A waymarker's integrity in question

[+RakeInTheCache]

Hello,

 

An anonymous player sent an edit review for this waymark <snip> with the remarks " Not only is this a copyrighted photo, but the description is a copyrighted material from the lodge's website, with no credit given. Officers were warned about this waymarker."

 

Firstly, using edit review to get this message across is very strange.  I'm not aware that I've received any e-mails as an officer.

 

Second, the Waymarker in question has been a member of Groundspeak for a long time.  True not a very avid waymarker and the geocaching photos seem to be limited to a very small period.

 

Anyone want to tackle this mystery.  Can anyone vouch for this Waymarker?  What do you think about this waymark?  And if this is not a legitimate waymark, why suddenly this suspicious activity now?

 

Could this be related to the post from Scroogiel?

 

By the way, it appears that when the waymarker submitted this they added the comment "The photographs were taken by me <snip> (name filtered to respect personal data)

 

Thanks for your help.

RitC.

Edited April 11, 2021 by wayfrog
Please keep it general, thanks

[+RakeInTheCache]

2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

The photos on the waymark show the watermark name of <snip>. Any professional photographer should understand better than most the importance of copyrighted material. 

If the lodge's website used <snip> words, then that's up to her to deal with. 

The waymarker claims to be the <snip> in question.  Could it be true?

Edited April 11, 2021 by wayfrog
Please keep it general, thanks

[+ScroogieII]

5 hours ago, RakeInTheCache said:

Could this be related to the post from Scroogiel?

 

Indeed it is!! The Waymarkers are one and the same.

Moreover, it one were to "Google Street View" the location, they would find it difficult to reconcile the photos provided with the site itself.

As well, Kudos to the anonymous player.

[wayfrog]

As I wrote in the other thread, please stop calling out names here in the public forum. Contact the person directly or send a message via the Core group if there are important things to know for other Waymarkers. Thanks! 

[vulture1957]

OK, enough of this nonsense. I hope the folks on here that I correspond with have my real email. I will stop posting or reading in here. Sorry that we want to improve Waymarking.

[+RakeInTheCache]

3 hours ago, wayfrog said:

Contact the person directly 

 

If I contacted the person directly, I guess I don't know what I would say.  Do I call them out?  I will send a message to the Core group.

[+RakeInTheCache]

3 hours ago, wayfrog said:

 send a message via the Core group if there are important things to know for other Waymarkers. Thanks! 

I sent the messge to the Core group, but given Groundspeak's history of e-mail problems (especially group e-mail distribution) I can't be sure if the members received it.  Will continue to monitor...

[+bluesnote]

1 minute ago, RakeInTheCache said:

I sent the messge to the Core group, but given Groundspeak's history of e-mail problems (especially group e-mail distribution) I can't be sure if the members received it.  Will continue to monitor...

I got the email.

[+bluesnote]

4 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Can you explain to me how to respond or participate?

You need to be a member (or officer) of the "Waymarking Core" group. 

[+RakeInTheCache]

4 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Can you explain to me how to respond or participate?

 

I do not find the photos posted on this waymark on the internet, and therefore have no proof that they do not belong to the waymarker.  I don't feel like I can act without proof. I did find another waymark posted by the same person who took a copy/paste of google earth as a photo. I declined this one requesting an original photo be submitted.

[+Jake39]

And then you get this Waymark with just a phone number in Description 

Not a single question answered and all photos are from the Hostel.

[+ScroogieII]

On 4/11/2021 at 9:10 PM, RakeInTheCache said:

 

I do not find the photos posted on this waymark on the internet, and therefore have no proof that they do not belong to the waymarker.  I don't feel like I can act without proof. I did find another waymark posted by the same person who took a copy/paste of google earth as a photo. I declined this one requesting an original photo be submitted.

 

To which particular Waymarks do you refer? At present there are six which remain extant.  I'll admit that there's a (slight) possibility that one or more of the Waymarks in question may, indeed, be legitimate. My research revealed the vast majority of the Waymarks originally posted to contain purloined photos and/or text.

Keith

Edited April 21, 2021 by ScroogieII

[vulture1957]

I just deleted a visit to one of my waymarks. I could immediately tell that the uploaded picture was just a screen capture and zoom of my own photo. And, this is the only visit to ANY waymark in Oklahoma from a person from Arizona.I find it hard to believe they came from AZ to OK and only went to the corner of Phillips and 66 for a waymark visit.

 

(Notice, I am playing nice. No names involved.)