Recent Log Criticisms

[+RJFerret]

There have been a couple criticisms lately of certain material included in logs (in a couple different threads and both email and phone conversations).

 

The concern I guess is that the public will read such and presume that one persons writings are examples of ALL geocachers behaviours?!??

 

I object to this! (For multiple reasons...)

 

The primary of which is logs are an expression of appreciation for the geocache. Restricting the flavor and juicy elements limits all logs to the lousy extreme of "TNLNSL". Which has become WAY too dominant for my taste (yeesh, 10 of them in my inbox just today).

 

Heck, the best logs known in the community are complete works of fiction! Having NOTHING to do with the cache itself.

 

The writer has expressed numerous illegal acts, including (but not limited to), drunk driving, underage girls, public nudity among other nefarious humors. He was even featured in the magazine!

 

So please let's not "crack down" on the artistic expression of some cachers, but instead applaud their contributions and efforts! I know some spend a LOT of time juicing up their logs (rather than the babble that comes out of my fingers).

 

The public generally knows that just because a newspaper prints it doesn't make it true, and even more so for what you read on the web. Any reasonable adult knows what one persons claims doesn't represent how all people behave.

 

Heck, as evidenced by the jeep contest, doctoring photos is commonplace too.

 

Let's encourage good logging with lots of creativity and pleasure rather than adopting Orwellian tactics please.

 

IMO this should be a pleasant hobby that expands ourselves, not an unpleasant restrictive environment.

 

Thanks,

 

Randy

[+gpsfun]

Randy,

 

I would like to agree with your appeal for more interesting and informative logs than the stream of abbreviations or acronyms you received in your inbox. Interestingly, a similar thread appeared this morning in the South and Southeast forums here. So you are addressing a topic of interest to others as well as yourself.

 

That said, I also want to suggest that log writers utilize good judgment in describing their adventures, particularly by refraining from exaggerated writings that could cast the sport or hobby of geocaching in a negative light by those who may desire to do so. There are many public areas that have no formal rules or restrictions on geocaching activity that all of us currently enjoy. However, the stewards of these areas could decide on their own or be asked to regulate geocaching activity. Those who know little of the activity may decide to do their research through reading geocaching logs and fail to recognize the intended humor or exaggeration in some log entries.

 

Worse yet are the admissions of guilt, e.g., on a cache page clearly stating that an area is closed from dusk to dawn, a geocacher writes that they went in over the fence and got the first to find prize at 3:30 a.m. Does everyone do that? Of course not, but persons intent on strongly restricting geocaching can and will point to such a log and paint all of us with the same brush.

 

Geocaching logs written in jest, with over the top exaggeration, and boasting of real or fictional inappropriate behavior are currently causing significant difficulties for those of us who are working to achieve minimally restrictive geocaching policies with land stewards who are being pressed to "do something" about those maverick geocacher people who are doing "all of that stuff" on public lands.

 

In summary, I join with you in encouraging descriptive and well written logs. However, I also encourage log writers to consider if parts of their logs could be perceived negatively by others, and to make suitable edits before clicking the submit button.

 

Edit: Fixed the spelling of the words "negative", restrictions" and "stuff".

Edited January 14, 2006 by gpsfun

[+NJ Admin]

This topic concerns all geocachers not just ones in New England.

Moving to general discussion area.

[+Planet]

Well said GPSFun. I am concerned about the logs describing blatant illegal acts posted with photos as evidence that they were indeed snubbing their noses at the rules. And writing that rules don't apply to them. Or any log that admits breaking the law. It gives us a bad name and makes cache owners unhappy. They are the ones who are going to have to deal with the land manager when they see those logs, and they do read them. I always try to make my logs something the cache owner and other cachers will like to read, and if I really like a cache I try to make my log reflect that to entice other cachers want to find it too.

[+jon & miki]

Geocaching logs written in jest, with over the top exaggeration, and boasting of real or fictional inappropriate behavior are currently causing significant difficulties for those of us who are working to achieve minimally restrictive geocaching policies with land stewards who are being pressed to "do something" about those maverick geocacher people who are doing "all of that stufff" on public lands.

Right on!

[+BigWhiteTruck]

Does anyone have the link to the thread where the anti-geo south carolinians brought pictures and questionable log entries lifted from GC.com into court to further thair cause of banning geocaches?

