Jump to content

cachers not following page guidelines


KBLAST

Recommended Posts

This is a touchy situation. On one hand, by deleting the logs of those who ignore civic rules/laws, we show that we are conscientious of this game's impact upon others. On the other hand, we have the Groundspeak guidelines which direct us to: Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements. If I hop a fence, after hours, to snag a cache, and I'm foolish enough to boast about my antics in my log, does my log suddenly become bogus, counterfeit, off topic or not within the stated requirements?

 

The rules are, as follows...

Find cache, sign log, log online, get smiley...

While I usually revel in the opportunity to disagree with the lil' green lizard, I'm not sure it's wrong this time. :)

 

Violating civic rules is usually a bad idea, with many consequences for those who choose that lifestyle.

But should it lead to log deletion? Many highly respected cachers seem to think it should. The guidelines seem to indicate that it should not.

As the lizard pointed out, the slope is losing a significant degree of drag coefficient. :P

Link to comment

While I usually revel in the opportunity to disagree with the lil' green lizard, I'm not sure it's wrong this time. :)

 

Violating civic rules is usually a bad idea, with many consequences for those who choose that lifestyle.

But should it lead to log deletion? Many highly respected cachers seem to think it should. The guidelines seem to indicate that it should not.

As the lizard pointed out, the slope is losing a significant degree of drag coefficient. :P

OMG! I might have to change my position...

 

In reality I HAVE broken the law (admittedly many times) in search of some caches. If those logs were all deleted I would want some sort of retribution. I spent MY time looking for caches and met the guidelines for getting the smiley. Delete my valid logs (per the guidelines) and you aren't acting in the spirit of geocaching.

 

I know... GS could give us all the ability to decide who can, and can not, find our caches and what times and days we allow people to find them. Then we can delete the rest.

 

So, no finding my caches on Tuesdays unless between the hours of 9PM and 9:15PM. All other logs will be deleted....

 

Hmmm... That sounded like an ALR.

Link to comment

...As a practical matter, deleting the after-hours FTF log and making the finder go back to your cache before he can get a smiley seems risky. Do you really want to anger someone who has demonstrated (1) that he knows where your cache is, and (2) that he has little respect for laws and others' property? Do you really want to insist that such a person return to your cache site?

Totaly aggree with this. I had a nice ammo can go missing due to deleting a bogus log. You have told the cacher where your cache is, don't want them mad at you or there may be a missing cache.

Link to comment

Unfortunately, being a volunteer cache reviewer does not pay well enough to permit me to quit my day job. And, the website functions poorly on my computer at the office where I am paid to sit 50 hours per week. So, I often find myself publishing caches in parks and cemeteries late at night, such as the cache that is the subject of this thread.

 

If and when Geocaching.com were to implement a tool that allowed me to say "publish this cache tomorrow morning at 7:00," I would certainly make use of it for caches like this one. Until then I will continue to rely on geocachers being ethical. I have no problem with a cache owner who deletes logs that clearly indicate that the cache was found in violation of applicable laws.

Ever thought of trying something like this Auto Mouse Click

Link to comment

 

So, no finding my caches on Tuesdays unless between the hours of 9PM and 9:15PM. All other logs will be deleted....

 

Hmmm... That sounded like an ALR.

 

Talk about resorting to an absurd argument.

 

The cache in question is not declaring arbitrary rules for finding it. It is simply asking people not to trespass in the park during the posted closed hours.

Link to comment

My opinion... "Delete that sucker!" If the information was on the cache listing and the cacher did not follow said information, they do not deserve the find. I believe this would also be covered by the "not within the stated requirements." portion of posting guidelines.

 

Now with that said, I agree that the CO may face retaliation from the person that had their log deleted. But the fact is we need to make a stand or our sport will go away.

 

There is a cache in our area that is placed on property clearly marked with "NO TRESPASSING" signs. From what I've learned, the signs were not there when the cache was placed, and the CO hadn't requested or received permission to place it there. When we rolled up on GZ and saw the signs, we passed on the hunt. I added a note to the cache listing stating that it was "posted" and gave my opinion. The troubling part is that people are still logging it and happily explaining how they just ignored the signs.

 

We depend on a whole lot of other people and places to be able to hide caches and hunt them. Taking no action against people who can't follow the rules (or CO requests) means that we encourage those people and it will only get worse. Eventually property owners and then parks, cities, and maybe even whole states will outlaw Geocaching altogether. I don't think that is an outcome that any of us want.

 

Keep in mind the the big "Switch" flips both directions, off and on.

Link to comment

So, a question to those who say the deletion is the way to go.

 

Is the person who found it during "off-hours" supposed to go out AGAIN to (ahem) find the cache AGAIN, sign the logsheet AGAIN, to claim the find or are they forever banned from "finding" the cache they found?

Link to comment
Swim cannot be legally found when the lake is full and no swimming is allowed, no logs will be allowed during those time periods which may be several weeks long in the fall and spring. Swim cannot be found outside of the hours listed above.

 

That is the wording I use on my cache page because it actually is the law where I live, you cannot enter the lake when lifeguards are not present and people get ticketed on a regular basis just for wading. This restriction is clearly posted everywhere around the lake.

 

If Swim is logged in a time period when it cannot be legally found I delete the log since it is clearly stated that it cannot be found at those times. This is not an additional requirement, it is a requirement. Someone choosing to log the cache illegally is negatively impacting every other person seeking my cache, they might as well be tossing the cache out onto a street after signing the log because they are exposing the cache to the very real risk of being archived, the land manager need only make a request to Groundspeak or simply withdraw permission for the placement.

