global attitude towards a throwdown might change. The way things are going not only it will not change as the amount of throwdowns will grow! My thinking is that the only real change is that the cache owner might show up in the forums shortly whining about how all of his caches seem to be coming up missing.

It's pure hyperbole to equate deleting a geocache log with arresting innocent people. Of course it is, but I was trying to work within 4wf's analogy.

Except that the whole thread is people supporting this. Don't I get extra latitude because I'm travelling? I am throwing the film can out the window in good faith! Noone has supported the creation of throwdowns in this thread. But if you were to find one placed where the original should have been and it contains a proper logbook, then yes, people are saying if you logged a find then it should stand. That action does support it in a passive aggressive manner. Such as if you noticed a crime being committed and looked the other way without doing anything such as calling 911. That's exactly what the perp is counting on. Historically people will always test boundaries and learn the limits of tolerance which is how these things happen. Nobody is going to leave any throwdowns if they believe that the CO is going to embark on a log deletion spree and email all of the faux finders about the identity of who left the throwdown. That analogy seems broken to me. Would you arrest all of the people who ate in the diner across the streeet from a burglary because they could have seen the burglary happen, even though none of them actually did? If not, then why delete the finds of people who didn't even know that a throwdown happened? This communicates to them that a throwdown occurred, and that their involvement has been terminated, whether they are aware of it or not. People who do not call 911 if they notice a crime are very rarely arrested anyhow. It might seem like a case of punishing the wrong people, but more clearly it is just drawing the limits of tolerance a little tighter. It would be punishment if they had signed the correct logsheet, rather its not punishing anyone, but just being correct, perhaps in an anal retentive manner, but still correct. How can it be punishment if the online log displayed incorrect information under false pretenses? Tolerating this is only encouraging more. I bolded the bit where you ran far from the track. You see, 'false pretenses' suggests that there was some attempt by these cachers to deceive the cache owner. This couldn't be further from the truth. These people simply looked for a cache, found a cache, and logged their find online. If anything, the cache owner acted under false pretenses as he held up a cache as having no maintenance issues when it did and then penalized cachers for acting in good faith.

Except that the whole thread is people supporting this. Don't I get extra latitude because I'm travelling? I am throwing the film can out the window in good faith! Noone has supported the creation of throwdowns in this thread. But if you were to find one placed where the original should have been and it contains a proper logbook, then yes, people are saying if you logged a find then it should stand. That action does support it in a passive aggressive manner. Such as if you noticed a crime being committed and looked the other way without doing anything such as calling 911. That's exactly what the perp is counting on. Historically people will always test boundaries and learn the limits of tolerance which is how these things happen. Nobody is going to leave any throwdowns if they believe that the CO is going to embark on a log deletion spree and email all of the faux finders about the identity of who left the throwdown. That analogy seems broken to me. Would you arrest all of the people who ate in the diner across the streeet from a burglary because they could have seen the burglary happen, even though none of them actually did? If not, then why delete the finds of people who didn't even know that a throwdown happened?

Yes, but that is as helplful as trying to determine who actually owns a piece of litter. The ownership of a piece of litter isn't what is at legal issue. The issues become who littered and who is responsible for cleaning up that litter. That is why the thread naturally moved to those more relevant issues.

I'm not sure that anyone is concerned about the legal issues as it is super unlikely that any particular 'throwdowner' is every going to be cited for for placing a replacement cache in the woods. The reason that the cache owner is responsible for throwdowns is not just because the removal of such litter is covered by the maintenance requirement in the guidelines, but also because if his cache results in the area being junked up, then the landowner will demand that the cache itself is removed.

I geocache when I travel. I don't expect to claim finds on caches I didn't find, whether the cache is 5000km from or 5km from home. Writing my name on garbage near the GZ is not finding a geocache. Maybe I should just change this log into a FOUND IT! Right? http://coord.info/GLDFKF51 Given that you did not find a container at the location and did not sign a log found in same, I'm not seeing how that DNF has anything to do with this conversation. That being said, if you had found a container with a logbook inside, it would have been reasonable for you to conclude that you had, indeed, found the cache.

I geocache when I travel. I don't expect to claim finds on caches I didn't find, whether the cache is 5000km from or 5km from home. Writing my name on garbage near the GZ is not finding a geocache. Writing your name on a logbook in a container found at GZ, however, is finding a geocache.

So, maybe I am reading it wrong but are you saying that if you drove 5000+ miles to search for a cache and what you actually found was a throwdown you are entitled to keep the found... but if you only drove 5 miles there is no problem? Com´on man! You are reading it wrong. The distance issue was brought up, in my opinion, to counter the arguments that 1) log deletions are no big deal and 2) that cachers should, for some reason, be contacting cache owners from ground zero to verify that the log that is being signed is 'correct'.

So... If I go to the USA, because I am away from home, I am allowed to make a throwdown so I can log a far away cache? Now the COs must also take in consideration the distance from home in order to delete or not a bogus found it... No. You are twisting both my point and that of NYPC. Further, no one in this thread has ever suggested that leaving a throwdown is OK, so don't do it wherever you live and don't do it here.

