mresoteric

Apparently not so much.

It's more like walking into the police station and informing the officer you had been speeding. Sure, some Barney Fife types would insist on giving you the ticket. But I believe most would be more like Andy Taylor and recognize that you realize you were wrong since you turned yourself in and let you off with a warning.

Someone was heading out to do an epic 4/4 multi and forgot their pen? Redonkulous! People have forgotten to bring their wedding rings to their wedding. People have forgotten to get their passports prior to epic vacation travel. Not everyone has a rock solid brain that prevents them from screwing up now and then.

So the honest types are screwed if they find your caches but the ones that don't mind not mentioning that little tidbit of information are fine? What if they admit not having a pen but have a picture of them holding the cache and logbook? That's what I don't understand. If you're not going to bother to check the logbook, then why get so bent out of shape if someone doesn't sign the log? It's not like the "cheaters" are going to tell you they are cheating. The only way to catch those evil doers is to review the all important physical logbook.

The problem is not with this sacred cow. It was the decision to bury the other sacred cows instead of sending them to the taxidermist to be re-skinned and put back out for display. (and finding)

Moun10bike is the cache owner. If he wishes to replace the cache, I believe he should have the option of replacing the cache...just as any other cacher would have. Problem is this is not any other cache. It is a special one with a special icon and the other ape cache owners did not have the option of replacing the cache so neither should Moun10bike. Appears to be moot anyway since he archived it.

But with 1 cache it probably is and he said he does just that. He didn't say anywhere that he didn't look forward to seeing who found it. YOU (and probably a lot of other hiders) put caches out there looking forward to seeing who found it. Obviously some care more than others and I believe some don't care about reading the found logs on their caches at all. I imagine that there are some who only care to know if there are maintenance issues which is easy to check on the cache listing. (There are probably some that put out caches that don't care about ever seeing anything else, but I can't really support those type of hiders.)

Geocaching has made it abundantly clear, in the past, that once the APE Cache container has disappeared, the cache must be archived. To replace this one would be the ultimate hypocrisy. I agree. Just because some have not had a chance to get a special icon does not mean Groundspeak should suddenly change their position on an Ape cache close to home if they have been adamant about archiving other Ape caches in the past. I joined too late to get a 10 year icon. That doesn't mean they should allow more 10 year events just so we late comers can get a special icon.

That seems like it would be a very lonely job. One could almost liken the ice cream critic to the guys in these forums who use thousands of words of text to convey their theory that their view of caching is the only acceptable one, and those who disagree should "quit whining". I much prefer the current format, where those who like catfish & bourbon ice cream can eat it to their heart's content, while those who think it's icky can express their dissenting view. Yeah, that would be great, wouldn't it? Of course, if that same ice cream critic joined, let's say, interneticecream.com and called every person eating that ice cream lazy and uncreative, and then had a bunch of people chime in along with him saying that interneticecream.com should never have those flavors and those flavors should have their own site so as not to clutter the "real" ice cream and the "true spirit" of ice cream, than people who liked that ice cream would probably have a point in telling the folks complaining to stop bitching about it and ignore it because they didn't appreciate the continuous insults from people who don't appreciate their flavors. Then someone would invariably quote the whole thing out of context and insult them, then accuse them of quashing dissent because they got tired of being insulted and belittled and dared to speak. That is how the internet works, isn't it? I'd be happy with a world in which we could all eat the ice cream of our choice. And if someone didn't like my ice cream they could feel free to discuss why they don't like my ice cream instead of calling me a tasteless, half-wit too lazy and uncreative to buy and eat the ice cream they like.

If we're not trying to force this "underground" then why even have a discussion about deleting the log? After all, the land managers could very well read the forums too. This is the "cover up" I am refering to: If I were a land manager I could very well interpet that to mean "Cachers do illegal things and then try to cover their tracks about it. I wonder how many times this has happened and the logs have been edited to hide the activity. This sounds like something that I need to stop." If I see one in fifty logs mentioning being in the park after hours I know how often it happens. If I see one in fifty logs mentioning being in the park after hours and then see that log "disappear", I'm going to question the validity of the other 49 logs too now. Don't get me wrong -- I have never knowingly violated local laws to find a cache and I certainly would never encourage anyone to do so. I just like taking on an opposing role to make sure I think over both sides of an issue before I jump on the "delete the log" bandwagon. Still don't see the "cover up" since it is still being discussed here. And I would not recommend deleting a log without specifying why it is being deleted, so it's not like it's being swept under the rug either. But since you are essentially playing devil's advocate, then I will say yes, anyone can interpret anything in any manner at any given time. So yes, there is an off chance that the park manager might see the deletion and go bonkers. But again, I highly doubt the park manager was watching the page prior to FTF, but knowschad says he might so I guess it is possible. I still say the co should have deleted the log. However, the longer it is on the page the more correct your assertion becomes. I'm pretty sure lots of people have read it by now so probably not a good idea to delete at this point. Assuming, for a moment, a scenario where a park manager watchlists all the caches in their area of control, (I know two land managers who do this), I can't imagine that they'd go bonkers. Rather, I suspect they'd see the log bragging about the illegal activity, then they'd see the log being deleted due to illegal activity and see first hand that some cache owners are conscientious enough to enforce consequences for bad behavior. By the time someone is far enough along in their life that they've reached a management position, they should at least be mature enough to recognize that there is no 100% effective way to prevent bad behavior. Knowing this, they should appreciate those cache owners who draw the proverbial line in the sand, punishing the violators by deleting their logs. Exactly. To believe that this worry will come to fruition very often one would have to assume that land managers are irrational temperamental half-wits who paint whole groups by the action of a few. That's not been my experience with land managers (or many adults at all). Not saying it hasn't happened, but it's just not a very realistic worry. I'm not worried. Dan-O-Can is the one concerned about land managers perceiving it as a cover up.

Funny how so many control freaks are drawn to a game with such open ended rules.

If we're not trying to force this "underground" then why even have a discussion about deleting the log? After all, the land managers could very well read the forums too. This is the "cover up" I am refering to: If I were a land manager I could very well interpet that to mean "Cachers do illegal things and then try to cover their tracks about it. I wonder how many times this has happened and the logs have been edited to hide the activity. This sounds like something that I need to stop." If I see one in fifty logs mentioning being in the park after hours I know how often it happens. If I see one in fifty logs mentioning being in the park after hours and then see that log "disappear", I'm going to question the validity of the other 49 logs too now. Don't get me wrong -- I have never knowingly violated local laws to find a cache and I certainly would never encourage anyone to do so. I just like taking on an opposing role to make sure I think over both sides of an issue before I jump on the "delete the log" bandwagon. Still don't see the "cover up" since it is still being discussed here. And I would not recommend deleting a log without specifying why it is being deleted, so it's not like it's being swept under the rug either. But since you are essentially playing devil's advocate, then I will say yes, anyone can interpret anything in any manner at any given time. So yes, there is an off chance that the park manager might see the deletion and go bonkers. But again, I highly doubt the park manager was watching the page prior to FTF, but knowschad says he might so I guess it is possible. I still say the co should have deleted the log. However, the longer it is on the page the more correct your assertion becomes. I'm pretty sure lots of people have read it by now so probably not a good idea to delete at this point.

Who's trying to force this underground? There is a thread about it. And if I were the one deleting the log, I would make sure the finder knew exactly why the log was deleted. That's not exactly the cover up you seem to be inferring.

Actually you gotta be a little more cautious with how you use that. People have been banned for wrongly deleting logs based on principles that don't coincide with the TPTB. I think if the finder broke the law that Groundspeak would back you up if you deleted the log WITH an invitation to re-log without the illegal activity mentioned.

If only it were so. I think some just like calling others lazy and uncreative.

If a park manager (and not just one managing that particular park) read the log, they may very well form an unfavorable opinion about caching. Delete the log before that happens. Invite the finder to repost without mentioning the illegal activity. There is still time to keep geocaching from getting a black eye. Deleting the log won't matter if they have a watch on the cache, which is not implausible at all. Deleting the log won't delete the email in their inbox. You seriously think someone had a watch on a cache prior to FTF being posted? I stated that it had the potential to give geocaching a bad eye. But since the poster didn't get caught trespassing by park management, I would suggest deleting the log before someone does come across it and ban caching in that park. The CO could also update the listing to include those posted hours. That would actually help the park management feel a little more at ease even if noone had ever trespassed after hours.

I don't understand this post. I was just having lunch, and happened to have my GPS around my neck. Maybe your humor is too dry for me? McDonalds caches typically imply a lame, micro-cache placement. Many forum regulars have waxed poetically over the years about just how lame these caches are. Thus, you are running the risk of being flamed on this board by the mere suggestion of a McDonalds caching experience. At least that is how I interpreted the comment; I could, of course, be wrong. Being asked if you are a geocacher at a McDonalds is not the same thing as geocaching at a McDonalds.

If a park manager (and not just one managing that particular park) read the log, they may very well form an unfavorable opinion about caching. Delete the log before that happens. Invite the finder to repost without mentioning the illegal activity. There is still time to keep geocaching from getting a black eye.

For the record, I edited out the other guy's email address in my post. I left the poster's email because I figured he didn't mind it being there since he's the one that posted it. (which was sort of confirmed when he edited his post and did the same)

The prophecy was about external means to figure out what logs you made. As long as the logs themselves are still there (and they said they wouldn't remove/hide those), it will always be possible to build a "profile" of a cacher, even if the site itself doesn't provide any mechanism to find them. If they do implement profile privacy, I would well expect them to remove all capabilities to search for a user's finds in any way. I'd consider anything else as a bug. However, it will still be possible to find somebody's logs if they're still visible on the cache pages. So, unless they decide to give people the option to hide everything they do from everywhere, including the logs themselves, there won't be any such thing as "privacy". GS could hide that cache listings from Google. I'm sure there are other places to find the info but it would require some additional work. Kind of like Facebook.

Couldn't the hider leave the reviewer a note asking that it not be published until daylight? I don't understand how this incident has given geocaching a black eye. It definitely had the potential to do so if the guy had been caught trespassing. But it seems in this instance that geocaching dodged a bullet.

Ok I totally fail to make any sense of your reply then btw. But w/e. My reply was just to show that there is more than one way to get information about geocachers, verifying that I am fully aware of what you were saying when you said this: Unless Groundspeak addresses all the different places where someone can find information about a cacher's finds, then your prophesy will likely become reality if and when Groundspeak decides to allow us to set our profile to private. if its going to be possible to hide our profile all those places you're talking about will not be available anymore Only if Groundspeak addresses all those areas. I did that search from the regular search, not the profile. It would make sense though that if Groundspeak decided to implement private profiles that they would take care to address the other areas as well. But who knows. Mistakes are always made. So there is still a high likelihood that DFX's prophesy would come to fruition.

Ok I totally fail to make any sense of your reply then btw. But w/e. My reply was just to show that there is more than one way to get information about geocachers, verifying that I am fully aware of what you were saying when you said this: Unless Groundspeak addresses all the different places where someone can find information about a cacher's finds, then your prophesy will likely become reality if and when Groundspeak decides to allow us to set our profile to private.

Then you should go back and edit that post.

If they emailed through Groundspeak then there is likely a trail that Groundspeak can look at to see what happened. These things are rarely really deleted.