Erasing "found" logs

[CoyoteRed]

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.

Caches have long had additional requests for extra points (but no smilies). These additional requests aren't requirements and therefore not subject to the ALRs rules.

 

I think one of the earliest extra action requests involved cache cameras. You don't see those much anymore.

[+Muero]

I had no idea I'd get such a negative response just by requiring fair trading if the cacher chooses to trade.

 

I also did not know that my cache no longer fit in the traditional cache guidelines.

 

Anyway, I deleted the text I added in January and e-mailed the one geocacher whose log is now deleted. I copied and pasted the old log in the e-mail and asked her to re-log it. So I hope I cleared everything up.

 

But I do have a question for Keystone or any other reviewer: Why do countless other caches have listed requirements but can still be traditional? I don't really have a problem with it myself, since I always read and fulfill the requirements. But according to the rules, I guess they should be mystery caches? I'm not trying to change the rules or anything, but I guess that's why I thought my cache was okay, because I've seen similar things on lots of other traditional caches. Is the definition of a traditional "a cache that anyone can find without proof or the find, without placing the cache as you found it, without trading fairly, and without any rules for the finder whatsoever; throw this in the river if you like"?

[+baloo&bd]

without trading fairly,

 

Sine this is the only point on topic, I will address this.

 

COINS AND TB"S ARE NOT TRADE ITEMS!

 

That should at least clear up this point.

[+Muero]

 

COINS AND TB"S ARE NOT TRADE ITEMS!

 

That should at least clear up this point.

 

While that is technically true, I still try to always trade these items fairly as well. They are usually more expensive than other items in the cache, so I would consider not trading these items fairly even worse than doing so with "regular" swag.

[+TrailGators]

 

COINS AND TB"S ARE NOT TRADE ITEMS!

 

That should at least clear up this point.

While that is technically true, I still try to always trade these items fairly as well. They are usually more expensive than other items in the cache, so I would consider not trading these items fairly even worse than doing so with "regular" swag.

Trading is when you give up "ownership" of something to gain "ownership" of something else. Since you are not gaining "ownership" of a geocoin left in the cache, then you can take it to move it to another cache without leaving anything. A lot of these coins have missions, and I'm sure that their owners want them to be moved (to low muggle caches).

[+tozainamboku]

 

COINS AND TB"S ARE NOT TRADE ITEMS!

 

That should at least clear up this point.

While that is technically true, I still try to always trade these items fairly as well. They are usually more expensive than other items in the cache, so I would consider not trading these items fairly even worse than doing so with "regular" swag.

Trading is when you give up "ownership" of something to gain "ownership" of something else. Since you are not gaining "ownership" of a geocoin left in the cache, then you can take it to move it to another cache without leaving anything. A lot of these coins have missions, and I'm sure that their owners want them to be moved (to low muggle caches).

This is a hoax perpetrated by the people who maintain a travel bug/geocoin page. The money they paid for the travel bug and a portion of the money they paid for the geocoin gives them the right to create a tracking page on Geocaching.com. On that tracking page they can provide a goal for the item. All they can do is hope that people honor that request and move the item according to the goal and log it on geocaching.com. Other than that the coin, the travel bug tags, and any items it is attached to are just like any other item left in a cache.

 

It is only polite to move travel bugs and geocoins according to their stated goals. However, a travel bug or coin "owner" no more owns the travel bug or coin than does the person who left a McToy or a dollar bill owns that item.

 

It is only polite and fair to other cachers to trade fairly.

 

The issue becomes whether it is better to move a coin or bug according to its goals or to trade fairly for it. The consensus on the forums seems to be the former. In addition, based on some of the guidelines they have given for travel bugs and coins Groundspeak seems to favor the interpretation that travel bugs and geocoins are not trade items. By this interpretation one can take a bug without leaving anything (and should not take anything when leaving a bug). But there is no cache cop at the cache to enforce this.

 

Regarding ALRs. They began as a "fun" way to make a cache stand out. Most cache owners who have them have treated them as optional. Some cache owners have deleted log that don't comply, since it appears that the threat of deletion is a great motivator to get people to comply. If people would reject that the smiley count means something the motivation of deleting logs would go away. Perhaps Geocaching.com should allow cache owners to delete logs but deleting a log would not remove the cache from the finder's list of caches found or their find count. Now the motivation would be simple to keep a log from being deleted and not keeping your find count from going down by one.

 

Paperless caching is what caused the change to having to list ALR caches as Mystery/Unknown. It used to be you read the cache page before you went to look for a cache. If there was any information you needed to know before you found the cache you would know. Not only if there was an ALR but what hours the park was opened or where to park. With paperless caching some people have decided that they can simply load coordinates into their GPS and go off to hunt caches. If they find a cache only to discover when they get home they can't log it because they didn't meet the ALR, they whine about it. (Or they log it and whine when their log is deleted) And so the new guideline was issued that ALR caches be listed as a mystery/unknown. Because this designation used to generally mean puzzle cache, it is assume that people will check the page before going to look for the cache and can decide if they want to find the cache or not. All this has really done is caused a hassle for people looking for puzzles to work who now find a bunch of lame ALR caches and a lot of confusion for the vast majority of ALR caches where the owner doesn't really intend to delete logs but simply wants to encourage some more interesting logs. Quite frankly I see this a poor solution for anyone outside of a small vocal minority who are complaining because the had a log deleted.

[+CSpenceFLY]

If you e-mailed me about this sill stuff I would tell you to go ahead and delete my log.

[+TrailGators]

 

COINS AND TB"S ARE NOT TRADE ITEMS!

 

That should at least clear up this point.

While that is technically true, I still try to always trade these items fairly as well. They are usually more expensive than other items in the cache, so I would consider not trading these items fairly even worse than doing so with "regular" swag.

