Cache Logging Requirements

[+colbinator]

So I was awarded a rare virtual a while back, and I stated the logging requirements in the description as:  To take credit for this cache, please upload photo(s) of you or your GPS device with any of the monuments in the background.     Recently I've started having a few cachers log finding the virtual, but then state something like "my caching partner uploaded photo's to his/her log".  Or just "Found this one with so and so".  (And so and so did in fact upload a photo or several.)   Is it rude or anal to expect everyone logging to upload their own log photo?  Or to send a message asking that they do so to keep within the requirements set?  I did recently change the requirement to read:  To take credit for this cache, please upload photo(s) of you or your GPS device with any of the monuments in the background. If you are caching with others, you must still upload a photo to your log to take credit. Thank you.     But in the mean time wondering how others would have handled the logs.  Thanks.

[+barefootjeff]

This is one of the reasons I'm glad I wasn't awarded a virtual ?. My advice would be towards leniency; as long as there's some evidence the person was actually there, in the great scheme of things it probably doesn't matter whether they submitted the photo or one of the others they were with did. There's a virtual at a rock pool down the south coast from here where the logging requirement is to jump in the pool  and provide a photo showing that you did, but many just have a photo of themselves standing near the pool. Likewise on my EarthCache, I've had a couple of caching mates visit the site with only one submitting answers "for the team". Being pedantic to the letter of the law might be right but it probably won't win you many friends. What is it they say about herding cats? Anyway, them's my thoughts for what it's worth.

[+Harry Dolphin]

57 minutes ago, colbinator said:

So I was awarded a rare virtual a while back, and I stated the logging requirements in the description as:  To take credit for this cache, please upload photo(s) of you or your GPS device with any of the monuments in the background.     Recently I've started having a few cachers log finding the virtual, but then state something like "my caching partner uploaded photo's to his/her log".  Or just "Found this one with so and so".  (And so and so did in fact upload a photo or several.)   Is it rude or anal to expect everyone logging to upload their own log photo?  Or to send a message asking that they do so to keep within the requirements set?  I did recently change the requirement to read:  To take credit for this cache, please upload photo(s) of you or your GPS device with any of the monuments in the background. If you are caching with others, you must still upload a photo to your log to take credit. Thank you.     But in the mean time wondering how others would have handled the logs.  Thanks.

 

On my Webcam cache, I require every logger to post the required webcam photo.  If a cacher logs "See Squirmsky's log for our photo'", I e-mail to say that the photo is required.  They may use the same photo as Squirmsky, but the webcam photo is required to log the webcam.  If the cacher does not upload the required photo, the log is deleted.

Is a required photo permitted for the new Virtual Caches?

[+Max and 99]

50 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

Is a required photo permitted for the new Virtual Caches?

Acceptable logging tasks:

• Questions that can only be answered by visiting the location.
• Tasks for the finder to fulfill at the location (for example, find five statues on the buildings around you and post the picture of the tallest one with your log).
• Photo of your GPS device or a personal item at the location.
• Photos of geocacher at the location, as long as a face is not required in the photo.

[+dprovan]

I'm not going to comment on whether it's rude or anal, but I'd encourage you not to worry about it. If you want to get more pictures, instead of making the requirement more strict and precise, you'll probably have more luck being friendly and begging people to post their own pictures instead threatening them if they don't. I think you're allowed to delete the deficient logs if you want, so I wouldn't be able to fault you, but I don't really see the point. Does it make you feel better to make someone else feel bad?

 

If you're worried about too many logs without pictures giving people the impression pictures aren't needed, perhaps send them a message asking them to do you a favor and try to dig up their own picture 'cuz you like every log to have a picture. (Don't be surprised if they just copy the picture their friend posted, by the way.) It's a game, it's supposed to be fun, so pitch the request for a picture as adding to the fun, not as you being angry about the fact that they didn't follow your orders.

