+Elmbaek Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Hi. I have a question since one of my logs have been deleted. The cache in question is a traditional, and i'm pretty sure that you are not allowed to set any special requirements in a traditional cache!! Or am i wrong there?? I'm not going to reveal the cache yet, but here are my translation of the description: First of all, an important preliminary observation: The cache may not be logged Premium members! Now the owner has deleted our logs, but is that in line with the rules of Groundspeak?? We DID find the cache. We DID sign the logbook. Right now i'm pretty mad, but of cource it's only one deleted log amonst thousands.. I guess its more the principle.. Is he allowed to do it? And if not, whats my next move??? Best regards, Brian Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 When was this cache published? If it predates the guideline requiring "Additional Logging Requirement" caches to be classified as Mystery/Unknown, then it's grandfathered. There's one of these caches in Germany that has been discussed previously in the Forums. Quote Link to comment
+Elmbaek Posted October 20, 2008 Author Share Posted October 20, 2008 When was this cache published? If it predates the guideline requiring "Additional Logging Requirement" caches to be classified as Mystery/Unknown, then it's grandfathered. There's one of these caches in Germany that has been discussed previously in the Forums. The cache is from 10-01-2005, and yes, its from Germany :-( When did the rules become active? Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 When was this cache published? If it predates the guideline requiring "Additional Logging Requirement" caches to be classified as Mystery/Unknown, then it's grandfathered. There's one of these caches in Germany that has been discussed previously in the Forums. The cache is from 10-01-2005, and yes, its from Germany :-( When did the rules become active? Definitely grandfathered in (I can't say as to the exact date of the changes, but it was recently). Your next move is to either move on and forget this (maybe even ignoring caches from the owner), or you could log a find on one of your own caches or something like that to get the smiley you desire. I've seen this done before, not something I would likely do though personally. Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 The guidelines were changed in February 2007 to make caches like this one be classified as Mystery/Unknown caches. This cache is a poster child for why that change was made. Sorry about your smiley. Quote Link to comment
+Suburban Hillbillies Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Also a poster child for what the Ignore flag is used for. Quote Link to comment
+ar_kayaker Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Your other option is that the next time your membership is due for renewal, let it lapse by a day or two and log the cache while you're not a premium member! AK Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 When was this cache published? If it predates the guideline requiring "Additional Logging Requirement" caches to be classified as Mystery/Unknown, then it's grandfathered. There's one of these caches in Germany that has been discussed previously in the Forums. Grandfathered caches are allowed to exist after guideline changes. I don't think that necessarily means that they should still have misleading information on the page. A good argument can be made for requiring the cache owners owners to change the type to stay in compliance. Quote Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 (edited) When was this cache published? If it predates the guideline requiring "Additional Logging Requirement" caches to be classified as Mystery/Unknown, then it's grandfathered. There's one of these caches in Germany that has been discussed previously in the Forums. Grandfathered caches are allowed to exist after guideline changes. I don't think that necessarily means that they should still have misleading information on the page. A good argument can be made for requiring the cache owners owners to change the type to stay in compliance. This is true. I've seen former armchair virtuals whose cache descriptions were altered under threat of archival. And then there's the time Earthcaches were brought back after moving to Waymarking for a year or so, and us owners of grandfathered ones were forced to come up with an "educational task" under threat of archival. And several were in fact archived. However, I think that if this happened to this well known German cache in question, the guy would have a cow. Edited October 22, 2008 by TheWhiteUrkel Quote Link to comment
Mushtang Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 When was this cache published? If it predates the guideline requiring "Additional Logging Requirement" caches to be classified as Mystery/Unknown, then it's grandfathered. There's one of these caches in Germany that has been discussed previously in the Forums. Grandfathered caches are allowed to exist after guideline changes. I don't think that necessarily means that they should still have misleading information on the page. A good argument can be made for requiring the cache owners owners to change the type to stay in compliance. Not really a good argument at all. If you do that you're changing the history of every cacher that's found this cache. Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 At the time when the "Additional Logging Requirements" provision was added to the listing guidelines, I asked Groundspeak specifically about whether reviewers could go back and "correct" the cache types for grandfathered traditional caches with mandatory additional logging requirements. I was told not to do this. If reviewers were empowered to make cache type changes sua sponte when there are mandatory ALR's on the page from prior to the guideline change date, this cache in Germany would most assuredly be at the top of the list. Quote Link to comment
+Kit Fox Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 (edited) Hi. I have a question since one of my logs have been deleted. The cache in question is a traditional, and i'm pretty sure that you are not allowed to set any special requirements in a traditional cache!! Or am i wrong there?? I'm not going to reveal the cache yet, but here are my translation of the description: First of all, an important preliminary observation: The cache may not be logged Premium members! Now the owner has deleted our logs, but is that in line with the rules of Groundspeak?? We DID find the cache. We DID sign the logbook. Right now i'm pretty mad, but of cource it's only one deleted log amonst thousands.. I guess its more the principle.. Is he allowed to do it? And if not, whats my next move??? Best regards, Brian Deleting Logs of Premium Members -- is this allowed? The first no members cache (2005) Another reason why it is a good idea to read the cache page description. Translated using Google Language tool: Micro at the Kreuzberg Lohmühle island. First of all, an important preliminary observation: The cache may not be logged Premium member! The cache is a counter, so to speak, for the first Berlin Members only cache, which exclusively from premium members can be logged. Edited October 22, 2008 by Kit Fox Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.