Miss Jenn &/or TPTB - A question about the ALR 'ban'

[+Star*Hopper]

That 'other' thread's 'give & take' has me mindboggled & I don't want this lost in that quagmire so....

 

In the case where one states in a cache description that (e.g.) a park's operating hours are 8am - 6pm, & NOT to violate that 'rule' (for lack of a better word)....

Is the inclusion of that stricture - "Do NOT violate...." in the cache description considered an ALR?

Would NOT including the wording in the cache description affect it being an ALR, and/or influence the cache owner's "right" to delete logs of violators, or must those logs now be allowed?

 

I guess this comes down to:

Does the cache owner even have the right to delete logs of obvious violators of site, not geocaching, rules? (I've had 'FTF hounds' do this very thing - totally ignore listed, as well as posted 'Closed' signs at the site.)

 

Thanks for your clarification!

~*

[+Dr. House]

That 'other' thread's 'give & take' has me mindboggled & I don't want this lost in that quagmire so....

 

In the case where one states in a cache description that (e.g.) a park's operating hours are 8am - 6pm, & NOT to violate that 'rule' (for lack of a better word)....

Is the inclusion of that stricture - "Do NOT violate...." in the cache description considered an ALR?

Would NOT including the wording in the cache description affect it being an ALR, and/or influence the cache owner's "right" to delete logs of violators, or must those logs now be allowed?

 

I guess this comes down to:

Does the cache owner even have the right to delete logs of obvious violators of site, not geocaching, rules? (I've had 'FTF hounds' do this very thing - totally ignore listed, as well as posted 'Closed' signs at the site.)

 

Thanks for your clarification!

~*

 

My personal belief is that you could not delete someone's found log on the basis of what you mention alone. They found the cache, they signed the log. Nothing states that a log risks being deleted if the cacher chooses to break local laws anywhere on geocaching.com, so far as I can find. My thought is that this "right" is more etiquette than anything else.

 

But I too am interested in an answer to this query. It certainly has been brought up a lot as a result of discussion about recent guideline changes.

[Clan Riffster]

I'm not an admin, but I do believe you'd be OK deleting those logs. The guidelines already implore you to rid your cache pages of bogus logs, and someone violating local law could be articulated to fit the definition of "bogus", even if they actually did locate the cache. Dr House makes a very good argument in the other direction, so I'd love to hear the official word on this.

[Mag Magician]

This thread is a very good inquiry, not only regarding the new guideline, but also etiquette in general.

 

Regardless of guidelines, trespass is frowned upon, and very bad for the geocaching community at large. If I were to view a log on one of my caches that indicated the finder had violated any law in finding the cache, that log would be deleted. I would also be watching for any further logs by that particular player and scrutinizing the logs for any discrepancies.

 

JMHO

[+bflentje]

That 'other' thread's 'give & take' has me mindboggled & I don't want this lost in that quagmire so....

 

In the case where one states in a cache description that (e.g.) a park's operating hours are 8am - 6pm, & NOT to violate that 'rule' (for lack of a better word)....

Is the inclusion of that stricture - "Do NOT violate...." in the cache description considered an ALR?

Would NOT including the wording in the cache description affect it being an ALR, and/or influence the cache owner's "right" to delete logs of violators, or must those logs now be allowed?

 

I guess this comes down to:

Does the cache owner even have the right to delete logs of obvious violators of site, not geocaching, rules? (I've had 'FTF hounds' do this very thing - totally ignore listed, as well as posted 'Closed' signs at the site.)

 

Thanks for your clarification!

~*

 

My worthless opinion is that signature in log is a smiley. If some dummy actually puts in his log that he violated some kind of park policy, well then, he's just a knucklehead and shows it. But deleting the log?? That's just an attempt to micromanage or be passive aggressive. On the other hand, if on the off chance that I violated park policy while doing your cache, you will NEVER know. So play the game you want.

[+StarBrand]

Given what happened in South Carolina a few years back - I'd delete any log that flagrantly stated they violated area rules to get to the cache. I would also write the owner and tell them why and invite them to re-log minus the obvious violation text.

[Radman Forever]

I agree with Star*Brand. Allowing logs of people who personally admit to have broken laws to find the cache is downright irresponsible. Not only was it idiotic for the finder to admit they have broken the laws and think it was a smart idea to post it in their log (and some have over the years), allowing these logs to be shown could be big trouble for geocaching as a whole. Park managers, legal authorities, and politicians who are now able to read those logs can use those as an argument for banning geocaching in their area.

 

I know some believe signing the log and getting the smilie is important, but preserving the good name of geocaching trumps that ten fold!

[+bflentje]

Given what happened in South Carolina a few years back - I'd delete any log that flagrantly stated they violated area rules to get to the cache. I would also write the owner and tell them why and invite them to re-log minus the obvious violation text.

 

Must be some other thread I missed. What's the two sentence summary of SC?

[+bflentje]

I agree with Star*Brand. Allowing logs of people who personally admit to have broken laws to find the cache is downright irresponsible. Not only was it idiotic for the finder to admit they have broken the laws and think it was a smart idea to post it in their log (and some have over the years), allowing these logs to be shown could be big trouble for geocaching as a whole. Park managers, legal authorities, and politicians who are now able to read those logs can use those as an argument for banning geocaching in their area.

 

I know some believe signing the log and getting the smilie is important, but preserving the good name of geocaching trumps that ten fold!

 

On the surface I agree with you. But deleting the log and pretending that some idiot doesn't exist won't solve the REAL problem. Of course, I don't have a solution either short of a TIP (turn-in-poachers) kind of program. But that seems way over the edge.

[Clan Riffster]

Must be some other thread I missed. What's the two sentence summary of SC?

