+Roman! Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 The 4 Corners Cache I'll be in Vegas tomorrow for a few days and one cache that caught my eye was this one but it seems the web cam has been out for well over a year with no hopes of coming back online any time soon. However, there have been many hundreds of found it logs where they took a picture of the disabled web cam or themselves at the location. The odd person (maybe 1/100) posts a note or DNF. I would love to find this one but am on the fence leaning towards not claiming a find. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment
+Dame Deco Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 No, I wouldn't. Quote Link to comment
+Totem Clan Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 You have to have the webcam pic to log it so... NOPE!!! Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 No I wouldn't. People are treating it like a virtual. Actually this should be archived. Quote Link to comment
+Roman! Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share Posted January 22, 2012 You have to have the webcam pic to log it so... NOPE!!! Semantics;) Web cam pic, not pic of web cam:( Guess I'll pass, luckily there is another one only a ferry ride away from me still working. Thanks for the opinions. Quote Link to comment
+Bamilbis Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I'd log it. In fact I just did, but that's how I roll. No need to go and get all dirty with this internet based sport. Quote Link to comment
+NeverSummer Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I'd log it. In fact I just did, but that's how I roll. No need to go and get all dirty with this internet based sport. Quote Link to comment
+Manville Possum Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 No I wouldn't. People are treating it like a virtual. Actually this should be archived. I think it should be gran paw'd and used for a virtual because it is not being abused. Also it is quite popular with favorite points. It's not like a Challange, the CO can delete logs with this listing. I'll have to put this one on my watchlist now that a user posted a NA on the listing. Quote Link to comment
+DanOCan Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Tempting but I don't think I'd do it. Quote Link to comment
+captnemo Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I'd log it. In fact I just did, but that's how I roll. No need to go and get all dirty with this internet based sport. +1 Quote Link to comment
+t4e Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) You have to have the webcam pic to log it so... NOPE!!! i see you're in Oklahoma, how does that give you the right to post a NA? when you get there personally and see its not working please do log a NA, otherwise go mind your own backyard Edited January 22, 2012 by t4e Quote Link to comment
+Ike 13 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 <snip> Also it is quite popular with favorite points. <snip> Yea a whole 7% of PM give it a favorite point. That's real popular Quote Link to comment
+Totem Clan Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 You have to have the webcam pic to log it so... NOPE!!! i see you're in Oklahoma, how does that give you the right to post a NA? Because it needs to be brought to the reviewers attention no matter where it is. Quote Link to comment
+t4e Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 You have to have the webcam pic to log it so... NOPE!!! i see you're in Oklahoma, how does that give you the right to post a NA? Because it needs to be brought to the reviewers attention no matter where it is. have you personally visited the cache? Quote Link to comment
+Totem Clan Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 You have to have the webcam pic to log it so... NOPE!!! i see you're in Oklahoma, how does that give you the right to post a NA? Because it needs to be brought to the reviewers attention no matter where it is. have you personally visited the cache? is the cache in violation of guidelines? Quote Link to comment
+Panda Inc Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I'd log it. In fact I just did, but that's how I roll. No need to go and get all dirty with this internet based sport. +1 +2 Quote Link to comment
+Totem Clan Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 You have to have the webcam pic to log it so... NOPE!!! i see you're in Oklahoma, how does that give you the right to post a NA? when you get there personally and see its not working please do log a NA, otherwise go mind your own backyard If you ever see any in my backyard that are in violation of the guidelines, please NA them to make my geocaching better. Thank you in advance. Quote Link to comment
+Totem Clan Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Plus if I'm in the wrong the reviewer will ignore it. If I'm right than they will act on it. It's that simple. Quote Link to comment
+SwineFlew Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 It been down for months. I was in vegas last summer and I never logged it because the camera was down. Taking a of yourself with ur camera doesn't follow the webcam cache page rules I was close to posting a NA log. Quote Link to comment
+Harry Dolphin Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Nope. I would not log it. Photo from the webcam is required to log a webcam cache. Log is 'webcam photo taken'. Not "I was near the webcam but it isn't working, so I'll cheat." (Yes. I go through this a lot with my webcam cache. Photo taken by the webcam and posted to your log is required.) If the cache owner is not active, and logs that do not meet the requirement are bring posted, then, YES. Perhaps a NA is needed. Quote Link to comment
