Jump to content

Would you log this cache?


Roman!
Followers 1

Recommended 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.

 

tbh i have no interest in your point

 

as for "demons"? lmao people do take this game too seriously :lol:

 

i think i'm going to have nightmares now :anibad:

Link to comment

 

tbh i have no interest in your point

 

as for "demons"? lmao people do take this game too seriously :lol:

 

i think i'm going to have nightmares now :anibad:

Fair enough. Then don't ask what my point is.

 

Games have rules and guidelines. That's the crux of this issue, and the OP brought up the concern.

 

For the record, I don't care if you logged it or not. That's up to you--thus the "their own demons" part. The bottom line is, this cache needs to be archived and, according to the guidelines, a number of cachers improperly logged this cache. (But the "against the guidelines" part doesn't stop it from happening...)

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?

Can you please point to the spot in the guidelines where it says you have to visit a location to log a NA? Here's the relevant guideline: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=56

Oh wait, you can't.

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?

 

Were those pictures taken by the webcam as required in the logging requirements delineated on the cache page?

 

.

Link to comment

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?

 

This is a webcam cache. It is very easy to tell that the webcam in not available. It does not require a visit to the location.

 

However, since the guideline violation in play here is simply one that deals with the type of cache, I would probably not NA this particular cache since the CO is active and the logs that are being allowed appear to be from people who have actually visited the location; ie. they are not armchair logs.

 

It seems to be functioning as a converted virtual instead of a webcam cache. This is technically a violation and if someone wishes to log NA on it, it is completely justified.

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?

 

Were those pictures taken by the webcam as required in the logging requirements delineated on the cache page?

 

.

 

did the CO exercise his/her right to delete the allegedly non complying logs? :unsure:

Link to comment

 

This is a webcam cache. It is very easy to tell that the webcam in not available. It does not require a visit to the location.

 

However, since the guideline violation in play here is simply one that deals with the type of cache, I would probably not NA this particular cache since the CO is active and the logs that are being allowed appear to be from people who have actually visited the location; ie. they are not armchair logs.

 

It seems to be functioning as a converted virtual instead of a webcam cache. This is technically a violation and if someone wishes to log NA on it, it is completely justified.

 

that is what i was getting at

 

GC should do the right thing and its to take down the cache and remove all the logs that didnt comply with the webcam cache.

No photo from the webcam no find. Its time for GC to start enforcing their own guidelines.

 

lets not open a can of worms :lol:

 

the interpretation/enforcement of the guidelines is at the latitude of each reviewer

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

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?

 

This is a webcam cache. It is very easy to tell that the webcam in not available. It does not require a visit to the location.

 

However, since the guideline violation in play here is simply one that deals with the type of cache, I would probably not NA this particular cache since the CO is active and the logs that are being allowed appear to be from people who have actually visited the location; ie. they are not armchair logs.

 

It seems to be functioning as a converted virtual instead of a webcam cache. This is technically a violation and if someone wishes to log NA on it, it is completely justified.

 

 

I would agree. If someone who actually went there and had a problem complained and filled out the NA then let the chips fall where they may. Fact is, in this case, someone read this thread and took it upon themselves to make a point. I wouldn't mind, but that discourages posting on this very forum and discouraging posting is not good for the caching community or the forum community.

 

I posted this on another thread and it seems pertinent here too:

 

Live and let live. If it ain't directly affecting you then it shouldn't be bothering you either. Words to live by.

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?

 

Were those pictures taken by the webcam as required in the logging requirements delineated on the cache page?

 

.

 

did the CO exercise his/her right to delete the allegedly non complying logs? :unsure:

 

That is not the question I asked.

Were those pictures taken by the webcam as required in the logging requirements delineated on the cache page?

 

 

.

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?

 

Were those pictures taken by the webcam as required in the logging requirements delineated on the cache page?

 

.

 

did the CO exercise his/her right to delete the allegedly non complying logs? :unsure:

 

That is not the question I asked.

