Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 51
avroair

What Irks you most?

Recommended Posts

On 11/26/2018 at 6:54 PM, Goldenwattle said:

Why did I attempt such a cache if it was rather difficult for me? Well because it was marked as 1.5 terrain and I had made the effort to go there, (because it was marked only 1.5 terrain). If the terrain had been more realistically marked, I likely would not have bothered going there.

 

Boy oh boy can I relate to this. When I was recovering from a broken leg (a geocaching accident), I risked further injury a number of times for caches rated T1 - T2 that weren't "along well-defined paths with no significant elevation change or overgrowth". I had driven (on average) 30 minutes to get to these low terrain, small-size or larger caches, that had good recent logs (a rarity), so I pushed my luck when I should have turned back when I got close to ground zero and I saw what was ahead. 

Edited by L0ne.R
punctuation
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Boy oh boy can I relate to this, when I was recovering from a broken leg (a geocaching accident). I risked further injury a number of times for caches rated T1 - T2 that weren't "along well-defined paths with no significant elevation change or overgrowth". I had driven (on average) 20 minutes to get to these low terrain, small-size or larger caches, that had good recent logs (a rarity), so I pushed my luck when I should have turned back when I got close to ground zero and I saw what was ahead. 

 

The guidelines are a bit odd, in that they require a "well defined path" for T2 but not T1.5:

  • T1.5 - The hike is less than 0.5 mile (0.8 km). Most likely flat but may not be wheelchair accessible.
  • T2 - The hike is less than 2 miles (3 km) along well-defined paths with no significant elevation change or overgrowth.

I had a T1.5, archived long before the current wording was in place, that was about twenty metres from the road along flat ground but there was no well-defined path, just grass and a few trees and bushes to walk around.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

The guidelines are a bit odd, in that they require a "well defined path" for T2 but not T1.5:

 

Hmmm. That's irksome. Although one might assume if "well defined" describes a T2 path it would also apply to anything less than T2. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The guidelines are a bit odd, in that they require a "well defined path" for T2 but not T1.5:

 

Hmmm. That's irksome. Although one might assume if "well defined" describes a T2 path it would also apply to anything less than T2. 

 

I was actually surprised to see that a T2 required a well-defined path. I really don't see why a location like this would need to be T2.5 just because there are no constructed pathways in the park.

 

panoramapark.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have explained that a person in a wheelchair couldn't possible reach it.

I'm willing to cut some slack on the concept of "wheelchair accessible" just because the capabilities of the wheelchair users I've known has varied so widely, ranging from wheelchair athletes to quadriplegics. But the fuzziness in what "wheelchair accessible" means is the whole reason for the http://www.handicaching.com/ site.

 

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The guidelines are a bit odd, in that they require a "well defined path" for T2 but not T1.5:

Keep in mind that for a long time, there were no descriptions of the fractional ratings. T1 had a clear rating, and T2 had a clear rating, but nothing was said about T1.5 (or T2.5, or...). In my experience, T1.5 usually meant "This would be T1 except that it isn't quite wheelchair accessible."

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, niraD said:

I'm willing to cut some slack on the concept of "wheelchair accessible" just because the capabilities of the wheelchair users I've known has varied so widely, ranging from wheelchair athletes to quadriplegics. But the fuzziness in what "wheelchair accessible" means is the whole reason for the http://www.handicaching.com/ site.

Quadriplegics are difficult to cater for, as they have so very little movement, if any. I feel as long as the path is basically flat and once at GZ the person in a wheelchair can reach the cache, without needing to stretch in any direction; up, down, too far out sideways, that's a good start that the cache might be wheelchair accessible and can be marked 1 star terrain. Just because the path is wheelchair accessible (in fact made for wheelchairs) does not necessarily make a cache wheelchair accessible if, as in this example I found of a one star terrain cache marked accessible for wheelchairs, that once at GZ (after, yes, going along a path put in for wheelchairs), the cache then can't be reached, as it is placed under the wooden walkway. As an able bodied person I had to step off the board-walk and kneel to reach under the path to get the cache. I did inform the CO this was not accessible to someone in a wheelchair, but they ignored my comments and did nothing. This is my experience; most COs won't take polite advice. So hence my reaction a couple of times has been to place the cache where a person in a wheelchair (as the cache is marked wheelchair accessible) in a place they have a better chance of reaching it. My one wheelchair accessible cache I considered very carefully before I marked it one star terrain, as I think it is nasty and uncaring to disappoint someone by misrepresenting the terrain.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I did inform the CO this was not accessible to someone in a wheelchair, but they ignored my comments and did nothing. This is my experience; most COs won't take polite advice.

