Erasing "found" logs

[+sundogranch]

My cache Tinfoil Hat ( GCRN29 ) clearly states " No picture of your TFH then I will erase log after short grace period.

It was going good untill MooseMob & Lil Devil found it and didn't post Pics. I E-mailed them & MM said they would post Pic but havn't & that was weeks ago.

Should I erase them now?

[+sbell111]

My cache Tinfoil Hat ( GCRN29 ) clearly states " No picture of your TFH then I will erase log after short grace period.

It was going good untill MooseMob & Lil Devil found it and didn't post Pics. I E-mailed them & MM said they would post Pic but havn't & that was weeks ago.

Should I erase them now?

You should send them another email explaining that you are deleting the log and inviting them to relog the cache with their pic. Then go ahead and delete the log. Edited May 9, 2008 by sbell111

[+Monkeybrad]

You should also let them know that you did them both the great courtesy of calling them out on a public forum, as well.

[+Klatch]

It looks like the CO has a couple more miscreants that have logged sans picture.

[+softball29]

My cache Tinfoil Hat ( GCRN29 ) clearly states " No picture of your TFH then I will erase log after short grace period.

It was going good untill MooseMob & Lil Devil found it and didn't post Pics. I E-mailed them & MM said they would post Pic but havn't & that was weeks ago.

Should I erase them now?

 

Weeks ago?

 

They did it in May 2007. That's more than a year ago. Also, I see someone on the logs has posted and said "they didn't have a camera" and that log is still there and that was in January.

 

Seems to me that you have the right to can any logs that don't post the photo. However, waiting a year to do it seems pretty silly. If you've let it go this far, then what's the difference? If you are going to delete because people don't follow the instructions, then give them a week and delete. Waiting any longer seems a little trivial at that point.

[+briansnat]

First off your cache should be listed as a puzzle/mystery because of the additional logging requirement. It's very possible the finders had no idea of the ALR if they didn't have the cache page along. Because your cache is improperly designated it's partially your fault.

 

To me, they found it and logged a find, so there is no reason to delete the logs. If you want to add ridiculous additional logging requirements and enforce them by deleting legit found it logs, that's your business. Just forget about winning "most popular" at the next geocaching event.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

My cache Tinfoil Hat ( GCRN29 ) clearly states " No picture of your TFH then I will erase log after short grace period.

It was going good untill MooseMob & Lil Devil found it and didn't post Pics. I E-mailed them & MM said they would post Pic but havn't & that was weeks ago.

Should I erase them now?

I am all for caches which have additional logging requirements, and, in fact, some of them are the most fun caches that I have found. However -- and I hate to be blunt, but there is no other way to say this -- a glaring problem with your cache is that while it is really an ALR cache (or at least you seem to claim that there is an ALR), it is not classified as an ALR cache type and rather, it is classified as a Traditional cache, and this is likely very misleading for many finders and prospective finders. Further, an examination of the logs shows that you have engaged in very uneven enforcement of your satisfy-the-ALR-or-log-will-be-deleted rule, and it is hardly only the two cachers you have named who failed to post a photo but did log a find. Now I am really wondering about the REST OF THE STORY, i.e., the undisclosed agenda, because I am now quite sure that there is one!

[+Quiggle]

The cache hidden date of 12/16/2005 predates the recent change (February 2008) to the guidelines which added the ALR explanation under mystery caches. This means the cache is still listed properly (under a grandfathered version of the guidelines), however because of the ALR it would be wise, should the cache owner choose to do so, to e-mail your local reviewer and have them change the cache type. Hopefully this will avoid such issues going forward.

[+Team GeoBlast]

My cache Tinfoil Hat ( GCRN29 ) clearly states " No picture of your TFH then I will erase log after short grace period.

It was going good untill MooseMob & Lil Devil found it and didn't post Pics. I E-mailed them & MM said they would post Pic but havn't & that was weeks ago.

Should I erase them now?

 

You can do whatever you want. It is your cache and you explicitly make the rules for what constitutes a find on it. That said, this doesn't give you the right to specifically name someone in a national forum for not following them.

[+sundogranch]

Sorry- didn't know naming them was bad juju. Anyone can see they didn't post a pic.

I never want to erase a find anyway and for me a year is a short grace period...I E-mailed them weeks ago.

 

The reason I mentioned them is because I was working from bottom to top mailing everyone who didn't post.

 

I can see this is a hot topic. Thanks for the input.

