Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Manville Possum

How many EarthCache are allowed at one location?

Recommended Posts

I recently saw two new EC's published locally just meters away from an existing one. This one was published, then retracted, then published again by a EarthCache reviewer.

 

Seems a little odd to me, but I have not been much interested in EarthCaches in recent years. Is this common?

 

Anyway, I put them on my list to go take a look at today, but my question is why group three EC's together, and two seem to be on the same subject. :blink:

 

I'm sure that some avid EarthCacher has the answer, and I'm behind in the times with EC's. B)

Share this post


Link to post

why group three EC's together, and two seem to be on the same subject.

 

I don't know about the example you gave but there are five earthcaches within 500 metres of each other in the following example because some are above ground and some are below, so definitely not one site even though the coordinates appear similar:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?tx=c66f5cf3-9523-4549-b8dd-759cd2f18db8&lat=51.395250&lng=-2.296667

Share this post


Link to post

why group three EC's together, and two seem to be on the same subject.

 

I don't know about the example you gave but there are five earthcaches within 500 metres of each other in the following example because some are above ground and some are below, so definitely not one site even though the coordinates appear similar:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?tx=c66f5cf3-9523-4549-b8dd-759cd2f18db8&lat=51.395250&lng=-2.296667

Awesome! I don't think I've logged multi EC's that close together before. :unsure: I believe what confused me is it being published by a New England reviewer, then retracted and approved by a EC reviewer. :anicute:

 

Hopefully I'll get to visit tomorrow, it's been a few years since my last visit there to the fossil site. :)

I think I only posted a note on the first EC published there. I can't think of a better place for an EC or three. :D

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think I've logged multi EC's that close together before. :unsure:

 

I guess it might be difficult to choose one aspect of an impressive fossil site to encompass everything available to learn there. :anibad:

 

The closest earthcaches I've logged are officially 340 metres apart but one of those is a single location and the other is more of a multi so they complement each other by focussing on different aspects of local geology (both are themed around industrial heritage but one emphasises glass manufacturing and the other canal infrastructure). I enjoyed them anyway. B)

Share this post


Link to post

I believe what confused me is it being published by a New England reviewer, then retracted and approved by a EC reviewer. :anicute:

Don't worry about this part. The two publication logs are from the same human. When that volunteer realized they'd published an Earthcache under their Geocaching Reviewer profile, the listing was retracted and re-published using that same person's correct Earthcache reviewer account.

 

Speaking from experience, it's VERY easy to forget which profile you're logged in on while you are busy doing things on the site. You follow a link from an email, then do something, then realize you did that something under the wrong account. While I'm not an Earthcache reviewer, I do have access to two accounts with reviewer powers, plus three regular accounts (mine, my daughter's, and a basic account I use for testing and experiencing the site from the perspective of a non-premium member).

Share this post


Link to post

I believe what confused me is it being published by a New England reviewer, then retracted and approved by a EC reviewer. :anicute:

Don't worry about this part. The two publication logs are from the same human. When that volunteer realized they'd published an Earthcache under their Geocaching Reviewer profile, the listing was retracted and re-published using that same person's correct Earthcache reviewer account.

 

Speaking from experience, it's VERY easy to forget which profile you're logged in on while you are busy doing things on the site. You follow a link from an email, then do something, then realize you did that something under the wrong account. While I'm not an Earthcache reviewer, I do have access to two accounts with reviewer powers, plus three regular accounts (mine, my daughter's, and a basic account I use for testing and experiencing the site from the perspective of a non-premium member).

 

I just thought it a little odd, and remembering the thread posted a few months ago here about a similar fossil EarthCache being denied for being too close another related EC.

 

If I'm correct, those two reviewer accounts and that player account is the same person. I could be wrong, but now I suspect that they approved their own listing. Something just ain't right, those new listings appear to have ALR logging requirements as well.

Share this post


Link to post

If I'm correct, those two reviewer accounts and that player account is the same person. I could be wrong, but now I suspect that they approved their own listing. Something just ain't right, those new listings appear to have ALR logging requirements as well.