 

I wonder if this might be a case of here-today-gone-tomorrow COs rather than ones totally insensitive to the needs of wheelchair users. A lot of the urban caches around these parts were placed by people who disappeared within a few months of placing them, never to be seen again, so any feedback would be just talking to empty air.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I wonder if this might be a case of here-today-gone-tomorrow COs rather than ones totally insensitive to the needs of wheelchair users. A lot of the urban caches around these parts were placed by people who disappeared within a few months of placing them, never to be seen again, so any feedback would be just talking to empty air.

In some cases perhaps you are right.

Share this post


Link to post

If I can roll up to GZ in a wheelchair and see the cache is that T1? What if I have to roll back to the van and get my 20' extension pole grabber to retrieve the cache from the rafters and replace it? D5? (Disclaimer: I'm not in a wheelchair, but have seen the above situation.)

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have told a number of COs that their rating (especially) on terrain one caches is wrong, and in almost every case I have been ignored. I have explained that a person in a wheelchair couldn't possible reach it. Nothing has changed.


When you find such caches, incorrectly rated T1's, then are you mentioning the inaccessibility in your online logs?  As barefootjeff mentioned, it's entirely possible that the CO is out of the game. If you mention that the cache isn't actually wheelchair-friendly in your log, then at least that gives wheelchair cachers a chance to weed out those caches when/if they review the cache logs.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, noncentric said:


When you find such caches, incorrectly rated T1's, then are you mentioning the inaccessibility in your online logs?  As barefootjeff mentioned, it's entirely possible that the CO is out of the game. If you mention that the cache isn't actually wheelchair-friendly in your log, then at least that gives wheelchair cachers a chance to weed out those caches when/if they review the cache logs.

 

 

 

I mention it in my log.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have told a number of COs that their rating (especially) on terrain one caches is wrong, and in almost every case I have been ignored. I have explained that a person in a wheelchair couldn't possible reach it. Nothing has changed.

 

I still don't see how that places the onus upon you  or gives you the "right" to move the cache to a location you deem appropriate for the rating.  It's not your cache.  If you're that concerned, place a NM log on it as well as mentioning it in your log.  Part of maintenance is making sure your cache page is up to date, which would include the D/T rating.  That way, if it's an inactive CO, you have a legitimate reason to follow up with a NA log due to inactivity.  If it's an active CO, they can update the cache page or replace the cache where it should be.  If it's an active CO who is lazy, follow it up with the subsequent NA log to get them moving.

 

That doesn't mean you don't have a valid point, but I still don't believe that gives you the right to move it to a different location.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, coachstahly said:

That doesn't mean you don't have a valid point, but I still don't believe that gives you the right to move it to a different location.

 

But the CO has the right to trail people out to the cache who won't be able to complete it and thus will have wasted their time?

 

Nah.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

But the CO has the right to trail people out to the cache who won't be able to complete it and thus will have wasted their time?

 

Nah.

 

Not familiar with this use of "trail".  Is that an autocorrect?

 

I get the point but it still doesn't invalidate the claim that it's not their cache so they shouldn't move it to a location they deem suitable.  Previous logs should provide enough information for people to identify these types of problem caches.  If recent logs mention that the cache appears to be rated incorrectly, then it's a good bet that it's incorrect and the seeker should be able to make that judgment call, especially if none of the earlier logs mention the issue.

