Jump to content

Would you log this cache?


Roman!

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment

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. :o It's not like a Challange, the CO can delete logs with this listing. :laughing:

:ph34r: I'll have to put this one on my watchlist now that a user posted a NA on the listing. :ph34r:

Link to comment

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? :blink:

 

when you get there personally and see its not working please do log a NA, otherwise go mind your own backyard

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

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? :blink:

Because it needs to be brought to the reviewers attention no matter where it is.

 

have you personally visited the cache?

Link to comment

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? :blink:

 

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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: :drama:

Link to comment

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: :drama:

+1

I wouldn't have done if I could not clearly tell it needed it.

Link to comment

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: :drama:

+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.

Link to comment

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? :blink:

 

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.

Link to comment

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 by NeverSummer
Link to comment

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. :lol:

 

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. :o

Link to comment

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.

 

:blink:

+1 :blink:

+2 :blink:

 

 

Relax, it was a joke. I didn't log it. Read my logs for reassurance that I go get dirty if you must.

:blink: 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"...

Link to comment

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 :unsure: 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 :unsure:

 

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.

Link to comment

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 :unsure: 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 :unsure:

 

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 by NeverSummer
Link to comment

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 by dfx
Link to comment
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?

Link to comment

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 :unsure: 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 :unsure:

 

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? :D

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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? :blink:

 

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. :o It's not like a Challange, the CO can delete logs with this listing. :laughing:

:ph34r: I'll have to put this one on my watchlist now that a user posted a NA on the listing. :ph34r:

 

completely agreed! ... this seems a worthy cache to go virtual, but virtual caches were phased out.

Link to comment

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?

Link to comment

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: :drama:

 

he/she hasn't, who's profile you're looking at?

Last Visit:

Saturday, 21 January 2012

Edited by t4e
Link to comment
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 :rolleyes:

 

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 by t4e
Link to comment

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.

Link to comment
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 :rolleyes:

 

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.

Link to comment

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? :blink:

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?

Link to comment
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 :rolleyes:

 

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 :rolleyes:

Link to comment
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 :rolleyes:

 

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 :rolleyes:

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.

Link to comment

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? :blink:

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.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...