FTF Storm Brewing

June 12, 2011

Climb over the fence in the middle of winter to get your own cache in attempts to discourage people from doing what you yourself just did?

That is what you will post in your log.

June 12, 2011

Climb over the fence in the middle of winter to get your own cache in attempts to discourage people from doing what you yourself just did?

That is what you will post in your log.

I love the cold and snow, so although tempting as it sounds, I think I would just delete the unworthy FTF log.

19k · June 12, 2011

Sweeping judgments have been made by park managers in my area based on one single cache that caused any geocaching in that entire city to be banned.

So you are telling me that there is no permissions allowed for caches in your city? could you clarify and perhaps give a coroborating example?

A park manager for the city of Eden Prairie, MN found a cache that had been attached to a tree by a nail. That single incident caused the city to put a 100% ban on geocaching in its parks for (can somebody provide details?) at least a year... I'm thinking it was more like two years. Eventually they did come up with a rather stringent policy requiring registration, have still banned several parks, in other parks allow caches no more than 25 feet off the trail. http://www.edenprairie.org/vCurrent/live/article.asp?r=5084

June 12, 2011

I love the cold and snow, so although tempting as it sounds, I think I would just delete the unworthy FTF log.

Not that this subject hasn't been discussed at length, but you can't delete that log since they signed the logbook. There is also the fact of "removing" FTF status. That also can't be done since it isn't given by anyone. You either found it first or didn't, there is no switching that.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Flintstone5611

June 12, 2011

Eventually they did come up with a rather stringent policy requiring registration, have still banned several parks, in other parks allow caches no more than 25 feet off the trail. http://www.edenprairie.org/vCurrent/live/article.asp?r=5084

As the propery managers they have this absolute right to do. The fact that they allow it means that they are pretty reasonable and lets us enjoy their property for our game. I am failing to see a problem.

June 12, 2011

Not that this subject hasn't been discussed at length, but you can't delete that log since they signed the logbook. There is also the fact of "removing" FTF status. That also can't be done since it isn't given by anyone. You either found it first or didn't, there is no switching that.

I'm pretty sure I saw a "delete post" button on the cache page. But for the physical logbook itself....well, I guess you'd have to go out there and remove that page/entry.

With FTF not being an official statistic anyhow, you are right. You can't remove something if it isn't there to start with. I could say I have 2 FTFs or I could say I have 2000 FTFs, but it wouldn't matter because it's unofficial.

But if it was official, then there would probably be measures in place so that it could not be abused(as in the case of entering an area that is closed after hours).

June 12, 2011

[i'm pretty sure I saw a "delete post" button on the cache page. But for the physical logbook itself....well, I guess you'd have to go out there and remove that page/entry.

Actually you gotta be a little more cautious with how you use that. People have been banned for wrongly deleting logs based on principles that don't coincide with the TPTB.

8k · June 12, 2011

Not that this subject hasn't been discussed at length, but you can't delete that log since they signed the logbook. There is also the fact of "removing" FTF status. That also can't be done since it isn't given by anyone. You either found it first or didn't, there is no switching that.

Cache owners can delete logs for being bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. While there is no official definition of inappropriate, it seems likely that Groundspeak would back up a cache owner who feels that logs that encourage illegal activity or the disregard of park rules are inappropriate. IMO, the log could be deleted and then relogged without the inappropriate content.

Cache owners who chose to put a note on their page congratulating the First To Find are free to have "additional requirements" for whom they list. Cache owners can chose not to list anyone or to "award" the FTF to the first person who found the cache legally. (That doesn't stop others from saying that the "real" FTF was the person so signed the log first).

Edited June 12, 2011 by tozainamboku

June 12, 2011

[i'm pretty sure I saw a "delete post" button on the cache page. But for the physical logbook itself....well, I guess you'd have to go out there and remove that page/entry.

Actually you gotta be a little more cautious with how you use that. People have been banned for wrongly deleting logs based on principles that don't coincide with the TPTB.

What does Toilet Papered Tea Bags have to do with this?

June 12, 2011

What does Toilet Papered Tea Bags have to do with this?