You are not correct, so like I posted yesterday, it would be best to move back to the discussion of "subject similarity" for these EarthCaches.

Share this post


Link to post

If I'm correct, those two reviewer accounts and that player account is the same person. I could be wrong, but now I suspect that they approved their own listing. Something just ain't right, those new listings appear to have ALR logging requirements as well.

You are not correct, so like I posted yesterday, it would be best to move back to the discussion of "subject similarity" for these EarthCaches.

 

Agreed, these all are similar. I also thought it related to A&T's old thread where he was denied for the same reason.

 

I gave up or lost interest in EarthCaches a long time ago, so I'm no expert on the subject, but something just doesn't seem right to me.

Maybe it's just that the logging requirements are different to any EarthCache that I ever attempted. :unsure: I do intend on visiting the site again, hopefully tomorrow. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I recently saw two new EC's published locally just meters away from an existing one. This one was published, then retracted, then published again by a EarthCache reviewer.

 

Seems a little odd to me, but I have not been much interested in EarthCaches in recent years. Is this common?

 

Anyway, I put them on my list to go take a look at today, but my question is why group three EC's together, and two seem to be on the same subject. :blink:

 

I'm sure that some avid EarthCacher has the answer, and I'm behind in the times with EC's. B)

My take on the issue is that the 2 that were Published in 2/1/17 are about different topics. One describes fossils, the other is about various rocks found in the area. The one Published in 2007 could be debatable on its similarities to the new Listing on fossils, but the Logging Requirements are decidedly not up to current standards of the Guidelines (circa 2012). The question remains, is a new Listing with updated Logging Requirements which meet the current standards adequate justification for Publication?

 

I'd rather log a Find than worry about it. YMMV

Share this post


Link to post

I recently saw two new EC's published locally just meters away from an existing one. This one was published, then retracted, then published again by a EarthCache reviewer.

 

Seems a little odd to me, but I have not been much interested in EarthCaches in recent years. Is this common?

 

Anyway, I put them on my list to go take a look at today, but my question is why group three EC's together, and two seem to be on the same subject. :blink:

 

I'm sure that some avid EarthCacher has the answer, and I'm behind in the times with EC's. B)

My take on the issue is that the 2 that were Published in 2/1/17 are about different topics. One describes fossils, the other is about various rocks found in the area. The one Published in 2007 could be debatable on its similarities to the new Listing on fossils, but the Logging Requirements are decidedly not up to current standards of the Guidelines (circa 2012). The question remains, is a new Listing with updated Logging Requirements which meet the current standards adequate justification for Publication?

 

I'd rather log a Find than worry about it. YMMV

 

I think that most geocachers are more interested in logging finds than nit picking guidelines,... but I'm not like most geocachers. I'm interested in the review process, and often find it inconstant. :ph34r:

 

As for updated requirements, I didn't know that the cache owner could dictate how I log my finds as long as I meet the logging requirements that I have to send the cache owner. :unsure: Just some things that seem odd to me about the two new listings published at the same location.

Share this post


Link to post

As for updated requirements, I didn't know that the cache owner could dictate how I log my finds as long as I meet the logging requirements that I have to send the cache owner. :unsure: Just some things that seem odd to me about the two new listings published at the same location.

 

I would tend to agree that the second set of instructions on logging a find are a bit ALR'ish to me as well. Perhaps the Reviewer read it a bit differently. I suspect that anyone contesting those points, which don't appear to have much to do with the geology of the museum, would more than likely have their log reinstated. We'll see. 9 out of 10 times, issues like this will eventually surface.

 

In a general sense, I suppose an EC owner could dictate certain answers to Logging Requirements be included in the online log. There's nothing in the Guidelines to prevent that, and I actually have a couple of EC's that actually instruct to do so, although I still get email answers occasionally....go figure.

Share this post


Link to post

As for updated requirements, I didn't know that the cache owner could dictate how I log my finds as long as I meet the logging requirements that I have to send the cache owner. :unsure: Just some things that seem odd to me about the two new listings published at the same location.

