Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Mn-treker

Covid19 causing some parks to close

Recommended Posts

George Bush Park is "closed", but there are plenty of people parked in front of the locked gates using the park in full view of officers and just across the street is Freedom Park which remains open at this time. Kind of surreal traveling through there on a Saturday afternoon and the park being mostly empty.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, fendmar said:

New signage in George Bush Park in Houston.

 

bcbad673-ae32-4265-b5a5-ac8362a58d3c.jpg

 

Seems odd.  There's an American Shooting Center covering over 500 acres in George Bush Park.  Wonder what that sign really means?

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

 

Seems odd.  There's an American Shooting Center covering over 500 acres in George Bush Park.  Wonder what that sign really means?

 

That top sign has been there for a few years now. As long as you follow the restrictions noted you are allowed to bring your gun to the gun range. Which looked to be open when I was through there and that seemed odd for sure.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

And the CO could decide on whether or not someone's broken the law?

 

Where's that frog-eatin'-popcorn I-can't-wait-to-see-how-that-works emoji?

 

Oh, HERE it is!           :drama:

Hum I don't understand your reaction at all.

 

Here they closed every provincial park, beaches, and some municipal trails and parks since March 22nd.

 

One of my cache is in such a park and muggles got 1000$ fine for trespassing and you are saying I can't judge if a geocacher broke the law if they would log a find on that cache?

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

Groundspeak should update their guidelines to allow a cache owner to delete log if the geocacher did something illegal while finding it.

It's none of the cache owner's business, and he's not really in a position to judge, anyway. Don't you have enough things that are actually important to worry about?

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, dprovan said:

It's none of the cache owner's business, and he's not really in a position to judge, anyway. Don't you have enough things that are actually important to worry about?

The main responsibility of a cache owner is to maintain the cache and the listing. You really want to give Geocaching a bad name by allowing people trespassing so they can get their +1 ?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

The main responsibility of a cache owner is to maintain the cache and the listing. You really want to give Geocaching a bad name by allowing people trespassing so they can get their +1 ?

Disabling a cache won't stop people from finding it if it's still there, let alone someone willing to trespass.

Deleting a legitimate find log (they found and signed the cache) won't stop people from finding it if it's still there, let alone someone willing to trespass.

You can disable and send a message. That's as much as the cache owner can do, if the cache owner will not trespass to physically remove the container (the only step a CO can take to stop someone from finding the cache). And note, that even if the container is removed, a cacher who is willing to trespass may still decide to check and see if the container is still there. So no, there is nothing a cache owner can do to guarantee a geocacher will not trespass to find and sign a geocache.  Even archival (some geocachers have offline data and may not know it's archived, let alone disabled, or a note posted with an update).  ALL things to keep in mind.

Disable and send a message, and if a geocacher trespasses to find it, that's between them and law enforcement (and the owner if reporting past trespassers is something law enforcement for that area can address)

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Crow-T-Robot said:

While I don't personally agree with closing the parks, as you can use the trails and open areas safely,  it's hard to argue against the order when you see pictures of the parking lots full of cars and people in close quarters to each other. The impression that gives off is a bad look, even if everyone is social distancing and following safe practices. 

 

Although not technically a park there is a large area about a mile from here on the university campus called "The Plantations".  It's a beautifully landscaped are with an arboretum, ponds, and many trails (including a really amazing hike in a gorge with multiple waterfalls).  It also has a fair number of geocaches.  Yesterday my wife and I (and our dog) wanted to get out for a walk and thought it would be a good place.  There are a couple of roads that go through the plantations but they were closed.  The area itself, however, was open and there were small signs with reminders about keeping a distance between others, avoiding touching objects, etc.  I don't think I've ever seen the area more crowded.   The small parking areas were full and people were parked along the side of the road near the entrance we went to.  However, people *were* keeping their distance despite the number of people in the plantations.  And, yes, I did stop to find a geocache.   

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

The main responsibility of a cache owner is to maintain the cache and the listing. You really want to give Geocaching a bad name by allowing people trespassing so they can get their +1 ?