[+cerberus1]

5 hours ago, colbinator said:

So I was awarded a rare virtual a while back, and I stated the logging requirements in the description as:  To take credit for this cache, please upload photo(s) of you or your GPS device with any of the monuments in the background.     Recently I've started having a few cachers log finding the virtual, but then state something like "my caching partner uploaded photo's to his/her log".  Or just "Found this one with so and so".  (And so and so did in fact upload a photo or several.)   Is it rude or anal to expect everyone logging to upload their own log photo?  Or to send a message asking that they do so to keep within the requirements set?  I did recently change the requirement to read:  To take credit for this cache, please upload photo(s) of you or your GPS device with any of the monuments in the background. If you are caching with others, you must still upload a photo to your log to take credit. Thank you.     But in the mean time wondering how others would have handled the logs.  Thanks.

 

I've a different opinion than some I guess... 

Never saw the sense in PMO virtuals & earthcaches, and this one already shows you that being pm doesn't really solve anything.   

 

The remaining "old" virtuals seem to get archived when either the owner is long-gone (with no one watching the hen house), the owner no longer cares what folks do to log their find, or the owner just gives up. 

Many have stated they wouldn't want the hassle of that cache type.  Maintenance a pain-in-the-can sometimes. 

If folks are already disregarding  what looks like (to me) simple directions, and you do nothing, what makes your new, awarded cache any different than the  "old" ones archived due to neglect ?

The help center says that cachers can delete logs that fail to meet the logging guidelines for their cache type.  That's part of maintenance.

[+arisoft]

3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

The help center says that cachers can delete logs that fail to meet the logging guidelines for their cache type.  That's part of maintenance.

 

I have been told that it is enough if a player takes a photo at the cache, but if there is anything else requirements, like "jump in the pool", it is not necessary for the find because it is practically an ALR. The big question is, why the cache has been published with an ALR?

[+Isonzo Karst]

I think the default is photo with each and every log---> and then you have the option to let it go sometimes - child account,  overseas visitors, one of whom uploads group photo... whatever.

When you allow no photo logs is up to you, but in the long run, it's easier to be firm on this. One log = one photo.

 

(As to PMO,  I support any cache owner in making any cache PMO. Having owned a Webcam, and now a Virt, am completely on board with PMO status for those. Though I did not make my virt PMO, it's T 5 instead ;-) that was the only way I'd own another boxless cache)

[+IceColdUK]

I log under my own account and separate accounts for my wife and kids (depending on who was present).  Typically, I’d only attach a photo to my own log, but I’d be sure that my log identifies the ‘team of the day’ and that all members of the team are in the photo.

 

I’d be a little miffed if any of the logs were deleted without warning, but if I was asked (nicely) to add a photo to each of them, I guess I’d understand.

Edited November 14, 2018 by IceColdUK

[Cascade Reviewer]

Moving this thread to Geocaching Topics.

[+redsox_mark]

7 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

I log under my own account and separate accounts for my wife and kids (depending on who was present).  Typically, I’d only attach a photo to my own log, but I’d be sure that my log identifies the ‘team of the day’ and that all members of the team are in the photo.

 

I’d be a little miffed if any of the logs were deleted without warning, but if I was asked (nicely) to add a photo to each of them, I guess I’d understand.

 

+1.

If I'm caching with a friend, and a photo is required for a virtual,  and we have a photo with both of us meeting the criteria; then one will post it, and the other will refer to the friend's log.   I do this without expecting any issue.

 

If the cache page clearly stated each log needs a photo attached, no referring to a photo on another log, I would comply.    Or if the CO asked me to do so.   

[+Team Microdot]

My view is that where a group photo has been uploaded the person uploading it should identify each individual group member by their caching name and position in the photograph i.e. from left to right this photo shows x,y,z,a,b and c at the cache location.

 

Anyone not on the photo / not named = delete log.

 

Simple and effective.

[+hzoi]

8 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

I think the default is photo with each and every log---> and then you have the option to let it go sometimes - child account,  overseas visitors, one of whom uploads group photo... whatever.

When you allow no photo logs is up to you, but in the long run, it's easier to be firm on this. One log = one photo.

