Jump to content

cachers not following page guidelines


KBLAST
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

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?

 

My favorite: "•No person shall molest, harm, frighten, kill, trap, hunt, chase, capture, shoot, or throw missiles at any mammal, bird, reptile, butterfly, moth, spider or amphibian"

Link to comment

I very rarely read cache descriptions prior to searching for traditional caches. Depending on the park, the lighting, and my specific route to a cache, I may not see any sign that gives the hours that the park is open. Therefore, I might go find a cache after the park is closed. An online log which accurately describes such a find should not be deleted.

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.

You'd think so. Sometimes people make too much of little things in this forum. But on the other hand, there are at least some cases where caching has been banned in parks over something that was written in the logs. And yes, often it is the park managers and local politicians who look silly banning something over a minor incident which may or may not be true. It is perfectly understandable to those who have be around long enough to see it, to want to let newbies know not to go posting logs about how you broke laws or park regulations in order to get a FTF.

 

BTW, you can make up anything you want and put in in your logs, but once you go beyond honestly describing your experience, the cache owner is free to delete your log for being bogus or off-topic. A little over a year ago, Grounspeak published guidelines for the logging of physical caches to indicate that what had been refered to as additional logging requirements should no longer be enforced. A cacher could post a find online once they signed the physical log in the cache without having to do anything else the cache owner required for a find on the cache page. Some people have interpreted this as meaning that if you sign the physical log in the cache, cache owners could no longer delete your online find log. This is not what the guidelines say, so I believe a cache owner could delete a log for mentioning that the park was visited off hours.

Link to comment

cache owners may still have the ability to delete logs

 

According to the guidelines;

 

"The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings."

 

Now that is clear and unambiguous.

The use of the word "all" is clear and unambiguous, there is no way around that word "all".

 

They go further and state explicitly that "The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page".

 

When Groundspeak ignores the word "all" and arbitrarily tells cache owners what can and cannot be done with the "posts to the cache page" after the cache is listed they are ignoring their own agreement and effectviely maintaining day to day control of the cache listing. If the cache owner is the responsible party then Groundspeak isn't, if Groundspeak is the responsible party, and they clearly control the cache listing and the logs on the listing when they find it convenient to do so, then stating the owner of the cache is responsible is just a dodge. The agreement isn't worth spit. The word "all" is just window dressing, it really means nothing.

 

When liability and ownership issues arise, and they will, then it will matter.

 

This is all very very positive for cache placers because Groundspeak has positioned themselves as the entity that controls the cache listing on a day to day basis and they assume complete responsibility whenever it is convenient for them so they really are the effective owner of every listing.

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

 

Around here, it's the gang bangers, dope heads and taggers that enter parks after hours. The idea that I can break the rules because they do, is absurd.

Link to comment
Some people have interpreted this as meaning that if you sign the physical log in the cache, cache owners could no longer delete your online find log. This is not what the guidelines say, so I believe a cache owner could delete a log for mentioning that the park was visited off hours.

We've seen that, when a cache find gets deleted unfairly, Groundspeak has been willing to restore the log. In these circumstances, when the owner deletes it again, Groundspeak has gone one step farther, restoring the log, then locking it so it can't be deleted. I think the key word there is, "unfairly". I think, if a cache owner made it clear that the seeker was welcome to repost their find, (sans the offending rule breaking language), Groundspeak would side with the owner. However, I also believe, if the owner was obstinate, and refused to allow any find log from an admitted rule breaker, even without the offending language, Groundspeak might side with the seeker.

 

Since my avatar is not one of the many on the 2010 Lackey coin, all I can do is speculate though. :laughing:

Link to comment

I believe a cache owner could delete a log for mentioning that the park was visited off hours.

 

I agree Marty.

And I also think Groundspeak would support any reasonable deletion by any cache placer. The guidelines don't mention log deletion for negatively impacting other searchers. and that will get your log deleted on my cache. (oops, I mean the caches that Groundspeak actually owns but tries to tell people that I own) :laughing:

Link to comment

We've seen that, when a cache find gets deleted unfairly, Groundspeak has been willing to restore the log.

 

Let me modify that a little.

 

Groundspeak has been willing to ignore the listing agreement that says the cache placer must assume "all" responsibility for the cache listing and whenever it is convenient they will take complete control of the cache listing and restore the log against the specific wishes of the cache placer. They will also lock the cache listing preventing the person who placed the cache from making any further modifications.

 

Whose cache is it? :laughing:

 

The listing agreement isn't worth spit.

Link to comment

cache owners may still have the ability to delete logs

 

According to the guidelines;

 

"The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings."