The trespassing has already happened. Do you really want to piss off someone by removing their +1 when they've already demonstrated that they know where your cache is and that they have little regard for laws or social conventions?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

The main responsibility of a cache owner is to maintain the cache and the listing. You really want to give Geocaching a bad name by allowing people trespassing so they can get their +1 ?

You don't know they trespassed. You only know that you'd be trespassing.

 

I'm not convinced they'd be giving Geocaching a bad name, but if they are, it's on them. A CO haughtily judging based on mere supposition is giving COs a bad name. It has nothing to do with their cache or their listing.

 

If you insist, think of it this way: if you leave their find posted, everyone knows the evil thing they did. If you delete it, you've covered up their flagrantly illegal visit. Are you abetting the crime?

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/11/2020 at 11:53 AM, Lynx Humble said:

For the moment the cache owner can't do anything to stop a trespasser from logging it. Even disabling doesn't work.

 

Groundspeak should update their guidelines to allow a cache owner to delete log if the geocacher did something illegal while finding it.

 

23 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

And the CO could decide on whether or not someone's broken the law?

 

Where's that frog-eatin'-popcorn I-can't-wait-to-see-how-that-works emoji?

 

Oh, HERE it is!           :drama:

 

21 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

Hum I don't understand your reaction at all.

 

Here they closed every provincial park, beaches, and some municipal trails and parks since March 22nd.

 

One of my cache is in such a park and muggles got 1000$ fine for trespassing and you are saying I can't judge if a geocacher broke the law if they would log a find on that cache?

 

Yes, how can you say that someone equivocally broke the law?

Take out the CV19 hair-on-fire attitude for a moment and think about what you're proposing.

What will happen when a deleting-CO gets an angry email saying that a deleted finder:

  • Found the cache a month ago, or
  • Is a park worker or a cop, allowed to be there, or
  • Found and signed the log, (the ONLY requirements for online logging), or
  • Is angry that you've libeled them by labeling them as a criminal online, or
  • That's not a law; it's an order by some level of public official, and what gives you the right to enforce it, or
  • That's not a law; it's a recommendation by some level of public official, and what gives you the right to enforce it, or
  • That's a law (or order or recommendation) in the NEXT TOWN OVER, NOT HERE!

The next step is HQ intervention, and are you really asking them to get involved in that?


Look, yes, I agree with all the comments that in MOST places, we should not be traveling because of potential effects on people around us, and the healthcare systems and all that, but what you've proposed is, in my opinion, a little over the top.

 

What's next, the police should be monitoring cache pages in restricted locations for law-breakers? Why not; UNLIKE bank robbers, we SIGN our work!

 

So, the emoji stands.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, dprovan said:

You don't know they trespassed. You only know that you'd be trespassing.

 

I'm not convinced they'd be giving Geocaching a bad name, but if they are, it's on them. A CO haughtily judging based on mere supposition is giving COs a bad name. It has nothing to do with their cache or their listing.

 

If you insist, think of it this way: if you leave their find posted, everyone knows the evil thing they did. If you delete it, you've covered up their flagrantly illegal visit. Are you abetting the crime?

 

I guess fences, yellow tapes, closed sign, warning from the Prime Minister and cops that gives fines and have towed vehicles aren't enough ground to be sure that someone broke the law when they signed log by trespassing....

 

2 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Yes, how can you say that someone equivocally broke the law?

Take out the CV19 hair-on-fire attitude for a moment and think about what you're proposing.

What will happen when a deleting-CO gets an angry email saying that a deleted finder:

  • Found the cache a month ago, or
  • Is a park worker or a cop, allowed to be there, or
  • Found and signed the log, (the ONLY requirements for online logging), or
  • Is angry that you've libeled them by labeling them as a criminal online, or
  • That's not a law; it's an order by some level of public official, and what gives you the right to enforce it, or
  • That's not a law; it's a recommendation by some level of public official, and what gives you the right to enforce it, or
  • That's a law (or order or recommendation) in the NEXT TOWN OVER, NOT HERE!

The next step is HQ intervention, and are you really asking them to get involved in that?