[+baloo&bd]

Owning a virtual myself, I run into this occasionally. I have on my site that all logs without a photo are subject to deletion after 72 hours WITHOUT NOTIFICATION.

 

I still notify, but f the spam filter catches me, they won't get it and I will be waiting forever.

 

Having said that, if it is a simple ALR on a physical cache, I purposley ignore those when I find them.

[Clan Riffster]

Sorry- didn't know naming them was bad juju.

It's not. They messed up and didn't follow the cache logging requirements, even after you E-mailed them about the discrepancy. Pointing out that fact in public shouldn't cause you any undue stress. These are not rookie cachers. The fact that they have the requisite photo, as indicated by their reply, would certainly cause me to believe they knew about the ALR, but chose to ignore it, making log deletion fair game.

 

On a side note, I've never deleted a log on one of my caches.... ever.

 

Do what you think's right.

[Skippermark]

If you want to add ridiculous additional logging requirements and enforce them by deleting legit found it logs, that's your business. Just forget about winning "most popular" at the next geocaching event.

 

Unless the cache is something "super special," like a DeLorme Challenge that would make it unfair to other finders if a log stayed for someone who didn't successfully meet the logging requirements, I'd just leave it.

 

I understand your desire to make a fun cache, but the "ill will" created by deleting the log is worse than leaving it.

[Skippermark]

I never want to erase a find anyway and for me a year is a short grace period...

 

If the log is going to be deleted, I think it should be done within a week or two. Waiting a year seems a bit long.

[+ventura_kids]

My cache Tinfoil Hat ( GCRN29 ) clearly states " No picture of your TFH then I will erase log after short grace period.

It was going good untill MooseMob & Lil Devil found it and didn't post Pics. I E-mailed them & MM said they would post Pic but havn't & that was weeks ago.

Should I erase them now?

 

You can do whatever you want. It is your cache and you explicitly make the rules for what constitutes a find on it. That said, this doesn't give you the right to specifically name someone in a national forum for not following them.

 

Those 2 sometimes are going soooo fast, that they forget to follow directions

I love when cachers get their logs deleted. ...especially after they cheated....unless of course it's my log

[+Team GeoBlast]

Sorry- didn't know naming them was bad juju. Anyone can see they didn't post a pic.

I never want to erase a find anyway and for me a year is a short grace period...I E-mailed them weeks ago.

 

The reason I mentioned them is because I was working from bottom to top mailing everyone who didn't post.

 

I can see this is a hot topic. Thanks for the input.

 

It boils down to your intentions. If you are truly looking for advice on what direction to follow, think about it...are you going to get better advice by naming them? Naming them gives the appearance of an ulterior motive for doing it in the first place. Sure someone could look it up, but as long as you are putting out all the facts out, very few will.

[+Cav Scout]

My earthcaches clearly states a picture is needed for proof of visit. Often I get logs with pictures of a hand and GPS with no face to go along with the find. Most folks just dont get it and get upset when I ask them to post a correct picture, face included. One geocacher was so upset when I asked them to change the picture, they deleted their find and then deleted all of my finds for their caches and one earthccahe they owned. Considering I drove 150 miles to do their caches I thought it was odd behavior to get that upset over a logging requirement .

[+The Leprechauns]

I think it odd behavior to require a picture of a person's face. What does that have to do with geology?

 

There are many geocachers who are careful about their privacy and especially their children's privacy. There are many solo geocachers who haven't mastered the "camera at arm's length" shot. That is why many (most?) caches and waymarks with verification requirements aren't insistent on a "face picture." I urge you to state your very detailed requirement (the face must be shown) more clearly on your cache pages. "Take a picture of you and your GPS with the rock formation in the background," to me, would mean that my hand, holding the GPS, with the rock formation in the background, would be a compliant photo. "Your uploaded image must show your face or else your log will be deleted" would be far clearer.

[+StarBrand]

<<<post deleted because it did not meet requirements as stated in the original post>>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+WRASTRO]

You placed a cache with a theme you thought would be enjoyable to you and to other cachers. Very cool. The finders seem to have mixed reactions to the tfh logging requirement and some of them have stretched the bounds a bit. If you are in the game for the fun of it I would suggest that you leave the found it logs and move on. If you are in it for the control you can do what ever you choose as you have the right as the cache owner.

 

If it was my cache I would not delete the online logs if the physical logbook was signed. YMMV.

[+Cav Scout]

The photo is proof of the visit and prevents armchair finds . You and your GPS is pretty clear I think. When was the last time someone asked you for a picture of "you" and you showed them a picture of your hand?