I never delete a log arbitrarily but logs that have a negative impact on others who are searching for my cache are logs that I do delete.

I always explain the exact reason for any log deletion and presume that the searcher was not aware of the negative impact they were having on others searching for my cache.

 

In this case I would delete the log and explain that the log had a negative impact on other searchers. I would point out the hours in which the cache can be found and I would invite the cacher to revisit the cache during regular hours and relog their find.

Link to comment
ALR's aren't allowed... unless they are in the best interest of geocaching...

 

Can you give an example of when an ALR has been allowed by the froggie under that claim. If you can't then there is no basis for the statement

 

Enforcing the idea that cachers should not enter an area that is officially closed, is NOT an ALR.

 

Additional Logging Requirements are tasks that must be performed after finding the cache and before logging online. The term has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

Edit to fix the quotes...

 

This.

Link to comment

Is the person who found it during "off-hours" supposed to go out AGAIN to (ahem) find the cache AGAIN, sign the logsheet AGAIN, to claim the find or are they forever banned from "finding" the cache they found?

 

I really don't care what they do.

I can only control what I do.

 

I would never "ban" anyone from finding any of my caches, I place them to be found.

My caches are not integrity tests or standards that others must meet, they are supposed to be fun...for everyone.

I always presume the finder was not aware that their actions were negatively impacting others seeking my cache.

I respect the importance that people attach to their record and I hope they respect that it is my cache and as the owner I am responsible for the enjoyment of every seeker. I am responsible for every log on every one of my caches.

Link to comment

So, a question to those who say the deletion is the way to go.

 

Is the person who found it during "off-hours" supposed to go out AGAIN to (ahem) find the cache AGAIN, sign the logsheet AGAIN, to claim the find or are they forever banned from "finding" the cache they found?

 

There would be no need for them to go to GZ again (unless they were going to leave an apology note - not likely), it's obvious that they found the cache, but they shouldn't get the credit for FTF. If they want to log the cache as a "regular" find, I would consider letting them based on correspondence and interaction with them.

Link to comment

GS has always taken the stance that GS and those that hide caches are not responsible for personal injury to someone seeking a cache.

 

If a stance is taken that a CO can/should enforce a local ordinance through log deletion, beyond the courtesy of simply letting seekers know the ordinance exists, doesn't that sort of negate the whole "we are not responsible" thing?

 

Just wondering aloud.

Link to comment

There would be no need for them to go to GZ again (unless they were going to leave an apology note - not likely), it's obvious that they found the cache, but they shouldn't get the credit for FTF. If they want to log the cache as a "regular" find, I would consider letting them based on correspondence and interaction with them.

 

Kind of impossible for a cache not to have a FTF, which is what you are proposing. You are either first to find or you are not, it is not an "award".

Link to comment

There are many valid points in this thread. The topic is very hard to discuss objectively. Call it a character flaw, but I've never been good with other people telling me what I can and cannot do in my life. Saying that, going in during restricted hours may be discouraged by GS, but they cannot enforce it. They don't have the authority.

Link to comment

There would be no need for them to go to GZ again (unless they were going to leave an apology note - not likely), it's obvious that they found the cache, but they shouldn't get the credit for FTF. If they want to log the cache as a "regular" find, I would consider letting them based on correspondence and interaction with them.

 

Kind of impossible for a cache not to have a FTF, which is what you are proposing. You are either first to find or you are not, it is not an "award".

 

If being credited with FTF were not some kind of "award" why would people trespass in order to log one? And as someone else suggested, give the credit to the first person to find the cache "legally".

Link to comment
There is a cache in our area that is placed on property clearly marked with "NO TRESPASSING" signs. From what I've learned, the signs were not there when the cache was placed, and the CO hadn't requested or received permission to place it there. When we rolled up on GZ and saw the signs, we passed on the hunt. I added a note to the cache listing stating that it was "posted" and gave my opinion. The troubling part is that people are still logging it and happily explaining how they just ignored the signs.

 

Seems to me a NA log would be appropriate or if you wish to remain anonymous a note to the reviewer that published it including the URL to the cache would solve the problem. You have done all you can with your log. I had that occur recently where the CO said in his description "disregard the No Trespassing signs no one enforces it". I assumed he had added that after it was published and sent a note to the reviewer. Archived within hours and I would imagine that caches placed by that CO will get closer watch.

Link to comment

unless they were going to leave an apology note - not likely

 

This would be, in my mind, a "likely" outcome rather than "not likely", at least in the online log if not at the site. I suspect some would even go back to the site but suppose you are right, not many would require that of themselves. :)

 

When I explained the negative impact that they were having on others seeking for my cache it wouldn't be tongue in cheek, it would be sincere. My own experience is that a frank and honest approach should be just that and people sense it in your correspondence and comments. I would suppose that they understood my position and knew that their log would not be allowed to stand as its presence on my cache would be irresponsible on my part. People innocent of understanding would apologize to all and carry on, logging another find, most without going back. Some would go back, people do want their records to be accurate.

Others might note the deletion and realize that it didn't matter to them, they would appreciate the clear explanation and would be very unlikely to do something similar. Many would relog with a shrug and "TNLN" without ever going back, some probably wouldn't even relog.

A very, very small group (I hope) would understand that they had negatively impacted other seekers, would disregard the explanation for the deletion and would persist in the belief that their right to "find it first" or even "find" it at all took precedence over everything else. Those people could do anything.

 

As the cache owner you assume all responsibility for your cache listing. That includes every log on every cache you own.