 

Agree.

 

17 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

On my Webcam cache, I require every logger to post the required webcam photo.  If a cacher logs "See Squirmsky's log for our photo'", I e-mail to say that the photo is required.

 

Have you seen this getting better with the new logging system? The last few times I've logged a webcam, it has not accepted my log unless I've attached a photo.

 

(Lately I've been adding a non-webcam photo at the coordinates in addition to the webcam photo to prove that it was really me - for webcams that put out low resolution photos, like this one, I find it's more helpful than just trying to point out which indistinguishable figure in the photo is supposed to be me.) 

[+barefootjeff]

9 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I have been told that it is enough if a player takes a photo at the cache, but if there is anything else requirements, like "jump in the pool", it is not necessary for the find because it is practically an ALR. The big question is, why the cache has been published with an ALR?

 

Virtuals are allowed to have ALRs:

 

Quote

Acceptable logging tasks:

• Questions that can only be answered by visiting the location.
• Tasks for the finder to fulfill at the location (for example, find five statues on the buildings around you and post the picture of the tallest one with your log).
• Photo of your GPS device or a personal item at the location.
• Photos of geocacher at the location, as long as a face is not required in the photo.

 

[+fuzziebear3]

Seems silly to post the same photo on several logs just for each person/account to submit a photo.  Especially when the cachers are a family unit.  If all the accounts are represented in the photo, then I think it qualifies.  Why waste space on the server for duplicates?

[+dprovan]

9 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Seems silly to post the same photo on several logs just for each person/account to submit a photo.  Especially when the cachers are a family unit.  If all the accounts are represented in the photo, then I think it qualifies.  Why waste space on the server for duplicates?

Not to mention that it's trivial to copy pictures from other logs, so it doesn't even prove any privileged access to the original.

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Virtuals are allowed to have ALRs:

 

Yes, it is just this what I have told that it is not true. I have no reason to suspect my source but you may verify the current status from the HQ if it does matter.

An evidence that the player have visited the virtual site is enough for logging a find is what I have been told.

[+arisoft]

22 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Why waste space on the server for duplicates?

 

You can post a link to the same image instead of uploading a new one.

[+barefootjeff]

Just now, arisoft said:

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Virtuals are allowed to have ALRs:

 

Yes, it is just this what I have told that it is not true. I have no reason to suspect my source but you may verify the current status from the HQ if it does matter.

An evidence that the player have visited the virtual site is enough for logging a find is what I have been told.

 

Hmm, there's one belonging to a local reviewer that has a multitude of tasks the finder has to perform in order to log the find. There are eight waypoints to visit with a task to perform and/or a question to answer at each one. "Evidence that I'd visited the site" didn't stop him rejecting my initial log when I'd messed up one of those tasks, and just a few months back he posted an OM saying "I have confirmed the details of each of the logs and have deleted some logs that do not meet the requirements. Please make sure that you read the requirments in full." There's a lot more in those requirements than just visiting GZ and posting a photo.

[+arisoft]

13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Hmm, there's one belonging to a local reviewer that has a multitude of tasks the finder has to perform in order to log the find.

 

It would be intresting to find out how HQ responds to dispute about right to log that virtual. Out reviewers in Finland cancelled lots of ideas for virtuals and this info comes from discussion about some accepted virtuals which later have been changed due to new interpretations.

[+Bear and Ragged]

There is that 'logging as a team' but no mention in the relevant logs that do have a photo, that could be a cacher trying to armchair log.

 

If there was no photo, but the log with the photo mentions it's a group - and names all in the group including those with no photo in their log, I'd let it slide.

 

Requiring ALL logs to have a photo might help to dissuade others to try to 'armchair' log without a photo...

[+coachstahly]

On 11/14/2018 at 2:07 PM, hzoi said:

Have you seen this getting better with the new logging system? The last few times I've logged a webcam, it has not accepted my log unless I've attached a photo.

 

I struggled with my webcam this past summer.  My file was too big for the upload so I had to take a screenshot of the photo and use that for my photo.  I hadn't expected that, not having found a webcam since the change in logging.