 

I would tend to agree that the second set of instructions on logging a find are a bit ALR'ish to me as well. Perhaps the Reviewer read it a bit differently. I suspect that anyone contesting those points, which don't appear to have much to do with the geology of the museum, would more than likely have their log reinstated. We'll see. 9 out of 10 times, issues like this will eventually surface.

 

In a general sense, I suppose an EC owner could dictate certain answers to Logging Requirements be included in the online log. There's nothing in the Guidelines to prevent that, and I actually have a couple of EC's that actually instruct to do so, although I still get email answers occasionally....go figure.

 

I had to go back and look at the CO's others EC's as well. A few things that did not look kosher and it made me suspect the the CO and reviewer was one and the same, which I was told that they are not. :) Maybe they are just really good friends LOL. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

As for updated requirements, I didn't know that the cache owner could dictate how I log my finds as long as I meet the logging requirements that I have to send the cache owner. :unsure: Just some things that seem odd to me about the two new listings published at the same location.

 

I would tend to agree that the second set of instructions on logging a find are a bit ALR'ish to me as well. Perhaps the Reviewer read it a bit differently. I suspect that anyone contesting those points, which don't appear to have much to do with the geology of the museum, would more than likely have their log reinstated. We'll see. 9 out of 10 times, issues like this will eventually surface.

 

In a general sense, I suppose an EC owner could dictate certain answers to Logging Requirements be included in the online log. There's nothing in the Guidelines to prevent that, and I actually have a couple of EC's that actually instruct to do so, although I still get email answers occasionally....go figure.

 

I had to go back and look at the CO's others EC's as well. A few things that did not look kosher and it made me suspect the the CO and reviewer was one and the same, which I was told that they are not. :) Maybe they are just really good friends LOL. :laughing:

I would hope that Reviewers have friends. Otherwise it sounds like a very sad and lonely job ;)

Share this post


Link to post

I had to go back and look at the CO's others EC's as well. A few things that did not look kosher and it made me suspect the the CO and reviewer was one and the same, which I was told that they are not. :) Maybe they are just really good friends LOL. :laughing:

Since you insist on pursuing allegations of favoritism and collusion, due to their seriousness I must ask you to explain with specific facts how the Maine-based GeoAware colluded with a Pennsylvania geocacher with regard to to a Tennessee EarthCache. How do they know each other, exactly? What transpired that isn't captured in the archived reviewer notes?

Share this post


Link to post

I had to go back and look at the CO's others EC's as well. A few things that did not look kosher and it made me suspect the the CO and reviewer was one and the same, which I was told that they are not. :) Maybe they are just really good friends LOL. :laughing:

Since you insist on pursuing allegations of favoritism and collusion, due to their seriousness I must ask you to explain with specific facts how the Maine-based GeoAware colluded with a Pennsylvania geocacher with regard to to a Tennessee EarthCache. How do they know each other, exactly? What transpired that isn't captured in the archived reviewer notes?

 

To me, the new listings have ALR's and one very similar to the existing EC relating to fossils. Other similar listings have been denied for being too close (within a mile) of other similar fossil EarthCaches, the new similar one published 245 feet from the old one. It don't make sense to me why there are three EarthCaches there at the museum, two being on the subject of fossils.

 

A large part of my interest in geocaching is the review process. EarthCaches are just Virtual listings, and I'm active in creating Virtual listings on an alternative site and Waymarking, ... if I need to explain my interest because of my comments. Simply, something doesn't look right to me, and my interest caused me to question it.

It's not like I posted a needs archived, I asked in the forums to better understand how many listings of the same subject we can stack on top of one another. Actually, I was hoping that a EarthCache reviewer could help explain, but I forgot how busy they are and seldom comment here in the forums.

 

Seems "log it and shut up" is the best answer, and don't question what we do. Sorry for my interest in guidelines and the EC review process.

Share this post


Link to post

If your interest is in a Reviewer response, it might be best contact the Reviewer that Published them for a definitive answer. The Forum responses are very predictable IMO. In other words, ask three people the same question, don't be surprised if you get three different opinions.

Share this post


Link to post

If your interest is in a Reviewer response, it might be best contact the Reviewer that Published them for a definitive answer. The Forum responses are very predictable IMO. In other words, ask three people the same question, don't be surprised if you get three different opinions.

