Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Theniyaal

Etiquette question regarding the replacement of an abandoned cache

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

When I found it the replaced cheese was gone and the bread was half eaten by mice, so I left a new sandwich. BTW it's not my sandwich, I relinquish all responsibility to Terry. ^_^

Binned the old sandwich and left a peanut butter sandwich in a fresh baggie.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

How about this reason: my nick was already in the logbook.

 

Sounds like the CO didn't replace the logbook as they are supposed to.  And besides, that would imply that you need to sign it again since last time it was for the previous version of it.  How do you find a cache before it was created?

Share this post


Link to post

There are event organizers around here who keep reusing the same log book for every event. I still sign the log book again when I attend another of their events.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

If you see the signature in the logbook, it is signed. It may surprise you, but it is common practice that you can find a cache before it is published and log it found on-line.

 

If you see your name in the logbook.... that means you actually went to the cache anyway.  So sign it again.

 

If someone else said "Hey, guess what?  I was out there and you'll never believe it.... your name was already in the book" and you respond with "Sweet... double find for only doing it once!"

 

Life would be great if we could claim to have done things repeatedly even if we really only did them once.  My mother gave birth to me three times I guess. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

The logbook is signed: true

The place is visited: true

There is no other requirements to log it found on-line.

Actually, there's one more.  The cache is replaced where found.  It seems to me that container swapping, as is done on some large power trails specifically violates the guidelines but COs of those caches just don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Actually, there's one more.  The cache is replaced where found.

 

In my case only the cache description was replaced, not the physical cache itself, but this is a rare case.

 

25 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

It seems to me that container swapping, as is done on some large power trails specifically violates the guidelines but COs of those caches just don't care.

 

If the cache description promotes this kind of swapping it should not be published at all: "Caches intended to move will not be published."

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, niraD said:

There are event organizers around here who keep reusing the same log book for every event. I still sign the log book again when I attend another of their events.

 

You can log events on-line without signing anything on-site. Any number of signatures in the logbook is acceptable with events.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, niraD said:

There are event organizers around here who keep reusing the same log book for every event.

 

Me, too; it's a trackable as well.  Each event gets its own page(s) - and its own attended logs.

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 12:20 AM, Max and 99 said:

One problem I've encountered from  maintaining an old friend's cache is that even though I perform maintenance  quickly,  anytime there's a  DNF or NM posted, I cannot make the red wrench go away. The CO hasn't logged anything in years! I'm happy to help my old friend, but I'm quite limited in what I can do. It's frustrating seeing the red wrench always there, knowing I fix any issues within 2  days. If the reviewer steps in, I will place my own cache there.

I've never fully agreed with the whole idea of the "property of the cache owner" thing.  Most of the concept is fine but in some cases transfer of a cache should be allowed.  This is one of those situations. 

 

I assume you have no contact with your friend.   Would be nice if they would just let you adopt this cache.

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 12:20 AM, Max and 99 said:

One problem I've encountered from  maintaining an old friend's cache is that even though I perform maintenance  quickly,  anytime there's a  DNF or NM posted, I cannot make the red wrench go away. The CO hasn't logged anything in years! I'm happy to help my old friend, but I'm quite limited in what I can do. It's frustrating seeing the red wrench always there, knowing I fix any issues within 2  days. If the reviewer steps in, I will place my own cache there.

 

We maintain a few caches for others, medical issues mostly.  Luckily they're able to clear cache pages, just can't head out for a distant walk yet.  :)

One couple had a divorce, and we maintained their hide for almost a year (not knowing who was gonna be owning it afterwards...).

When both moved out of the area, and neither telling us, I stopped "helping" and it's now gone bye-bye...

None have been cool enough spots (to me) to want to place one of my own there,  yet.

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 7:57 AM, The Blue Quasar said:

Not sure why any CO believes they are to suggest to seekers that they are "allowed to post finds without visiting the site if the cache was already found.".  CO's do not determine how to log a cache, Geocaching.com does.

Not quite. While geocaching.com has some guidelines regarding logging and will step in for certain scenarios, it's usually up to the CO whether they consider a find to be valid or not. If a CO chooses to allow a find to stand because someone had previously signed a logbook that was carried over to a replacement cache in the same spot, then they can do so. HQ won't step in and delete the log. HQ rules on disputes, but there isn't a dispute if both the finder and CO consider a log valid.

 

Quote

To log a find the seeker needs to sign their name in the logbook.

No. A signature in the logbook is considered a guarantee that your online log will be protected in the case of a dispute, but a signature is not a requirement to log online. This guideline is often misunderstood to say that a signature is a requirement, but it doesn't actually say that. If a CO chooses to accept another form of proof, they can do so (within reason and within other guidelines).

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/12/2018 at 7:16 PM, The A-Team said:

Not quite. While geocaching.com has some guidelines regarding logging and will step in for certain scenarios, it's usually up to the CO whether they consider a find to be valid or not. If a CO chooses to allow a find to stand because someone had previously signed a logbook that was carried over to a replacement cache in the same spot, then they can do so. HQ won't step in and delete the log. HQ rules on disputes, but there isn't a dispute if both the finder and CO consider a log valid.

 

No. A signature in the logbook is considered a guarantee that your online log will be protected in the case of a dispute, but a signature is not a requirement to log online. This guideline is often misunderstood to say that a signature is a requirement, but it doesn't actually say that. If a CO chooses to accept another form of proof, they can do so (within reason and within other guidelines).

 

@The A-Team Please refer to https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines#physicalcaches

 

Quote

For physical caches other than challenge caches, any additional logging requirement (ALR)beyond finding the cache and signing the log must be optional. Caches can be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

 

As for a CO being allowed to accept another form of proof: https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines#ownerresponsibility

 

Quote
  • Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate.

 

And that link goes to

 

Quote

Cache owners may delete geocache logs if they conflict with our Terms of Use Agreement or fail to meet the logging guidelines for their cache type.

 

The link for "cache type" circles back to the requirements for physical caches which was quoted above where it twice states that one must find the cache and sign the logbook.

Share this post


Link to post
On 13.9.2018 at 2:16 AM, The A-Team said:

This guideline is often misunderstood to say that a signature is a requirement

 

3 hours ago, The Blue Quasar said:

 

This is interesting question. Two notes. I tried to publish a cache where description allowed to make a photolog in the case a pen is missing. It is not allowed, said the reviewer. But from HQ i have got this when asked permission to allow logging using morse code with a special gadget.

 

Quote

Thank you for contacting Geocaching HQ.

 

Unfortunately, we are not able to pre-approve geocaches before they go through the usual review process. Please [follow these steps](https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=22&pgid=812) to create a new cache page that reflects your idea and post a Reviewer Note to ask a reviewer for their help.

 

That said, as you have read in the guidelines, each geocache requires a logbook that is physical, easy to sign and replaceable. This means that logbooks are usually made out of paper or some other medium that geocachers can sign with a pen. Other ways of logging a visit to the cache — like a morse recording —  can be optional alternatives.

 

 

HUH?

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, The Blue Quasar said:

@The A-Team Please refer to https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines#physicalcaches

 

Quote

For physical caches other than challenge caches, any additional logging requirement (ALR)beyond finding the cache and signing the log must be optional. Caches can be logged online as "Found" after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

 

The first quoted sentence says that logging requirements beyond signing the log must be optional. In other words, a cache owner cannot require someone to do more than sign the log.

 

The second quoted sentence says that Finds can be logged online after signing the log. It does not say that Finds can be logged online ONLY after signing the log.

 

The cache owner can still accept a Find log in other situations.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

 

This is interesting question. Two notes. I tried to publish a cache where description allowed to make a photolog in the case a pen is missing. It is not allowed, said the reviewer. But from HQ i have got this when asked permission to allow logging using morse code with a special gadget.

 

....

 

HUH?

What's the confusion? The cache must be able to be signed on paper (etc.) using a pen (or marker, etc.). A photolog pre-acceptance isn't allowed since it turns the cache into a virtual.

If you decide to let people "sign" using Morse Code (how does this work? Do you have a device to make the code and a device to record the code?) It must be optional. And REQUIRING people to sign using Morse isn't allowed. If you mean people are allowed to write on the log in Morse Code using a pen, then all power to you.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TriciaG said:

What's the confusion? The cache must be able to be signed on paper (etc.) using a pen (or marker, etc.). A photolog pre-acceptance isn't allowed since it turns the cache into a virtual.