 

I think it odd behavior to require a picture of a person's face. What does that have to do with geology?

 

Edited May 10, 2008 by Cav Scout

[+TrailGators]

I would change it to a mystery cache and then pardon all the people that didn't post a photo.

[+WRASTRO]

The photo is proof of the visit and prevents armchair finds . You and your GPS is pretty clear I think. When was the last time someone asked you for a picture of "you" and you showed them a picture of your hand?

 

I think it odd behavior to require a picture of a person's face. What does that have to do with geology?

 

 

I think a signature in the logbook is pretty good evidence of the find for most caches. For Earthcaches if the finder can accurately describe the area, where they parked and how they approached it I would think this should suffice. To me this keeps coming back to the purpose of placing the cache. Are you having fun and hoping others will as well? Or can you only have fun if everyone dots all of the i's and crosses all the t's?

[+TrailGators]

The photo is proof of the visit and prevents armchair finds . You and your GPS is pretty clear I think. When was the last time someone asked you for a picture of "you" and you showed them a picture of your hand?

 

I think it odd behavior to require a picture of a person's face. What does that have to do with geology?

 

 

I think a signature in the logbook is pretty good evidence of the find for most caches. For Earthcaches if the finder can accurately describe the area, where they parked and how they approached it I would think this should suffice. To me this keeps coming back to the purpose of placing the cache. Are you having fun and hoping others will as well? Or can you only have fun if everyone dots all of the i's and crosses all the t's?

I agree. Some people can't follow directions. So cut 'em some slack.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I should like to point out that tin foil has not been available for decades. At least, not in any supermarket.

It would appear that most of the pictures show people in aluminum foil hats. All of the logs should be deleted!

I am in the planning stages of a trip to help my sister with her DeLorme Challenge. Most of the earth caches require a photo. There will be three or four of us, so that should not be a problem. ("Rampant herd of geocachers loose in Maine." News at 11.) With few exceptions, I read each cache page before hunting. If I mess up on an ALR, then feel free to delete my log. If I know that I messed up, I'll post a DNF. Most Virtual and Webcam caches have requirements. You might be surprised by the number of people who do not comply. I'll estimate 30%. The guidelines charge the cache owner with maintaining the integrity of the cache logs. If the logs do not meet the requirements of the cace, then, by all means, remind the loggers of the requirements. If they do not comply, delete the logs.

[+Dryphter]

My earthcaches clearly states a picture is needed for proof of visit. Often I get logs with pictures of a hand and GPS with no face to go along with the find. Most folks just dont get it and get upset when I ask them to post a correct picture, face included. One geocacher was so upset when I asked them to change the picture, they deleted their find and then deleted all of my finds for their caches and one earthccahe they owned. Considering I drove 150 miles to do their caches I thought it was odd behavior to get that upset over a logging requirement .

 

Seriously? Hell I'd do more than delete your logs, I'd steal all your caches and throw them in a nearby river. (well that would be littering, so a dumpster would be better) Asking someone to post a picture of their face is truly lame. Ever hear of privacy? Maybe you would like their social security number along with their face?

 

I think its odd behavior to be that worried over what picture they posted to prove they were there. It's not like you get/win anything if they do it right (or wrong). Lighten up!

[+softball29]

My earthcaches clearly states a picture is needed for proof of visit. Often I get logs with pictures of a hand and GPS with no face to go along with the find. Most folks just dont get it and get upset when I ask them to post a correct picture, face included. One geocacher was so upset when I asked them to change the picture, they deleted their find and then deleted all of my finds for their caches and one earthccahe they owned. Considering I drove 150 miles to do their caches I thought it was odd behavior to get that upset over a logging requirement .

 

There are several caches I've debated going to that I've ended up canning because of this requirement. I just don't get it. Some people don't want their photos floating around on the internet. Others just don't like having their photos taken. Some cache solo and can't take their own photo.

 

I do a lot of photography on the side. I don't like being in front of a camera. But believe me, I could do all sorts of photos to show someone I was at the cache without me showing my face. In this day and age, people like to try and protect their privacy. Personally, I think this is the type of requirement that makes this hobby a little unenjoyable at times. As me to post 10 photos of the place and I'll comply. If I have to be in it -- well, face, I'll probably skip the cache all together just so I don't have to worry about a deleted log.

 

I'd urge people that do these caches to strongly consider somehow altering their rules. I saw one the other day that said it had to be a full photo, but feel free to use something like Photoshop and black out a face. I'd consider something like that myself.

