Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Réd

Webcam Log Deleted 2 1/2 Years Later for Standing In the Wrong Place

47 posts in this topic

Many geocachers had their logs deleted yesterday from GCM9CJ, KAILUA-KONA~Webcam: (NO photo across the road!)

 

The offense?

 

Seems the cache owner wants pics taken on the webcam at the shoulder of the road, and not ACROSS the road.

 

So, you all say, what’s the big deal? A CO can pretty much do as they please. Right?

 

Well, in this instance I logged the cache over 2 ½ years ago, 8/3/15. Log got deleted 2/10/18.

 

Also, the CO has changed the name and the requirements of the webcam. He added all sorts of nice instructions and admonitions that were not in place when I logged the cache, e.g. stand above the date in the pic. These are new requirements. Yes, I do confess I am a scofflaw and logged the cache where the webcam could see me across the road. But, that’s not good enough for the CO. He wants it on the shoulder of the road, not on the safe sidewalk.

 

Of course, the webcam moves, and isn’t always on his preferred “x.”

 

I digress.

 

Now, I’m not a complete a**. I politely sent the co this message yesterday;

 

“I respectfully ask you undelete my and Kelsoboom's logs. Or, I will escalate to boards and Groundspeak.”

 

Crickets.

 

Others have notified Groundspeak of their displeasure. I don’t have any connections there, or in Hawaii, so I am posting this here.

 

I guess the question is does a CO have the right to delete a 2 ½ year old log because he doesn’t like where you stand in the webcam pic?

 

Looking forward to your comments, and Groundspeak input.






 

 

 





 

0

Share this post


Link to post

That's too bad.  I had a similar experience with a difficult Virtual that entailed a 12 mile round trip hike and ~3,000 feet of vertical to get to.  I did the best I could getting all the requirements in good faith, but about 4 months or so later, my Log was deleted.  Maybe I'll make it back someday, but it was disappointing at the time.

Editing to add impressions and dispel a misunderstanding.

Webcam's have been a bit problematic with the advent of smartphones and the prevalence of a few people to post "selfies" rather than logging the webcam as intended.  A few Webcam Listings have been Archived over the issue, and it might be that the CO got a bit too enthusiastic.

Just to clear up a misunderstanding, the CO does not have the ability to restore your Log Entry.  Only HQ can do that (or a Reviewer, but they generally will direct you to HQ per instructions).  That might be one reason you got the "crickets" in response.

Edited by Touchstone
0

Share this post


Link to post

If your 'webcam photo taken' log met the requirements when you posted your log, and the requirements have changed since your log, then I would appeal to GC Help Center.  GS prefers to avoid conflicts, but if you assert that your log met the requirements when logged, GS will reinstate your log.  GS does have all this information on record.  

4

Share this post


Link to post

Mine was deleted also. Very disappointed. I don't think it's fair being that the logging requirements changed.  I was there during the Ironman and most of the sidewalk was closed off to the public. 

0

Share this post


Link to post

My log from 01/06/2016 was also deleted, more than two years after the Picture Taken log was posted.

Like Réd I don't recall that the name of the cache included the admonition "(NO photo across the road!)." I also don't recall the big pictures and arrows being on the cache page, but heck, we were geocaching via iPhone 4. Those are some pretty small screens. If we had seen it we definitely would have taken note.

Unlike Réd, I did receive some responses from the CO. His first response was, "Having to be fair to everyone we had to delete over 20 logs." Based on the maintenance log he left on the site he claims, "Upon back-checking it was found that logs were submitted by other means possibly by cellphones or apps that did not show up in e-mails to be reviewed therefore bypassing our 'Reviewer' for Webcams and EarthCaches." In other words, every one of those who submitted a log with a picture taken across the street must have cheated the system, preventing him from the opportunity to delete the log when it was first posted. I posted from my iPhone while at the Webcam. My dad posted that evening from his iPod back at the hotel. My sister posted that evening from her laptop back at the hotel.

The CO's second response was, "Actually there were a few that posted Notes and MUCH later changed them to "Found" - I only check the ones I have coming in by e-mail. I have only this one on record from you http://coord.info/GC3E9QK" In other words, he has accused me of posting a Write Note that bypassed the system and prevented him from being able to review, then MUCH later changing the log to a "Found" log. He lies.

I questioned his idea of fairness, saying that I could see him deleting logs the same day or even within a week. Swift action give cachers a chance to rectify the problem. But to delete them 2+ years after the fact? There is no fairness in that! His response was, "Geocache Description: As of the 4th of July 2013."

I appealed to him that he should show some reason with this, that I (and my dad and sister) had planned and executed milestones over the last two years, and this specious action on his behalf has a ripple effect. It has (1) caused the log of Mingo to not be a milestone for either my sister or myself, and (2) caused the qualifying milestone caches (Mega, Webcam, Virtual, and Event) I had executed for 9- and 10-icon milestone challenges to no longer align. If these challenge cache owners decide to check my qualifiers now (apparently there is no statute of limitations) they can also delete my logs for these caches.

The description of Webcam Caches that appears on the Geocaching.com website says in part, "The idea is to get yourself in front of the camera and save a screen capture from the website where the camera is displayed in order to log a find." When first published the logging requirements for this Webcam Cache was precisely that: "Get your picture taken by the camera and post it online." According to the cache page, on July 4, 2013 the CO added an Additional Logging Requirement -- One has to stand in a particular area of the camera for the "Best place for a photo that even your mother would recognize." For what purpose? The CO isn't going to recognize me. And the ironic thing is that the CO includes a picture as an example of where to stand, but the subjects aren't even standing in the place he says people should stand... on the sidewalk! Talk about your mixed messages!

Is it kosher to change the logging requirements on a retired cache type to something other than what geocaching.com says is the "idea"?

Edited by GoldenStateBoy
Change of grammar
0

Share this post


Link to post

Judging from the conversation on the Listing page, things aren't going so well.  It's sad to see, but in cases like this, pretty much everyone loses.

3

Share this post


Link to post

This topic brought back some great memories of our vacation to Hawaii. We did the webcam in April 2016 and it was very clear back then that only a photo on the right location would be accepted. So clear that our photo capture text was "standing at the right side of the street!". Back then there was also a photo of a cacher standing at the right side of the street, with an arrow pointing at him with a text indictating this was the only right location. 

Webcam cache owners have to deal with a lot of fake logs. Sometimes even logs with photos not made by a webcam at all. So I can totally understand a CO's frustration with all these logs, especially an argument like "I'm only here one day on vacation so no other option than this" must be very annoying. So if you can only find a cache a specific day and it didn't work out you should be allowed to log a find anyway?  

If the location where you are supposed to stand is occupied, I can understand/agree you would make a webcam photo somewhere else in view. On the photo you can even see you couldn't stand there and with an explanation to the CO I would expect he would allow the log. Of course the CO would need to get this explanation either via e-mail or in the log to know what the situation was like.

The real issue here is that the logs are deleted such a long time after the visit, that cacher don't even remember what text was or wasn't on the cache page. I don't know why he waited this long, maybe a late log (I've had logs like "logging a find very late, forgot to log I found this cache a year ago") triggered something. Or perhaps that people first wrote a note, because they realized they made a mistake when logging the cache, but then later (maybe after years) changed it to a "webcam photo taken" because they needed one more for a challenge. Who knows, cachers do the strangest things to accomplish certain statistics?!

So my opinion with respect to what the topic starter states/asks: I feel the CO is in his right to delete your log, because I'm pretty sure when you visited the cache it was already clearly mentioned on the cache page where (not) to stand. This I also say because of earlier logs, take for instance the owner maintenance log of Nov 16 2013 with a clear photo of what is the wrong place. It is clear the CO already had to deal with wrong photos back then and deleting logs with all the discussions as a result. BUT: I agree waiting 2 years to delete a log is ridiculous. If the CO missed it earlier I would suggest he better send an e-mail saying "Sorry but you didn't fulfill the webcam requirement.... I feel I'm too late deleting your log, but I would appreciate it if you would change your webcam photo taken-log into a note. This way others won't make the same mistake and think it is allowed to stand in the wrong location". And then leave it at that. Of course many cachers will leave there find, but those who want to play the game in an honest way for themselves can change the log. And maybe even come back to do it right and make it an even more memorable "webcam photo taken" with a great story to tell in the log!

1

Share this post


Link to post

My log of over 2 years was also deleted. I don't know if the CO had the changes that are currently on the page or not. I'm sure he made some changes on that date, but it could have been modified again and he didn't bother to post the date. This was my first attempt at a Webcam and I was using a phone. It's almost impossible to see large examples of pictures and large words on a small screen. I had walked from where I parked and I was on the seawall side of the street. I walk with great difficulty and by the time I got to the spot where I knew the camera could see me I stopped. I didn't want to have to negotiate the curb and the traffic and then return anyway. From previous logged pictures I could tell that some were taken with the individuals on the near side and all you could see was their upper body.

This CO seems to be too involved in the caches he has adopted. He had another adopted webcam in the same area that was archived after he required the Geocachers to come inside of the store because they had moved the camera there. In the case of the camera on this cache, he seems to want you on the same side of the street where the restaurant is located. I wonder what the reason is? Is he trying to remind you that it might be mealtime?

Many webcams have large fields of vision and are intended for other things such as road conditions or surveillance. A person is lucky if they don't look like little ants when the picture is snapped. In the case of KAILUA-KONA~Webcam: (NO photo across the road!), I think the ideal place is across the street. The background of the ocean is pleasant and you don't have to try to cross the busy street and return should you start on the wrong side of the road. However, any place you can find that gets you in the date/time stamped picture should be good enough. Webcam pictures are tough enough. You stand there and keep checking to see if it has taken your picture. As often as not you find that you missed it. or that the camera isn't working, or that you had your eyes closed or something.

I think that CO's have a right to delete a find if you are doing caches with logs and you didn't sign them, but how many CO's go check their logs? I don't have time to be a policeman. It's hard enough to try to maintain a cache when somebody says there is a problem and they were too thoughtless to try and repair it. In reality CO's post caches so that people can find them. Or solve them and then find them. Or be led to an interesting spot to log them as found.

But Webcams? If you are lucky enough to capture the picture why should the CO care where you are in it? Earthcaches? (And I own one.) I don't delete a find if they have the majority of the questions right. My purpose was to lead them to a specific geological feature, tell them some things, and ask a few questions that they can find on the kiosk or make an observation and tell me how they think something evolved. Virtuals? Same as Earthcaches... lead them to something that they might not have seen before. Webcams? Again... If you are in a time/date stamped photo that should be good enough. If I had a Webcam cache I doubt if I would ever bother with acting like a cop. Let Geocachers play the game as they see fit.

It was exactly this kind of a fracas between over-indulgent CO's and Geocachers regarding Challenge caches that led headquarters to suspend new challenge caches for over a year. Then, of course, they came up with the wrong solution of requiring a checker for ALL new challenges. Some challenges simply don't lend themselves to a checker. But like Réd in his log... I digress.☺

Edited by Porkwatch
I left out a word.
1

Share this post


Link to post

I pulled an old listing on my laptop from 2014ish, seems like the name is the same, and the write-up is the same. It is not like there was a change recently that I can see.  As for being at this specific location, it could be as simple as he wants to see who is in the photo.   I could take any picture of a guy sitting at the wall and say it was me. 

0

Share this post


Link to post

F.Y.I.

Webcam scan moved slightly south in 2013 +/-  therefore the additional note at that time. Location was ALWAYS on sidewalk next to the driveway.

NO LOGGING REQUIREMENTS WERE EVER CHANGED. (only photo)

Cache on :-)

1

Share this post


Link to post

I pulled up the .gpx file from my pocket query from 9/2015 in WordPad (as opposed to GSAK which goes out to geocaching.com when you open the file and so you see the updated information) and the cache name doesn't include  '(NO photo across the road!)' in the name, so the change was made sometime since September of 2015.  Once in a lifetime trip, once in a lifetime opportunity to log this cache.  Was my one and only webcam cache as well.  I'm more than a little honked off about it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Porkwatch said:

.....