Hopefully I won't screw up the details too bad:

Some politician up there tried to get geocaching banned, using logs citing examples of reckless behavior as ammunition.

[+briansnat]

Given what happened in South Carolina a few years back - I'd delete any log that flagrantly stated they violated area rules to get to the cache. I would also write the owner and tell them why and invite them to re-log minus the obvious violation text.

 

Must be some other thread I missed. What's the two sentence summary of SC?

 

There was legislation proposed that would have banned geocaching in certain ares including cemeteries

and any historic sites. The sponsor of the legislation used actual logs and log photos (usually taken out of context) to support the bill.

Edited April 7, 2009 by briansnat

[+bflentje]

Given what happened in South Carolina a few years back - I'd delete any log that flagrantly stated they violated area rules to get to the cache. I would also write the owner and tell them why and invite them to re-log minus the obvious violation text.

 

Must be some other thread I missed. What's the two sentence summary of SC?

 

There was legislation proposed that would have banned geocaching in certain ares including cemeteries

and any historic sites. The sponsor of the legislation used actual logs and log photos (usually taken out of context) to support the bill.

 

Thanks all.

 

It's too bad that things can't be kept in context by the politicians in that, if you review the average cache listing, I'd bet that the flagrant violations would be very isolated. Too bad you can't just go after the few bad apples and leave the rest of us alone. But I suppose it never works like that.

[Radman Forever]

On the surface I agree with you. But deleting the log and pretending that some idiot doesn't exist won't solve the REAL problem. Of course, I don't have a solution either short of a TIP (turn-in-poachers) kind of program. But that seems way over the edge.

 

Sadly, you can't control the actions of idiots. Solving the real problem is out of the hands of the cache owner, but he can make sure he doesn't get in trouble with land managers he may have gotten permission from.

 

If a land manager sees a geocacher logged that he went over the fence and found the cache after hours, the owner might get in more trouble with him than the jerk who committed the stupid act!

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I would think that breaking the law to find a geocache is between the finder and the police. Should I not get a find on a cache because I got a parking ticket? What about if I parked in a handicapped space? How about if I was speeding to get to the cache? What if I broke my leg on my way to the cache and by the time I crawled the last 50 feet to it (yes, I am that determined) the park had closed for the night, thereby making me break the law by being there after hours?

[+Kit Fox]

Given what happened in South Carolina a few years back - I'd delete any log that flagrantly stated they violated area rules to get to the cache. I would also write the owner and tell them why and invite them to re-log minus the obvious violation text.

 

Idiot FTF chasers who knowingly trespass, and or disobey posted hours, just to sign the log first should be sanctioned for their stupidity. Clearly they didn't care enough to obey the posted rules / ordinances / laws. Breaking the law to sign the log isn't a "legitimate find" in my book. I would delete a log in a heartbeat if the finder was stupid enough to admit breaking the law in their logs. You would be surprised how many cachers actually admit breaking the rules, in their logs.

 

bflentje,

 

Geocaching May Be Outlawed In South Carolina, House Bill H.3777

 

South Carolina Legislation Meeting

 

 

Another interesting thread. FTF deleted--Not found during park hours!

[+Kit Fox]

I would think that breaking the law to find a geocache is between the finder and the police. Should I not get a find on a cache because I got a parking ticket? What about if I parked in a handicapped space? How about if I was speeding to get to the cache? What if I broke my leg on my way to the cache and by the time I crawled the last 50 feet to it (yes, I am that determined) the park had closed for the night, thereby making me break the law by being there after hours?

 

The South Carolina legislature used online cache logs, as well as photographs on cache pages, to argue their point to ban caches in cemetaries, and Historic areas.

 

Online logs of illegal activity are quite damming, if the right person uses them to further their agenda.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I'm not an admin, but I do believe you'd be OK deleting those logs. The guidelines already implore you to rid your cache pages of bogus logs, and someone violating local law could be articulated to fit the definition of "bogus", even if they actually did locate the cache. Dr House makes a very good argument in the other direction, so I'd love to hear the official word on this.

They may have violated local laws, but if they found the cache their log isn't bogus - just irresponsible. Can that hurt geocaching? Of course, as we've already seen in SC and other places. Should the cacher lose credit for the find? No, nothing changes the fact that they found the cache. Should they rewrite their log to not incriminate themselves? Probably, but I'll stop short of saying they should be required to or that their log should be deleted.

[jholly]

I'm not an admin, but I do believe you'd be OK deleting those logs. The guidelines already implore you to rid your cache pages of bogus logs, and someone violating local law could be articulated to fit the definition of "bogus", even if they actually did locate the cache. Dr House makes a very good argument in the other direction, so I'd love to hear the official word on this.

They may have violated local laws, but if they found the cache their log isn't bogus - just irresponsible. Can that hurt geocaching? Of course, as we've already seen in SC and other places. Should the cacher lose credit for the find? No, nothing changes the fact that they found the cache. Should they rewrite their log to not incriminate themselves? Probably, but I'll stop short of saying they should be required to or that their log should be deleted.

 

Thats good, otherwise it would be a ALR

 

Jim

[Radman Forever]

I would think that breaking the law to find a geocache is between the finder and the police. Should I not get a find on a cache because I got a parking ticket? What about if I parked in a handicapped space? How about if I was speeding to get to the cache? What if I broke my leg on my way to the cache and by the time I crawled the last 50 feet to it (yes, I am that determined) the park had closed for the night, thereby making me break the law by being there after hours?

 

C'mon, I am not talking about a parking ticket. People who knowingly trespass after hours, break the law, or violate park rules and admit it on their log. I would delete the log and tell them to fix their log if they wish to have the find. Some would just ask them to edit their log, but I have the right to delete their log.