Link to comment

Saying that, going in during restricted hours may be discouraged by GS, but they cannot enforce it. They don't have the authority.

 

That is right, the authority lies with the cache owner. The cache owner agrees to be the one responsible when the cache is listed, it is a required part of the listing agreement.

Link to comment

If being credited with FTF were not some kind of "award" why would people trespass in order to log one? And as someone else suggested, give the credit to the first person to find the cache "legally".

I've violated posted hours for non FTF caches. Caching has little to do with when I will, and will not, break the "law".

 

Saying that, going in during restricted hours may be discouraged by GS, but they cannot enforce it. They don't have the authority.

 

That is right, the authority lies with the cache owner. The cache owner agrees to be the one responsible when the cache is listed, it is a required part of the listing agreement.

The cache owners have authority over whether or not their cache exists and what kind of cache it is (with limits) but not much beyond that. The cache owners are obligated to allow the "find" of anyone who has found the cache and signed the log.

 

If that's not the case, someone needs to rewrite the guidelines.

Link to comment

If being credited with FTF were not some kind of "award" why would people trespass in order to log one? And as someone else suggested, give the credit to the first person to find the cache "legally".

I've violated posted hours for non FTF caches. Caching has little to do with when I will, and will not, break the "law".

 

Saying that, going in during restricted hours may be discouraged by GS, but they cannot enforce it. They don't have the authority.

 

That is right, the authority lies with the cache owner. The cache owner agrees to be the one responsible when the cache is listed, it is a required part of the listing agreement.

The cache owners have authority over whether or not their cache exists and what kind of cache it is (with limits) but not much beyond that. The cache owners are obligated to allow the "find" of anyone who has found the cache and signed the log.

 

If that's not the case, someone needs to rewrite the guidelines.

In fact when the ALR guideline change was first posted I posted a list of reasons that a cache owner might have for deleting a Found log and asked for each if the cache owner still had this authority. TPTB were of course silent and never answered one way or the other. But a reviewer who was involved in the drafting of the guideline chimed in to say that statement "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed" meant only that a cacher could now ignore any ALRs that a cache owner had on the cache page and go ahead a log a find. In fact this statement says nothing about the power of the cache owner to delete logs. Elsewhere, the guidelines do say "Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements." Notice it doesn't say cease deleting logs. In fact, cache owners are still told to "delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements." It is clear that cache owners may delete log that contain spoilers - though it is generally accepted that the cache can be relogged without the spoiler. Also cache owner should delete logs with inappropriate language or that otherwise violate the terms of use. If cache owners don't delete these and they are reported to Groundspeak or a reviewer, they might even be deleted by TPTB. Again the cacher might be able to relog without the offending wording, but if they continue to post these sorts of logs I would suspect they would get the log deleted and have their account locked. Just as I like to point out that there is nothing in the guidelines that say you can't log find online if you haven't signed the log; there is nothing saying that if you signed the log your found log cannot be deleted. The guidelines only that the cache owner cannot delete logs based on additional logging requirements.

 

It is not as simple as whether or not requiring the finder to obey park rules in order to log a find is an ALR. It may very well be one. However cache owners may still have the ability to delete logs that mention the cache was found after closing time as being inappropriate or off-topic. In this case it may be that the log could be resubmitted without mentioning when the cache was found. So you probably couldn't deny someone a FTF. Though as mentioned above you could post on the cache page "Congratulations to [the STF] on being FTF without violating the park rules."

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
...but they shouldn't get the credit for FTF...

I think things just turned silly. FTF is an acronym for First To Find. This so called honor is not something that the cache owner can award or take away. Whoever was the first person to find the cache, is, by definition, the First To Find the cache. Dictating who can, and who cannot get the FTF has fail written all over it.

 

...give the credit to the first person to find the cache "legally".

Again, this notion that the FTF can be "awarded" is absurd. The first person to find it remains the first person to find it. If they blew a stop sign, tossed a soda can in a bush instead of a trash can, entered a park after hours, or some other civic violation, they still got there first. You have very little control over who gets the FTF on your cache, unless you take some drastic action such as leading a caching friend to the general area then having your reviewer publish the cache as he is standing next to it.

 

As to why folks would break the rules to get an FTF? Isn't that obvious? It's because this FTF silliness is important to them.

 

...cache owners are still told to "delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

If I log a find, noting that I had entered a park after it was closed to make the find, is my log bogus? I was completely honest with every aspect of my find. Is it counterfeit? I'm not sure how any log could possibly be counterfeit, but since it's in the guidelines, I'm sure it has happened, somehow. I guess, if I were some kind of evil computer genius, I could hack into your Groundspeak account and start posting fake finds under your name, but I don't see how doing so would benefit me. Either way, my aforementioned log would be posted by me, from my account, so I can't see that it would be counterfiet. What's left? Off topic? If I posted a find for a cache in Orlando, and my entry consisted entirely of a recipe for wild boar stew, (I got a great recipe for that, by the way), that would probably be off topic, but if I made a find on a cache, and I described, in my log, making the find, could that text be seen as being off topic? What about "within the stated requirements"? Which stated requirements? I have long been confused by that little bit of text. Are the "stated requirements" the cache listing guidelines, as some have inferred? If so, do the guidelines prohibit entering parks after hours?

 

Where does this end? Seminole County has an ordinance that states, when you are in a park, all traffic laws apply. Taken to the extreme, this would mean that, if you drove into a park with a tail light out, you are breaking the park rules. Incidentally, the consequences for driving into a park with a tail light out are exactly the same as the consequences for entering a park after hours. Should my logs be deleted because my tail light is out? It's a rule, instituted by park management, right?

