deleting a found It log

[+crazypig88]

On one of my caches, a few people said that there was nothing in my cache. I checked on it twice and everything was where I left it. As I was leaving the second time, I saw a Tupperware box. It was wedged in a tree about 30 feet from my own one and it said "geocache box". I guessed it was an archived cache that nobody bothered to pick up. Like the logs said, there was nothing in it. I removed it. Should I delete the found it logs of the people who found the Tupperware box? Mine is a much higher difficulty level than the box and mine is a bison tube.

[+Ambrosia]

Personally, I wouldn't delete anything. If people found a container in faith, thinking it was the cache, I don't think they should be penalized.

[+Panther&Pine]

I think the good faith clause applies here. You might send a very polite note to finders letting them know what cache they found including a link to it would be very nice and suggest they log that cache instead.

[kanchan]

If people found a container in faith, thinking it was the cache, I don't think they should be penalized.

+1. I was once contacted by a CO to delete my Found It log for the exact same situation. I felt a bit annoyed (but I deleted my log).

[+Team Microdot]

Personally, I wouldn't delete anything. If people found a container in faith, thinking it was the cache, I don't think they should be penalized.

 

How is inviting people to replace their inaccurate log with a factual one penalizing them?

 

Is there a threshold distance from the actual cache beyond which inviting them to replace their inaccurate log with a factual one wouldn't be considered a penalty? 35 metres? 40? 50? 100?

[+Ambrosia]

Personally, I wouldn't delete anything. If people found a container in faith, thinking it was the cache, I don't think they should be penalized.

 

How is inviting people to replace their inaccurate log with a factual one penalizing them?

 

Is there a threshold distance from the actual cache beyond which inviting them to replace their inaccurate log with a factual one wouldn't be considered a penalty? 35 metres? 40? 50? 100?

Sure, letting them know that they found the wrong container and giving them the choice to find the real one would be a nice courtesy. But as a cache owner, I wouldn't require it, and I wouldn't delete their log. If the other container was within normal searching distance to GZ, then I'd be fine with it.

[Pup Patrol]

On one of my caches, a few people said that there was nothing in my cache. I checked on it twice and everything was where I left it. As I was leaving the second time, I saw a Tupperware box. It was wedged in a tree about 30 feet from my own one and it said "geocache box". I guessed it was an archived cache that nobody bothered to pick up. Like the logs said, there was nothing in it. I removed it. Should I delete the found it logs of the people who found the Tupperware box? Mine is a much higher difficulty level than the box and mine is a bison tube.

 

Obviously people are not reading the cache page, or even noticing the size listed for the cache.

 

This is an iffy one. I don't think I would delete their online "found it" logs, although you are within your rights to do so. They did not find your cache. It might get some folks grumpy to have their inattention pointed out to them. But in the end, they did not find the cache listed.

 

But there's nothing to be gained by deleting their logs, and forcing them to go out and actually find the cache, if they want. Not really, eh?

 

Does your cache have the GC code clearly labeled on the log sheet?

 

 

B.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Pup Patrol

[+crazypig88]

On one of my caches, a few people said that there was nothing in my cache. I checked on it twice and everything was where I left it. As I was leaving the second time, I saw a Tupperware box. It was wedged in a tree about 30 feet from my own one and it said "geocache box". I guessed it was an archived cache that nobody bothered to pick up. Like the logs said, there was nothing in it. I removed it. Should I delete the found it logs of the people who found the Tupperware box? Mine is a much higher difficulty level than the box and mine is a bison tube.

 

Obviously people are not reading the cache page, or even noticing the size listed for the cache.

 

This is an iffy one. I don't think I would delete their online "found it" logs, although you are within your rights to do so. They did not find your cache. It might get some folks grumpy to have their inattention pointed out to them. But in the end, they did not find the cache listed.

 

But there's nothing to be gained by deleting their logs, and forcing them to go out and actually find the cache, if they want. Not really, eh?

 

Does your cache have the GC code clearly labeled on the log sheet?

 

 

B.

