Jump to content

Cache container


ShadowAce

Recommended Posts

Recently we have started seeing more caches that are simply a sandwich bad and a piece of paper or even more of a lack of container are the new concept of placing a wooden stake on the ground.

 

The stake IS the cache and the logbook.

 

Do cachers no longer require containers?

 

I understand the whole micro explosion and I am not trying to bring up size.. I am asking if :

1) plastic bag + paper = geocache

2) survey stake on the ground = geocache

 

Or are we simply too old school and expect to much?

Link to comment

I have a survey stake cache, been out for years. But it comes apart and has a bison tube inside. I've seen others like mine, are you sure it was a solid stake?

 

Plastic bags are just geo-trash. Maybe the container is missing? I did find one in a shopping bag, log was all moldy. Owned was not aware the ammo can was missing.

Link to comment

Have come across #1, a few times. Dunno why somebody would bother placing something like that, really.

Most seem to think that placing a cache is "giving back" to the caching community. Problem is... they certainly aren't giving much, now are they?

 

#2 is... well, nuttin'! Perhaps you missed something? Like others missed it also, and logged the stake as sort of "I found the location but couldn't find the cache, so I logged the stake, instead". Numbers do run the show, ya know.

 

Keep the 'old school' attitude... we are getting fewer and fewer.

Link to comment

I've seen a number of #1 in videos, but those tend to be covered in velcro and tape to be placed on a specific place that needs it to be flat to be hidden.

As long as it's waterproof, I have no problem with such hides. The key point is weather resistent container. You need something around the logbook and something to keep the rain out. A stake in the ground is not a cache unless something is inside.

Link to comment

I concur with Brian, the bag can contain the log. Most often the bag is reinforced with duct tape. These pouch/joey/slimbob containers can hold up pretty well in the right location. Signing an object be it a stake, piece of tape, baseball, or even a wooden debarked log is not finding a geocache.

Link to comment

I have a survey stake cache, been out for years. But it comes apart and has a bison tube inside. I've seen others like mine, are you sure it was a solid stake?

 

Plastic bags are just geo-trash. Maybe the container is missing? I did find one in a shopping bag, log was all moldy. Owned was not aware the ammo can was missing.

 

Solid stakes. Even has a bunch at the beginning so you can take them and replace any missing.

Link to comment

 

Solid stakes. Even has a bunch at the beginning so you can take them and replace any missing.

 

Wouldn't stakes placed (driven/poked) into the ground be a violation of the GS guidelines------------No digging or using a pointed object to place a cache? Just saying.............. :o

Link to comment

briansnat's interpretation seems to be the one that Groundspeak has given to the reviewers. However since there has been no indication from Groundspeak as to the rationale for requiring a container, it's hard to follow why a plastic bag with a slip of paper for a log is a cache while a stake that has the log inscribed on it is not.

 

Granted, I don't care much for the idea of using wooden stakes for a power trail. It sounds like someone couldn't find a supply of 35 mm film cans but could find a bunch of lumber scraps they could cut up with a miter saw. However I have found a few caches that were cleverly camouflage where you wrote on the back to log your find. There is a bit of what do you do when the "log" is full. But it isn't clear to me that the ability for finder to replace the log or add to it is really what the guideline is about.

 

Without a rationale, there are all sorts of ways around the guidelind. One could drill holes in the stakes and stuff paper logs in them. Or one could take a block of wood, drill a hole in it, then put a dowel in the hole and call it the log. I'm not convince were are better off by forbidding cachse that "contain" the log as an integral part of the cache (such as the front, the back, or the outside).

Link to comment

I agree a stake sounds like it violates the guideline about not using a sharp pointy object.

 

A plastic bag is hardly a container. I've seen a couple, but I do have to wonder how many of them previously had containers.

 

I keep meaning to carry a container for when I find plastic bags. It seems whenever I have a container on hand I don't find them. :rolleyes:

 

I've found a log in an empty chapstick container a few times. I'm surprised someone hasn't thrown it away as trash before I get there. But that is a container at least.