Trading is when you give up "ownership" of something to gain "ownership" of something else. Since you are not gaining "ownership" of a geocoin left in the cache, then you can take it to move it to another cache without leaving anything. A lot of these coins have missions, and I'm sure that their owners want them to be moved (to low muggle caches).

This is a hoax perpetrated by the people who maintain a travel bug/geocoin page. The money they paid for the travel bug and a portion of the money they paid for the geocoin gives them the right to create a tracking page on Geocaching.com. On that tracking page they can provide a goal for the item. All they can do is hope that people honor that request and move the item according to the goal and log it on geocaching.com. Other than that the coin, the travel bug tags, and any items it is attached to are just like any other item left in a cache.

Hoax? Unless you give up ownership to the finder on your geocoin page, the coin is still rightfully your coin!

 

Geocoin FAQ:

[+sbell111]

But I do have a question for Keystone or any other reviewer: Why do countless other caches have listed requirements but can still be traditional? I don't really have a problem with it myself, since I always read and fulfill the requirements. But according to the rules, I guess they should be mystery caches? I'm not trying to change the rules or anything, but I guess that's why I thought my cache was okay, because I've seen similar things on lots of other traditional caches. Is the definition of a traditional "a cache that anyone can find without proof or the find, without placing the cache as you found it, without trading fairly, and without any rules for the finder whatsoever; throw this in the river if you like"?

I'm not a reviewer, but I can answer your question. The guideline which requires ALRs to be listed as mystery caches is somewhat recent. Therefore, you will find many ALRs listed as traditional caches that are grandfathered from prior to the guideline change.

 

Prior to listing a cache, the reviewers check to verify that the correct cache type is chosen. Altering a cache after listing so that it is no longer the same cache type is not appropriate. Therefore, you should either remove the ALR or archive your cache and create a new cache of the mystery type. Changing the cache type of your cache is not appropriate as it would change the history of those who found it previously.

 

BTW, I agree with those who have advised against creating a travel bug/geocoin prison. I would not like for my travelers to be trapped in one.

[+SeventhSon]

 

<snip>

 

Paperless caching is what caused the change to having to list ALR caches as Mystery/Unknown. It used to be you read the cache page before you went to look for a cache. If there was any information you needed to know before you found the cache you would know. Not only if there was an ALR but what hours the park was opened or where to park. With paperless caching some people have decided that they can simply load coordinates into their GPS and go off to hunt caches.

 

<snip>

 

 

That's interesting. I always considered paperless caching as having a palm full of cache pages with you, instead of a binder full of cache pages with you, hence the name. Loading the GPS and going off without reading the cache page was doable from day one.

[+sbell111]

 

<snip>

 

Paperless caching is what caused the change to having to list ALR caches as Mystery/Unknown. It used to be you read the cache page before you went to look for a cache. If there was any information you needed to know before you found the cache you would know. Not only if there was an ALR but what hours the park was opened or where to park. With paperless caching some people have decided that they can simply load coordinates into their GPS and go off to hunt caches.

 

<snip>

 

 

That's interesting. I always considered paperless caching as having a palm full of cache pages with you, instead of a binder full of cache pages with you, hence the name. Loading the GPS and going off without reading the cache page was doable from day one.

True, but with the advent of pocket queries, we became able to load up thousands of caches without doing any sort of preview. Prior to PQs, you had to at least pull up the cache pages to get the coords, hopefully glancing at the description as you do so.

[+TrailGators]

<snip>Paperless caching is what caused the change to having to list ALR caches as Mystery/Unknown. It used to be you read the cache page before you went to look for a cache. If there was any information you needed to know before you found the cache you would know. Not only if there was an ALR but what hours the park was opened or where to park. With paperless caching some people have decided that they can simply load coordinates into their GPS and go off to hunt caches.

 

<snip>

That's interesting. I always considered paperless caching as having a palm full of cache pages with you, instead of a binder full of cache pages with you, hence the name. Loading the GPS and going off without reading the cache page was doable from day one.

It is interesting! The one side effect was that ALRs get largely ignored because most people think mystery caches are puzzles. This is why I wish they would create a separate puzzle cache type from the mystery type. There is no quick way to load ALRs and not puzzles, but if there was you could pull out your Palm and read what you have to do on those when you are out in the field. Then the mystery type wouldn't get ignored and could really be fun!

[Skippermark]

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 .

 

This poor fellow would never be able to log said earthcache as he has no face...

Edited May 12, 2008 by Skippermark

[+tozainamboku]

Hoax? Unless you give up ownership to the finder on your geocoin page, the coin is still rightfully your coin!

 

Geocoin FAQ:

Is there any Geocoin etiquette?

The most common question on etiquette relates to what to do if you find a Geocoin. Keep it? Move it to another geocache? The answer always depends on the goal its owner has set for it. Usually the best way to find the answer to these questions is to visit the geocoin’s personal home page and read the description it contains. If there is a theme or special instructions from the owner you should do your best to adhere to the geocoin’s goal, or send an email to the owner for more clarification.

In addition, selling a coin which doesn’t belong to you is generally frowned upon unless you have received express permission from its owner. How can I stop someone from selling a geocoin I gave them?

If you create your own series of geocoins and wish to prevent people from selling them, it is recommended you activate all of your coins on Geocaching.com before they leave your possession. This gives you a claim to ownership and, once reported, allows us to deactivate the coin at your request. If you have given any geocoins away which have not been activated, we consider it to be a transfer of ownership and cannot intervene. Think ahead!