If you decide to let people "sign" using Morse Code (how does this work? Do you have a device to make the code and a device to record the code?) It must be optional. And REQUIRING people to sign using Morse isn't allowed. If you mean people are allowed to write on the log in Morse Code using a pen, then all power to you.

 

The "confusion" is something inside what you wrote. Two cases, both have paper log and alternative, optional way to log. Why did you interpret similar situations different way? Just swap photo and morse in those examples to see this. We know sure that there is huge amount of photologs in ordinary caches because missing pen etc. and there is no problem with them IF the CO accepts the log that way and there is paper log. Maybe this is something you are not allowed to disclose in the cache description.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, TriciaG said:

What's the confusion? The cache must be able to be signed on paper (etc.) using a pen (or marker, etc.). A photolog pre-acceptance isn't allowed since it turns the cache into a virtual.

If you decide to let people "sign" using Morse Code (how does this work? Do you have a device to make the code and a device to record the code?) It must be optional. And REQUIRING people to sign using Morse isn't allowed. If you mean people are allowed to write on the log in Morse Code using a pen, then all power to you.

Just in case arisoft's last post didn't clear it up: the requirement is that you sign the log, and the CO cannot require anything more. But if you don't sign the log, that doesn't mean the CO is required to delete your find. He's free to accept the find log, but since he's also free to reject the find log, he might require specific proof of your accomplishment before he'll accept it.

 

The ALR prohibition could come into play here if the CO's doing something hinky, but generally it wouldn't be a factor as long as the CO isn't doing anything more serious than giving you a second option since you couldn't sign the log.

Share this post


Link to post

I've heard of cases where regular/trad/physical caches are archived for being "virtuals" - the CO posts on the cache page, or maybe just indicates by action or inaction, that they accept any and all photo logs in lieu of signing a paper log. That's not allowed. As a CO, you need to provide a log for people to sign on, and at least give the impression that they are to sign it. If they happen to not have a pen or the log is pulp, yes, a photolog in general is allowed. But it's not to be encouraged. In your example, Arisoft, I'd say you'd need to remove the photolog permission from the description.
 

The way I see it, in the first case (blatantly stating that a photolog is acceptable) a CO is being too loose with the requirements, and GS doesn't like that.

In the second case, forcing someone to sign in Morse Code is an ALR, so you must allow them to sign "normally" and only have the Morse Code as an option. Two different scenarios going on here.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

4 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

The way I see it, in the first case (blatantly stating that a photolog is acceptable) a CO is being too loose with the requirements, and GS doesn't like that.

In the second case, forcing someone to sign in Morse Code is an ALR, so you must allow them to sign "normally" and only have the Morse Code as an option. Two different scenarios going on here.

 

My both cases are the same. Using gadget A in the first example and using gadget B in the second example. Both gadgets are intended to be truly optional methods. I was surprised that gadget A was not allowed by the reviewer where gadget B was allowed by the HQ. You can not say that HQ did now allow the photolog because the reviewer denied the idea, not the HQ.

 

I am quite sure that the reviewer used the wrong approach to the scenario. Your example is more likely, that removing the real logbook and forcing the player to use photolog is both a violation of the physical log guideline and also an ALR. That cannot be tolerated.

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, arisoft said:

My both cases are the same. Using gadget A in the first example and using gadget B in the second example. Both gadgets are intended to be truly optional methods.

Except Gadget A (photolog) is to be used IN PLACE OF the paper log. They're different.

P.S. And you said you haven't run the Morse Code idea by the reviewer, so they might reject it as well. *shrug*

Edited by TriciaG

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

Except Gadget A (photolog) is to be used IN PLACE OF the paper log. They're different.

 

Both situations have been intented to be the same, alternative, optional way to log. HQ accepts and  reviewer denies using alternative method. If you see some difference, it is not intented to be there.

