+Ratone Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 I guess the only cache manteinance rests only in carefully review the logs. Why people do NOT mantain properly the logs in locationless caches? I can not understand? Have a look on this, as an example: Roman Bridges: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...89-6912db3b952d Even the title says Roman...Did the Romans conquer Ohio? Come on... Quote Link to comment
+jeff35080 Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 I own the AV8R locationless cache, as a locationless cache owner I feel that it is important for owners to keep the bad logs deleted as it lessens the legit finds of other geocachers. The original owner of the AV8R set-up a basic Access database. When I adopted it, I went through everything (over 700 logs) and updated the database. it took a while, but now that it's done, it's an easy task to identify any duplicates or something that isn't a real find. I may have missed one or two duplicates, but I check each time someone logs it and immediately update the database of 'finds'. I think it's just as important to maintain a locationless as a traditional geocache. Happy caching! Quote Link to comment
+Jamie Z Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 That's a common characteristic for locationless "finds." Many folks take great liberties when defining the terms of the cache. For example, I thought I'd be in for some good reading on the misspelled sign locationless, but instead a majority of the logs were marquees with missing letters or intentional misspellings. If I were the owner of some of those listings, I'd request that those logs be changed to DNFs. Jamie Quote Link to comment
+jeff35080 Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 On the AV8R cache, the biggest problem I have is people not listing the city/state and/or country in their logs. I have a standard 'form' letter that I send asking to add this info and let them know that it helps both me confirm it and other cachers verify what has and has not been found. Thus far, everyone has been kind enough to edit their logs. I still think that locationless caches should be maintained like a traditional, but it's up to the cache owner to accept the log of a geocacher. Quote Link to comment
+Ratone Posted January 23, 2004 Author Share Posted January 23, 2004 To Jamie Z: 1- NOTHING could be better defined than ROMAN BRIDGES...logging different things is not fault of the owner, not deleting them it is indeed. 2- What is a DNF? Quote Link to comment
+Richard&Pepper Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 Even the title says Roman...Did the Romans conquer Ohio? Come on... I think the object is to take pictures of Roman Bridges - a Roman Bridge is type of bridge, not necessarily a bridge built by the Romans. The pictures I looked at were all Roman Bridges. There is a link in the description that describes what a Roman Bridge is. Richard. Quote Link to comment
Moun10Bike Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 I have had problems with my one locationless cache ("It All Started Here...") since almost its initial inception. My description is very clear on what is required to log, but still I constantly receive logs that do not meet the grade. The biggest issue I had was with one individual who has found a huge number of locationless caches. He logged a find in late September that was dated in mid-July, which caused it to be buried in the logs. Furthermore, the photo uploaded with it showed snow on the ground and no GPSr in the picture. The log also lacked the supporting information I ask for in the cache description. In other words, the log immediately raised some flags. I deleted the log and wrote to this cacher explaining why, and received a response chiding me for not trusting him. I in turn responded saying that I would happily accept his log if he would simply upload a photo showing his GPSr with the subject. He apologized saying he must have uploaded the wrong photo previously, and would upload the correct one. Well, the "correct" one turned out to be obviously faked (I'm no Photoshop expert, but shadows were in the wrong place, etc. - the things obvious to even a novice). I then took a look at his other locationless finds and saw a disturbing pattern. Here are some examples: Since Jeremy created the option to view photo galleries on profile pages, you can easily pick out this sort of behavior. As a result, this person has deleted a large portion of the photos on his locationless logs in order to hide his actions. Anyway, I bring this up to illustrate how important it is to police the logs on your caches if you wish to maintain the integrity of the cache. I know that some will say that this is too harsh, but I personally believe that allowing someone to cheat hurts more than just that one person. Quote Link to comment