 

And if not, cool, too. But realize some people will do the cache, not realize the requirements and log it anyway.

[+benh57]

I'd urge people that do these caches to strongly consider somehow altering their rules. I saw one the other day that said it had to be a full photo, but feel free to use something like Photoshop and black out a face. I'd consider something like that myself.

 

And if not, cool, too. But realize some people will do the cache, not realize the requirements and log it anyway.

 

I have to agree about posting the picture of yourself requirement being stupid.

 

However, recently I've also seen a few people post these pics but with their face covered with a geocaching logo or with a 'bandito' hankerchief. If the cache owner complains about that then they are REALLY being anal.

[+BCandMsKitty]

 

Seriously? Hell I'd do more than delete your logs, I'd steal all your caches and throw them in a nearby river. (well that would be littering, so a dumpster would be better) Asking someone to post a picture of their face is truly lame. Ever hear of privacy? Maybe you would like their social security number along with their face?

 

I think its odd behavior to be that worried over what picture they posted to prove they were there. It's not like you get/win anything if they do it right (or wrong). Lighten up!

 

Yeah ... lighten up!

[+Happy Humphrey]

Good grief.

Just amend the cache description so that people are encouraged to take a photo wearing a tin foil hat, rather than required. Let the existing logs stand.

 

This is supposed to be a fun activity. There are plenty of ways that someone might not notice the logging requirement, or, even if they did, they wouldn't think you'd take the game so seriously as to delete their log even though they found the cache.

[+Dawgies]

It's your cache so do with it as you wish.

 

I must admit that I once deleted a couple finds due to the fact that I didn't like the wording. It was silly and in hind sight I wish I hadn't. The cacher was informed and they reclaimed the find, but were a little nicer the second time around.

[+SeventhSon]

If I didn't want to post a face pic, or wear a tin foil hat, or do whatever the owner required me to do, I just wouldn't hunt for the cache. The thought of destroying their cache because I disagreed with it would never cross my mind.

[CerealBoxMonsters]

I hid a cache recently that required a certain type fo logging requirement, or else face certain deletion. Two things happened after I submitted the cache to the reviwer. 1) He said it needed to be changed to a Mystery cache because of the additional requirements beyond finding the cache and loging the find, and 2) he "encouraged" me to lift the deletion idea. He didn't say I couldn't do it, but it was pretty clear that it was an unfavorable option.

 

I spent some quite time thining about these points and finally relented to lifting the "required" logging style, and kept the cache Traditional. Yes, it was disappointing to have what I felt as a creative and fun cache, become just another urban micro, but the idea behind the cache remains the same and I now have the logging style "encouraged." Of the twenty of so people who have found this cache only two have made an effort to post something extra, and they are both good. Everyone else is pretty much a "Quick find - TFTC", but that's fine.

 

I have about 25 caches hidden now, but have had to archieve nearly double that number in unpublished caches becasue my reviewer is either not very creative, or is just a pure-traditionalist, and doesn't find some of my ideas within groundspeaks' guidelines.

 

Here's my honest opinion - there are no rules in geocaching other that to actually find the cache and sign the log. Simple. Everything falls under "GUIDELINE." Too many times I have felt that my review misreads this as "RULE," and I try to understand that perhaps creativity and imagination does not flow in everyone.

 

BUT - here's an alternative, which I have found sort-of works. Make a blog page, post your own geocaches on it and make a link on your gc.com profile. I love geocaching and am very thankful for all the hard-work and effoert that Groundspeak puts into the activity, but they do not own the idea and there's no legally binding terms that say only they can post "geo-caches." Now your cache may not get found very often, but at least it is out there if folks want to find it.

Edited May 10, 2008 by CerealBoxMonsters

[+Hoppingcrow]

My earthcaches clearly states a picture is needed for proof of visit. Often I get logs with pictures of a hand and GPS with no face to go along with the find. Most folks just dont get it and get upset when I ask them to post a correct picture, face included. One geocacher was so upset when I asked them to change the picture, they deleted their find and then deleted all of my finds for their caches and one earthccahe they owned. Considering I drove 150 miles to do their caches I thought it was odd behavior to get that upset over a logging requirement .

 

There are several caches I've debated going to that I've ended up canning because of this requirement. I just don't get it. Some people don't want their photos floating around on the internet. Others just don't like having their photos taken. Some cache solo and can't take their own photo.