 

I would not delete someone's log if they get a parking ticket, because I just wouldn't. Everything is subjective and everyone is different.

 

Do you believe that people's logs should stand, even though they knowingly trespassed and hurt geocaching's reputation? Is the find count more important than that?

 

And no one said the guy couldn't rewrite a new log after it is deleted. It might be a way for the owner to show the finder that their actions weren't responsible. Everybody does it different.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Radman Forever

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I would think that breaking the law to find a geocache is between the finder and the police. Should I not get a find on a cache because I got a parking ticket? What about if I parked in a handicapped space? How about if I was speeding to get to the cache? What if I broke my leg on my way to the cache and by the time I crawled the last 50 feet to it (yes, I am that determined) the park had closed for the night, thereby making me break the law by being there after hours?

 

C'mon, I am not talking about a parking ticket. People who knowingly trespass after hours, break the law, or violate park rules and admit it on their log. I would delete the log and tell them to fix their log if they wish to have the find. Some would just ask them to edit their log, but I have the right to delete their log.

 

I would not delete someone's log if they get a parking ticket, because I just wouldn't. Everything is subjective and everyone is different.

 

Do you believe that people's logs should stand, even though they knowingly trespassed and hurt geocaching's reputation? Is the find count more important than that?

 

And no one said the guy couldn't rewrite a new log after it is deleted. It might be a way for the owner to show the finder that their actions weren't responsible. Everybody does it different.

But that's just it - where do you draw the line? Which "laws" can be broken and still result in keeping your find log intact? Which laws can't be broken without having your log deleted? Who gets to decide? I'm sure each cache owner would have a slightly different interpretation of this very subjective guideline.

[Radman Forever]

I would think that breaking the law to find a geocache is between the finder and the police. Should I not get a find on a cache because I got a parking ticket? What about if I parked in a handicapped space? How about if I was speeding to get to the cache? What if I broke my leg on my way to the cache and by the time I crawled the last 50 feet to it (yes, I am that determined) the park had closed for the night, thereby making me break the law by being there after hours?

 

C'mon, I am not talking about a parking ticket. People who knowingly trespass after hours, break the law, or violate park rules and admit it on their log. I would delete the log and tell them to fix their log if they wish to have the find. Some would just ask them to edit their log, but I have the right to delete their log.

 

I would not delete someone's log if they get a parking ticket, because I just wouldn't. Everything is subjective and everyone is different.

 

Do you believe that people's logs should stand, even though they knowingly trespassed and hurt geocaching's reputation? Is the find count more important than that?

 

And no one said the guy couldn't rewrite a new log after it is deleted. It might be a way for the owner to show the finder that their actions weren't responsible. Everybody does it different.

But that's just it - where do you draw the line? Which "laws" can be broken and still result in keeping your find log intact? Which laws can't be broken without having your log deleted? Who gets to decide? I'm sure each cache owner would have a slightly different interpretation of this very subjective guideline.

 

You are right, but that used to be up just to the owners. Maybe it still is, I have no clue. As cache owners, we were/are given enough respect by Groundspeak to be allowed to watch over our caches, to a certain respect. But it seems that it's been made a little tighter on us lately, and I am not just talking about these latest developments.

 

Some owners would delete those logs, some would ask them just to reword it, some would delete it and ask them to reword it, and others don't give a crud. But those actions used to be up to the owner and not TPTB or the vocal minority here.

[+Dr. House]

I would think that breaking the law to find a geocache is between the finder and the police. Should I not get a find on a cache because I got a parking ticket? What about if I parked in a handicapped space? How about if I was speeding to get to the cache? What if I broke my leg on my way to the cache and by the time I crawled the last 50 feet to it (yes, I am that determined) the park had closed for the night, thereby making me break the law by being there after hours?

 

C'mon, I am not talking about a parking ticket. People who knowingly trespass after hours, break the law, or violate park rules and admit it on their log. I would delete the log and tell them to fix their log if they wish to have the find. Some would just ask them to edit their log, but I have the right to delete their log.

 

I would not delete someone's log if they get a parking ticket, because I just wouldn't. Everything is subjective and everyone is different.

 

Do you believe that people's logs should stand, even though they knowingly trespassed and hurt geocaching's reputation? Is the find count more important than that?

 

And no one said the guy couldn't rewrite a new log after it is deleted. It might be a way for the owner to show the finder that their actions weren't responsible. Everybody does it different.

But that's just it - where do you draw the line? Which "laws" can be broken and still result in keeping your find log intact? Which laws can't be broken without having your log deleted? Who gets to decide? I'm sure each cache owner would have a slightly different interpretation of this very subjective guideline.

 

I have to admit to being swayed a smidge regarding that SC incident, but I still stand with TGPS on this one. Being a lawbreaking idiot still does nothing to remove the fact that the cacher actually found the cache and is entitled to log their find.

[Radman Forever]

I would think that breaking the law to find a geocache is between the finder and the police. Should I not get a find on a cache because I got a parking ticket? What about if I parked in a handicapped space? How about if I was speeding to get to the cache? What if I broke my leg on my way to the cache and by the time I crawled the last 50 feet to it (yes, I am that determined) the park had closed for the night, thereby making me break the law by being there after hours?

 

C'mon, I am not talking about a parking ticket. People who knowingly trespass after hours, break the law, or violate park rules and admit it on their log. I would delete the log and tell them to fix their log if they wish to have the find. Some would just ask them to edit their log, but I have the right to delete their log.

 

I would not delete someone's log if they get a parking ticket, because I just wouldn't. Everything is subjective and everyone is different.