evilrooster Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 (edited) Speaking as the owner of a locationless cache, I can see one reason not to spend too much time or energy maintaining it. The degree of rudeness I have encountered from people who won't: - look at the example photo on the cache page - read the description of the item sought - distinguish between the colours RED and BLUE - figure out the difference between a SQUARE and a RECTANGLE ...is truly astonishing. I've let one set of photos that are too dark to tell if they've got the right thing slip by, and loosened up on the additional requirements to log the cache (in this case, proof of date as well as place - I can see where the additional requirement for proof of date might be forgotten in the thrill of logging the cache), but even deleting logs that are blatantly and obviously wrong has gotten me a number of extremely angry emails. After a while, I'm just grateful that loggers have got the general idea of the cache. Edited January 23, 2004 by evilrooster Quote Link to comment
+cacheKidds Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 To Jamie Z: 1- NOTHING could be better defined than ROMAN BRIDGES...logging different things is not fault of the owner, not deleting them it is indeed. Take a look at the Grain Elevators in Canada: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=35206 Notice how the Canadians have annexed Germany, Kansas, and Alabama. Quote Link to comment
+Halden Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 Man at least if that guy did some good photoshopping I could give him some credit but come on now.... Quote Link to comment
dead_white_man Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 Well, the "correct" one turned out to be obviously faked (I'm no Photoshop expert, but shadows were in the wrong place, etc. - the things obvious to even a novice). I then took a look at his other locationless finds and saw a disturbing pattern. Here are some examples: I am aprofessional photographer and a photoshop expert. and these are OBVIOUS fakes. not even close. Quote Link to comment
+cacheKidds Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 (edited) Since I actually found a Merci Boxcar, that photoshop jerk posting a fake really irritates me. I was thrilled when I found one and it remains one of my favorite finds because it taught me something. Why this guy would want to fake his LCs just baffles me. But, he deprived someone of legitimately logging one of those rare boxcars. Yes, I see that the required GPS shot for the Nevada boxcar has been deleted and so have a load of his other photoshop efforts. Truly pathetic. I wonder how many others of his huge LC total are bogus and I wonder how many of his 216 LC "finds" have prevented other folks from logging them within the rules. He sure does "travel" a lot. Edited January 23, 2004 by cacheKidds Quote Link to comment
+Sparky-Watts Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 To Jamie Z: 1- NOTHING could be better defined than ROMAN BRIDGES...logging different things is not fault of the owner, not deleting them it is indeed. Take a look at the Grain Elevators in Canada: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=35206 Notice how the Canadians have annexed Germany, Kansas, and Alabama. Good grief....that last cacher lives near me and has visited my cache. Have you ever been embarrassed through association? Quote Link to comment
+Sparky-Watts Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 Just out of curiosity, and only slightly on topic, does anyone know when "Yellow Jeep Fever" was archived? Quote Link to comment
+programmer64 Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 Just out of curiosity, and only slightly on topic, does anyone know when "Yellow Jeep Fever" was archived? Off topic, since seeing yellow jeep fever I have seen at least 100 yellow jeep wranglers, so they aren't all that uncommon. Quote Link to comment
+Jamie Z Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 Take a look at the Grain Elevators in Canada: Wow... those should be changed to DNFs. Jamie Quote Link to comment
Deego Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 (edited) What about this? it looks fake but I was there when I took it . The flash went off but did not reach the castle. Not everything is what it seems. I have been waiting to log a locationless for a while but its showing as "This cache is temporarily unavailable" But its still been logged 5 times since it was temporarily archived in December. I wonder if they will be deleted? Edited January 23, 2004 by Deego Quote Link to comment
+cacheKidds Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Take a look at the Grain Elevators in Canada: Wow... those should be changed to DNFs. Jamie Yeah, I agree with you. I guess that would be part of cache maintenance to wipe out those logs. Quote Link to comment
+jeff35080 Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 FWIW, I had to delete a log off of my AV8R cache tonight after getting home from work. I didn't enjoy it but this particular airport had already been found once with 3 more attempts to log it. I found no joy in removing the log of a fellow geocacher, but I had to do so in order to ensure the integrity of the cache. I took-on the challenge of owning a popular locationless and I'm going to ensure that it's fair to all geocachers. Happy caching everyone! Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.