 

If I remember corrctly, it was written by someone who was actually at the hearing, and they were surprised by all the photos and logs that had been taken from the site and used against us.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Does anyone have the link to the thread where the anti-geo south carolinians brought pictures and questionable log entries lifted from GC.com into court to further thair cause of banning geocaches?

Here is a link to the thread.

 

I think the specific posts to where you are referring are these two:

 

Pictures, more pictures and log entries

[CoyoteRed]

The bill in SC, if nothing else, illustrates that if someone wants to make you out to be a hooligan they don't need admissions of wrongdoing. They can take perfectly innocent comments of acceptable actions out of context to make it say whatever they want to say.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with discouraging illegal actions and the admission thereof, but that's different from what is going on here. Let's not muddy this topic with the goings on in South Carolina, please.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I wholeheartedly agree with discouraging illegal actions and the admission thereof, but that's different from what is going on here.  Let's not muddy this topic with the goings on in South Carolina, please.

I don't believe this topic is limited to just descriptions of illegal activities in logs, I think we are trying to discuss concerns related to the manner in which the records of our activities may be perceived and interpreted by others.

 

As gpsfun mentioned:

Those who know little of the activity may decide to do their research through reading geocaching logs and fail to recognize the intended humor or exaggeration in some log entries.

and

In summary, I join with you in encouraging descriptive and well written logs. However, I also encourage log writers to consider if parts of their logs could be perceived negatively by others, and to make suitable edits before clicking the submit button.

I think the background information related to the events which led to legislative activities in South Carolina is very much on topic in this discussion, and point quite clearly to the problems which can arise as a result of differences in perception.

[+ZingerHead]

I'm with the majority here - we need to keep in mind that we almost always cache on other peoples' property, and property owners will not be impressed by geocachers breaking their rules, however arbitrary or inconvenient those rules are. Funny as some logs may be, in a different light they are destructive to our ability to geocache. Those logs have a long life, and it looks like they can come around to bite us. We run the danger of building a reputation as a bunch of risk-taking, rule-averse thrillseekers with little regard for the rights of property owners. Some may have <winked> at this in the past, but in the past there were a lot fewer caches and cachers. As the game grows in popularity, more and more landowners are going to become aware of geocaching. That awareness can lead to more access, or it can lead to more closures.

[Ferreter5]

There's a "Liar's" cache in our area where you're encouraged to lie outrageously about what you had to do to reach/find the cache. However, anyone reading the cache listing would know that's the purpose of the cache.

 

Some of the log entries are pretty funny, and this one doesn't even mention illegal activities like napalming the area to reveal the cache box:

 

Wow, I do not know what all the fuss has been about. I put off doing this cache because, quite frankly, it seemed like just a little to much trouble. Finally decided it had to be done because I got sick of seeing it on my first search page. Am I ever glad that I did!

 

Not sure what twilight zone everyone else is in but my time looking for the cache was like a day in paradise. I had deer greeting me at the van just jockeying to be the one to give me a ride to the cache site. Decided to walk in with the deer just to keep the peace! But it felt like a scene from Bambi or the Lion King with all the animals lining the trail and watching my escorts and me. When we got to the cache, the fireflies had gathered to light up the box so I would not have to spend any time looking. They love to be helpful and keep everyone from becoming frustrated.

 

It was hard to leave this idyllic setting but I knew that I really should be thinking about getting home and getting supper for the rest of family - silly peolple didn't want to come with me, they will never know what they missed!!

[+Renegade Knight]

Funny thing this thread. It reminds me of sheriff's threatending to prosecute geocachers for placing caches that happend to have been called in as a suspiciouse object when in fact they are harmless. The problem isn't the cache, the probelm isn't that there is a bomb squad, or the call reporting the cache. The real probelm is that someone out there makes bombs to begin with.

 

Same with logs. The problem isn't a log that describes fictional acts, or is taken out of context when in fact they are harmless. The problem is that there are real people out there doing the bad things that make the freedom of writing a good log get questioned by otherwise reasonable cachers and politicians.

 

Sometimes people forget what the real problem is and focus on smoke and mirrors.

 

I'll write a log in honor of this thread.

[CoyoteRed]

I don't believe this topic is limited to just descriptions of illegal activities in logs, I think we are trying to discuss concerns related to the manner in which the records of our activities may be perceived and interpreted by others.