Link to comment

Have come across #1, a few times. Dunno why somebody would bother placing something like that, really.

Most seem to think that placing a cache is "giving back" to the caching community. Problem is... they certainly aren't giving much, now are they?

 

#2 is... well, nuttin'! Perhaps you missed something? Like others missed it also, and logged the stake as sort of "I found the location but couldn't find the cache, so I logged the stake, instead". Numbers do run the show, ya know.

 

Keep the 'old school' attitude... we are getting fewer and fewer.

 

I've heard rumors of an off road power trail in Central Nevada. All of the caches are surveyors stakes, nothing else. You pull the stake out of the ground, sign it, put it back, drive .1mi to the next one and do it again.

 

As far as giving back, they are giving their friends a smilie on the website and an increment to their total. In some cases it keeps someones steak or FTF streak going. I am running into more and more cachers that think that this is how the game is played. When someone that knows better finds the cache they shake their head but then go online and log "Great cache" even though the cache was a piece of garbage.

Link to comment

What do you folks think of a piece of paper rolled up into a drink straw with camo tape?

Guidelines say yes. Common sense says an emphatic no.

 

briansnat's interpretation seems to be the one that Groundspeak has given to the reviewers. However since there has been no indication from Groundspeak as to the rationale for requiring a container, it's hard to follow why a plastic bag with a slip of paper for a log is a cache while a stake that has the log inscribed on it is not.

Well, for one, a stake doesn't "contain" anything, which a "container" does by definition. The plastic bag does contain the slip of paper, hence it is a container.

Link to comment

briansnat's interpretation seems to be the one that Groundspeak has given to the reviewers. However since there has been no indication from Groundspeak as to the rationale for requiring a container, it's hard to follow why a plastic bag with a slip of paper for a log is a cache while a stake that has the log inscribed on it is not.

Well, for one, a stake doesn't "contain" anything, which a "container" does by definition. The plastic bag does contain the slip of paper, hence it is a container.

My issue is with the rationale for this guideline. It just isn't clear to me that you need a container with a clearly defined inside and outside and a separate log that is "inside" the container. Without a rationale I can come up with caches that meet the guidelines but aren't much different from one that doesn't.

 

I could take a flat magnetic sheet and cut out a circular section in the middle. The flat sheet with the hole is now my "container". The hole is the "inside". Now I'll take the circle I cut out and call it the log. Put the circle back in the hole and hide the cache. Voila! I've met the guideline. <_<

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

My issue is with the rationale for this guideline. It just isn't clear to me that you need a container with a clearly defined inside and outside and a separate log that is "inside" the container. Without a rationale I can come up with caches that meet the guidelines but aren't much different from one that doesn't.

 

I could take a flat magnetic sheet and cut out a circular section in the middle. The flat sheet with the hole is now my "container". The hole is the "inside". Now I'll take the circle I cut out and call it the log. Put the circle back in the hole and hide the cache. Voila! I've met the guideline. <_<

 

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I DNFed a flat-magnetic sheet cache. Taped to the back is a note: "You have found XXX. Use this ALR when you log your find." No log at all! I tried peeling the tape back, but still no log to sign. So I DNFed it.

Link to comment

 

Solid stakes. Even has a bunch at the beginning so you can take them and replace any missing.

 

Wouldn't stakes placed (driven/poked) into the ground be a violation of the GS guidelines------------No digging or using a pointed object to place a cache? Just saying.............. :o

 

Guidelines have changed:

 

1.Fundamental Placement Guidelines

3.Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely.

If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed.

Link to comment

What do you folks think of a piece of paper rolled up into a drink straw with camo tape?

 

It sucks.

 

If I found it, that would be the last straw.