You are incorrect. The land owner is responsible for the area as he or she owns it - Law. The CO is responsible for the maintenance of the cache - geocaching terms and conditions (not a law). I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out what it is that you are saying that I was incorrect about. It is certainly true that a land owner has legal responsibility for his land. Nothing that I posted disputes that fact. It is also true that the cache owner has the responsibility of maintaining his cache. Part of that maintenance responsibility is to ensure that his cache isn't resulting in the area being trashed. Therefore, the cache owner must deal with any litter that his cache attracts, as explained in my post. Proximity - again incorrect because you cannot place a cache within the distance specified. But to publish a cache the container has to be in place before submission. It's being picky buuuut, if a puzzle cache is within that distance already publishing will be refused. However this relates to the normal behaviour of geocaching but the Law will use standard practice and standard practice means you use the terms and coditions and listing guidelines of geocaching.com. So as a user you would know you cannot place another cache within the specified distance no matter what the reason be it new cache or replacement. As I explained in the referenced post, the proximity rule only applies to caches listed on GC.com. Therefore, while the throwdown could not be listed as a new cache on GC.com, it could be listed on some other geocaching site without violating this rule. It could also be not listed anywhere and it wouldn't violate this rule. The proximity rule, therefore, cannot be repurposed to exclude throwdowns.

Again, I completely respect that you would take a different approach. Not sure why, in a forum where people are hypersensitive about the legitimacy of other people's finds, everyone is in such a rage to tell me what I should do. I think that the difference is that most times people talk about their personal way of playing the game, it doesn't effect anyone else. A person hates numbers runs so doesn't do them - awesome. A person loves numbers runs and does them every day - great. Those personal caching preferences don't have any actual effect on anyone else. The difference between those topics and this one is that yours and Preto's personal bent on the game does effect others. Further, the people that you are effecting by deleting their finds acted totally in good faith and had no reason to think that there is anything wrong with what they did. Before you go back to you narrative that deleting a false log isn't punishment. It is instead just a factual correction that shouldn't bother anyone, please take note of NYPaddleCacher's point that many caches are found in locations that a person may never return to. Many people travel far and wide and may just have enough time to find a cache or two in each exotic location. I've done this very thing. On more than one occasion, my plan was to find at one cache during my limited free time. I had a couple targeted to look for and if I could not find the first, I'd move on to the second. However, if I found the first, I would not use my limited time looking for the next. I would be quite troubled if the cache owner deleted that find.

Thoughts regarding that big wall of text: The proximity rule only matters if someone were to attempt to list the throwdown as a new, separate cache on GC.com. While you are correct that the owner of the original cache has no legal responsibility for the throwdown, he does have the responsibility to manage the area of his geocache and has a comittment to the land owner that the cache won't cause an issue. Litter is an issue, so the cache owner should resolve it.

The fact is, most owners of traditional caches never experience this issue, either. The forums have a way of looking at issues microscopically which makes it appear that things are more widespread than they are.

Someone who finds a QR sticker or the lid of a Gatorade bottle might also be logging in "good faith." Unfortunately, they did not find the cache. The QR sticker and gatorade lid arguments are red herrings. They have no place in this conversation. This issue is about a geocacher who finds a container with a logbook at ground zero, signs the logbook, and logs the find online.

For me, one case is facing the problem... another is looking away from the problem! Actually, one seems to be creating a problem; for themselves, the local caching community, and the future health of their geocaches.

You keep saying that cache owners should delete the logs of those who found the throwdown. You even went as far as saying that the guidelines require it. However, that's incorrect. As explained many times in this very thread, the direction from tptb is that while a 'found' log made by the person who placed the throwdown can be deleted, subsequent logs of people who found the throwdown in good faith should not be deleted.

We are different geocachers... This is just an example of a situation like the one you describe! http://coord.info/GLE2KRYR First I found the green container which is a throwdown but I keept searching for the correct container and found it! So, what to do with the logs on the green container, that is a throwdown... But if you want yet another example you have this: http://coord.info/GLE2KVMH As my log says, the cache was always there but many people just either logged another logbook or didn´t log at all... In both cases none of the bogus logs were deleted meaning that the CO clearly don´t follow Groundspeak recommendations. Am I the only one to see this? You are certainly the only one who doesn't understand why your local geocaching community has issues with you.

I don't know what 'WIGAS' means and I get that you are likely being silly, but the problem with all of this is that cachers have no idea whether a container and logbook is the 'real' cache or a throwdown. As such, they submit their found logs in good faith. Those logs should be perfectly fine.

A person follows the arrow to ground zero. At that location, he finds a container with a log inside. He signs the log and replaces the container where he found it. He then submits an online 'find' log to record his experience. That isn't 'poor behavior'. It's geocaching.

good gravy

i don't delete the log just the pic from the 0 point and there pissed because i removed there picture and hadent gotten to the 2 others yet that were posted 10 min after i did my daily delete Now I understand. You are attempting to keep them from revealing the actual spot so as to not ruin it for those that come later. Therefore, photos of that spot are not welcome in the logs. That is exactly the same scenario as my virt.

you are correct keystone i just gotten tired of the nasty messages ontop of having to deal with the police 2 times yesterday and almost facing trespassing charges for not approved by the landowner geocaches I support your ability to manage the verification the way that you have it set up. However, would it not be easier for you to simply require them to post the verification pic in their log? That way, you could easily run through the finds and catch those without a legit pic and delete them. I'd rather find a way to make it easier for you to manage your cache then to see it lost (and not just because I haven't gotten around to finding it yet.) <After reading your later post, I now see that my solution would not work.>

That was a verification method that didn't work for me primarily because I didn't want my email address to be on the cache page. That being said, it's not an onerous requirement and people should abide by the instructions on the cache page. I suspect that what happens is that people are generally lazy (me included) and don't actually read the requirements well enough to know that they must email the pic rather than post it. You wouldn't think that it would be that big of a deal for those people to email the pic on the back end and relog the cache.