 

I found a 1.5/4 cache that took me a bit of time to find, more because I was looking in the wrong place due to my assumptions.  Turns out the D/T rating was the inverse of what I found and the CO changed it to a 4/1.5.  Had I moved it to the location I was looking, I would have been wrong.  This is a slippery slope to go down, when you think you know what the CO intended based on what you find and where you find it, and then you change the hide to suit the D/T level you think is appropriate.

 

In the example provided (hypothetical or otherwise), it's pretty obvious that it's not a 1 T cache if it's up in the rafters.  It's my guess that most loggers will put something about the discrepancy in their log, just as GW would do.  I'd file the NM log and if it's not corrected, file the NA log a couple weeks later.  I'd make sure to contact the CO as well to cover all the bases.

 

I'm not wheelchair bound but I have a caching acquaintance who is and he initially sorts by T rating and then reads  the logs for verification that it's something he can do.  Occasionally, he has found some caches that surprise me, based on the T rating, as he typically caches alone.  He does his homework to make sure that he's not wasting his time.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Not familiar with this use of "trail".  Is that an autocorrect?

 

Might be an English colloquialism - don't know.

 

It refers to sending someone out on a wasted journey - especially knowingly. Something akin to a wild goose chase.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

COs can't hide a containerless cache (except for earthcaches and virtual rewards).

See GC4D6AQ. The description has never been edited after publication.

 

19 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

COs can't list a sign and ask people to sign the back of the sign. 

See GC6HCH7. This is an electrical station, though, not a sign.

 

19 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

COs can't submit a cache with a container then remove that container and ask people to log the cache anyway if they visit the location. 

I won't even bother to give you examples... They are numerous, all over the world.

 

19 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

A cache owner can not list their cache a T1 if it is not wheelchair accessible -- the wheelchair attribute is mandatory when listing a cache as a T1. 

The wheelchair attribute is mandatory. Wheelchair access is not.

 

19 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

There are limits to what a CO can do. 

Only for an honest CO.

 

 

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, BillyGee said:
Quote

COs can't list a sign and ask people to sign the back of the sign. 

See GC6HCH7. This is an electrical station, though, not a sign.

 

Hopefully that one will get archived now it's been raised here.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Might be an English colloquialism - don't know.

 

It refers to sending someone out on a wasted journey - especially knowingly. Something akin to a wild goose chase.

 

 

Thanks.  Certainly not used that way here in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Hopefully that one will get archived now it's been raised here.

 

Most probably not.

 

But notice how nobody had complained. Electrical stations are OK to vandalize. Women's underwear - well, you know. :P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, BillyGee said:

 

Most probably not.

 

But notice how nobody had complained. Electrical stations are OK to vandalize. Women's underwear - well, you know. :P

 

I don't think we'd get away with even discussing vandalising women's underwear for long before the thread was shut down for being 'off topic'. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I don't think we'd get away with even discussing vandalising women's underwear for long before the thread was shut down for being 'off topic'. :ph34r:

 

Maybe, but it would be so worth it.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, NYPaddleCacher said:
43 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I don't think we'd get away with even discussing vandalising women's underwear for long before the thread was shut down for being 'off topic'. :ph34r:

 

Maybe, but it would be so worth it.

 

In fairness, it's frustrating enough when my own threads are cut short with the excuse of being 'off topic'.

 

I wouldn't want to be the one to cause this veteran thread to be brought to a pointless, untimely end.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, BillyGee said:
20 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

COs can't hide a containerless cache (except for earthcaches and virtual rewards).

See GC4D6AQ. The description has never been edited after publication.

 

Quote

COs can't list a sign and ask people to sign the back of the sign. 

See GC6HCH7. This is an electrical station, though, not a sign.

 

Quote

COs can't submit a cache with a container then remove that container and ask people to log the cache anyway if they visit the location. 

I won't even bother to give you examples... They are numerous, all over the world.

 

From the guidelines:

 

"There are no precedents for placing geocaches. Past publication of a similar geocache is not justification for publication of a new geocache. If a geocache was published that you feel violated the guidelines, you may report it. However, the existing geocache may have been placed prior to a guideline change, and may be grandfathered."