Absolutely everything! Haven't you been reading the forums! :lol: :lol: :lol:

19k · June 12, 2011

Eventually they did come up with a rather stringent policy requiring registration, have still banned several parks, in other parks allow caches no more than 25 feet off the trail. http://www.edenprair...icle.asp?r=5084

As the propery managers they have this absolute right to do. The fact that they allow it means that they are pretty reasonable and lets us enjoy their property for our game. I am failing to see a problem.

Of course they were in the right to do so. When did I say they weren't? And for a year or two, they did not lets us enjoy their property for our game. We didn't know at the time that they would eventually let caches be hidden there again. It looked like they wouldn't, but our local geocaching organization worked with them to get the policy instated. Because of one incident. All it takes is one incident to ruin it for all. One nail in a tree or one cacher going in after hours.

June 12, 2011

So I guess I did something wrong?

slukster's log - Walk Through Water!

(be sure to view all three pics and the CO's response)

Edited June 12, 2011 by slukster

June 12, 2011

So I guess I did something wrong?

slukster's log - Walk Through Water!

(be sure to view all three pics and the CO's response)

Congrats to Jam Clam on the FTF!

6.7k · June 12, 2011

...My position is that this could be called trespassing, and at the least is giving geocaching a black eye and could easily result in parks now open to caching not allowing them in the future.

New form for posting in the forums:

Geocaching has a

( ) black eye

( ) broken leg

( ) bloody nose

( ) upset stomach

( ) headache

( ) hemorrhoids

from

( ) caches reported to the bomb squad

( ) FTF'ers looking when the park is closed

( ) cachers stopping on the highway

( ) cachers bushwhacking and creating geotrails

( ) dangerous caches

( ) religious tracts in caches

( ) too many micros

6.1k · June 12, 2011

So if someone walked a dog after hours in a park it would be a good argument to disallow dog walking?

If kids were playing in the park after hours they should disallow kids playing in the park?

If the grass grew after hours they should disallow growing grass?

Yeah, after hours geocaching is going to make them disallow geocaching in the park. Makes complete sense,

Phrased differently, if there is something in the park, that they did not put in, and which is attracting people after hours, then they will have it removed and ask that no more be put in there.

So if the parks and other areas are used by joggers, bikers, pet walkers and kids using it as a shortcut all hours day and night regardless of posted times, why should the geocacher be any different. If there are homeless camps that the police and the park management know about and do nothing, then that place is open 24/7 for the tax payers. People have been going into parks and other areas long before any of us were born. This game is not going to change the world or those that are going to go where they want when they want. So until the rules apply to everyone the apply to no one.

Every park is different. If there is a homeless camp in the park, then it probably would not matter, until someone sees that its routine to go into that particular park after hours, and applies the same logic to another park 50 miles away which has a gate, signage, and people who clean it up daily. It's also very unlikely that someone would go into a park after hours that has a homeless camp anyhow.

Edited June 12, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

June 12, 2011

So I guess I did something wrong?

slukster's log - Walk Through Water!

(be sure to view all three pics and the CO's response)

feel free to bump this

6.1k · June 12, 2011

So I guess I did something wrong?

slukster's log - Walk Through Water!

(be sure to view all three pics and the CO's response)

You left out

August 7, 2008 by slukster (380 found)

Please no one try to enter this park after closing time. I was joking about hopping over the gate. I actually have an inside connection at the building the park is in so that is how I was able to gain access to the park at 2am. The building security guards will grab you if you try entering after closing and they will not hesitate to put you in cuffs, no matter how nicely you try to explain geocaching to them. :-)

[This entry was edited by slukster on Friday, August 08, 2008 at 2:07:50 PM.]

[This entry was edited by slukster on Monday, August 11, 2008 at 12:37:34 PM.]

1.7k · June 12, 2011

So I guess I did something wrong?

slukster's log - Walk Through Water!

(be sure to view all three pics and the CO's response)

You left out

August 7, 2008 by slukster (380 found)

Please no one try to enter this park after closing time. I was joking about hopping over the gate. I actually have an inside connection at the building the park is in so that is how I was able to gain access to the park at 2am. The building security guards will grab you if you try entering after closing and they will not hesitate to put you in cuffs, no matter how nicely you try to explain geocaching to them. :-)

[This entry was edited by slukster on Friday, August 08, 2008 at 2:07:50 PM.]

[This entry was edited by slukster on Monday, August 11, 2008 at 12:37:34 PM.]

Errm, he told you to read the responses, and that is a response... So...

6.1k · June 12, 2011

So I guess I did something wrong?

slukster's log - Walk Through Water!

(be sure to view all three pics and the CO's response)

You left out

August 7, 2008 by slukster (380 found)

Please no one try to enter this park after closing time. I was joking about hopping over the gate. I actually have an inside connection at the building the park is in so that is how I was able to gain access to the park at 2am. The building security guards will grab you if you try entering after closing and they will not hesitate to put you in cuffs, no matter how nicely you try to explain geocaching to them. :-)

[This entry was edited by slukster on Friday, August 08, 2008 at 2:07:50 PM.]

[This entry was edited by slukster on Monday, August 11, 2008 at 12:37:34 PM.]

Errm, he told you to read the responses, and that is a response... So...

He said the CO's response. Not everyone did read his response.

So I guess I did something wrong?

slukster's log - Walk Through Water!

(be sure to view all three pics and the CO's response)

Congrats to Jam Clam on the FTF!

2.2k · June 13, 2011

I wonder what the park manager's reaction would be if he/she noticed we were deleting logs and trying to force this sort of behavior "underground".

If I caught wind that someone tried to hide bad behavior from me it would make me wonder how many times it happens where I don't find out about it and assume the worst.

June 13, 2011

[i'm pretty sure I saw a "delete post" button on the cache page. But for the physical logbook itself....well, I guess you'd have to go out there and remove that page/entry.

Actually you gotta be a little more cautious with how you use that. People have been banned for wrongly deleting logs based on principles that don't coincide with the TPTB.

I think if the finder broke the law that Groundspeak would back you up if you deleted the log WITH an invitation to re-log without the illegal activity mentioned.

8k · June 13, 2011

...My position is that this could be called trespassing, and at the least is giving geocaching a black eye and could easily result in parks now open to caching not allowing them in the future.

New form for posting in the forums:

Geocaching has a

( ) black eye

( ) broken leg

( ) bloody nose

( ) upset stomach

( ) headache

( ) hemorrhoids

from

( ) caches reported to the bomb squad

( ) FTF'ers looking when the park is closed

( ) cachers stopping on the highway

( ) cachers bushwhacking and creating geotrails

( ) dangerous caches

( ) religious tracts in caches

( ) too many micros

That was a premium members only post. It's not really a response to the OP. It was a comment on the use of black eye in so many recent threads and thus posted in the off-topic forum since no one had started a thread on whether a black eye is a good analogy (unless you put ice cream on your black eye it is not). Take "is giving geocaching a black eye" from the OP and you still have to respond to whether or not park managers would use the evidence that a geocacher ignored park rules in determining whether to allow geocaching in their park or not.

June 13, 2011

I wonder what the park manager's reaction would be if he/she noticed we were deleting logs and trying to force this sort of behavior "underground".

If I caught wind that someone tried to hide bad behavior from me it would make me wonder how many times it happens where I don't find out about it and assume the worst.

Who's trying to force this underground? There is a thread about it. And if I were the one deleting the log, I would make sure the finder knew exactly why the log was deleted. That's not exactly the cover up you seem to be inferring.

15.3k · June 13, 2011

Not that this subject hasn't been discussed at length, but you can't delete that log since they signed the logbook.

FWIW, according to the Geocaching.com Site Terms of Use Agreement, "You agree not to: [...] (i) Violate any applicable local, state, national or international law."

Somehow, I think Groundspeak might back a CO who deleted a log that boasted of a TOU violation.

Edited June 13, 2011 by niraD

June 13, 2011

FWIW, according to the Geocaching.com Site Terms of Use Agreement, "You agree not to: [...] (i) Violate any applicable local, state, national or international law."

Somehow, I think Groundspeak might back a CO who deleted a log that boasted of a TOU violation.

All that states is that you are responsible for it. It still doesn't say that you can delete their log.