Well, it has the name...

[+palmetto]

You can tell those loggers that they might want delete their find on your cache, and log the archived cache instead: Simon says "Search the Tree" GC3WBBW

That way, no one loses a smiley and all is accurate.

Although I absolutely agree with Ambrosia on this, I would not be doing any log deletion. They were hunting for a cache, and they found one - not their fault (or yours) that the old container was never picked up.

Edited November 30, 2014 by palmetto

[+NanCycle]

Does your cache have the GC code clearly labeled on the log sheet?

Well, it has the name...

 

Irrelevant to the situation; the finders never saw crazypig's cache.

 

I had a similar situation on one of my caches, but someone put a piece of paper in the other container which they and a couple other people signed. I did nothing but remove the other container, mention in a log who signed the wrong paper and posted a scan image of the false log.

[JASTA 11]

Tell the 'finders' that they didn't find your cache, they found something else.

 

This cache was in close proximity to a letterbox, and folks were claiming a 'find' on the easier to locate letterbox.

 

In the end, it doesn't matter that they found something, they didn't find your cache.

 

Give them the chance to do the right thing. If they do nothing, then delete the log if you see fit to do so.

[+Traditional Bill]

Tell the 'finders' that they didn't find your cache, they found something else.

 

This cache was in close proximity to a letterbox, and folks were claiming a 'find' on the easier to locate letterbox.

 

In the end, it doesn't matter that they found something, they didn't find your cache.

 

Give them the chance to do the right thing. If they do nothing, then delete the log if you see fit to do so.

 

I agree with this. The description on crazypig88's cache very clearly states that the hide is a micro/bison tube as well as other information alluding to how the container is hidden. By the looks of it, it's very obvious that the other container located at GZ is not the intended hide.

 

I would give em a chance to make it right first, with a message. If that is unsuccessful, I would take my own action by deleting the finds.

 

Then again, my decision to cache by the guidelines hasn't exactly made me the most popular cacher in my local community.

[+narcissa]

I would correct the find records on my cache, and then try to find out more about the other container. Is it an archived cache? Listed on another site? Throw-down? Deleting logs isn't a penalty - it's a correction. If they didn't find your container, they didn't find your cache.

[+Shaved Ewok]

Don't bother deleting the finds. I had the same thing happen with one of mine last month and in the end Groundspeak just gives them the find any how when they complain. So if I were you I would just remove the other cache make a mental note and move on as it is not worth dealing with the childish antics of a cacher who feels they have been wronged, lol.

[+crazypig88]

I would correct the find records on my cache, and then try to find out more about the other container. Is it an archived cache? Listed on another site? Throw-down? Deleting logs isn't a penalty - it's a correction. If they didn't find your container, they didn't find your cache.

I don't know. It says geocache box on it. There was nothing in it except for dirt, ants, and bark. I'm pretty sure it was archived

[+GeoBain]

You can tell those loggers that they might want delete their find on your cache, and log the archived cache instead: Simon says "Search the Tree" GC3WBBW

That way, no one loses a smiley and all is accurate.

 

I like this option.

[+Manville Possum]

I see the "finder" posted a note, a found it log, and a needs maintaince on your cache page. I also see you posted a performed maintaince log. I would just PM the finder and let them know what's up, just to be nice.

[+NanCycle]

You can tell those loggers that they might want delete their find on your cache, and log the archived cache instead: Simon says "Search the Tree" GC3WBBW

That way, no one loses a smiley and all is accurate.

 

I like this option.

 

Has anyone tried to look up this cache? I get "Cache is Unpublished."

[+crazypig88]

You can tell those loggers that they might want delete their find on your cache, and log the archived cache instead: Simon says "Search the Tree" GC3WBBW

That way, no one loses a smiley and all is accurate.

 

I like this option.

 

Has anyone tried to look up this cache? I get "Cache is Unpublished."

