Quit deleting my logs!

[+samm99]

I recently had three of my logs deleted and it is upsetting me. If the cache owner had a problem with my logs and wanted me to change them, then I think they should have taken the time to email me. Am I wrong?

 

DNF Log deleted from Safeway:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...0c-5bae9a765509

Log entry: Out caching with NormanDCat. We looked and looked for this one with no luck. Too bad!

-----------------------

 

DNF Log deleted from Memorial Day:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...f9-83036d335b26

Log entry: Out caching with NormanDCat. Looked but there were just too many rocks.

-------------------------

 

I DNFed these caches. I wanted to let the cache owner know that even though the cache had been found recently, that we weren’t able to find it. I thought that the cache owner would be happy to know that he stumped us. But instead he deletes my logs. Why post a DNF if it is going to get deleted?

 

 

Found Log deleted from “da plane!! da plane!!”

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...e9-eaab34b1d172

Log entry: NormanDCat and I are out and about caching between rain drops today. This doesn't seem like a good place for a geocache. This is a private road and there are signs that suspicious activity will be reported. No matter how much stealth one uses, you still look a bit suspicious.

-------------------------

 

NormanDCat posted the following for this cache (not deleted):

Out caching with Samm99 to get her 2000th find on her B-Day.

 

It was interesting that the cache is on a "Private Road" and just above the cache is a sign that says that any "Suspicious activity will be reported."

 

Oh wait, Samm99's 2000th log was deleted by the cache owner!

 

Thanks for the hide.

-----------------------------

 

This cache was my 2,000 find by then the owner deleted my found log. I was surprised that no one else had mentioned the sign and private road until after our log entries. But then I must wonder how many other logs has this user deleted?

 

Thanks,

Samm99

[Keystone]

Please see the Page in the Groundspeak Knowledge Books entitled Log Deletion.

[+normandcat]

Please see the Page in the Groundspeak Knowledge Books entitled Log Deletion.

 

That's all fine and dandy but what about the one that was a legitimate find, other cacher's said the same thing, and yet their logs weren't deleted.

 

Just my thought on it...

 

-Dwight

[+GeePa]

Normandcat, I thing you were certainly wronged here. I feel for you.

 

If only the CO had done what any decent person would do and contact you before deletion as it advises in the Knowledge Book:

 

If the geocacher has failed to meet logging requirements, please explain your concerns. Politely email the log owner before or immediately after you delete their log. If their log or photos contain spoilers, invite them to edit the log. If you have deleted the log already, invite them to re-log without the spoiler.

[+simpjkee]

I see nothing wrong with those logs. They should stand, but it don't matter what I think.

[4wheelin_fool]

I predict that an increase in petty log deletion disputes will eventually trigger Groundspeak to eliminate (or delete) the cache owner's discretionary power in deleting logs altogether. To have a log deleted a cacher will have to contact a reviewer or Groundspeak staff member.

 

Keep it up, and the hamsters and frogs will have more work.

[+42at42]

If that cache is on a clearly signed private road, it should be archived.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I predict that an increase in petty log deletion disputes will eventually trigger Groundspeak to eliminate (or delete) the cache owner's discretionary power in deleting logs altogether. To have a log deleted a cacher will have to contact a reviewer or Groundspeak staff member.

 

Keep it up, and the hamsters and frogs will have more work.

[+uxorious]

Not sure about the other caches you mention, but I do wonder about GC24PHT "da' Plane!! da' Plane!!'.

 

While it is true the cache is outside the gate, the road to the gate is clearly a private road, as shown on the King County plat maps. I am hoping the CO has permission for this hide, but if they are deleting logs maybe not. The owner of that business has a reputation with some of the neighbors for being strict on trespassing issues, hope no one runs into a problem with going for that one.

[jholly]

If that cache is on a clearly signed private road, it should be archived.

 

Or moved.

[jholly]

Not sure about the other caches you mention, but I do wonder about GC24PHT "da' Plane!! da' Plane!!'.