 

Now that is clear and unambiguous.

The use of the word "all" is clear and unambiguous, there is no way around that word "all".

 

They go further and state explicitly that "The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page".

 

When Groundspeak ignores the word "all" and arbitrarily tells cache owners what can and cannot be done with the "posts to the cache page" after the cache is listed they are ignoring their own agreement and effectviely maintaining day to day control of the cache listing. If the cache owner is the responsible party then Groundspeak isn't, if Groundspeak is the responsible party, and they clearly control the cache listing and the logs on the listing when they find it convenient to do so, then stating the owner of the cache is responsible is just a dodge. The agreement isn't worth spit. The word "all" is just window dressing, it really means nothing.

 

When liability and ownership issues arise, and they will, then it will matter.

 

This is all very very positive for cache placers because Groundspeak has positioned themselves as the entity that controls the cache listing on a day to day basis and they assume complete responsibility whenever it is convenient for them so they really are the effective owner of every listing.

I still have to disagree with this analysis. It confuses cache ownership with Groundspeak's right to determine (1) what can be listed on their website and (2) how the online found log can be used. Certainly when they made the change in the guidelines to tell cache onwers to cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements, there were many who complained that they were overstepping their bounds and interfering with the cache owner's rights to control their cache's listing. But at nearly the same time they also announced that they would not longer support forced adoption. Only a cache owner can initiate a transfer of cache ownership. It is clear that Grounspeak considers cache owners responsible for their physical caches. It aslo clear that as a condition of having a cache listed on Geocaching.com, cache owners accept the responsibility to maintain the cache listing including quality control of posts to cache page. The definition of quality control however is not left entirely to the cache owner. Grounspeak does not surrender any rights it has to enforce its terms of use for the website. The cache owner cannot start using the cache page as advertisment or to promote an agenda. They can't decided to leave logs that do the same or that use inappropriate language. Cache owners have a responsibility to delete logs that appear bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not within the stated requirements. Groundspeak also does not want cache owners deleting legitimate logs of other cachers just because their is some tiff going on between them. They have intervened to restore deleted logs in such cases and if the cache owner continues to delete logs that are legitimate they have achived caches and locked the page.

 

I am not a lawyer. I am certainly not a Canadian lawyer. So I don't know if your argument would stand up in a court. I doubt very much though that Groundspeak setting some limitation on what can or cannot go on the Geocaching.com website would have much impact in determining liability should someone be injured while searching for a cache. I suspect that their argument that they are just a listing site would be just as valid were they to take away the capability of cache owners to delete logs altogether as it would be if they take the position that "all responsibility" means they have no control over what appears on the listing as that is the responsibility of the cache owner.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

...they take the position that "all responsibility" means they have no control over what appears on the listing as that is the responsibility of the cache owner.

 

And that is the position they specify in the listing guidelines.

 

They don't act like that though.

 

Whenever it is convenient they take control over any cache listing and assert the right to specify what content may and may not be added or deleted and they do this regardless of the wishes of the cache placer. This control is extensive, even after the cache placer has met the guidelines for listing Groundspeak continues to retain and assert control over every ongoing aspect of the cache listing on a day to day basis. The cache placer has no control at all, Groundspeak does.

 

Everything that is on the cache page is determined by Groundspeak and the content is altered by Groundspeak when they so choose; they can alter, add, delete, change and do any other thing they wish with the listing, they retain every right and and maintain day to day control over every aspect of every cache, that is also called "ownership".

 

I can truthfully say to any lawyer that I have no control over the cache page at all, Groundpeak can and does assert complete control.

 

I am not a lawyer either and I don't have much money but it is really clear to me that if I delete a log then Groundspeak replaces the log that they are responsible for the content of the listing, I cannot be held responsible for something over which I have no control. This should be clear to everyone, not just me. :laughing:

 

It is a very positive thing that Groundspeak has done for cache placers. They have absolved every placer of any responsibility of the listing by asserting day to day control and ownership of every cache listing. We are not playing shinny here either, a cache is an invitation, it isn't recreation. The risks are hardly apparent to the average person. When they find a listing it is on the geocaching.com website, the listing and the content of the logs are controlled by Groundspeak on a on a day to day basis and the cache placer can truthfulluy say that they have no control over the cache page once it is listed on geocaching.com. The evidence that this really is the case is easy to find, regardless of the fact that the agreement says I am responsible, I am clearly not.

 

It won't matter until it matters. At that point in time "ownership" will be legally decided. Groundspeak will be the entity legally responsible for every cache listing because they assert day to day control over the listing and the content. Nothing could be clearer in my opinion.

