Quit deleting my logs!

[+Chokecherry]

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.

 

I agree with the fact that there should be self-policing going on. I don't know what the review process is or how they even determine if a cache is on private property without the owner of the cache explicitly stating so to the reviewing and then the owner stating they have adequate permission. I know that there are some reviewers that are rigorous about determining permission but I'm going to bet there are some who are more lax since there is such a huge variety of what constitutes adequate.

 

I still believe as well that if a cache is on private property that part of the self policing should be the cache owner admitting to that part in his/her description of the cache so that other people are aware of this fact. That too will aid in self policing of this issue.

 

But realistically until "adequate" permission is defined then it's not going to go anywhere.

[+Jess80&Mike99]

In my opinion a DNF is a plus for the cache owner. For one it could inform the cache owner to check the cache if there are a number of DNFs. I had one DNF on one of my first caches placed and before thinking it was the only ONE I checked it. It was still there and in good shape. So if I get more than one DNF I know I need to check the cache. Another plus is that the DNF means the cache owner hid the cache well. That is something to be proud of. If I were you I would probably email the cache owner deleting your logs and find out why or just stop intirely on finding their caches. I had to do this to a cacher. He would place virtuals and when I tried to contact him I would never get a response. I thought maybe I am not contacting him right. I decided to find another one of his virtuals and messaged him and still no response. I decided to leave his caches alone. It is unfortunate I had to do this cause I love all kinds of caches.

 

Jess80

[+joespaz]

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.

 

Thanks for the help Keystone. Could you be more specific as to what part of the link shows the procedure for having the logs restored? I am having a hard time seeing that in the knowledge book 5.6