 

Charter member guy with 250 hides is still taking a beating, and I bet he doesn't even know it. :ph34r: Better than the crumpled Poland Spring bottle you sign with a needle though. :)

Link to comment

I should be up to the owner to try to save it or not. It just seems to me a bunch of people that already have Mingo are screaming archive. I thought the Geo community was better than that.

I didn't have very much time for caching during my Baltic tour a few years ago, but my favorite cache find was a slimbob. I see no reason why they would not meet the current guidelines.

 

A stake would not meet the guideline, but I am with Toz in not understanding the reason for the guideline. Perhaps it is keep the game from being associated with graffiti.

Link to comment

briansnat's interpretation seems to be the one that Groundspeak has given to the reviewers. However since there has been no indication from Groundspeak as to the rationale for requiring a container, it's hard to follow why a plastic bag with a slip of paper for a log is a cache while a stake that has the log inscribed on it is not.

Well, for one, a stake doesn't "contain" anything, which a "container" does by definition. The plastic bag does contain the slip of paper, hence it is a container.

My issue is with the rationale for this guideline. It just isn't clear to me that you need a container with a clearly defined inside and outside and a separate log that is "inside" the container. Without a rationale I can come up with caches that meet the guidelines but aren't much different from one that doesn't.

 

I could take a flat magnetic sheet and cut out a circular section in the middle. The flat sheet with the hole is now my "container". The hole is the "inside". Now I'll take the circle I cut out and call it the log. Put the circle back in the hole and hide the cache. Voila! I've met the guideline. <_<

 

I've seen caches that the log/cache is what you sign. Not saying it was approved I'm just not sure why you are complaining. Holy cats, it's there so shuddup.

Link to comment

 

My issue is with the rationale for this guideline. It just isn't clear to me that you need a container with a clearly defined inside and outside and a separate log that is "inside" the container. Without a rationale I can come up with caches that meet the guidelines but aren't much different from one that doesn't.

 

I could take a flat magnetic sheet and cut out a circular section in the middle. The flat sheet with the hole is now my "container". The hole is the "inside". Now I'll take the circle I cut out and call it the log. Put the circle back in the hole and hide the cache. Voila! I've met the guideline. <_<

 

I wonder how a Klein Bottle would do as a cache!

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment

I felt like a tool when finding out a cache was a log pasted to the back page of a phone book at a public phone booth. So we say the phone book is the container?

 

No. Just because you found a cache which had a piece of paper pasted to a phone book (or any other object) doesn't mean that it complies with the definition of a container. There are lots of caches out there that violate the guidelines in some way and the only reason that they exist is because a reviewer is not aware that the CO has violated the guidelines.

Link to comment

I felt like a tool when finding out a cache was a log pasted to the back page of a phone book at a public phone booth. So we say the phone book is the container?

I'd say the permission guideline would be the first guideline to be invoked in this case. The container one would be down the line quite a ways.

Link to comment

Appears they are valid containers now..

 

I just got this email from the cache owner:

 

The containers at the cache sites where you indicated that they are not within geocaching guidelines are all approved containers by GeoDesertTiger. If there is an issue with the container interpretation, please contact GeoDesertTiger.

 

Per Geocaching Guidelines, cache logs are for logging an experience at the cache site. You will need to either update or delete your logs from my D.I.P series within the next 24 hours or they will be deleted.

 

------------

 

Appears they have authority to delete my logs because I referenced the guidelines about containers.

Link to comment

The containers at the cache sites where you indicated that they are not within geocaching guidelines are all approved containers by GeoDesertTiger. If there is an issue with the container interpretation, please contact GeoDesertTiger.

I would take them up on their offer. Just because the reviewer published the cache doesn't mean they know what type of "container" was used. Until the CO or a finder tells the reviewer what type of hide it is, the reviewer has no idea.

Link to comment
Though I think most of us would agree that a plastic bag is a lousy container, it does satisfy the container requirement.

 

While I understand it is currently allowed under the Guidelines, I think a good argument could be made that a plastic bag (or any bag for that matter) should never be a cache container - to the point of being prohibited.