 

While it is true the cache is outside the gate, the road to the gate is clearly a private road, as shown on the King County plat maps. I am hoping the CO has permission for this hide, but if they are deleting logs maybe not. The owner of that business has a reputation with some of the neighbors for being strict on trespassing issues, hope no one runs into a problem with going for that one.

 

One has to also wonder about the placement of a cache near an airport. Yes it is not LAX or ORD, but it is an airport.

[Keystone]

Please see the Page in the Groundspeak Knowledge Books entitled Log Deletion.

 

That's all fine and dandy but what about the one that was a legitimate find, other cacher's said the same thing, and yet their logs weren't deleted.

 

Just my thought on it...

 

-Dwight

I linked to the procedure for having the logs restored. I did that in an effort to be helpful. I hope that the OP takes advantage of the appeal process described in the Knowledge Book.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Not sure about the other caches you mention, but I do wonder about GC24PHT "da' Plane!! da' Plane!!'.

 

While it is true the cache is outside the gate, the road to the gate is clearly a private road, as shown on the King County plat maps. I am hoping the CO has permission for this hide, but if they are deleting logs maybe not. The owner of that business has a reputation with some of the neighbors for being strict on trespassing issues, hope no one runs into a problem with going for that one.

 

One has to also wonder about the placement of a cache near an airport. Yes it is not LAX or ORD, but it is an airport.

 

I found a cache yesterday *in* an airport (Frankfurt). Okay, so it was a virtual that required a photo at a specific gate. I went out this morning and found a few caches in Montpellier. On Tuesday I leave here for Barcelona and hope to get a few there as well. Geocaching in three countries in four days; I'll take that over finding a gazillion caches on a power trail any day.

[+power69]

If that cache is on a clearly signed private road, it should be archived.

I saw nothing about permission on the page but if the hider lives there you have what i call "implied permission" to be there on the private road[thats what i usually tell security/police if they ask what i'm doing there]

-

deleted log might be to quiet logging of cache that might have permission issues.

[+succotash]

I must be dense but I am wondering how you would know if a DNF log were deleted. If a Found log were deleted your cache count would go down and that would be a clue that something had changed, but I'm not sure what would trigger this for a DNF, unless you put all DNFs on a watchlist.

 

Bean

[+Tequila]

I must be dense but I am wondering how you would know if a DNF log were deleted. If a Found log were deleted your cache count would go down and that would be a clue that something had changed, but I'm not sure what would trigger this for a DNF, unless you put all DNFs on a watchlist.

 

Bean

 

Log writers are always notified if their log is deleted, regardless of the log type.

[Pajaholic]

One has to also wonder about the placement of a cache near an airport. Yes it is not LAX or ORD, but it is an airport.

I don't wonder since this traditional cache is in the middle of one of the busiest airports in the World - Singapore's Changi Airport.

 

Geoff

[+OldLog]

I am beginning to think after reading a lot of post on this subject the process for deleting finds or log post needs to be stricter.

[+succotash]

I must be dense but I am wondering how you would know if a DNF log were deleted. If a Found log were deleted your cache count would go down and that would be a clue that something had changed, but I'm not sure what would trigger this for a DNF, unless you put all DNFs on a watchlist.

 

Bean

 

Log writers are always notified if their log is deleted, regardless of the log type.

 

Thanks, Tequila.

[Mr.Yuck]

I predict that an increase in petty log deletion disputes will eventually trigger Groundspeak to eliminate (or delete) the cache owner's discretionary power in deleting logs altogether. To have a log deleted a cacher will have to contact a reviewer or Groundspeak staff member.

 

Keep it up, and the hamsters and frogs will have more work.

 

Can I predict it too? I'll give you credit though.

[+keehotee]

If that cache is on a clearly signed private road, it should be archived.

 

Why?

 

I mean, what are your reasons for saying it should be archived? Do you know something about any permissions he has or hasn't got that the rest of us aren't privy to?

Are you saying all caches on private parking lots should also be archived? How about lamp posts?

