Opinion on Webcam Cache

April 16, 2014

Hello. I am not trying to be a cache cop, I am just wondering what opinions are out there. I know there are no more new Webcam caches, and that people are pretty protective of the ones still going. There are 2 webcam caches here locally, and both have been down for a long time.

Here's one: Beale Street

As you can see in the gallery, the camera hasn't worked since 2012. The Earthcam website no longer lists this camera as one you can view. Same for the other Webcam cache down the street.

I posted a Needs Maintenance log yesterday since I could not get a picture form the camera, which was promptly deleted by the CO. That's her prerogative I suppose, so I posted a DNF and moved on. My question is, at what point should this one be archived? It's been 2 years since the camera was removed. Posting a selfie with your iPhone kinda defeats the purpose of a webcam according to some I've talked to. Others have no problem with it. Thoughts?

7.3k · April 16, 2014

Unfortunately, if the webcam no longer works, then the cache page needs to be archived.

2.7k · April 16, 2014

This line from the cache page sums it up (and likely is cause for Archival)

Note on 11/3/13: If the webcam is down as it usually is, just post a selfie.

3.7k · April 16, 2014

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.

6.1k · April 16, 2014

Cache cop? You're supposed to mind your own business and allow issues to fester into absurdity. After all, that's the easiest and most cowardly thing to do.

22.1k · April 16, 2014

The cache needs to be archived, but some sensitivity is called for because this well-known geocacher passed away. I am not sure who is in control of her account to delete logs, etc.

I would write an email to the local reviewer, who will likely be aware of the specifics for this account, or to Geocaching HQ.

5.7k · April 16, 2014

What next? Ownerless virtuals? :laughing: I'm sure there are many reasons to keep old caches alive and enjoyed by the community. :anibad:

Edited April 16, 2014 by Manville Possum Hunters

April 16, 2014

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. I figure if people get that mad over a lame LPC, one might expect to be lynched for requesting archival on a historic Webcam cache with lots of favorites.

Edited April 16, 2014 by umop-apisdn

April 16, 2014

I wonder if a reviewer can rightfully archive something like this? If so, post a NA log. The local reviewer will get it even if the CO deletes it.

I think it's a complete joke when I see a webcam that's down and folks logging that they've taken a webcam photo when it's really just a self shot. The log type is "webcam photo taken", not "selfie posted at GZ". I once passed up a 10 icon day because a webcam in Lexington KY no longer works. Didn't bother me one bit.

7.8k · April 16, 2014

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.

As for the webcam in question, it definitely needs to be archived. The situation is similar to the Webcam cache that was in Las Vegas (The 4 Corners Cache), though this one does have the added complication that Keystone mentioned. The Las Vegas webcam had been down for something like 2 years, but people were logging it like a Virtual. Once it was mentioned here in the forums, it promptly went away, as it should.

The whole point about a Webcam cache is the webcam. Once you don't have the webcam, there's nothing left. Selfie ≠ "Webcam photo taken"

Edited April 16, 2014 by The A-Team

5.7k · April 16, 2014

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. I figure if people get that mad over a lame LPC, one might expect to be lynched for requesting archival on a historic Webcam cache with lots of favorites.

Same here on an old missing geocache, the local community was out-raged at me. I just use the darn thing for a TB Graveyard now. :anibad: Plans were to place my own there and maintain it, but NO. The missing ownerless one is more important because it is "history". :huh:

2.4k · April 16, 2014

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. I figure if people get that mad over a lame LPC, one might expect to be lynched for requesting archival on a historic Webcam cache with lots of favorites.

Hmmm. To be a good geocaching citizen, it's best to log a NA. To not get lynched for doing so, I second Keystone's suggestion to send a private note to the reviewer rather than posting it in public.

However, I see someone posted an NA as a result of this thread.

6.1k · April 16, 2014

If people really did want to keep it going, and really enjoyed it, they would contact TPTB about offering to fix it. Rather its just about an icon which is meaningless at this point.

2.7k · April 16, 2014

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. I figure if people get that mad over a lame LPC, one might expect to be lynched for requesting archival on a historic Webcam cache with lots of favorites.

Hmmm. To be a good geocaching citizen, it's best to log a NA. To not get lynched for doing so, I second Keystone's suggestion to send a private note to the reviewer rather than posting it in public.

