DragonflyTotem

Why in the world would that be true? The poster left off the <sarcasm> </scarcasm> parts. I sure hope you're right, because that post sure got my dander up!! Park managers do sometimes watch caches and read the logs. While I think the OP's use of words such as "committing illegal acts" and such are hyperbole to the extreme for what surely would amount to a ticket at the very worst if caught, such actions can and do make geocachers look irresponsible to land managers and law enforcement personnel. Such actions should be discouraged, and writing about them online after the fact should also be discouraged. While you're certainly entitled to an opinion that doesn't make it factual. It's certainly not hyperbole ("exaggerations to create emphasis or effect") if it is in fact an an illegal act -- which it is and is covered under Virginia Code § 18.2-119 and that's why the City has all of the City parks here posted as such. As for this being as you suggest "amount(ing) to a ticket at the very worst" -- you don't know that. Trespass in a City park here is a Class 1 misdemeanor and the penalty for that can be confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both. Regardless, it's not "just a ticket" as you get arrested for trespass on City property. Even if they "only" issue a ticket, that is an arrest -- you are just being released based on signing that ticket, but that is pending a date in Court that you agree to appear for, which is set forth in the ticket. But trespass in a City park where they've had problems when the park is closed is more likely to get you in a fair amount of trouble (e.g., they put you in the back of the patrol car and then check the park and discover vandalism or worse). And in some parks you're more likely to find yourself before the Magistrate.

Received a quick reply from the cacher who as expected said that he didn't know that it was trespassing and thanked me for letting him know about it. And then he changed the log to remove that. So all ended well.

Thanks for pointing that out. Added my two cents (and votes).

I have sent a polite email to the cacher to explain the situation and to ask him to kindly remove any reference to the park having been closed from his log entry.

I'm probably looking in the wrong place, as I can't find this in the guidelines or anywhere. Presumably this would also apply to traffic offences such as speeding and parking when on a numbers run? It actually took me awhile to find it as well -- and in my above statement I was over simplifying it just a bit to make the point as I was meaning here on GS rather than the entire universe of "while caching", but the actual requirement is contained in the "GEOCACHING.COM SITE TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT" in paragraph 4(i) which state that "You agree not to:" "Violate any applicable local, state, national or international law." As soon as you post a log online you are subject to those terms. And I'd have to believe that it would be a violation to state in a log that you broke the law to make the find. Not being an attorney and all that it would seem that there would be legal ramifications to making an online declaration (admission) that you broke the law. Anyway, again, that was just an off-hand comment to respond to the point. I did come here to ask for opinions and other thoughts, and have gotten that.

Which I think is the most appropriate direction to go. I came to the same conclusion in discussing this with a reviewer -- I'm hoping that it was an action not well thought out (by the cacher), hope that it will be an opportunity to educate someone, and especially hope that if all goes well that it will result in no mention of illegal activities in the log.

Frankly, you make the perfect point for why to make it a big deal. Doesn't matter what alternate route he took or what reason the park was closed because entering the park when it is closed is trespassing and it is posted as such. And anyone else seeing the log entry will also then assume that it must be okay to do the same thing just as you did. Besides, in your situation you didn't trespass to get the cache. Parking illegally nearby the cache has nothing to do with trespassing where the cache is.

I've been to parks that were blocked off for vehicles but were not really closed. (Nothing in that log makes me think it was a nighttime find after park hours.) No, didn't say that. The log entry stated that the park was closed. When the park is closed the gate is locked and the sign is right there saying that the park is closed. There is no "not really closed" status. The park was closed.

Going into a City park here after hours or when it is otherwise closed is trespassing (which is of course a violation of the GS rules that prohibit violating any laws while caching). In this case the cacher did know they were in the park -- the log entry confirms that -- and knew that the park was closed -- again confirmed by the log entry. And he'd have to have known about the trespassing because you have to come to the locked gate to know that it's closed, and on that is a very large sign that spells it all out.

Exact log entry was: "Park was closed today so I had to walk in from a short distance away. I zeroed in on the GZ and found it pretty quickly. SL. TFTC!"