True. However, many of the logs from the SC issues where absolutely innocent and if taken completely within the context of the log and the cache would have shown to be so. The problem is they weren't.

 

Let's be clear, the SC issues have little to do with actual bad logs or actions. It has everything to do with taking logs out of context and making them say something they did not. Remember, the urinating allegation originated from the log of a Lexington County Deputy written on a cache owned by a South Carolina Highway Patrolman.

 

We've found the vast majority of the "evidence" used to further the bill wasn't really what was presented.

 

The SC problems are completely different from inappropriate behavior and logs detailing same. All I'm saying is not confuse the two.

[+dinobalz]

The thread seems to have strayed a little off-topic already, but it is a critical subject nonetheless. The OP and gpsfun expressed very well a "potential" problem that could effect all of us as geocachers.

 

Undoubtedly, as our sport grows in popularity (which is great, hey, I'm fairly new at this too!) we are going to see an increase in the number of "bad" or "thoughtless" geocachers, and it will be reflected in the logs.

 

The challenge is what we do about it. My concern is that the "geocaching gods" will feel obligated to impose more restrictions on our sport in order to protect it. Let's face it, most things open to all of society get tailored to the least common denominator. An example is the thread on placing caches near stone walls in NE, and the concern about possible damage to them. The OP was good, really just a reminder that the walls have historical significance and we should be careful with them. As a responsible geocacher, of course I want to protect the environment, monuments, personal property, etc., and I don't mind someone posting a warning warning me of damage I may cause inadvertently. What I would hate to see, though, is being told next time I submit a cache that there is a rule against placing them near a NE stone wall.

 

Since newbies learn their geocaching etiquette by reading the informational articles and cache logs, the logs containing stories of inappropriate behavior and disrespect of property and environment will only encourage more of the same. I believe that if we want to keep our sport fun and not so restrictive, we have a responsibility to put a little thought into what goes into the logs. That's not to say they should be bland and terse-- just responsible.

 

I bet if Groundspeak handed out cool looking icons for good geocaching etiquette like they do for geocoins we'd see a heck of an improvement of what's logged!

[+Cardinal Red]

While reading the Original Post I was already contemplating my response.

 

After reading the reply by gpsfun all I need to say is:

 

Well written. Thank You.

 

edit: typo

Edited January 15, 2006 by Cardinal Red

[+sept1c_tank]

...Same with logs. The problem isn't a log that describes fictional acts, or is taken out of context when in fact they are harmless. The problem is that there are real people out there doing the bad things that make the freedom of writing a good log get questioned by otherwise reasonable cachers and politicians.

 

Sometimes people forget what the real problem is and focus on smoke and mirrors.

 

I'll write a log in honor of this thread.

Often times we erroneously refer to logs as a history; we must not confuse the history of mankind with the history of a game. To a certain extent, logs are a valid history. But they are (can be) much more. Logs are more like a dialog than a history and any attempt at toning them down or being politically correct is unnatural.

 

RK, I can't believe you used the words reasonable cacher and politicians in the same breath!

[+bblhed]

Back a few years ago when there were a relative few people people caching and very few people had even heard of geocaching the log of insanity was a great thing to read. I myself have written the odd norse epic of my caching adventures. Those days are comeing to an end, and in some places they are now sadly over. There are too many people looking at what we are doing, and trying to twist it to their own ends. Care must be taken in what we are saying, and how we say it because weather we like it or not people from outside the game are watching us a bit too closely.

 

Geocaching has already been evected from the national parks, and is heavily regulated or banned in many state parks all over the country. In Connecticut there is at least one town I know of where caching has been evected from all land trust and town parks, it is only by the good grace of the Cnoservation commision and the state parks that there are any caches left there. Also localy we are in danger of being evected from the local blue trail system. In just about every one of the above cases it was just a single cacher or a few cachers that have lost us the use of these lands for geocaching.

 

I just ask that you please think about it when writing a cache page, or posting a log. Think to yourself if someone that didn't know me, or wasn't a cacher read this would they think I have done something wrong? Could that wrong get a cache removed, or louse the use of that land for other geocachers? Our logs are the bigest promoter or detractor form our soprt there is because it is the only record that people can see.

[+Katydid & Miles Stone]

I plan to start adding this addendum to logs where I've been a bit more creative.