 

What about other rules, not related to parks? If I brag about driving drunk, with a suspended license, to hunt a cache, should that log be deleted? What if it was a lesser offense, such as speeding, or, (gasp), having a tail light out, while on the way to the cache? Should those logs be deleted? The National Transportation Safety Bureau claims that the average driver violates 5 traffic laws a day. If that's to be believed, should most logs be deleted?

 

If Groundspeak is going to take a role in ensuring compliance with civic rules, I think a rewrite of the guidelines is in order.

Link to comment
You do all realize that there is no difference between first to find and twenty-ninth to find, right?

Yes there is. FTF finds the cache exactly as the CO intended it to be. By the time 2 dozen people have found it, it may have been placed back in a different spot, re-hidden poorly, had additional hints left by previous finders, or completely trashed.
Link to comment

It strikes me that many of the responses in this thread are missing a very important point. I can't and won't try to speak for Groundspeak, but I personally can't imagine that they're particularly interested in whether a cacher is driving a car that's missing a light, or breaks a traffic law on the way to a the cache, either inside or outside the park. What I can imagine they're concerned about is the reputation of caching and cachers in the eyes of those who have the authority to allow or not allow caching in a particular area. Like that park in the post that started this discussion.

 

If I were detained after hours when going after a cache in a park with posted hours, and they asked me what I was doing there after hours, there's a decent chance I would tell them I was looking for a geocache, since looking for a cache after hours is certainly less undesirable than other after-hours pursuits in a park.

 

If permission had been granted to hide the cache(s) in the park, that permission is likely to be withdrawn, since it's obvious (to the authorities, at least) that cachers don't follow the rules. If permission had never been asked for in the first place, the incident suddenly brings geocaching to the attention of the authorities, and there's a decent likelihood, given this introduction to the idea of geocaching, that caching will be banned, maybe in that park, maybe in the entire park system.

 

The solution to all this seems fairly simple, at least to me: Ideally, cachers (even the FTF hounds) should comply with the rules and regs. If they absolutely, positively can't resist that urge to snag the FTF, they shouldn't be stupid enough to brag about breaking the rules in their Found It log. This isn't rocket science!

 

--Larry

 

Edited for clarity.

Edited by larryc43230
Link to comment

If being credited with FTF were not some kind of "award" why would people trespass in order to log one? And as someone else suggested, give the credit to the first person to find the cache "legally".

 

FTF is binary, either you were or you were not. No matter what ALR or metric you apply, the first to find and sign is still the First to Find. Even if you choose to delete the log (ill-advised for too many reasons to list), there can never be another "First".

 

You do all realize that there is no difference between first to find and twenty-ninth to find, right?

Yes there is. FTF finds the cache exactly as the CO intended it to be. By the time 2 dozen people have found it, it may have been placed back in a different spot, re-hidden poorly, had additional hints left by previous finders, or completely trashed.

 

Having stumbled on many "FTFs" I was able to go back and do some checking. Just like caches I had found that had been placed years before, they all incremented my find count by one and put a smiley next to the log. Not only did it do it on the site, it also did it in GSAK as well via the PQ. No difference.

 

I still got to see the area that the CO intended to bring me to and, in fact, it is so identical that the rare occasions where I was the last to find, there was also no difference.

 

If an individual broke the law to find a cache, be reasonable and ask them to modify the log to not brag about it. Nothing more need be done. Even if they don't modify the log, it reflects on them not the CO. Doubt there is that many petty enough to care so much that the log needs to be deleted.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

On the cache page, I'd give props the the FTF who found the cache during approved hours.

 

FTF goes to "blank" who read the rules and obeyed the law while finding this cache.

 

The second or third to find becomes the first to find? How does that work?

 

So, a question to those who say the deletion is the way to go.

 

Is the person who found it during "off-hours" supposed to go out AGAIN to (ahem) find the cache AGAIN, sign the logsheet AGAIN, to claim the find or are they forever banned from "finding" the cache they found?

 

If he wants to, that's his beeswax. I simply would ask him to remove the reference to his breaking the rules.

 

I did it when someone mentioned in his log that he saw the no pets sign and brought his dog anyway. I did it when someone admitted in his log that he ignored the stay on the trail signs. I did it when someone mentioned in the log that he trespassed to take a shortcut. In every instance the finder complied. If he didn't then his log would have went bye-bye.

 

He then would have been free to re-visit the cache legally, or simply re-log without mention of the offense. Up to him.

Link to comment

What about "within the stated requirements"? Which stated requirements? I have long been confused by that little bit of text.

 

The stated requirements are on the cache page.

 

A cache like Tequila's 81 Proof or the 555 Club require that the cacher has to meet a specific set of conditions to log the cache. If you find the container and sign it, first or otherwise, and you have not met the stated requirements required to log the cache, you have not found it.

 

This should be perfectly clear even to those who are completely infected with smilies. If you found the container for the 555 Club and signed the log first and hadn't met the stated requirements for logging a find on the cache your log would be deleted and contrary to the assertions of the binary thinkers, you would not have have even found the cache, at least not according to the guidelines (or to the CO who deleted your log.)

You would be free to assert that you had found the cache but the record would not bear out your assertion.

 

When I posted Swim I added the requirement to the cache page and it says you can only find the cache within the hours listed, finding the cache outside of those hours is not a find anymore than signing the logbook of the 555 Club gives you a find. This is not additional request being made, it is a requirement to log a find on the cache.

 

The guidelines are very clear on this hence the "within the stated requirements" line.