Were those pictures taken by the webcam as required in the logging requirements delineated on the cache page?

 

 

.

 

i don't have to answer you anything

you have the means to find out for yourself

having said that is not your cache and more importantly is not your right to pass judgment on how I chose to play, since i don't pass judgement on how YOU play

Link to comment

did the CO exercise his/her right to delete the allegedly non complying logs? :unsure:

No, which is why so many are saying that the cache should be archived, because the owner is allowing abuse of the cache.

BTW, it isn't a right, it's an obligation.

 

please do show me where it is stated as being an obligation, cause i must have missed that part of the guideline

 

since my property taxes include a portion for schools, when i don't have any kids, would it also be an obligation for me to go knock on each door and see if the kids in my neighborhood that i pay the taxes for do well in school?

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

Hmmm, topic got real interesting, thanks for all the input, I have decided that since I can not meet the requirements stated on the cache page to log this cache I will not. I will probably take a picture of the web cam and post a note.

 

Thanks again.

 

I hate to see any cache go by the wayside. Try the owner again in a couple weeks. Hopefully it'll be back in action before being permanently archived.

Link to comment
1327287105[/url]' post='4953659']
1327286793[/url]' post='4953655']

Live and let live. If it ain't directly affecting you then it shouldn't be bothering you either. Words to live by.

 

The trademark quote of those who don't want their conduct to be questioned.

 

What are you saying? If what I'm doing doesn't affect you then what do you care?

I'm trying to think of a parallel in the legal system. I guess your case is drugs. If I do drugs in my own home I'm not affecting you...but it is illegal.

 

Maybe I should revise it. Live and let live. If my legal activity ain't directly affecting you then it shouldn't be bothering you either. Is that better?

Edited by GeotaggedBloger
Link to comment

did the CO exercise his/her right to delete the allegedly non complying logs? :unsure:

No, which is why so many are saying that the cache should be archived, because the owner is allowing abuse of the cache.

BTW, it isn't a right, it's an obligation.

 

please do show me where it is stated as being an obligation, cause i must have missed that part of the guideline

 

since my property taxes include a portion for schools, when i don't have any, would it also be an obligation for me to go knock on each door and see if the kids in my neighborhood that i pay the taxes for do well in school?

On log deletion.

On finding a webcam cache.

 

"You will need to have them to save the picture in order to log the cache." "The picture" is in reference to "existing web cameras placed by individuals or agencies that monitor various areas like parks or business complexes. The idea is to get yourself in front of the camera to log your visit."

 

So, if you don't log the cache as described in the second link, you have not "found" the cache. The owner, as outlined in the responsibilities of ownership, can choose to delete logs: "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." To be "obligated," one must be compelled "to constrain by physical, legal, social, or moral means," or, "to do a service or favor for" someone or something. Sounds to me like an obligation, in this case, is what the owner has to their cache listing and logs therein.

Link to comment
1327287105[/url]' post='4953659']
1327286793[/url]' post='4953655']

Live and let live. If it ain't directly affecting you then it shouldn't be bothering you either. Words to live by.

 

The trademark quote of those who don't want their conduct to be questioned.

 

What are you saying? If what I'm doing doesn't affect you then what do you care?

I'm trying to think of a parallel in the legal system. I guess your case is drugs. If I do drugs in my own home I'm not affecting you...but it is illegal.

 

Maybe I should revise it. Live and let live. If my legal activity ain't directly affecting you then it shouldn't be bothering you either. Is that better?

 

making a parallel between geocaching and illegal activities, seriously? :lol:

 

now i am serisouly agigtated :ph34r:

Link to comment

did the CO exercise his/her right to delete the allegedly non complying logs? :unsure:

No, which is why so many are saying that the cache should be archived, because the owner is allowing abuse of the cache.

BTW, it isn't a right, it's an obligation.