 

Do you believe that people's logs should stand, even though they knowingly trespassed and hurt geocaching's reputation? Is the find count more important than that?

 

And no one said the guy couldn't rewrite a new log after it is deleted. It might be a way for the owner to show the finder that their actions weren't responsible. Everybody does it different.

But that's just it - where do you draw the line? Which "laws" can be broken and still result in keeping your find log intact? Which laws can't be broken without having your log deleted? Who gets to decide? I'm sure each cache owner would have a slightly different interpretation of this very subjective guideline.

 

I have to admit to being swayed a smidge regarding that SC incident, but I still stand with TGPS on this one. Being a lawbreaking idiot still does nothing to remove the fact that the cacher actually found the cache and is entitled to log their find.

 

So the almighty notch on the "find belt" is more important than protecting geocaching and its integrity? I'm not saying delete every find for any reason, but if I find someone writing a log that an authority figure could read and kick me out of their park(s), I will delete the log faster than you can spit. That also includes logs that include swearing and crudeness.

 

The owner is not the villain here. The finder should use common sense and courtesy, just like the owner should. There has to be respect on both sides.

[+Dr. House]

I would think that breaking the law to find a geocache is between the finder and the police. Should I not get a find on a cache because I got a parking ticket? What about if I parked in a handicapped space? How about if I was speeding to get to the cache? What if I broke my leg on my way to the cache and by the time I crawled the last 50 feet to it (yes, I am that determined) the park had closed for the night, thereby making me break the law by being there after hours?

 

C'mon, I am not talking about a parking ticket. People who knowingly trespass after hours, break the law, or violate park rules and admit it on their log. I would delete the log and tell them to fix their log if they wish to have the find. Some would just ask them to edit their log, but I have the right to delete their log.

 

I would not delete someone's log if they get a parking ticket, because I just wouldn't. Everything is subjective and everyone is different.

 

Do you believe that people's logs should stand, even though they knowingly trespassed and hurt geocaching's reputation? Is the find count more important than that?

 

And no one said the guy couldn't rewrite a new log after it is deleted. It might be a way for the owner to show the finder that their actions weren't responsible. Everybody does it different.

But that's just it - where do you draw the line? Which "laws" can be broken and still result in keeping your find log intact? Which laws can't be broken without having your log deleted? Who gets to decide? I'm sure each cache owner would have a slightly different interpretation of this very subjective guideline.

 

I have to admit to being swayed a smidge regarding that SC incident, but I still stand with TGPS on this one. Being a lawbreaking idiot still does nothing to remove the fact that the cacher actually found the cache and is entitled to log their find.

 

So the almighty notch on the "find belt" is more important than protecting geocaching and its integrity? I'm not saying delete every find for any reason, but if I find someone writing a log that an authority figure could read and kick me out of their park(s), I will delete the log faster than you can spit. That also includes logs that include swearing and crudeness.

 

The owner is not the villain here. The finder should use common sense and courtesy, just like the owner should. There has to be respect on both sides.

 

Of course there has to be respect. If that were me finding the cache, I would respect the law enough to not mention whatever law I may been perceived to have broken, even though I am innocent until proven guilty. If I were the cache owner, I would feel compelled to have to accept the cacher's find based on the fact that the cacher found the cache and signed the log, even though the cacher may be a complete nuisance.

 

Again, understand that I do realize your point of integrity. So much so that I would respect it to the point of not having to like it when someone finds a cache even though they broke some rule/law, because at the end of the day, the finding of the cache is integral to geocaching. Thus, based on the guidelines, I couldn't delete their "find".

[+Kit Fox]

 

So the almighty notch on the "find belt" is more important than protecting geocaching and its integrity? I'm not saying delete every find for any reason, but if I find someone writing a log that an authority figure could read and kick me out of their park(s), I will delete the log faster than you can spit. That also includes logs that include swearing and crudeness.

 

The owner is not the villain here. The finder should use common sense and courtesy, just like the owner should. There has to be respect on both sides.

 

It should be a given that if you knowingly break the law to find a cache, then arrogantly write about your criminal activity on the cache page, you should expect your log to be deleted.

[+WRASTRO]

 

So the almighty notch on the "find belt" is more important than protecting geocaching and its integrity? I'm not saying delete every find for any reason, but if I find someone writing a log that an authority figure could read and kick me out of their park(s), I will delete the log faster than you can spit. That also includes logs that include swearing and crudeness.

 

The owner is not the villain here. The finder should use common sense and courtesy, just like the owner should. There has to be respect on both sides.

 

It should be a given that if you knowingly break the law to find a cache, then arrogantly write about your criminal activity on the cache page, you should expect your log to be deleted.

I agree with this completely. Substitute "stupidly" for arrogantly if need be.

[+Dr. House]

 

So the almighty notch on the "find belt" is more important than protecting geocaching and its integrity? I'm not saying delete every find for any reason, but if I find someone writing a log that an authority figure could read and kick me out of their park(s), I will delete the log faster than you can spit. That also includes logs that include swearing and crudeness.

 

The owner is not the villain here. The finder should use common sense and courtesy, just like the owner should. There has to be respect on both sides.

 

It should be a given that if you knowingly break the law to find a cache, then arrogantly write about your criminal activity on the cache page, you should expect your log to be deleted.

I agree with this completely. Substitute "stupidly" for arrogantly if need be.

 

So can we agree that if the person breaks some sort of law that they never mention, that you would then be OK with that find log standing?

[Clan Riffster]

They may have violated local laws, but if they found the cache their log isn't bogus - just irresponsible.

You may be right. I'd still like to hear from TPTB.

I notice an ominous silence from The Lily Pad on the subject.