 

I do a lot of photography on the side. I don't like being in front of a camera. But believe me, I could do all sorts of photos to show someone I was at the cache without me showing my face. In this day and age, people like to try and protect their privacy. Personally, I think this is the type of requirement that makes this hobby a little unenjoyable at times. As me to post 10 photos of the place and I'll comply. If I have to be in it -- well, face, I'll probably skip the cache all together just so I don't have to worry about a deleted log.

 

I'd urge people that do these caches to strongly consider somehow altering their rules. I saw one the other day that said it had to be a full photo, but feel free to use something like Photoshop and black out a face. I'd consider something like that myself.

 

And if not, cool, too. But realize some people will do the cache, not realize the requirements and log it anyway.

 

I looked at the logging requirements for several of Cav Scout's Earthcaches and noticed very few which actually said a photo of the cacher's face was required, but he implies in his post (above) that such a photo is required for ALL his Earthcaches. I for one would be very upset if I had flown to another state, rented a car, driven several hundred miles, logged a find with my hand and GPSr (since I cache alone), only to discover it had been deleted by the time I got home.

 

If a full-face photo is required, it should be clearly stated on the cache page.

[Neos2]

The photo is proof of the visit and prevents armchair finds . You and your GPS is pretty clear I think. When was the last time someone asked you for a picture of "you" and you showed them a picture of your hand?

 

I think it odd behavior to require a picture of a person's face. What does that have to do with geology?

Surely you have some sympathy...after all, others have let you log their earthcaches without a photo of yourself at the spot.

 

Really, if you've gone in person to the spot where your earthcaches are located, you should be able to allow folks to describe some nearby feature they could not have learned about from the Internet, and allow that to suffice. I try to have interactive things to do at my earthcaches--such as identifying some fossil or measuring something. I love to get photos with faces as well--but they aren't mandatory.

 

I'll take a hand, or a photo of some part of the area with some sort of marker in it (one person used a toy their kids had along with them in their photo). If I required a shot of the gps, it would have to have a clear shot of the coords--and it's not easy to get those and a face in the photo.

[+Cav Scout]

Well done research . I always ask permission first before I log a EC without a photo and the very nice woman who owns that EC allowed me to do so .

 

The photo is proof of the visit and prevents armchair finds . You and your GPS is pretty clear I think. When was the last time someone asked you for a picture of "you" and you showed them a picture of your hand?

 

I think it odd behavior to require a picture of a person's face. What does that have to do with geology?

Surely you have some sympathy...after all, others have let you log their earthcaches without a photo of yourself at the spot.

 

Really, if you've gone in person to the spot where your earthcaches are located, you should be able to allow folks to describe some nearby feature they could not have learned about from the Internet, and allow that to suffice. I try to have interactive things to do at my earthcaches--such as identifying some fossil or measuring something. I love to get photos with faces as well--but they aren't mandatory.

 

I'll take a hand, or a photo of some part of the area with some sort of marker in it (one person used a toy their kids had along with them in their photo). If I required a shot of the gps, it would have to have a clear shot of the coords--and it's not easy to get those and a face in the photo.

[+WascoZooKeeper]

The photo is proof of the visit and prevents armchair finds . You and your GPS is pretty clear I think. When was the last time someone asked you for a picture of "you" and you showed them a picture of your hand?

 

I think it odd behavior to require a picture of a person's face. What does that have to do with geology?

A picture of a person's face at the cache site only proves that somebody was at that location sometime. How do you know it's me, if you've never met me? Even if you know it's me, how do you know it's not a picture from my vacation three years ago?

 

If a picture is a requirement, then it should be clearly stated on the cache page, and if there are specific requirements for what should be in the picture, you should state that, too. And if you intend to delete logs without pictures, then your enforcement should be in days or weeks, not months or years.

 

The whole log deletion game seems silly to me, anyway, for just about any cache. If someone wants to claim they went to a place they really didn't go, why should I care? The only exceptions I might make would be if the log were in bad taste (offensive, vulgar, crude, threatening), or if the presence or content of the log might somehow be misleading to other cachers.

[+sbell111]

I think it odd behavior to require a picture of a person's face. What does that have to do with geology?

The photo is proof of the visit and prevents armchair finds . You and your GPS is pretty clear I think. When was the last time someone asked you for a picture of "you" and you showed them a picture of your hand?

For me, it would be every LC that I ever logged and every virt that required a photo.