 

Yes, what I seek is all of the above. :) Just for the record, for a short time I volunteered as a geocache reviewer on an alternative geocache listing service, and was a peer reviewer on Garmin's OpenCaching site. I'm well aware that reviewing listings and keeping everyone happy is no easy task. :( Shoot, it ain't easy being a Waymark reviewer. :D But, it is a process that I'm interested in as a virtual geocache creator. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I logged them both today and I can't tell you the difference between the two. And no, I don't understand why the second one was published because it's too much like the existing one about the fossil site. B)

Share this post


Link to post

Nice log entry. Thanks for sharing.

 

Inside the Museum is nice, but that dig site is really a mess. The rock garden cache was not of enough interest to me to bother with the logging task. :laughing:

 

Truth is, I know that the cache owner of the original listing is no longer with us, and I don't know what will become of her listings. Maybe that influenced why a new fossil EC was allowed there.

 

I logged my find in the field with my time and date stamp, drove home to send my answers to the CO and upload my photos, and got a message that I had not met the logging requirements.... before I could send them. I don't wait for permission to post my found it log when I have already gathered the correct answers on site.

 

Now I remember why EarthCaches are such a PITA. So now I'm debating archiving the ones that I have created and forgetting about them like I did puzzle caches. :(

Share this post


Link to post

From my experience, it's pretty difficult to get an EC Archived due to inactive or missing CO. They tend to just linger on like most of the Virts I see out there.

 

As far as waiting for permission to log, you are doing exactly as Groundspeak and the GSA suggest. Most of the Listings I see nowadays, clearly state the you don't have to wait to log your Find. Generally if there's an issue, the CO will contact you.

 

Of course, it's your decision to Archive whatever you like, but my suggestion would be to maybe look into Adopting them over to someone (maybe a previous Finder), that would be willing to take care of them. Such a shame to Archive an EC considering the work that is generally put into them.

 

My 0.02.

Share this post


Link to post

Seems to me there are several issues here:

 

1. The original question was about how close EC's can be placed. The obvious answer is: as close as a reviewer allows. This is not a smart-alec answer, this is a statement of who makes the decision on placement. It also leads quite well into the second issue....

 

2. How can two such similar EC's be placed at the same spot? See the obvious answer from issue 1. My guess is that the second CO was able to convince the Reviewer that the topics were just different enough to warrant a second EC, i.e., it "provide(d) an earth science lesson" and "highlight(ed) a unique feature". Unless and until the Reviewer explains, we may never know this answer.

 

3. Your experience that your log "...had not met the logging requirements... before (you) could send them." This looks like your misinterpretation of the logging requirements. Two of the questions were supposed to be answered IN YOUR LOG, not in an email or message. Now, whether or not this is strictly according to the guidelines, it once again was approved by a Reviewer. Whether or not it is an ALR is beyond me, and far beyond the scope of your original post for this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

As far as waiting for permission to log, you are doing exactly as Groundspeak and the GSA suggest. Most of the Listings I see nowadays, clearly state the you don't have to wait to log your Find. Generally if there's an issue, the CO will contact you.

I always thought the suggestion was to send the information, then log before waiting for a reply. Does GS and GSA really suggest logging first, then sending the information later? That seems to open up an undesirable question about how long the CO has to wait before deciding no information is coming.

Share this post


Link to post

Seems to me there are several issues here:

 

1. The original question was about how close EC's can be placed. The obvious answer is: as close as a reviewer allows. This is not a smart-alec answer, this is a statement of who makes the decision on placement. It also leads quite well into the second issue....

 

2. How can two such similar EC's be placed at the same spot? See the obvious answer from issue 1. My guess is that the second CO was able to convince the Reviewer that the topics were just different enough to warrant a second EC, i.e., it "provide(d) an earth science lesson" and "highlight(ed) a unique feature". Unless and until the Reviewer explains, we may never know this answer.