[+uxorious]

If that cache is on a clearly signed private road, it should be archived.

I saw nothing about permission on the page but if the hider lives there you have what i call "implied permission" to be there on the private road[thats what i usually tell security/police if they ask what i'm doing there]

-

deleted log might be to quiet logging of cache that might have permission issues.

 

Most easements have very specific uses. I live on a private road that crosses three or four other proprieties. The easement for the road gives me, and anyone coming to my property access to my place. But it does not give me the right to place a cache on the properties it crosses.

[+t4e]

If that cache is on a clearly signed private road, it should be archived.

 

Why?

 

I mean, what are your reasons for saying it should be archived? Do you know something about any permissions he has or hasn't got that the rest of us aren't privy to?

Are you saying all caches on private parking lots should also be archived? How about lamp posts?

 

very simple, if the CO had authorization to place the cache there he would have posted a note and pointed that out not deleted the logs that discloses the location of the cache

[jholly]

If that cache is on a clearly signed private road, it should be archived.

 

Why?

 

I mean, what are your reasons for saying it should be archived? Do you know something about any permissions he has or hasn't got that the rest of us aren't privy to?

Are you saying all caches on private parking lots should also be archived? How about lamp posts?

 

very simple, if the CO had authorization to place the cache there he would have posted a note and pointed that out not deleted the logs that discloses the location of the cache

 

The CO is probably suffering under the impression that once he deletes the logs no one can see them. Unfortunately lackeys and reviewers have very powerful magic that lets them see the logs. So if the reviewer has a reason to check out this cache and the logs he will probably see what is going on.

[+t4e]

 

The CO is probably suffering under the impression that once he deletes the logs no one can see them. Unfortunately lackeys and reviewers have very powerful magic that lets them see the logs. So if the reviewer has a reason to check out this cache and the logs he will probably see what is going on.

 

that's a different story there, that many are not aware of, nothing disappears unless the hamsters wish to do so

[+GeePa]

I linked to the procedure for having the logs restored. I did that in an effort to be helpful. I hope that the OP takes advantage of the appeal process described in the Knowledge Book.

 

I am confused. I looked over the page you posted the link for and nowhere in it do I see anything about an appeal process. What am I missing?

[+Ed & Julie]

I linked to the procedure for having the logs restored. I did that in an effort to be helpful. I hope that the OP takes advantage of the appeal process described in the Knowledge Book.

 

I am confused. I looked over the page you posted the link for and nowhere in it do I see anything about an appeal process. What am I missing?

 

9: A reviewer or site administrator must intervene on your behalf if you absolutely have to restore a log which has been deleted in error.

[+GeePa]

9: A reviewer or site administrator must intervene on your behalf if you absolutely have to restore a log which has been deleted in error.

 

Thanks, that may be what was being referred to. I thought that was only for Cache Owners since it is under the OWNERS section and not the FINDERS section in the document. I thought this was meant to be a recourse for a CO who wants to restore a log he deleted in error, but I could be wrong. The only thing it tells finders to do is to contact the CO. Either way, it is hardly a 'process' as it does not even tell you how to contact a reviewer or administrator or any other details of what the 'process' is for that matter.

 

I am not trying to be picky. I have never had any of my logs deleted to my knowledge, but I am interested in what I can do if it does happen to me. I just don't feel the document on Log Deletion adequately tells me what to do. I very much agree with the tone of the document in that people should be grownups and try to work this out amongst themselves, but in this case the CO just deleted logs with no explanation or warning.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

The DNFs seems very basic to me. I'm confused why they were deleted. Weird.

 

The Find log... well... the CO could have emailed you, yes. Before recommendations can be given about what should happen to the cache, it should be determined by the appropriate people if the cache is actually in violation of the rules by being in that location. After all "private" might mean "owned by the cache owner" and "suspicious activity" might mean "illegal dumping". The forum might be jumping the gun on judgment here.

 

I hope a resolution is found soon. It hurts the game when people get petty and disrespectful.