The question still hangs in the ether, waiting to be answered by those in the know:

 

"If I delete a log because the finder was boasting about criminal acts conducted during the hunt, and the finder posts a greivance to Groundspeak, will their find be restored against my will?"

[+SUp3rFM & Cruella]

This is one of the most interesting threads I've read in a while.

 

Supposedly, an owner sets up a cache in a park. He works it out with the park management and gets permission to place it. He has a lot of work explaining what geocaching is all about and how the park will get more credit by visiting geocachers with their families. The park has opening hours, fenced area, etc. He clearly states that in the cache description.

 

Some geocachers decide to discard all that information and find the cache after closing hours. Besides mentioning (in the log) that they went after closing time, the park management calls the owner and says the fence is bent, the seedbeds are all messed up, etc, etc.

 

So, facts:

 

- Owner sets up cache with the ok from the management

- Owner warns about opening hours

- Geocachers ignore the informatio

- Geocachers destroy "something" in the way to the cache

- Those geocachers signed the logbook

- Those geocachers logged the cache online expressing that they did things in a "different" way.

- Park management call the owner, shows the damage, and decides to back off, asking the owner to remove the cache.

- Cache gets archived.

 

Ok, this is probably a worst case scenario.

 

Still, in this line of events, think the owner, fellow geocachers that go by the book and geocaching gets hurt in this situation.

 

By allowing finds of those geocachers that ignore things like that and damage the area, ain't a way to say "it's ok, log at will. After all, you found and signed the logbook."?

 

If they keep finding caches like that and all the owners allow the smileys, how will they ever know it's wrong? By the messages from the owners ("Hey, you found the cache but you trashed the rose garden. Maybe it's because you went there at 2a.m. Please don't do it")?

 

Deleting the logs will, in my opinion, encourage them to stop.

[+Allanon]

They may have violated local laws, but if they found the cache their log isn't bogus - just irresponsible.

You may be right. I'd still like to hear from TPTB.

I notice an ominous silence from The Lily Pad on the subject.

The question still hangs in the ether, waiting to be answered by those in the know:

 

"If I delete a log because the finder was boasting about criminal acts conducted during the hunt, and the finder posts a greivance to Groundspeak, will their find be restored against my will?"

I seriously doubt TPTB will ever directly answer that question, or the original one from the first post, as that would back them into a corner.

 

It's probably a better idea for each person (hider and finders) to just do what they think is right, within the guidelines and applicable local laws, and everyone should be fine.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

It should be a given that if you knowingly break the law to find a cache, then arrogantly write about your criminal activity on the cache page, you should expect your log to be deleted.

I agree completely. And, I happen to know for a fact that Groundspeak admins and the reviewers agree. You see, at one point in the past, my local reviewer contacted me to remind me that a recent finder of one of my extreme geocaches had posted a photo along with their find log which showed several other finders engaged in an illegal and unwise activity at the cache hide site, and asking me to contact the cacher in question and ask her/him to immediately delete the photo and all mentions of illegal activity in their log, or, failing that (that is, if the finder refused to delete the foto), to delete the log myself as the cache owner. In the case in question, I immediately contacted the finder/logger, and he immediately removed the photo and also rephrased his find log to remove any possible reference to illegal activities.

 

So, there is no question in my mind about this matter. Been there, done that!

[+Rockin Roddy]

Now you've made me mad. I am all for ALS,s and I would never delete a legit log...but if I allow a cacher to break the law, to post that in a log and then caching gets banned in my area, how could that be OK?

 

You will have to either force me to archive my cemetery caches or lock them down, because I WILL delete illegal activity logs of the type where the land owner could get mad. I'm not talking a silly traffic ticket, no land owner will get mad about that, resulting in a fight for the use of lands for caching. However, NO good can come of allowing someone to get caching banned for their selfish and criminal action!

 

Sorry Team Sax, but feel free to ask me to archive my hides should you feel it is needed, because I WILL ignore requiring me to allow trespass logs! Period! You guys might want to get your heads together on this one, because I doubt I'm alone in my thoughts on this! Allowing potential harm to MY caching because someone else isn't smart enough to NOT mention illegal actions is ignorant on my part. I WILL delete and ask tht the logger log without adding the illegal part. Ruining my relationship with land owners would be idiotic at best...think about it!

 

While we're at it, I'd also say this about ALL my state park hides, my releationship with my friends at our local state park is much too good to let an idiotic action get between us. When my word goes into the deal to use the land, my name is the one on the cache, my actions are the one that'll be questioned.

 

Oh, and I refuse to change the wording on my cache pages stating my stance on this, if this is a problem please let me know and I'll be the next to archive my hides. I'm all for alowing legit logs, but lets use our heads for crying out loud!

Edited April 7, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+Rockin Roddy]

This is one of the most interesting threads I've read in a while.

 

Supposedly, an owner sets up a cache in a park. He works it out with the park management and gets permission to place it. He has a lot of work explaining what geocaching is all about and how the park will get more credit by visiting geocachers with their families. The park has opening hours, fenced area, etc. He clearly states that in the cache description.

 

Some geocachers decide to discard all that information and find the cache after closing hours. Besides mentioning (in the log) that they went after closing time, the park management calls the owner and says the fence is bent, the seedbeds are all messed up, etc, etc.

 

So, facts:

 

- Owner sets up cache with the ok from the management

- Owner warns about opening hours

- Geocachers ignore the informatio

- Geocachers destroy "something" in the way to the cache

- Those geocachers signed the logbook

- Those geocachers logged the cache online expressing that they did things in a "different" way.

- Park management call the owner, shows the damage, and decides to back off, asking the owner to remove the cache.

- Cache gets archived.

 

Ok, this is probably a worst case scenario.