I guess that I'll ask the questions that I didn't see anyone else yet ask -- what makes you think that it was the "obvious" location for the cache, or (as you later added) that the coordinates were soft? What might seem to be an obvious location might not mean much if the D factor is higher than a 1. And then there is the whole issue of GPS error and accuracy rates and such. As a CO (have 60 caches) I can tell you that many times when I have had someone complain about the coordinates being off that their listed GPS is....well, not really ideal. I have an electronics background and worked with GPS and related schtuff for years and can say that some GPS units being sold....being polite, just really aren't all that good. And even with the same models of GPS, many factors can make it seem like soft coordinates (signal blockage or degradation). And when I've had reports about the coordinates being off, when I asked for someone with a decent GPS to check it, amazingly the coordinates are dead on. But I'd go so far as to suggest that perhaps the CO might have put a decoy there at that spot for those exact reasons (it was a "lure you in" location, and within the error/accuracy rate area). So perhaps the CO is trying to do you a favor, knowing that you might not otherwise make the find, but nudged onward you have a chance of it.

If this one has been specifically discussed I couldn't find the thread, so thought I'd ask the question -- what if anything should a CO do when a cacher logs a find, but in the log admits that they committed an illegal act to find the cache? The specific instance is someone caching in a City Park that was clearly closed, with a locked gate and a sign posted that entry while closed is trespassing and a violation of criminal code. And the cacher admits in their log entry that the park was closed and so they went in anyway. This has come up in our area at least a few times that I can recall -- where for example, when it was discovered that a cache was illegally placed on posted private property and the reviewer was notified of that and then properly and quickly archived the cache, but then cachers still went after that and logged the cache (with dates that are after the archive date). But this is the first time that I've had someone log on of mine and in doing so admit that they broke the law to do so. I'm particularly troubled by this as this is the kind of thing that then causes a City to ban caches in parks, and so far this City has been very open about caches in City parks. And they are particularly sensitive about this park as there have been incidents of vandalism there, underage drinking, etc. Add to that, this is a cacher that has been active for nearly two years, but has a smallish number of finds Does that merit a log deletion? Does this merit a message to the cacher? Have you had similar situations and if so, what did you do?

As the souvenirs start to roll out I can't help but wonder if anyone has yet considered including EarthCaches -- a general one for anyone who has found an EC, and perhaps even one for each of the Master levels when earned, and perhaps one for the International day. I didn't see anything listed regarding this under the related topic, anyone know if this one has been submitted?

Woo-hoo, completed my Platinum quals today and even managed to time this with my 400 milestone! Started seven months ago on a trip to Germany when I was introduced to ECs during a caching run, and so far have managed to log ECs in 9 states in two countries. When I first started and got my Bronze I never thought that I'd get to this point.

Do you already have a way to do that, or are you looking for a way to do that? If you're still looking for a way, I would recommend SurveyMonkey which I use a lot. It's free and easy to setup and it can be setup to restrict voting to one vote per user based on IP tracking.

Deleting an honest log is rude, crude, and uncalled for. BTW, sincerely disagreeing with somebody isn't playing the Devil's Advocate. Again, your unfounded opinion of what would constitute an "honest" log -- not that I raised the issue of honesty in my posts at all. "Devil's Advocate: In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position." Which is what I did -- I never said that I agreed with the point. I was simply trying to ask you to consider the other side of it. Hence the point of my then saying that I did have one cacher log like that which was offered as an example of how the original argument might not hold. The sincere disagreement came about when you made your statements of opinion as if they were facts, and made rude and crude comments about others. But it's point taken that you refuse to cease stating your opinion as if it is factual, and refuse to acknowledge that calling an EC CO "asinine" is just plain wrong.