[+Cav Scout]

I looked at hoppingcrows EC finds and all of the ones that mention "post a picture of yourself" shows her face. Now I am wondering did she email the owners of those ECs like she did me and ask me to explain what did a "post a picture" of yourself really meant

 

Now to clear the air here, most of my earth caches say post a picture of yourself with GPS. What that means is post a picture of you holding your GPS with face included... I have only one earth cache (GC1C09R) in the red river gorge geological area, Kentucky that I allow the "GPS with hand shot" and it clearly mentions that in the web page.

 

I do most of my geocaching alone. I take my own pictures and have a timer and most of the time I hold my camera at arms length and take a pic, and that is with a 7 month old aussie shepherd (almost like having a hyper child). If it does not turn out I delete it and take it again, digital cameras are great. I have done this in Iraq (even when people are shooting or on the move), hiking, etc. Its easy.

 

Yes I do have EC find with no photos. I do contact the owners before posting and get permission first. I also have had many of my own EC finds deleted because the owner did not like the way I took the picture. Oh well...

 

I have some really great earth caches all over the USA and this is what I mention this on my ECs,

 

Logs with no photo of your visit or failure to answer questions will result in a log deletion. Exceptions will be considered if you contact me first (I realize sometimes we forget our cameras or the batteries die). Logs with no photos will be deleted without notice.

 

Only a few geocachers actually take the time to contact me and when they do I work with them. Then there are a few who simply take things for granted and assume I will not check the logs.

 

I carefully read each geocache or earth cache beofre doing them. If I don't like what I see then I simply dont do the geocache or EC, and thats that.... I do not email the owner and tell them how much I hate their ECs or geocaches. I do email owners if I see something worth mentioning.

 

This is what I do. Before I delete a log I email the finder and let them know whats wrong, trust me I'm not the only one picky about my ECs. If they don't comply or tell me to PI** OFF I delete the incorrect log within a week of posting. I do not wait a year.

 

 

Now go out and find some earth caches!

 

 

 

I looked at the logging requirements for several of Cav Scout's Earthcaches and noticed very few which actually said a photo of the cacher's face was required, but he implies in his post (above) that such a photo is required for ALL his Earthcaches. I for one would be very upset if I had flown to another state, rented a car, driven several hundred miles, logged a find with my hand and GPSr (since I cache alone), only to discover it had been deleted by the time I got home.

 

If a full-face photo is required, it should be clearly stated on the cache page.

Edited May 11, 2008 by Cav Scout

[+Muero]

Good arguments on both sides. So far, it seems the argument is over requiring certain things be done to log the find. But I have a different situation to think about: I have a coin-themed cache, and after spending a whole bunch of money trying to keep it stocked with coins, I eventually decided to require leaving at least as many coins as are taken. Of course, any finder doesn't need to take or leave anything to log the find, but I added the stipulation so others will actually find coins in the coin-themed cache without me having to take out a loan to buy more and more coins.

 

Today, I had to delete a log for the first time. I felt a little bad about it, but nothing extra is actually required of any cacher and my simple rule is spelled out very very clearly on the cache page. (As a side note, the unfair coin traders so far have always been Premium Members, so that rules out that solution.) Is there any other (nicer) way to encourage cachers to read cache pages carefully and/or just always trade fairly?

 

Also, I've found many traditional caches that in some way or another require the cache to be put back just the way it was found. That's really quite similar to my rule, and I've never heard any arguments against the put-it-back-how-you-found-it-rule. Otherwise, what would stop me from me signing my name to the log and then throwing every cache I find in the river? I see no problem with this kind of rule.

[+Sagefox]

The problem with posting physical caches with ALR rules is that when people fail to meet the letter of the requirement then the cache owner feels obligated to do something about it. Not much fun in that. (Earthcaches are a different animal and a photo does not seem an unreasonable request.)

 

In my opinion alternative forms of proof should always be accepted including and perhaps especially for earthcaches.

 

When I get home from a long trip and find I missed some part of an ALR I have always enjoyed giving a good and perhaps humorous story that does prove that I visited the site. I've never had a log deleted when doing that.

 

In this case, one of the cachers mentioned in the OP is now on the road in an RV for the rest of his life. (Well, maybe not that long.) Maybe he can't find the photo in his archives. Maybe he can't get back to that site to fix it. Maybe he is just too busy to reply.

 

Caching on a road trip today usually means that you don’t have time to read the cache pages before arriving at the site. It is fun to get out of the car and find a physical cache and sign the log but it would be a bummer to have that find deleted because I didn't have the ability to meet an ALR.