 

Still, in this line of events, think the owner, fellow geocachers that go by the book and geocaching gets hurt in this situation.

 

By allowing finds of those geocachers that ignore things like that and damage the area, ain't a way to say "it's ok, log at will. After all, you found and signed the logbook."?

 

If they keep finding caches like that and all the owners allow the smileys, how will they ever know it's wrong? By the messages from the owners ("Hey, you found the cache but you trashed the rose garden. Maybe it's because you went there at 2a.m. Please don't do it")?

 

Deleting the logs will, in my opinion, encourage them to stop.

 

I'll take that a step further:

 

Cacher illegally enters a state park to make a find-

Owner allows the log to stand fearing retribution from GS-

State Park manager reads the log (I have my state park friends actually monitor my logs)-

State park manager gets upset-

State park manager calls his higher-ups-

caching in state parks in no longer allowed since we cachers (who assured the land owners we'd be responsible) can't be responsible

 

Imagine all the lands just in Michigan alone which would be off-limits! I thought we were working to BETTER our relationships with land managers, NOT risk them because we're now worried about the logging rights of someone too selfish to care about caching as a whole. Deleting the logs of trespassers and asking them to log it devoid of admittance of their illegal activity is the least we should do! IMHO!

[+va griz]

It would seem to be a no brainer from GSs perspective. Imagine a log that says "we really wanted the FTF on this one, so to get in before the place opened we cut a hole in the fence to get in". If GS has a policy of allowing trespassing and after hours visits, they would be liable for damages. So it goes beyond getting Geocaching banned.

[+Rockin Roddy]

It would seem to be a no brainer from GSs perspective. Imagine a log that says "we really wanted the FTF on this one, so to get in before the place opened we cut a hole in the fence to get in". If GS has a policy of allowing trespassing and after hours visits, they would be liable for damages. So it goes beyond getting Geocaching banned.

 

It's definitely a no-brainer for me. My name is on the cache, I am the one who will be contacted. I will NOT be a part of illegal activity (trespassing or something else which would be bad for caching. Remember, we're NOT talking silliness such as traffic tickets or parking violations) which could result in banning caching or my getting into legal trouble!

[Trinity's Crew]

It would seem to be a no brainer from GSs perspective. Imagine a log that says "we really wanted the FTF on this one, so to get in before the place opened we cut a hole in the fence to get in". If GS has a policy of allowing trespassing and after hours visits, they would be liable for damages. So it goes beyond getting Geocaching banned.

 

It's definitely a no-brainer for me. My name is on the cache, I am the one who will be contacted. I will NOT be a part of illegal activity (trespassing or something else which would be bad for caching. Remember, we're NOT talking silliness such as traffic tickets or parking violations) which could result in banning caching or my getting into legal trouble!

Forget illegality. It's been said in the other thread. Trying to mandate remotely what constitutes a find takes some authority/responsibility away from the owner. Mandating what a cache owner can or can't do with his/her own listed cache in regards to the online logs takes away the owner's ability to maintain the cache in the manner that they see fit.

[+Rockin Roddy]

It would seem to be a no brainer from GSs perspective. Imagine a log that says "we really wanted the FTF on this one, so to get in before the place opened we cut a hole in the fence to get in". If GS has a policy of allowing trespassing and after hours visits, they would be liable for damages. So it goes beyond getting Geocaching banned.

 

It's definitely a no-brainer for me. My name is on the cache, I am the one who will be contacted. I will NOT be a part of illegal activity (trespassing or something else which would be bad for caching. Remember, we're NOT talking silliness such as traffic tickets or parking violations) which could result in banning caching or my getting into legal trouble!

Forget illegality. It's been said in the other thread. Trying to mandate remotely what constitutes a find takes some authority/responsibility away from the owner. Mandating what a cache owner can or can't do with his/her own listed cache in regards to the online logs takes away the owner's ability to maintain the cache in the manner that they see fit.

 

NOPE...please don't try to change this to the other argument as I'm not interested in discussing the ALS scene. Been there, said my part and will not be swayed. This is about illegal activity and cache owners, please stay on-topic as this is important. There's plenty of other threads discussing what you want to discuss, please post there!!

[Mr.Yuck]

They may have violated local laws, but if they found the cache their log isn't bogus - just irresponsible.

You may be right. I'd still like to hear from TPTB.

I notice an ominous silence from The Lily Pad on the subject.

The question still hangs in the ether, waiting to be answered by those in the know:

 

"If I delete a log because the finder was boasting about criminal acts conducted during the hunt, and the finder posts a greivance to Groundspeak, will their find be restored against my will?"

 

Well I admit to not reading the hundreds of posts in the other thread. So what went down there, all logs can be restored? Yes, the "entering parks outside of open hours for FTF" debate has gone on for years. Interesting question.

 

And what about those with Geo-drama in their lives? You know, "I don't like username, and username is not welcome at my caches, and his logs will be deleted." I have no such Geo-drama in my life, but I'm aware of a few cases.

[Trinity's Crew]

It would seem to be a no brainer from GSs perspective. Imagine a log that says "we really wanted the FTF on this one, so to get in before the place opened we cut a hole in the fence to get in". If GS has a policy of allowing trespassing and after hours visits, they would be liable for damages. So it goes beyond getting Geocaching banned.

 

It's definitely a no-brainer for me. My name is on the cache, I am the one who will be contacted. I will NOT be a part of illegal activity (trespassing or something else which would be bad for caching. Remember, we're NOT talking silliness such as traffic tickets or parking violations) which could result in banning caching or my getting into legal trouble!