+DanOCan Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Plus if I'm in the wrong the reviewer will ignore it. If I'm right than they will act on it. It's that simple. Normally I am not a fan of armchair NA or NM logs, but in this case anyone can tell the webcam is down and the CO hasn't logged onto the site so visiting the location doesn't really seem to be needed. I'm with you on this one, but regardless: Quote Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I'd log it. In fact I just did, but that's how I roll. No need to go and get all dirty with this internet based sport. Internet-based sport. Really? Actually making an effort ain't got nothing to do with geocaching. Quote Link to comment
+Totem Clan Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Plus if I'm in the wrong the reviewer will ignore it. If I'm right than they will act on it. It's that simple. Normally I am not a fan of armchair NA or NM logs, but in this case anyone can tell the webcam is down and the CO hasn't logged onto the site so visiting the location doesn't really seem to be needed. I'm with you on this one, but regardless: +1 I wouldn't have done if I could not clearly tell it needed it. Quote Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Plus if I'm in the wrong the reviewer will ignore it. If I'm right than they will act on it. It's that simple. Normally I am not a fan of armchair NA or NM logs, but in this case anyone can tell the webcam is down and the CO hasn't logged onto the site so visiting the location doesn't really seem to be needed. I'm with you on this one, but regardless: +1 I wouldn't have done if I could not clearly tell it needed it. None of my finds include an explanation of why I should be able to log it. Quote Link to comment
+NeverSummer Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 You have to have the webcam pic to log it so... NOPE!!! i see you're in Oklahoma, how does that give you the right to post a NA? when you get there personally and see its not working please do log a NA, otherwise go mind your own backyard If you ever see any in my backyard that are in violation of the guidelines, please NA them to make my geocaching better. Thank you in advance. Agreed. Logging a webcam cache without using the webcam is no different than logging an Earthcache without doing the required homework, etc. You just don't do it. But, I see t4e logged a find with a distant photo of themselves in the area with the webcam in view. Not really what a webcam cache is for. But, this was all before anyone thought to bring it to a Reviewer's attention, and the cache was still active despite the camera not working. If the owner can assure that the webcam will come back online soon, then that's great. For the time being, it's a cache that needs maintenance at minimum, and needs to be archived at most. Put it to you this way: If I were headed there for a vacation, and went to find this cache--yet discovered the webcam was down--I wouldn't log it. I also would post a NM log. I would today log a NA log, as the cache is not being properly maintained by the owner, and loggers are abusing the owner's lack of maintenance. I'm not saying t4e or others should or shouldn't have their logs deleted. But the fact that they have logged this cache without using the webcam is likely adding to the above-quoted content. Quote Link to comment
+SwineFlew Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I was really close to log it but I took the high road and decided not to. I was there at GZ so yes, I can log a NA but decided not to because I don't want to be attacked like some people did to me over the South Pole virtual. Quote Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I was really close to log it but I took the high road and decided not to. I was there at GZ so yes, I can log a NA but decided not to because I don't want to be attacked like some people did to me over the South Pole virtual. You've been to the south pole? Sweet. Quote Link to comment
+NeverSummer Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) As far back as 9/29/2010 this cam has been down. The log was a note, and not a NM log. From there, you can see how many NM logs there were after that. People continued to log it without the webcam part. (Some, apparently, with owner permission) Is this one of those "grey area" situations with logging a NA or a NM? Should the Reviewer have gotten involved via the uncleared NM attribute? Hmm... Edited January 23, 2012 by NeverSummer Quote Link to comment
+SwineFlew Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Rookie mistake. Quote Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I would not log it. But of course I'm late to the conversation, and an SBA has been posted. I would not do that either. By the way, I myself owned a webcam that went "missing". It was actually in some guys condo and overlooked a nice pond in a park he lived on the edge of. Full permission was obtained with him for the webcam cache of course. He up and moved after about 6 years, so I had to let it go. Then again, I'm an active cache owner. Quote Link to comment
+Bamilbis Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I'd log it. In fact I just did, but that's how I roll. No need to go and get all dirty with this internet based sport. +1 +2 Relax, it was a joke. I didn't log it. Read my logs for reassurance that I go get dirty if you must. Quote Link to comment