Share this post


Link to post

To my understanding the following is true

  • every physical geocache must include a logbook that is to be signed with a common writing utensil such as a ball point pen
  • geocaches do not need to include any form of writing utensil.  If none is provided the seeker is expected to provide and use their own
  • the CO can request or offer alternative ways to sign the logbook but cannot require it (e.g. "You can sign your name OR write it in Morse code to match the theme)
  • photo logs are not acceptable.  
  • CO's may delete logs if the seeker did not sign the logbook
  • CO's are to delete logs if the seeker says they did not sign the logbook as is outlined in the guidelines and help center
  • CO's that encourage seekers to log caches that the seeker did not sign the logbook may have that cache disabled or archived by a reviewer 

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/14/2018 at 11:56 AM, niraD said:

The second quoted sentence says that Finds can be logged online after signing the log. It does not say that Finds can be logged online ONLY after signing the log.

 

 

I don't understand what you mean.  How can someone log a find before signing the logbook?  They haven't actually found it yet.  Seems to me that the only way is to log the find after signing the log.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Blue Quasar said:

How can someone log a find before signing the logbook?

If the log is unsignable, then they won't be able to sign the logbook.

 

If they post a photo of the soggy log, and then post an online Find log with the photo attached, then they will have logged a Find without signing the log. This is sometimes called a photo log.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, niraD said:

If the log is unsignable, then they won't be able to sign the logbook.

 

If they post a photo of the soggy log, and then post an online Find log with the photo attached, then they will have logged a Find without signing the log. This is sometimes called a photo log.

 

If the logbook is unsignable to that extent, they should post a note and attach a Needs Maintenance, then come back after the CO fixes it.  I know that sounds harsh

 

"Hey Billy, did you and Sally kiss?"

"Well, I walked across the playground and she was there with her friends and well, she got shy and I was scared, but you dared me to, so ummm, I tried to kiss her but she turned her head away and I ended up kissing the back of her head.  So I dunno if we kissed.  I kissed her... does that count?"

 

I don't think anyone would think that THEY kissed.   

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, The Blue Quasar said:

If the logbook is unsignable to that extent, they should post a note and attach a Needs Maintenance, then come back after the CO fixes it.  I know that sounds harsh.

 

I would'n wait for the CO to fix it, because it is not my job to control, how the CO handles the situation overall. My only intention is just to get the "Find It" to my statistics and the easiest way is to add extra logsheet and put it in to container with the original soggy logbook. I appreciate if you have time to watch over what the CO is doing and effort to visit the same cache many times to verify that the CO has done the job. How do you answer to the CO if the CO asks you participate with the cache repairing? Let's say that the CO asks you to replace the soggy logbook. How do you reply?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, niraD said:

If the log is unsignable, then they won't be able to sign the logbook.

 

If they post a photo of the soggy log, and then post an online Find log with the photo attached, then they will have logged a Find without signing the log. This is sometimes called a photo log.

 

7 minutes ago, The Blue Quasar said:

 

If the logbook is unsignable to that extent, they should post a note and attach a Needs Maintenance, then come back after the CO fixes it.  I know that sounds harsh

 

"Hey Billy, did you and Sally kiss?"

"Well, I walked across the playground and she was there with her friends and well, she got shy and I was scared, but you dared me to, so ummm, I tried to kiss her but she turned her head away and I ended up kissing the back of her head.  So I dunno if we kissed.  I kissed her... does that count?"

 

I don't think anyone would think that THEY kissed.   

 

 

As you can see there are a lot of opinions on how to play THE GAME.  I'm in niraD's camp if I did everything possible that I could I claim it with a photo log along with a NM note. I'll also claim a find with photo should I not be able to sign like if I have lost my pen. Just realize there are a lot of strong opinions out there like Blue Quasars that are not wrong either. My recommendations to the OPer is find the way to play the game the way you can and be consistent and stay within the spirit of the game.

 

An extreme example: If you were disabled with no arms but you made every effort to get out into the great outdoors spot the cache, I vote claim the find. If you required massive assistance, claim the find. General agreement  here is avoid the trowdowns, avoid maintaining others caches unless special circumstances, don't claim a find unless you found it, oh and have fun exploring. I'm sure this could be a whole thread on its own.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

I would'n wait for the CO to fix it, because it is not my job to control, how the CO handles the situation overall. My only intention is just to get the "Find It" to my statistics and the easiest way is to add extra logsheet and put it in to container with the original soggy logbook. I appreciate if you have time to watch over what the CO is doing and effort to visit the same cache many times to verify that the CO has done the job. How do you answer to the CO if the CO asks you participate with the cache repairing? Let's say that the CO asks you to replace the soggy logbook. How do you reply?