 

please do show me where it is stated as being an obligation, cause i must have missed that part of the guideline

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=307

(Bolding mine)

...

2. Geocache Maintenance

 

1. Owner is responsible for geocache page upkeep. As the owner of your geocache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate.

...

Link to comment

Good job! :lol:

Got another one archived. <_<

Now who's gonna be first to post NA on GCGWVP?

It appears that webcam still works...

 

Yup, but the CO condones armchair logs. Which is not allowed, totally unlike the webcam this thread is about, which didn't allow such logs. facepalm.gif

Link to comment

did the CO exercise his/her right to delete the allegedly non complying logs? :unsure:

No, which is why so many are saying that the cache should be archived, because the owner is allowing abuse of the cache.

BTW, it isn't a right, it's an obligation.

 

please do show me where it is stated as being an obligation, cause i must have missed that part of the guideline

 

since my property taxes include a portion for schools, when i don't have any, would it also be an obligation for me to go knock on each door and see if the kids in my neighborhood that i pay the taxes for do well in school?

On log deletion.

On finding a webcam cache.

 

"You will need to have them to save the picture in order to log the cache." "The picture" is in reference to "existing web cameras placed by individuals or agencies that monitor various areas like parks or business complexes. The idea is to get yourself in front of the camera to log your visit."

 

So, if you don't log the cache as described in the second link, you have not "found" the cache. The owner, as outlined in the responsibilities of ownership, can choose to delete logs: "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." To be "obligated," one must be compelled "to constrain by physical, legal, social, or moral means," or, "to do a service or favor for" someone or something. Sounds to me like an obligation, in this case, is what the owner has to their cache listing and logs therein.

 

i think this is really being taken too far, we're getting into legal and social responsibilities? its a webcam cache for crying out loud

 

apparently though some people can sleep better now knowing they spoiled the fun for so many others

 

woohoo way to go there!

Link to comment
perhaps if you look at my activity for that week you will see i was in Vegas

I think I mentioned that, didn't I? :rolleyes:

So much for keen observation, eh? <_<

 

no, its not a bogus log, I was physically at the location

Oh... My bad. When I read the instructions on the cache page, which clearly stated for you to capture an image from a specific webcam, and post that with your log, he wanted folks to capture an image from a specific webcam, and post that with their log... :rolleyes: How silly of me to think that, since the heading of your log says, "Webcam Photo Taken", you would actually, you know, take a webcam photo... Now we know that simply being close to the posted coordinates with a camera is all that is needed to score a find. That's awesome! Now I'm certain I can totaly smoke the completed time record on the ET Highway. If anyone complains about me logging as I cruise by at 70, I'll direct them to you. Thanx! :)

 

'Cuz, ya know, just being there... with a camera... is enough... <_<

 

I guess armchair logging isn't bogus either, if the CO doesn't delete it? :rolleyes:

Heck, I might just stay home and log them all.

If the CO doesn't catch it, other folks can't call it bogus, eh?

 

I see the CO allowed the NA log that seemed to get your knickers all twisted up. According to your logic, that log must have been acceptable as well, right? The fact that you were whining about one log, while clearly posting a bogus one was what had me so confused. :rolleyes:

 

But then, my detective skills are kinda limited, don'tcha know... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
1327289122[/url]' post='4953690']
1327288912[/url]' post='4953684']
1327287105[/url]' post='4953659']
1327286793[/url]' post='4953655']

Live and let live. If it ain't directly affecting you then it shouldn't be bothering you either. Words to live by.

 

The trademark quote of those who don't want their conduct to be questioned.

 

What are you saying? If what I'm doing doesn't affect you then what do you care?

I'm trying to think of a parallel in the legal system. I guess your case is drugs. If I do drugs in my own home I'm not affecting you...but it is illegal.

 

Maybe I should revise it. Live and let live. If my legal activity ain't directly affecting you then it shouldn't be bothering you either. Is that better?