+NeverSummer Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I'd log it. In fact I just did, but that's how I roll. No need to go and get all dirty with this internet based sport. +1 +2 Relax, it was a joke. I didn't log it. Read my logs for reassurance that I go get dirty if you must. Phew. Without something like </snark> or more overt joking, that was hard to tell. Good to hear you were joking! Aaaaaaand...welcome, my friend, to "Out of Context"... Quote Link to comment
diggingest_dogg616 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I visited the cache page and it seems like this camera has been down since at least 11/12/2010. A quote from someone who logged it with a non webcam picture states : Webcam definitely dead. Not even listed on the website. Took picture of dead camera and 'the spot'. TFTVC. Email to follow. This was from 1/5/2011 (a little over a year ago). There are an awful lot of people who logged this with pictures from other devices. I don't know how I feel about it Part of me feels that that is fine because it's still listed as a cache to go find and hey, you really were there. Part of me feels that it is cheating because you're supposed to have a webcam pic. So I don't know. I guess that's up to you what you do and what you're okay living with I do feel that if posting a regular picture of yourself at the spot or a picture of the now deceased webcam causes so much alarm then the cache should definitely be archived. There are posts going back to November 12, 2010 saying the webcam is down and on January 5 of 2011, someone said the cam in question isn't even listed on the site anymore. I think it's really sad that people get attacked for logging an NA Either this cache needs to be archived or it needs to become something else so people can still log it like they're doing. Quote Link to comment
+NeverSummer Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) I visited the cache page and it seems like this camera has been down since at least 11/12/2010. A quote from someone who logged it with a non webcam picture states : Webcam definitely dead. Not even listed on the website. Took picture of dead camera and 'the spot'. TFTVC. Email to follow. This was from 1/5/2011 (a little over a year ago). There are an awful lot of people who logged this with pictures from other devices. I don't know how I feel about it Part of me feels that that is fine because it's still listed as a cache to go find and hey, you really were there. Part of me feels that it is cheating because you're supposed to have a webcam pic. So I don't know. I guess that's up to you what you do and what you're okay living with I do feel that if posting a regular picture of yourself at the spot or a picture of the now deceased webcam causes so much alarm then the cache should definitely be archived. There are posts going back to November 12, 2010 saying the webcam is down and on January 5 of 2011, someone said the cam in question isn't even listed on the site anymore. I think it's really sad that people get attacked for logging an NA Either this cache needs to be archived or it needs to become something else so people can still log it like they're doing. You can actually track the cam being down all of the way to 9/29/2010... Edit for linky Edited January 23, 2012 by NeverSummer Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) I think it's the same as photo-logging a traditional cache that was frozen stuck in a block of ice or some such and so couldn't be retrieved, opened and the log couldn't be signed. The cache (webcam) was there, you found it, but for technical reasons you just couldn't retrieve/open it (download the picture). Yeah, some people wouldn't log a find if they didn't sign the log (downloaded the proper webcam picture), but most people would, esp. since the owner obviously has no problem with that. You did see the prominent picture in the listing, didn't you. Edited January 23, 2012 by dfx Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 i see you're in Oklahoma, how does that give you the right to post a NA? I see you're in Ontario. How does that give you the right to post a "Webcam Photo Taken" log on a broken webcam cache? (Yeah, I know. You were there last month) I see you mentioned you would eventually be posting a picture with your log... Is it safe to assume the picture you claim you will someday post came from the webcam linked on the cache page? No? Wouldn't that qualify as a bogus log? Quote Link to comment
+Roman! Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 I visited the cache page and it seems like this camera has been down since at least 11/12/2010. A quote from someone who logged it with a non webcam picture states : Webcam definitely dead. Not even listed on the website. Took picture of dead camera and 'the spot'. TFTVC. Email to follow. This was from 1/5/2011 (a little over a year ago). There are an awful lot of people who logged this with pictures from other devices. I don't know how I feel about it Part of me feels that that is fine because it's still listed as a cache to go find and hey, you really were there. Part of me feels that it is cheating because you're supposed to have a webcam pic. So I don't know. I guess that's up to you what you do and what you're okay living with I do feel that if posting a regular picture of yourself at the spot or a picture of the now deceased webcam causes so much alarm then the cache should definitely be archived. There are posts going back to November 12, 2010 saying the webcam is down and on January 5 of 2011, someone said the cam in question isn't even listed on the site anymore. I think it's really sad that people get attacked for logging an NA Either this cache needs to be archived or it needs to become something else so people can still log it like they're doing. The web cam is indeed not listed but I found it and here's the page. It just says "Not