As I stated in my original post Groundspeak has taken the position of the majority of coin an bug owners that coins and TBs are not trade items. But it is impossible for them to enforce this. What they can enforce is the ownership of the coin or travel bug page. And it seems that is what this quote from the FAQ does address. Essentially who ever activates the coin is given the title of "coin owner". The FAQ says if you don't want people to sell coins you give them they you should activate the coin first. I don't see how this stops somebody from selling the coin. It only stops someone from claiming "ownership" by activating the coin and creating a tracking page for it.

 

I'd really like to discuss coin and travel bug ownership except that this thread seems to be about deleting logs of people who didn't fulfill an additional logging requirement. Also, I've learned not to defend travel bug "prisons" because of the travel bug/coin enthusiast conviction that they own their bugs/coins and the Groundspeak FAQs that mostly support this claim. The purpose of a travel bug or traveling coin is to have it tracked on Geocaching.com as it moves from cache to cache, and some ALRs on trading of coins and bugs could certainly be construed as having a negative impact on this purpose.

[+TrailGators]

Hoax? Unless you give up ownership to the finder on your geocoin page, the coin is still rightfully your coin!

 

Geocoin FAQ:

Is there any Geocoin etiquette?

The most common question on etiquette relates to what to do if you find a Geocoin. Keep it? Move it to another geocache? The answer always depends on the goal its owner has set for it. Usually the best way to find the answer to these questions is to visit the geocoin's personal home page and read the description it contains. If there is a theme or special instructions from the owner you should do your best to adhere to the geocoin's goal, or send an email to the owner for more clarification.

In addition, selling a coin which doesn't belong to you is generally frowned upon unless you have received express permission from its owner. How can I stop someone from selling a geocoin I gave them?

If you create your own series of geocoins and wish to prevent people from selling them, it is recommended you activate all of your coins on Geocaching.com before they leave your possession. This gives you a claim to ownership and, once reported, allows us to deactivate the coin at your request. If you have given any geocoins away which have not been activated, we consider it to be a transfer of ownership and cannot intervene. Think ahead!

As I stated in my original post Groundspeak has taken the position of the majority of coin an bug owners that coins and TBs are not trade items. But it is impossible for them to enforce this. What they can enforce is the ownership of the coin or travel bug page. And it seems that is what this quote from the FAQ does address. Essentially who ever activates the coin is given the title of "coin owner". The FAQ says if you don't want people to sell coins you give them they you should activate the coin first. I don't see how this stops somebody from selling the coin. It only stops someone from claiming "ownership" by activating the coin and creating a tracking page for it.

 

I'd really like to discuss coin and travel bug ownership except that this thread seems to be about deleting logs of people who didn't fulfill an additional logging requirement. Also, I've learned not to defend travel bug "prisons" because of the travel bug/coin enthusiast conviction that they own their bugs/coins and the Groundspeak FAQs that mostly support this claim. The purpose of a travel bug or traveling coin is to have it tracked on Geocaching.com as it moves from cache to cache, and some ALRs on trading of coins and bugs could certainly be construed as having a negative impact on this purpose.

I agree with you but I wanted to clarify that point so we don't create more coin traders with this discussion. Nobody can stop someone from stealing. We can only educate them that it is stealing if they go against the owner's wishes for the coin to travel and keep the coin.

 

I don't think it's a good idea to delete logs unless you have a really good reason. If this was classified as a mystery cache the OP would have a better reason.

Edited May 12, 2008 by TrailGators

[Skippermark]

It is interesting! The one side effect was that ALRs get largely ignored because most people think mystery caches are puzzles. This is why I wish they would create a separate puzzle cache type from the mystery type. There is no quick way to load ALRs and not puzzles, but if there was you could pull out your Palm and read what you have to do on those when you are out in the field. Then the mystery type wouldn't get ignored and could really be fun!

 

Agree fully. I know cachers who totally ignore any "blue question mark" caches. We'll be caching together, and I'll tell them to get ready to stop because a cache is coming up. Turns out they didn't load it because it was a "puzzle," but in truth it's an offset cache with the final located 200 feet from a plaque where you need to gather some info...or something similar.

[+TrailGators]

It is interesting! The one side effect was that ALRs get largely ignored because most people think mystery caches are puzzles. This is why I wish they would create a separate puzzle cache type from the mystery type. There is no quick way to load ALRs and not puzzles, but if there was you could pull out your Palm and read what you have to do on those when you are out in the field. Then the mystery type wouldn't get ignored and could really be fun!

 

Agree fully. I know cachers who totally ignore any "blue question mark" caches. We'll be caching together, and I'll tell them to get ready to stop because a cache is coming up. Turns out they didn't load it because it was a "puzzle," but in truth it's an offset cache with the final located 200 feet from a plaque where you need to gather some info...or something similar.

I decided to spinoff this new topic to see what others think about this. I would love it if they did this!

[+Quiggle]

It is interesting! The one side effect was that ALRs get largely ignored because most people think mystery caches are puzzles. This is why I wish they would create a separate puzzle cache type from the mystery type. There is no quick way to load ALRs and not puzzles, but if there was you could pull out your Palm and read what you have to do on those when you are out in the field. Then the mystery type wouldn't get ignored and could really be fun!

Agree fully. I know cachers who totally ignore any "blue question mark" caches. We'll be caching together, and I'll tell them to get ready to stop because a cache is coming up. Turns out they didn't load it because it was a "puzzle," but in truth it's an offset cache with the final located 200 feet from a plaque where you need to gather some info...or something similar.

An offset cache as you describe should be listed as a multi, not a puzzle/mystery, though it sometimes depends on the cache itself (ie some restrictions apply! )

[+Rockin Roddy]

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?

 

 

If the earthcahe is set up right, wouldn't the proof of find be obvious?? My earthcache requires you to measure how fast the water fills a gallon jug (aquifer cache). Sure, some could try to guesstimate it, but since aquifers flow at vastly different rates, it would be tricky. I'd never delete someone's find simply because they didn't have a camera or their picture wasn't "perfect".