I think that CO's have a right to delete a find if you are doing caches with logs and you didn't sign them, but how many CO's go check their logs? I don't have time to be a policeman. It's hard enough to try to maintain a cache when somebody says there is a problem and they were too thoughtless to try and repair it. In reality CO's post caches so that people can find them. Or solve them and then find them. Or be led to an interesting spot to log them as found.

But Webcams? If you are lucky enough to capture the picture why should the CO care where you are in it? Earthcaches? (And I own one.) I don't delete a find if they have the majority of the questions right. My purpose was to lead them to a specific geological feature, tell them some things, and ask a few questions that they can find on the kiosk or make an observation and tell me how they think something evolved. Virtuals? Same as Earthcaches... lead them to something that they might not have seen before. Webcams? Again... If you are in a time/date stamped photo that should be good enough. If I had a Webcam cache I doubt if I would ever bother with acting like a cop. Let Geocachers play the game as they see fit.

.....

"Let Geocachers play the game as they see fit."  You mean when cachers don't want to do, or for some reason are not able to do, what the CO wants, they still should be allowed to log? It is from your perspective that a webcam photo is just a webcam photo, but it is not. Of course there are some where you just take a pic, but there a CO's that paid more attention to the cache and added something to make sure it couldn't be a photo with just anybody in it. Like "wear a hat" or "show your gps" . And the CO has to "act like a cop" when people are fake logging, not following the rules, because if they don't the webcam cache will be archived, Groundspeak allowes only the webcam caches to stay when they are actually maintained by the CO. 

If you let geocachers play the game as they see fit, you will get sites where they publish the final coordinates to mystery and multi caches. Just because "it is not the intention of the game to sit at home trying to solve a (difficult) puzzles", and "it is not fair if you have to walk 5 miles when you are not used to, able to, or simply in not the mood to walk more than 200 feet", "the webcam/my phone/the WIFI wasn't working but it is an unique kind of cache so I log it anyway since I live too far away to come back". Lots of people seem to make all kinds of excuses why they don't have to do a cache the way a CO asks you to do it. Sure, there are all kinds of ways to claim a find and often the CO can't do anything about it. But how about a little respect for those CO's who try to keep the game honest and stick to the rules of the game or simply their own cache? Wouldn't it be nice if CO's wouldn't have to act "like a cop" but could simply sit back and relax and enjoy logs of people who really paid attention to what is mentioned on the cache page and then show and tell about it in their logs? 

A big thank you to all those CO's who are still interested in what is happening to their cache(s) and stay involved, maintaining them for over a decade! 

Edited by irisisleuk
5

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, irisisleuk said:

If you let geocachers play the game as they see fit, you will get sites where they publish the final coordinates to mystery and multi caches.

Quoted from such a site (Google translation):

Quote

The largest public and free end coordinate site of the universe and far beyond Currently kept by geocachers from all over the world, for geocachers from all over the world, all of whom prefer to play outside and watch a dull screen For those geocachers this website has been designed and the site now contains over 172,961 final coordinates of multy / mystery / puzzle / earth / virtual / Wherigo and lab caches.

Not really much owners can do about it.

0

Share this post


Link to post

We logged this cache back in July 2014.   That big picture with the X was on the listing at that time.  I remember when researching the cache back then that it was quite clear to me that a log with a picture from elsewhere was going to get deleted.  That's why all three of us had both feet in the square for our picture (our niece who was with us did not).

After logging that cache, I didn't put it on watch but I visit that cache page fairly often.   Over the past 3.5 years of looking at the page I would say 10%-20% of the logs get deleted due to no picture, only posting selfies, or pictures from across the road. Most fairly quickly so my percentage is a guesstimate.  It was around Christmas of 2014 the camera angle changed to not really have much sidewalk on the camera side of the road (between the logs of Il Boss and Spirit-of-Floymo).   The name of the cache changed late 2015 or early 2016 - I am guessing in response to a jump in logs with pictures from the other side of the road due to the camera angle shift.

To say the requirements changed or that this owner hasn't been enforcing the requirements is simply not true.  