Link to comment

The only rule I am aware of is you have to sign the logbook. If my name is in the logbook than it is stupid to delete my log just because i didnt find it the way someone wanted me too. If I want to get drunk and drive over and get the cache it shouldnt be any of the hiders business if i get a dui on my way home from the cache. I dont thik its there business if i decide to hunt for it naked. As long as my name is in that book its a find for me.

Link to comment

This topic has nothing to do with whether the find is valid or not. Yes, if you found it, then you found it. The topic really is: "Is it good form to say it in the log that you violated rules/laws/etc in order to find it?".

 

To me, it's the perception issue that's being questioned. We don't want spoilers mentioned in the logs because it provides info to future seekers (but it was still found). We don't want profanity because it offends some future readers (but it was still found). And we don't want you to mention that you violated landmanager's rules because we don't want them to read that info and ban geocaching (but it was still found).

 

So, if you found it, then you have every right to log it online. But the content of that log may be questioned. Since the system doesn't allow COs the ability to edit logs, the only option is to delete them. And, if you really want the smiley, then comply by just saying "I found it". That one can't be deleted.

Edited by Cache O'Plenty
Link to comment

I smell a change in the ALR guidelines coming.

 

Several place the guidelines refer to "applicable law" or say "local laws apply". These statement refer to cache placement - particular to caches near railroad tracks - and to the contents of caches. I could see a revision of the guidelines that says "Cache owners may delete logs that indicate a finder did not comply with applicable local laws".

 

This statement is not in the current guidelines because prior to the ALR revision, nobody would question a cache owner deleting such a log. Now that cache owners are no longer allowed to delete logs to enforce ALRs, people are applying the new guideline to any reason a cache owner would have to delete a log other than the physical log book was not signed.

 

My personal opinion is that the signature in the physical log has little to do with whether or not a cache owner may delete an online find. The new guideline is simply to indicate that ALR can not be enforced. A signature in the log only serves to put the burden of proof on the cache owner to delete a log for being bogus. IMO a log would still be bogus if the signature is not truly that of cacher who found the cache, e.g. if cachers were putting other cachers stickers in caches for them so they could claim a find. Without a signature, the burden of proof is on the finder to show that the find log is not bogus.

 

A story about how silly it is to link a name in a physical log with the ability to log a find: I logged a find on cache where I couldn't get the tin opened. I said in my log what I had done. The cache owner accepted my find. Later another cacher who found the cache and managed to get the tin opened, logged that they wrote my name in the log a well - so now I was legitimate :P . Just so the puritans know - I went back and and found the cache again and was now able to open it up - though it still took awhile - and signed my name. :)

Link to comment

The only rule I am aware of is you have to sign the logbook. If my name is in the logbook than it is stupid to delete my log just because i didnt find it the way someone wanted me too.

 

Then it is a good thing you are reading this thread! :)

 

Here is a link to 81 Proof. Read the cache page. Then go to the posted coordinates and sign the logbook that you find there. I am going to guess that your log will be deleted.

The cache has "stated requirements". The cache owner would be acting irresponsibly if they did not delete your log when you have not met the stated requirements of the cache. If you have not met the stated requirements then you have not found the cache no matter what you do with your pencil.

 

It is stupid to go around signing logbooks without reading the cache page and understanding the "stated requirements". I have done that and I log my visit with a note. The record is accurate, I don't force the cache owner to make an unpleasant decision and everyone is happy.

 

If cachers respect cache owners and cache owners respect cachers then it works well.

Link to comment

If I use a machete to clear the brush to the cache what does it matter whether or not I write it in the find log? If I just say tftc does that make it any less obvious a machete was used if the land owner is walking by the cache?

 

If I the cops catch me in a park after hours and arrest me does it make a difference if I say what time I was in the park?

 

how many land owners really read cache pages? if i break the lwa finding a cache and get caught that will harm the game. Not whethr or not i write about it in my find log.

 

So as far as the owner is concerned i either have a legitimate find or i dont. If he doesnt think it is legit then delete the log but he will have to delete all my logs. Cause if i broke the law i broke the law. it doesn't matter what i write.

Link to comment

The stated requirements are on the cache page.

 

A cache like Tequila's 81 Proof or the 555 Club require that the cacher has to meet a specific set of conditions to log the cache. If you find the container and sign it, first or otherwise, and you have not met the stated requirements required to log the cache, you have not found it.

 

This should be perfectly clear even to those who are completely infected with smilies. If you found the container for the 555 Club and signed the log first and hadn't met the stated requirements for logging a find on the cache your log would be deleted and contrary to the assertions of the binary thinkers, you would not have have even found the cache, at least not according to the guidelines (or to the CO who deleted your log.)

You would be free to assert that you had found the cache but the record would not bear out your assertion.

 

When I posted Swim I added the requirement to the cache page and it says you can only find the cache within the hours listed, finding the cache outside of those hours is not a find anymore than signing the logbook of the 555 Club gives you a find. This is not additional request being made, it is a requirement to log a find on the cache.

 

The guidelines are very clear on this hence the "within the stated requirements" line.

 

With luck, no one will test you and you will not have to deal with the disappoinment of the certain reversal.

 

There is a difference between challenge caches and what you are describing.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

So as far as the owner is concerned i either have a legitimate find or i dont.

 

The cache owner really is the only one concerned, or should be.

 

I know Groundspeak is trying to develop a policy that works for everyone but push really hasn't come to shove yet and won't until a large liability lawsuit is in the works. I do believe it is only a matter of time before someone gets themselves killed while attempting to retrieve a cache and a lawsuit is launched. At that point in time the issue of real ownership will be decided.