Forget illegality. It's been said in the other thread. Trying to mandate remotely what constitutes a find takes some authority/responsibility away from the owner. Mandating what a cache owner can or can't do with his/her own listed cache in regards to the online logs takes away the owner's ability to maintain the cache in the manner that they see fit.

 

NOPE...please don't try to change this to the other argument as I'm not interested in discussing the ALS scene. Been there, said my part and will not be swayed. This is about illegal activity and cache owners, please stay on-topic as this is important. There's plenty of other threads discussing what you want to discuss, please post there!!

Sorry, I believe this issue is one and the same and my post is entirely on-topic. You are free to disagree but I'll post as I see fit. I personally leave it to the moderators to decide who is out of line.

[+Rockin Roddy]

That 'other' thread's 'give & take' has me mindboggled & I don't want this lost in that quagmire so....

 

In the case where one states in a cache description that (e.g.) a park's operating hours are 8am - 6pm, & NOT to violate that 'rule' (for lack of a better word)....

Is the inclusion of that stricture - "Do NOT violate...." in the cache description considered an ALR?

Would NOT including the wording in the cache description affect it being an ALR, and/or influence the cache owner's "right" to delete logs of violators, or must those logs now be allowed?

 

I guess this comes down to:

Does the cache owner even have the right to delete logs of obvious violators of site, not geocaching, rules? (I've had 'FTF hounds' do this very thing - totally ignore listed, as well as posted 'Closed' signs at the site.)

 

Thanks for your clarification!

~*

 

Here's the OP for those who didn't take the time to read it. We're talking about illegal activities and log deletion which is different from the ALR discussion. Note the OP asks that this does not turn into the same arguments as the other 3 threads which are addressing ALRs.

 

I am one who would like to hear more from the PTB about this as this is an important issue which could have a bearing on caching and land use. In short, this isn't a silly argument about logs being deleted because of spite, no ALR met etc...tis is about breaking the law and allowing the logs of law breakers to stand or not.

[Trinity's Crew]

I am not suggesting that TPTB ignore the OP's question. I hope they DO give clarification on which logs are allowed to stand and which logs are grounds for deletion. Finding caches by breaking into a park is a great example. I'm sure there are many more. Here's to hoping for further clarification.

[+Kit Fox]

So can we agree that if the person breaks some sort of law that they never mention, that you would then be OK with that find log standing?

 

Posted park hours are sunrise to sunset, and the entrance gates are locked. A new cache gets published at 10:00 pm. Someone who just has to have a FTF on this cache, decides to ignore the rules/laws/ordinances, and climbs to fence to get their first.

 

Cacher two, actually reads the cache page, and knows the park doesn't open until 6:00 am. He waits patiently for the park employees to open the gate. When he arrives, he notices the cache has already been found. Even if the FTF keeps quiet in his log, the finder who gets their second, can deduce based on the evidence provided that the FTF broke the law to get their first.

 

In cases like this where geocachers develop a reputation for breaking the law, to be FTF, perhaps Groundspeak could sanction them, by suspending their account, or better yet, disable their new cache notifications.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

This is starting to remind me of some of the stories I read on Fark.

 

14 year old (who does not have a driver's license) breaks some law like being out after curfew (but having nothing to do with driving) and his punishment is that he can't get a license until he turns 18 (instead of the customary 16 with parental consent).

 

What exactly did his violation have to do with his future driver's license? How about making the punishment fit the crime?

 

Granted, there may be fallout from someone visiting a geocache after hours in a park, especially if they write about breaking the law in their log, but they should still be allowed to claim the find (although probably with a new log that is not incriminating).

 

If you're placing a cache in a park that has limited hours, you are being irresponsible if you don't leave a note to the reviewer asking them to publish the cache around the time the park opens thereby limiting the possibility that the FTF will get there after hours.

[+Kit Fox]

This is starting to remind me of some of the stories I read on Fark.

 

14 year old (who does not have a driver's license) breaks some law like being out after curfew (but having nothing to do with driving) and his punishment is that he can't get a license until he turns 18 (instead of the customary 16 with parental consent).

 

What exactly did his violation have to do with his future driver's license? How about making the punishment fit the crime?

 

Granted, there may be fallout from someone visiting a geocache after hours in a park, especially if they write about breaking the law in their log, but they should still be allowed to claim the find (although probably with a new log that is not incriminating).

 

If you're placing a cache in a park that has limited hours, you are being irresponsible if you don't leave a note to the reviewer asking them to publish the cache around the time the park opens thereby limiting the possibility that the FTF will get there after hours.

 

We used to have reviewer that published 99% of the new caches from midnight to 2:00 am. What if the reviewer has to work during park hours?

[+va griz]

14 year old (who does not have a driver's license) breaks some law like being out after curfew (but having nothing to do with driving) and his punishment is that he can't get a license until he turns 18 (instead of the customary 16 with parental consent).

 

More like 14 year old owns a car, and gets caught driving it on public roads. Parents take away keys until 14 YO gets license.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

This is starting to remind me of some of the stories I read on Fark.

 

14 year old (who does not have a driver's license) breaks some law like being out after curfew (but having nothing to do with driving) and his punishment is that he can't get a license until he turns 18 (instead of the customary 16 with parental consent).

 

What exactly did his violation have to do with his future driver's license? How about making the punishment fit the crime?

 

Granted, there may be fallout from someone visiting a geocache after hours in a park, especially if they write about breaking the law in their log, but they should still be allowed to claim the find (although probably with a new log that is not incriminating).

 

If you're placing a cache in a park that has limited hours, you are being irresponsible if you don't leave a note to the reviewer asking them to publish the cache around the time the park opens thereby limiting the possibility that the FTF will get there after hours.