[+normandcat]

Please see the Page in the Groundspeak Knowledge Books entitled Log Deletion.

 

That's all fine and dandy but what about the one that was a legitimate find, other cacher's said the same thing, and yet their logs weren't deleted.

 

Just my thought on it...

 

-Dwight

I linked to the procedure for having the logs restored. I did that in an effort to be helpful. I hope that the OP takes advantage of the appeal process described in the Knowledge Book.

 

Thank you. I wasn't looking at all of the sections of your link. Just the ones that (I thought at the time) were pertinent.

 

-Dwight

[+Sol seaker]

Fun to see a cache being discussed that's in my neighborhood practically.

 

I'm glad I haven't gone after this one yet. I would not be interested in a cache that is next to a sign saying, "no suspicious activity."

 

People looking for caches all the time are thought to look suspicious. There are entire forum threads on the subject.

 

Why stick a cache there and invite trouble?

 

Why would a CO put us in a bad situation like that. I would have to suspiciously park and walk up to the area to see the sign before I would know I should leave.

 

Also it's in the guidelines not to hide next to airports. I would suspect this person did not read the guidelines before hiding this cache.

 

I think this would be a good cache for a reviewer to check out further.

 

The name geocaching has gotten trashed a lot lately. I know people who do not think well of the sport because of cache issues, and they don't even know the half of it. I think issues should be minimized. This one looks like a candiate for trouble.

[+Cliff's Notes]

If that cache is on a clearly signed private road, it should be archived.

 

It could be the property owner did give permission for the cache. The cache is by the sign not a hundred yards past it further into the property. That is a good idea it blocks other caches nearby.

 

How about that for an idea

 

preventive caches.

[+Frank Broughton]

Are you saying all caches on private parking lots should also be archived? How about lamp posts?

 

No if and buts about it - YES!

[+dakboy]

If that cache is on a clearly signed private road, it should be archived.

 

It could be the property owner did give permission for the cache.

Then the CO should indicate as such in the cache description.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

If that cache is on a clearly signed private road, it should be archived.

 

It could be the property owner did give permission for the cache.

Then the CO should indicate as such in the cache description.

 

Without meaning any offense to anyone involved, here's some devil's advocate...

I've indicated my house cache was at MY house on the cache page and still received logs that said, "cache was in someone's backyard so we left." so obviously writing something on the cache page doesn't guarantee people will read it or feel comfortable with the situation. Since there are Reviewers who volunteer to make sure cache submissions meet the guidelines, we assume it meets the guidelines. That's not always the case but I'll wager that the caches that are approved while being in violation are in a minority. Concerns about the cache location should've been messaged to the cache owner and the cachers should've left the grounds if they felt uncomfortable instead of both of them pursuing to find the cache and then complaining in the find log about the circumstances under which they, as adults, put themselves.

[+sbell111]

If that cache is on a clearly signed private road, it should be archived.

 

It could be the property owner did give permission for the cache.

Then the CO should indicate as such in the cache description.

Why? He already has attested to the fact that all adequate permission had been received.

[+dakboy]

If that cache is on a clearly signed private road, it should be archived.

 

It could be the property owner did give permission for the cache.

Then the CO should indicate as such in the cache description.

Why? He already has attested to the fact that all adequate permission had been received.

Or maybe ownership has changed since permission was given (that's happened on a couple caches in my area) and the new ownership isn't as agreeable to cachers being on his land.

 

When a "private" sign stands between me & a cache, I look for 2 things:

1) A note in the cache description which is a clear indication that it's OK

2) Another way to access the cache which doesn't involve crossing that sign (perhaps it's meant to be accessed via another route)

 

Otherwise, I won't take the chance.

[+geodarts]

Why? He already has attested to the fact that all adequate permission had been received.

