Is this a virtual cache or not?

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

What do you make of this?

 

A cache is installed that is in an area known for hosting wildlife that is protected by law. The cache owner says that if you can't get to the container and sign the log because of wildlife then that's OK. All you need to do is take a photo to prove you were there and post it to the cache page and you can log the find.

 

I suggested that this made the cache a virtual cache (or perhaps a "part-time" virtual cache ) and therefore it wasn't within the gc.com guidelines.

 

The owner contacts a reviewer who says that it is OK as long as the wording on the page is changed to : "If you still cannot get to the cache because of wildlife then it is permissible to log this cache by placing a photo on the page, on the understanding that you will attempt to re-visit to sign the logbook at a later time".

 

So, you can log the cache as found without finding the container or signing the log as long as you take a photo, post it to the page and make an undertaking to re-visit the cache at some later time.

 

How much later? A day, a week, a year, never?

 

Is this within gc.com guidelines? Or is this a virtual cache pure and simple?

 

I have suggested that an earthcache would be more appropriate in this environmentally sensitive area.

[+StarBrand]

My opinion is that you should have to sign the physical logbook inside the cache container (certain very rare exceptions apply{'nother thread}) before you log the cache online. That being said, cache owners can accept whatever they want to for 'find' logs as the system certainly allows it. No matter how cheesy.

 

I do like that the reviewer made the wording change for a later visit though! Thats something!

[+Walts Hunting]

I am surprised that a reviewer would respond like that. It doesn't make sense especially the part about you will come back to sign it. No one would be gullible enough to believe that.

 

Is that quote from the reviewer or the cache placer?

 

What is the GC number?

[+BlueDeuce]

Is this within gc.com guidelines?

 

Doubtful, and wouldn't even meet the requirements of a virtual.

[+tozainamboku]

So long as the cache has a container and a log book, the cache owner is free to allow some alternative logging method.

 

I know some people believe that you need not only to find the container but to sign the physical log in order to log a find. In this case, those people would be free to post a picture showing they were in the area in their DNF log. This is probably what I would do.

 

I can't judge the cache owner's motivation in allowing a find to be posted short of finding the cache. It does sound like they care more about people visiting a waymark than finding a cache. But it could be that due to the wildlife he realizes that it will be unpredictable to know if the cache is available prior to getting to the area. In order to encourage more finders perhaps he is allowing finds (or provisional finds by using the wording the reviewer suggested) to those who arrive and find the cache is not accessible. Probably most of these people will be able to search for the cache and will honestly log it only if found. But if someone feels there is a chance they would make a trip and not be able to get a smiley for some reason they can't control, they might not search at all.

Edited April 27, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+BlueDeuce]

So long as the cache has a container and a log book, the cache owner is free to allow some alternative logging method.

 

Can you give me an example?

[+StarBrand]

So long as the cache has a container and a log book, the cache owner is free to allow some alternative logging method......

Now I really do not think anybody up at the Lilypad ever intended any cache owner to go anywhere close to that far away from finding the container and signing a logbook.... got a citation??

[+webscouter.]

I think that the cache owner can allow a log if he wants and that my job is not to worry about anyone except myself.

[+BlueDeuce]

I think that the cache owner can allow a log if he wants and that my job is not to worry about anyone except myself.

 

'cough' (pocket cache) 'cough'

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

Hmmm...the guidelines say virtual caches aren't allowed (other than those created before Nov '05). But a poster is saying that as long as a cache owner hides a container and logbook at the location they can then specify an alternative method of logging the "find" (i.e. a photo) and no-one ever needs to find the cache or sign the logbook. All they need to do is take a photo to prove they were in the general vicinity of the cache and, having posted the photo on the cache page, they can log a find. Surely not?

 

That's a virtual cache. Surely?

[+tozainamboku]

So long as the cache has a container and a log book, the cache owner is free to allow some alternative logging method......

Now I really do not think anybody up at the Lilypad ever intended any cache owner to go anywhere close to that far away from finding the container and signing a logbook.... got a citation??

I don't think anyone up at the Lilypad ever intended anyone other than the cache owner to be responsible for the quality of the logs to their cache page. Certainly the cache is told to delete logs that appear to be bogus, but they don't actually define bogus. There are clearly some things a cache owner cannot do. Posting on the cache page saying that multiple couch potato logs are allowed would likely get the cache archived. Pocket caches at events were similarly disallowed.

 

However, this cache owner still wants you to get out an look for the cache. If you get to the area and find the cache is inaccessible, he is allowing a find for posting a photo showing you were in the area. I believe that if the cache is accessible when you arrive in the area he expects you to find it. This alternative method seems to only be if you arrive and the situation is the cache is inaccessible due to wildlife. I don't believe that TPTB would find this an abuse of the logs.

 

On the other hand, I agree with those who personally would not take this alternate smiley. I would come back when I could sign the log if I really wanted the smiley on this cache. I'd probably take a picture though and write a a nice long DNF log describing my experience.

[+Walts Hunting]

I think that the cache owner can allow a log if he wants and that my job is not to worry about anyone except myself.

 

I don't think you are correct. I came across one on vacation last year where it showed recent finds but I couldn't find it (and it was easy, an ammo can under a pile of rocks in the middle of an open field). When i got back and read the logs the last several finds had been logged somewhat like this "there is no container here but I found the pile of rocks so am logging a find."

 

I wrote a NA log and it was gone in 24 hours. I did a 4 mile roundtrip hike based on the logs being listed as found and was unable to log a legitimate find.

 

I have also deleted a couple of logs from people on my caches who didn't sign the log because they couldn't go to the trouble but felt since they had passed by and saw the container they could.

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

Sorry tozainamboku, but I don't agree with your interpretation of the guidelines. And even if your interpretation was technically correct, I don't believe that it is what gc.com ever intended.

 

You mention bogus logs. Well, how bogus would a log be if someone went to this cache and never even bothered to look for the cache. Just took a photo from a few hundred metres away to "prove" they had been in the vicinity and logged a find claiming that they couldn't get to the cache because of wildlife. The cache owner would have to accept that as a "find" because of the way they have set this cache up. Is that what gc.com intended? I doubt it.

 

Does anyone know of another cache that exists on the same basis as this one? i.e. if you can't get near the cache because of wildlife just take a photo to prove you were in the general vicinity, post it to the cache page and you can have a smiley. Oh, you have to promise to go back one day and actually find the cache and sign the log.

 

No. If you can't find the cache, you don't get the smiley. Isn't that how it works? And it doesn't matter why you couldn't find the cache. If this cache is allowed then where do we draw the line? "Oh, I couldn't get to the cache because the traffic was gridlocked. Here's a photo of me stuck on the highway. Thanks for the smiley".

 

Geocaching would become a farce!

Edited April 27, 2011 by U.N.C.L.E.

[+BlueDeuce]

So long as the cache has a container and a log book, the cache owner is free to allow some alternative logging method......

Now I really do not think anybody up at the Lilypad ever intended any cache owner to go anywhere close to that far away from finding the container and signing a logbook.... got a citation??

I don't think anyone up at the Lilypad ever intended anyone other than the cache owner to be responsible for the quality of the logs to their cache page. Certainly the cache is told to delete logs that appear to be bogus, but they don't actually define bogus. There are clearly some things a cache owner cannot do. Posting on the cache page saying that multiple couch potato logs are allowed would likely get the cache archived. Pocket caches at events were similarly disallowed.

 

However, this cache owner still wants you to get out an look for the cache. If you get to the area and find the cache is inaccessible, he is allowing a find for posting a photo showing you were in the area. I believe that if the cache is accessible when you arrive in the area he expects you to find it. This alternative method seems to only be if you arrive and the situation is the cache is inaccessible due to wildlife. I don't believe that TPTB would find this an abuse of the logs.

 

On the other hand, I agree with those who personally would not take this alternate smiley. I would come back when I could sign the log if I really wanted the smiley on this cache. I'd probably take a picture though and write a a nice long DNF log describing my experience.

 

Granted I haven't seen the cache listing in question to confirm it is as reported, but I have yet to see Groundspeak list caches that are only to bring you to a location.

[+tozainamboku]

Hmmm...the guidelines say virtual caches aren't allowed (other than those created before Nov '05). But a poster is saying that as long as a cache owner hides a container and logbook at the location they can then specify an alternative method of logging the "find" (i.e. a photo) and no-one ever needs to find the cache or sign the logbook. All they need to do is take a photo to prove they were in the general vicinity of the cache and, having posted the photo on the cache page, they can log a find. Surely not?

 

That's a virtual cache. Surely?

I must admit that I have seen similar caches be archived because they appeared to simply be a a backdoor for listing a virtual cache. The cache owner has no intent of maintaining a physical cache and eventually the finders fall back to meeting the virtual requirement to log finds.

 

I believe in this case the cache owner can make a compelling argument that the intent is to find the container and sign the log. The alternate method seems to be intended only deal with the real possibility that the cache is not available at unpredictable times. Rather than forcing someone to make several trips, they are allowing a find to be logged by those who arrive and find the cache inaccessible.

 

If you can show that that the intent is simply to have people come to the area and take a picture and that cache container and log are not being maintained, you can probably show this is just a scheme to get around the grandfathering of virtuals. In that case, I agree with you it is against the guidelines.

 

Caches must have at a minimum a container and log book and the intent should be for cachers to find the container and sign the log book. But once that guideline is met, I believe that cache owner have great leeway as to what they allow as a find.

[+StarBrand]

...

Caches must have at a minimum a container and log book and the intent should be for cachers to find the container and sign the log book. But once that guideline is met, I believe that cache owner have great leeway as to what they allow as a find.

Toz - you feeling ok??

 

Because I really agree with that statement!

[+d+n.s]

I am slightly confused as to how the protected wildlife would prevent you from finding a cache, and if it is a problem common enough to need a solution.... does there need to be a cache there at all? Weird stuff.

[+StarBrand]

I am slightly confused as to how the protected wildlife would prevent you from finding a cache, and if it is a problem common enough to need a solution.... does there need to be a cache there at all? Weird stuff.

I was kind of wondering what kind of beasts were there as well........

[+BlueDeuce]

...

Caches must have at a minimum a container and log book and the intent should be for cachers to find the container and sign the log book. But once that guideline is met, I believe that cache owner have great leeway as to what they allow as a find.

Toz - you feeling ok??

 

Because I really agree with that statement!

 

True. I do think that some of that leeway falls under the radar which is separate from making it permissible by posting it on the cache description.

[+M 5]

Yet another example of cachers taking liberty with the guidelines. Where does it stop? This is clearly just a backdoor way for cachers to treat this cache as a virtual. I could easily give examples of workarounds that clearly violate groundspeaks guidelines, but will have plenty of supporters on here for "letting people play the way they want". Allowing caches to undermine the guidelines is not the best way to have a healthy, long lasting hobby. Although this example may not be actually harming geocaching and may not be the best example of the problems associated with allowing these types of practices. Groundspeak felt that they didn't want virtuals, and made a rule against them. We should abide by the guidelines, until it is changed.

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

The wildlife can prevent you from finding the cache by simply being in your way. Briefly, the cache is at the end of a harbour breakwater. Very narrow. The breakwater is a known gathering place for various species of marine mammals (e.g. seals and sealions) that are protected under New Zealand law (the cache is in NZ). After this cache was published there were several logs that suggested some negative interaction between cachers and the protected wildlife. One log actually stated that the cacher had "scared off" wildlife in order to find the cache. That is illegal behaviour under the laws mentioned. If wildlife have gathered at the location it is often not possible to get past them to access the cache without disturbing them and therefore breaking the law.

 

I posted a "Should be Archived" log on the basis that although this cache met gc.com guidelines, it was clearly encouraging unfortunate behaviour that reflected badly on geocaching. I suggested relocating the cache in the general area so as to eliminate the conflict between cachers and the protected wildlife. I also suggested that this location may be better suited to an Earthcache.

 

The cache owners response has been to modify the cache into what I believe is a virtual cache and therefore not allowed under gc.com guidelines. The reviewer appears to have agreed to this and even played a role in setting it up as a virtual.

 

IMHO the owner is not trying to create a virtual cache by "backdoor" methods (as suggested by another poster) but is digging their toes in and refusing to acknowledge that this is not an ethical cache location. My only concern here is the protection of wildlife and to encourage ethical caching behaviour.

[+BlueDeuce]

The reviewer appears to have agreed to this and even played a role in setting it up as a virtual.

 

I would have to see the cache listing.

[+John in Valley Forge]

NA log seems harsh to me.

Hope it makes you feel better though.

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

NA log seems harsh to me.

Hope it makes you feel better though.

 

What's an NA log? Is that an abbreviation for a "Should be Archived" or something totally different?

[+StarBrand]

NA log seems harsh to me.

Hope it makes you feel better though.

 

What's an NA log? Is that an abbreviation for a "Should be Archived" or something totally different?

NA="Needs Archived" - replacement verbiage for the older SBA (should be archived) log tpe but is the same thing.

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

Gotcha.

 

So is John in Valley Forge's comment that "I hope it makes you feel better" for posting a NA log directed at me for posting such a log in response to a cache which had seen cachers interfere with protected wildlife and break the law?

 

If so, he may be interested to learn that I initially raised the issue in a local caching forum (i.e. not this one or any other gc.com forum) and the consensus was that a SBA/NA log should be posted.

 

Is john in Valley Forge suggesting that if you see a cache that is problematic you should look the other way? Is geocaching no longer an activity that is environmentally ethical?

[+G & C]

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why this is such a big deal to anyone. Perhaps it doesn't fit exactly within GC guidelines, but it doesn't look like it's done with any ill intent. Quite the opposite, in fact. So why all the fuss?

[+sbell111]

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why this is such a big deal to anyone. Perhaps it doesn't fit exactly within GC guidelines, but it doesn't look like it's done with any ill intent. Quite the opposite, in fact. So why all the fuss?

Agreed. I'm also wondering why anyone cares about this issue.

 

A cache owner recognized that his cache could lead to people interfering with thesae animals so he worked with his reviewer to develop verbiage that resolves the issue.

 

In this game, cache owners do have the authority to accept find logs in cases where seekers could not sign the log. This cache owner has worked with his reviewer to develop verbiage that explains this to all who seek his cache.

 

I'm simply not seeing what the big deal is.

Edited April 27, 2011 by sbell111

[+webscouter.]

The wildlife can prevent you from finding the cache by simply being in your way. Briefly, the cache is at the end of a harbour breakwater. Very narrow. The breakwater is a known gathering place for various species of marine mammals (e.g. seals and sealions) that are protected under New Zealand law (the cache is in NZ). After this cache was published there were several logs that suggested some negative interaction between cachers and the protected wildlife. One log actually stated that the cacher had "scared off" wildlife in order to find the cache. That is illegal behaviour under the laws mentioned. If wildlife have gathered at the location it is often not possible to get past them to access the cache without disturbing them and therefore breaking the law.

 

I posted a "Should be Archived" log on the basis that although this cache met gc.com guidelines, it was clearly encouraging unfortunate behaviour that reflected badly on geocaching. I suggested relocating the cache in the general area so as to eliminate the conflict between cachers and the protected wildlife. I also suggested that this location may be better suited to an Earthcache.

 

The cache owners response has been to modify the cache into what I believe is a virtual cache and therefore not allowed under gc.com guidelines. The reviewer appears to have agreed to this and even played a role in setting it up as a virtual.

 

IMHO the owner is not trying to create a virtual cache by "backdoor" methods (as suggested by another poster) but is digging their toes in and refusing to acknowledge that this is not an ethical cache location. My only concern here is the protection of wildlife and to encourage ethical caching behaviour.

 

Now this is a different issues entirely. Now you are talking about a cache that you attempted to find that is unsuitable and in a protected area (by virtue of the presence of the seals) I would in this case post a NA on this cache because of this issue.

 

But I still don't concern myself with OTHER peoples discretion when it comes to what they accept as a found log on their cache. That is entirely up to the cache owner and the person who logs the find. This of course does not apply to not ever going to the cache site.

 

It should also be noted that personally in my found logs that my signature is on the log inside every cache that I have logged a find on. But that is just how I want my game to be played.

[+NeecesandNephews]

My first thoughts after reading the OP were "why would you place a cache in a location that would intentionally disturb a "protected species" (?) or a restricted reserve for wildlife"? It seems to me to be a poor location for a cache. Perhaps we do not have enough information on the particulars.

snip/ snip

 

 

Ah well.... I am going way off topic. Sorry.

In answer to the original question... I can't seem to figure out exactly "what" it is, but evidently Groundspeak approves it.

 

edited to remove content unrelated to the original post. I must apologize for my crankiness of late. We are having issues with our inernet service from Sudden(un)Link. The lack of stable internet connectivity has left me wandering aimlessly, listless and unfocused.

Edited April 27, 2011 by NeecesandNephews

[AZcachemeister]

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why this is such a big deal to anyone. Perhaps it doesn't fit exactly within GC guidelines, but it doesn't look like it's done with any ill intent. Quite the opposite, in fact. So why all the fuss?

Agreed. I'm also wondering why anyone cares about this issue.

 

 

It's like a blade of grass growing in a crack on the highway...no big deal.

Pretty soon the crack widens, and more grass grows.

Next thing you know there's a few bushes and a small tree.

 

Perhaps back-door virtual logs should always be allowed?

Perhaps awarding 'found it' logs for helping out at the event should be de rigeur?

 

If the cache was a threat to the wildlife in the area it should have been archived, plain and simple.

[+sbell111]

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why this is such a big deal to anyone. Perhaps it doesn't fit exactly within GC guidelines, but it doesn't look like it's done with any ill intent. Quite the opposite, in fact. So why all the fuss?

Agreed. I'm also wondering why anyone cares about this issue.

 

 

It's like a blade of grass growing in a crack on the highway...no big deal.

Pretty soon the crack widens, and more grass grows.

Next thing you know there's a few bushes and a small tree.

 

Perhaps back-door virtual logs should always be allowed?

Perhaps awarding 'found it' logs for helping out at the event should be de rigeur?

 

If the cache was a threat to the wildlife in the area it should have been archived, plain and simple.

In general, I give the reviewers the benefit of the doubt when dealing with issues like this. The reviewer dealth with it. I see no problem with waiting to see if the solution works.

 

The rest of your post seems to be some combination of the slippery slope argument that doesn't work for obvious reasons and a retread of your personal pet peaves which would be better rehashed in their own threads.

[+paleolith]

it doesn't look like it's done with any ill intent. Quite the opposite

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

You have to evaluate the outcome. If the outcome is detrimental, you try to reverse the action. This does not mean passing judgment on the original actor. We all make mistakes. Well, accept fur me.

 

And yes, harassment of already-stressed wildlife species is a detrimental outcome.

 

I'd say that since the reviewer has participated in the cache modification, leave it alone but watch it. I suspect that some cachers will not read the description and will harass the wildlife anyway. At that point it will be appropriate to post another NA or to email the reviewer asking for another review.

 

Edward

[+geodarts]

If a cache is in an area where it could involve encounters with protected wildlife, I cannot imagine that it ever had permission by the land manager to be placed there under Groundspeak's guidelines. If the land manager has concerns about geocaching in that location, he or she could contact Groundspeak -- but in all likelihood the manager would not be aware of caching until someone is stopped with a gpsr as they were trying to get past the seals.

 

The OP raises the possibility that the cache could cause unintentional harm. Although the guidelines also state that "geocaches are placed so that the surrounding environment is safe from both intentional or unintentional harm," this requirement is a little more subjective. I would not place a cache in an area like that described, but I have seen lots of caches that may result in unintentional harm.

 

If the cache has limited availability because wildlife is occupying the area, the cache description should make it clear and finders should respect that, just as they should respect it if it were placed in a park that was only open on certain days and at certain times.

 

That may not have been a completely successful approach here, so the owner and the reviewer arrived at an agreement to try to limit any resulting harm and deal with people's sense of entitlement or instant gratification. I am not sure if it will work because not everyone reads the cache description or is willing to come back at another time. You might want to keep a watch on the cache and see what happens.

 

As to the suggestion that it might be changed to an earthcache, unless there is something geologically of interest in that particular location, I doubt that it could be done. Wildlife is outside the boundaries of these caches. It is possible that when Groundspeak reinstates virtuals, it might be a better fit should the owner want to change it and the guidelines permit it. But for now it seems like the owner is clear on what he or she wants to do and has worked with the reviewer to achieve that. It seems a little unusual to me, but there are lots of things in this game that cause me to raise my eyebrows -- the only times I have done anything more is when I have encountered no trespassing signs or an angry property owner who told me that he wanted the cache removed.

Edited April 27, 2011 by mulvaney

[+Manville Possum]

I would like to view the listing. I also geocache on another site that allowes virtual listings. Part of the giudelines are that if a physical cache can exsist, then a virtual should not be listed at the site. Sounds like this listing would make a better virtual.

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

Quite a divergence of opinion.

 

I've learnt something from the discussion though. I thought virtuals were not allowed. But clearly they are. As long as you don't call it a virtual and actually hide a container at the location you can then specify that the log doesn't need to be signed. A "finder" can just post a photo or simply say they were there and if the cache owner accepts it then it's fine. To me, that's a virtual cache. I doubt gc.com intended this but a loophole has been found and there will always be people who want to bug the spirit of the game and exploit loopholes. I guess if gc.com is moving towards reinstating virtuals at some future point then they won't be very interested in closing this loophole at this time. So basically, if we are being honest, virtual caches ARE allowed.

 

I am very concerned about this cache. I originally posted a NA log because of the illegal behaviour towards protected wildlife that was mentioned in some logs. My understanding is that permission to place the cache there was not sought. But that is not unusual in NZ where we enjoy reasonably free access to cache on public land. This location is technically not public land however. Many probably think it is because it is open to the public for recreational use such as fishing. However, it is owned by a port company and public access is at their discretion. When the CO did not respond positively to the NA log I enquired of the port company and their property manager indicated that he would prefer the cache to be relocated at the site so that it did not bring cachers into conflict with wildlife. Similarly, the Dept Of Conservation (DOC), which is the government agency responsible for enforcing the law regarding protected species in NZ, expressed to me concern about the cache. I communicated these points to the CO and put the CO in contact with the DOC ranger dealing with the matter.

 

Subsequently the bizarre situation arose that the port company and DOC were telling me that they were not happy with the cache while the CO was claiming in logs that DOC was happy for it to remain where it was. Things then went quiet until recently when the CO re-activated the cache (to their credit, they had disabled it while these discussions were occurring) in its original spot but added the ability to claim a find if you couldn't get to the cache because of wildlife. I believed that this made the cache, more-or-less, a virtual and against the rules. Hence the thread here to gain opinion on that. It now appears that they have simply exploited a loophole in the rules. I remain concerned however that a reviewer appears to have been complicit in coming up with a way to circumvent gc.com's rules. Of all people, they should be upholding the letter and the spirit of the rules.

 

I remain concerned about this cache. As another poster has pointed out, if the CO has had to go to this extent then the location probably isn't a good one. The cache is still there and therefore there is still a high likelihood that negative interaction between cachers and protected wildlife will continue. I am strong on conservation issues and that is why I am taking a keen interest in this cache. This issue could be resolved by simply moving the cache 100 metres but the CO is, IMHO, simply digging their toes in and asserting their "right" to put a cache wherever they please. Of course, no such right exists.

 

It is possible that the CO has had further discussions with the land owner and the DOC that I haven't been made aware of and I am looking into that now.

 

Thanks for your input. I think I'll bow out of the discussion now.

[sabrefan7]

If this cache is in a wildlife protection, or environmentally sensitive area then most likely it should not be allowed, nor would the land manager give permission. The CO can not allow a find by some one who just posts a photo. You cant change a physical cache into a virtual. I know that if this cache was in New York I would drop an NA log and both of the reviewers would have no problems archiving it.

[+Walts Hunting]

So what is the gc number so we can all actually look at it.

[+tozainamboku]

So what is the gc number so we can all actually look at it.

http://coord.info/GC2MCVJ ?

[+M 5]

Unless I missed it, it looks like the alternate picture technique suggestion has been taken off the page. I suspect that the large bolded "it's NOT about the numbers" written twice, took the other options place.

[+BlueDeuce]

Personally I think the OP should remove his latest post from the cache page. It's not the the place to hold such a discussion and it's pretty much moot at this point.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Does the area have a land manager? Are there any signs in the area in regards to the animals?

 

It seems to me that rather than putting the cache on the jetty where endangered/protected wildlife may be instead the cache should be placed on land - near enough to the jetty that the wildlife could be viewed but far enough that they would not be disturbed. Specifically note the wildlife in the description and encourage the posting of photos of wildlife, with a reminder about not disturbing the wildlife.

 

I've come across one Unknown (Field Puzzle) cache that had stated it could be logged as a Virtual, but the cache is old and predates the end of Virtuals on geocaching.com so would be presumably grandfathered in.

[+WRASTRO]

I am going to have to say that I think the OP is out of order on this one. The notes on the log are over the top. Take up the issue with the reviewer in a private conversation.

[+tozainamboku]

Personally I think the OP should remove his latest post from the cache page. It's not the the place to hold such a discussion and it's pretty much moot at this point.

I believe the OP's issue was is with there being a cache at this location, not whether this cache is a back door virtual. Even if virtuals were allowed, if you had cachers walking out to the end of the mole to log the cache they would still likely interfere with the wildlife. Its unfortunate that in his zeal to get the cache archived he came as started a discussion about whether a cache owner offering an alternative logging technique has somehow turned it into a virtual as a way to get around the guidelines.

 

I believe the OP will only be satisfied if the cache is archived or moved to where it won't have cachers interfering with the seals. It's unfortunate that some czche finders are so into getting their smiley they do stupid things even if you tell them not to on the cache page. I believe the cache owner was attempting to lessen the chance of people doing stupid thing by offering a smiley to those who arrive to find the cache site occupied by the protected seals. I thought this was a pretty clever way to handle it.

 

Presumably puritans (who claim they are not so interested in the smiley), would not bother the seals to sign the log. And geocachers who will stop at nothing to get a smiley, would take a picture and not bother the seals. However is seems that someone getting a smiley to stop them from harassing some seals is too much for the puritans. The smiley does seem important to the puritans after all, Why else insist on some unwritten rule that cache owners cannot allow online find log without signing the physical log in some special circumstances?

[+releasethedogs]

Just stop being the geocaching police. if it does not hurt the earth or people then don't take away how other people play the game.

[+John in Valley Forge]

Gotcha.

 

So is John in Valley Forge's comment that "I hope it makes you feel better" for posting a NA log directed at me for posting such a log in response to a cache which had seen cachers interfere with protected wildlife and break the law?

 

If so, he may be interested to learn that I initially raised the issue in a local caching forum (i.e. not this one or any other gc.com forum) and the consensus was that a SBA/NA log should be posted.

 

Is john in Valley Forge suggesting that if you see a cache that is problematic you should look the other way? Is geocaching no longer an activity that is environmentally ethical?

 

No, it was more that you took the action, posted the NA log. THEN, AFTER, you posted the story here and asked for validation. And you didn't tell the whole story until people started to disagree. It seemed you were more upset about it being a "virtual" than the seals. Made it sound like this was a personal vendetta. If all the local caching community was against the cache, and the local conservation officers had issues with it, then the NA log was probably justified (although 12 cache finders in 3 months does not seem a lot, I have no idea how many non-cachers are tramping around the same space teasing the seals and taking pictures).

[+M 5]

Personally I think the OP should remove his latest post from the cache page. It's not the the place to hold such a discussion and it's pretty much moot at this point.

I believe the OP's issue was is with there being a cache at this location, not whether this cache is a back door virtual. Even if virtuals were allowed, if you had cachers walking out to the end of the mole to log the cache they would still likely interfere with the wildlife. Its unfortunate that in his zeal to get the cache archived he came as started a discussion about whether a cache owner offering an alternative logging technique has somehow turned it into a virtual as a way to get around the guidelines.

 

I believe the OP will only be satisfied if the cache is archived or moved to where it won't have cachers interfering with the seals. It's unfortunate that some czche finders are so into getting their smiley they do stupid things even if you tell them not to on the cache page. I believe the cache owner was attempting to lessen the chance of people doing stupid thing by offering a smiley to those who arrive to find the cache site occupied by the protected seals. I thought this was a pretty clever way to handle it.

 

Presumably puritans (who claim they are not so interested in the smiley), would not bother the seals to sign the log. And geocachers who will stop at nothing to get a smiley, would take a picture and not bother the seals. However is seems that someone getting a smiley to stop them from harassing some seals is too much for the puritans. The smiley does seem important to the puritans after all, Why else insist on some unwritten rule that cache owners cannot allow online find log without signing the physical log in some special circumstances?

 

For someone that always plays the knowledge book expert, it is very odd that you would support the cache turning into a quasi-virtual with the old take a picture ALR attached to it. So you can either go to GZ and get the cache or get semi-close and take a picture like a virtual. I guess your dislike of having to sign a log side, overides your follow the guidelines side. Interesting to know. That is not even mentioning the other problems with the cache that the OP is concerned about.

Edited April 28, 2011 by M 5

[+btonyb]

I've encountered a number of these backdoor virtuals. I dont particularly like them but so far they havent annoyed me enough to get them shutdown. Here is the latest one I ran into : http://coord.info/GC1ZEK5

 

Its a multi-virtual :-)

I hope the virtuals come back soon and in a good form so people stop doing such things.

 

TB

[+John in Valley Forge]

After reading his opinion notes on the cache page (which I don't think is the best place to discuss the merits of a cache), I think the concern is for the sea lions.

I think the OP is sincere in his concerns. That was not enough to get it archived so he is trying a different tact.

[+G & C]

Yep, I'd say UNCLE needs to get off that high horse he's sitting on. Contacting the media regarding irresponsibility of cache placements? Pfffft. Grow up, stop trying to be the geocache police, and move along. You probably would have garnered some support here had you not gone all bat poop crazy with the threats.