 

Most bags - like plastic grocery bags - deteriorate rapidly from cold and/or sunlight and offer zero durability even when brand new. They're also almost indistinguishable from trash, even if you are a geocacher. Smaller ziplock baggies tend to last longer since they are usually either reenforced with duck tape ("slim bombs") or out of the direct elements (hidden behind a metal faceplate or tucked into a crack), but they still tear easily and the seals wear out rapidly. A bag is nearly always worse than even a 35mm film can or a plastic bottle. Perhaps some kind of solid/rigid requirement for cache containers?

Link to comment

Appears they are valid containers now..

 

I just got this email from the cache owner:

 

The containers at the cache sites where you indicated that they are not within geocaching guidelines are all approved containers by GeoDesertTiger. If there is an issue with the container interpretation, please contact GeoDesertTiger.

 

Per Geocaching Guidelines, cache logs are for logging an experience at the cache site. You will need to either update or delete your logs from my D.I.P series within the next 24 hours or they will be deleted.

 

------------

 

Appears they have authority to delete my logs because I referenced the guidelines about containers.

 

Wow! You posted cut and paste found it logs on over 100 caches on a power trail, all complaining about the caches and quoting guidelines? I can think of about 50 different ways to handle this and that wouldn't have been any of them.

Link to comment

Recently we have started seeing more caches that are simply a sandwich bad and a piece of paper or even more of a lack of container are the new concept of placing a wooden stake on the ground.

 

The stake IS the cache and the logbook.

 

Do cachers no longer require containers?

 

I understand the whole micro explosion and I am not trying to bring up size.. I am asking if :

1) plastic bag + paper = geocache

2) survey stake on the ground = geocache

 

Or are we simply too old school and expect to much?

 

OK, are we sure the stake in the ground is the cache? The cache pages seem to tell me they are "indicators" near the cache. Also, from what I understand, things you push into the ground are currently illegal, which would make even the infamous "fake sprinkler head" caches currently illegal. Even though I've never seen one, since I live up North in a sufficiently wet climate, and real sprinkler heads, let alone phony ones, are almost unheard of. :P

 

If these caches are really just stakes in the ground, or even laying *on* the ground, that you look at and drive on, I'm sure we have a case of the reviewer being wrong big time. If they did in fact personally approve them, as the quoted email would lead one to believe. There is definitely way more information needed here.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

I just looked at one of the stake caches and they also have the infamous GCRM logo....

 

"GCRM- Replace the log as needed or container if the cache container is broken or missing.

Before you replace a missing container, you must spend a reasonable amount of time searching - at least 5 minutes per difficulty rating. The cache owner accepts that there is a chance that multiple containers could be at the site. Please remove duplicate containers if you find multiple caches at the site. Broken containers and full logs may be disposed of at will."

 

Would this pass a review? Was the GCRM added after the publication?

Link to comment

I wonder how a Klein Bottle would do as a cache!

 

Doug 7rxc

Not sure but you would certainly have to use a Möbius strip for the log :rolleyes:

Yep, I considered that point! Do they make Rite in the Rain Möbius strips? I don't think the Kbottle would be completely waterproof at all... although drainage should be excellent. :blink:

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment

I just looked at one of the stake caches and they also have the infamous GCRM logo....

 

"GCRM- Replace the log as needed or container if the cache container is broken or missing.

Before you replace a missing container, you must spend a reasonable amount of time searching - at least 5 minutes per difficulty rating. The cache owner accepts that there is a chance that multiple containers could be at the site. Please remove duplicate containers if you find multiple caches at the site. Broken containers and full logs may be disposed of at will."

 

Would this pass a review? Was the GCRM added after the publication?

 

I would say No, because of this email:

 

Nope, I informed the cache owner that the caches will be archived if

it does not have a container and log book. The cacher owner informed

me that all the "stake caches" were replaced with a container that

includes a logbook meeting the current guidelines.

 

If it doesn't, please let me know, and a photo would help.