 

Since "adequate permission" is a somewhat flexible concept, it is nice to know that express permission was obtained. I know of at least one active cache that is placed behind barbed wire fences on property that is marked with no trespassing signs (neither the CO or the reviewer took much of an interest in this), been to other cache locations marked "keep out" or "no trespassing" (for caches that have since been archived for one reasons or the other), been questioned by concerned property owners after the CO assumed the land was more open than it was, gone to cache locations only to discover the cache is hanging on someone's fence that is set within their property without permission, and I have had security guys tell me to leave certain property.

 

I suppose it comes down to how much I am willing to trust that adequate permission was adequate or how much I am willing to ignore potential problems. When I first started caching, I assumed that if a cache was placed on private property, not generally accessible to the public, that permission was of course obtained. I no longer make that assumption, and weigh that in deciding whether to look for that particular cache.

 

If the cache is on land that is posted or marked as being private, I will note this in my log (after asking the CO about it) because people should have the opportunity to weigh that in their decisions before going out of their way to get there. I can make my decisions one way or the other about whether I want to go for the particular cache, but its helpful to know about any potential problem before driving out there. To me it is the same as noting that there was a lot of poison oak in the area - information that might be helpful for the next visitor. I have never had any of my logs deleted.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Erickson

[jholly]

If that cache is on a clearly signed private road, it should be archived.

 

It could be the property owner did give permission for the cache.

Then the CO should indicate as such in the cache description.

Why? He already has attested to the fact that all adequate permission had been received.

 

Guess you never have been confronted by an irate property owner. If the property and/or access to the cache is marked private or no trespassing and nothing is mentioned on the cache page I just move on and file a DNF with the explanation. I did one time come across a sign stating "Private Property No Trespassing, except for Geocachers". I had no problem crossing that sign. I just feel that as a courtesy to the finders that if a cache is placed on private property mention of the fact that it is placed by permission of the owner will relieve a lot of angst.

[+Chokecherry]

I don't know how it works elsewhere in caching-land but here if a property is marked no trespassing or no suspicous activity then it wouldn't be unheard of to be confronted by angry land owners demonstrating their right to bear arms and protect said property.

 

At the very least the cache owner could put in their description that you will be on private property or that these signs exist. I've seen caches that state to ignore the signs as the property owners are aware of geocaches etc. Or places that have no trespassing except for geocachers.

 

But I'm not going to knowingly trespass on private land which is clearly marked because realistically if I had to stand in court and defend myself, "Your honor he has implied permission since it was approved online" is just not going to hold up as a defense.

[+sbell111]

I don't know how it works elsewhere in caching-land but here if a property is marked no trespassing or no suspicous activity then it wouldn't be unheard of to be confronted by angry land owners demonstrating their right to bear arms and protect said property.

 

At the very least the cache owner could put in their description that you will be on private property or that these signs exist. I've seen caches that state to ignore the signs as the property owners are aware of geocaches etc. Or places that have no trespassing except for geocachers.

 

But I'm not going to knowingly trespass on private land which is clearly marked because realistically if I had to stand in court and defend myself, "Your honor he has implied permission since it was approved online" is just not going to hold up as a defense.

... nor would any note on the cache page.

[+dakboy]

I don't know how it works elsewhere in caching-land but here if a property is marked no trespassing or no suspicous activity then it wouldn't be unheard of to be confronted by angry land owners demonstrating their right to bear arms and protect said property.

 

At the very least the cache owner could put in their description that you will be on private property or that these signs exist. I've seen caches that state to ignore the signs as the property owners are aware of geocaches etc. Or places that have no trespassing except for geocachers.

 

But I'm not going to knowingly trespass on private land which is clearly marked because realistically if I had to stand in court and defend myself, "Your honor he has implied permission since it was approved online" is just not going to hold up as a defense.

... nor would any note on the cache page.

But at least with a note on the cache page, the CO has to knowingly go to the effort of typing it out "this is on private property but permission has been granted by the owner/manager/head chef & bottle-washer", instead of it being implied by the simple existence of the cache listing. And then people who have negative experiences at the cache location can post a log or otherwise send a message to the CO and/or reviewer saying "despite the description stating that permission has been granted, I was confronted by someone who told me I was not allowed to be at this location as it is private property" as a warning to others, and possible archival action if that's what's needed.