 

If someone truly visited a physical cache site and signed the logsheet I think it is quite unfair to delete their find. Finding a physical container is the "prime directive" of geocaching.

 

- - -

 

I would love to visit the Op's cache and would gladly spend 30 minutes forming a very cool tin foil hat. The Taft/Mariposa area, gateway to the amazing Carrizo Plain, is a nice corner of the California Central Valley. But even after spending time on a cool hat I would not wish to see anyone else's find deleted because they didn't go through that drill.

[+Sagefox]

...I eventually decided to require leaving at least as many coins as are taken...

 

Today, I had to delete a log for the first time. I felt a little bad about it, but nothing extra is actually required of any cacher and my simple rule is spelled out very very clearly on the cache page.

 

This is perhaps a better example of a problem with ALRs.

 

I might be going out on a limb but I believe I can say that every physical cache ever placed has had its contents degraded to less value than when originally placed or restocked. This problem is clearly not solvable by posting a request on the cache page and/or requiring an ALR.

 

I know this theme cache sounds like a simple and fun request but now someone's find has been deleted because of, I assume, a small amount of loose change. That doesn't seem right.

 

Interesting side note: There was a string of micro caches along I-5 from California to Washington years ago that specifically requested the finder replace the existing single coin with only one other coin. Every one of those caches was stuffed with as many coins as could fit. I always removed the excess change and sent it to my local geocaching association.

[+the hermit crabs]

Good arguments on both sides. So far, it seems the argument is over requiring certain things be done to log the find. But I have a different situation to think about: I have a coin-themed cache, and after spending a whole bunch of money trying to keep it stocked with coins, I eventually decided to require leaving at least as many coins as are taken. Of course, any finder doesn't need to take or leave anything to log the find, but I added the stipulation so others will actually find coins in the coin-themed cache without me having to take out a loan to buy more and more coins.

 

Today, I had to delete a log for the first time. I felt a little bad about it, but nothing extra is actually required of any cacher and my simple rule is spelled out very very clearly on the cache page. (As a side note, the unfair coin traders so far have always been Premium Members, so that rules out that solution.) Is there any other (nicer) way to encourage cachers to read cache pages carefully and/or just always trade fairly?

When I first read this I thought that your "coin-themed cache" was for regular coins -- actual money. Requesting or requiring even trading in that type of cache seems reasonable. But then I looked at the page and saw that it was for geocoins -- that's a different story altogether.

 

Geocoins and travel bugs are not trade items, they are travelers; a cache owner should not restrict the movement of other people's geocoins or TBs. If you want to place a one-for-one trade restriction on your own coins, that's your right. But if one of my coins is wandering freely along and lands in your cache, you don't have the right to say who can or can't pick it up, or require a hostage swap, in order for it to continue its travels.

[+gof1]

Good arguments on both sides. So far, it seems the argument is over requiring certain things be done to log the find. But I have a different situation to think about: I have a coin-themed cache, and after spending a whole bunch of money trying to keep it stocked with coins, I eventually decided to require leaving at least as many coins as are taken. Of course, any finder doesn't need to take or leave anything to log the find, but I added the stipulation so others will actually find coins in the coin-themed cache without me having to take out a loan to buy more and more coins.

 

Today, I had to delete a log for the first time. I felt a little bad about it, but nothing extra is actually required of any cacher and my simple rule is spelled out very very clearly on the cache page. (As a side note, the unfair coin traders so far have always been Premium Members, so that rules out that solution.) Is there any other (nicer) way to encourage cachers to read cache pages carefully and/or just always trade fairly?

 

Also, I've found many traditional caches that in some way or another require the cache to be put back just the way it was found. That's really quite similar to my rule, and I've never heard any arguments against the put-it-back-how-you-found-it-rule. Otherwise, what would stop me from me signing my name to the log and then throwing every cache I find in the river? I see no problem with this kind of rule.

 

You are talking about geocoins, right? Do a forum search for TB prison. You'll find that most have no sympathy for your cache rules. That kind of rule gets peoples travelers trapped in your cache. I'll move any traveler I can help along the way, to heck with your smillie.

[+baloo&bd]

Good arguments on both sides. So far, it seems the argument is over requiring certain things be done to log the find. But I have a different situation to think about: I have a coin-themed cache, and after spending a whole bunch of money trying to keep it stocked with coins, I eventually decided to require leaving at least as many coins as are taken. Of course, any finder doesn't need to take or leave anything to log the find, but I added the stipulation so others will actually find coins in the coin-themed cache without me having to take out a loan to buy more and more coins.

