Opinion on Webcam Cache

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Somewhat related, what do you guys think of this situation:

 

I know of a Webcam Cache that the camera went off line. The CO wanted to move it to a new location that had an active camera. But the nearest public webcam was too far to move without a reviewer approval. Aparently you can't do that for grandfathered cache types? Anyway, the cache page now has new coordinates, even though the listed coordinates are still at the old, not working, location.

 

There was a scenario like that awhile back (maybe it was the same cache). The CO moved it to the location of a working cam, but the coordinates could not be updated because it was a grandfathered cache type. Then someone, who didn't read the web page to see the actual coordinates in the description, complained about going to the published coordinates and not finding an active web cam. The policy prevented a CO that was trying to actively maintain a webcam cache from doing so and the cache was archived. That policy did not benefit anyone.

[Andronicus]

Somewhat related, what do you guys think of this situation:

 

I know of a Webcam Cache that the camera went off line. The CO wanted to move it to a new location that had an active camera. But the nearest public webcam was too far to move without a reviewer approval. Aparently you can't do that for grandfathered cache types? Anyway, the cache page now has new coordinates, even though the listed coordinates are still at the old, not working, location.

 

I'd let it alone.

Well yes, my question is if this is a good type of solution that other WebCam COs could/should use...?

[Mr.Yuck]

Somewhat related, what do you guys think of this situation:

 

I know of a Webcam Cache that the camera went off line. The CO wanted to move it to a new location that had an active camera. But the nearest public webcam was too far to move without a reviewer approval. Aparently you can't do that for grandfathered cache types? Anyway, the cache page now has new coordinates, even though the listed coordinates are still at the old, not working, location.

 

Personally, I would let that slide. There are so few left, and if I live long enough, and still post to these forums, I'll be sitting here some day talking about the last remaining Webcam Cache. It's true that VERY FEW people read cache pages, including the Volunteer reviewers (i.e caches with ALR's, blatant admissions of "vacation caches", travel bug prison language), but in the case of old Grandfathered cache types, I think most people do read them.

 

EDIT: P.S., as far as I know, you cannot change the coordinates of a webcam cache. Period.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Mr.Yuck

[+Traditional Bill]

Somewhat related, what do you guys think of this situation:

 

I know of a Webcam Cache that the camera went off line. The CO wanted to move it to a new location that had an active camera. But the nearest public webcam was too far to move without a reviewer approval. Aparently you can't do that for grandfathered cache types? Anyway, the cache page now has new coordinates, even though the listed coordinates are still at the old, not working, location.

 

There's a difference between a CO trying to actively maintain their listing and a CO actively letting people abuse the logs.

 

At least in that situation, there's an active cam and the cache owner has provided coordinates to it one way or another. I feel like in that situation it's a legitimate way to log the cache and it should be kept active as the owner is technically maintaining the listing

[4wheelin_fool]

Somewhat related, what do you guys think of this situation:

 

I know of a Webcam Cache that the camera went off line. The CO wanted to move it to a new location that had an active camera. But the nearest public webcam was too far to move without a reviewer approval. Aparently you can't do that for grandfathered cache types? Anyway, the cache page now has new coordinates, even though the listed coordinates are still at the old, not working, location.

 

Personally, I would let that slide. There are so few left, and if I live long enough, and still post to these forums, I'll be sitting here some day talking about the last remaining Webcam Cache. It's true that VERY FEW people read cache pages, including the Volunteer reviewers (i.e caches with ALR's, blatant admissions of "vacation caches", travel bug prison language), but in the case of old Grandfathered cache types, I think most people do read them.

 

EDIT: P.S., as far as I know, you cannot change the coordinates of a webcam cache. Period.

 

Groundspeak can, and they have, as we have seen in another thread.

[+Baad Daata]

If webcams are so unreliable why do we keep that small sampling annoying us. I try for every webcam that comes into my radar. These are in places that I may never visit again. It is very frustrating. Put them to sleep. I am going to Tucson, AZ and one of the two webcam caches is not functional and has not been available for quite some time. Evidently the "owner" is uninterested. Archive the stupid thing so it doesn't "keep coming up in searches". Why protect something that is a dinosaur?

[+jellis]

Only retire the ones not working. There is nothing wrong with the ones that are still going. Like Virtuals let them die in peace not forced.

[+Uncle Alaska]

So many people "Cheat" on webcams these days (taking a selfie at GZ instead of a true webcam shot) and very few owners of them actually monitor them (or are even logging into the site anymore)...seems like they don't really count for anything special anymore because of the cheating. Of course, if someone were to put a NM/NA on a inoperable webcam, all heck would break loose from the community. The next one that I find nearby that has not worked for a long time I think I will email to a reviewer instead of posting on the actual page.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Uncle Alaska

[+jellis]

Somewhat related, what do you guys think of this situation:

 

I know of a Webcam Cache that the camera went off line. The CO wanted to move it to a new location that had an active camera. But the nearest public webcam was too far to move without a reviewer approval. Aparently you can't do that for grandfathered cache types? Anyway, the cache page now has new coordinates, even though the listed coordinates are still at the old, not working, location.