 

3. Your experience that your log "...had not met the logging requirements... before (you) could send them." This looks like your misinterpretation of the logging requirements. Two of the questions were supposed to be answered IN YOUR LOG, not in an email or message. Now, whether or not this is strictly according to the guidelines, it once again was approved by a Reviewer. Whether or not it is an ALR is beyond me, and far beyond the scope of your original post for this thread.

 

I agree with 1 and 2. But as for 3, a cache owner can't force me to log anything that I don't want to say in my log. That would be an additional logging requirement. My log is just that, mine. It's not for the cache owner or people reading the cache page, and being a EarthCache makes no difference except there are answers to be emailed, and not posted with my personal visit log.

 

So the answer is whatever the reviewer allows doesn't seem very professional as to GSA standards. May as well have left EarthCaches on the Waymarking site then. :P

 

I was told by the CO that guidelines must have been different back in 2007 is why theirs was published. Both EC's have ALR's.

Share this post


Link to post

As far as waiting for permission to log, you are doing exactly as Groundspeak and the GSA suggest. Most of the Listings I see nowadays, clearly state the you don't have to wait to log your Find. Generally if there's an issue, the CO will contact you.

I always thought the suggestion was to send the information, then log before waiting for a reply. Does GS and GSA really suggest logging first, then sending the information later? That seems to open up an undesirable question about how long the CO has to wait before deciding no information is coming.

 

Let's say I was going for a FTF and wanted to post my time and date stamp, then drive home and send my answers and upload my photos from my PC in less than one hour. Which, is in fact what happened.

 

I think normal waiting time is a couple of days, as most EC's published and found are form tourists on vacation. :rolleyes:

 

As for me, EC's have always been a PITA. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Seems to me there are several issues here:

 

1. The original question was about how close EC's can be placed. The obvious answer is: as close as a reviewer allows. This is not a smart-alec answer, this is a statement of who makes the decision on placement. It also leads quite well into the second issue....

 

2. How can two such similar EC's be placed at the same spot? See the obvious answer from issue 1. My guess is that the second CO was able to convince the Reviewer that the topics were just different enough to warrant a second EC, i.e., it "provide(d) an earth science lesson" and "highlight(ed) a unique feature". Unless and until the Reviewer explains, we may never know this answer.

 

3. Your experience that your log "...had not met the logging requirements... before (you) could send them." This looks like your misinterpretation of the logging requirements. Two of the questions were supposed to be answered IN YOUR LOG, not in an email or message. Now, whether or not this is strictly according to the guidelines, it once again was approved by a Reviewer. Whether or not it is an ALR is beyond me, and far beyond the scope of your original post for this thread.

 

 

I agree with 1 and 2. But as for 3, a cache owner can't force me to log anything that I don't want to say in my log. That would be an additional logging requirement. My log is just that, mine. It's not for the cache owner or people reading the cache page, and being a EarthCache makes no difference except there are answers to be emailed, and not posted with my personal visit log.

 

So the answer is whatever the reviewer allows doesn't seem very professional as to GSA standards. May as well have left EarthCaches on the Waymarking site then. :P

 

I was told by the CO that guidelines must have been different back in 2007 is why theirs was published. Both EC's have ALR's.

 

I tend to agree about number 3. Especially since I reviewed the published logging requirements for EC's which include: "Visitors must be able to send their answers to logging tasks via the cache owner's profile." Nothing about adding to a log.

Edited by egroeg

Share this post


Link to post

I tend to agree about number 3. Especially since I reviewed the published logging requirements for EC's which include: "Visitors must be able to send their answers to logging tasks via the cache owner's profile." Nothing about adding to a log.

 

I try to keep up with guidelines that effect me as a cache owner and a player. Just because a reviewer published it doesn't make it right, they can make mistakes too. :ph34r:

 

I have seen EarthCaches published and retracted before,.... and thought this was what I was seeing again. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Seems to me there are several issues here:

3. Your experience that your log "...had not met the logging requirements... before (you) could send them." This looks like your misinterpretation of the logging requirements. Two of the questions were supposed to be answered IN YOUR LOG, not in an email or message. Now, whether or not this is strictly according to the guidelines, it once again was approved by a Reviewer. Whether or not it is an ALR is beyond me, and far beyond the scope of your original post for this thread.

 

I agree with 1 and 2. But as for 3, a cache owner can't force me to log anything that I don't want to say in my log. That would be an additional logging requirement. My log is just that, mine. It's not for the cache owner or people reading the cache page, and being a EarthCache makes no difference except there are answers to be emailed, and not posted with my personal visit log.

 

I was told by the CO that guidelines must have been different back in 2007 is why theirs was published. Both EC's have ALR's.

 

There is a series of EarthCaches locally that were hidden by someone with state Geological Survey, an agency of the state Department of Environmental Protection.

All of the cache pages proclaim:

TO CLAIM THIS CACHE

Answer the following questions, and post your answer in your log. Tell us how many people were in your group. (You don't have to wait for a confirmation from us to claim the cache. We trust you!)

These caches are from many years ago. But,it sounds as if the state Geological Survey does not want to be bothered by e-mails. And, of course, the answers are in most of the previous logs. So, I doubt your log would be deleted for not answering the questions in your log.

Some are very interesting EarthCaches. But I'm not sure about the glacial erratic moved on a flat bed truck to a new location to keep it from being destroyed...

Share this post


Link to post

Let's say I was going for a FTF and wanted to post my time and date stamp, then drive home and send my answers and upload my photos from my PC in less than one hour. Which, is in fact what happened.

Not impressed. Personally, I wouldn't be at all worried about other FTF hounds in a case like this. They know ECs require sending in answers, so they should know the FTF log might be delayed. But if that's really what you're worried about it, you can file a note to tell the other FTF hounds instead of a found log which tells the CO you're claiming the find. And worst case, you file the found -- FTF hounds taken care of -- the CO rejects it, and you file it again after sending in the information. I see no reason to be upset about the quick reject of the find when you know you can turn around and meet the requirements and refile it.

 

I think normal waiting time is a couple of days, as most EC's published and found are form tourists on vacation. :rolleyes:

Well, to me, you can't say it's really important to file the find log right away but then turn around and say filing the required information can wait until the end of your vacation. If meeting the requirement can wait, then filing the find log can wait, too.

 

As for me, EC's have always been a PITA. :P

I have to say I think you should stop doing ECs. You're so focused on not doing anything they can't make you do that you can't even imagine thinking about what you could do to make the CO's life easier. They're doing you a favor. If you can't shake the idea that you're doing them a favor by logging their EC, then I think everyone would be happier if you just ignored them.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I have to say I think you should stop doing ECs. You're so focused on not doing anything they can't make you do that you can't even imagine thinking about what you could do to make the CO's life easier.

 

I disagree with you. I'm focused on one guideline for everyone to keep it fair.

 

I don't think I should give up seeking EarthCaches because you say so.

Share this post


Link to post

As far as waiting for permission to log, you are doing exactly as Groundspeak and the GSA suggest. Most of the Listings I see nowadays, clearly state the you don't have to wait to log your Find. Generally if there's an issue, the CO will contact you.

I always thought the suggestion was to send the information, then log before waiting for a reply. Does GS and GSA really suggest logging first, then sending the information later? That seems to open up an undesirable question about how long the CO has to wait before deciding no information is coming.

From the Help Center:

 

For EarthCaches and Virtual Caches, you may also log your find on-line without waiting for an answer from the cache owner.

 

Link for reference:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=688

 

I'm not sure the order really matters, since answering the questions and logging the find are both done rather simultaneously in terms of how I submit logs and answers to Logging Requirements. Maybe a matter of a few minutes difference.

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree with you. I'm focused on one guideline for everyone to keep it fair.

I don't see what this has to do with fairness.

 

I don't think I should give up seeking EarthCaches because you say so.

I would never tell you to stop seeking EarthCaches. I thought you said you were considering not seeking EarthCaches anymore, and I was concurring that that sounded like a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post

I almost always send my answers first and write my logs after. Especially with new caches where the owner might be anxiously awaiting the first logs. The first logs always tell me how well I set up my EarthCache learning activities and if my page needs any tweaking.

Edited by Neos2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure the order really matters, since answering the questions and logging the find are both done rather simultaneously in terms of how I submit logs and answers to Logging Requirements. Maybe a matter of a few minutes difference.

We're talking about the case where the find is claimed immediately in the field, yet the information is sent significantly later, like at the end of the day. So the order matters a great deal. Let's look at the guideline you're citing a little more closely:

 

EarthCaches and Virtual Caches have additional logging requirements beyond visiting the location of the geocache and logging a "find". In many cases the geocacher is required to answer questions written by the cache owner regarding the cache location. In order to claim a find on the geocache, the seeker must send their answers to the questions, to the cache owner, either by email or Message Center. For EarthCaches and Virtual Caches, you may also log your find on-line without waiting for an answer from the cache owner.

While I agree it's not spelled out clearly, I think it's entirely reasonable to read that guideline as saying you must first send in the answers, and then you can log the find without waiting for permission.

 

I agree completely that's it's not important when the find is being logged and the answers are being sent soon after. But that's not the case here.

 

(Just in passing: I notice that the guidelines specifically acknowledge that answering questions is an ALR, and it also only says that sending the information to the owner is only one example case, so from that I conclude that it would be allowed for the requirement to be that you post answers in your found log. I think that means Manville Possum's claim to the contrary -- "My log is just that, mine" -- is incorrect.)

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure the order really matters, since answering the questions and logging the find are both done rather simultaneously in terms of how I submit logs and answers to Logging Requirements. Maybe a matter of a few minutes difference.

We're talking about the case where the find is claimed immediately in the field, yet the information is sent significantly later, like at the end of the day. So the order matters a great deal. Let's look at the guideline you're citing a little more closely:

 

EarthCaches and Virtual Caches have additional logging requirements beyond visiting the location of the geocache and logging a "find". In many cases the geocacher is required to answer questions written by the cache owner regarding the cache location. In order to claim a find on the geocache, the seeker must send their answers to the questions, to the cache owner, either by email or Message Center. For EarthCaches and Virtual Caches, you may also log your find on-line without waiting for an answer from the cache owner.

While I agree it's not spelled out clearly, I think it's entirely reasonable to read that guideline as saying you must first send in the answers, and then you can log the find without waiting for permission.

 

I agree completely that's it's not important when the find is being logged and the answers are being sent soon after. But that's not the case here.

 

(Just in passing: I notice that the guidelines specifically acknowledge that answering questions is an ALR, and it also only says that sending the information to the owner is only one example case, so from that I conclude that it would be allowed for the requirement to be that you post answers in your found log. I think that means Manville Possum's claim to the contrary -- "My log is just that, mine" -- is incorrect.)

I think you're reading entirely too much into the guidance. I've known several cases of vacationers passing through posting a Find on my Earthcaches from the field on their smart phone, getting back home days/weeks later and submitting the answers when they return home, and are able to give a more thoughtful reply from a desktop computer with a *real* keyboard. I think it's "entirely reasonable" to give Finders the benefit of the doubt in such cases.

 

Your "entirely reasonable" assumption is skewed towards the Cache Owner and not the Finder, and I don't find the assumption that people are basically dishonest to be "reasonable" at all.

Share this post


Link to post

A reminder folks, not to make the discussion too personal. Keep the focus on the topic, not the players. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree completely that's it's not important when the find is being logged and the answers are being sent soon after. But that's not the case here.

 

Yes, it is. I logged my find, then drove home and was getting my photos ready to upload and send my answers in less than one hour from my posted find. There is nothing wrong with that. I met the logging requirements, one hour after posting a "more later" with my time and date stamp.

Share this post


Link to post

A reminder folks, not to make the discussion too personal. Keep the focus on the topic, not the players. Thanks.

 

Let's go ahead and close this tread at my request please. I think my question has been answered, not that I agree with it. <_<

 

My choice was to archive my EC listings and move on because I did not agree with another Fossil EC being stacked on top of a already published EC by a tourist on vacation. :(

 

I'm sorry Neo2, but it just don't set right with me about that new listing on top of the other that we already had.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×