 

You can post lots of examples of guideline violations but the "no precedent" guideline trumps all of them.  The only thing you might accomplish is to get some of those examples archived.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I wouldn't want to be the one to cause this veteran thread to be brought to a pointless, untimely end.

Speaking of irks...

 

Another forum-related irk is when a conversation starts in the general geocaching forum about the basics of trackables, or Wherigo, or some other topic that has its own ghetto. And then, just as the conversation gets going, the thread is moved to the trackables forum, or the Wherigo forum, or whatever ghetto is "on topic", where most forum participants will never see it again.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

GC6HCH7.

Looks to me that there was, initially, a "container" of the flat magnetic type with log sheet under it. I'm guessing that it has gone missing so cachers are now signing the sign thinking of it is a "unique" log. CO's that don't maintain their caches irk me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

I still don't see how that places the onus upon you  or gives you the "right" to move the cache to a location you deem appropriate for the rating.  It's not your cache.  If you're that concerned, place a NM log on it as well as mentioning it in your log.  Part of maintenance is making sure your cache page is up to date, which would include the D/T rating.  That way, if it's an inactive CO, you have a legitimate reason to follow up with a NA log due to inactivity.  If it's an active CO, they can update the cache page or replace the cache where it should be.  If it's an active CO who is lazy, follow it up with the subsequent NA log to get them moving.

 

That doesn't mean you don't have a valid point, but I still don't believe that gives you the right to move it to a different location.

In both cases (2 times only) where I moved the cache, I wasn't physically able to return the one star rated terrain cache back to where I found it. One high up in the rafters of a building and the other time high up in a tree. I had made the effort to go there, being informed the terrain was one star only, so I thought no problem and was not carrying extra equipment, such a ladder. I could have walked away and left the cache there, but in both cases I had travelled some distance to get this cache, so I knocked down the cache with a stick. In once case I wrote, "I believe there has been cache creep here, as the placement no longer matches the one star terrain rating" and placed the cache on a lower tree branch. Perhaps there had been cache creep; a tall person comes along, finds it and places it as high as they can reach. Who knows, but these things happen. Anyway I returned it to where I could reach, which was still possibly high for some people (but there was not a lower branch). And in fact I think, some later finders wrote still high for them, so definitely not one star terrain, and a wheelchair person could still not reach it...without a stick. These days I would likely put in a NM as well and explain why this is not one star terrain, but unfortunately one NM would likely have nothing happen.

Some COs also will not on purpose give any of their caches a higher terrain or difficulty rating than 1.5 stars, no matter how difficulty. Because they want people who refuse to pay for membership to be able to find their cache.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, colleda said:

GC6HCH7.

Looks to me that there was, initially, a "container" of the flat magnetic type with log sheet under it. I'm guessing that it has gone missing so cachers are now signing the sign thinking of it is a "unique" log. CO's that don't maintain their caches irk me.

At the time this cache was submitted for review, the cache container was represented to be a "Small food-box."  On that basis, the cache met the listing guidelines and the reviewer published the cache.  I would have done the same.  So, no reviewer-based "irk" for this cache being published.

 

Since the time of publication, there's been no "Needs Archived" or "Needs Maintenance" logs.  There's an established pattern of finds, with occasional DNF's, leading to a stellar "Cache Health Score."  Therefore, the cache would not come to a Reviewer's attention unless they happened to find it as a geocacher, or heard about it from a geocaching friend at an event or in an email.  So, no reviewer-based "irk" for no action being taken against the cache for a guideline violation (maintenance or otherwise).

 

As a reviewer and a geocacher I share your irk about CO's that don't maintain caches properly and in compliance with the listing guidelines.  But, I am also irked that none of the 91 finders reported any issue about the cache.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 4

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, coachstahly said:

In the example provided (hypothetical or otherwise), it's pretty obvious that it's not a 1 T cache if it's up in the rafters.  It's my guess that most loggers will put something about the discrepancy in their log, just as GW would do.