 

Personally, I would let that slide. There are so few left, and if I live long enough, and still post to these forums, I'll be sitting here some day talking about the last remaining Webcam Cache. It's true that VERY FEW people read cache pages, including the Volunteer reviewers (i.e caches with ALR's, blatant admissions of "vacation caches", travel bug prison language), but in the case of old Grandfathered cache types, I think most people do read them.

 

EDIT: P.S., as far as I know, you cannot change the coordinates of a webcam cache. Period.

 

Groundspeak can, and they have, as we have seen in another thread.

And I have seen a reviewer archive one after the camera had moved only a block away.

[+cerberus1]

So many people "Cheat" on webcams these days (taking a selfie at GZ instead of a true webcam shot) and very few owners of them actually monitor them (or are even logging into the site anymore)...seems like they don't really count for anything special anymore because of the cheating. Of course, if someone were to put a NM/NA on a inoperable webcam, all heck would break loose from the community. The next one that I find nearby that has not worked for a long time I think I will email to a reviewer instead of posting on the actual page.

This has confused me as well.

Folks know that it isn't working and they're "rigging it" to get that icon, yet someone attempts to correct the issue and they're sent hate mail, or the cache page becomes a forum chastising that person.

Weird.

[+lamoracke]

If webcams are so unreliable why do we keep that small sampling annoying us. I try for every webcam that comes into my radar. These are in places that I may never visit again. It is very frustrating. Put them to sleep. I am going to Tucson, AZ and one of the two webcam caches is not functional and has not been available for quite some time. Evidently the "owner" is uninterested. Archive the stupid thing so it doesn't "keep coming up in searches". Why protect something that is a dinosaur?

 

Like this forum discussion that was dormant that you resurrected by posting on it 7 months later?

 

Yes, like any other cache, why archive it if its working just fine. Most webcams work just fine.

[+Pork King]

Archive.

 

What amazed me is people posting logs like this one:

 

Unloaded my bike and made the ride to Beale to make the find. Got my pic and moved on. Not too many of these webcams active anymore. Fav point added.

 

Thanks for the effort in placing and maintaining these caches so that I can get my fix for the crazy addiction I have!

 

First...not too many of these webcams active...INCLUDING THIS ONE!

Second...obviously a boilerplate, but still ironic since the only "maintenance" being done seems to be deleting NM logs.

 

Yes, that is obviously a boilerplate message. In fact, I knew the cacher who wrote that without even having looking up that log. It's on just about every log he writes.

 

Also, to add to the topic, I own the listing for the last active webcam cache in my state. When it was originally published, the reviewer had me add an ALR to differentiate geocachers from ordinary people in the webcam shot. Originally, I had geocachers lug a chair to the coordinates (middle of a college drill field). Now, they can identify by "phooning" (running man pose). All logs that aren't captured on webcam are deleted, as well as any that aren't phooning.

 

ANYHOO... A while back, the webcam went down, and I disabled the cache (the guy that maintained the camera retired, and apparently failed to give anyone the passwords required to access it, or so the department that runs the cam told me). As time dragged on, I began to wonder whether the cam would ever come back up, but I would not enable it until it did. On the local cacher Facebook page, I took a poll as to how long I should wait before archiving. The responses I received were all in favor of keeping the webcam active, even if it meant people just take selfies at the location, because of (as mentioned here before) "history". Bah. Had the webcam not came back up when it did (finally), I would have archived the thing. I like to play by the rules.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Pork King

[+jellis]

One time I posted a Needs Archived on a missing light pole film can at Walmart. The owner hadn't logged in for over a year, and it had DNF's from 10+ cachers. I got angry emails from 2 guys over that one, telling me not to be a cache cop.

Well, maybe if they had been more active in keeping the local COs accountable, you wouldn't have had to log that NA!

Those people had no excuse attacking you for what you did. You were completely justified based on the information you provided. If I saw a cache like that in my area, it'd get an NA in a heartbeat.

 

It's shocking how many people feel it's okay to just look the other way and let someone else deal with a problem situation. It's in everyone's best interest to get problem caches dealt with, no matter how old or rare they might be.

 

I still have some friends though they don't agree with my reporting caches. Some even joke telling me to ignore an area that may have violations that I would report. So as I mentioned before I either go straight for the reviewer or let the sock puppet get the blame.

[+Greatland Reviewer]

Isn´t this the same issue as people doing PHOTOLOGS in non-existing caches?!?!? Come on man... and woman!

Yes, and I archive those without any remorse, especially when the Cache Owner encourages photologging because they can't/won't perform maintenance or they can't reach their local maintainer, who probably never existed in the first place.

[+Greatland Reviewer]

I got angry emails from 2 guys over that one, telling me not to be a cache cop.

If those e-mails were sent through the geocaching.com system, you can report them to Groundspeak and the good folks there will set the senders straight. E-mails such as those are a violation of the Terms of Use of the site.

 

Geocaching is dependent on self-policing by the players to avoid the playing field becoming littered with dysfunctional caches. Those cachers' anger was clearly misdirected...if they are going to get angry with anyone, it should be the Cache Owner who couldn't be bothered to take care of the cache.