Link to comment

I just looked at one of the stake caches and they also have the infamous GCRM logo....

 

"GCRM- Replace the log as needed or container if the cache container is broken or missing.

Before you replace a missing container, you must spend a reasonable amount of time searching - at least 5 minutes per difficulty rating. The cache owner accepts that there is a chance that multiple containers could be at the site. Please remove duplicate containers if you find multiple caches at the site. Broken containers and full logs may be disposed of at will."

 

Would this pass a review? Was the GCRM added after the publication?

 

I would say No, because of this email:

 

Nope, I informed the cache owner that the caches will be archived if

it does not have a container and log book. The cacher owner informed

me that all the "stake caches" were replaced with a container that

includes a logbook meeting the current guidelines.

 

If it doesn't, please let me know, and a photo would help.

 

OK, so let me get this straight, I think I got it. You are supposed to sign a wooden stake, right? The wooden stake is the cache? If so, I would say this series is going buh-bye, shortly after a couple pictures of signed wooden stakes show up in the reviewer's email inbox. Maybe Power Trail guy can start his own GPS gaming website for signing wooden stakes every 528 feet. And as an added bonus, he can even make up his own guidelines, and allow himself to pound them into the ground. :lol:

 

The so-called "infamous GCRM text"? (Which fortunately is a regional thing pretty much restricted to the Western, U.S.) As repulsive as it is, and seemingly in direct conflict with the maintenance language in the guidelines, I've never heard of it as being grounds for rejection of a cache submittal, and everyone having to sneak it on the cache page after publication.

 

P.S. I'm going to go ahead and assume they really are still "stake caches", and your crew wasn't fooled into signing the stakes, and there really is a film canister 5 feet away from every stake.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

And as an added bonus, he can even make up his own guidelines, and allow himself to pound them into the ground. :lol:

 

Guidelines have changed:

 

3.Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely.

If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed.

 

Gone are the words about breaking ground, and using a point object. I suspect this allows some wiggle room for the reviewers.

Link to comment

And as an added bonus, he can even make up his own guidelines, and allow himself to pound them into the ground. :lol:

 

Guidelines have changed:

 

3.Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely.

If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed.

 

Gone are the words about breaking ground, and using a point object. I suspect this allows some wiggle room for the reviewers.

The guideline has been made more broad, not more specific, so anything that would have failed the previous wording would still fail the new wording. A stake fails the current wording of the guideline not once, but twice:

1. The stake is partially buried

2. A hole is created in the ground

 

Unless it's a magical stake that can sit on top of the ground, a stake doesn't pass this guideline.

Link to comment

And as an added bonus, he can even make up his own guidelines, and allow himself to pound them into the ground. :lol:

 

Guidelines have changed:

 

3.Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely.

If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed.

 

Gone are the words about breaking ground, and using a point object. I suspect this allows some wiggle room for the reviewers.

The guideline has been made more broad, not more specific, so anything that would have failed the previous wording would still fail the new wording. A stake fails the current wording of the guideline not once, but twice:

1. The stake is partially buried

2. A hole is created in the ground

 

Unless it's a magical stake that can sit on top of the ground, a stake doesn't pass this guideline.

 

OK, thanks. I think. I was only going on the words of Isonzo Karst, who told me in a thread in the past few months that things you push into the ground, such as the infamous fake sprinkler head, were no longer legal. Keep in mind, if you read this guys cache page carefully, his stakes are leaning up against bushes and rocks and stuff, and not hammered into the ground.

 

It's starting to get clearer. Power Trail dude thought he was going to pound wooden stakes into the ground every 528 feet, and people were going to sign the wooden stakes, which were the container. Then he was told the stakes could not break the ground. Then he was told the stake could not be the container. Currently, it is inconclusive (to me), if he really went out and put out 250+ real containers near the stakes, or if he just lied to the reviewer, and is still trying to use stakes as a container. :huh:

Link to comment

I just looked at one of the stake caches and they also have the infamous GCRM logo....