Yes. I looked it up also. Maybe it was an example? And if it was unpublished, the Co must've forgotten about it because it was super dirty and there wasn't even a logbook

[+GeoBain]

You can tell those loggers that they might want delete their find on your cache, and log the archived cache instead: Simon says "Search the Tree" GC3WBBW

That way, no one loses a smiley and all is accurate.

 

I like this option.

 

Has anyone tried to look up this cache? I get "Cache is Unpublished."

Yes. I looked it up also. Maybe it was an example? And if it was unpublished, the Co must've forgotten about it because it was super dirty and there wasn't even a logbook

 

Weird, I happened to not be logged in when I tried http://coord.info/GC3WBBW and got the page saying it was archived and to login to see details. But when I logged in, I got the Cache is Unpublished paged.

[+GeoBain]

Ok, then I go with the do nothing option, with contacting the loggers and letting them know what happened and then doing nothing as a close second.

[+crazypig88]

You can tell those loggers that they might want delete their find on your cache, and log the archived cache instead: Simon says "Search the Tree" GC3WBBW

That way, no one loses a smiley and all is accurate.

 

I like this option.

 

Has anyone tried to look up this cache? I get "Cache is Unpublished."

Yes. I looked it up also. Maybe it was an example? And if it was unpublished, the Co must've forgotten about it because it was super dirty and there wasn't even a logbook

 

Weird, I happened to not be logged in when I tried http://coord.info/GC3WBBW and got the page saying it was archived and to login to see details. But when I logged in, I got the Cache is Unpublished paged.

I have a theory. I once tried to publish a cache but it was too close to another so I archived it. Thus, it was archived AND unpublished. But why would that person leave it there full of dirt and without a log?

[+Pontiac_CZ]

Well, those cachers found the other box in good faith that they had yours. Why not keep their "Found It" logs if they signed the logbook. But you say the Tupperware box was empty...

[+SwineFlew]

Its just a game, dont delete the log.

[Cascade Reviewer]

It looks like the other cache was never published (and the listing eventually archived), due to a proximity issue. I guess the CO just never picked it up.

[+redsox_mark]

 

I agree with this. The description on crazypig88's cache very clearly states that the hide is a micro/bison tube as well as other information alluding to how the container is hidden. By the looks of it, it's very obvious that the other container located at GZ is not the intended hide.

 

I've found plenty of caches where the container and hide was completely different than in the cache description. And they weren't cases like this; the owner later changed the container (e.g. changed a micro with a larger box) and didn't change the listing or size. So it would not have been obvious to me.

 

If I was the cache owner I would tell finders (and post a note on the cache). I would not delete logs. Finders can do that if they wish.

[+Team Microdot]

Its just a game, dont delete the log.

 

If it's just a game then there should be no unrest arising from the deletion of the invalid log

 

It does seem though that more often than not the cool it's just a game attitude suddenly vanishes and is replaced with something less relaxed - as though all of a sudden it's not just a game any more. It does seem very odd that that should happen - and yet it does

[+Team Microdot]

Personally, I wouldn't delete anything. If people found a container in faith, thinking it was the cache, I don't think they should be penalized.

 

How is inviting people to replace their inaccurate log with a factual one penalizing them?

 

Is there a threshold distance from the actual cache beyond which inviting them to replace their inaccurate log with a factual one wouldn't be considered a penalty? 35 metres? 40? 50? 100?

Sure, letting them know that they found the wrong container and giving them the choice to find the real one would be a nice courtesy. But as a cache owner, I wouldn't require it, and I wouldn't delete their log. If the other container was within normal searching distance to GZ, then I'd be fine with it.

 

OK

 

So what would you class as normal searching distance to GZ beyond which, presumably, you'd allow the facts to influence your decision to delete the invalid log or allow it to remain?

[+MartyBartfast]

 

So what would you class as normal searching distance to GZ beyond which, presumably, you'd allow the facts to influence your decision to delete the invalid log or allow it to remain?

 

For myself when the counter gets below 10m that's when I start using my eyes rather than the GPS, so I guess for me that would be about 33 feet, if there's poor reception (e.g. in woods) then I would consider the normal searching distance to GZ to be somewhat greater.