These are the guidelines for log deletion: Log Deletion Guidelins and it says that they may do it for a violation of the TOU, but they can do whatever they please with their own website. It would probably mean a rewording of the log, not a permanent deletion, sorry.

June 13, 2011

FWIW, according to the Geocaching.com Site Terms of Use Agreement, "You agree not to: [...] (i) Violate any applicable local, state, national or international law."

Somehow, I think Groundspeak might back a CO who deleted a log that boasted of a TOU violation.

All that states is that you are responsible for it. It still doesn't say that you can delete their log.

These are the guidelines for log deletion: Log Deletion Guidelins and it says that they may do it for a violation of the TOU, but they can do whatever they please with their own website. It would probably mean a rewording of the log, not a permanent deletion, sorry.

My next cache will be in a spot where it's closed/gated in the evening and we can see if anyone goes for it if it gets published at night. I know what I'll do if that happens.

June 13, 2011

My next cache will be in a spot where it's closed/gated in the evening and we can see if anyone goes for it if it gets published at night. I know what I'll do if that happens.

When you delete my log and steal my FTF away, I will cry like a little toddler that got its toy taken away! :lol:

19k · June 13, 2011

FWIW, according to the Geocaching.com Site Terms of Use Agreement, "You agree not to: [...] (i) Violate any applicable local, state, national or international law."

Somehow, I think Groundspeak might back a CO who deleted a log that boasted of a TOU violation.

All that states is that you are responsible for it. It still doesn't say that you can delete their log.

These are the guidelines for log deletion: Log Deletion Guidelins and it says that they may do it for a violation of the TOU, but they can do whatever they please with their own website. It would probably mean a rewording of the log, not a permanent deletion, sorry.

What part of "Somehow, I think" was too hard to read? He voiced an opinion.

June 13, 2011

What part of "Somehow, I think" was too hard to read? He voiced an opinion.

Oh yeah, you must be new around here. That is kind of how things go, try to keep up.

19k · June 13, 2011

What part of "Somehow, I think" was too hard to read? He voiced an opinion.

Oh yeah, you must be new around here. That is kind of how things go, try to keep up.

Yes, I am. I will try. Thanks for helping this forum noob out.

Edited June 13, 2011 by knowschad

June 13, 2011

Debating everything anybody says around here is not my idea of how it should go around here. Your opinion seems to be diametrically opposed to mine.

+1

6.1k · June 13, 2011

I agree with Flintstone5611. If laws were broken, I believe there is a good chance that Groundspeak will back the log deletion.

19k · June 13, 2011

I agree with Flintstone5611. If laws were broken, I believe there is a good chance that Groundspeak will back the log deletion.

Flintstone5611 said that? :unsure: Guess I'd better go back and re-read, 'cause everything I've seen from Flintstone5611 so far seems to be taking the viewpoint that it really doesn't matter if someone breaks a little rule or two now and then.

June 13, 2011

Flintstone5611 said that? Guess I'd better go back and re-read, 'cause everything I've seen from Flintstone5611 so far seems to be taking the viewpoint that it really doesn't matter if someone breaks a little rule or two now and then.

Sigh.

Actually you gotta be a little more cautious with how you use that. People have been banned for wrongly deleting logs based on principles that don't coincide with the TPTB.

Is really where people started disagreeing.

19k · June 13, 2011

The topic here was not about log deletion. The OP was asking if the zeal for FTF was causing cachers to break rules that could cause problems for geocaching. I really think we need to get back on track here. My thinking about this is that yes, I can see how it can, but that the FTF race really has not caused any issues in my area that I am aware of. In fact, those here in my area that care about FTF are very considerate about it.

June 13, 2011

Yup and then people started offering suggestions about how they would delete the logs and such.

I haven't noticed a real problem in our area with this, but our regulations don't seem as strict as some of those in certain states. For many the trend is that it is too shameful to announce that they would disregard the hours of operation for a Klondike bar *ahem* an FTF.

8k · June 13, 2011

Actually you gotta be a little more cautious with how you use that. People have been banned for wrongly deleting logs based on principles that don't coincide with the TPTB.

Is really where people started disagreeing.

I think so. While TPTB have certainly had to step in when someone was arbitrarily deleting online found logs, you make it sound like the suggestion of deleting a a log because someone says they were in the park after hours to get the FTF would not "coincide with the TPTB" principles. In fact based on the published guidelines and the Terms of Use, it is probably well within the principles of TPTB to delete a log that states a park rule was knowingly violated. I would contend that even if the rule was not knowingly disregarded, you could make a a case that a FTF saying they found the cache at night is encouraging others to ignore the rules and thus subject to deletion.

TPTB are very reluctant to ban anyone. The cases where a cache owner was banned for deleting logs are ones where they deleted logs repeatedly after being told to allow legitimate logs to stay. In recent years TPTB added the ALR logging guideline to eliminate the most egregious cases of arbitrary log deletion and strengthen their position when dealing with capricious cache owners. TPTB adopted a phrasing that once a physical log is signed you could log the find online. IMO, this choice of words has led to the incorrect assumption that a cache owner cannot delete a log if the physical log is signed. The more recent clarification in the knowledge books indicate that there are a number of reasons a log may be deleted. It is true that if a log is deleted, a finder can always try to relog the cache with a log that is not objectionable.

Telling people they can not delete these logs, when in fact they can is wrong.

June 13, 2011

[i'm pretty sure I saw a "delete post" button on the cache page. But for the physical logbook itself....well, I guess you'd have to go out there and remove that page/entry.

Actually you gotta be a little more cautious with how you use that. People have been banned for wrongly deleting logs based on principles that don't coincide with the TPTB.

Which "people" are you talking about?

June 13, 2011

Which "people" are you talking about?

I don't know. I just wanted to say something dramatic as opposed to spewing copied text and acting like a lawyer.

June 13, 2011

Which "people" are you talking about?

I don't know. I just wanted to say something dramatic as opposed to spewing copied text and acting like a lawyer.

Ah, but I do know who you are referring to now.

2.2k · June 13, 2011

Who's trying to force this underground? There is a thread about it. And if I were the one deleting the log, I would make sure the finder knew exactly why the log was deleted. That's not exactly the cover up you seem to be inferring.

If we're not trying to force this "underground" then why even have a discussion about deleting the log? After all, the land managers could very well read the forums too.

This is the "cover up" I am refering to:

If a park manager (and not just one managing that particular park) read the log, they may very well form an unfavorable opinion about caching.

Delete the log before that happens. Invite the finder to repost without mentioning the illegal activity. There is still time to keep geocaching from getting a black eye.

If I were a land manager I could very well interpet that to mean "Cachers do illegal things and then try to cover their tracks about it. I wonder how many times this has happened and the logs have been edited to hide the activity. This sounds like something that I need to stop."

If I see one in fifty logs mentioning being in the park after hours I know how often it happens. If I see one in fifty logs mentioning being in the park after hours and then see that log "disappear", I'm going to question the validity of the other 49 logs too now.

Don't get me wrong -- I have never knowingly violated local laws to find a cache and I certainly would never encourage anyone to do so. I just like taking on an opposing role to make sure I think over both sides of an issue before I jump on the "delete the log" bandwagon.

June 13, 2011

Who's trying to force this underground? There is a thread about it. And if I were the one deleting the log, I would make sure the finder knew exactly why the log was deleted. That's not exactly the cover up you seem to be inferring.

If we're not trying to force this "underground" then why even have a discussion about deleting the log? After all, the land managers could very well read the forums too.

This is the "cover up" I am refering to:

If a park manager (and not just one managing that particular park) read the log, they may very well form an unfavorable opinion about caching.

Delete the log before that happens. Invite the finder to repost without mentioning the illegal activity. There is still time to keep geocaching from getting a black eye.

If I were a land manager I could very well interpet that to mean "Cachers do illegal things and then try to cover their tracks about it. I wonder how many times this has happened and the logs have been edited to hide the activity. This sounds like something that I need to stop."

If I see one in fifty logs mentioning being in the park after hours I know how often it happens. If I see one in fifty logs mentioning being in the park after hours and then see that log "disappear", I'm going to question the validity of the other 49 logs too now.

Don't get me wrong -- I have never knowingly violated local laws to find a cache and I certainly would never encourage anyone to do so. I just like taking on an opposing role to make sure I think over both sides of an issue before I jump on the "delete the log" bandwagon.

Still don't see the "cover up" since it is still being discussed here. And I would not recommend deleting a log without specifying why it is being deleted, so it's not like it's being swept under the rug either.

But since you are essentially playing devil's advocate, then I will say yes, anyone can interpret anything in any manner at any given time. So yes, there is an off chance that the park manager might see the deletion and go bonkers. But again, I highly doubt the park manager was watching the page prior to FTF, but knowschad says he might so I guess it is possible.

I still say the co should have deleted the log. However, the longer it is on the page the more correct your assertion becomes. I'm pretty sure lots of people have read it by now so probably not a good idea to delete at this point.

9.3k · June 13, 2011

So yes, there is an off chance that the park manager might see the deletion and go bonkers.

Assuming, for a moment, a scenario where a park manager watchlists all the caches in their area of control, (I know two land managers who do this), I can't imagine that they'd go bonkers. Rather, I suspect they'd see the log bragging about the illegal activity, then they'd see the log being deleted due to illegal activity and see first hand that some cache owners are conscientious enough to enforce consequences for bad behavior. By the time someone is far enough along in their life that they've reached a management position, they should at least be mature enough to recognize that there is no 100% effective way to prevent bad behavior. Knowing this, they should appreciate those cache owners who draw the proverbial line in the sand, punishing the violators by deleting their logs.

6.7k · June 13, 2011

So yes, there is an off chance that the park manager might see the deletion and go bonkers.

Assuming, for a moment, a scenario where a park manager watchlists all the caches in their area of control, (I know two land managers who do this), I can't imagine that they'd go bonkers. Rather, I suspect they'd see the log bragging about the illegal activity, then they'd see the log being deleted due to illegal activity and see first hand that some cache owners are conscientious enough to enforce consequences for bad behavior. By the time someone is far enough along in their life that they've reached a management position, they should at least be mature enough to recognize that there is no 100% effective way to prevent bad behavior. Knowing this, they should appreciate those cache owners who draw the proverbial line in the sand, punishing the violators by deleting their logs.

Exactly. To believe that this worry will come to fruition very often one would have to assume that land managers are irrational temperamental half-wits who paint whole groups by the action of a few. That's not been my experience with land managers (or many adults at all). Not saying it hasn't happened, but it's just not a very realistic worry.

8k · June 13, 2011

Although the black eye analogy the OP uses implies the reason for deleting the log is to hide the fact that a geocacher ignored local ordinances or park rules from land managers, the actual justification for deleting the logs is that they may encourage others to ignore the rules. Someone reading the log may think that in order to get a FTF you need to go into the park after hours, and since someone got away with it, the risks are minimal. If it becomes a regular practice to ignore rules in order to find a cache, then land managers may react to this.

Park managers are very aware that people will use the parks after hours. In some areas the night time closure is meant to avoid specific problems like crime, vagrancy, or noise. A park manager may not be too concerned to learn that occasionally a geocacher will go in the park to look for a cache. I don't believe many would see the deletion of a log as a cover up. Instead they are more likely to see the deletion is meant as a way to reinforce geocaching guidelines regard obeying local laws.

In spite of this, it may be more effective to leave the log and simply post a note on the cache page to reiterate the park hours and ask that cachers follow the rules.

9.3k · June 13, 2011

...one would have to assume that land managers are irrational temperamental half-wits who paint whole groups by the action of a few.

Funny story: A land manager local to me dmanded that every geocache be removed from "their" forest. After conversing with them for over an hour, I calmed him down enough to get him to change his complete ban to a moritorium, allowing existing caches to stay but barring any future placements. It took me several years to get that moritorium lifted.

Oh... The offense?

He found a cache that was a faux Tupperware tucked into a palm tree. Because the container wasn't very good, the contents showed signs of being damp, then dried. Sort of a crinkly, dry mold smell permeated the interior. He associated all caching with leaving such boxes full of icky stuff around the woods, and acted to put a stop to it. He was so petty he refused to even consider that there may actually be quality containers used as geocaches.

So, there is at least one land manager I know that fits your description. :lol:

14k · June 13, 2011

FWIW, according to the Geocaching.com Site Terms of Use Agreement, "You agree not to: [...] (i) Violate any applicable local, state, national or international law."

Somehow, I think Groundspeak might back a CO who deleted a log that boasted of a TOU violation.

All that states is that you are responsible for it. It still doesn't say that you can delete their log.

These are the guidelines for log deletion: Log Deletion Guidelins and it says that they may do it for a violation of the TOU, but they can do whatever they please with their own website. It would probably mean a rewording of the log, not a permanent deletion, sorry.

Here's the text from the guideline:

"Logs can be deleted by the owner of the log, by the owner of the listing (the cache owner) and by site administrators. Logs that fail to meet stated requirements (such as Found It logs by people who have never found the cache) or logs that conflict with our Terms of Use Agreement may be deleted."

The way I read that is the first sentence indicates who may delete logs (the owner of the log, the CO, or Groundspeak). The second sentence indicates what the valid reasons are for log deletion. My interpretation is that either the Cache Owner or Groundspeak "may delete" (is allowed to) delete a log for one of those two reasons. In the case of a a log which indicated the finder of the cache broke the law, it isn't the log that conflicts with the TOU, but the activity that they engaged in that was in violation of the TOU. Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing GS take a harsher stance on this. Consider this scenario:

A geocacher obtains explicit permission to place a cache in a park that has restricted hours (say 6:00AM-8:00PM) and a locked gate during closed hours. The responsible CO, at the request of the land manger, includes the park hours in the cache description and asks that finder refrain from searching for it when the park is closed. A FTF hound gets the notification at 10:00PM and goes out, climbs over the locked gate and finds the cache, and manages to do so without getting caught trespassing. The following morning they post their found it log and mention climbing over the fence. The CO deletes the log, based on the guideline that indicates that they are allowed to do so because the log "conflicts with the TOU". So the FTF hound posts another found it log, this time with just a "FTF! TFTC". Although the log doesn't mention that the TOU was violated, the TOU was still violated through the act of entering the park during closed hours. Should a CO still be allowed to delete the log?

Now change the scenario above such that the FTF hound is caught by security after finding the cache. Is the land manager really going to care if the finder neglected to mention in their log that they broke the law? Probably not. They're just going to see an activity introduced into the park that they manage that led to someone entering the park after hours. Unless a CO can delete a log that was posted by someone that broke the law to find the cache, geocachers can continue to climb over fences and trespass onto property, and as long as they don't get caught in the act, they can do so with impunity. IMHO, a CO should be allowed to delete the find log of someone that broke the law to find a cache, even if they don't mention breaking the law in the log.

June 13, 2011

He was so petty he refused to even consider that there may actually be quality containers used as geocaches.

So, there is at least one land manager I know that fits your description.

Anyway you slice it, that will be a tough person to work with. In reality I wouldn't want to place a cache there, if it meant dealing with management like that. There are plenty of land managers that are reasonable people with a good set of expectations. Man, that would be frustrating.

8k · June 13, 2011

In the case of a a log which indicated the finder of the cache broke the law, it isn't the log that conflicts with the TOU, but the activity that they engaged in that was in violation of the TOU.

I'd argue that the log promotes or provides instruction about illegal activities (TOU section 4(l)). Someone seeing the log may decide that the way to get a FTF on another cache is to ignore the posted park hours. Addtionally, the log may indicate how to enter the park after hours without being caught (e.g. climb the fence). I have little doubt that the log can be deleted by the cache owner. However, it isn't so clear if this is the most effective way to discourage this activity or to make it clear to land managers that Geocaching discourages this activity.

1.7k · June 13, 2011

Very true. Keyword, "aware". Hopefully, they realized after one or two silly logs that their cache was now inaccessible for the season.

Temptation will always be there though, whether disabled or not, as some of my caches have been logged while in "temporarily disabled" status.

Unless you remove the container for "maintenance".

Climb over the fence in the middle of winter to get your own cache in attempts to discourage people from doing what you yourself just did?

Remove it the day before winter.

FTF Storm Brewing

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment