Deletings logs on virtual cache in France - pls help

[+Martuli]

Hi Groundspeak, I have a trouble with log virtual cache Point Zero, where I was with my girlfriend and owner repeately delete our logs with photos, what was proof, we were there. Te last one is here:  https://coord.info/GLTWZJWN and I wanna, If you could, lock this log, against owner deleting again. Thank you very much - only task is take a photo in this place and we have a plenty photos with Notre Dame, so I havent any clue, what is wrong with this stupid owner - he delete my log without reason. Thank you in advance and have a nice day!

I wrote te firsttime local reviewer, Miguaine - "Groundspeak Volunteer Reviewer, who published this virtual cache but his answer is, quote: "

Hi,

Reviewers do not handle logs on caches. Please contact geocaching HQ.

 

Cordialement,

Miguaine - "Groundspeak Volunteer Reviewer".

So he is a little useless, I suppose. Thanks for you help, its a little weird, how we can play a game and search virtual caches, when somebody stupid delete our logs and lazy local reviewers cant do anything with that. 

 

[+hzoi]

7 hours ago, Martuli said:

only task is take a photo in this place

The task for the cache in question is actually to take a photo of the plate at the coordinates, showing your GPSr or your feet.  If you're just posting photos of your girlfriend at Notre Dame without the plate visible, you're not complying with the requirement.  If your photos comply and your logs are being deleted anyway, then you have a case for reinstatement.

At any rate, posting in the forums won't help as much as contacting Groundspeak directly through the help center.

[+Harry Dolphin]

2 hours ago, hzoi said:

The task for the cache in question is actually to take a photo of the plate at the coordinates, showing your GPSr or your feet.  If you're just posting photos of your girlfriend at Notre Dame without the plate visible, you're not complying with the requirement.  If your photos comply and your logs are being deleted anyway, then you have a case for reinstatement.

At any rate, posting in the forums won't help as much as contacting Groundspeak directly through the help center.

Though it certainly looks like many have logged it without the required photo.  Christmas tree in the way.  And several with no photos...

[+Martuli]

thank you guys.. Photos were with point as well, I have no clue why owner delete just my log and others left there.. anyway, Ill write to GS from your link. Thank you again - when will be a result, Ill copy here..

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Often a CO might give a little leniency, as in this case when the required photo could be taken due to a christmas tree covering the plate, but they are not obligated to do so.  I suspect that if this were brought to appeals, that GS would support the CO.  A CO might get specific about taking a photo of some specific object to prevent someone from just finding a picture of on the internet, taken three years ago, and post it as "evidence".  

I've been to Paris several times and although I had my GPS with my, the requirement for taking a photo with your GPS at your feet might be a bit challenging for someone that geocaches with a device used as s GPS and their phone.  

[+Tungstène]

On 14/01/2018 at 2:52 PM, NYPaddleCacher said:

I've been to Paris several times and although I had my GPS with my, the requirement for taking a photo with your GPS at your feet might be a bit challenging for someone that geocaches with a device used as s GPS and their phone.  

If I read well, you have to take a photo with your GPS or your feet, not at your feet. So it shouldn't be an issue, except for the case where you don't have any foot either (this is a T1 cache, so it has to be considered).

[+Harry Dolphin]

On 1/14/2018 at 8:52 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

Often a CO might give a little leniency, as in this case when the required photo could be taken due to a christmas tree covering the plate, but they are not obligated to do so.  I suspect that if this were brought to appeals, that GS would support the CO.  A CO might get specific about taking a photo of some specific object to prevent someone from just finding a picture of on the internet, taken three years ago, and post it as "evidence". 

Should not be any more acceptable than "The webcam was down, so I'm taking a selfie."  

If a cacher does not meet the requirements, then that cacher should not log the find.  And the CO should not permit it.  Webcams get archived for that.   Why should it be permitted for Virtuals? 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

11 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Should not be any more acceptable than "The webcam was down, so I'm taking a selfie."  

If a cacher does not meet the requirements, then that cacher should not log the find.  And the CO should not permit it.  Webcams get archived for that.   Why should it be permitted for Virtuals? 

I'm not about to tell a CO what they should or should not do with their cache as long as they're complying with the guidelines.  A CO that chooses to allow an exception now and then is different than a CO allowing photo taken logs on a webcam that is down for an extended period of time.  

[+Harry Dolphin]

13 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I'm not about to tell a CO what they should or should not do with their cache as long as they're complying with the guidelines.  A CO that chooses to allow an exception now and then is different than a CO allowing photo taken logs on a webcam that is down for an extended period of time.  

Not sure I'm seeing the difference.  Allow logs on a virtual that is not available due to a Christmas tree on the plaque?  Should be marked disabled?  As in 'not available'?  How is that any different than allowing selfie on a webcam that isn't working?    

[+Michaelcycle]

On 1/8/2018 at 3:42 AM, Martuli said:

lazy local reviewers

You are not going to win any friends or influence a positive outcome with that comment. Reviewers review and publish, disable and archive as appropriate. They are not authorized to adjudicate disputes regarding the legitimacy of logs. Requiring local reviewers to make those kind of decisions would invariably lead to charges of favoritism. I also suspect it would cause many VOLUNTEER reviewers to quit volunteering.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

16 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Not sure I'm seeing the difference.  Allow logs on a virtual that is not available due to a Christmas tree on the plaque?  Should be marked disabled?  As in 'not available'?  How is that any different than allowing selfie on a webcam that isn't working?    

It's not different.  The distinction I was trying to make was regarding the amount of time the the virtual cache or webcam was not available.  I highly doubt that GS would do anything about either type that was not available for a day or too.  If a CO allowed logs on virtuals or webcams that were not available for months at a time that might be different.  If a webcam goes down or something changes at ground zero that prevents someone from complying with the requirements the CO created, typically the CO isn't the first one to be aware about it.  More often, someone has attempted the cache and then *might* notify the CO once the issue has been discovered.  A CO can only mark it disabled after they or some other geocacher has visited the site.  Giving a CO the latitude to allow that geocacher to log the cache as found/photo taken doesn't hurt anyone.