Claiming a find on a Virtual from an airplane?

[+Ramness]

Back in the good ol days of Geocaching we could place Virtual caches. The idea being to share a favorite location with others, a scenic view, interesting monument etc. (My favorite is still Ghetto Stonehenge! I have taken a dozen or so people to see it.) I created one of my own back in 2003 for a great place to watch the planes at the Atlanta Airport. To claim a find users just have to look at something there and answer a question about it. Over 800 people have been to the location though the years and many post how thankful they are that my virtual brought them there.

 

Even though I’m no longer an active cacher myself I still read though the emailed answers as they come in several times a week. In the last year or so I’ve noticed a new trend of people claiming they “found” the virtual from an airplane while landing and spotted the item in question from the plane. To me, this is not really in the spirit of finding the Virtual. The idea is to go to the location and enjoy it not just looking for a stack of rocks to claim a find.

 

Interested to hear what other have to say, find or not a find? What do y’all think?

 

 

Also, I’m aware that with Google maps and Bing maps being so clear the item in question is now visible online allowing people to claim the find without going there if they wanted to. If they do they are only cheating themselves so I don’t care. Still I may go out there and change the clue for a 3rd time eventually.

[4wheelin_fool]

If I'm not mistaken, the virt is at the airport. Perhaps you should change the requirements. Reading the OP it seems that they are couch potato logs, but it actually looks like they are valid.

[+dprovan]

Also, I’m aware that with Google maps and Bing maps being so clear the item in question is now visible online allowing people to claim the find without going there if they wanted to. If they do they are only cheating themselves so I don’t care. Still I may go out there and change the clue for a 3rd time eventually.

I like your question, but I think this is the answer for people in airplanes as well as people using Google maps: if you don't want them to log it from an airplane, then don't ask a question they can answer from an airplane.

 

Beyond that, though, using Google maps is cheating, so if you could prove it, it would be fine to delete them. On the other hand, if people log from an airplane, then by answering the question they have proved they were there as much as required. Personally, I'd find that kinda clever.

[Rock Chalk]

An airport virtual was my first Georgia smiley! (Though it was the one in Atlanta.) Here was my log from Aug 2013:

 

Whew, that was a close one! I won't soon forget the experience of finding this one. Arrived at ATL and rushed to try to make a connection...only to find that the plane left 10 mins early. (How does that happen?) Anyway, it left me with about 70 mins till the next available flight. Not being familiar with the area, I didn't know how far I'd be from the cache. But I decided to give it a go. Went from terminal B to the baggage/parking area, then started asking around to find the bird's whereabouts. (Very nice employees at this airport!) Found the bird, snapped the pic, then bolted back upstairs and prayed that the security line would be short. It was, relatively. But I still had to book it back to terminal B, where I arrived at the gate 5 minutes before boarding. All worth it for the Georgia geobadge. TFTC!

 

It was truly one of those very memorable geocaching experiences. I share it to illustrate what people are missing out on when they couch log. In the end, they're only shorting themselves. Even if you change the question, they'll eventually learn the new answer. So it goes. For every one of those, I imagine there are many more experiences like mine.

 

[+palmetto]

There's a virt in Florida that explicitly forbids "flyover finds", after a couple were posted (cache owner let them stand).

 

Instead of requesting an email with XXX info, you could change the requirement to picture of self (selfie) with fence/airport in the background.

 

When Virts were being published, few cachers had digital cameras, so requiring images was rare - it was question to answer instead.

Now, everyone has the ability to take and post a photo. Of course, this means you have to check logs for images, and then hope that the image is of the cacher and not random passerby ;-) .

 

You used to see pic requirements that said, "self with gps" (usually for Locationless) to enforce cacher actually at location, but now people are taking the image with a smartphone which is also their gps, so it's hardly possible to get both in the image.

[+J Grouchy]

Back in the good ol days of Geocaching we could place Virtual caches. The idea being to share a favorite location with others, a scenic view, interesting monument etc. (My favorite is still Ghetto Stonehenge! I have taken a dozen or so people to see it.) I created one of my own back in 2003 for a great place to watch the planes at the Atlanta Airport. To claim a find users just have to look at something there and answer a question about it. Over 800 people have been to the location though the years and many post how thankful they are that my virtual brought them there.

 

Even though I’m no longer an active cacher myself I still read though the emailed answers as they come in several times a week. In the last year or so I’ve noticed a new trend of people claiming they “found” the virtual from an airplane while landing and spotted the item in question from the plane. To me, this is not really in the spirit of finding the Virtual. The idea is to go to the location and enjoy it not just looking for a stack of rocks to claim a find.

 

Interested to hear what other have to say, find or not a find? What do y’all think?

 

 

Also, I’m aware that with Google maps and Bing maps being so clear the item in question is now visible online allowing people to claim the find without going there if they wanted to. If they do they are only cheating themselves so I don’t care. Still I may go out there and change the clue for a 3rd time eventually.

 

Haven't been to this one myself yet, even though I'm a ten or fifteen minute drive from the airport. Some day soon I'll hit that area.

 

Anyway...not having been there, is there something on-site that you could require a description of that is NOT visible in street view? Something small like a label or sign? Checking street view, it looks like the little 'spur' road off the viewing area was not visited by the street view car...so it seems like there would be something there that could be used.

 

Careful, though. You may need to give a month or two "grace period" after changing it...otherwise you will upset folks who may not be aware of the change but waited to log it for whatever reason.

[+humboldt flier]

Had a great time tracking down your cache at ATL and in my estimation it is waaaayy too far off line of sight for anyone on an airliner on short final along the ILS for anyone to legitimately claim a find. Further, I would assert that anyone in a spam can would be hard pressed to make a legitimate claim. Someone in a chopper coming in on an abbreviated tear drop approach flying a right hand downwind, base to final might be able to pull off the claim legitimately.

 

My feelings are: any claim made while on short final approaching or just "over the fence" is BOGUS.

 

Delete them ... but "Da Flier" is a hard nosed old dog.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Back in the good ol days of Geocaching we could place Virtual caches. The idea being to share a favorite location with others, a scenic view, interesting monument etc. (My favorite is still Ghetto Stonehenge! I have taken a dozen or so people to see it.) I created one of my own back in 2003 for a great place to watch the planes at the Atlanta Airport. To claim a find users just have to look at something there and answer a question about it. Over 800 people have been to the location though the years and many post how thankful they are that my virtual brought them there.

 

Even though I'm no longer an active cacher myself I still read though the emailed answers as they come in several times a week. In the last year or so I've noticed a new trend of people claiming they "found" the virtual from an airplane while landing and spotted the item in question from the plane. To me, this is not really in the spirit of finding the Virtual. The idea is to go to the location and enjoy it not just looking for a stack of rocks to claim a find.

 

Interested to hear what other have to say, find or not a find? What do y'all think?

 

Unfortunately, the game has devolved to the point that it seems like cachers are just looking for more and more ways to game the system in order to log a find and increase their find count.

 

Obviously, the spirit of your virtual (and pretty much every cache) is to go to the location in order to "find it" but apparently some don't care and, if they can get away with it, will "find it" using some other means.

[+NeverSummer]

Back in the good ol days of Geocaching we could place Virtual caches. The idea being to share a favorite location with others, a scenic view, interesting monument etc. (My favorite is still Ghetto Stonehenge! I have taken a dozen or so people to see it.) I created one of my own back in 2003 for a great place to watch the planes at the Atlanta Airport. To claim a find users just have to look at something there and answer a question about it. Over 800 people have been to the location though the years and many post how thankful they are that my virtual brought them there.

 

Even though I'm no longer an active cacher myself I still read though the emailed answers as they come in several times a week. In the last year or so I've noticed a new trend of people claiming they "found" the virtual from an airplane while landing and spotted the item in question from the plane. To me, this is not really in the spirit of finding the Virtual. The idea is to go to the location and enjoy it not just looking for a stack of rocks to claim a find.

 

Interested to hear what other have to say, find or not a find? What do y'all think?

 

Unfortunately, the game has devolved to the point that it seems like cachers are just looking for more and more ways to game the system in order to log a find and increase their find count.

 

Obviously, the spirit of your virtual (and pretty much every cache) is to go to the location in order to "find it" but apparently some don't care and, if they can get away with it, will "find it" using some other means.

And, without knowing the correct answer, I don't know if this would be an issue...but someone posted a photo of the items in question. If they are what you need to answer, they've provided a convenient spoiler for the savvy couch-logger. I'd start there and see if that might be part of the problem.

[JASTA 11]

Kind of like this one:

 

Found it

We could not have picked a better day to come over and try this one, though we did it from above, I hope the owner will let the find stand.

I was sure I did the math correctly and added 1.75ft of Intl Orange(to make the easy for the next cacher to find) ribbon per 100ft in altitude to slow their velocity, how ever just after the release a stiff elevator told us differently, a quick stop in Everglades City fixed us right up...thanks we had a BLAST!

 

Edited December 4, 2014 by JASTA 11

[+BlueMoth]

I was visiting family in Atlanta last September and the day I left to go home, I made sure I had plenty of time to stop by and find the op's virtual cache. Knowing the answer to the question, and where you have to look to find it, my opinion is that there is No possible way you could see that from a fly over. You probably can't see it from Google Earth either. I haven't seen any spoiler photos on the cache page, so can only surmise people are finding a spoiler photo online.

Sad.

I don't own a virtual cache, and I've never deleted a log on one of my caches, but if I was the co here, I would delete bogus fly over logs. You don't go stand by the big silver bird, you didn't find the cache.

[+J Grouchy]

I was visiting family in Atlanta last September and the day I left to go home, I made sure I had plenty of time to stop by and find the op's virtual cache. Knowing the answer to the question, and where you have to look to find it, my opinion is that there is No possible way you could see that from a fly over. You probably can't see it from Google Earth either. I haven't seen any spoiler photos on the cache page, so can only surmise people are finding a spoiler photo online.

Sad.

I don't own a virtual cache, and I've never deleted a log on one of my caches, but if I was the co here, I would delete bogus fly over logs. You don't go stand by the big silver bird, you didn't find the cache.

 

I think you may be confusing the two ATL "silver bird" virtuals. One is a sculpture near the entrance below ground level, and the OP's cache is a viewing area near the runways.

[+Bear and Ragged]

>snipped<

And, without knowing the correct answer, I don't know if this would be an issue...but someone posted a photo of the items in question. If they are what you need to answer, they've provided a convenient spoiler for the savvy couch-logger. I'd start there and see if that might be part of the problem.

 

Worth reading the logs... Think I know the answer too.

[+hzoi]

Flyover virtual? Weak.

 

This was our 4444th find, and we were there by the roadside. (Posted a planespotting photo to boot.)

 

I never had the privilege of being a virtual cache owner, having started geocaching three months too late. But I do own several earthcaches and would be irked if someone was trying to log from above.

 

If there is a spoiler photo in the gallery, I'd delete it if I were you. If I'm not mistaken, cache owners have the ability to delete photos without deleting the entire log.

[+Ramness]

The items for the question are visible on both Google and Bing,I checked a while back. If people want to look at that to add to their find count that’s up to them. I’m not going to delete their logs. I have a webcam cache as well and go through the logs once a year or so and delete the finds without webcam photos, I get an inbox full of whining the next day every time.

 

The question here is not if they are being dishonest but what the thoughts are on just flying over a virtual to claim a find rather than going to the location.

 

But it does give you something to think about on the odds of being able to log this from a plane on approach. This airport has 5 runways so a would be cacher would have to be sitting on the starboard side of the aircraft, the plane would have to be landing on the runway next to viewing area, and during a time they are landing from the East. That’s what, a 5% chance? Add to that you would have to spot the rocks as you went by at 160mph, which is the average landing speed of a passenger plane.

[+Bear and Ragged]

The items for the question are visible on both Google and Bing,I checked a while back.

 

If people want to look at that to add to their find count that’s up to them. I’m not going to delete their logs.

 

I have a webcam cache as well and go through the logs once a year or so and delete the finds without webcam photos, I get an inbox full of whining the next day every time.

 

 

The problem is, if people are claiming bogus/virtual finds on these caches, and the owner isn't carrying out 'Maintenance' (Deleting bogus/virtual logs) Groundspeak use "Lack of Maintenance" as a reason to Archive the cache...

[+Team Microdot]

The items for the question are visible on both Google and Bing,I checked a while back.

 

If people want to look at that to add to their find count that’s up to them. I’m not going to delete their logs.

 

I have a webcam cache as well and go through the logs once a year or so and delete the finds without webcam photos, I get an inbox full of whining the next day every time.

 

 

The problem is, if people are claiming bogus/virtual finds on these caches, and the owner isn't carrying out 'Maintenance' (Deleting bogus/virtual logs) Groundspeak use "Lack of Maintenance" as a reason to Archive the cache...

 

Do Groundspeak actually do this as a matter of routine?

 

Or does it take a whistle-blower to post a N/A log pointing out what's going on - who then suffers a world of grief from the fake finders and/or those who are yet to post a fake find?

 

I saw a webcam cache the other day that had nothing but selfie logs for around two years. Nobody seems to have complained - so on it goes. I can imagine the disquiet arising if someone actually pointed out that there was no way to legitimately log it and it got archived

[Mr.Yuck]

Flyover virtual? Weak.

 

This was our 4444th find, and we were there by the roadside. (Posted a planespotting photo to boot.)

 

I never had the privilege of being a virtual cache owner, having started geocaching three months too late. But I do own several earthcaches and would be irked if someone was trying to log from above.

 

If there is a spoiler photo in the gallery, I'd delete it if I were you. If I'm not mistaken, cache owners have the ability to delete photos without deleting the entire log.

 

You know what? I HAVE BEEN THERE. You, on the other hand, I doubt very much. You were 18 months too late. Personal joke, by the way, but the 18 months is correct.

 

Well, if Humboldt Flier says you can't nail this one while landing, I'll take his word for it. How would you even know you're coming in on that runway, and to look for the rocks? I think these people are just Google sat viewing it, and sending the answer. And almost all virtuals were created before there was a Google Sat view. Google maps were not born until 2005. I've seen plenty o' old virtuals you can street view for the answer.

[+lamoracke]

There is one virtual on the west coast on the side of the freeway, which obviously makes it very tough to pull over, that we saw the answer while driving by at like 60 miles per hour. The answer was just what you saw and I saw it, so I logged it. Not going to pull over on a huge highway/freeway/whatever it was, just to put a picture of that in the background of me.

[Mr.Yuck]

There is one virtual on the west coast on the side of the freeway, which obviously makes it very tough to pull over, that we saw the answer while driving by at like 60 miles per hour. The answer was just what you saw and I saw it, so I logged it. Not going to pull over on a huge highway/freeway/whatever it was, just to put a picture of that in the background of me.

 

I'm aware of two virtuals, one in Northern NY, and the other in SW Pa., that were totally designed to be interstate drive-by's from day one.

 

HOWEVER, the one in Northern NY, if you find the owner on the internets (it's sculptures in his backyard) you can get permission to visit in person. Which I did.

[+kunarion]

For the particular Virtual mentioned in the OP, below is the best case scenario for seeing it from a plane. The objects are not ideally positioned for counting, when viewed from the runway. While landing, the cachers had about 2 seconds to project the waypoint, mentally measure a distance of 1000 feet, identify the spot and count the objects. Daylight only, of course, and they needed a window seat on the right side of the plane, which must be landing on the north runway from the east. More than one cacher performed this miracle. It would have been a lot easier to just use a Google satellite view. From a plane, I'd expect it would be pretty much impossible. These cachers deserve the Find. Too bad they didn't snap a picture while they were at it.

 

 

But due to the luck and timing involved, this "from the plane" thing will be a very infrequent occurrence.

Edited December 6, 2014 by kunarion

[+dprovan]

In the last year or so I’ve noticed a new trend of people claiming they “found” the virtual from an airplane while landing and spotted the item in question from the plane. To me, this is not really in the spirit of finding the Virtual. The idea is to go to the location and enjoy it not just looking for a stack of rocks to claim a find.

As traditional caches have become more about finding the container and less about where the container is, so have virtuals become less about spirit and more about satisfying the requirements. So if it were reasonable, then, yes, I'd expect more people claiming a find from seeing the answer from the air.

 

The general impression I'm getting from the posts of people that have been there is that a find by air is not really reasonable in this case, though. While I still say you cannot justify deleting these finds out-of-hand, I think it would be reasonable for you to question people about whether they truly answered the question by seeing the rocks from the air, perhaps, for example, by asking about their approach and such to see if there's really any possibility of them getting the answer that way. Just don't get accusatory about it, and feel free to use the excuse that Groundspeak might ax your virtual if you allow too many finds that couldn't be valid.

 

And keep in mind that at least these people were honest about it. The last thing you want is to teach people that they should make sure to lie about how when they cheat.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The items for the question are visible on both Google and Bing,I checked a while back.

 

If people want to look at that to add to their find count that's up to them. I'm not going to delete their logs.

 

I have a webcam cache as well and go through the logs once a year or so and delete the finds without webcam photos, I get an inbox full of whining the next day every time.

 

 

The problem is, if people are claiming bogus/virtual finds on these caches, and the owner isn't carrying out 'Maintenance' (Deleting bogus/virtual logs) Groundspeak use "Lack of Maintenance" as a reason to Archive the cache...

 

Do Groundspeak actually do this as a matter of routine?

 

Or does it take a whistle-blower to post a N/A log pointing out what's going on - who then suffers a world of grief from the fake finders and/or those who are yet to post a fake find?

 

I saw a webcam cache the other day that had nothing but selfie logs for around two years. Nobody seems to have complained - so on it goes. I can imagine the disquiet arising if someone actually pointed out that there was no way to legitimately log it and it got archived

 

I don't think GS does this routinely but there certainly have been example of virtual caches for which the CO is allowing (often because the CO is no longer in the game) virtual logs that have been archived. The most infamous one is probably the Four Windows cache. Over 9600 "found it" logs on that one before it was archived and locked.

 

The "nobody is complaining" issue rears it's head once again. In that case, nobody is complaining that a cache violates the guidelines but it's a case where it probably isn't going to harm the game, as might not complaining about a buried cache.

 

[+NeverSummer]

The items for the question are visible on both Google and Bing,I checked a while back. If people want to look at that to add to their find count that’s up to them. I’m not going to delete their logs. I have a webcam cache as well and go through the logs once a year or so and delete the finds without webcam photos, I get an inbox full of whining the next day every time.

 

The question here is not if they are being dishonest but what the thoughts are on just flying over a virtual to claim a find rather than going to the location.

 

But it does give you something to think about on the odds of being able to log this from a plane on approach. This airport has 5 runways so a would be cacher would have to be sitting on the starboard side of the aircraft, the plane would have to be landing on the runway next to viewing area, and during a time they are landing from the East. That’s what, a 5% chance? Add to that you would have to spot the rocks as you went by at 160mph, which is the average landing speed of a passenger plane.

Well, I see this as no different than if I just drive by in a car, or ride my bike by the coords without stopping. If I can get the required answers in a moment's time, there's no reason to worry about that "Found it" log.

 

The real issue sounds like what I've encountered for Earthcaches and the like: If someone searched the internet for street view or whatever, they might be able to read a "required" street sign without visiting the site. It sounds like you might need to update the verification question to make it less possible to log by not being there at all.

 

I could claim that I connected to that airport (which I have...) and then look online for the answers without even looking for the cache site in the first place. Or, perhaps I really did see it from the plane. What matters here is having questions that can't be flubbed or "couch logged" if that's your worry.

 

Me? I'd update the logging requirement.

 

The items for the question are visible on both Google and Bing,I checked a while back.

 

If people want to look at that to add to their find count that’s up to them. I’m not going to delete their logs.

 

I have a webcam cache as well and go through the logs once a year or so and delete the finds without webcam photos, I get an inbox full of whining the next day every time.

 

 

The problem is, if people are claiming bogus/virtual finds on these caches, and the owner isn't carrying out 'Maintenance' (Deleting bogus/virtual logs) Groundspeak use "Lack of Maintenance" as a reason to Archive the cache...

Right. So finding a way to reduce the bogus logs will be important.

[+K13]

Provided the 'fly-over' logs have the requisite "Greetings from Germany", what's the issue?

 

This seems like the "sense of entitlement' is now getting to Virtuals. We've seen the "I visited the cache location" / "I saw the container" .... "so I deserve the find." Here it's the "I flew into this airport, so I deserve the Virtual" SMH

[+Harry Dolphin]

I have a webcam cache as well and go through the logs once a year or so and delete the finds without webcam photos, I get an inbox full of whining the next day every time.

 

Tell me about it! The excuses I get!

"My IPhone didn't work here." (Yeah? And? The cache page says my sister's cell phone didn't work either.)

"In other countries, they don't require a webcam photo." (Not my problem.)

"It was too foggy." (And?)

"I was there. I deserve the log!" (This is a webcam cache. Webcam photo required.)

"I didn't have time to pose." (And?)

&c

I usually wait a day to see if the webcam photo appears. Then send the e-mail stating that it is requires, if none were posted. I think I've probably deleted 30% of the logs (which did not meet the requirements.)

Sometimes, I wonder if it's worth the annoyance.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Provided the 'fly-over' logs have the requisite "Greetings from Germany", what's the issue?

 

This seems like the "sense of entitlement' is now getting to Virtuals. We've seen the "I visited the cache location" / "I saw the container" .... "so I deserve the find." Here it's the "I flew into this airport, so I deserve the Virtual" SMH

 

As I said earlier, it's just yet another ploy that geocachers will use in order to "game the system" and log a find on a cache which they didn't find in a manner that the CO intended.

[+TriciaG]

Sometimes, I wonder if it's worth the annoyance.

It is. Someday I'll get there and properly do your webcam cache.

 

BTW, the link in your description doesn't work anymore. I think the new one is https://www.mountwashington.org/premium-content/webcam-videos/

[Mr.Yuck]

Provided the 'fly-over' logs have the requisite "Greetings from Germany", what's the issue?

 

This seems like the "sense of entitlement' is now getting to Virtuals. We've seen the "I visited the cache location" / "I saw the container" .... "so I deserve the find." Here it's the "I flew into this airport, so I deserve the Virtual" SMH

 

I haven't been to that airport since like the 80's. It is certainly an awesome airport though. But that's besides the point, they ain't flying over this thing and noticing it from the right side of the plane from a window seat, while landing. Yeah, right, I knew where this virtual was, and counted rocks at 200 MPH. If they knew where it was before landing, that means they street viewed it, and counted the rocks from there. Not a big deal, I couldn't care less what other people do. Just don't drop a load of B.S. on us in your find log.

[+hzoi]

Flyover virtual? Weak.

 

This was our 4444th find, and we were there by the roadside. (Posted a planespotting photo to boot.)

 

I never had the privilege of being a virtual cache owner, having started geocaching three months too late. But I do own several earthcaches and would be irked if someone was trying to log from above.

 

If there is a spoiler photo in the gallery, I'd delete it if I were you. If I'm not mistaken, cache owners have the ability to delete photos without deleting the entire log.

 

You know what? I HAVE BEEN THERE. You, on the other hand, I doubt very much.

Heh. Nicely done.

How is Genese these days, I wonder? Chip on shoulder any smaller? But I digress.

Edited December 6, 2014 by hzoi

[+J Grouchy]

Drove down this afternoon and got this virtual before the requirement changed. Even snapped a few photos for proof.

[+Ambrosia]

I have a webcam cache as well and go through the logs once a year or so and delete the finds without webcam photos, I get an inbox full of whining the next day every time.

 

Tell me about it! The excuses I get!

"My IPhone didn't work here." (Yeah? And? The cache page says my sister's cell phone didn't work either.)

"In other countries, they don't require a webcam photo." (Not my problem.)

"It was too foggy." (And?)

"I was there. I deserve the log!" (This is a webcam cache. Webcam photo required.)

"I didn't have time to pose." (And?)

&c

I usually wait a day to see if the webcam photo appears. Then send the e-mail stating that it is requires, if none were posted. I think I've probably deleted 30% of the logs (which did not meet the requirements.)

Sometimes, I wonder if it's worth the annoyance.

There's probably a lot of foggy days on your webcam. That, including the cell service, makes it a tough one. I just looked at it and realized that I guess I never dnf'd it for fogginess like I thought I had...

[+Team Microdot]

Seems not all webcam cache owners are quite so picky

 

PLEASE NOTE The webcams are down at the moment, I am awaiting a response from the hotel owners as to when they will be up and running again. As such I will accept self taken photos of yourselves taken at the appropriate spots.

[+hzoi]

Seems not all webcam cache owners are quite so picky

 

PLEASE NOTE The webcams are down at the moment, I am awaiting a response from the hotel owners as to when they will be up and running again. As such I will accept self taken photos of yourselves taken at the appropriate spots.

 

Reviewer disabling logs (or archiving logs) often follow such policy changes. I wonder if there is a connection.

Edited December 7, 2014 by hzoi

[+J Grouchy]

I have a webcam cache as well and go through the logs once a year or so and delete the finds without webcam photos, I get an inbox full of whining the next day every time.

 

Tell me about it! The excuses I get!

"My IPhone didn't work here." (Yeah? And? The cache page says my sister's cell phone didn't work either.)

"In other countries, they don't require a webcam photo." (Not my problem.)

"It was too foggy." (And?)

"I was there. I deserve the log!" (This is a webcam cache. Webcam photo required.)

"I didn't have time to pose." (And?)

&c

I usually wait a day to see if the webcam photo appears. Then send the e-mail stating that it is requires, if none were posted. I think I've probably deleted 30% of the logs (which did not meet the requirements.)

Sometimes, I wonder if it's worth the annoyance.

There's probably a lot of foggy days on your webcam. That, including the cell service, makes it a tough one. I just looked at it and realized that I guess I never dnf'd it for fogginess like I thought I had...

 

Isn't that where a Difficulty rating would come into play? With virtuals (and I guess webcams), people assume that just because they go to that location that they ought to be able to claim the find. If that were the case, they all should have a D1 rating.

[+Dame Deco]

I wish all webcam owners would delete selfie logs--it's my pet peeve. I recently saw a selfie log on a webcam by a Charter Member, no less--felt vaguely disappointed by that…

[+Breaktrack]

I feel your pain! I still have several grandfathered virtuals I still maintain to this day. The internet has definitely changed the game due to many answers about local items being readily available with enough "googling". I've had to change the requirements on a few of mine as information that you used to actually have to GO to the location to find became commonly available on the net.

 

The "pic of you and your gps" has definitely become a bit long in the tooth as well, eh? LOL. Ah well, we do what we can to keep them flying. Hang in there.

 

Mac aka Breaktrack

[+terratin]

I'd love to do your webcam!

 

I still don't know why this one guy logged a found on one of our ECs (and many more all over Europe) without having been there, and going through all the effort of finding a suitable photo online. Not that he needs to upload a photo as per guidelines. He at least didn't complain when we deleted his log.

[+Ramness]

Went out to watch the planes while I was in the area last week and remembered I still had not changed the item to find for this. Walked around and found new item that definitely cannot be seen from a plane or on Google Street view.

[+Mudfrog]

Went out to watch the planes while I was in the area last week and remembered I still had not changed the item to find for this. Walked around and found new item that definitely cannot be seen from a plane or on Google Street view.

Flew in this morning and, with the help of my trusty binoculars, spotted the needed information. Instead of going through all that trouble of emailing you and then logging online, i'll just do everything here. Hope you let my log stand.

 

Find #148,450. The answer is BR-549, TFTC

 

 

Seriously, that would be a fun Virtual to get,, Maybe i'll get to grab it one of these days.

[+bflentje]

 

"It was too foggy." (And?)

 

 

Wasn't this my excuse? At least I used flashlights to point myself out in the picture. And posted other pictures and a blog posting.

 

http://blog.flentje.com/post/2010/07/29/2010-Mount-Washington-White-Mountains-NH

Edited May 9, 2016 by bflentje