 

making a parallel between geocaching and illegal activities, seriously? :lol:

 

now i am serisouly agigtated :ph34r:

 

Yeah well I'm agitated too because your post insinuated craziness. Try reading the words. I don't have time to explain everything that has been posted up to now to you. I'll just say I've never made a "parallel between geocaching and illegal activities".

Link to comment
1327287105[/url]' post='4953659']
1327286793[/url]' post='4953655']

Live and let live. If it ain't directly affecting you then it shouldn't be bothering you either. Words to live by.

 

The trademark quote of those who don't want their conduct to be questioned.

 

What are you saying? If what I'm doing doesn't affect you then what do you care?

I'm trying to think of a parallel in the legal system. I guess your case is drugs. If I do drugs in my own home I'm not affecting you...but it is illegal.

 

Maybe I should revise it. Live and let live. If my legal activity ain't directly affecting you then it shouldn't be bothering you either. Is that better?

 

Tell it to the warrant.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

another one archived.

By the owner. Good job, LVHiker. Thanx for doing the right thing. B)

 

Good job! :lol:

Got another one archived. <_<

Now who's gonna be first to post NA on GCGWVP?

It appears that webcam still works...

 

Yup, but the CO condones armchair logs. Which is not allowed, totally unlike the webcam this thread is about, which didn't allow such logs. facepalm.gif

I'm not seeing a difference. Both allowed bogus logs... :unsure:

Link to comment

So lets see, on one side of the globe we have a cache that has an ignored SBA going back a good while because of the dangerous climb and lack of permission. People who have not visited the area try to post SBAs that are deleted.

Yet here in the USA we have a webcam out of service and within a couple of hours of the SBA of someone who has not visited the cache, whammo the cache is archived.

The system seems backwards to me.

Link to comment

So lets see, on one side of the globe we have a cache that has an ignored SBA going back a good while because of the dangerous climb and lack of permission. People who have not visited the area try to post SBAs that are deleted.

Yet here in the USA we have a webcam out of service and within a couple of hours of the SBA of someone who has not visited the cache, whammo the cache is archived.

The system seems backwards to me.

Thats because we got good reviewers that get their job done.

Link to comment

did the CO exercise his/her right to delete the allegedly non complying logs? :unsure:

No, which is why so many are saying that the cache should be archived, because the owner is allowing abuse of the cache.

BTW, it isn't a right, it's an obligation.

 

please do show me where it is stated as being an obligation, cause i must have missed that part of the guideline

 

since my property taxes include a portion for schools, when i don't have any, would it also be an obligation for me to go knock on each door and see if the kids in my neighborhood that i pay the taxes for do well in school?

On log deletion.

On finding a webcam cache.

 

"You will need to have them to save the picture in order to log the cache." "The picture" is in reference to "existing web cameras placed by individuals or agencies that monitor various areas like parks or business complexes. The idea is to get yourself in front of the camera to log your visit."

 

So, if you don't log the cache as described in the second link, you have not "found" the cache. The owner, as outlined in the responsibilities of ownership, can choose to delete logs: "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." To be "obligated," one must be compelled "to constrain by physical, legal, social, or moral means," or, "to do a service or favor for" someone or something. Sounds to me like an obligation, in this case, is what the owner has to their cache listing and logs therein.

 

i think this is really being taken too far, we're getting into legal and social responsibilities? its a webcam cache for crying out loud

 

apparently though some people can sleep better now knowing they spoiled the fun for so many others

 

woohoo way to go there!

 

Take it easy on the melodrama.

I quoted[/] the dictionary. I am not implying that it is about "legality" or "social responsibilities".

 

As you said, it's "a webcam cache for crying out loud". It should be logged as such: by using the image produced by the webcam to capture a photo of the logging geocacher at the site. It isn't being taken "too far". Rather, it is being put in context with the guidelines, knowledge books and definitions provided by the entity providing the listing service for "geocaches".