 

What's next...hold up the daily paper to prove you were there on the date you logged it??

[+sbell111]

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?

If the earthcahe is set up right, wouldn't the proof of find be obvious?? My earthcache requires you to measure how fast the water fills a gallon jug (aquifer cache). Sure, some could try to guesstimate it, but since aquifers flow at vastly different rates, it would be tricky. I'd never delete someone's find simply because they didn't have a camera or their picture wasn't "perfect".

 

What's next...hold up the daily paper to prove you were there on the date you logged it??

It kind of goes back to one of the problems with virts. You try to create a verification question that can easily be answered on-site, but can't be googled (so armchair cachers won't log the find). This is especially difficult given the rapidly expanding knoledge base on the internet. Something that isn't easily found on the internet today will be the first three items on a google search in a year or two. (Don't ask me how I know.)

 

Therefore, virtual cache owners started requiring a picture taken at the location. They required the GPSrs to be in the pic to prove that it wasn't some ten year old vacation pic or a pic of some stranger's family that the person was able to google up. Since many people cache alone or don't want to post pictures of themselves on the internet, it was generally accepted that a picture of a hand holding the GPSr at the location was fine. These pictures certainly aren't going to land in anybody's personal scrapbook, but they don't have to. They are only required as evidence that the person was at the location.

[+Totem Clan]

 

What's next...hold up the daily paper to prove you were there on the date you logged it??

Yes, but you must still wait until said picture is verified as authentic by experts at both the CIA and NSA and is confirmed by at least one operative in the field.

[+Rockin Roddy]

[+Moose Mob]

Interesting thread... I only knew this thread was here because someone reported it. Seem I have been busy with life.

 

Since it was a year between "found it" log and the e-mail requesting that we comply with the ALR, I didn't think there was a rush. Hopefully, I can get this picture taken with Lil Devil while we are at GeoWoodstock VI in a couple days. I hope I can find ten hats to wear.

[+Moose Mob]

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 now see that there is a requirement for the picture to be taken at the cache site. Since I doubt I will be out that way in the near future, you may as well delete my log. I will let Lil Devil know this thread is here so he can respond if he sees fit.

[+USA 45]

Some people like my self don't know that the TFH means on your cache title. And when people are traveling and download pocket queries, It does not give all the information on your page, So I guess you will be deleating a lot of them if they are travelers. Maybe if you put Sign on your cache the finder will not log it if they don't meet the requirements. Just location,hints. things like that comes up. I'm just happy when someone finds my cache and logs. Seems requirements are really getting sticky to fine caches.

[+Lil Devil]

Thanks, Moose Mob for letting me know about this thread.

 

As others have mentioned, the cache is mis-categorized. We did, in fact, simply find the cache without ever looking at the cache page. That's what I do with almost all Traditional caches. I only read the cache page if I have trouble finding the cache, when I need a hint.

 

As the cache is mis-categorized, I think it's pretty silly to hold people to some arbitrary ALR. If it was properly categorized, that would be a different story.

 

Going forward, I highly suggest you ask your local reviewer to change the cache to mystery.

[+joranda]

It's kind of funny. There was a thread on here not too long ago about someone not answering the questions of a earthcache but they did post a picture that they was at the spot with there GPS in hand. In the cache page it said that they need to email the answers and post a picture or your log would get deleted. And the log did get deleted. Seems like everyone was ok with it because the requirements wasn't met. To me, a photo there was proof enough, but hey, it's not my cache. So now why is everyone upset about the requirements on these other earthcaches? If you read though the post here, it was said that if for some reason you didn't have the photo that something could of been worked out if you would send a email. Maybe people just take it for granted and didn't email, I don't know, but it sounds pretty straight forward to me.

[+USA 45]

It's kind of funny. There was a thread on here not too long ago about someone not answering the questions of a earthcache but they did post a picture that they was at the spot with there GPS in hand. In the cache page it said that they need to email the answers and post a picture or your log would get deleted. And the log did get deleted. Seems like everyone was ok with it because the requirements wasn't met. To me, a photo there was proof enough, but hey, it's not my cache. So now why is everyone upset about the requirements on these other earthcaches? If you read though the post here, it was said that if for some reason you didn't have the photo that something could of been worked out if you would send a email. Maybe people just take it for granted and didn't email, I don't know, but it sounds pretty straight forward to me.

From what I read this was a traditional cache, SO if they down loaded it and beings it was not listed properly they found it . Signed log and went on their way. most people who download the quaries never get to read the pages. If it was not listed as an Earth cache it was not their fault. And I don't think I woild go back and take a picture if it was far away. So I would let the cache owner do what they want.

[+WRASTRO]

I don't really care what type of hide the cache might be. If the "finder" can prove to the cache owner they were at the cache site and couldn't fulfill some technical requirement (like a picture) I don't think that should negate the find. This is between the finder and the cache owner. Make the owner happy, claim the find. Owners should be reasonable in working with finders who may not have been able to satisfy the technical requirements of the cache but can provide clear evidence they found the cache. This is not intended to show support for cachers who claim a find because they were at the "right" spot or who couldn't sign the log because they couldn't get to the cache.

[+joranda]

I don't really care what type of hide the cache might be. If the "finder" can prove to the cache owner they were at the cache site and couldn't fulfill some technical requirement (like a picture) I don't think that should negate the find. This is between the finder and the cache owner. Make the owner happy, claim the find. Owners should be reasonable in working with finders who may not have been able to satisfy the technical requirements of the cache but can provide clear evidence they found the cache. This is not intended to show support for cachers who claim a find because they were at the "right" spot or who couldn't sign the log because they couldn't get to the cache.

 

So that would be like somewone goes to a cache that is rated a 5 on terrain but doesn't read the cache page, it was down loaded from a pocket qourey. He gets to the spot and sees that they need a tree climber to get to the cache cause it's 40 feet in the tree but he can still see the cache hanging up there. You are saying they can log it, (If the "finder" can prove to the cache owner they were at the cache site and couldn't fulfill some technical requirement (like a tree climber to get to the cache) I don't think that should negate the find.) So wnat you said, wouldn't that be the same thing?

[+Happy Humphrey]

Owners should be reasonable in working with finders who may not have been able to satisfy the technical requirements of the cache but can provide clear evidence they found the cache. This is not intended to show support for cachers who claim a find because they were at the "right" spot or who couldn't sign the log because they couldn't get to the cache.

So that would be like somewone goes to a cache that is rated a 5 on terrain but doesn't read the cache page, it was down loaded from a pocket qourey. He gets to the spot and sees that they need a tree climber to get to the cache cause it's 40 feet in the tree but he can still see the cache hanging up there. You are saying they can log it, (If the "finder" can prove to the cache owner they were at the cache site and couldn't fulfill some technical requirement (like a tree climber to get to the cache) I don't think that should negate the find.) So wnat you said, wouldn't that be the same thing?

It looks to me like WRASTRO is being sensible: he's not saying that you should allow people to log a "found cache" when it wasn't found. Just advising that the owner should cut people some slack if they didn't comply with the other regulations.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I don't really care what type of hide the cache might be. If the "finder" can prove to the cache owner they were at the cache site and couldn't fulfill some technical requirement (like a picture) I don't think that should negate the find. This is between the finder and the cache owner. Make the owner happy, claim the find. Owners should be reasonable in working with finders who may not have been able to satisfy the technical requirements of the cache but can provide clear evidence they found the cache. This is not intended to show support for cachers who claim a find because they were at the "right" spot or who couldn't sign the log because they couldn't get to the cache.

 

So that would be like somewone goes to a cache that is rated a 5 on terrain but doesn't read the cache page, it was down loaded from a pocket qourey. He gets to the spot and sees that they need a tree climber to get to the cache cause it's 40 feet in the tree but he can still see the cache hanging up there. You are saying they can log it, (If the "finder" can prove to the cache owner they were at the cache site and couldn't fulfill some technical requirement (like a tree climber to get to the cache) I don't think that should negate the find.) So wnat you said, wouldn't that be the same thing?

 

I believe the cache you're talking about was a traditional which had a requirement that all who find must wear and get a picture of them wearing tinfoil hats. A traditional shouldn't have alternative loging requirements like these, it isn't a traditional cache!

 

Earthcaches HAVE to have a certain amount of a "learning experience" or the cache isn't allowed. The owner is required to ask the finders to learn something (mine is measuring water speed). Virtuals also require an amout of "learning" (most times at least). The learning could be finding a bit of history or whatever, and part of the requirement is usually to answer a question or post a pic.

 

At any rate, I'd NEVER wait a year to ask for my requirement as many people lose or delete old pictures, especially if they forgot the pic was needed!

[+WRASTRO]

Owners should be reasonable in working with finders who may not have been able to satisfy the technical requirements of the cache but can provide clear evidence they found the cache. This is not intended to show support for cachers who claim a find because they were at the "right" spot or who couldn't sign the log because they couldn't get to the cache.

So that would be like somewone goes to a cache that is rated a 5 on terrain but doesn't read the cache page, it was down loaded from a pocket qourey. He gets to the spot and sees that they need a tree climber to get to the cache cause it's 40 feet in the tree but he can still see the cache hanging up there. You are saying they can log it, (If the "finder" can prove to the cache owner they were at the cache site and couldn't fulfill some technical requirement (like a tree climber to get to the cache) I don't think that should negate the find.) So wnat you said, wouldn't that be the same thing?

It looks to me like WRASTRO is being sensible: he's not saying that you should allow people to log a "found cache" when it wasn't found. Just advising that the owner should cut people some slack if they didn't comply with the other regulations.

 

I am certainly trying to be sensible. I would never log a cache that is up a tree if I didn't climb the tree to get to the container. If I climbed the tree and found the container rusted shut I would contact the owner and let them decide if I qualified for the find. I would give them as much detailed info as I could about the hide so they can make a decision, which I would abide by. They would also know there is a problem with the container.

[+sbell111]

As others have mentioned, the cache is mis-categorized. We did, in fact, simply find the cache without ever looking at the cache page. That's what I do with almost all Traditional caches. I only read the cache page if I have trouble finding the cache, when I need a hint.

 

As the cache is mis-categorized, I think it's pretty silly to hold people to some arbitrary ALR. If it was properly categorized, that would be a different story.

 

Going forward, I highly suggest you ask your local reviewer to change the cache to mystery.

I believe the cache you're talking about was a traditional which had a requirement that all who find must wear and get a picture of them wearing tinfoil hats. A traditional shouldn't have alternative loging requirements like these, it isn't a traditional cache!

The OP's cache is not miscategorized. It was listed as an ALR in 2005. At that time, ALRs like this one were properly listed as traditional caches.

 

While it is a crying shame that the finders didn't read the cache page to discover the ALR, it is not the cache owner's responsibility to read the description for them.

 

It's too bad that the cache owner didn't discover the cache seekers' error sooner, but I would argue that this doesn't matter. If someone logs my virt with a bogus pic and I don't catch it for a year should I not still delete the find? While I am not for a second trying to make the case that the cache seekers specified in the OP attempted to 'cheat', it is their responsiblity to meet the requirements for a find.