    

3

Share this post


Link to post

It seems like such a little insignificant thing - stand properly or your log gets deleted. But it's an allowable instruction requirement. Why should, for example, a challenge that asks a for a 555 day find streak allow someone with 550 to log it qualified? The point is to follow instructions, even if you're "almost" there.  It's up to the CO ultimately whether to offer grace and give a bit of slack, if they do desire, but it's certainly not something to hold against them if they hold the line and standard fairly the entire time, as they are allowed (and really, responsible) to do.  It's unfortunate, but if someone doesn't follow instructions, then yeah, the log may get deleted. Be ready for that if you know you aren't quite matching the requirements.

2

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, KonaJake said:

F.Y.I.

Webcam scan moved slightly south in 2013 +/-  therefore the additional note at that time. Location was ALWAYS on sidewalk next to the driveway.

NO LOGGING REQUIREMENTS WERE EVER CHANGED. (only photo)

Cache on :-)

You have to love over zealous and power struggling webcam cache owners.. the only ALR for a webcam should be a viewable picture from the webcam. These lame posing requirements should be grounds for immediate archival, in my useless opinion. And I love webcams (sitting at about 125-something webcam finds).

1

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, bflentje said:

You have to love over zealous and power struggling webcam cache owners.. the only ALR for a webcam should be a viewable picture from the webcam. These lame posing requirements should be grounds for immediate archival, in my useless opinion. And I love webcams (sitting at about 125-something webcam finds).

I don't agree. Back in those days, before all the Groundspeak guideline nonsense, webcam cache owners had free rein setting up their caches. Most required a finder to post the picture that the webcam captured but some COs were more specific and required more than that. It was a CO's right then. and it is now. to delete those logs that don't adhere to his or her guideline(s). A person shouldn't expect to get away with doing a cache halfway or without following the CO's instructions. Just like any cache, if i don't meet the challenge, then my log deletion is fair game. I'd be mad at myself but i wouldn't blame the CO and/or ask for leeway if i screwed up.

Having said all that,, what i don't like about this instance is the fact that over 2 years has gone by. The CO is the one that made the mistake by not checking and taking care of business in a timely manner. Webcam caches require more maintenance than most other types and it's evident that this maintenance wasn't being performed.

3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Mudfrog said:

I don't agree. Back in those days, before all the Groundspeak guideline nonsense, webcam cache owners had free rein setting up their caches. Most required a finder to post the picture that the webcam captured but some COs were more specific and required more than that. It was a CO's right then. and it is now. to delete those logs that don't adhere to his or her guideline(s). A person shouldn't expect to get away with doing a cache halfway or without following the CO's instructions. Just like any cache, if i don't meet the challenge, then my log deletion is fair game. I'd be mad at myself but i wouldn't blame the CO and/or ask for leeway if i screwed up.

Having said all that,, what i don't like about this instance is the fact that over 2 years has gone by. The CO is the one that made the mistake by not checking and taking care of business in a timely manner. Webcam caches require more maintenance than most other types and it's evident that this maintenance wasn't being performed.

Yeah...I pretty much agree.   Hard to put a hard time limit on these things, but it seems like there is a reasonable amount of time in which one can audit logs for such caches.  Two and a half years seems like it would fall beyond what most would consider "reasonable".

2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Having said all that,, what i don't like about this instance is the fact that over 2 years has gone by. The CO is the one that made the mistake by not checking and taking care of business in a timely manner. Webcam caches require more maintenance than most other types and it's evident that this maintenance wasn't being performed.

Yeah the time thing is the bit that doesn't sit well.

Perhaps the arbitrary 'maintenance schedule' applied to caches with issues is a similar standard that should apply to ALR'd logs like Virtuals and Webcams. After a 'reasonable' amount of time it can be assumed that the find log is ok (just as after a reasonable amount of time a cache not receiving maintenance gets attention from a reviewer).  Both relate to the responsiveness of the cache listing owner.  If an owner doesn't address aspects of the listing they agree to as the owner, then the CO loses the upper hand, until/unless it gets rectified by tptb.

2 years is a long time to 'maintain' invalid find logs (even if properly removed). It was assumed long ago that there was nothing wrong with them, or the CO approved them and let them stand.