 

The Groundspeak guidelines are very clear.

The cache owner assumes all responsibility of the listing.

 

If the person suing was suing on behalf of someone who died while trying to retrieve one of my caches I would be happy to point out that Groundspeak asserts control over listings whenever they so choose so that ultimately they are the real owner, not me, I am either the responsible party or I am not.

The guidelines say that they "request" I stop deleting logs based on ALR's which is fine, they can request all they want. As soon as they decide who can log my cache and how it can be logged then it is their cache.

I am pleased if they have actually done this, taken control of a cache and forced the owner to accept the terms they dictate. If their actions clearly assert that they own the cache then it doesn't matter what they print in the listing agreement. If they control the listing then I am not the owner and cannot be hled liable for accidents that occur when people seek the cache, Groundspeak is liable.

 

If they can assert full control over the cache listing when they choose to do so and they have done that when they wanted to then clearly the words in the listing agreement are just lip service and they are the real owners of every cache, not just mine.

 

There really is no getting around the word all in the lisitng agreement. All covers everything, including the logs.

Link to comment

So as far as the owner is concerned i either have a legitimate find or i dont.

 

The cache owner really is the only one concerned, or should be.

 

I know Groundspeak is trying to develop a policy that works for everyone but push really hasn't come to shove yet and won't until a large liability lawsuit is in the works. I do believe it is only a matter of time before someone gets themselves killed while attempting to retrieve a cache and a lawsuit is launched. At that point in time the issue of real ownership will be decided.

 

The Groundspeak guidelines are very clear.

The cache owner assumes all responsibility of the listing.

 

If the person suing was suing on behalf of someone who died while trying to retrieve one of my caches I would be happy to point out that Groundspeak asserts control over listings whenever they so choose so that ultimately they are the real owner, not me, I am either the responsible party or I am not.

The guidelines say that they "request" I stop deleting logs based on ALR's which is fine, they can request all they want. As soon as they decide who can log my cache and how it can be logged then it is their cache.

I am pleased if they have actually done this, taken control of a cache and forced the owner to accept the terms they dictate. If their actions clearly assert that they own the cache then it doesn't matter what they print in the listing agreement. If they control the listing then I am not the owner and cannot be hled liable for accidents that occur when people seek the cache, Groundspeak is liable.

 

If they can assert full control over the cache listing when they choose to do so and they have done that when they wanted to then clearly the words in the listing agreement are just lip service and they are the real owners of every cache, not just mine.

 

There really is no getting around the word all in the listing agreement. All covers everything, including the logs.

 

^That.

Link to comment
If they can assert full control over the cache listing when they choose to do so and they have done that when they wanted to then clearly the words in the listing agreement are just lip service and they are the real owners of every cache, not just mine.

 

Legal liability (and assumption of the risk/recreational use) is far more complex than whether Groundspeak has required people using their listing service to follow certain policies, whether cache placers accede control to Groundspeak by following certain policies, or who can be said to "own" the cache as the term is commonly used.

 

But leaving that aside, if breaking the law is ground for a log deletion, then who is responsible when the cache itself requires finders to trespass -- one here was placed on property that was posted for no trespassing, neither the cache owner or the reviewer were concerned, and it remained active for quite some time (some people choosing to get it, some not) until the cache placer finally archived it after someone had a run-in with the property owner.

 

But even more to the original point, I never use the three initials for any cache I have found and I never recognize the first to sign the log for one of my caches. So I would leave it to the cache finders to sort it out. Two, three, or four people could claim the first and I would be fine with that as long as each individual is happy. But I would ask someone who openly admitted to breaking the law to delete that portion of the log. The rest is up for grabs.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

So as far as the owner is concerned i either have a legitimate find or i dont.

 

The cache owner really is the only one concerned, or should be.

 

I know Groundspeak is trying to develop a policy that works for everyone but push really hasn't come to shove yet and won't until a large liability lawsuit is in the works. I do believe it is only a matter of time before someone gets themselves killed while attempting to retrieve a cache and a lawsuit is launched. At that point in time the issue of real ownership will be decided.

 

The Groundspeak guidelines are very clear.

The cache owner assumes all responsibility of the listing.

 

If the person suing was suing on behalf of someone who died while trying to retrieve one of my caches I would be happy to point out that Groundspeak asserts control over listings whenever they so choose so that ultimately they are the real owner, not me, I am either the responsible party or I am not.

The guidelines say that they "request" I stop deleting logs based on ALR's which is fine, they can request all they want. As soon as they decide who can log my cache and how it can be logged then it is their cache.

I am pleased if they have actually done this, taken control of a cache and forced the owner to accept the terms they dictate. If their actions clearly assert that they own the cache then it doesn't matter what they print in the listing agreement. If they control the listing then I am not the owner and cannot be hled liable for accidents that occur when people seek the cache, Groundspeak is liable.

 

If they can assert full control over the cache listing when they choose to do so and they have done that when they wanted to then clearly the words in the listing agreement are just lip service and they are the real owners of every cache, not just mine.

 

There really is no getting around the word all in the lisitng agreement. All covers everything, including the logs.

It's a big leap from saying that cache owners should or shouldn't delete particular found logs to who is responsible if someone gets killed or injured hunting for cache. I don't think the guidelines that limit what a cache owner can do with logs have much to say on who owns the cache. They do say something about how the website (which is owned by Groundspeak) can be used.