 

"Please note: concern has been expressed about people's inability to discern between fact and fiction in some cachers' logs and the poor impression it may have on the geocaching community as a whole. To the best of our knowledge, we did not do anything illegal in finding this cache. In general, a wink icon next to a statement indicates fiction or an exaggeration. Let us know if you in any way find our log offensive and we will modify our post. We practice CITO (cache-in-trash-out) whenever we cache and make every effort not to disturb the natural habitat. It is always our desire to leave an area better off than we found it."

 

As I've reviewed a few of my logs, I can certainly see how it could be taken out of context and possibly be used to portray a poor image on the geocaching community. MS

[+briansnat]

The SC problems are completely different from inappropriate behavior and logs detailing same. All I'm saying is not confuse the two.

 

I think are related only because the SC issue shows that you never know who is reading the logs and for what purpose.

 

Detailaing any actual inappropriate behaivor (illegal parking, after hours park access, etc...) is foolish. I agree with GPSfun and others on that.

 

The grey area is logs that are exaggerations or fantasy. Are we being irresponsible by leaving logs like that, or by not doing so are we stifiling our our creativity and artistic license out of fear? Tough question.

 

I know that I've left logs that said things like "Left firecrackers, a Bowie knife and a Double Whopper with cheese". Of course I thought I was being funny and in each case the cache owner got the joke. But what if the wrong person read that?

[+yodadog and corvus 2]

I myself have written the odd norse epic of my caching adventures. Those days are comeing to an end, and in some places they are now sadly over.

The day we feel that we can not express our creativity or humor in our log writings is the day we will quit this sport. What’s next? Logs that have to submitted for approval? Come on folks, let’s not let the actions of a very few throw us into a panic. If there are those out there that are hell bent on banning this activity, all the TNLNSL logs won’t convince them otherwise. It will only be through educating on a case by case basis the uninformed who think we are nothing more than a group of law breaking kooks.

 

We agree that it is not wise to flaunt any illegal activity in online logs, but if we have to start censoring what we write because big brother may be reading over our shoulders, then Geocaching will become another example of our freedom of speech being stifled in this all too politically correct society.

 

(555 embellished logs and counting)

[+Katydid & Miles Stone]

Yodadog...talking dogs... I bet the SPCA would have something to say about that...

 

Please note: concern has been expressed about people's inability to discern between fact and fiction in some cachers' logs and the poor impression it may have on the geocaching community as a whole. To the best of our knowledge, we did not do anything illegal in finding this cache. In general, a wink icon next to a statement indicates fiction or an exaggeration. Let us know if you in any way find our log offensive and we will modify our post. We practice CITO (cache-in-trash-out) whenever we cache and make every effort not to disturb the natural habitat. It is always our desire to leave an area better off than we found it

[+Mopar]

Creative logs are one thing (and soooo much better then TNLNSL), but the complaints Ive heard from fellow cachers are much more obvious then that. Posting pictures to your cache log that prove you were breaking the law and then titling the picture "the rules don't apply to us", or bragging how you were FTF at 2am when the park rules and the cache page clearly state the park is closed at that time can not possibly be seen in a positive light by non-cachers. As we have seen several times before, it's only a matter of time before logs like that will be used as validation that we can't police ourselves and be trusted not to break the law while playing our game.

[+jon & miki]

The responsibility for "policing" logs should lie almost entirely with the cache owner. I believe every owner ought to be quite ready to delete any log that indicates the finder was breaking the law by trespassing, or by disregarding the land manager rules for access or even by not complying with the requirements stated on the cache page.

 

This isn't a free speech issue, it's about complying with the applicable laws and rules of the sport.

Jon

[+The Leprechauns]

The responsibility for "policing" logs should lie almost entirely with the cache owner. I believe every owner ought to be quite ready to delete any log that indicates the finder was breaking the law by trespassing, or by disregarding the land manager rules for access or even by not complying with the requirements stated on the cache page.

 

This isn't a free speech issue, it's about complying with the applicable laws and rules of the sport.

Jon

That is all well and good, if people would only respect one another. I'm afraid that our game may have grown too big for that spirit of community to prevail. Finders leave flaming logs on caches that were not the owner's fault. Owners delete logs for what I see as no good reason. Finders flame owners for deleting logs for what I see as valid reasons. The result? Generic logs to the tune of "TNLN, TFTC."