available to the public" Any insiders at the MGM or Earthcam that can snap my picture tomorrow? Quote Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I think it's the same as photo-logging a traditional cache that was frozen stuck in a block of ice or some such and so couldn't be retrieved, opened and the log couldn't be signed. The cache (webcam) was there, you found it, but for technical reasons you just couldn't retrieve/open it (download the picture). Yeah, some people wouldn't log a find if they didn't sign the log (downloaded the proper webcam picture), but most people would, esp. since the owner obviously has no problem with that. You did see the prominent picture in the listing, didn't you. No, it's a (Grand-fathered) cache that requires you upload photo from the webcam. Hence webcam cache. Anything else is a damned lie. Quote Link to comment
Pup Patrol Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 If the cache owner is not active, and logs that do not meet the requirement are bring posted, then, YES. Perhaps a NA is needed. The cache owner is active. Quote Link to comment
+kantear Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 You have to have the webcam pic to log it so... NOPE!!! i see you're in Oklahoma, how does that give you the right to post a NA? when you get there personally and see its not working please do log a NA, otherwise go mind your own backyard this website IS my backyard, that's the magic of the interweb. ... for one ... for two, i think the question was "would 'you?'", which if i'm not mistaken, refers to "me" (and by extension, you, him, santa clause, easter bunny ... pretty much anyone.). No I wouldn't. People are treating it like a virtual. Actually this should be archived. I think it should be gran paw'd and used for a virtual because it is not being abused. Also it is quite popular with favorite points. It's not like a Challange, the CO can delete logs with this listing. I'll have to put this one on my watchlist now that a user posted a NA on the listing. completely agreed! ... this seems a worthy cache to go virtual, but virtual caches were phased out. Quote Link to comment
+Roman! Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 If the cache owner is not active, and logs that do not meet the requirement are bring posted, then, YES. Perhaps a NA is needed. The cache owner is active. Yes he is, can a web cam cache have extra (or different) ALRs? If so the CO could change the rules for logging to you taking a pictures of the web cam, no? Quote Link to comment
+t4e Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) Plus if I'm in the wrong the reviewer will ignore it. If I'm right than they will act on it. It's that simple. Normally I am not a fan of armchair NA or NM logs, but in this case anyone can tell the webcam is down and the CO hasn't logged onto the site so visiting the location doesn't really seem to be needed. I'm with you on this one, but regardless: he/she hasn't, who's profile you're looking at? Last Visit: Saturday, 21 January 2012 Edited January 23, 2012 by t4e Quote Link to comment
+t4e Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) i see you're in Oklahoma, how does that give you the right to post a NA? I see you're in Ontario. How does that give you the right to post a "Webcam Photo Taken" log on a broken webcam cache? (Yeah, I know. You were there last month) I see you mentioned you would eventually be posting a picture with your log... Is it safe to assume the picture you claim you will someday post came from the webcam linked on the cache page? No? Wouldn't that qualify as a bogus log? perhaps if you look at my activity for that week you will see i was in Vegas can you see the label on the picture in the log above mine? i guess your detective capabilities are a bit limited, it takes making wider observations no, its not a bogus log, I was physically at the location, the Co allowed the log why is anyone else's business? Edited January 23, 2012 by t4e Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 If the cache owner is not active, and logs that do not meet the requirement are bring posted, then, YES. Perhaps a NA is needed. The cache owner is active. Yes he is, can a web cam cache have extra (or different) ALRs? If so the CO could change the rules for logging to you taking a pictures of the web cam, no? It's a virtual that (by definition) requires you to upload a picture of yourself taken from the webcam. As with all other virtuals, armchair logs are not allowed (unlike, let's say, on, ahem, http://coord.info/GCGWVP, ahem), but we're not talking armchair logs here. The CO does have the option of allowing find logs based on alternate means of verification, in case the primary means are unavailable. At least that's how I see it. Quote Link to comment
+NeverSummer Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 i see you're in Oklahoma, how does that give you the right to post a NA? I see you're in Ontario. How does that give you the right to post a "Webcam Photo Taken" log on a broken webcam cache? (Yeah, I know. You were there last month) I see you mentioned you would eventually be posting a picture with your log... Is it safe to assume the picture you claim you will someday post came from the webcam linked on the cache page? No? Wouldn't that qualify as a bogus log? perhaps if you look at my activity for that week you will see i was in Vegas can you see the label on the picture in the log above mine? i guess your detective capabilities are a bit limited, it takes making wider observations no, its not a bogus log, I was physically at the location, the Co allowed the log why is anyone else's business? Ok, we get it. You were there. You logged a find. The cache is active. You submitted a photo of yourself at GZ, but not with the webcam that has been down for 1.5 years. You can deal with how you feel about your own log, and the owner can keep/delete as allowed in the guidelines. However, the cache should be, and has been reported. NM logs have been posted and not addressed by the owner. Now, please don't get into it, you two. There's no reason to make edits to add additional attacks to your post. Quote Link to comment
+Manville Possum Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 <snip> Also it is quite popular with favorite points. <snip> Yea a whole 7% of PM give it a favorite point. That's real popular And a listing with 1933 logs that only has 92 favorite points is not considered to be a popular listing? Quote Link to comment
+t4e Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 You have to have the webcam pic to log it so... NOPE!!! i see you're in Oklahoma, how does that give you the right to post a NA? Because it needs to be brought to the reviewers attention no matter where it is. have you personally visited the cache? is the cache in violation of guidelines? have you personally been at the cache location? Quote Link to comment
+t4e Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 i see you're in Oklahoma, how does that give you the right to post a NA? I see you're in Ontario. How does that give you the right to post a "Webcam Photo Taken" log on a broken webcam cache? (Yeah, I know. You were there last month) I see you mentioned you would eventually be posting a picture with your log... Is it safe to assume the picture you claim you will someday post came from the webcam linked on the cache page? No? Wouldn't that qualify as a bogus log? perhaps if you look at my activity for that week you will see i was in Vegas can you see the label on the picture in the log above mine? i guess your detective capabilities are a bit limited, it takes making wider observations no, its not a bogus log, I was physically at the location, the Co allowed the log why is anyone else's business? Ok, we get it. You were there. You logged a find. The cache is active. You submitted a photo of yourself at GZ, but not with the webcam that has been down for 1.5 years. You can deal with how you feel about your own log, and the owner can keep/delete as allowed in the guidelines. However, the cache should be, and has been reported. NM logs have been posted and not addressed by the owner. Now, please don't get into it, you two. There's no reason to make edits to add additional attacks to your post. what is your point? i am allowed to edit my post for 24 hours, i prefer that to making a zillion posts Quote Link to comment
+NeverSummer Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 i see you're in Oklahoma, how does that give you the right to post a NA? I see you're in Ontario. How does that give you the right to post a "Webcam Photo Taken" log on a broken webcam cache? (Yeah, I know. You were there last month) I see you mentioned you would eventually be posting a picture with your log... Is it safe to assume the picture you claim you will someday post came from the webcam linked on the cache page? No? Wouldn't that qualify as a bogus log? perhaps if you look at my activity for that week you will see i was in Vegas can you see the label on the picture in the log above mine? i guess your detective capabilities are a bit limited, it takes making wider observations no, its not a bogus log, I was physically at the location, the Co allowed the log why is anyone else's business? Ok, we get it. You were there. You logged a find. The cache is active. You submitted a photo of yourself at GZ, but not with the webcam that has been down for 1.5 years. You can deal with how you feel about your own log, and the owner can keep/delete as allowed in the guidelines. However, the cache should be, and has been reported. NM logs have been posted and not addressed by the owner. Now, please don't get into it, you two. There's no reason to make edits to add additional attacks to your post. what is your point? i am allowed to edit my post for 24 hours, i prefer that to making a zillion posts I'd be happy to explain my point via personal correspondence. If you are unclear about what I'm talking about, then please shoot me an email through my profile. It's rather clear what my point is, IMO. As for staying on topic, "Would you log this cache?" No. And according to the guidelines, others really shouldn't either. This cache has been reported that it needs maintenance repeatedly, and the owner has not dealt with the maintenance issue. This is when one posts a NA log, which has been done. Those that logged the cache knowingly without using the webcam can deal with their own demons. Unfortunately for naysayers, it is solely up to the cache owner to delete those logs. That is...unless Groundspeak really wants to escalate. Which, I'm sure, they don't. Quote Link to comment
+Totem Clan Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 You have to have the webcam pic to log it so... NOPE!!! i see you're in Oklahoma, how does that give you the right to post a NA? Because it needs to be brought to the reviewers attention no matter where it is. have you personally visited the cache? is the cache in violation of guidelines? have you personally been at the cache location? It's now in the hands of the reviewers. If I'm wrong, then it stay active. No harm will have been done. If I'm right then it will be dealt with as needed. Either way, it's beyond us now, and shouldn't matter to you. With that I'm done talking about it. Have a nice day. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.