However, I see someone posted an NA as a result of this thread.

That someone was a Reviewer.

1.5k · April 16, 2014

I wonder if a reviewer can rightfully archive something like this?

Yes, a reviewer "rightfully" can archive this. It was not published as a virtual cache, ie, take a picture here, it was published as take WEBCAM photo here.

The proper log when a webcam is down is a DNF.

The correct cache owner response when a webcam is down is to Temporarily Disable the listing. Most reviewers will cut webcams a huge amount of slack, giving cache owners a lot of time to try to find a working webcam. But conversion to a virtual, "If the webcam is down as it usually is, just post a selfie" is NOT an option.

7.3k · April 16, 2014

I suddenly feel quite sad. I didn't know the cache owner, but after reading her profile and knowing that she is now dead, things are put in perspective, aren't they?

Edited April 16, 2014 by Ambrosia

April 16, 2014

There are several Web cams and other virtual caches that have abandoned owners.

8.3k · April 16, 2014

I suddenly feel quite sad. I didn't know the cache owner, but after reading her profile and knowing that she is now dead, things are put in perspective, aren't they?

It is sad, but alas, it is not a traditional cache. One area I've cached in there was a CO that was well liked and respected by the community. After he passed the community has taken on the chore of maintaining his traditional caches and keeping them going. I think that is a fine tribute. However when a webcam becomes a gallery of selfies it is probably time to play taps and let it fade. Even if the CO was still with us the cache should probably be archived unless the camera can be fixed and made operational.

Edited April 16, 2014 by jholly

7.3k · April 16, 2014

I suddenly feel quite sad. I didn't know the cache owner, but after reading her profile and knowing that she is now dead, things are put in perspective, aren't they?

It is sad, but alas, it is not a traditional cache. One area I've cached in there was a CO that was well liked and respected by the community. After he passed the community has taken on the chore of maintaining his traditional caches and keeping them going. I think that is a fine tribute. However when a webcam becomes a gallery of selfies it is probably time to play taps and let it fade. Even if the CO was still with us the cache should probably be archived unless the camera can be fixed and made operational.

Yeah, people have done that with Allanon's caches. I'm helping with one of them that's nearer to me.

I do understand that this webcam cache cannot go on. It's just sad, that's all.

3.1k · April 17, 2014

If someone is deleting NM logs, they can also delete the bogus "selfie" logs for a Webcam "cache". Looks like that might take a while to complete... <_<

While an unfortunate story about the owner, the cam is not working. Sentimentality has its spectrum, and this is outside of what the guidelines for our little game allow.

Just as abused ownerless Virtuals, this one will likely go away very soon.

Has anyone tried to get a hold of the folks who run the cam to see if it will ever get back online?

April 17, 2014

I wonder if a reviewer can rightfully archive something like this?

Yes, a reviewer "rightfully" can archive this. It was not published as a virtual cache, ie, take a picture here, it was published as take WEBCAM photo here.

The proper log when a webcam is down is a DNF.

The correct cache owner response when a webcam is down is to Temporarily Disable the listing. Most reviewers will cut webcams a huge amount of slack, giving cache owners a lot of time to try to find a working webcam. But conversion to a virtual, "If the webcam is down as it usually is, just post a selfie" is NOT an option.

Thanks Palmetto, I was very curious about that. Glad to know. Hopefully the webcam in question in this thread will be archived soon.

2.8k · April 17, 2014

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.

As for the webcam in question, it definitely needs to be archived. The situation is similar to the Webcam cache that was in Las Vegas (The 4 Corners Cache), though this one does have the added complication that Keystone mentioned. The Las Vegas webcam had been down for something like 2 years, but people were logging it like a Virtual. Once it was mentioned here in the forums, it promptly went away, as it should.

The whole point about a Webcam cache is the webcam. Once you don't have the webcam, there's nothing left. Selfie ≠ "Webcam photo taken"

I did get a few nasty emails for starting that thread though.

EDIT: funny, people are still logging it.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Roman!

3.1k · April 17, 2014

Archived webcam cache: The 4 Corners Cache

funny, people are still logging it.

Even funnier: most of them aren't bothering to upload even a "selfie" picture.

6.1k · April 17, 2014

Archived webcam cache: The 4 Corners Cache

funny, people are still logging it.

Even funnier: most of them aren't bothering to upload even a "selfie" picture.