[+Team Microdot]

 

So what would you class as normal searching distance to GZ beyond which, presumably, you'd allow the facts to influence your decision to delete the invalid log or allow it to remain?

 

For myself when the counter gets below 10m that's when I start using my eyes rather than the GPS, so I guess for me that would be about 33 feet, if there's poor reception (e.g. in woods) then I would consider the normal searching distance to GZ to be somewhat greater.

 

Can you define somewhat greater in terms of a specific maximum allowable distance?

 

It might be interesting to see where different individuals draw the line in terms of allowing a find on their cache which is clearly invalid - just because there was another one 'nearby'.

 

If because it was in the woods becomes a valid reason for allowing a log on any nearby cache to be classed as a valid find for any other nearby cache then I start to wonder what comes next - hint said base of a tree and I found several tree bases - and it's bound to be one of them so I'm logging this as a find?

[+MartyBartfast]

 

So what would you class as normal searching distance to GZ beyond which, presumably, you'd allow the facts to influence your decision to delete the invalid log or allow it to remain?

 

For myself when the counter gets below 10m that's when I start using my eyes rather than the GPS, so I guess for me that would be about 33 feet, if there's poor reception (e.g. in woods) then I would consider the normal searching distance to GZ to be somewhat greater.

 

Can you define somewhat greater in terms of a specific maximum allowable distance?

 

 

Well I would be guided by the reported accuracy of my GPS, or the variation I experienced when placing the cache (I always take a number of readings on different days).

[+Team Microdot]

 

So what would you class as normal searching distance to GZ beyond which, presumably, you'd allow the facts to influence your decision to delete the invalid log or allow it to remain?

 

For myself when the counter gets below 10m that's when I start using my eyes rather than the GPS, so I guess for me that would be about 33 feet, if there's poor reception (e.g. in woods) then I would consider the normal searching distance to GZ to be somewhat greater.

 

Can you define somewhat greater in terms of a specific maximum allowable distance?

 

 

Well I would be guided by the reported accuracy of my GPS, or the variation I experienced when placing the cache (I always take a number of readings on different days).

 

That answer is too vague to be of any real use in terms of comparison.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

So what would you class as normal searching distance to GZ beyond which, presumably, you'd allow the facts to influence your decision to delete the invalid log or allow it to remain?

 

For myself when the counter gets below 10m that's when I start using my eyes rather than the GPS, so I guess for me that would be about 33 feet, if there's poor reception (e.g. in woods) then I would consider the normal searching distance to GZ to be somewhat greater.

 

Can you define somewhat greater in terms of a specific maximum allowable distance?

 

 

Well I would be guided by the reported accuracy of my GPS, or the variation I experienced when placing the cache (I always take a number of readings on different days).

 

That answer is too vague to be of any real use in terms of comparison.

OK if you insist on being a pedant 15.34m

[+Team Microdot]

OK if you insist on being a pedant 15.34m

 

Are you in some way uncomfortable with specificity?

[+palmetto]

My apologies, I didn't notice that the nearby cache was unpublished. Obviously, there's no option to log it.

 

I'd still let the finds stand, people hunted a cache and found one - while explaining the situation, and letting the cache seeker decide what to do. It would have been nice if they'd have the option to still get the smiley on the other hide, but as it was not published they can't.

 

The other archived cache within 100ft was a water bottle, I'm assuming not the hide that those folks found.

[+redsox_mark]

 

It might be interesting to see where different individuals draw the line in terms of allowing a find on their cache which is clearly invalid - just because there was another one 'nearby'.

 

If because it was in the woods becomes a valid reason for allowing a log on any nearby cache to be classed as a valid find for any other nearby cache then I start to wonder what comes next - hint said base of a tree and I found several tree bases - and it's bound to be one of them so I'm logging this as a find?

 

To me it's not about a specific number. This unpublished cache was close enough to the cache in question that multiple people were finding it in good faith thinking it was the cache. So that says to me it was close enough.