 

That's easy..... Cache Maintenance is something that the CO agreed to when they submitted their cache for review.  

https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines#ownerresponsibility

These duties fall to the CO, no one else.  A CO that cannot maintain their own cache shouldn't have a cache placed.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, The Blue Quasar said:

 

That's easy..... Cache Maintenance is something that the CO agreed to when they submitted their cache for review.  

https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines#ownerresponsibility

These duties fall to the CO, no one else.  A CO that cannot maintain their own cache shouldn't have a cache placed.

 

Agreed but if I made every effort and the CO has fallen short of their responsibility. Why penalize myself. I'm holding up my side of the bargain. 

 

But as I stated earlier. Play the game how you want to play it. Just don't get annoyed when not everyone else follows your lead. Is it going to hurt you should someone not follow your method? 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, MNTA said:

 

Agreed but if I made every effort and the CO has fallen short of their responsibility. Why penalize myself. I'm holding up my side of the bargain. 

 

But as I stated earlier. Play the game how you want to play it. Just don't get annoyed when not everyone else follows your lead. Is it going to hurt you should someone not follow your method? 

 

Actually I do agree with you.  And your example makes perfect sense.  Just like the "the logbook was sopping wet so I added a piece of paper as a temporary fix" makes sense.  And then adding a Need Maintenance log.  At that point the CO should disable it until they can replace the logbook.

 

But no, like you said people can vary the game as much as they want.  It is the slippery slope though of when it goes too far.

"I couldn't get near the cache due to the bees in the area" = you didn't find it

"I saw the cache up in the tree about 40 feet, but I didn't climb up to sign it" = you didn't find it

"I pulled out the logbook but my pen was tearing the soaking wet paper" = of course you found it... 

"As it turns out the cache was missing but the CO said I could log it found" = No, you didn't find it

"I found the lid to the cache.  It had camo tape on it that was chewed.  The rest was gone." = you didn't find it

 

It should be common sense what "Finding" actually means as well as "Signing the logbook".  Did you locate and touch the container that was holding the logbook, and sign that logbook if possible?  Sounds like a valid find to me.

Edited by The Blue Quasar
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Let's agree to disagree on every point. 

 

Now only if I was stuck at home this beautiful fall day with a cold. :( 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Blue Quasar said:
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

Let's say that the CO asks you to replace the soggy logbook. How do you reply?

 

That's easy..... Cache Maintenance is something that the CO agreed to when they submitted their cache for review.  

https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines#ownerresponsibility

These duties fall to the CO, no one else.  A CO that cannot maintain their own cache shouldn't have a cache placed.

 

According to guidelines, it is allowed and sometimes even obligatory to have another named person, who can do the maintenance behalf of the CO. Your interpretation of the guidelines is false in this respect that CO only can participate. No guideline prohibits you to change the logbook if the CO asks you to do so. Refusing is allowed, but in this case, it seems to base on the false assumption that you are not a valid person to make this simple maintenance job if asked. Actually, you are absolutely valid.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, The Blue Quasar said:

But no, like you said people can vary the game as much as they want.  It is the slippery slope though of when it goes too far.

Slippery slopes are only a problem when it matters. Allowing people to slip as far down the slope as they want to isn't a problem because it's not important. There's a specific point -- signature in the log -- where the final decision switches from finder to CO, but it's really of no concern to anyone else where the finder and CO agree to end the slippery slope.

 

Except there are extreme cases where the CO allows anything, and I am perfectly happy to leave that end of the slope to GS and the reviewers since that's a problem with the cache, not a problem with individual finds.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

According to guidelines, it is allowed and sometimes even obligatory to have another named person, who can do the maintenance behalf of the CO. Your interpretation of the guidelines is false in this respect that CO only can participate. No guideline prohibits you to change the logbook if the CO asks you to do so. Refusing is allowed, but in this case, it seems to base on the false assumption that you are not a valid person to make this simple maintenance job if asked. Actually, you are absolutely valid.

 

The guidelines do not allow for just anyone to act on behalf of the CO.  In the case where the CO lives far enough away that they cannot perform maintenance themselves, the CO is to outline their maintenance plan BEFORE publication stating what individual will be taking care of the cache for them.