Actually, these days with smart phones, no. It's 'TFTC' and other non-messages. One shouldn't need to scroll down past lots of this rubbish to find a real log, and besides I don't use a smart phone and use a GPS and that only shows the last five logs, so not many to check. Besides, so many finders don't report issues. Read previous log. " But, I am also irked that none of the 91 finders reported any issue about the cache. "

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Keystone said:

  But, I am also irked that none of the 91 finders reported any issue about the cache.

That irks me too. Just like a string of Found Its mentioning a full/wet/missing log and no NMs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, colleda said:

That irks me too. Just like a string of Found Its mentioning a full/wet/missing log and no NMs.

 

I just NM'd a cache that went 6 years with full/soggy/broken/missing logs but no NMs.

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

9 hours ago, colleda said:

GC6HCH7.

Looks to me that there was, initially, a "container" of the flat magnetic type with log sheet under it. I'm guessing that it has gone missing so cachers are now signing the sign thinking of it is a "unique" log. CO's that don't maintain their caches irk me. 

 

That's how the owner intends it to be. See the inscription at the top in red? This _is_ his last maintenance.

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, BillyGee said:

That's how the owner intends it to be. See the inscription at the top in red? This _is_ his last maintenance.

 

Outstanding! 🤣

 

Gotta be a candidate for Geocach of The Month or whatever it is.

 

Maybe it's a new type - a GrafittiCache perhaps?

 

Certainly less expensive than a trad.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, BillyGee said:

 

 

That's how the owner intends it to be. See the inscription at the top in red? This _is_ his last maintenance.

 

It's shocking that all finders are happy with that cache design.

 

Edit: I realized that I know this CO personally. I'm going to PM him. He's very honest and reasonable guy and I'm almost sure he'll fix the problem.

Edited by Rikitan

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rikitan said:

 

It's shocking that all finders are happy with that "cache design". 😞

 

Edit: I realized that I know this CO personally. I'm going to PM him. He's very honest and reasonable guy and I'm almost sure he'll fix the problem.

 

But that was the fix. His previous version of the same geocache was a parasitic box that the finders were supposed to unmount from a real electrical box on the other side of the station. Something like GC6CN64 but without the permission. And with real electrical current nearby. :D
 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, BillyGee said:

And with real electrical current nearby. :D

 

So long as there was no risk of seeing underwear it's all good :rolleyes:

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Needs Maintenance Log: "Log is full"

Owner Maintenance Log: "One swipe with a paintbrush; log now has room."

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post

I added photos to my trackables, and now discover that somehow the photos ended up on instagram.  I don't use instagram and have no idea how it works.  How would they get there and why would geocaching.com allow that to happen?  How can I get them off instagram when I know nothing about it?

Edited by PulmonaryHip
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, PulmonaryHip said:

I added photos to my trackables, and now discover that somehow the photos ended up on instagram.  I don't use instagram and have no idea how it works.  How would they get there and why would geocaching.com allow that to happen?

 

How would geocaching.com prevent that from happening?

 

A few seconds with the snipping tool I can grab an image of absolutely anything displayed on my screen and do with that whatever I please.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I don't have an instagram account, have never used the site and wouldn't even know where to start looking.  My problem is that I didn't post it there.  Somehow it went from geocaching.com to there without my knowledge or permission.  That is the major issue.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

How would geocaching.com prevent that from happening?

 

A few seconds with the snipping tool I can grab an image of absolutely anything displayed on my screen and do with that whatever I please.

 

 

Yes, you can technically do that but there are copyright issues that you may want to consider.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, PulmonaryHip said:

I added photos to my trackables, and now discover that somehow the photos ended up on instagram.  I don't use instagram and have no idea how it works.  How would they get there and why would geocaching.com allow that to happen?  How can I get them off instagram when I know nothing about it?

 

Who posted them?

THAT'S your culprit. Many people think they have to post all aspects of their lives online for all to see.

You found a TB? Well, you'd better post a picture of it so everyone you know knows what you've been up to!

Bathroom schedule's next!