[+Chokecherry]

At least with a note on a cache page if I was in any legal trouble due to it I could shift the blame to the cache owner and the legal process would then fall on him for falsely giving permission to trespass on property that is not owned by the cache owner for example. Much better defense than it being implied.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

No you couldn't. By accepting the terms of the site, you agree that YOU accept all responsibility.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/disclaimer.aspx

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

[+Max and 99]

Two comments on recent posts:

1. A couple of years ago a local hid a cache, and stated on the cache page that permission was granted to place the cache there, by the business owner. Needless to say, people were poking around trying to find it. The problem? The coords were WAY off, and we were poking around a business that did NOT appreciate us being there!

2. I had a "needs archived" log deleted this past week and was not too happy about it. The new cache was placed on a property near my house that I too had wanted to place a cache on. I went to a lot of trouble to find out who the property owner was, go to the county office to get the owner information, write them a nice note explaining geocaching, and patiently waited for the "ok" to place a cache there. My request was denied, and I was told they did not want any geocachers on their property. So, I wrote a very nice NA log on the new cache to explain the situation. It was deleted 2 minutes later and I have not gotten the support from GC that I expected.

[+dakboy]

At least with a note on a cache page if I was in any legal trouble due to it I could shift the blame to the cache owner and the legal process would then fall on him for falsely giving permission to trespass on property that is not owned by the cache owner for example. Much better defense than it being implied.

Ultimately you are responsible for your own decision to enter onto that parcel of land.

[+MickEMT]

No you couldn't. By accepting the terms of the site, you agree that YOU accept all responsibility.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/disclaimer.aspx

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

If the cache page states that permission was granted, it might be enough to get you off the hook. If the property owner is upset, I'd offer to give him or her the info they need to contact GC to have the listing pulled and tell the owner that I will post a note stating that the owner has not given permission and does not want anyone on the property and it needs to be archived.

[+Team Cotati]

No you couldn't. By accepting the terms of the site, you agree that YOU accept all responsibility.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/disclaimer.aspx

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

If the cache page states that permission was granted, it might be enough to get you off the hook. If the property owner is upset, I'd offer to give him or her the info they need to contact GC to have the listing pulled and tell the owner that I will post a note stating that the owner has not given permission and does not want anyone on the property and it needs to be archived.

 

What 'hook'?

 

That you are on someone's private land that is duly marked as such and that the owner does not want anyone trespassing and there you stand on the private land owner's land as he points to the no trespassing sign and asks, "What is there about no trespassing that you do not understand?"

 

You are going to get 'off the hook', what ever that might mean, by explaining that there is information listed on the geocaching www site that clearly states that you can trespass on his private property? Right, that 'll work.

 

The simple truth is that these type of hides ought to never be published. If they are, then there ought to be standing instruction to geocachers that when they see such hides do not go search for the cache. Rather, report it to the reviewer for the area who would then immediately archive the cache and then the CO could defend his placement. If you wanted to be super accommodating, wait for the second seeker to report the situation before archiving.

 

I'd wager that it wouldn't require too much of this type of 'self-policing' before there'd be a significant reduction in ill-advised and inappropriate cache hides. There's probably 50,000 or more hides behind strip malls and stores and other locations where geocaches ought to never be hidden that could use a fair degree of effective self-policing.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Team Cotati

[+Knight2000]

Some people are just jerks. You just have to blow it off and go on.

[+jellis]

Yep you have to be careful what you delete. I had my reason for deleting a log but I guess the cacher is lying to GC. But I can't win. This is what I got.

 

The guidelines say that the cache owner has 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. It does not give you the right to delete a log simply because you disagree with the comments made in the log or do not like the log owner. Please limit your log deletions to the guidelines and not for additional reasons not listed. The often stated comment that the cache owner has total control of the logs on a cache is not and has never been true. Only when the reason is legitimate should a log be deleted.