 

Unless you get your log deleted by the owner, you get to keep it. Again, you get to deal with arguing for or against your "find". You can choose to ignore the fact that your log is not in the spirit of geocaching or performed the necessary method for a webcam cache. It's unfortunate that you, of all of the other loggers for 1.5 years, have to take this all on the chin. I assure you, I have nothing out for you personally.

Link to comment

another one archived.

By the owner. Good job, LVHiker. Thanx for doing the right thing. B)

 

Good job! :lol:

Got another one archived. <_<

Now who's gonna be first to post NA on GCGWVP?

It appears that webcam still works...

 

Yup, but the CO condones armchair logs. Which is not allowed, totally unlike the webcam this thread is about, which didn't allow such logs. facepalm.gif

I'm not seeing a difference. Both allowed bogus logs... :unsure:

 

Why dont you posted a NA log. :)

Link to comment

another one archived.

By the owner. Good job, LVHiker. Thanx for doing the right thing. B)

 

Good job! :lol:

Got another one archived. <_<

Now who's gonna be first to post NA on GCGWVP?

It appears that webcam still works...

 

Yup, but the CO condones armchair logs. Which is not allowed, totally unlike the webcam this thread is about, which didn't allow such logs. facepalm.gif

I'm not seeing a difference. Both allowed bogus logs... :unsure:

dfx, how do you not see the difference? Yes, the German webcam is allowing bogus logs. But, the cam works. The owner could be "compelled" to delete the bogus logs, but they aren't appearing to have that on their "to do" list. In the case of this Las Vegas cache, people were not even using the webcam to log their finds, and the actual cam was out of operation for 1.5 years. There's a big difference.

 

So, if you want to, you can log the NA on the German cache now, too. I see no reason not to. I'm just not going to, as it hasn't affected me in a cache hunt yet. That's just how I do it. Others can, and obviously do, work differently.

 

Armchair logs and not using a webcam to do a webcam cache are one in the same.

Link to comment

So lets see, on one side of the globe we have a cache that has an ignored SBA going back a good while because of the dangerous climb and lack of permission. People who have not visited the area try to post SBAs that are deleted.

Yet here in the USA we have a webcam out of service and within a couple of hours of the SBA of someone who has not visited the cache, whammo the cache is archived.

The system seems backwards to me.

 

I think it just reemphasizes that the problems over there are more localized to that region. Keystone stated that the German reviewers are responsive though. So there must be some other explanation. Perhaps the cache you are talking about has proper permission from the mall owners and the reviewer just has declined to state as much on the listing. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
dadgum, there are other web cams in the area, couldn't another have taken over?

Nope, because it was a grandfathered listing and wasn't allowed any coordinate movements or other changes.

 

Certainly not my intention, I really wanted to log this one but something just kept nagging me so I thought I'd ask how others felt.

Kinda late now, don't ya think? :rolleyes:

 

Doesn't seem to be too late:

 

Archive12/14/2007

Well it's been fun but since I have no idea when the camera might be reactivated I'm archiving this.

 

Owner Maintenance07/25/2008

It's been brought to my attention by Zork V that the webcam is now back in operation.

 

Was already archived once, maybe the web cam will come back up or another put in place that can take a picture of GZ.

Link to comment

Personally, I do not like logging webcams that are down, but have I done so, yes, especially on trips far from home where there are not many choices if I wanted to get one. If the owner has given permission or is accepting those kind of logs recently before, then I do not see the problem. I consider a webcam that has reached the stage of allowing pictures for an extended period of time near the end of its lifetime sadly, though hopefully the camera being down is temporary. As long as the CO is active, I would never want to be the one to request it to be archived.