 

As an example, in late November the following log was entered for one of my caches, an urban micro:

 

Illegally parked, illegally peed, and then spotted the cache to save the day & got back to the car before it was towed.  Using this for the Coin Quest.

 

Rather than deleting the log, which would have been within my rights, I instead posted an owner's note to explain that the cache would no longer be eligible for the commercial Coin Quest promotion, and that I disapproved of the recent log.

 

The people who made the log entry wrote *me* a flame letter. Why bother hiding caches for people if it results in such grief?

[+jon & miki]

Not a bad approach - the important thing is that you, the cache owner, took appropriate action.

 

My statement was intended to convey that I thought the cache owner should be "ready to delete" inappropriate logs, not that some lesser action might not be just as effective. In my view, many cache owners have been unwilling to take any action at all regarding inappropriate logs and pictures.

 

This is a case where the cache owners have the power to influence the kinds of logs that are posted. Too much laxity can lead to an increase in the kind of logs you cite, a little pushback sets the expectation for what the tolerance levels will be on future logs.

 

Jon

Edited January 15, 2006 by ikim & noj

[CoyoteRed]

Deleting logs is all well and fine, but if someone is out to get you deleting a log is too little too late.

 

Consider a cache which might be a target for someone who dislikes those kind of caches for whatever reasons. Let's use a cemetery cache as an example. A person could create an account and put a watch on that cache. When a log is created this person gets a copy of that log long before the cache owner has a chance to delete it much less request a change.

 

Is it futile to police logs? Not in the least, but it is only good for future scouring of logs. The watch list is serious security threat in this respect and I've learned the hard way.

[+bblhed]

We agree that it is not wise to flaunt any illegal activity in online logs, but if we have to start censoring what we write because big brother may be reading over our shoulders, then Geocaching will become another example of our freedom of speech being stifled in this all too politically correct society.

I don't think I have ever flaunted my breaking of the law in my logs because I really do try to stay within the bounds of the law when caching. I even think that I have mentioned in several of my logs that I had to leave because I was in a position where the big orange ball in the sky could dip below the horizon before the wheels of my car could exit the park if I pushed farther. Those logs usualy turn into epics about trying to beat the sun, and stay safe and legal.

 

The bottom line is that you can post a great log that does not mention breaking the law, or the rules and does not show pictures of you breaking the law or the rules. Even if you are under the delusion that the rules do not apply to you.

 

Like I said before, it only took one cacher to get Geocaching thrown out of the national parks. In this area it only took one Geocacher to get us tossed out of an entire town. You have to think about the message you are sending with your logs.

[+jon & miki]

Deleting logs is all well and fine, but if someone is out to get you deleting a log is too little too late.

 

Consider a cache which might be a target for someone who dislikes those kind of caches for whatever reasons. Let's use a cemetery cache as an example. A person could create an account and put a watch on that cache. When a log is created this person gets a copy of that log long before the cache owner has a chance to delete it much less request a change.

 

Is it futile to police logs? Not in the least, but it is only good for future scouring of logs. The watch list is serious security threat in this respect and I've learned the hard way.

I think a combination of Mopar's suggestion and deleting the log would be effective in most cases. At least you would have discouraged the finder from future transgressions and documented your disapproval.

 

I recognize that whoever wants to can only show the part of the log they choose, but you can cite the removal of the log and your logged disapproval as a demonstration of self-policing (provided you get a chance to rebut at all, which both CR and I know is NOT a given).

[+Planet]

This subject came up in another forum. Since it is more of a local issue I'm not going to relink that here. But it wasn't a matter of creative logs in my opinion. I am not saying we should be censored. These logs came right out and posted pics of the pets entering the park, looking at the sign that reads "no pets", and then photos of the animals running free through the park, off leash in front of the dogs must be on leash signs, and saying right in the logs: "Rules don't apply to 'us'" In looking back, quite a few logs were written in this same manner at many parks. One of the parks is a daffodil planting. Daffodils as far as the eye can see planted over many years by one husband and wife. Sign says no dogs, and here the dogs are photographed roaming through the flowers. Rules don't apply to us? They claim the dogs have special credentials, and can go anywhere and yet they are not seeing eye dogs. This is not a matter of creative writing or their logs would all be different, not the same. And that can do as much damage as the innocent logs in SC. I would like to see that stop.