 

See: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=128&pgid=709

 

If you have a guideline that says otherwise, please provide the link.

 

What you say here, snipped from above is 100% true

Quote

No guideline prohibits you to change the logbook if the CO asks you to do so.

 

However, the CO has the responsibility to maintain the cache themselves or by designated proxy established before publication.  When a CO asks anyone else to maintain their cache for them, they are failing to meet the Cache Maintenance guidelines they agreed to in order to be published.  In your example, the CO is in the wrong and has now broken the guidelines.  In other words the guidelines prohibit the CO from asking you to change the logbook for them.

 

Community maintenance is NOT an acceptable maintenance plan.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Except there are extreme cases where the CO allows anything, and I am perfectly happy to leave that end of the slope to GS and the reviewers since that's a problem with the cache, not a problem with individual finds.

 

Perfect. 

 

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Allowing people to slip as far down the slope as they want to isn't a problem because it's not important. There's a specific point -- signature in the log -- where the final decision switches from finder to CO, but it's really of no concern to anyone else where the finder and CO agree to end the slippery slope.

 

Mostly one can agree with that, however when a finder logs a Found It but then goes on to say that they did not, most times people look at the last log and say "Yup, it was found" and that's it.  They walk out to the cache after a false positive with an expectation of likely success.

 

Allowing false finds also tells the community that actually finding the container and signing the logbook (at one time that was the core of the game) is now optional.  Call me olde timey but I am from a time when ethics meant more than numbers, integrity meant more than stats, and honesty meant more than being inconvenienced.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Blue Quasar said:

Allowing false finds also tells the community that actually finding the container and signing the logbook (at one time that was the core of the game) is now optional.  Call me olde timey but I am from a time when ethics meant more than numbers, integrity meant more than stats, and honesty meant more than being inconvenienced.

The fact that it's reasonable for a CO to allow a find for someone that did not sign the log does not change the CO's requirement to maintain the cache.

 

The rules are to make the game enjoyable, not to be followed blindly for some subjective higher ethic.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, The Blue Quasar said:

Community maintenance is NOT an acceptable maintenance plan.

 

You are not the community. Asking you to make a simple maintenance task is not asking the community to take care. Your choice to refuse helping the CO is only your own decision.

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/14/2018 at 12:22 PM, TriciaG said:

What's the confusion? The cache must be able to be signed on paper (etc.) using a pen (or marker, etc.). A photolog pre-acceptance isn't allowed since it turns the cache into a virtual.

If you decide to let people "sign" using Morse Code (how does this work? Do you have a device to make the code and a device to record the code?) It must be optional. And REQUIRING people to sign using Morse isn't allowed. If you mean people are allowed to write on the log in Morse Code using a pen, then all power to you.

 

- ..-. - -.-.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

- ..-. - -.-.

 

- ..-. - -.-.  .. ...  .-  .-.. .- -- .  .-.. --- --. .-.-.-  ..  .-- --- ..- .-.. -..  . -..- .--. . -.-. -  .-  .-.. --- -. --. . .-.  - . -..- -  - .... .- -.  - .... .- -

Share this post


Link to post

- .... . / .. -.. . .- / .-- .- ... / - --- / .-.. --- --. / -... -.-- / .--. ..- ... .... .. -. --. / .- / -... ..- - - --- -. .-.-.- / - .... . / -.. . ...- .. -.-. . / .-. . -.-. --- .-. -.. ... / .-- .... .- - / -.-- --- ..- / -.. .. -.. / .-- .. - .... / - .... . / -... ..- - - --- -. .-.-.-

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

THE/IDEA/WAS/TO/LOG/BY/PUSHING/A/BUTTON./THE/DEVICE/RECORDS/WHAT/YOU/DID/WITH/THE/BUTTON.

That would be an ALR, so it would have to be optional, as you are aware.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TriciaG said:

That would be an ALR, so it would have to be optional, as you are aware.

 

I know and that is why I asked special permission for this. Instead of getting the permission to use morse code only, I got instructions  to use it as an alternative logging method.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, The Blue Quasar said:

However, the CO has the responsibility to maintain the cache themselves or by designated proxy established before publication.  When a CO asks anyone else to maintain their cache for them, they are failing to meet the Cache Maintenance guidelines they agreed to in order to be published.  In your example, the CO is in the wrong and has now broken the guidelines.  In other words the guidelines prohibit the CO from asking you to change the logbook for them.