 

"GCRM- Replace the log as needed or container if the cache container is broken or missing.

Before you replace a missing container, you must spend a reasonable amount of time searching - at least 5 minutes per difficulty rating. The cache owner accepts that there is a chance that multiple containers could be at the site. Please remove duplicate containers if you find multiple caches at the site. Broken containers and full logs may be disposed of at will."

 

Would this pass a review? Was the GCRM added after the publication?

 

I would say No, because of this email:

 

Nope, I informed the cache owner that the caches will be archived if

it does not have a container and log book. The cacher owner informed

me that all the "stake caches" were replaced with a container that

includes a logbook meeting the current guidelines.

 

If it doesn't, please let me know, and a photo would help.

 

OK, so let me get this straight, I think I got it. You are supposed to sign a wooden stake, right? The wooden stake is the cache? If so, I would say this series is going buh-bye, shortly after a couple pictures of signed wooden stakes show up in the reviewer's email inbox. Maybe Power Trail guy can start his own GPS gaming website for signing wooden stakes every 528 feet. And as an added bonus, he can even make up his own guidelines, and allow himself to pound them into the ground. :lol:

 

The so-called "infamous GCRM text"? (Which fortunately is a regional thing pretty much restricted to the Western, U.S.) As repulsive as it is, and seemingly in direct conflict with the maintenance language in the guidelines, I've never heard of it as being grounds for rejection of a cache submittal, and everyone having to sneak it on the cache page after publication.

 

P.S. I'm going to go ahead and assume they really are still "stake caches", and your crew wasn't fooled into signing the stakes, and there really is a film canister 5 feet away from every stake.

 

There was no container. It was a survey stake. They even had a bunch of them at the beginning so you could drop another if you could not find one. No hidden container, no sly cut marks.. Sign the wooden stake and throw it back into the bush.

Link to comment

There was no container. It was a survey stake. They even had a bunch of them at the beginning so you could drop another if you could not find one. No hidden container, no sly cut marks.. Sign the wooden stake and throw it back into the bush.

If this is the case, I'd log a DNF, as there was no clear geocache at the site. Was the stake labelled "Geocache" in any way? If no, then it certainly wasn't anything close to a cache IMO.

Link to comment

I just looked at one of the stake caches and they also have the infamous GCRM logo....

 

"GCRM- Replace the log as needed or container if the cache container is broken or missing.

Before you replace a missing container, you must spend a reasonable amount of time searching - at least 5 minutes per difficulty rating. The cache owner accepts that there is a chance that multiple containers could be at the site. Please remove duplicate containers if you find multiple caches at the site. Broken containers and full logs may be disposed of at will."

 

Would this pass a review? Was the GCRM added after the publication?

 

I would say No, because of this email:

 

Nope, I informed the cache owner that the caches will be archived if

it does not have a container and log book. The cacher owner informed

me that all the "stake caches" were replaced with a container that

includes a logbook meeting the current guidelines.

 

If it doesn't, please let me know, and a photo would help.

 

OK, so let me get this straight, I think I got it. You are supposed to sign a wooden stake, right? The wooden stake is the cache? If so, I would say this series is going buh-bye, shortly after a couple pictures of signed wooden stakes show up in the reviewer's email inbox. Maybe Power Trail guy can start his own GPS gaming website for signing wooden stakes every 528 feet. And as an added bonus, he can even make up his own guidelines, and allow himself to pound them into the ground. :lol:

 

The so-called "infamous GCRM text"? (Which fortunately is a regional thing pretty much restricted to the Western, U.S.) As repulsive as it is, and seemingly in direct conflict with the maintenance language in the guidelines, I've never heard of it as being grounds for rejection of a cache submittal, and everyone having to sneak it on the cache page after publication.

 

P.S. I'm going to go ahead and assume they really are still "stake caches", and your crew wasn't fooled into signing the stakes, and there really is a film canister 5 feet away from every stake.