Link to comment

...they take the position that "all responsibility" means they have no control over what appears on the listing as that is the responsibility of the cache owner.

 

And that is the position they specify in the listing guidelines.

 

They don't act like that though.

 

Whenever it is convenient they take control over any cache listing and assert the right to specify what content may and may not be added or deleted and they do this regardless of the wishes of the cache placer. This control is extensive, even after the cache placer has met the guidelines for listing Groundspeak continues to retain and assert control over every ongoing aspect of the cache listing on a day to day basis. The cache placer has no control at all, Groundspeak does.

 

Everything that is on the cache page is determined by Groundspeak and the content is altered by Groundspeak when they so choose; they can alter, add, delete, change and do any other thing they wish with the listing, they retain every right and and maintain day to day control over every aspect of every cache, that is also called "ownership".

 

I can truthfully say to any lawyer that I have no control over the cache page at all, Groundpeak can and does assert complete control.

 

I am not a lawyer either and I don't have much money but it is really clear to me that if I delete a log then Groundspeak replaces the log that they are responsible for the content of the listing, I cannot be held responsible for something over which I have no control. This should be clear to everyone, not just me. :laughing:

 

It is a very positive thing that Groundspeak has done for cache placers. They have absolved every placer of any responsibility of the listing by asserting day to day control and ownership of every cache listing. We are not playing shinny here either, a cache is an invitation, it isn't recreation. The risks are hardly apparent to the average person. When they find a listing it is on the geocaching.com website, the listing and the content of the logs are controlled by Groundspeak on a on a day to day basis and the cache placer can truthfulluy say that they have no control over the cache page once it is listed on geocaching.com. The evidence that this really is the case is easy to find, regardless of the fact that the agreement says I am responsible, I am clearly not.

 

It won't matter until it matters. At that point in time "ownership" will be legally decided. Groundspeak will be the entity legally responsible for every cache listing because they assert day to day control over the listing and the content. Nothing could be clearer in my opinion.

Since this seems to a seperate topic to whether a log can be delete if someone looks for a cache when a park is closed, I've taken the liberty to reply here

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! :laughing:

 

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.

That's a CHALLENGE CACHE. It's the lone exception to the ALR rule, and is listed as such in the Guidelines. Outside of challenge caches, signing the log is all that's required to be able to consider a cache Found. Any existing rules, outside of a challenge cache, are now voided, as they were not grandfathered in when the ALR rule change was put into effect.

Link to comment

 

I am not a lawyer. I am certainly not a Canadian lawyer. So I don't know if your argument would stand up in a court. I doubt very much though that Groundspeak setting some limitation on what can or cannot go on the Geocaching.com website would have much impact in determining liability should someone be injured while searching for a cache.

 

I have found dozens of web sites that direct me to the various edges of the Grand Canyon. If I get too close, lose my balance and tumble 5000' feet into the Colorado River, is the the web page owner responsible?

 

Face it, at some point people need to take personal responsibility for their own actions. If I see a sign that says "Park closed 10:30 PM to 5:30 AM", (applies to most LA City parks). I don't enter. Plain and simple. If I did enter and were arrested, I certainly wouldn't try to pass it off as Groundspeak's problem. If I saw a new listing after 10:30 PM and it was obviously in a city park, I'd save it for tomorrow.

 

BTW, I have 242 FTFs. I can honestly say that I have intentionally left the house to find three of them. I found two and was beat out on the third by a cacher friend that lives much closer to GZ.

 

My FTF policy is real simple. It can be fun, but if I've taken my boots off, I'm parked for the night.

Edited by Don_J
Link to comment

... I'm actually mostly concerned about a cache I'm posting in the next week. It will be the first Wherigo in central Ohio if it all works out.

Very cool! I haven't had a chance to go for a Wherigo cache yet, simply because there haven't been any hidden anywhere near this area. If at all possible, I'll be one of the first to try out your cache once it gets published. And I'm notorious for following the rules, so no worries about my skulking around people's back yards with a flashlight. Now if we can get certain not-to-be-named FTF hounds to pay attention... :)

 

--Larry

 

Yea, don't even start to think that it was Jay and I. I already knew that you were thinking that! I obey the rules Larry!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Link to comment

 

I knew a guy that lost his job after 12 years all because he was caching on company time in the company car.