[+AtoZ]

The webpage listing is NOT the log of the cache, the logbook in the cache is the Offical log. The cache page is just a notification and a thank you someone found the log. Why do people expect some great work to be done in two places.

cheers

[+Planet]

The webpage listing is NOT the log of the cache, the logbook in the cache is the Offical log. The cache page is just a notification and a thank you someone found the log. Why do people expect some great work to be done in two places.

cheers

The concern here is what the land managers will think when they read about illegal activities (real or imagined) happening in their jurisdiction that they will read in the logs online, not the ones in the log book. People who think they are being creative and are writing about flaunting the rules, and posting photographic evidence of this, are not helping the name of geocaching. And believe me, those land managers do check out this site. Sometimes someone's idea of creativity and humor can do damage to our sport. Also, most will write more online than they do while the mosquitoes are attacking or their feet are freezing to the ground. And most see the logs online and not the one in the book. Logs online can help make or break a cache when someone is deciding if it sounds good enough to go out and find. And who can read the handwriting half the time in the paper log?

[+bblhed]

I believe RJferrit's original comment was asking why do online logs lack creativity lately. Before this turned into the bash your local law breaker thread that is posting their antics for the world to see(yes, that is not cool can we move on now).

 

Some people just can't wax poetic about the hunt, or are embarrassed to do so. Some don't really care to talk about the caching experience. Whatever the reason not everyone writes the long log every time. And not everyone writes a good log every time. But I do agree that TNLNSL is not a proper log either. But I have to admit that one of the better logs I have seen for a find was the FTF log for a local cache called "Don't Do This Cache" It very simply said "Wow". Talk about a great log!

[+Planet]

RJ was referring to the other thread and saying we shouldn't quash creativity. I was pointing out the difference between creativity and trouble.

[Zoptrop]

I say keep on truckin'. If someone wants to cause trouble bad enough then they can take *anything* out of context and skew the numbers/results. Lord knows politicians do it all the time (not to mention quite a few "preachers"). After all, what was the SC thing, other than politics?

 

If you want to put goofy stuff in the log then go for it. It makes reading the logs all that much better. If someone gets the wrong impression then they are just stupid. You can't outlaw stupidity or legislate common sense.

[+bblhed]

You can't outlaw stupidity or legislate common sense.

True, but there are some people pushing the limits of density in these parts.

 

Sorry Planet, I looked back and you were right. Like I should have ever questioned you.

 

I hate to say it, but in SC they ended up identifying and turning over the ofending cachers, I really don't want to se ethat happen here.

 

Still a good funny log is a good read, but a log that flaunts the law can be distrubing.

[CoyoteRed]

I hate to say it, but in SC they ended up identifying and turning over the ofending cachers...

Really? That's news to me.

[+jon & miki]

It's also news to me. What are you talking about, bblhed?

Jon

Edited January 17, 2006 by ikim & noj

[+Lighteye]

Is this creative enough? All true, BTW. I have had people walk up to me several times this weekend to thank me for a chuckle at my own expense. Literally..MY expense. Read on

[+Katydid & Miles Stone]

In just about every one of the above cases it was just a single cacher or a few cachers that have lost us the use of these lands for geocaching.

 

This smacks of the makings for a fine witch-hunt. In my humble opinion, our energies would be better served by encouraging ethical caching behavior while focusing on forging postive relations with those outside the caching community.

 

MS

[+bblhed]

 

Pictures, more pictures and log entries

Here

[CoyoteRed]

 

Pictures, more pictures and log entries

Here

If you're saying what I think you're saying, then you are mistaken.

 

There is nothing wrong with what any of those folks are doing. There were no actions for which to identify someone or turn them over. The bill's author even admitted on the House floor that there were no damages made by any hobbyist nor were there any criminal wrong doing. That's the whole point of the bill, to make certain instances of geocaching and letterboxing a criminal act in certain instances even though nothing criminal is happening otherwise.

 

Don't buy into the hype.

[+bblhed]

I was mistaken.

[+vree]

In my humble opinion, our energies would be better served by encouraging ethical caching behavior while focusing on forging postive relations with those outside the caching community.

i agree wholeheartedly. makes me nauseous that people do that and think/say "the rules don't apply to me".

 

you have less to worry about when you log if you're not breaking the law. as for creative logs, i don't get what the benefit of bragging about breaking laws (whether or not you have) in your logs. can't we be creative without implying that any laws have been broken, when they haven't been?