 

There was no container. It was a survey stake. They even had a bunch of them at the beginning so you could drop another if you could not find one. No hidden container, no sly cut marks.. Sign the wooden stake and throw it back into the bush.

 

True, he talks about leaving replacement stakes on the trail, and has the appalling (in my opinion) GCRM text on the cache page. It is very clear this guy intended his power trail to be wooden survey stakes every 528 feet that act as a container and you sign them. HOWEVER, unless he's lying, he was supposed to put real physical containers near every stake. I haven't looked at all 250 or so cache pages, but the ones I looked at, it appears your party were the first to find them. If I were you, I would want to be 100% sure the guy didn't really go out there and drop 250 film cans with paper logs in them, after his rather unorthodox power trail was first denied.

Link to comment

 

True, he talks about leaving replacement stakes on the trail, and has the appalling (in my opinion) GCRM text on the cache page. It is very clear this guy intended his power trail to be wooden survey stakes every 528 feet that act as a container and you sign them. HOWEVER, unless he's lying, he was supposed to put real physical containers near every stake. I haven't looked at all 250 or so cache pages, but the ones I looked at, it appears your party were the first to find them. If I were you, I would want to be 100% sure the guy didn't really go out there and drop 250 film cans with paper logs in them, after his rather unorthodox power trail was first denied.

 

No worries I have emails from the owner explaining that what we did was what they wanted. However they say that After this, they have made changes and as such I am now required to go change all my logs:

 

Based on you email stating that the cache site contains a picture of a wooden stake that is referenced as the indicator and writing in your cache log that you signed a stick wouldn't be anything new or revealing. I have removed the picture of the 'indicator' and have changed the wording on the cache page that the indicator will be a 'surprise indicator'. So as of tonight, logging anything about a stake, stick, or wood will be considered very revealing. I don't want to ruin the experiences of the cachers behind you.

 

This will will be my third request to have you update your logs on my D.I.P. series where you are referencing Geocaching guidelines since they are blogging and forum-like. The issue you are referring to can be addressed using those avenues and not my cache pages. The part of your logs quoting Geocaching guidelines do not have anything to do with the experience at the cache site. Like I said before, I don't remember posting Geocaching guidelines at each cache site for people to comment about. If I did, then I wouldn't be asking you to make these changes.

 

When updating the logs, please do not use any references to a stake, stick or wood in any way. That would be too revealing and will give away the "surprise indicator" that might be at the site to help them find the cache container. There won't always be one and that's a surprise too!

 

Once again, please update your logs. I do consider the logs blogging and forum-like and it's my understanding that blogging and forum-like logs are against the Geocaching logging guidelines. I have given you two days and multiple ideas on what to update your logs to for making your changes. At this point, I am left with only one resolution: Please update them in the next 24 hours, or they will have to be deleted.

 

Feel free to report me to Geocaching, but I have multiple days of emails trying to work this out with you. As the CO, it is my responsibility that the cache page be blogging and form-like logging free.

 

Link to comment

My frustration is they keep changing the cache page and Telling me that now that they have changed the cache page, historically it is different and as such writing anything that conflict with changes made a week later than we found it is reason for log deleting.

 

I have emailed Groundspeak a couple times about this but have not gotten response so I am using the forum to figure out why once more in this I am being told I have to throw my hands in the air and concede to another person when they (the cache owner) are not being compromising or fair in the judgement.

Link to comment

My frustration is they keep changing the cache page and Telling me that now that they have changed the cache page, historically it is different and as such writing anything that conflict with changes made a week later than we found it is reason for log deleting.

 

I have emailed Groundspeak a couple times about this but have not gotten response so I am using the forum to figure out why once more in this I am being told I have to throw my hands in the air and concede to another person when they (the cache owner) are not being compromising or fair in the judgement.

I don't know if their caches conform with the guidelines, or not. They can work that out with their reviewer. However, you need to edit your logs.

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...