 

But really, if the owner is still there and folks are on site and take pictures with CO's permission for a period of time, is that really a reason to get all worked up about? You may not consider it a true find, sure, but I seriously doubt folks are logging that many webcam finds anyway to get their #s up significantly, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to E.T. highway or something. I would have 4 less finds out of 6200 if I deleted my four with cameras after failing to do it the "right" way (and yes, 2 of my other webcam finds occurred after they were archived, so what, neither CO minded when I asked them, and in those 2 cases, I did them with actual webcam pics). I have seen maybe 1 or 2 people total with over 100 webcam finds. There are so few webcams left anyway, the odd camera picture log with permission of CO should not be that big a deal to folks that they need to request archivals of webcams across the country or world.

 

Now, I admit a part of me gets annoyed when I take the time and effort to log a webcam and it would seem some folks just showed up there the same time period, took a picture, did not even try the right way and moved on. One should attempt the webcam and do it properly if it can be done. I have taken a few hours to get some webcam pictures done. However, its my conscience, and as long as the CO is happy, why worry about it too much. There are enough things to worry about.

 

So, OP, log it if you feel you should and as long as the CO is allowing it. My opinion.

Edited by lamoracke
Link to comment
dadgum, there are other web cams in the area, couldn't another have taken over?

Nope, because it was a grandfathered listing and wasn't allowed any coordinate movements or other changes.

 

Certainly not my intention, I really wanted to log this one but something just kept nagging me so I thought I'd ask how others felt.

Kinda late now, don't ya think? :rolleyes:

 

The OP did nothing wrong and does not deserve your insulting sarcasm.

 

If anyone is to blame here, it is the CO for not having disabled/archived it much earlier and the many loggers who logged it without meeting the logging criteria.

 

You owe the OP an apology.

 

 

.

Link to comment
1327287105[/url]' post='4953659']
1327286793[/url]' post='4953655']

Live and let live. If it ain't directly affecting you then it shouldn't be bothering you either. Words to live by.

 

The trademark quote of those who don't want their conduct to be questioned.

 

What are you saying? If what I'm doing doesn't affect you then what do you care?

I'm trying to think of a parallel in the legal system. I guess your case is drugs. If I do drugs in my own home I'm not affecting you...but it is illegal.

 

Maybe I should revise it. Live and let live. If my legal activity ain't directly affecting you then it shouldn't be bothering you either. Is that better?

 

I thought it was more of hippie phrase. For your revision, just add man to it. Live and let live, man. :lol:

 

OK, seriously, sad to see this archived. That didn't have to happen. I think if the CO had revised the cache page to say that pictures taken with cell phones and or digital camera's were OK temporarily until the webcam is back up, that might have saved it.

 

And from what I've heard, once a Grandfathered cache type is archived, they cannot be unarchived.

Link to comment
Doesn't seem to be too late:

 

Archive12/14/2007

Well it's been fun but since I have no idea when the camera might be reactivated I'm archiving this.

 

Owner Maintenance07/25/2008

It's been brought to my attention by Zork V that the webcam is now back in operation.

 

Was already archived once, maybe the web cam will come back up or another put in place that can take a picture of GZ.

 

Knowing the current policy of Groundspeak towards grandfathered cache types, that ain't gonna happen. This listing is gone.

Link to comment

The problem with this thread is that is asks "Would you log this cache?". What is should ask is "Does this cache meet the guidelines for a grandfathered Web Cam cache?"

 

The answer to this question is no. And that is why the cache has been archived.

 

It has nothing to do with whether anyone logged this cache without meeting the guidelines for logging a webcam cache. These guideline basically provide cache owners with some guidance for when they can or should delete online find logs.

 

If a cache owner choose not to delete logs, Groundspeak should not care, IMO. However, on some virtuals armchair logs have been taken to mean lack of owner maintenance. Groundspeak has issued a statement on couch potato logs and has archived some because the cache owner was not deleting them. I personally would prefer Groundspeak ignore these logs. By reacting to them it looks like Jeremy's knickers are in a twist because of them. :unsure:

Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com. There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find.

 

In this case though, I think the cache was archived solely because there is no longer a webcam there.

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 1
×
×
  • Create New...