 

One of the entry level workers in my department screwed up his timesheet a month ago. He took time off prior to when he believed that his time had acrued. He noted it on his timesheet as Leave Without Pay. The supervisor didn't catch his mistake and the timesheet was processed. Last week, he believed that he had a day accrued, so he took a day off. Personnel caught his original mistake, corrected it, and he ended up with Leave Without Pay on the most recent time period (since he didn't actually have the time accrued because he used it last month).

 

The supervisor left me a note stating that he was in leave without pay, but 'it wasn't his fault'. I quickly advised her that it was certainly his fault that he took too much time off and that he doesn't know how to properly complete his timesheet.

 

My point is, we are each responsible for ourselves. Other people may catch our mistakes, but if they don't discover our mistakes timely, the mistakes are not magically erased.

Edited May 13, 2008 by sbell111

[+Moose Mob]

As others have mentioned, the cache is mis-categorized. We did, in fact, simply find the cache without ever looking at the cache page. That's what I do with almost all Traditional caches. I only read the cache page if I have trouble finding the cache, when I need a hint.

 

As the cache is mis-categorized, I think it's pretty silly to hold people to some arbitrary ALR. If it was properly categorized, that would be a different story.

 

Going forward, I highly suggest you ask your local reviewer to change the cache to mystery.

I believe the cache you're talking about was a traditional which had a requirement that all who find must wear and get a picture of them wearing tinfoil hats. A traditional shouldn't have alternative loging requirements like these, it isn't a traditional cache!

The OP's cache is not miscategorized. It was listed as an ALR in 2005. At that time, ALRs like this one were properly listed as traditional caches.

 

While it is a crying shame that the finders didn't read the cache page to discover the ALR, it is not the cache owner's responsibility to read the description for them.

 

It's too bad that the cache owner didn't discover the cache seekers' error sooner, but I would argue that this doesn't matter. If someone logs my virt with a bogus pic and I don't catch it for a year should I not still delete the find? While I am not for a second trying to make the case that the cache seekers specified in the OP attempted to 'cheat', it is their responsiblity to meet the requirements for a find.

 

One of the entry level workers in my department screwed up his timesheet a month ago. He took time off prior to when he believed that his time had acrued. He noted it on his timesheet as Leave Without Pay. The supervisor didn't catch his mistake and the timesheet was processed. Last week, he believed that he had a day accrued, so he took a day off. Personnel caught his original mistake, corrected it, and he ended up with Leave Without Pay on the most recent time period (since he didn't actually have the time accrued because he used it last month).

 

The supervisor left me a note stating that he was in leave without pay, but 'it wasn't his fault'. I quickly advised her that it was certainly his fault that he took too much time off and that he doesn't know how to properly complete his timesheet.

 

My point is, we are each responsible for ourselves. Other people may catch our mistakes, but if they don't discover our mistakes timely, the mistakes are not magically erased.

 

ALR's are considered to be mystery caches and existing traditionals with ALR's need to be corrected to reflect this.

 

As far as the log, it is the owner's decision whether the logs stay or go. Personally, I won't dispute it one way or another.

[+sbell111]

As others have mentioned, the cache is mis-categorized. We did, in fact, simply find the cache without ever looking at the cache page. That's what I do with almost all Traditional caches. I only read the cache page if I have trouble finding the cache, when I need a hint.

 

As the cache is mis-categorized, I think it's pretty silly to hold people to some arbitrary ALR. If it was properly categorized, that would be a different story.

 

Going forward, I highly suggest you ask your local reviewer to change the cache to mystery.

I believe the cache you're talking about was a traditional which had a requirement that all who find must wear and get a picture of them wearing tinfoil hats. A traditional shouldn't have alternative loging requirements like these, it isn't a traditional cache!

The OP's cache is not miscategorized. It was listed as an ALR in 2005. At that time, ALRs like this one were properly listed as traditional caches.

 

While it is a crying shame that the finders didn't read the cache page to discover the ALR, it is not the cache owner's responsibility to read the description for them.

 

It's too bad that the cache owner didn't discover the cache seekers' error sooner, but I would argue that this doesn't matter. If someone logs my virt with a bogus pic and I don't catch it for a year should I not still delete the find? While I am not for a second trying to make the case that the cache seekers specified in the OP attempted to 'cheat', it is their responsiblity to meet the requirements for a find.

 

One of the entry level workers in my department screwed up his timesheet a month ago. He took time off prior to when he believed that his time had acrued. He noted it on his timesheet as Leave Without Pay. The supervisor didn't catch his mistake and the timesheet was processed. Last week, he believed that he had a day accrued, so he took a day off. Personnel caught his original mistake, corrected it, and he ended up with Leave Without Pay on the most recent time period (since he didn't actually have the time accrued because he used it last month).

 

The supervisor left me a note stating that he was in leave without pay, but 'it wasn't his fault'. I quickly advised her that it was certainly his fault that he took too much time off and that he doesn't know how to properly complete his timesheet.

 

My point is, we are each responsible for ourselves. Other people may catch our mistakes, but if they don't discover our mistakes timely, the mistakes are not magically erased.

 

ALR's are considered to be mystery caches and existing traditionals with ALR's need to be corrected to reflect this.

I was not aware that owners of older ALRs were being required to change their caches.

[+Moose Mob]

As others have mentioned, the cache is mis-categorized. We did, in fact, simply find the cache without ever looking at the cache page. That's what I do with almost all Traditional caches. I only read the cache page if I have trouble finding the cache, when I need a hint.

 

As the cache is mis-categorized, I think it's pretty silly to hold people to some arbitrary ALR. If it was properly categorized, that would be a different story.

 

Going forward, I highly suggest you ask your local reviewer to change the cache to mystery.