Look, yes, I agree with all the comments that in MOST places, we should not be traveling because of potential effects on people around us, and the healthcare systems and all that, but what you've proposed is, in my opinion, a little over the top.

 

What's next, the police should be monitoring cache pages in restricted locations for law-breakers? Why not; UNLIKE bank robbers, we SIGN our work!

 

So, the emoji stands.

 

 

If they found the cache a month ago they should put the right date on their logs.

If they are allowed to be there they just need to say it in their log.

If they sent you an angry email you can report it to HQ.

YES I would like some intervention from HQ to give some power to the CO because right now I can do nothing against those logger. Disable or archive the cache isn't possible with the current guidelines and removing it would put me against the law.

 

Why over the top? I just wants to control logs on my cache page. Isn't the main responsability of a cache owner?

 

Speaking of police some people suggested to use cell phone GPS to track population to know where they are going but for the moment the Prime Minister of Canada said no.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

Why over the top? I just wants to control logs on my cache page. Isn't the main responsability of a cache owner?

To me, it looks like the main (post-publication) responsibility of the CO is to maintain the physical cache, and to update the cache page to reflect the current situation with the physical cache.

 

Even in the list of things to do to maintain the cache page online, deleting false/inappropriate logs is the last item in the list. Ahead of deleting logs, you find monitoring logs for problem reports, posting OM logs, updating the cache page when conditions change, disabling the cache page when necessary, and marking trackables missing if they aren't in the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I think we need to be careful about broad statements involving the parks. Here in St. Paul, the park lands were never closed. They closed the buildings, zoo, and 3 parks near the Mississippi due to flooding. The TV news reported it a bit more broadly, which implied everything was closed. It was the same with the WI state parks, the crawler on the TV said WI parks were closed. Checking their website showed it was only some of the state parks, due to either crowding or excessive vandalism. 

 

Personally, before I head out to a park these days, I am checking the city / county / state website to check on their current status and making sure I know their current guidelines are. In Minnesota, there are still plenty of overlooked parks within 45 minutes of St Paul where I only pass 2 - 6 people in 3 - 4 hours of walking.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

I guess fences, yellow tapes, closed sign, warning from the Prime Minister and cops that gives fines and have towed vehicles aren't enough ground to be sure that someone broke the law when they signed log by trespassing....

That's between them and law enforcement. As repeatedly said, there's nothing you can do to stop someone trespassing.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

I guess fences, yellow tapes, closed sign, warning from the Prime Minister and cops that gives fines and have towed vehicles aren't enough ground to be sure that someone broke the law when they signed log by trespassing....

Now you've got it!

 

16 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

If they are allowed to be there they just need to say it in their log.

No, they don't have to tell you anything in their log. It's their business.

 

16 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

Why over the top? I just wants to control logs on my cache page. Isn't the main responsability of a cache owner?

But by removing this factually accurate found log, you're making your cache's log incorrect, the exact opposite of your responsibility. You don't like what they did. You don't think they should have done what they did. You want to punish them for what they did. None of that changes your sole responsibility here, which is to remove false logs.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

What if you do know, with absolute certainty, that a cacher broke a law in accessing your cache? And it wasn’t some bs like trespassing, but actual tangible damage was done to someone’s person or property, or to protected wildlife? Are you still happy with ”not my job”, ”who am I to judge”, ”they already did it”, ”they might get mad”, etc.?

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

What if you do know, with absolute certainty, that a cacher broke a law in accessing your cache? And it wasn’t some bs like trespassing, but actual tangible damage was done to someone’s person or property, or to protected wildlife? Are you still happy with ”not my job”, ”who am I to judge”, ”they already did it”, ”they might get mad”, etc.?

If I were "absolutely" certain of something that caused actual harm, I'd be providing evidence to law enforcement, not screwing around deleting their precious +1.

 

I've had FInd logs posted that mentioned access when the location was closed before. The damage (if you can call it that) was done. Deleting their precious +1 would accomplish nothing. However, I did ask that they edit their logs to remove references to the trespass, to avoid encouraging others to do the same thing. They complied. Problem solved.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

It's usually a few who ruin things for the many. 

 

Chicago had to close their city parks because too many were ignoring the distancing and group rules. 

 

DuPage County (just outside Chicago) has had to limit the number of cars allowed in their preserve parking lots in order to limit the number of visitors. And they have put restrictions on their 5 or 6 most popular preserves limited to county residents only.

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

What if you do know, with absolute certainty, that a cacher broke a law in accessing your cache? And it wasn’t some bs like trespassing, but actual tangible damage was done to someone’s person or property, or to protected wildlife? Are you still happy with ”not my job”, ”who am I to judge”, ”they already did it”, ”they might get mad”, etc.?

 

30 minutes ago, niraD said:

If I were "absolutely" certain of something that caused actual harm, I'd be providing evidence to law enforcement, not screwing around deleting their precious +1.

 

 

 

Same here. A CO isn't complicit because they let the log stand. You or I did not encourage anyone to break the law to find a cache. Whoever was looking for the cache did that on their own volition. Deleting a legitimate log just might upset this person enough to revisit your cache and trash it, thus doubling the damage already done. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Crow-T-Robot said:

Same here. A CO isn't complicit because they let the log stand. You or I did not encourage anyone to break the law to find a cache.

Ah, I missed "it's not my fault" from the list of excuses. Thank you.

 

8 hours ago, niraD said:

If I were "absolutely" certain of something that caused actual harm, I'd be providing evidence to law enforcement, not screwing around deleting their precious +1.

These are not mutually exclusive.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, mustakorppi said:
18 hours ago, niraD said:

If I were "absolutely" certain of something that caused actual harm, I'd be providing evidence to law enforcement, not screwing around deleting their precious +1.

These are not mutually exclusive.

Actually they are, because in the geocaching context the log was signed. It was found. It's not worth trying to make a public point that the log was not found (by deleting the Find log as if it's a false find) when the evidence is there - a signed logsheet. But if law enforcement will take and follow up on reports of past trespasses, then reporting the user to law enforcement is a reasonable and encouraged course of action. Even though their legitimate find log still stands. And the world will know. (unless of course they delete their own log by choice, and possibly shame)

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

What if you do know, with absolute certainty, that a cacher broke a law in accessing your cache? And it wasn’t some bs like trespassing, but actual tangible damage was done to someone’s person or property, or to protected wildlife? Are you still happy with ”not my job”, ”who am I to judge”, ”they already did it”, ”they might get mad”, etc.?

Not at all. Please do something about it. Something real. Just don't pretend deleting the log accomplishes anything. Deleting the log still makes no sense.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Actually they are,

You wrote an entire paragraph repeating your previous points, but seemed to miss the only point of my one sentence reply. Yes, you can and should file a police report. That in no way prevents you from also deleting the find log. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can do both. 
 

Also, saying things like ”in Geocaching context the log was signed” is of course true, following the current rules, but it’s not much of an argument in a discussion about changing that rule.

 

4 hours ago, dprovan said:

Not at all. Please do something about it. Something real. Just don't pretend deleting the log accomplishes anything. Deleting the log still makes no sense.

Again, I can do both. Deleting the log means there was no reward for breaking the law, which in turn may deter potential future lawbreakers. There a easy analogues to this idea in the various codes of conduct in many sports that have a governing body.
 

I’ll remind you as well, that the context of the discussion is essentially about changing ”name in log is a find” to ”name in log without breaking the law is a find”. What the rules currently say is not in question.

Edited by mustakorppi
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Did I somehow miss out on cache owners being deputized to enforce the law during this panic? I kinda like badges.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/11/2020 at 6:32 PM, Viajero Perdido said:

I like the extra line spacing on that sign, nice touch.  :lol:

It's government contract, they get paid for the size of the sign not the content.

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/11/2020 at 6:30 PM, Lynx Humble said:

Hum I don't understand your reaction at all.

 

Here they closed every provincial park, beaches, and some municipal trails and parks since March 22nd.

 

One of my cache is in such a park and muggles got 1000$ fine for trespassing and you are saying I can't judge if a geocacher broke the law if they would log a find on that cache?

Sure you can, just state on the cache page you've been granted authority by (insert government entity here) to adjudicate anyone you suspect to have broken the law and punish accordingly, as long as you have the authority of a judge go for it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, 31BMSG said:

Did I somehow miss out on cache owners being deputized to enforce the law during this panic? I kinda like badges.

"Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges."
- Gold Hat (The Treasure of the Sierra Madre)

 

 

(SICNR)

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mustakorppi said:

I’ll remind you as well, that the context of the discussion is essentially about changing ”name in log is a find” to ”name in log without breaking the law is a find”. What the rules currently say is not in question.

If you're getting the law involved, then I demand due process.

 

I'm still in the KISS camp, and would prefer to keep the current guildeine: "Caches can be logged online as 'Found' after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook."

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

You wrote an entire paragraph repeating your previous points, but seemed to miss the only point of my one sentence reply. Yes, you can and should file a police report. That in no way prevents you from also deleting the find log. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can do both. 
 

Also, saying things like ”in Geocaching context the log was signed” is of course true, following the current rules, but it’s not much of an argument in a discussion about changing that rule.

 

Again, I can do both. Deleting the log means there was no reward for breaking the law, which in turn may deter potential future lawbreakers. There a easy analogues to this idea in the various codes of conduct in many sports that have a governing body.
 

I’ll remind you as well, that the context of the discussion is essentially about changing ”name in log is a find” to ”name in log without breaking the law is a find”. What the rules currently say is not in question.

You are missing something here.  Deleting the log may be removing the only "proof" that the 'crime' happened.  Once removed, how will that "deter potential future lawbreakers"?  They will see no evidence of the "lack of reward" as they can't see any where that a log has been removed - unless everybody is watching every cache and tracking every log that has been deleted.  So deleting a valid (by current GC standards) log does nothing but make you (the log deleter) feel smug.

Edited by The Jester
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, niraD said:

If you're getting the law involved, then I demand due process.

 

I'm still in the KISS camp, and would prefer to keep the current guildeine: "Caches can be logged online as 'Found' after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook."

Common sense is a good thing in my opinion, badges are the last resort, but I still like badges.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, The Jester said:

You are missing something here.  Deleting the log may be removing the only "proof" that the 'crime' happened.  Once removed, how will that "deter potential future lawbreakers"?  They will see no evidence of the "lack of reward" as they can't see any where that a log has been removed - unless everybody is watching every cache and tracking every log that has been deleted.  So deleting a valid (by current GC standards) log does nothing but make you (the log deleter) feel smug.

Had you spent the same energy to think of a solution as you spent on writing this paragraph, I’m sure you could have come up with something. The fact you didn’t even hint at one is symptomatic of why communication on this forum tends to fail. People here just pick a side and argue for it, sometimes without even trying to be reasonable, when we could instead take an idea and work through its merits and demerits through cooperative effort.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, niraD said:

If you're getting the law involved, then I demand due process.

You may get it from the police, depending on where you live. With regards to geocaching using GS services I’d like to draw your attention to 2.D.xi and 2.F of the Terms of Use Agreement of geocaching.com. Breaking the law already risks the termination of your account, though if GS actually enforced that we of course wouldn’t need to even have this conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

People here just pick a side and argue for it, sometimes without even trying to be reasonable

They sure do. :rolleyes:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

Deleting the log means there was no reward for breaking the law, which in turn may deter potential future lawbreakers.

Oh, I see. You must be a numbers grubber, so you think of finds as if they are rewards that a CO is allowed to confer or withhold. I consider find logs nothing more than statements of fact, so the CO's responsibility is limited to deciding whether they are true or false.

 

19 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

I’ll remind you as well, that the context of the discussion is essentially about changing ”name in log is a find” to ”name in log without breaking the law is a find”. What the rules currently say is not in question.

Well, no, the OP suggested a course of action with the implication that it was allowed by the guidelines. If we're talking about whether the guidelines should be changed to give COs powers to arbitrarily punish people they think have done something wrong, then I'm definitely against it. I don't want guideline changes that suggest it's all about the numbers.

 

1 hour ago, mustakorppi said:
16 hours ago, The Jester said:

You are missing something here.  Deleting the log may be removing the only "proof" that the 'crime' happened.  Once removed, how will that "deter potential future lawbreakers"?  They will see no evidence of the "lack of reward" as they can't see any where that a log has been removed - unless everybody is watching every cache and tracking every log that has been deleted.  So deleting a valid (by current GC standards) log does nothing but make you (the log deleter) feel smug.

Had you spent the same energy to think of a solution as you spent on writing this paragraph, I’m sure you could have come up with something. The fact you didn’t even hint at one is symptomatic of why communication on this forum tends to fail. People here just pick a side and argue for it, sometimes without even trying to be reasonable, when we could instead take an idea and work through its merits and demerits through cooperative effort.

This is the crux of our disagreement. You think there's a problem that you have to solve. I'm willing to accept the finder's decision that it isn't a problem, and since I have no power as a CO to solve it, anyway, I'll leave it to people suitably authorized to solve the problem if they disagree with the finder.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I consider find logs nothing more than statements of fact, so the CO's responsibility is limited to deciding whether they are true or false.

And isn't that exactly what Keystone said in his post the other day?  I'm with you --  unclear why the point continues to be argued.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

If a park has limited hours of access (Dawn to Dusk)

1) Does the CO have to disable the cache every night?
2) if someone finds the cache at night, does the CO have to delete the log?

 

Groundspeak does not equal the police. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

You may get it from the police, depending on where you live. With regards to geocaching using GS services I’d like to draw your attention to 2.D.xi and 2.F of the Terms of Use Agreement of geocaching.com. Breaking the law already risks the termination of your account, though if GS actually enforced that we of course wouldn’t need to even have this conversation.

So bring your evidence to Groundspeak and let them suspend or terminate the account. Don't screw around by deleting their precious +1.

 

I realize that you haven't been geocaching for very log, but some of us were around when cache owners could enforce whatever Additional Logging Requirements they wanted. There are good reasons why the current guidelines draw a clear, simple line for what constitutes a Find: visit the location and sign the log. Those reasons haven't changed just because the crisis du jour is COVID-19.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, niraD said:

the current guidelines draw a clear, simple line for what constitutes a Find: visit the location and sign the log. Those reasons haven't changed just because the crisis du jour is COVID-19.

^^^THIS!!!

Edited by CAVinoGal
Emphasis added.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

You must be a numbers grubber,


My profile is one click away if facts matter to you. But I guess they don’t:

 

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

Well, no, the OP suggested a course of action with the implication that it was allowed by the guidelines

 

Quote

Groundspeak should update their guidelines to allow a cache owner to delete log if the geocacher did something illegal while finding it.

 

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

You think there's a problem that you have to solve

The ”problem” in that case was the one invented by The Jester, that you even included in your quotation. Your response doesn’t make sense so I’m guessing you made it just for the undoubtedly appealing rhetoric.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:

Those reasons haven't changed just because the crisis du jour is COVID-19

But the argument I presented has nothing to do with COVID-19. Lynx Humble hasn’t posted since Monday, whereas I literally said on this same page that trespassing is bs, and asked if the people reading this thread were content to look the other way even if the law-breaking had tangible negative consequences to someone’s person or property or to protected wildlife. 
 

No one has even bothered to consider what they’d feel in a situation where they’d have to think this; all I see is dismissals, jokes and strawmen. So I’ll try once more, a bit more bluntly. Apologies in advance.
 

Someone destroys the very thing your cache showcases and posts pictures in the log? “oh well, it already happened, musn’t go after their precious +1.” Someone tramples a field during growth season and you lose your permission for the cache and your reputation in the eyes of the land owner? “B-b-but it wasn’t my fault!” Someone goes for your island cache during nesting season and causes the protected birds that nest there to abandon their eggs? “Eh, send a mail directly to GS’s junk folder if you really care.” Someone kills a bystander rushing to get an ftf on your cache and is callous enough to still log it? “Where’s my badge lol jk who even cares” 

Sound about right?  Or is it “Well if that happened of course I’d...but not the precious +1” now? Why not though, if the guidelines were changed to allow it? You couldn’t find the time in your busy schedule to do both? You wouldn’t be able to provide your own grand jury trial so it wouldn’t be fair? This has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the find? Tell that to any athlete that has been suspended or fined or lost their title for their behaviour off the court. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

Had you spent the same energy to think of a solution as you spent on writing this paragraph, I’m sure you could have come up with something. The fact you didn’t even hint at one is symptomatic of why communication on this forum tends to fail. People here just pick a side and argue for it, sometimes without even trying to be reasonable, when we could instead take an idea and work through its merits and demerits through cooperative effort.