You seem to be reading too much into some of the guidelines. Nowhere does it say that the CO or a pre-designated proxy are the only ones who can perform maintenance. If a CO gets a family member to help them out, that isn't a problem. They may even ask a fellow cacher to help. I don't see why either of these would be problematic or forbidden by any of the documented guidelines. "Community maintenance" is obviously too unrestrictive, but restricting to only pre-designated parties is too restrictive.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, The Blue Quasar said:

 

The guidelines do not allow for just anyone to act on behalf of the CO.  In the case where the CO lives far enough away that they cannot perform maintenance themselves, the CO is to outline their maintenance plan BEFORE publication stating what individual will be taking care of the cache for them.

 

See: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=128&pgid=709

 

If you have a guideline that says otherwise, please provide the link.

 

What you say here, snipped from above is 100% true

 

However, the CO has the responsibility to maintain the cache themselves or by designated proxy established before publication.  When a CO asks anyone else to maintain their cache for them, they are failing to meet the Cache Maintenance guidelines they agreed to in order to be published.  In your example, the CO is in the wrong and has now broken the guidelines.  In other words the guidelines prohibit the CO from asking you to change the logbook for them.

 

Community maintenance is NOT an acceptable maintenance plan.

 

Cache maintenance by one who is a designee of the CO is, and has always been an acceptable practice. 

 

Relying on finders (or asking on the cache page for finders) to perform maintenance on caches is NOT acceptable (except on power trails).

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, K13 said:

 

Relying on finders (or asking on the cache page for finders) to perform maintenance on caches is NOT acceptable (except on power trails).

 

I’m not sure that it’s acceptable for power trails.  But I may not be aware of this in the official guidelines.  Is there anything in the guidelines that say relying on finders for maintenance is an acceptable maintenance plan for the submission of power trails?  

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

I’m not sure that it’s acceptable for power trails.  But I may not be aware of this in the official guidelines.  Is there anything in the guidelines that say relying on finders for maintenance is an acceptable maintenance plan for the submission of power trails?  

It's probably not allowed, but my old reviewer allowed all power trail caches to state that the CO was relying on other geocachers to perform maintenance on the PT caches.

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 10:06 PM, The Blue Quasar said:

However, the CO has the responsibility to maintain the cache themselves or by designated proxy established before publication.  When a CO asks anyone else to maintain their cache for them, they are failing to meet the Cache Maintenance guidelines they agreed to in order to be published. 

 

Community maintenance is NOT an acceptable maintenance plan.

 

Not really.    Vacation caches need someone "designated",  but common sense says others can help a CO if needed.   :)

We had a couple people maintain caches for us when I had a number of major surgeries/illnesses.

In turn. we've maintained a few caches for others under similar circumstances.

 

That's not the same as "community maintenance", where folks just keep propping up a cache for either an owner who can't be bothered, or has been inactive for some time.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Not really.    Vacation caches need someone "designated",  but common sense says others can help a CO if needed.   :)

We had a couple people maintain caches for us when I had a number of major surgeries/illnesses.

In turn. we've maintained a few caches for others under similar circumstances.

 

That's not the same as "community maintenance", where folks just keep propping up a cache for either an owner who can't be bothered, or has been inactive for some time.

 

Agreed,  "community maintenance" is not a "maintenance plan".  

 

We just bought a (2nd) house that's just under two hours from where I live.  That would be too far to normally hide a cache, but now that we'll be staying there frequently it opens up the opportunity to hide a few caches in the area.  There are only two caches within five miles of the house and it's on the east branch of the Delaware river so I could put out a bunch of paddlecaches by launching from my back yard.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

I’m not sure that it’s acceptable for power trails.  But I may not be aware of this in the official guidelines.  Is there anything in the guidelines that say relying on finders for maintenance is an acceptable maintenance plan for the submission of power trails?  

 

That's why I put those parts in parentheses. It's not in the Guidelines but it seems to be an acceptable practice, tacitly OKed by the Reviewers in those areas.

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 6

×