Ngs Acceptable?

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

In the other forum the concensus is this PID - GP0245 is "Destroyed". My question is - Is it allowed by the NGS for someone else to use the pictures and info in my Geocaching log to file a "Destroyed" report with the NGS?

 

I know there are a few folks who look at the datasheets and file correction reports without actually visiting the benchmark location and this would be similar in scope.

 

Since I do not file with the NGS this would allow for an update to the NGS database.

 

Just curious.

 

John

[+seventhings]

I vote no. This has nothing to do with what's possible or even efficacious regarding the completeness and accuracy of the NGS database. I vote "no" because I think it's just bad form. I also think the risk of error would increase dramatically.

 

I can conceive of circumstances where another approach might be acceptable, however. Benchmark hunting, as is conceived of at this particular moment, involves ("requires"?) that the participant get out and about and physically do the "work/fun/effort" of looking for marks. But what if there was a person who loved geodesy, topographic maps, etc. etc. etc. but was prevented by physical limitations from actually getting out and about to poke through the Poison Ivy and roadside trash in search of the elusive rivet. Pehaps, with the consent of an active hunter who chooses not to report to the NGS, the differently-abled hobbyist could perform the operational but not physically demanding function of having your efforts reflected as NGS recoveries. Care (by the original hunter) would have to be taken to minimize the potential increase in the likelihood of error, but I think it would be doable.

 

Otherwise, no.

 

Will

[Bill93]

If someone goes out and does the field work to determine the status of a benchmark or intersection station, but doesn't have their own pictures, I see nothing wrong with them submitting someone else's pictures with their report to the NGS. Good form would call for asking the other person's permission to use the pictures.

 

The purpose of logging with NGS is to record useful information. Over here, it is not a game but a service-oriented hobby. The person doing the submission is effectively declaring that they have good information and bears some responsibility to be sure that it is good. If the they see in the pictures what they saw at the site, then it doesn't matter who clicked the shutter, it is good information.

 

Seventhings brings up a whole different situation, and I don't have a well-formed optinion on that yet, other than that the person supplying the field work needs to be closely tied into the submissions or else the liklihood of errors will be too high.

[caseyb]

The easy thing to do here would be to simply say no. That is probably also the correct thing to do. Saying yes might start a dangerous precendent etc etc. So what I will say is that this is one of the many areas where you all will have to use your judgement. I mean, if John and his wife go and find a mark, and his wife takes the picture and John submits the report.... of course he could use the photo. If Fred goes to a mark on Monday and Tom (who has a nice digital camera) goes on Tuesday, I don't see why Fred can't use Tom's picture in a report he submits to NGS.

On the other hand if Fred sees the mark on Monday, and Tom sees the mark 5 years later I don't think the photo would be useful.

I could continue to come up with different senarios adnauseam. My point is that each situation is different and each situation requires somebody making a good decision.

 

To make a long story short, I am not going to answer this question. To be blunt, I can't. I can't say something here and create NGS policy on the fly, and there is no "NGS Official Rules Book Section 315.23(: Rules on submitting photos from other people in mark recovery reports from Geocachers". What I can say is please just use your own good judgement people. Most of you are very careful of what you do, and we at NGS respect your judgement. If you saw that the mark was destroyed, but didn't have a camera and then saw a picture that showed exactly what you saw and you are 100% sure it is of the same mark I don't see a problem.

Edited September 16, 2005 by caseyb

[+Black Dog Trackers]

I agree with seventhings. The whole concept sounds like baaaaaaad business!

 

Bill93 - Your response sounded a bit to me like you didn't realize that John was meaning (I believe) someone submitting to the NGS a log when they didn't have their own pictures AND didn't visit the site themselves.

[Bill93]

Ok, I didn't read carefully enough. My previous post stands, and it looks like Casey agrees under the scenario I was talking about.

 

But no report should ever be submitted without being written or at least reviewed by someone who visited the field location.

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

<snip>I agree

 

But no report should ever be submitted without being written or at least reviewed by someone who visited the field location.

This is what I think as well.

 

If you have visited the site(field location),within a year.

And write the report within that year.

It would be considered good.

Any photo or report after that would be considered old.

(To me.)

 

I have seen many changes in 1 year,and have to go back myself and re submit some destroyed marks.

 

 

correct grammer she was out of line

Edited September 18, 2005 by GEO*Trailblazer 1

[ArtMan]

When I first started reporting to NGS, I went back and filed reports on older finds. Some may have been more than a year old, but I was reporting on information collected on X date, and I gave that date as the date of my report (i.e., I entered the date I visited the mark, not the much later date on which I filed the report). Seems kosher to me.

 

-Art-

[evenfall]

My sense of this is that I cannot speak for anyone else's find, or not find.

 

I can only speak for my own work.

 

It would be risky to assume that I could write an adequate recovery with current description based on a lack of local knowledge. It also leave people open for people leaving false info out there in hopes of it corrupting he database if copied.

 

NGS recoveries do allow you to back date to the date of actual recovery, even if it was some time ago. this is all well and fine as the dat you said you were there and the conditions you found would be accurate to that time. It would not be true if you filed a recovery of today''s date for something you visited a year ago, as things could have changed and you would not know.

 

Updates to the NGS Database are all 100% Monitored, but it would be poor form to waste the NGS man hours with recoveries that were not performed by the reporter. The NGS database deserves to be treated with a High level of integrity and it would only be appropriate for the person or people who were actually on the recovery of a station to be the ones to report it to NGS, should they choose to do so.

 

Hope that helps,

 

Rob