[+bblhed]

In my humble opinion, our energies would be better served by encouraging ethical caching behavior while focusing on forging postive relations with those outside the caching community.

Yeah, I thought that is what I was saying, I guess it was just comeing out more like "I don't really care what you say in your log as long as anyone, not just reasonable people would understand that you were behaveing, not out out beer drinking and h311 raising."

 

Lets face it, Law and Order Criminal Intent wasn't the greatest promoter for Geocaching either. Even with that being recoginised fiction people went nutz when that aired thinking we were out there diging holes all over the place.

 

You gota watch what you say in your logs, remember the people reading may not know you.

[+Renegade Knight]

Creative logs are one thing (and soooo much better then TNLNSL), but the complaints Ive heard from fellow cachers are much more obvious then that. Posting pictures to your cache log that prove you were breaking the law and then titling the picture "the rules don't apply to us", or bragging how you were FTF at 2am when the park rules and the cache page clearly state the park is closed at that time can not possibly be seen in a positive light by non-cachers....

I'd like to see that used as proof to issue whatever ticket you get when you are out at 2am in a park that closes at dusk. A few of those and it may not change the behavior but it will change logging practice to something more reasonable.

[+bblhed]

[........ change logging practice to something more reasonable.

That is all I would like to see.

[+vree]

...change the behavior...

this is what i'd like to see.

[+CT Trampers]

In this area it only took one Geocacher to get us tossed out of an entire town. You have to think about the message you are sending with your logs.

Are you talking about Southbury?

 

If that is the case then what you are claiming is NOT true, and NOT fair to blame a Geocacher for it. Please don't let personal feelings you may or may not have toward a particular cacher get in the way of the facts--

 

Southbury has the "elitist" policy regarding their parks. No out-of-towners or out of staters allowed, only residents are allowed usage.

 

So, the problem they had was non-resisidents using their parks, (the horror!) not Geocaching specifically.

 

A quote from a now archived cache that was in the town in question-

 

"Hello-We are pretty upset over here at the Southbury Land Trust (zip code 06488, Connecticut). One of our members found some discussion on your message boards regarding several of our town properties and some notations from your posters regarding "ignoring posted warnings 'town residents only'". While I have spent some time on your web site, and it seems your members are interested in protecting the environment, we are not happy about the promotion and encouragement of visiting our parks and land trust properties, unless they are indeed residents of the town. These lands are paid for and protected by our residents and are not open to the public. As we are short on resources, we have little means to enforce this other than signage, which we expect to be respected. Anything you can do to support us is certainly appreciated."

 

XXX XXX

Land Manager

 

Apologies for beating the issue to death, but as another poster stated we don't need any witch hunts.

 

If Southbury isn't the town you are talking about, apologies, and if that is the case which town has the ban?

Edited January 18, 2006 by CT Trampers

[Ferreter5]

For the land trust/town folks being upset that was actually a very nice note they posted.

 

One town over from where I live there's a park that's residents only. While I think it's kind of weird because it's the only park in this entire area I know of like that, I keep out because I'm not a resident of that town. There's even a cache in that park, but I don't really care.

[THE HONEY WOLVES]

First - we think people should think very carefully and verify their facts before they accuse others of breaking the law.

 

Second - people who break the law should think very carefully before accusing others of breaking the law.

 

Third - If you are that concerned about somebody's post being misconstrued as insensitive or in bad taste perhaps you should send them an e-mail to that effect instead of waiting six months and posting it on the internet.

 

The Honey Wolves are intended to bring happiness and are truly the embodiment of unconditional love. They do not reciprocate maliciousness with maliciousness otherwise they could have hyperlinked evidence of illegal conduct of some other highly esteemed geocacher(s) with some trite cliche references to glass houses and throwing stones. It seems that there is more then one indivudual that is willing to make reckless allegations against others without verifying the facts and yet fail to acknowledge their own transgressions.

 

The Honey Wolves would never ever criticize any other cacher for any reason-

 

Also the people who say they are not real wolves are the same people who enjoy telling children there is no Santa Claus.

 

We are not trying to garner sympathy but in all honesty we are so disgusted that it will likely be quite awhile before we are caching again or engaging on the forum boards.

 

Love Katie and Jaime

 

Edited January 18, 2006 by THE HONEY WOLVES