[+coachstahly]

On 11/14/2018 at 4:20 PM, arisoft said:

Yes, it is just this what I have told that it is not true. I have no reason to suspect my source but you may verify the current status from the HQ if it does matter.

An evidence that the player have visited the virtual site is enough for logging a find is what I have been told.

 

Not on most of the new virtuals I've done over here.  I've done 14 and 3 of them are visit the site, take a picture, include it in your online log (or email it).  One of them includes a way to claim the find if you don't have camera access by emailing the answer to a question.  All of the rest require some sort of ALR to get credit for the find, most of them being email answers to questions that you can only answer by visiting the site.

[Keystone]

On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 2:38 PM, barefootjeff said:

Virtuals are allowed to have ALRs:

 

Quote

Acceptable logging tasks:

• Questions that can only be answered by visiting the location.
• Tasks for the finder to fulfill at the location (for example, find five statues on the buildings around you and post the picture of the tallest one with your log).
• Photo of your GPS device or a personal item at the location.
• Photos of geocacher at the location, as long as a face is not required in the photo.

 

 

These are the correct standards.  Thank you to barefootjeff for posting them.  The logging tasks standards were written by Geocaching HQ and are pretty clear. 

 

For example, my own reward virtual has three stages where the geocacher must find a simple piece of detailed information that can only be obtained by visiting the site.  In addition, a single photo from one of the three locations is required.

 

Personally I am happy to accept group answers with the detailed information, and a group photo, so long as the private message to me and the online logs clearly identify who all was in the group for that visit.

 

The real issue is whether insisting upon a photo for each individual log, instead of a group photo, would be enforced if appealed.  I do not know the answer to that.  I encourage everyone to get back onto the topic of photo log etiquette.

[+CAVinoGal]

On 11/14/2018 at 9:39 AM, redsox_mark said:

On 11/14/2018 at 9:27 AM, IceColdUK said:

I log under my own account and separate accounts for my wife and kids (depending on who was present).  Typically, I’d only attach a photo to my own log, but I’d be sure that my log identifies the ‘team of the day’ and that all members of the team are in the photo.

 

I’d be a little miffed if any of the logs were deleted without warning, but if I was asked (nicely) to add a photo to each of them, I guess I’d understand.

 

+1.

If I'm caching with a friend, and a photo is required for a virtual,  and we have a photo with both of us meeting the criteria; then one will post it, and the other will refer to the friend's log.   I do this without expecting any issue.

 

On 11/14/2018 at 12:58 PM, fuzziebear3 said:

Seems silly to post the same photo on several logs just for each person/account to submit a photo.  Especially when the cachers are a family unit.  If all the accounts are represented in the photo, then I think it qualifies.  Why waste space on the server for duplicates?

 

Often my husband and I cache together; we take a photo of the two of us for virtuals or EC's, and I'm typically the one that submits answers and posts the the photo(s).  I use our geo-names, and haven't had anything deleted, or even questioned.  I do mention in my messages and log that we did this together and I'm posting for both of us.  He logs a find with his usual date and timestamp with an occasional comment.

Edited November 16, 2018 by CAVinoGal

[+Pork King]

As a webcam cache owner, I am generally ok with mulitple logs "sharing" the same picture in one of the logs (i.e., see so-n-so's log for picture), as long as the number of people in the picture is not less than the number of logs per said picture.

 

 

I am quite a stickler for having the geocacher(s) perform the required pose in the picture.  

 

[+bflentje]

On 11/18/2018 at 1:40 PM, Pork King said:

As a webcam cache owner, I am generally ok with mulitple logs "sharing" the same picture in one of the logs (i.e., see so-n-so's log for picture), as long as the number of people in the picture is not less than the number of logs per said picture.

 

 

I am quite a stickler for having the geocacher(s) perform the required pose in the picture.  

 

 

Quote

"Meddle not in the affairs of Geocachers, for they are subtle and quick to anger."

 

I love the irony between your post and your tagline.