And had you spent the time/energy to consider what I wrote, instead of dismissing anything/anyone who does not agree with you, you might have noticed I was trying to discuss the merits/demerits of your suggestion.  I was pointing out that by instantly deleting a find you judge to have been illegal. it might take away the one thing that LEO might be able use to go after said offender.  Also, your argument that by taking away the +1 will be a warning to others seems to be flawed in that the "others" won't be aware of the loss of the +1 as, after deletion, there is no evidence of the deletion (unless everyone is tracking every cache/log and double checks the online logs with past lists).  So you can see, if you'd take the time to think, I have considered what you wrote and had some thoughts about them that I shared.  But as it seems you really don't want to discuss pros/cons, but would rather everyone just agree with your brilliant logic, I'll not bother you anymore on this topic.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mustakorppi said:

The ”problem” in that case was the one invented by The Jester, that you even included in your quotation.

OK, I've lost you. You talked about a solution, but The Jester didn't invent a problem, he only explained why what you wanted to do wouldn't have the result you wanted. I assumed you were complaining because he didn't propose a solution to whatever problem you had in mind, but now I have no idea what you were saying.

 

Anyway, I'm sensing that this conversation isn't going to be productive.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, mustakorppi said:


 

Someone destroys the very thing your cache showcases and posts pictures in the log? “oh well, it already happened, musn’t go after their precious +1.” Someone tramples a field during growth season and you lose your permission for the cache and your reputation in the eyes of the land owner? “B-b-but it wasn’t my fault!” Someone goes for your island cache during nesting season and causes the protected birds that nest there to abandon their eggs? “Eh, send a mail directly to GS’s junk folder if you really care.” Someone kills a bystander rushing to get an ftf on your cache and is callous enough to still log it? “Where’s my badge lol jk who even cares” 

 

 

 

I guess I'm still failing to see how deleting the find will rectify any of the damages done in these scenarios. It doesn't and deleting the find is just a punitive measure. A person can be a jerk and still find geocaches. If you have evidence that someone broke the law when finding a cache, send it to Groundspeak and let them sort it out. You might not think they'll do anything, but there have been plenty of cache owners who learned otherwise when they tried to be the morality police and deleted legitimate find logs. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

Someone destroys the very thing your cache showcases and posts pictures in the log? “oh well, it already happened, musn’t go after their precious +1.” Someone tramples a field during growth season and you lose your permission for the cache and your reputation in the eyes of the land owner? “B-b-but it wasn’t my fault!” Someone goes for your island cache during nesting season and causes the protected birds that nest there to abandon their eggs? “Eh, send a mail directly to GS’s junk folder if you really care.” Someone kills a bystander rushing to get an ftf on your cache and is callous enough to still log it? “Where’s my badge lol jk who even cares” 

Have these things happened to you?! That's terrible! Take your ironclad evidence to GS. I think they'd ban the perpetrator right away. I'd be too mad to think about doing something as petty as deleting the log, though, even if I thought it was relevant.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

I've heard somewhere that Covid 19 is causing some parks to close. 

Anyone else?

 

 

Ah! What this thread is all about!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/14/2020 at 3:18 PM, mustakorppi said:

You wrote an entire paragraph repeating your previous points, but seemed to miss the only point of my one sentence reply. Yes, you can and should file a police report. That in no way prevents you from also deleting the find log. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can do both. 

You can do both, but if the (legitimately signed) online log deletion is appealed, you will almost certainly lose, and the log will be reinstated if the physical sheet was signed. So, ultimately, yes, mutually exclusive.

Also, everything else people said since your last reply to me.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×
×
  • Create New...