I believe the cache you're talking about was a traditional which had a requirement that all who find must wear and get a picture of them wearing tinfoil hats. A traditional shouldn't have alternative loging requirements like these, it isn't a traditional cache!

The OP's cache is not miscategorized. It was listed as an ALR in 2005. At that time, ALRs like this one were properly listed as traditional caches.

 

While it is a crying shame that the finders didn't read the cache page to discover the ALR, it is not the cache owner's responsibility to read the description for them.

 

It's too bad that the cache owner didn't discover the cache seekers' error sooner, but I would argue that this doesn't matter. If someone logs my virt with a bogus pic and I don't catch it for a year should I not still delete the find? While I am not for a second trying to make the case that the cache seekers specified in the OP attempted to 'cheat', it is their responsiblity to meet the requirements for a find.

 

One of the entry level workers in my department screwed up his timesheet a month ago. He took time off prior to when he believed that his time had acrued. He noted it on his timesheet as Leave Without Pay. The supervisor didn't catch his mistake and the timesheet was processed. Last week, he believed that he had a day accrued, so he took a day off. Personnel caught his original mistake, corrected it, and he ended up with Leave Without Pay on the most recent time period (since he didn't actually have the time accrued because he used it last month).

 

The supervisor left me a note stating that he was in leave without pay, but 'it wasn't his fault'. I quickly advised her that it was certainly his fault that he took too much time off and that he doesn't know how to properly complete his timesheet.

 

My point is, we are each responsible for ourselves. Other people may catch our mistakes, but if they don't discover our mistakes timely, the mistakes are not magically erased.

 

ALR's are considered to be mystery caches and existing traditionals with ALR's need to be corrected to reflect this.

I was not aware that owners of older ALRs were being required to change their caches.

I would call it "strongly advised", with a little emphasis on "strongly"

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

As others have mentioned, the cache is mis-categorized. We did, in fact, simply find the cache without ever looking at the cache page. That's what I do with almost all Traditional caches. I only read the cache page if I have trouble finding the cache, when I need a hint.

 

As the cache is mis-categorized, I think it's pretty silly to hold people to some arbitrary ALR. If it was properly categorized, that would be a different story.

 

Going forward, I highly suggest you ask your local reviewer to change the cache to mystery.

I believe the cache you're talking about was a traditional which had a requirement that all who find must wear and get a picture of them wearing tinfoil hats. A traditional shouldn't have alternative loging requirements like these, it isn't a traditional cache!

The OP's cache is not miscategorized. It was listed as an ALR in 2005. At that time, ALRs like this one were properly listed as traditional caches.

 

While it is a crying shame that the finders didn't read the cache page to discover the ALR, it is not the cache owner's responsibility to read the description for them.

 

It's too bad that the cache owner didn't discover the cache seekers' error sooner, but I would argue that this doesn't matter. If someone logs my virt with a bogus pic and I don't catch it for a year should I not still delete the find? While I am not for a second trying to make the case that the cache seekers specified in the OP attempted to 'cheat', it is their responsiblity to meet the requirements for a find.

 

One of the entry level workers in my department screwed up his timesheet a month ago. He took time off prior to when he believed that his time had acrued. He noted it on his timesheet as Leave Without Pay. The supervisor didn't catch his mistake and the timesheet was processed. Last week, he believed that he had a day accrued, so he took a day off. Personnel caught his original mistake, corrected it, and he ended up with Leave Without Pay on the most recent time period (since he didn't actually have the time accrued because he used it last month).

 

The supervisor left me a note stating that he was in leave without pay, but 'it wasn't his fault'. I quickly advised her that it was certainly his fault that he took too much time off and that he doesn't know how to properly complete his timesheet.

 

My point is, we are each responsible for ourselves. Other people may catch our mistakes, but if they don't discover our mistakes timely, the mistakes are not magically erased.

 

ALR's are considered to be mystery caches and existing traditionals with ALR's need to be corrected to reflect this.

I was not aware that owners of older ALRs were being required to change their caches.

I would call it "strongly advised", with a little emphasis on "strongly"

And the reality is that despite the fact that this requirement may have been -- as Quiggle recently pointed out -- formally codified into the Groundspeak guidelines only within the past twelve months, the basic premise and guideline have been well-aired on the GC forums and some other regional forums for at least the past 30 months, and so the knowledge of this requirement for ALR caches is already quite widespread in the geocaching community.

Edited May 13, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+gof1]

As others have mentioned, the cache is mis-categorized. We did, in fact, simply find the cache without ever looking at the cache page. That's what I do with almost all Traditional caches. I only read the cache page if I have trouble finding the cache, when I need a hint.

 

As the cache is mis-categorized, I think it's pretty silly to hold people to some arbitrary ALR. If it was properly categorized, that would be a different story.

 

Going forward, I highly suggest you ask your local reviewer to change the cache to mystery.

I believe the cache you're talking about was a traditional which had a requirement that all who find must wear and get a picture of them wearing tinfoil hats. A traditional shouldn't have alternative loging requirements like these, it isn't a traditional cache!

The OP's cache is not miscategorized. It was listed as an ALR in 2005. At that time, ALRs like this one were properly listed as traditional caches.

 

While it is a crying shame that the finders didn't read the cache page to discover the ALR, it is not the cache owner's responsibility to read the description for them.

 

It's too bad that the cache owner didn't discover the cache seekers' error sooner, but I would argue that this doesn't matter. If someone logs my virt with a bogus pic and I don't catch it for a year should I not still delete the find? While I am not for a second trying to make the case that the cache seekers specified in the OP attempted to 'cheat', it is their responsiblity to meet the requirements for a find.