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, PulmonaryHip said:

I don't have an instagram account, have never used the site and wouldn't even know where to start looking.  My problem is that I didn't post it there.  Somehow it went from geocaching.com to there without my knowledge or permission.  That is the major issue.

 

Thought I'd do a little investigation, but boy, you have a lot of trackables!

 

However, the sixth one I tried maybe illustrates the problem:

https://www.geocaching.com/track/details.aspx?id=6537243

 

This does have a few "Discovered on Instagram" type logs.  The problem is your photo actually includes the tracking code, and somebody has decided to add it to some trackables spoiler list on Instagram.  Nothing Groundspeak can do about that.  You should probably remove the photo (or code) from the trackable page, but I'm afraid the cat is out of the bag.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

 

Thought I'd do a little investigation, but boy, you have a lot of trackables!

 

However, the sixth one I tried maybe illustrates the problem:

https://www.geocaching.com/track/details.aspx?id=6537243

 

This does have a few "Discovered on Instagram" type logs.  The problem is your photo actually includes the tracking code, and somebody has decided to add it to some trackables spoiler list on Instagram.  Nothing Groundspeak can do about that.  You should probably remove the photo (or code) from the trackable page, but I'm afraid the cat is out of the bag.

 

And, delete the "Found on Instagram" logs.

 

People might complain, but I think it's warranted. You're supposed to be in the presence of the TB to log it.

Yeah, yeah, "Show me where in the guidelines...."

 

We all know what the point is. I'd delete them. It'll be a pain, so it's up to you.

Edited by TeamRabbitRun

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, PulmonaryHip said:

I don't have an instagram account, have never used the site and wouldn't even know where to start looking.  My problem is that I didn't post it there.  Somehow it went from geocaching.com to there without my knowledge or permission.  That is the major issue.

 

You can report images, and hope that they're dealt with (no guarantee) but you might need to create a basic placeholder account to have the report functionality.

 

There's also a trend of dummy re-posting accounts that are VERY annoying, which choose topical instagram posts (geocaching hashtag for example) and re-share them as their own, en masse, from said accounts, copying the entire description as well (though giving 'credit').  In those cases I block those accounts, which afaik hides your profile from them and you don't see their posts.  But that's a different issue...

 

 

49 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

People might complain, but I think it's warranted. You're supposed to be in the presence of the TB to log it.

Yeah, yeah, "Show me where in the guidelines...."

 

We all know what the point is. I'd delete them. It'll be a pain, so it's up to you.

 

Yeah, people might complain, but you're good unless Groundspeak reinstates their logs, otherwise you got the last word :)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

And, delete the "Found on Instagram" logs.

People might complain, but I think it's warranted. You're supposed to be in the presence of the TB to log it.

Yeah, yeah, "Show me where in the guidelines...."

 

In the trackable Guidelines it does say,  "Virtual trackables with virtual logs are not encouraged. It is up to the trackable owner to state if they allow this."

I might assume, as others apparently did, that the TO intended them to be found that way.   

Since I don't think of stats, I'll sometimes log it and say, "Not sure if you intended it to be there, but I Discovered your trackable by your photo on the trackable's page". 

If my log gets deleted, then I know they're paying attention.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:
6 hours ago, PulmonaryHip said:

I don't have an instagram account, have never used the site and wouldn't even know where to start looking.  My problem is that I didn't post it there.  Somehow it went from geocaching.com to there without my knowledge or permission.  That is the major issue.

You can report images, and hope that they're dealt with (no guarantee) but you might need to create a basic placeholder account to have the report functionality.

 

And just to be clear.  When thebruce0 says "you can report images", then he's referring to reporting to Instagram, not to Groundspeak.  Some other cacher copied the photo from your page and posted it to Instagram. Nothing Groundspeak can do to prevent that from happening.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Yeah, people might complain, but you're good unless Groundspeak reinstates their logs, otherwise you got the last word :)

 

IIRK, Groundspeak doesn't get involved in trackable squabbles over reinstating logs (like they might do on a cache Found It). 

They belong to the TO.  The TO deletes a log, it's gone.

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 51

×
×
  • Create New...