 

We used to have reviewer that published 99% of the new caches from midnight to 2:00 am. What if the reviewer has to work during park hours?

Did you do your part by asking to have it published during park hours?

 

Yes, many reviewers only publish caches at night. They are volunteers, after all, and do their volunteer work whenever it fits their schedule. If you absolutely must have the cache published during the day, ask your reviewer to have another reviewer publish it for them (the other reviewer may live on the opposite side of the planet from you, so if he publishes it at night, his time, it will be during the day where you live).

[+bflentje]

I guess I fully understand the removal of logs for breaking the law or policy.. it's just that my anti-delete-log position is blurring the issue.

 

Bottom line is, if you're a knucklehead or irresponsible, STHU about it when logging your find. And I am not condoning it BTW.. I am only 99.5% innocent but would NEVER mention the other .5%

[+SUp3rFM & Cruella]

Let's not focus entirely on the FTF hounds...

 

We have a cache (GCTYTF - Dress Code [Lisboa]) set on a garden. It was done with the help of the management. We presented geocaching to them and since them, they've been following all the activity - registered a user to get the logs, etc. We've done everything by the book. So far, things have been going great. Lots of nice caches and a very nice feedback from the management.

 

I'd HATE to see some logs of geocachers bragging on how they found the cache at night, on closing days, how they managed to pass by security, etc. It doesn't feel right. I'm in that argument of "something has to be done".

 

 

EDIT: to add some details.

Edited April 7, 2009 by SUp3rFM & Cruella

[+Rockin Roddy]

This is starting to remind me of some of the stories I read on Fark.

 

14 year old (who does not have a driver's license) breaks some law like being out after curfew (but having nothing to do with driving) and his punishment is that he can't get a license until he turns 18 (instead of the customary 16 with parental consent).

 

What exactly did his violation have to do with his future driver's license? How about making the punishment fit the crime?

 

Granted, there may be fallout from someone visiting a geocache after hours in a park, especially if they write about breaking the law in their log, but they should still be allowed to claim the find (although probably with a new log that is not incriminating).

 

If you're placing a cache in a park that has limited hours, you are being irresponsible if you don't leave a note to the reviewer asking them to publish the cache around the time the park opens thereby limiting the possibility that the FTF will get there after hours.

 

We used to have reviewer that published 99% of the new caches from midnight to 2:00 am. What if the reviewer has to work during park hours?

Did you do your part by asking to have it published during park hours?

 

Yes, many reviewers only publish caches at night. They are volunteers, after all, and do their volunteer work whenever it fits their schedule. If you absolutely must have the cache published during the day, ask your reviewer to have another reviewer publish it for them (the other reviewer may live on the opposite side of the planet from you, so if he publishes it at night, his time, it will be during the day where you live).

 

Can I ask how having the cache published at a certin hour makes any difference a month after the publishing? I think there's more people breaking the law to get a cache than just the FTF hounds.

 

As for teh 14 yr old analogy....when the parents are made to answer for their kid's behavior, the parents sudeenly have a bit more interest in their child's actions, am I correct in this? When the cache owner is the one who will be left to answer to a land manager for a cachers action, WE cache owners should be able to stop illegal logging (and be allowed to delete any logs boasting of illegal actions to get the cache). As you said, maybe make them log again omitting the illegal actions.

 

This is a far cry from your original post where we cache owners wouldn't be able to enforce laws which could affect caching or cache owners...and we SHOULD be able to post our intent to delete such logs as this isn;t an ALR, it's common sense!

[+Team GPSaxophone]

This is starting to remind me of some of the stories I read on Fark.

 

14 year old (who does not have a driver's license) breaks some law like being out after curfew (but having nothing to do with driving) and his punishment is that he can't get a license until he turns 18 (instead of the customary 16 with parental consent).

 

What exactly did his violation have to do with his future driver's license? How about making the punishment fit the crime?

 

Granted, there may be fallout from someone visiting a geocache after hours in a park, especially if they write about breaking the law in their log, but they should still be allowed to claim the find (although probably with a new log that is not incriminating).

 

If you're placing a cache in a park that has limited hours, you are being irresponsible if you don't leave a note to the reviewer asking them to publish the cache around the time the park opens thereby limiting the possibility that the FTF will get there after hours.

 

We used to have reviewer that published 99% of the new caches from midnight to 2:00 am. What if the reviewer has to work during park hours?

Did you do your part by asking to have it published during park hours?

 

Yes, many reviewers only publish caches at night. They are volunteers, after all, and do their volunteer work whenever it fits their schedule. If you absolutely must have the cache published during the day, ask your reviewer to have another reviewer publish it for them (the other reviewer may live on the opposite side of the planet from you, so if he publishes it at night, his time, it will be during the day where you live).

 

Can I ask how having the cache published at a certin hour makes any difference a month after the publishing? I think there's more people breaking the law to get a cache than just the FTF hounds.

 

As for teh 14 yr old analogy....when the parents are made to answer for their kid's behavior, the parents sudeenly have a bit more interest in their child's actions, am I correct in this? When the cache owner is the one who will be left to answer to a land manager for a cachers action, WE cache owners should be able to stop illegal logging (and be allowed to delete any logs boasting of illegal actions to get the cache). As you said, maybe make them log again omitting the illegal actions.

 

This is a far cry from your original post where we cache owners wouldn't be able to enforce laws which could affect caching or cache owners...and we SHOULD be able to post our intent to delete such logs as this isn;t an ALR, it's common sense!

My example was specifically to keep someone from violating the park hours to be FTF.

 

The 14 year old analogy is all about making the punishment fit the crime. What does being out after curfew have to do with the kid's driver's license, especially when he wasn't driving and isn't eligible for a license yet anyway?