 

One of the entry level workers in my department screwed up his timesheet a month ago. He took time off prior to when he believed that his time had acrued. He noted it on his timesheet as Leave Without Pay. The supervisor didn't catch his mistake and the timesheet was processed. Last week, he believed that he had a day accrued, so he took a day off. Personnel caught his original mistake, corrected it, and he ended up with Leave Without Pay on the most recent time period (since he didn't actually have the time accrued because he used it last month).

 

The supervisor left me a note stating that he was in leave without pay, but 'it wasn't his fault'. I quickly advised her that it was certainly his fault that he took too much time off and that he doesn't know how to properly complete his timesheet.

 

My point is, we are each responsible for ourselves. Other people may catch our mistakes, but if they don't discover our mistakes timely, the mistakes are not magically erased.

 

ALR's are considered to be mystery caches and existing traditionals with ALR's need to be corrected to reflect this.

I was not aware that owners of older ALRs were being required to change their caches.

I would call it "strongly advised", with a little emphasis on "strongly"

And the reality is that despite the fact that this requirement may have been -- as Quiggle recently pointed out -- formally codified into the Groundspeak guidelines only within the past twelve months, the basic premise and guideline have been well-aired on the GC forums and some other regional forums for at least the past 30 months, and so the knowledge of this requirement for ALR caches is already quite widespread in the geocaching community.

 

I'm not sure that the forums, including the regionals, reach as many cachers as you would have us believe.

[+sbell111]

As others have mentioned, the cache is mis-categorized. We did, in fact, simply find the cache without ever looking at the cache page. That's what I do with almost all Traditional caches. I only read the cache page if I have trouble finding the cache, when I need a hint.

 

As the cache is mis-categorized, I think it's pretty silly to hold people to some arbitrary ALR. If it was properly categorized, that would be a different story.

 

Going forward, I highly suggest you ask your local reviewer to change the cache to mystery.

I believe the cache you're talking about was a traditional which had a requirement that all who find must wear and get a picture of them wearing tinfoil hats. A traditional shouldn't have alternative loging requirements like these, it isn't a traditional cache!

The OP's cache is not miscategorized. It was listed as an ALR in 2005. At that time, ALRs like this one were properly listed as traditional caches.

 

While it is a crying shame that the finders didn't read the cache page to discover the ALR, it is not the cache owner's responsibility to read the description for them.

 

It's too bad that the cache owner didn't discover the cache seekers' error sooner, but I would argue that this doesn't matter. If someone logs my virt with a bogus pic and I don't catch it for a year should I not still delete the find? While I am not for a second trying to make the case that the cache seekers specified in the OP attempted to 'cheat', it is their responsiblity to meet the requirements for a find.

 

One of the entry level workers in my department screwed up his timesheet a month ago. He took time off prior to when he believed that his time had acrued. He noted it on his timesheet as Leave Without Pay. The supervisor didn't catch his mistake and the timesheet was processed. Last week, he believed that he had a day accrued, so he took a day off. Personnel caught his original mistake, corrected it, and he ended up with Leave Without Pay on the most recent time period (since he didn't actually have the time accrued because he used it last month).

 

The supervisor left me a note stating that he was in leave without pay, but 'it wasn't his fault'. I quickly advised her that it was certainly his fault that he took too much time off and that he doesn't know how to properly complete his timesheet.

 

My point is, we are each responsible for ourselves. Other people may catch our mistakes, but if they don't discover our mistakes timely, the mistakes are not magically erased.

ALR's are considered to be mystery caches and existing traditionals with ALR's need to be corrected to reflect this.

I was not aware that owners of older ALRs were being required to change their caches.

I would call it "strongly advised", with a little emphasis on "strongly"

And the reality is that despite the fact that this requirement may have been -- as Quiggle recently pointed out -- formally codified into the Groundspeak guidelines only within the past twelve months, the basic premise and guideline have been well-aired on the GC forums and some other regional forums for at least the past 30 months, and so the knowledge of this requirement for ALR caches is already quite widespread in the geocaching community.

I'm not sure where the '30 months' comment came from. My memory of the ALR thread from last January (just before the formal codification), the consensus seemed to be that they were traditionals. The hope that an ALR attribute would be created, not that they reclassify ALRs as mysteries, necessarily.

[+keatingclan]

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?

 

E-mail them a date certain that you will delete the log then do it. I think they can always log again if they really do have pics.

[+geoaware]

To add clarity, the Earthcache guidelines say about logging requirements:

 

Taking a photograph alone, having visitors sending a word from a sign, or asking people to do internet research does NOT meet these logging guidelines.

 

However, asking people to submit a photo as additionl proof is up to the owner. How they administer the logging is really up to them.

 

But, as Mrs Geoaware keeps saying, ITS ONLY A GAME.

[+Renegade Knight]

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 don't know what a TFH is but if a photo is needed and you already emailed them, it's fair to delete the logs. When they have photo's they can log and I'm sure that won't be a problem for you.

 

If you take the time to make a rules cache you get stuck enforcing your rules. If you don't like doing that. it's better to not have those kinds of caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

...But I do have a question for Keystone or any other reviewer: Why do countless other caches have listed requirements but can still be traditional? ...

 

The change in thinking is recent. Back when most of those were approved a regualr cache was a regular cache and the rules about logging didn't change what kind of cache it was. Now that thinking has changed so they are now something else.

 

Edit: Quiggle answered this better very early in the thread.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

The photo is proof of the visit and prevents armchair finds . You and your GPS is pretty clear I think. ...

 

That's the problem. You don't think like a lot of folks. I would avoid your caches if they required a mug shot. Now if you felt that GPS at arms length was ok. Then no problem. I avoided Locationless caches that required a photo of more than my GPS. I'm not in it to model. I'm in it for the find.

[+joranda]

Let's keep beating the dead horse.