 

Scubasonic

 

I carefully maneuvered my 32' bobtail donation truck into a small cul-de-sac that had an island in the middle with an oak tree. It was so tight that I couldn't even open my door, so I sent my helper out to grab the donor's two bags of clothes. I knew that there was a cache in the oak, but was still surprised to see it hanging one foot outside of my window. Reached out the window, grabbed it, signed the log and returned it all from the seat of the truck.

 

I guess I could have been fired for caching on company time. :)

 

This was a little more extrememthen that.

 

SS

Link to comment

I would probably not hesitate to delete a Log Entry of this nature based on the following lines of the TOU:

 

(i) Violate any applicable local, state, national or international law.

 

If a person knowingly or unkowingly violated a Park Rule/Regulation of this nature, I think they got what's coming to them.

 

In my mind, very similar to posting a Log with obscene language in it. It's a goner IMO.

 

Just my 0.02 :)

Link to comment

I have entered a park after hours to grab an FTF on many occasions. All of them are valid logs because it is NOT up to GS or a CO to decide when or where I break a law. I will enter a closed park again.

Your actions endager the continued existence of all geocaching activity (day or night) in those parks and the whole city.

Link to comment

I have entered a park after hours to grab an FTF on many occasions. All of them are valid logs because it is NOT up to GS or a CO to decide when or where I break a law. I will enter a closed park again.

 

How pathetically sad... To gloat about breaking laws and endanger our game so you can have some nonsensical fake award? Wow. Or should I say lol? Either way...

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.

 

14,000 acres in the McDowell Preserve in Scottsdale are now off-limits to geocaching, ostensibly because a Geocacher entered the area while ignoring a fire-closure. He even stated he saw the sign in his log!

 

I'm sure he didn't think it was going to be a big deal...

Link to comment

I have entered a park after hours to grab an FTF on many occasions. All of them are valid logs because it is NOT up to GS or a CO to decide when or where I break a law. I will enter a closed park again.

 

You are the reason that FTF hounds are despised. Why must you make the rest look bad?

Well said.

Link to comment

I have entered a park after hours to grab an FTF on many occasions. All of them are valid logs because it is NOT up to GS or a CO to decide when or where I break a law. I will enter a closed park again.

 

You're giving Geocachers a bad name and I hope you get arrested. But whatever you chose to do, it IS up to the CO and GS whether or not to allow your log. They own the listing site and the cache container. So if either of them decides it's not a valid log, it isn't one.

Link to comment

I have entered a park after hours to grab an FTF on many occasions. All of them are valid logs because it is NOT up to GS or a CO to decide when or where I break a law. I will enter a closed park again.

It is your problem if you are cited or arrested, not my problem.

If I know there are restrictions in place at the cache location I'll post them, then finder beware.

Link to comment

I have entered a park after hours to grab an FTF on many occasions. All of them are valid logs because it is NOT up to GS or a CO to decide when or where I break a law. I will enter a closed park again.

 

You're giving Geocachers a bad name and I hope you get arrested. But whatever you chose to do, it IS up to the CO and GS whether or not to allow your log. They own the listing site and the cache container. So if either of them decides it's not a valid log, it isn't one.

 

He is openly breaking public law, but then expects cachers not to break any log deletion criteria rules. Seems to be a little hypocritical.

 

Suppose nobody followed any kind of silly laws, rules, or guidelines and followed him around, and removed all of his signatures on his recent finds. Next, e-mailed all of the cache owners that a fake cacher was armchairing all of his smileys and that his logs should be deleted..

 

Rules? Who needs them? :ph34r:

 

 

Actually, this only signifies the need for a new process. A button should be added to each find log saying "Report". If they recieve 3 or more complaints about a log bragging about breaking laws or guidelines on a FTF chase, then their "Publish" log notifications should be revoked..:wub:

Link to comment

Actually, this only signifies the need for a new process. A button should be added to each find log saying "Report". If they recieve 3 or more complaints about a log bragging about breaking laws or guidelines on a FTF chase, then their "Publish" log notifications should be revoked..:ph34r:

 

Ooh...me like!

Link to comment
Actually, this only signifies the need for a new process. A button should be added to each find log saying "Report". If they recieve 3 or more complaints about a log bragging about breaking laws or guidelines on a FTF chase, then their "Publish" log notifications should be revoked..:ph34r:

I'm sure that won't be abused at all.

Link to comment

I have entered a park after hours to grab an FTF on many occasions. All of them are valid logs because it is NOT up to GS or a CO to decide when or where I break a law. I will enter a closed park again.

 

Unbelievable!! Usually I believe in the sanctity of a signed log. In a case where someone breaks the rules of a park and then they are stupid enough to write that in their log then I think the CO should have the right to delete that log.

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...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...