 

Right now, Groundspeak will list your cache if you agree to the responsibility of maintaining your cache's listing on Geocaching.com The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. So Groundspeak allows cache owners to delete logs that don't meet certain criteria. Bogus, counterfeit, and off-topic logs are to be deleted. But the definition of these terms is left undefined, giving cache owners some leeway. Also, even though you have agreed to accept responsibility for the listing, Groundspeak has not given up its rights to enforce the terms of use for the website. They can and have: deleted logs that violate the TOU; restored logs deleted by cache owners for reasons that Groundspeak believes fall outside the nebulously stated reasons; archived caches because cache owners are not performing their maintenance responsibilities or because the cache owner has used the cache page in violation of the TOU.

 

For the most part maintenance of the cache listing is the responsibility of the cache owner, and cache owners are given a lot of leeway in this. But Groundspeak retains rights to specify the legitimate use of the Geocaching.com website. Cache owners who don't maintain their listings risk having the cache archived. Similary, cache owners who misused the the features given to them to maintain their listing (e.g. delete logs that are legitimate and within the TOUs of the website) risk having the cache archived, the deleted logs restored, and the page locked.

 

As it stands now, we do not know the opinion of Groundspeak on deleting logs of people how violate park rules to get a FTF. We do know the opinion of Groundspeak on deleting logs to enforce an additional logging requirement and we know that there is an exception for Geocaching challenges such as the examples given in a earlier post.

Link to comment

I feel the main point is that by violating local rules or laws in order to find a cache (FTF or not) you risk the continuation of that cache - if it happens and land owners or authorities get wind of it the cache will most likely have to be removed.

 

In my opinion, stating on the cache page that a cache location has opening hours is not an ALR, it's simply helping the cacher by notifying them of the local laws so they don't go out there only to find a sign prohibiting them from entering. So maybe you can't delete those logs based on that either, according to the GS rules, but I do feel the behavior should be strongly discouraged. The CO spend time and money on a cache that could be destroyed by the first find if the cacher doesn't abide by the area's rules and laws.

 

I do feel that a cache is at it's most vulnerable during the FTF hunt. I've gotten 2 FTF's when a series of local caches was published just as I got to my car to go to another cache and I decided to give it a try. At the second cache a family of 4 jumped out of the car just as I was walking back from the cache location and I heard one of the boys yell "It's here!" This was a public place where I had had to wait a while to be stealthy and not be noticed by muggles, and that effort was squandered by these people trying to get a FTF. This has nothing to do with opening hours or other laws but it does seriously increase the risk of ripping. I know I'll be worried about this if I am to place a cache in the future.....

 

We can go back and forth about rules, regulations, and so on for ages on this matter but isn't the main point to keep geocaching fun for everyone, cache owners and finders alike, and thus to do our best to try and not endanger the hobby (and the caches)?

Link to comment
I can't and won't try to speak for Groundspeak, but I personally can't imagine that they're particularly interested in whether a cacher is driving a car that's missing a light, or breaks a traffic law on the way to a the cache, either inside or outside the park.

I can say, with some measure of certainty, as I have sat in on meetings with park management where rules were being created, that the land managers do care about folks breaking traffic laws in their parks. They are the folks who wrote the rules specifically addressing the fact that all traffic laws apply inside the parks, even though the roads in them do not meet the criteria for streets under Florida statute. Why they should care about my tail light being out is beyond me, but I can assure you they do. Groundspeak has a long history of paying attention to the concerns of park managers. As such, it begs the question; where does the line get drawn? Which park rules is Groundspeak willing to ignore, and which ones are they willing to act as de facto enforcement agents on? This is where the slope starts getting slippery.

 

For a little light reading on what Seminole County land managers care about, here is a link to Seminole County Parks Rules. This list is not all inclusive. There is an ordinance in place that covers each of these rules. Violating any of them, from replacing a windshield wiper to trespassing after hours, carries the exact same penalty: 2nd degree misdemeanor. If the park managers feel just as strongly about folks having tail lights out, in their parks, as folks hopping the fence at night, shouldn't Groundspeak's level of concern be the same?

 

As to the rest of your post, I agree, absolutely. If the obliviots wouldn't brag about breaking the rules in their logs, most of these issues would not exist.

 

A cache like Tequila's 81 Proof or the 555 Club require that the cacher has to meet a specific set of conditions to log the cache.

The guidelines are very clear on this hence the "within the stated requirements" line.

 

Apples and plantains, Brother. Tequila: 81 Proof and The 555 Club are challenge caches, with their own specific guidelines governing them. Challenge caches can have requirements above and beyond finding the box and signing the log. Groundspeak will fully support a challenge cache owner deleting a find on a challenge cache, if the finder didn't meet the stated requirements of the challenge. The cache in the OP is not a challenge cache. Ergo, no additional requirements are allowed. It ain't the same kettle of fish.

 

If an individual broke the law to find a cache, be reasonable and ask them to modify the log to not brag about it.

The perfect answer. <_<

Link to comment

If I use a machete to clear the brush to the cache what does it matter whether or not I write it in the find log? If I just say tftc does that make it any less obvious a machete was used if the land owner is walking by the cache?

 

If I the cops catch me in a park after hours and arrest me does it make a difference if I say what time I was in the park?

 

how many land owners really read cache pages? if i break the lwa finding a cache and get caught that will harm the game. Not whethr or not i write about it in my find log.

 

So as far as the owner is concerned i either have a legitimate find or i dont. If he doesnt think it is legit then delete the log but he will have to delete all my logs. Cause if i broke the law i broke the law. it doesn't matter what i write.

 

It's bad enough to break the rules. It's worse to get caught doing it. It's really, really stupid to leave a written record of your rule breaking so it can be read by anybody at any time, including the land managers. It's kind of like the idiots who break the law then post videos of them doing it on Youtube. The only difference is that if you do it while geocachingt your actions will reflect on all geocachers in the eyes of the authorities.