The point is that people should not have their logs deleted for putting things in their own words instead of just copying the plaque. If copying the plaque is important to the cache owner for verification purposes, that should be a separate task. If the only task you have involves getting information off the plaque, it's ridiculous to penalize someone for putting that information into their own words. It's right in the submission guidelines: "Logging of an EarthCache must involve visitors undertaking some educational task that relates to the Earth science at the site." And yes, I think that in some cases, EC reviewers have really dropped the ball. Your above doesn't actually address my comment and certainly doesn't refute the points that I'm presenting. And I think that you're continuing to make sweeping assumptions and offering opinions that have no basis in fact. The point that I was making was that asking for "something verbatim" should be okay. You seem to be making the assumption that this means copying the entire sign, and I never said that. "Something" clearly has a different meaning than the word "everything" and I didn't say copying "everything." I said to answer questions as they were listed on the sign and referred to my own EC as my example where they only need cite a couple of words or use figures given there. That's "something" and not "everything." You also make the assumption that someone is penalized for putting information into their own words. I've never said that they couldn't in addition also put that required information into their own words. And in my EC example that I was referring to you can answer one of the questions in several ways...and probably would if you Googled it...but only one of those answers is on the sign. And you're also assuming that getting information from a sign to answer a question about the earth science of the site is somehow not an educational task, or that it is the only task. And that's simply not so. That's a silly assumption -- you're implying that your knowledge (which I'll presume came from books you read while in school, or from a teacher who got it from a book, either way....words) is better obtained than someone reading specific words from a sign that are in support of the educational task. Can I assume that when you were learning what you know and had a quiz that called for an answer to a fill in the blank question, that you gave as an answer "the" word(s) that your teacher had said was "the" answer? That's no different than here in that the point of asking logging questions is to allow the cacher to demonstrate that they learned what was the intent of the earth science lesson. And again, I never said that was the only task. My point was and is, that your statement about something being "asinine and completely contrary to the aims of Earthcaching" is unsupported. That might be your personal opinion, but you stating it as having factual basis is wrong (and frankly pretty vulgar). And the same for your personal opinion that there was somehow "poor planning" involved, simply because you don't personally approve of how an EC CO chooses to approach an educational task. And the same for your personal opinion that a CO asking for something specific from a sign that relates to the educational task of the EC "shouldn't be rolled into an educational task" -- that has no basis, because you don't set the rules for that. In responding to your post I tried to politely offer another viewpoint from yours, which was an attempt to point out that you are stating as factual what is only your opinion. Unless I've missed something and you are a EC reviewer stating GS/GSA policy or requirements, then your opinion is no better than other opinions here. I think that it would be helpful for you to stop stating your opinions as matters of fact. On the other hand, the points that I've made seem to be well founded, given that Geoaware himself approved the EC that I was using as an example to support my point. So clearly he found it to be acceptable enough to approve the EC. So if as you stated you believe that the reviewers have "really dropped the ball" because they've allowed something that is counter to your personal opinion, perhaps you should take that up with them directly. I think that your claiming that EC CO's are "asinine" because they don't conform to your personal opinion or beliefs is rude, crude and uncalled for.

I couldn't make it through the d/l with that service you have it hosted on. The d/l speed was 1.8 KB/sec and was timing out on your 522.58KB file size, and then a spam detector that I have indicated that they have attached something to your PDF file (assume it is advertising). Sorry.

I was in the GSA store moments ago and they seemed to have all the pins in stock including the platinum (it loaded to my cart just fine).

Guess you could just paste the text into a post. I've printed my cache page as a PDF to send to a couple of folks for assistance (so that they could also see the graphics on the page).

Then it's an issue of poor planning. If an Earthcache owner insists of having a specific proof of visit task, it shouldn't be rolled into an educational task. Copying text from a sign doesn't demonstrate learning. I'm having a real hard time seeing the basis of your point -- nobody said that the act of copying text from a sign demonstrated learning. Learning takes place at the cache site and there are many ways to state something which would demonstrate that learning has happened, and being able to identify the specific things from a sign which relate to the desired learning is certainly demonstrating that learning has taken place. But more to the point, if I'm understanding you, you seem to be saying that the EC approval process is flawed because Geoaware approves ECs (using that as an example because he approved that EC of mine) that are poorly planned and which don't meet your personal standards of what constitutes demonstration of learning?

Roger that. Was simply trying to check it out since they have a site revision that says: "NEW SEARCH FEATURE - Try out the new way of searching for EarthCache Sites in your country or state. You can also list them by topics (volcanoes, fossils, etc). Go the EarthCache Listings page and follow the link at the top of the page."

Thanks, had missed the prior thread. Frankly I was assuming that since the GSA site was announcing new search capabilities that they would then also have current information. Hopefully there can be a way to be able to get at least near real time updates into their system.

Refusing to accept an answer *because* it was in your own words is asinine and completely contrary to the aims of Earthcaching. That kind of owner response would get an NA log from me. I understand your point, but allow me to play devil's advocate -- there could be a case where capturing and then submitting something verbatim from a sign is part of the logging requirement which proves that you were actually at the site. I'm not saying that the above sounds like that to be the case in this situation, just suggesting that there could well be a very valid reason that an EC CO wants something exactly as it is on the sign as a way of preventing armchair logging based on other online research. I'm just trying to suggest that it isn't going to be as black 'n white in all cases and consider that before submitting an NA on that alone. I have in fact had one log like that though -- where someone didn't answer any of the questions correctly as they were listed on the sign (and you can check my ECs to see that this isn't a case of not answering one question alone) and it seemed pretty obvious that they didn't actually go to the EC and instead pulled what they hoped would pass for the answers from online. I'm just saying.....

Just did a search for all EC types in Virginia, search results returned were for 116 caches. But then I noticed that neither of my two were listed. Then noticed that two others here locally also were missing. And then I checked another state that I have bookmarked some for an upcoming trip, and those don't show up in the search either. So, has anyone else noticed problems searching for ECs?