0

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Having said all that,, what i don't like about this instance is the fact that over 2 years has gone by. The CO is the one that made the mistake by not checking and taking care of business in a timely manner. Webcam caches require more maintenance than most other types and it's evident that this maintenance wasn't being performed.

Agreed, and by letting those logs stand for so long the CO has given the impression that such pictures are acceptable to future finders. I think if my log had been deleted after 2.5 years I'd be appealing to GCHQ to get it reinstated.

1

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Agreed, and by letting those logs stand for so long the CO has given the impression that such pictures are acceptable to future finders. I think if my log had been deleted after 2.5 years I'd be appealing to GCHQ to get it reinstated.

 

And if GS agrees with the CO and won't reinstate your log. Then what do you do?

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Manville Possum said:

 

And if GS agrees with the CO and won't reinstate your log. Then what do you do?

Nothing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Nothing.

 

I get the feeling that is how this thread got started is when logs didn't get reinstated. :ph34r: I don't blame the CO for doing a clean up either. Hopefully GS will allow the CO to enforce their own web cam listing, but maybe they should take a look to make sure all is well. ^_^

0

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Having said all that,, what i don't like about this instance is the fact that over 2 years has gone by. The CO is the one that made the mistake by not checking and taking care of business in a timely manner. Webcam caches require more maintenance than most other types and it's evident that this maintenance wasn't being performed.

I check each log as it comes in.  My only requirement is that a photo of you taken by the webcam must be posted with your log.  Send an e-mail if it does not meet that requirement.  "Cellphone not working, here's a selfie."  If it not deleted or changed to a note in two weeks, I delete it.  Once or twice a year, I go through all the logs to makes sure I didn't miss one, or that a note was changed back to a 'webcam photo taken."  Yes.  It is a lot of work!  And I've probably deleted 30% of the logs!!!  But it has 864 'webcam photo taken' logs.  And 270 favorite points.  Fortunately for me, it's only available half the year.  (The FTF rode a snowmobile up!  To visit friends.)  Two iffy ones from last year that I probably won't contest.  Deleted one log twice.  Cacher posted a webcam photo of someone off in the distance.  Certainly does not match the selfie.  Green jacket there?  Orange jacket here???  But I've given up contesting that one.  The other is probably my mistake for not catching it earlier (or the note was changed?)  Am I going to go back and triple check all the logs in the last thirteen years?  I've got far better things to do with my life!  I'm done checking last year's logs!   Much less logs from over two years ago!  I'm not that overly obsessive.  On to the new year.  

0

Share this post


Link to post

KonaJake has done the honorable thing and allowed the aggrieved to relog their caches.

Tip of the hat! Awesome Move!

Now, let's encourage him to enable the cache, he disabled due to the frasques, and, in KonaJake's words . . . .Cache on :-)

This iconic webcam cache from 2004 with over 100 favs needs to be available to the community.

For my part, I apologize if I caused a ruckus. Not my intention to have the cache archived.

And I'll meet the co halfway, I promise to read instructions more carefully in the future!

Fair enough?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Réd said:

KonaJake has done the honorable thing and allowed the aggrieved to relog their caches.

Tip of the hat! Awesome Move!

Now, let's encourage him to enable the cache, he disabled due to the frasques, and, in KonaJake's words . . . .Cache on :-)

This iconic webcam cache from 2004 with over 100 favs needs to be available to the community.

For my part, I apologize if I caused a ruckus. Not my intention to have the cache archived.

And I'll meet the co halfway, I promise to read instructions more carefully in the future!

Fair enough?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but how is it doing the honorable thing by being bullied into accepting just whatever from those that don't take the time to meet logging requirements?

I would archive that cache and be done with it if you caused me that much grief about it already. But you get to keep your find, even if you don't meet the logging criteria.

The honorable thing would be to meet the CO's logging requirements and not cause a ruckus until you get your way. :(

3

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Réd said:

KonaJake has done the honorable thing and allowed the aggrieved to relog their caches.

Just as a minor quibble - let not the inverse be true, that it would be dishonourable if he didn't. In the same manner, the honourable thing for the previous finders would have been to accept the CO's legitimate judgement stand.  So, thanks to KonaJake for being kind-hearted in this case.

3

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Just as a minor quibble - let not the inverse be true, that it would be dishonourable if he didn't. In the same manner, the honourable thing for the previous finders would have been to accept the CO's legitimate judgement stand.  So, thanks to KonaJake for being kind-hearted in this case.

^^^ THIS

2

Share this post


Link to post

Just to follow up on my previous post....

When we go on vacation I bring a hard copy of the cache page for caches that I think we are going to look for - especially for Virtuals/EarthCaches/Multis/Webcams/Unknowns.   I went through my box of print outs last night and found my hard copy of this cache printed 7/10/2014 at 11:15am.   Not a single word of the description has changed between now and then.  The name did change (my best guess is May of 2016) and the best spot photo changed to account for the camera angle change (in 2014 it was the webcam photo from "TheDeverills" log on 6/21/2013), but absolutely none of the text in the description changed nor did the picture with the X on where to stand.   

0

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I'm glad that the CO relented, but I wish I had the original picture back. I was 76 years old in that picture and my son from CA and my daughter from WI were both in the picture with me. I know that we aren’t recognizable, but it always made me feel good knowing that it was us in the picture.

I don’t know why the CO is so vigilant over his adopted cache. I know of a webcam here in Oregon that has a CO that hasn’t logged onto the website for several years. He’s probably dead, but the Webcam marches on quite nicely with no monitoring.

0

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Porkwatch said:

Well, I'm glad that the CO relented, but I wish I had the original picture back. I was 76 years old in that picture and my son from CA and my daughter from WI were both in the picture with me. I know that we aren’t recognizable, but it always made me feel good knowing that it was us in the picture.

Contact HQ and ask about the log. It's not deleted entirely, just archived. Even if it's not reinstated they may be able to get the picture for you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
26 minutes ago, Porkwatch said:

Well, I'm glad that the CO relented, but I wish I had the original picture back. I was 76 years old in that picture and my son from CA and my daughter from WI were both in the picture with me. I know that we aren’t recognizable, but it always made me feel good knowing that it was us in the picture.

Contact HQ and ask about the log. It's not deleted entirely, just archived. Even if it's not reinstated they may be able to get the picture for you.

I always assumed that once I posted a picture, it would be in my gallery forever after whether the log was deleted or not. Not so?

0

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I always assumed that once I posted a picture, it would be in my gallery forever after whether the log was deleted or not. Not so?

Pictures posted in reviewer notes disappear from the gallery when the cache is published and the reviewer note is deleted (or more accurately archived), so I guess the same is probably true of regular logs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Ah, maybe, dunno, can't check. Porkwatch can.

Well, actually I did check Porkwatch's gallery without saying anything about it, and I didn't find a picture. If he looks at his own gallery, does he get more pictures than I can see?

I suspect deleting the log takes the picture out of the gallery, it just never occurred to me before. Now both my experience and barefootjeff's seems to confirm that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I suspect deleting the log takes the picture out of the gallery, it just never occurred to me before. Now both my experience and barefootjeff's seems to confirm that.

Yes, the pictures wouldn't be visible in the public gallery anymore.

However, when a log of yours gets deleted, you receive an email that contains a link to the archived log. I've never tested it, but I would expect that you should still be able to see the images attached to the log. You could then save it to your computer and re-upload to a new log.

0

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, The A-Team said:

Yes, the pictures wouldn't be visible in the public gallery anymore.

And that would be by design.  One of the reasons that logs are deleted is when a finder adds a spoiler photo.  A CO can't delete the photo unless they delete the log.

0

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

And that would be by design.  One of the reasons that logs are deleted is when a finder adds a spoiler photo.  A CO can't delete the photo unless they delete the log.

I'm pretty sure they can - I've done it myself.

In fact I remember a bug in the process whereby deleting the photo caused everyone who had the cache on their watch list to receive an email containing a link to the 'deleted' photograph (because, as we know, Groundspeak don't actually delete photographs from their servers) which completely defeated the purpose of deleting the photograph in the first place.

Another prime example of excellent programming <_<

0

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

And that would be by design.  One of the reasons that logs are deleted is when a finder adds a spoiler photo.  A CO can't delete the photo unless they delete the log.

CO can delete the photo only from Edit Image link.

0

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, arisoft said:

CO can delete the photo only from Edit Image link.

So I can edit images in your gallery if it was added to a log on one of my caches?

Okay, I just checked.  It looks like I can delete a photo attached to a log on one of my owned caches but can't replace it with another image (oh what fun that could be) as implied by the "Edit Image" link.

 

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
0

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, arisoft said:

CO can delete the photo only from Edit Image link.

If the Owner deletes the log, the link to the picture also get's lost, or did I miss something?

The picture isn't deleted, but how can you now find the address of the picture that was in the log if you didn't save it before the log got deleted?

To me it seems that the owner and the logger of the deleted log now (only) can still read the text of the deleted log. The link to the deleted log is in the email that tells the logger about log deletion.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe the wayback machine (internet archives) could be of some help? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, arisoft said:

CO can delete the photo only from Edit Image link.

Yes, and in this case the logger of the "deleted" picture gets a mail with a link to the "deleted" picture and can save the picture if necessary.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I am on the CO's side here but not the 2.5 years later part.

0

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/13/2018 at 11:59 AM, Mudfrog said:

I don't agree. Back in those days, before all the Groundspeak guideline nonsense, webcam cache owners had free rein setting up their caches. Most required a finder to post the picture that the webcam captured but some COs were more specific and required more than that. It was a CO's right then. and it is now. to delete those logs that don't adhere to his or her guideline(s). A person shouldn't expect to get away with doing a cache halfway or without following the CO's instructions. Just like any cache, if i don't meet the challenge, then my log deletion is fair game. I'd be mad at myself but i wouldn't blame the CO and/or ask for leeway if i screwed up.

Having said all that,, what i don't like about this instance is the fact that over 2 years has gone by. The CO is the one that made the mistake by not checking and taking care of business in a timely manner. Webcam caches require more maintenance than most other types and it's evident that this maintenance wasn't being performed.

That's fine. But your opinion does not invalidate my opinion. I think all ALR's, outside of the obvious, should be banned across the board.

0

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/13/2018 at 5:36 PM, Harry Dolphin said:

I check each log as it comes in.  My only requirement is that a photo of you taken by the webcam must be posted with your log.  Send an e-mail if it does not meet that requirement.  "Cellphone not working, here's a selfie."  If it not deleted or changed to a note in two weeks, I delete it.  Once or twice a year, I go through all the logs to makes sure I didn't miss one, or that a note was changed back to a 'webcam photo taken."  Yes.  It is a lot of work!  And I've probably deleted 30% of the logs!!!  But it has 864 'webcam photo taken' logs.  And 270 favorite points.  Fortunately for me, it's only available half the year.  (The FTF rode a snowmobile up!  To visit friends.)  Two iffy ones from last year that I probably won't contest.  Deleted one log twice.  Cacher posted a webcam photo of someone off in the distance.  Certainly does not match the selfie.  Green jacket there?  Orange jacket here???  But I've given up contesting that one.  The other is probably my mistake for not catching it earlier (or the note was changed?)  Am I going to go back and triple check all the logs in the last thirteen years?  I've got far better things to do with my life!  I'm done checking last year's logs!   Much less logs from over two years ago!  I'm not that overly obsessive.  On to the new year.  

And I appreciate that you accepted my flashlight in the fog picture all those years back. ;-)  I visited last summer again and posted a fog-free picture.

0

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, bflentje said:

That's fine. But your opinion does not invalidate my opinion. I think all ALR's, outside of the obvious, should be banned across the board.

I agree, you do have a right to your opinion. My opinion though is that a complete banning of ALRs would be another negative for the hobby. Believe it or not, there are still some of us left that enjoy creative and challenging caches. Caches with ALRs don't hurt anything. Well, except those people that believe they're entitled to log every cache out there. Just like i choose to do, can't you just choose to skip caches you don't like? As far as the number of ALR caches, it's not like you would have to skip very many...;)

1

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5