 

These are called "TB Prisons" and some of us, my self included, make a point of cleaning all the coins out and moving them to another cache when found.

 

Coins and TB's are not trade items and you have no business putting restrictions on items owned by someone else.

[Keystone]

Good arguments on both sides. So far, it seems the argument is over requiring certain things be done to log the find. But I have a different situation to think about: I have a coin-themed cache, and after spending a whole bunch of money trying to keep it stocked with coins, I eventually decided to require leaving at least as many coins as are taken. Of course, any finder doesn't need to take or leave anything to log the find, but I added the stipulation so others will actually find coins in the coin-themed cache without me having to take out a loan to buy more and more coins.

 

Today, I had to delete a log for the first time. I felt a little bad about it, but nothing extra is actually required of any cacher and my simple rule is spelled out very very clearly on the cache page. (As a side note, the unfair coin traders so far have always been Premium Members, so that rules out that solution.) Is there any other (nicer) way to encourage cachers to read cache pages carefully and/or just always trade fairly?

 

Also, I've found many traditional caches that in some way or another require the cache to be put back just the way it was found. That's really quite similar to my rule, and I've never heard any arguments against the put-it-back-how-you-found-it-rule. Otherwise, what would stop me from me signing my name to the log and then throwing every cache I find in the river? I see no problem with this kind of rule.

You added this geocoin prison's "Additional Logging Requirement" after your cache was reviewed and published as a traditional cache. It no longer qualifies as a traditional cache. In order to avoid your cache being archived, please delete the ALR promptly and allow the deleted find to be re-logged. Alternatively, after I archive your cache, you can resubmit it as a mystery/unknown cache and I will cheerfully publish it. You can then delete found it logs and hold trackables hostage to your heart's content.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

I don't understand why many cache owners think that it's acceptable to have ALRs on traditional caches. We've had a few published around here where it states that the log must be phrased in a certain way or must contain a joke or other requirements. According to the guidelines, any of those conditions make it a mystery cache.

[+gof1]

I have one or two caches that encourage an extra action but don't require it. Things like please post up a picture or four, fictional accounts accepted, count your fingers before and after, that sort of stuff. It can make for some interesting cache logs. Folks can still log with TFTC, TNLNSL, GOF is a nut case, whatever makes 'em happy.

[+Totem Clan]

Good arguments on both sides. So far, it seems the argument is over requiring certain things be done to log the find. But I have a different situation to think about: I have a coin-themed cache, and after spending a whole bunch of money trying to keep it stocked with coins, I eventually decided to require leaving at least as many coins as are taken. Of course, any finder doesn't need to take or leave anything to log the find, but I added the stipulation so others will actually find coins in the coin-themed cache without me having to take out a loan to buy more and more coins.

 

Today, I had to delete a log for the first time. I felt a little bad about it, but nothing extra is actually required of any cacher and my simple rule is spelled out very very clearly on the cache page. (As a side note, the unfair coin traders so far have always been Premium Members, so that rules out that solution.) Is there any other (nicer) way to encourage cachers to read cache pages carefully and/or just always trade fairly?

 

Also, I've found many traditional caches that in some way or another require the cache to be put back just the way it was found. That's really quite similar to my rule, and I've never heard any arguments against the put-it-back-how-you-found-it-rule. Otherwise, what would stop me from me signing my name to the log and then throwing every cache I find in the river? I see no problem with this kind of rule.

First of all your cache is in violation of the guidelines. Secondly if one of my coins ended up in your cache I would ask you to remove it post haste. If you refused I would ask a local cacher to rescue it and all the other coins in the cache. Once the prisoners were free I post a NA log.

 

Please, for the sake of all coin and TB owners out there and in order to make your cache meet the guidelines, change your ALR.

[CoyoteRed]

I don't understand why many cache owners think that it's acceptable to have ALRs on traditional caches. We've had a few published around here where it states that the log must be phrased in a certain way or must contain a joke or other requirements. According to the guidelines, any of those conditions make it a mystery cache.

Not too long ago there was no requirement for ALRs to be a certain type of cache. I'm against ALRs completely and certain folks who like to argue with me constantly thought cache owners should be able to do whatever they please. TPTB recognized an ALR does not fit the spirit of a traditional cache and required all new listed to be unknowns. I'm sure there are some remaining ALRs listed as traditionals. Also, traditionals sometimes become ALRs after publishing.