 

And they do read the cache pages. Caching was banned in one park system because someone mentioned in his log that he left a pen knife in a cache. A state senator in NC who had a bug up her butt about geocaching had her staff comb through countless logs looking for anything she could use against us - and found plenty. Many park systems allow geocaching on an experimental basis and do monitor logs. When park systems find out about geocaches on their lands and you can bet they read the logs.

 

So if you hack your way to my cache with a machete and mention it in your log, you will be asked to remove the mention of it and if you don't I will delete your log. End of story. If you don't like it, then don't break the rules.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

It's bad enough to break the rules. It's worse to get caught doing it. It's really, really stupid to leave a written record of your rule breaking so it can be read by anybody at any time, including the land managers. It's kind of like the idiots who break the law then post videos of them doing it on Youtube. The only difference is that if you do it while geocaching your actions will reflect on all geocachers in the eyes of the authorities.

 

And they do read the cache pages. Caching was banned in one park system because someone mentioned in his log that he left a pen knife in a cache. A state senator in NC who had a bug up her butt about geocaching had her staff comb through countless logs looking for anything she could use against us - and found plenty. Many park systems allow geocaching on an experimental basis and do monitor logs. When park systems find out about geocaches on their lands and you can bet they read the logs.

 

So if you hack your way to my cache with a machete and mention it in your log, you will be asked to remove the mention of it and if you don't I will delete your log. End of story. If you don't like it, then don't break the rules.

 

Yes. This.

 

This isn't about Groundspeak enforcing laws or rules or about cache owners enforcing laws or rules, it's about us all making an effort to put our personal entitlements to the side for a bit and respecting the authority of the land managers in whose land we cache- and if you can't do that one little simple thing then at least don't be so stupid as to mention it in your log.

Link to comment
Caching was banned in one park system because someone mentioned in his log that he left a pen knife in a cache. A state senator in NC who had a bug up her butt about geocaching had her staff comb through countless logs looking for anything she could use against us - and found plenty.

 

it sounds to me like caching was going to get banned there regardless. a pen knife? that is nothing. anyone banning caching over a pen knife was going to ban it no matter. my point about a machete was that you run more of a chance of making caching look bad by leaving actual proof of stupidity at the cache location. if all it takes to get caching banned is to write about something in a log then i can go around and just start writing stupid stuff. i guess its better to just stick with tnlnsl to be on safe side.

Link to comment
Caching was banned in one park system because someone mentioned in his log that he left a pen knife in a cache. A state senator in NC who had a bug up her butt about geocaching had her staff comb through countless logs looking for anything she could use against us - and found plenty.

 

it sounds to me like caching was going to get banned there regardless. a pen knife? that is nothing. anyone banning caching over a pen knife was going to ban it no matter. my point about a machete was that you run more of a chance of making caching look bad by leaving actual proof of stupidity at the cache location. if all it takes to get caching banned is to write about something in a log then i can go around and just start writing stupid stuff. i guess its better to just stick with tnlnsl to be on safe side.

 

Perhaps YOU should just leave TNLNSL.

Link to comment
if all it takes to get caching banned is to write about something in a log then i can go around and just start writing stupid stuff. i guess its better to just stick with tnlnsl to be on safe side.

I have what might be an even better idea: How about just trying to follow the rules and regs (Groundspeak's and the park system's), then writing a log that honestly describes your experience? Works for me...

 

--Larry

Link to comment
if all it takes to get caching banned is to write about something in a log then i can go around and just start writing stupid stuff. i guess its better to just stick with tnlnsl to be on safe side.

I have what might be an even better idea: How about just trying to follow the rules and regs (Groundspeak's and the park system's), then writing a log that honestly describes your experience? Works for me...

 

--Larry

 

did i say i break any rules? i wasnt even aware of "FTF" until i read this thread. i dont know what the big deal is. i certainly am not going out of my house in the middel of the night just to find a cache. i like the hobby but not that much. i was just pointing out that saying that writing something in a log is enough to get caching banned is pretty sketchy. i can write anything true or not in a log. it would seem to me that actually being caught doing wrong would be something you would want to avoid.

Link to comment
i can write anything true or not in a log. it would seem to me that actually being caught doing wrong would be something you would want to avoid.

A lot of people have been learning recently that what you publish in your name on-line can come back to bite you in the backside. Not referring specifically to geocaching, just in general. You wouldn't believe how many people are being turned down for jobs because their potential employers see the craziness they've put on their Facebook or MySpace page. Also, keep in mind that, for all intents and purposes, once it's on-line it's on-line forever.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

I'm generally against deleting legit found it logs, but if I see mention of someone breaking a law or park rule in their log I will ask him to remove the reference. If he refuses then I will delete it.

 

It's stupid enough to break a rule to find a cache, but bragging about it in your log is even dumber. The authorities do read logs.

If the authorities bust you for trespassing based on a log on a forum then they have WAY to much time on their hands.

 

That obviously isn't going to happen.

 

But the authorities responsible for the park may very well rescind their permission if they find that the cache is attracting nighttime trespassers.

Link to comment
i could be wrong but i dont think an employer is going to fire me because i write that i found a cache after park hours and im sure that a lot more people enter parks after hours than geocachers.

So it's OK to write "stupid stuff" in a cache log, since it won't affect your employment chances. OK, got it.

 

Also, are you claiming that because other people enter parks after hours, it's therefore OK for geocachers to do it, too?

 

I think I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...