 

As for my own number of what I think is "normal searching distance" I'd say 30 meters or 100 feet. I say that, because I will expand my own search up to that distance. I hope that most of the time it is within 10 meters, but if I expand my search up to 30 meters and find a geocache, I will expect it to be the cache I'm looking for.

 

If the size and description is different than on the cache page, I'll note that in my log. In my own experience, that is generally because the cache page has not been updated when a container was changed.

 

That doesn't mean I will disallow a find if the "other cache" was 30.01 meters away.

[+Team Microdot]

To me it's not about a specific number. This unpublished cache was close enough to the cache in question that multiple people were finding it in good faith thinking it was the cache. So that says to me it was close enough.

 

The found in good faith argument is not an unreasonable one.

 

Whether it forms a sound basis for deciding that the two caches are close enough to allow invalid but in good faith logs though is debatable.

 

Geocaching communities being what they are, it's entirely possible that the first cacher to post their in good faith log shares with others the coordinates where they found the not cache - leading to more in good faith but equally invalid logs - but now by people who haven't even searched the ACTUAL GZ.

[+dprovan]

Its just a game, dont delete the log.

If it's just a game then there should be no unrest arising from the deletion of the invalid log

Exactly. The CO should recognize that an invalid find isn't a big enough deal to delete when the find was logged with a reasonable, though mistaken, sense of success. And at the same time, the finder should recognize that a deleted find is not a big deal if the CO discovers the find was in error. Generally I would delete my find myself if I learned it was a mistake. That's why my advice to the OP is to supply the seeker the information and let them make their own decision.

[+crazypig88]

Its just a game, dont delete the log.

If it's just a game then there should be no unrest arising from the deletion of the invalid log

Exactly. The CO should recognize that an invalid find isn't a big enough deal to delete when the find was logged with a reasonable, though mistaken, sense of success. And at the same time, the finder should recognize that a deleted find is not a big deal if the CO discovers the find was in error. Generally I would delete my find myself if I learned it was a mistake. That's why my advice to the OP is to supply the seeker the information and let them make their own decision.

I emailed the person who found it three days ago and he has not responded yet. I did not delete his log and left it up to him if he wanted to find it.

[+Team Microdot]

Its just a game, dont delete the log.

If it's just a game then there should be no unrest arising from the deletion of the invalid log

Exactly. The CO should recognize that an invalid find isn't a big enough deal to delete when the find was logged with a reasonable, though mistaken, sense of success. And at the same time, the finder should recognize that a deleted find is not a big deal if the CO discovers the find was in error. Generally I would delete my find myself if I learned it was a mistake. That's why my advice to the OP is to supply the seeker the information and let them make their own decision.

 

3.10. Log Deletion

 

Logs can be deleted by the owner of the log, by the owner of the listing (the geocache owner) and by site administrators. Logs that fail to meet stated requirements (such as Found It logs by people who have never found the geocache)

 

CACHERS

 

Delete a log if you have accidentally logged the wrong listing.

 

OWNERS

 

It is one of your maintenance duties as the geocache owner to monitor quality control of posts to the geocache page. To this end, you have the power to delete logs.

 

Decision made perform your required maintenance duties - delete the log - simple

 

In fairness though, the guidelines do also say:

 

If the geocacher has failed to meet logging requirements, please explain your concerns. Politely email the log owner before or immediately after you delete their log. If their log or photos contain spoilers, invite them to edit the log. If you have deleted the log already, invite them to re-log without the spoiler.

[+GeoBain]

Its just a game, dont delete the log.

 

If it's just a game then there should be no unrest arising from the deletion of the invalid log

 

It does seem though that more often than not the cool it's just a game attitude suddenly vanishes and is replaced with something less relaxed - as though all of a sudden it's not just a game any more. It does seem very odd that that should happen - and yet it does

 

You have my permission to delete find log of mine you want. It's just a game.

 

I won't be deleting any find logs of this nature 'cause you are right, to some it is personal and just not worth hashing my mellow over.

[+The A-Team]

You have my permission to delete find log of mine you want.