Yet logging an archived, non working webcam has been described as a "great opportunity". Someone "almost cried" due to it's archival and will be posting pics soon, although the supposed visit was from a few weeks before Halloween. Another person was cleaning the garage, discovered some files and sent the pics somewhere. Yes, these logs are funny.

6.1k · April 17, 2014

Hopefully the webcam in question in this thread will be archived soon.

Or repaired. A replacement could be a bit cheaper than the original from 10 years ago and have better quality. It would be better to have someone fix it. I just sent a note, asking if it could be fixed and explained that it was popular. If more people did the same, it may motivate them.

http://www.earthcam.com/company/contact.php

It was disabled, although the canned note is a little silly.

We take all "Needs Archived Notices" very seriously. This geocache was brought to my attention as being in need of an owner maintenance visit. The cache owner needs to check on this cache as soon as possible and either confirm that the cache is functional, replace it or archive it, after picking up any geo-litter.

Edited April 17, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

6k · April 17, 2014

While in a to be unnamed city on vacation recently two Webcams showed up. I filter in gsak and if the last two logs were not founds I delete them but these two stayed. Both time I got to the site and the camera wasn't (and hadn't been for some time) but everyone was speeding by and logging without posting so I followed the herd with no problem.

April 17, 2014

The idea of a webcam has always been to go to the location and capture an image taken with the camera that cache owner has specified. NOT to take a picture with your camera. To log fake finds puts the webcams at risk of being archived. Sometimes you can't get them all and to log a DNF is not a black mark against your geocaching record.

3.6k · April 17, 2014

The idea of a webcam has always been to go to the location and capture an image taken with the camera that cache owner has specified. NOT to take a picture with your camera. To log fake finds puts the webcams at risk of being archived. Sometimes you can't get them all and to log a DNF is not a black mark against your geocaching record.

AMEN!

I was at the webcam in Vegas but didnt log it because it was down. That simple.

3.6k · April 17, 2014

Maybe its time to change the Did Not Find log to Camera is broken.

April 17, 2014

Maybe its time to change the Did Not Find log to Camera is broken.

Good idea, but I can almost guarantee that there would still be cachers that need it so bad they would still log it as webcam photo taken.

5.7k · April 17, 2014

Maybe its time to change the Did Not Find log to Camera is broken.

Good idea, but I can almost guarantee that there would still be cachers that need it so bad they would still log it as webcam photo taken.

It's also a listed Waymark, maybe it will be repaired soon. :unsure:

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM1AY7_Beale_Street_Rum_Boogie_Cafe_Memphis_TN

1.3k · April 18, 2014

Archived webcam cache: The 4 Corners Cache

funny, people are still logging it.

Even funnier: most of them aren't bothering to upload even a "selfie" picture.

Yet logging an archived, non working webcam has been described as a "great opportunity". Someone "almost cried" due to it's archival and will be posting pics soon, although the supposed visit was from a few weeks before Halloween. Another person was cleaning the garage, discovered some files and sent the pics somewhere. Yes, these logs are funny.

Dang! I was just in Vegas. I guess I missed out on a great opportunity! Now, that almost makes me cry.

April 18, 2014

I was the last to log these as found before they were disabled while they are awaiting being fixed or potentially archived. I logged them Wednesday morning. By Thursday they were disabled. This is my second forum post. My first ever was yesterday. I will risk the flames since perhaps my perspective will be useful. Frankly, I had a tough time choosing between found and DNF for these. :blink: Still uncertain, but if my logs in any way swayed the decision to disable, then I am actually pleased.

These were the first webcams I have attempted and the outcome was awkward. I definitely found the location and probably found one of the webcams. I don't think the other is even there anymore. I found the specific pages for the web feed for the cameras while standing at each GZ. I specifically visited Beale street to try to find these caches.

The first I visited was Beale Street Blues and seeing the cam there, I figured it was a tech issue on my end. Heck, when my iPad wouldn't display the cameras and I saw a message that there is an Earthcam app, I guessed that the problem was with me and I downloaded 'found' the $0.99 app. What I didn't find was a live camera to photo document the log. :signalviolin: My original call was this constituted a DNF and that was how I began to log it. I gave the BSB page's description one more read and I noticed the CO's instruction to post a selfie if the cam isn't working. It was that instruction from the cache description that tipped me over to logging a find. The fact that I had done all of the above and the fact that there were many other selfie logs still had me at DNF. The CO's instructions made the defining difference for me.

Minutes later I was standing at the This Bud's for You GZ and a similar story was unveiling. Only this time, I saw lots of camera on various walls, visible with the naked eye from GZ. I am not even sure I know which, if any were the right one. Only two seemed likely based on likely field of view of cameras. Again, many found logs noting camera wasn't working. I noticed the Earthcam app has a search for webcams in the area, and which are online feature, so I gave that ago. It indicated there are NO Earthcams in the area. Not just there and offline, simply NONE extant. With the BSB experience, this experience, the knowledge that webcam caches are legacy caches and all of the found logs of broken or missing webcams, I concluded that it was the CULTURE of the geocaching community to log these as found, no matter their state. (I am still debating that, but look at the date; there are way more 'found' logs on these broken cams than DNF logs.)

Yesterday I noticed the two webcams were disabled. When. I saw this I nearly simultaneously thought, wow, I am glad I visited their GZs before they were disabled and might be archived, and it is long overdue that action be taken on these. Glad, because it left me with an interesting story. The stories in general are part of what has made me a rapid Geocaching addict. Pleased to see them disabled because being not functional so long and still being considered active seems to go against what I saw as the geocaching ethos. As I logged them, I was thinking I has misunderstood the spirit of geocaching. Seeing them disabled after careful consideration immediately restored my positive view of the geocaching community. I look forward to seeing how the story unfolds.

Ready, set... flame away.....

Edited April 18, 2014 by NormalGeo

6.1k · April 18, 2014

Yesterday I noticed the two webcams were archived. When. I saw this I nearly simultaneously thought, wow, I am glad I visited their GZs before the archiving and it is long overdue that these be archived. Glad, because it left me with an interesting story. The stories in general are part of what has made me a rapid Geocaching addict. Pleased to see them archived because being not functional so long and still being considered active seems to go against what I saw as the geocaching ethos. As I logged them, I was thinking I has misunderstood the spirit of geocaching. Seeing them archived after careful consideration immediately restored my positive view of the geocaching community.

Ready, set... flame away.....

They are not archived, but disabled.

I just noticed in my inbox a reply from my repair request, asking if I lived nearby, from Clarissa Ramirez cramirez@earthcam.com

You know, it would help if more people showed a little interest in getting them repaired, rather than complaining about it here, or simply logging them.

Edited April 18, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

4.8k · April 18, 2014

I was the last to log these as found before their archival.

Just for clarification, the two webcams you logged have merely been Disabled, not Archived. I assume this is to give the cache owners an opportunity to try and fix them or find nearby alternatives.

7.3k · April 18, 2014

I was the last to log these as found before their archival. I logged them Wednesday morning. By Thursday they were archived. This is my second forum post. My first ever was yesterday. I will risk the flames since perhaps my perspective will be useful. Frankly, I had a tough time choosing between found and DNF for these. Still uncertain, but if my logs in any way swayed the decision to archive, then I am actually pleased.

These were the first webcams I have attempted and the outcome was awkward. I definitely found the location and probably found one of the webcams. I don't think the other is even there anymore. I found the specific pages for the web feed for the cameras while standing at each GZ. I specifically visited Beale street to try to find these caches.

The first I visited was Beale Street Blues and seeing the cam there, I figured it was a tech issue on my end. Heck, when my iPad wouldn't display the cameras and I saw a message that there is an Earthcam app, I guessed that the problem was with me and I downloaded 'found' the $0.99 app. What I didn't find was a live camera to photo document the log. My original call was this constituted a DNF and that was how I began to log it. I gave the BSB page's description one more read and I noticed the CO's instruction to post a selfie if the cam isn't working. It was that instruction from the cache description that tipped me over to logging a find. The fact that I had done all of the above and the fact that there were many other selfie logs still had me at DNF. The CO's instructions made the defining difference for me.

Minutes later I was standing at the This Bud's for You GZ and a similar story was unveiling. Only this time, I saw lots of camera on various walls, visible with the naked eye from GZ. I am not even sure I know which, if any were the right one. Only two seemed likely based on likely field of view of cameras. Again, many found logs noting camera wasn't working. I noticed the Earthcam app has a search for webcams in the area, and which are online feature, so I gave that ago. It indicated there are NO Earthcams in the area. Not just there and offline, simply NONE extant. With the BSB experience, this experience, the knowledge that webcam caches are legacy caches and all of the found logs of broken or missing webcams, I concluded that it was the CULTURE of the geocaching community to log these as found, no matter their state. (I am still debating that, but look at the date; there are way more 'found' logs on these broken cams than DNF logs.)

Yesterday I noticed the two webcams were archived. When. I saw this I nearly simultaneously thought, wow, I am glad I visited their GZs before the archiving and it is long overdue that these be archived. Glad, because it left me with an interesting story. The stories in general are part of what has made me a rapid Geocaching addict. Pleased to see them archived because being not functional so long and still being considered active seems to go against what I saw as the geocaching ethos. As I logged them, I was thinking I has misunderstood the spirit of geocaching. Seeing them archived after careful consideration immediately restored my positive view of the geocaching community.

Ready, set... flame away.....

There's a big difference between "archived" and "temporarily disabled".

Read the cache page for Beale Street Blues, and you will see that it's not archived (yet).

B.

3.1k · April 18, 2014

With the BSB experience, this experience, the knowledge that webcam caches are legacy caches and all of the found logs of broken or missing webcams, I concluded that it was the CULTURE of the geocaching community to log these as found, no matter their state. (I am still debating that, but look at the date; there are way more 'found' logs on these broken cams than DNF logs.)

The likely reason why there are more "Webcam Photo Taken" logs than "Didn't find it" logs is because most experienced geocachers will test the webcam before even going to GZ. Once they learn that the webcam is disabled or non-existent, then they don't even bother going to the location.

The general consensus of the geocaching community is that to log a "Webcam Photo Taken" one actually should have a webcam photo taken. Not a "selfie." Not just showing up at the posted coordinates. Not logging a find from ones armchair.

Indeed, Groundspeak's attitude is that if the webcam cache's owner allows such bogus finds to be logged, then they will explain the issue to the owner. If they continue to allow bogus finds, then Groundspeak will archive the cache.

Edited April 18, 2014 by CanadianRockies

April 18, 2014

They are not archived, but disabled.

Yikes, sorry about that. I know the difference, but misspoke. I have corrected my original post. Hopefully it is now accurate.

Edited April 18, 2014 by NormalGeo

7.5k · April 18, 2014

The general consensus of the geocaching community is that to log a "Webcam Photo Taken" one actually should have a webcam photo taken. Not a "selfie." Not just showing up at the posted coordinates. Not logging a find from ones armchair.

I don't think you can really defend a claim of "consensus", since I often run into people claiming finds with selfie's or less. But even if many people apparently disagree with you, I'm not one of them: one shouldn't log such finds. Log the find if you have a picture with the webcam. Don't if you don't, no big deal.

(Having said that, I don't care if someone logs an insufficiently cammed find, I just normally feel a little sorry for them that they're that desperate.)

The likely reason why there are more "Webcam Photo Taken" logs than "Didn't find it" logs is because most experienced geocachers will test the webcam before even going to GZ. Once they learn that the webcam is disabled or non-existent, then they don't even bother going to the location.

Right. Avoid disappointment by checking the webcam ahead of time, then you won't feel a need to cheat in order to salve your disappointment when you can't find it or it isn't working. (I often find it much easier to work out the details of a webcam photo in advance, anyway, so I know where to go and how to get the shot when I get there.)

April 18, 2014

Right. Avoid disappointment by checking the webcam ahead of time, then you won't feel a need to cheat in order to salve your disappointment when you can't find it or it isn't working. (I often find it much easier to work out the details of a webcam photo in advance, anyway, so I know where to go and how to get the shot when I get there.)

^^^This^^^

If you can't find a way to get the cam to work before you visit GZ, it's much easier to not log a "webcam photo taken" log with your cheesy selfie. Just because the CO puts on the page to log the cache as a virtual, doesn't make it right and just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right either. In fact, it negatively promotes others to do it too. It's as bad as searching for a cache, not finding it or signing the log and claiming your smiley anyway. It makes other less experienced cachers think that it's okay.

Not long ago, I was in the Lexington, KY area and my friends and I were attempting to find 10 icons in one day. I put the webcam in Lexington on the list because it was active and had many recent "webcam photo taken" logs. The night before we went, I checked it out to see if I could access the cam from my phone, or if I'd need help from afar to snap our photo. Well, much to my dismay, all of the recent "webcam photo taken" logs were littered with cheesy "selfies" and no webcam photos for months. So, needless to say, that day ended with 9 icons instead.

Now if I had searched my PQ for that webcam and saw many recent dnfs instead of "webcam photo taken" logs, our entire route and plan would've been much, much different. Pretty irritating for us, but my fault for not investigating the logs further before planning!

3.6k · April 18, 2014

This guy used to be on the forum alot.

http://coord.info/GLDWTY38

<_<

6.1k · April 26, 2014

Hello. I am not trying to be a cache cop, I am just wondering what opinions are out there. I know there are no more new Webcam caches, and that people are pretty protective of the ones still going. There are 2 webcam caches here locally, and both have been down for a long time.

Here's one: Beale Street

I posted a note to that one, and the other one nearby over a week ago in an effort to inspire people to request repair from earthcam.

Today I received a LOG DELETION NOTICE, and saw that the CO who is managing the account archived it. The 3 recent selfies posted after it was disabled, are still up however.

So much for trying to save it. <_<

Edited April 26, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

April 26, 2014

Hello. I am not trying to be a cache cop, I am just wondering what opinions are out there. I know there are no more new Webcam caches, and that people are pretty protective of the ones still going. There are 2 webcam caches here locally, and both have been down for a long time.

Here's one: Beale Street

I posted a note to that one, and the other one nearby over a week ago in an effort to inspire people to request repair from earthcam.

Today I received a LOG DELETION NOTICE, and saw that the CO who is managing the account archived it. The 3 recent selfies posted after it was disabled, are still up however.

So much for trying to save it.

It seems the CO account manager decided to Archive Beale Street it after deleting your note.

April 26, 2014

I wonder if a reviewer can rightfully archive something like this?

Yes, a reviewer "rightfully" can archive this. It was not published as a virtual cache, ie, take a picture here, it was published as take WEBCAM photo here.

The proper log when a webcam is down is a DNF.

The correct cache owner response when a webcam is down is to Temporarily Disable the listing. Most reviewers will cut webcams a huge amount of slack, giving cache owners a lot of time to try to find a working webcam. But conversion to a virtual, "If the webcam is down as it usually is, just post a selfie" is NOT an option.

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

If you see a cache that NA you should post it. Cache Cops rule!!!!

April 26, 2014

I posted a note to that one, and the other one nearby over a week ago in an effort to inspire people to request repair from earthcam.

Today I received a LOG DELETION NOTICE, and saw that the CO who is managing the account archived it. The 3 recent selfies posted after it was disabled, are still up however.

So much for trying to save it.

You can always photoshop yourself into the photo and post it in a previous date, there is no way that the CO is going to delete the log since he/she can´t prove that you weren´t actually there... Yet another way I found out that some geocachers use to boost the numbers! :blink:

6.1k · April 26, 2014

Hello. I am not trying to be a cache cop, I am just wondering what opinions are out there. I know there are no more new Webcam caches, and that people are pretty protective of the ones still going. There are 2 webcam caches here locally, and both have been down for a long time.

Here's one: Beale Street

I posted a note to that one, and the other one nearby over a week ago in an effort to inspire people to request repair from earthcam.

Today I received a LOG DELETION NOTICE, and saw that the CO who is managing the account archived it. The 3 recent selfies posted after it was disabled, are still up however.

So much for trying to save it.

It seems the CO account manager decided to Archive Beale Street it after deleting your note.

Yes, that's what I wrote..

September 8, 2014

GCHJ4R - I thought this was a good example to bring this thread back to light. 8/30 I post a self explanatory NA, minutes later cache is archived, one week later.... Webcam photo taken!

Gotta love it....

10.2k · September 8, 2014

GCHJ4R - I thought this was a good example to bring this thread back to light. 8/30 I post a self explanatory NA, minutes later cache is archived, one week later.... Webcam photo taken!

Gotta love it....

Now that's weird. The OWNER archived it, not a reviewer, after seeing your NA. I'm quite certain they were getting and seeing all the selfie logs, right?

3.3k · September 8, 2014

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.

3.8k · September 8, 2014

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.

Opinion on Webcam Cache

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation