Cache finds, DNF & logs

[+CapeDoc]

 

I'll use today as an example... we found a cache location pretty easily but it was a micro that was extremely well hidden (Thanks Noddy "Scout Bowl"). Of course we would only really be cheating ourselves but if a photo of us near the cache was sufficient proof of a find we may never have persisted and spent the 30 minutes we did spend looking for the actual cache. Of course, as it was, we had to find it so that we could sign the log.

I still agree. It is easy to apply the rules to oneself. It is harder for me, as a cache owner, to turn down a photo request. I just picture the 2 possible responses to my reply and prefer the one that ends in a smile.

[+CapeDoc]

Dang! My first double post!!

Edited March 23, 2009 by CapeDoc

[+Skyjuggler]

You make an interesting point CapeDoc.

The game may mean whatever you wish it to mean to you personally, but at the end of the day, should you be the one judging how others play it for their own enjoyment?

 

I think the type of cache here also deserves a mention... If you have a traditional cache in a beautiful area and something "may" have happened to it, maybe I'd consider a "photo-find" part of the game. However, some caches are in no place in particular but are exceptionally crafty hides. The momentum swinging towards hiding things under muggles noses... In that case, the entire point is the find...

 

Once again though, each to his/her own...

Edited March 22, 2009 by Skyjuggler

[+cincol]

............................. The same thing applies we are in this for the game, friendship and fun. The little plastic container is just a little bonus.

 

Well said Wazat - I couldn't agree with you more. I have met some wonderful people from all over the world already in the short time that I have been "playing the game" - not the least being a virtuous cacher from Newcastle, KZN, who drives a Corsa 4x4!!

Edited March 23, 2009 by cincol

[+Fish Eagle]

I've refrained from chipping in here so far, but I think that I should clarify the issue about logging caches virtually - eg, with a photo. The following does not apply to grandfathered virtual caches and earthcaches, but does apply to all physical caches.

 

Virtual logs are not permitted for physical caches, and it up to the cache owner to not accept them. The guidelines for cache maintenance are clear, and say "The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

 

If virtual logging comes to my attention, I will take the following action:

 

- If the cache does not invite virtual logging, the cache owner will get a warning that if he continues to accept virtual logs the cache could be archived. If it appears that the physical cache is gone or unfindable, I'll disable the cache.

 

- If the cache owner has invited virtual logging and is openly condoning it, I'll summarily archive the cache. Should the physical cache be repaired/replaced, and the virtual logging invitation removed, I would be prepared to unarchive the cache and re-instate it.

 

I hope this answers some of the questions.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Fish Eagle

[+CapeDoc]

Virtual logs are not permitted for physical caches, and it up to the cache owner to not accept them

I see that I was wrong. I will change my ways. (Unfortunately) At least I will be able to justify declining photo requests with a link to this thread.

[+C.A.T.A]

Thanks for the official word there Fish Eagle.

 

I was convinced I had seen somewhere when getting into this hobby that the log, and the signing thereof, was a crucial part of a cache but I could not find it when this discussion came up.

 

I know we are all in this for the fun of the game but it is still ever so slightly irritating to think you may have spent over an hour searching for a cache so that you could "legally" log it, by signing the log sheet, and someone else may get to log it without this effort. It just seems to cheapen the whole find process in my eyes.... anyway I suppose the official word makes these opinions unimportant now.

[+Wazat]

Thanks Fish Eagle. I see that part. I was mearly offering this as an alternate to someone coming to find my cache while it was not available. I myself removed the cache for reason of safety as GerhardoosMPsa had discovered upon returning the cache container after signing the log, a small unwelcome visitor in the hidey hole. See the log at GC195WE. Note that this was just a spur of the moment desicion to not replace the cache although it might be perfectly safe back where it was i am opting out as I do not what to endanger anyone. The container is going to be replaced work permitting on Wednesday as I have a lot of work in Bergville & Winterton area. I was scheduled to replace this last week but was brought down by a serious case of Tick Bite Fever. Hence the acceptance of the Photo Logging by myself. It was just a temporary solution at the time just in case there was an odd visitor or two, which there wasn't. I want this to be back up in time for the holidays so I will have it replaced and the photo logging will be removed from the page and I will accept none once the physical container is replaced.

[+Fish Eagle]

Perhaps I should clarify a bit more....

 

I don't go looking for virtual logs, nor am I a log policeman. I'll only react to virtual logging if it's brought to my attention as being a problem, and if it's not an isolated occurance. What I said earlier refers to the typical scenario when a cache is missing or unavailable for an extended period, and it becomes a de-facto virtual cache. That's a blatant and ongoing guidelines violation which must be addressed. The correct owner reaction to a missing cache is to disable it, replace it, and re-enable it, or archive it if the location is no longer viable or too risky, not turn it into a virtual cache.

[+BruceTP]

GC12WFN is a classic example of a missing cache which has been turned into virtual in September 2007 already.

Edited March 24, 2009 by BruceTP