...if you can find one of their find logs!

[+GrateBear]

In my mind, it all depends on how you will feel in the long run. To me, this is a fun activity that gets me outside and also gets my mind working on how to make a cache that will take a bit of thinking and maybe the finders may enjoy looking for. If someone says they found it but didn't have a pen, I figure some of those may not have found it, but it doesn't bother me. Also, keep in mind that some caches do migrate over time, so those that found the wrong one would not likely realize it was the wrong one. As many will say, when you get close, look in a 30-40 foot radius. I've found some right at 0', others up to 50' away.

[+dprovan]

It is one of your maintenance duties as the geocache owner to monitor quality control of posts to the geocache page. To this end, you have the power to delete logs.

 

Decision made perform your required maintenance duties - delete the log - simple

If one considers the good faith find of a 2nd container at the cache's coordinates a valid find, then the guidelines for owner deletion wouldn't apply.

 

Naturally if the CO has no doubt that a find is invalid, I encourage him to delete the log. If he's thinks there could be grounds for an argument, then I suggest he let the person filing the log decide whether it's a find once they have all the information.

[+wmpastor]

Its just a game, dont delete the log.

Send 'em an email explaining what happened. Chances are that next time they're caching they'll come by and log the real cache - assuming the location is nice.

[+Team Microdot]

It is one of your maintenance duties as the geocache owner to monitor quality control of posts to the geocache page. To this end, you have the power to delete logs.

 

Decision made perform your required maintenance duties - delete the log - simple

If one considers the good faith find of a 2nd container at the cache's coordinates a valid find, then the guidelines for owner deletion wouldn't apply.

 

If we're still talking about the cache in the OP - the dirty, logless box used to claim an in good faith find wasn't at the cache's coordinates.

 

The cache page states that the container is a bison tube.

 

There's a Found log on September 8th stating that the given coordinates were good and provided a quick find.

 

The cache might have managed to migrate as far as the NOT cache in the couple of months it was live - and morph from a bison to an empty tuppaware box - muggles etc. - but it hadn't, as explained by the CO on November 29th.

 

The guidelines for owner deletion apply

[+The A-Team]

The guidelines for owner deletion apply

Absolutely they apply. They apply in all scenarios.

 

However, whether the CO chooses to use their power-to-delete is another matter. The guidelines do not state that COs must delete "Found it" logs if the finder didn't find the correct container. They're given the power to, but they aren't required to. If the CO decides that the "Found it" log is valid in a scenario such as in the OP, then the log doesn't need to be deleted.

 

Personally, if I was faced with the same scenario as the OP, I'd leave the finds as is. I'll always assume good faith unless presented with evidence to the contrary.

[+Team Microdot]

I'll always assume good faith unless presented with evidence to the contrary.

 

And in my post that you replied to, the evidence to the contrary was provided - so it's an open and shut case.

[cezanne]

find wasn't at the cache's coordinates.

 

 

I find this part of your claim very interesting. 30 feet is less than 10m. I often end up with EPE value of 10m or higher and that's just

based on a probability model.

Also for my own caches I would not be able to provide the coordinates with a level of accuracy you apparently assume. How should the finder know

what are the cache's coordinates?

Edited December 2, 2014 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

find wasn't at the cache's coordinates.

 

 

I find this part of your claim very interesting. 30 feet is less than 10m. I often end up with EPE value of 10m or higher and that's just

based on a probability model.

Also for my own caches I would not be able to provide the coordinates with a level of accuracy you apparently assume. How should the finder know

what are the cache's coordinates?

 

Very interesting? Really?

 

The finder should know what the cache's coordinates are because are on the cache page. Geocaching 101?

 

Previous finders had expressed in their logs that the coordinates were good and provided an easy find (I know - I'm repeating myself again - but it seems to be necessary for some reason).

 

You conveniently seem to have ignored the fact that the cache is described on the page as a bison tube and the fact the CO verified that the original cache was still in position. - presumably in a bid to make your observation look more interesting than it actually is.